The Contentious Ten 9.14.09: Ten Reasons The World Heavyweight Title IS The WCW Title

Posted by John Peters on 09.14.2009

Somebody just had a birthday and that somebody is the WWE's "World Heavyweight Title." But the World Heavyweight Title isn't all that WWE makes it seem. This week's Contentious Ten cuts through the WWE's BS concerning the history of the World Heavyweight Title, and reveals what it really is: The WCW Title!

Comments

I sure opened up a can of worms last week with the whole Benoit thing. Obviously the issue is still as volatile as ever, and I don't expect it not be for many, many years. That said, I have personally had enough of the Benoit discussion for now, seeing as it seemed to spread all over 411 in the past week.

A lot of people seemed to dislike the Gogoplat's inclusion, or spot on the list. Maybe I did rank it a bit high, but it was a challenge just coming up with ten knockout holds. The truth is I put up as high as I did because I remember so many people gushing over it when Undertaker started using it. There was also a debate over the whether the Anaconda Vise is hold that can make a wrestler pass out. Ausjimmy wrote: I'm pretty sure nobody ever passed out from the Anaconda Vice - it was always tapouts. Patrick Mullin added: The Anaconda Vise does not have roots in BJJ. It is a fictitous BJJ move with no legitimate effectiveness to it. Just looking at the hold, it doesn't look like it hurts much, and the attacker's arm is clearly around the neck of the victim so it looks like a carotid artery hold to me. As far as the Brazilian Ju-jitsu reference goes, there isn't a whole lot of information out there on the mechanics of wrestling holds, and the bulk of the stuff that is comes from the ever reliable Wikipedia, which is where I got my information on the Anaconda Vise. So, if I was wrong it's because my sources were bad.

Aside from that I found this awesome video on the difference between a choke hold and a sleeper hold. It's explained by WWE Hall of Famer, Nick Bockwinkel!



Just kidding. I didn't find this video Patrick Mullin did. He posted it two weeks ago and then last week too. Sorry, Patrick, I didn't mean to you feel like I was ignoring you, I just thought that anyone who wanted to see the video would just follow your link. I really liked the video a lot, so thanks for posting the link Patrick.

On to the list...

Just twelve days ago (from the time of publication) WWE's World Heavyweight Championship celebrated its seventh anniversary. During that time there have been thirty-three separate title reigns, sixteen different champions, and five periods of vacancy. The title has been in WrestleMania main events and has, on more than one occasion, been the undisputed focal point of the promotion's overall storyline. However, since the World Heavyweight Title's WWE inception there has been an ongoing debate over whether the title was a newly created championship or if it was a continuation of the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. Most sources view WWE's World Heavyweight Title as a separate title than the WCW Title, or only recognize it as a spin-off of the WCW Title in the same way the WCW is a spin-off of the NWA Title.

I'm going to fly in the face of this logic and use this week's Contentious Ten to present a ten point argument of why I think the World Heavyweight Title is in fact the WCW Title under a slightly different name. I am fully aware that this is a fairly futile exercise as WWE ultimately controls the title. If they say it's a new title then it's a new title. If they say it's a continuation or spin-off of the WCW Title then it's a continuation or spin-off of the WCW Title. Since the title was reintroduced I have frequently referred to it verbally as the WCW Title, so even if this list won't change reality (what ever that reality actually is) it is something I feel strongly about.


Honorable Mention


It's The Same Belt




This week's Honorable Mention is a bit unusual because it spoils my number one reason. I'm putting it here as an honorable mention because the fact that the WCW Title and the World Heavyweight Title are, with the exception of some very minor differences, represented by the same belt design is a point that permeates nearly my entire argument. It would be nearly impossible to make the case that they are the same title with out mentioning that they are the same belt until the end of the argument. I will write about this fact further when I get to the number one entry.


