Like many wrestling fans, I am of two minds over the WWE’s decision to unify the World Heavyweight and WWE titles at TLC this weekend. My natural reaction was to call foul on the way this had come about. Part of this no doubt stems from the fact that either Randy Orton or John Cena will still be champion after Sunday. But as the days pass I slowly find myself warming up to the idea of once again having an Undisputed Champion. To help articulate this difficult issue I have drafted up a series of arguments both for and against the unification match.
In defense of Title Unification
1. One definitive champion: One definitive championship
Obviously the WWE’s key motivation behind the title unification is that they want a single champion to preside over the roster and, in turn, there to be one major title for them to aspire to. While it is common knowledge that the WHC has been their number two belt ever since its inception in 2002, WWE have never actually come out and admitted that to be the case. They must have found the illusion of equality more appealing than the reality of having a “runner up” world title. The image has been warped over the years. I recall a promo between heel CM Punk (WWE) and face Sheamus (WHC) in which Punk essentially said that Sheamus’ gold put him in second place at best. This echoed the feelings of many wrestling fans too which may have planted the seeds for the match at TLC.
The two world title phenomenon is a relatively new concept and was an indication of the WWE’s dominance over professional wrestling in America. Most companies had a single world title but the WWE aspires to be larger than life so two seemed to fit. Would Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Stone Cold Steve Austin, or The Rock be as big as they were if they had toiled under the two world title system? You simply cannot rule out the fact that as the only world champion of their day they commanded the respect befitting the top dog.
2. (Potentially) Raises value of the mid-card titles
Possibly the biggest potential benefit of unifying the world titles is what effect it could have on the Intercontinental and United States championships. With the WHC (or equivalent) out of the picture that in theory should elevate their worth. For too long these belts have been treated as an afterthought. On the plus side they are both being held by respectable champions. Dean Ambrose is a perfect heel character for this day and age and Big E Langston’s star power is shining brightly in his role as a rookie champion with a ton of potential. As these individual stories progress.
Just unifying the top two titles alone will no automatically do this though. Some actual effort will have to go into this. I would suggest that headlining Raw or Smackdown with a hot mid card title defense would be a step in the right direction. Let these smaller belts shine on the strength of the performers.
3. Star power
The danger of unifying the titles is that it is now going to be so much harder to become a world champion. Now, that sounds like a bad thing but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. Is the bar that much harder to reach now? Yes, of course. But the other side of that coin is how much more glory is waiting for anybody who manages to reach it anyway. There has been a lot of talk about somebody like Roman Reigns becoming a breakout star in the near future. A few years back they would have feasibly given him the WHC fairly quickly and then, if everything worked out, he would slowly work his way to the alpha title. Now however, if he can reach the heights that many are expecting of him, it will make the ascent that much more meaningful.
Opposed to Title Unification
1. Less titles in an increasingly large roster
The WWE roster is expanding at a faster rate than it is contracting. With NXT building and shaping the superstars of tomorrow there is a larger pool of readily available future talent than ever before. Take a look at any PPV card from this year for former NXT stars to see how important their development program really is at the moment. Since Wrestlemania last year we have seen the promotions of Sandow, Ryback, Langston, Fandango, Summer Rae, Prime Time Players, Xavier Woods, The Shield, and the Wyatts to the big leagues. This doesn’t even take into account the dozens more that are awaiting the call up. Under the new title arrangement this is going to put greater pressure on the three male singles championships. While not everyone can be a legitimate contender it does overcrowd the title scenes. As a result expect to see more random tag teams being thrown together just so they can get people on TV. The obvious way to help this situation out would be to introduce a third mid card title. Would a Cruiserweight, European, or Hardcore title survive in the current WWE climate? It’s hard to say for sure but there’s only one way to find out.
2. The “Boys Club” effect
With all this emphasis being placed on being the ‘Face of the WWE’, does that limit the potential of some superstars to reach these new lofty heights? In the past the WHC has allowed many wrestlers to become a world champion without having to take the WWE title route. There are plenty of worthy, talented wrestlers on the roster who now may never become world champion because of it. The likes of Antonio Cesaro, Damian Sandow, Cody Rhodes, Wade Barrett are all great competitors but are they WWE championship material?
The WHC was also a prize given to veteran wrestlers in place of the top belt. The last championship runs of Big Show, Mark Henry, Edge, Kane, and Christian would probably never happened under the new system. Are they forced to either become a hastily thrown together tag team (like Mysterio and Show apparently are doing now) or be forced to “slum it” in pursuit of a mid card title?
However this argument might still be a bit short-sighted. With two world titles in effect for the past decade we have become conditioned to equate title reigns with success. This ignores the fact that many legendary performers and Hall of Famers never held the big strap in their entire careers. It is a double edged sword that might turn out to be not so bad if everyone can learn to curb their expectations.
3. Can a title unification stick?
Perhaps the biggest issue with the upcoming title unification is that WWE have already done this before. Cast your minds back to December 9th, 2001. WWE Vengeance set the stage for one of the biggest title matches of all time – certainly the biggest of the post-Attitude era. Both the World Heavyweight and WWF titles would be defended individually that night, and then both champions would square off for all the gold. Chris Jericho walked out of Vengeance with the shiny new WWF Undisputed Championship belt and cemented his place in history. Less than a year later the title lost its undisputed status and went back to just being the WWE title (as the WWE/F change has recently happened).
In spite of this there are two things to keep in mind. Firstly, removing the undisputed tag from the name did not appear to diminish the title’s prestige. And secondly, the Vengeance unification match was technically a different World Heavyweight title, formerly the WCW World Heavyweight title. With all of the pontificating about the Orton / Cena TLC match is there any guarantee that things won’t be back to two belt system in the near future? Nothing in professional wrestling is guaranteed and we might well find ourselves back at the beginning once again.
4. Match Quality
If we take a look back to this year’s Money in the Bank match, the difference between the two titles should be glaring. The match for the WHC briefcase allowed the hungry young lions to prove their worth. Their match was markedly more entertaining than the one for the WWE briefcase, in which former champions attempted to relive past glories with mixed results.
You don’t have to look very hard to find evidence that the caliber of wrestlers in contention for the WHC have put on better matches than many of the wrote WWE title defenses over the past few years.
And as wrestling fans isn’t our enjoyment of the in ring product paramount?
5. Neutering the drama
If there are two events that have benefited from the two world title system I believe they are the Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank. The idea that the winner of the Royal Rumble earns themselves a world title opportunity at Wrestlemania is one of wrestling’s most beloved traditions. Over the past decade the Royal Rumble winner has had to chose which world title they want to go for. This “wait and see” period has created some incredible stories. Do you remember the crowd reaction when Sheamus took out Daniel Bryan after defending the WHC at Elimination Chamber in 2012? These moments are lost forever in the current system.
To a lesser extent, Money in the Bank will also suffer. Even though the days of a single MITB match, allowing the winner to cash in on either world title, are behind us having two of these matches in the one event has made for some riveting spectacle. I remember the victories of Kane, Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler, and Damien Sandow more fondly than those of The Miz, Del Rio, Cena, and Orton (well, maybe not The Miz – his was pretty cool).
So there we have it. This title unification match is a divisive issue that many (myself included) have been spending hours working ourselves up over. Which side of the line do you sit on: is this a bad move or best for business? Just please try to remember that this is merely an exchange of ideas. Nobody is boycotting the product or swearing vengeance against the WWE creative staff.
