There's been a debate about this subject any time there's been more than one "World Title" in WWE. Just to clear things up, this is just my opinion. Wrestling is subjective and there's no right or wrong. However, I'm going to state the reasons for my argument.
As far as I'm concerned, there can only be ONE World Champion in WWE or in a single promotion in general. To me, it doesn't make sense to have more than one. Who's the real champion? Having more than one eventually means one will be treated better than the other anyway, therefore rendering the other obsolete. (Please picture Broken Matt Hardy's voice on that word!) If you think that can't happen, it already has in the past. For a time, it was whichever Title was on Raw. Other times, the World Championship, or what used to be WCW's "big gold belt," ended up being treated like a mid-card Title.
Having more than one World Champion dilutes the value of becoming Champion. I hate the concept of participation trophies, but that's exactly what this is. I was never good at sports and I'm glad I didn't receive a trophy I didn't deserve. As everyone knows, Ric Flair is billed as a 16-time World Champion. Now, so is John Cena. Here's the difference! Flair got those 16 titles over a 36-year career, whereas Cena got those in a 17-year career. I'm not talking about the amounts necessarily but the point I'm trying to make is during Cena's time, often there was more than one World Title, meaning they were much easier to get.
For me, right now and whenever there was more than one World Title, the WWE Title was, is, and always be THE World Title! Even when people I feel didn't deserve it held it...cough...Jinder Mahal...cough, I still considered it THE World Title. It probably has something to do with the history of the company and the fact that it was the original World Title, developed at the same time the company did. Every other title, whether it was the "World" Title, ECW Title, and now the Universal Title, were all secondary.
Right now, Brock Lesnar hijacking it notwithstanding, the Universal Title means nothing to me. It doesn't matter how prestigious the holder was, whether it's John Cena, Stone Cold Steve Austin, or even Bruno Sammartino, the Title itself means nothing to me and I don't consider it a World Title. It has nothing to do with what it looks like, although I do joke around with my friends and call it the Fruit Rollup Title. I don't even think that's necessarily why people booed it when it made its debut. I was booing because it has no legacy. It's not legitimate in my opinion. Finn Balor, Kevin Owens, and Goldberg all held it and I still considered it a consolation prize.
Yes, there were great moments when people became World Champion with the "Big Gold Belt" such as Mark Henry, Christian finally winning the big one, or yes, even Chris Benoit. However, the person who held the WWE Title at the time to me was THE World Champion. The brand extension, when it creates more than one World Title, means we get champions no one would have considered at the Main Event level and positively, wrestlers that worked hard to get to that level. Unfortunately, if there was one World Title, would Eddie Guerrero have gotten the gold? On the flip side, if there was only one World Title, we also wouldn't have Jack Swagger either. Heck, guys like JBL, and especially Jinder Mahal, would never have gotten to be World Champion if there was only one Title.
But that's okay! Not everybody can be World Champion. Can an argument be made that wrestlers like Roddy Piper, Ted DiBiase, Curt Hennig, or Rick Rude should have been the WWE Champion? Sure! However, I'm not angry that they never were. Especially during that time! As much as people say Hulk Hogan dominated the scene and was a backstage politician, he was the man at that time. Only Randy Savage was on Hogan's level. Yes, there were breaks in between Hogan's reigns, but only a select few got that far. It was a similar situation with the Tag Team Titles during the Golden Era. There were so many good teams, it was hard for teams like the Fabulous Rougeau Brothers or the Rockers, who in my opinion should have held them, to get them. With the Hart Foundation and Demolition ruling the roost, not every team could get there! It doesn't take anything away from these great teams either!
I know an argument can be made that there are multiple promotions, which each having their own World Champion. I understand that but it's apples and oranges here! A different promotion is a different promotion. Two brands under the same promotion each having its own World Title doesn't make sense. During the Territory days, the NWA held all the marbles. Yes, the AWA formed and created its own World Champion, as did the WWWF at the time. However, I'm talking about all the territories under the NWA banner! Each territory had a top Title, but when guys like Ric Flair or Harley Race held the NWA World Title, that wrestler toured the territories across the country and worldwide.
It all goes back to my original argument. Logically, in one company, there can only be one champion. Right now AJ Styles is the WWE Champion and Brock Lesnar is the Universal Champion. Which one is THE World Champion to me? AJ Styles! It has nothing to do with preference either! We just came off a six month Jinder Mahal reign that I personally didn't like. However, during that time, I considered Jinder Mahal THE World Champion. Some people argue that the brand split forces more than one champion or that traveling would be too hard or storylines would be too hard to write for having only one World Title! Before the first brand split in 2002, the company had gone 39 years with only one World Title. Yes, the roster was huge after the purchasing of WCW and the bankruptcy of ECW. However, the first few months before Brock Lesnar settled with Smackdown exclusively, there was one World Champion across both brands.
I also don't like more than one Women's Title, more than one equal mid-card Title, nor more than one set of Tag Team Titles. Alexa Bliss is the Women's Champion on Raw while Natalya holds the Smackdown Women's Title. Which one means more? The Bar are the Raw Tag Team Champions and the Smackdown Tag Team Titles are held within the confines of the Uso Penitentiary! Which titles are THE titles? The Miz is the Intercontinental Champion and Baron Corbin is the US Champion. To me, the Intercontinental Title is more prestigious! It's been there longer. The US Title may have been around longer if you count its time under the NWA and WCW banners, but those promotions died or never rose back to prominence! The mid-card is a tough one because during John Cena's time as US Champion, it meant more to me than the Intercontinental Championship did. However, there's a difference between a mid-card Title and a World Title!
The bottom line is, my opinion is that there should only be one World Title. I do welcome feedback, however!
If you have any comments on the situation, let me know. Heck, let us all know on The WAR Report podcast, every Tuesday at 7PM EST, brought to you by TagMeADate.com, the first and only dating site for wrestling fans. Go to askthewarreport@gmail.com or #askthewarreport.
No comments:
Post a Comment