The Top Ten Reasons the World Heavyweight Title IS the WCW Title


X



The WWF Buys WCW

On March 23, 2001 the World Wrestling Federation somewhat quietly announced on their website that they had purchased World Championship Wrestling. Soon after the reports on the purchase flooded the Internet Wrestling Community. WCW had been losing money fast, and when a deal between its parent company AOL-Time Warner and the Eric Bischoff led Fusient Media Ventures fell through the WWF seized the opportunity and purchased their primary competitor. Vince McMahon would save the more dramatic announcement of the coup for Monday Night Raw. McMahon gloated about his victory all night long, but at the end of the night it was revealed (in the storyline) that Shane McMahon had actually been the one who had purchased the promotion. Along with the purchase of the brand came WCW's film library, several talent contracts, intellectual property, and most importantly for my argument the WCW Title belts. On the last Nitro the WWF booked Booker T to win the WCW World Heavyweight Title from Scott Steiner who's contract was not part of the deal.

Rumors and even legitimate news reports stated that WCW would find a new home on TNN (currently Spike) and be marketed as a separate brand. However, when it became clear that wouldn't happen the WWF decided to go with the much-maligned Invasion angle, where WCW and ECW would invade the WWF. The invading WCW brand brought a number of their championships with them. Along with the WCW Title the WWF brought in the WCW Tag Team Titles, United States Title, and Cruiserweight Title. On July 24th Kurt Angle defeated Booker T to win the WCW Title. Booker T would win the title back a few days later but would lose it to The Rock at SummerSlam. From that point on the WCW Title was held exclusively by WWF wrestlers. These title changes are important to my argument because it demonstrates that the WWF thought enough about the prestige of the WCW Title to put the belt on The Rock (their most popular wrestler at the time) in the main event of SummerSlam. The fact that they did this indicates that they saw the historical importance of the title, and that they were willing to treat it as equal to the WWF Title. Additionally, by putting the WCW Title on Chris Jericho showed that they were already thinking about how, with two World Titles, they could elevate new talent. All of this means that they saw value in what the WCW Title represented and sought to capitalize on that value.


IX



The WCW Title is Renamed to "The World Title"

As the war between the WWF and the WCW and ECW Alliance sputtered to an end, WWF management decided it was time to merge the last representations of the old WCW, the various title belts, into the WWF. So, in addition to the "Winner Take All" Survivor Series match that was won by Team WWF, the WWF and WCW Tag Team Titles were unified, and the WWF Intercontinental Title and WCW United States Title were unified. Following WCW's final loss at the Survivor Series WCW was almost completely wiped out of existence, the last vestige of the promotion being the WCW World Heavyweight Title, held by WWF Superstar The Rock. In order to rid the wrestling world of WCW completely Vince McMahon ordered a small four man tournament to unify the WWF Title, held by Steve Austin (who would battle Kurt Angle) and the WCW Title (The Rock would battle Chris Jericho). Only during this announcement McMahon declared that the because WCW was no more the WCW would now be referred to as "The World Title." Later that night The Rock wrestled Kurt Angle and was announced as the World Champion on his way to the ring. From that point on the World Title was never referred to as the WCW Title ever again.



This is an important part of my argument because it establishes the fact that during its time in the WWF, the WCW belt was called by two different names yet was the same title with the same lineage. So why, even though it is physically the same belt, would another name adjustment change the lineage the belt represented? If the name has been altered once, surely it can be altered again. Additionally, the belt was renamed the World Title, and the current version of the belt is the World Heavyweight Title. To me this implies a connection between the two, especially considering that the belt design is the same. I would suggest that adding the word "Heavyweight" to the title's name is simply verbal aesthetics. "World Heavyweight" sounds more impressive than simply "World."


VIII



The Intercontinental Title Rumor

Following the brand split the Undisputed WWE Champion and WWE Women's Champion represented both brands. The rest of the titles were brand specific. The Cruiserweight and Tag Team Titles were originally the property of SmackDown, and the Intercontinental, European, and Hardcore Titles were the property of Raw. WWE management must have decided they had too many titles floating around so they started to phase some out. The European Title was permanently unified with the Intercontinental Title on July 22, 2002 when Intercontinental Champion Rob Van Dam defeated European Champion Jeff Hardy in a Ladder Match. Then on August 26 Intercontinental Champion Rob Van Dam defeated Hardcore Champion Tommy Dreamer to unify those two titles. At this point the Intercontinental Title had become quite a significant title as it had absorbed the WWF North American Title, the WCW United States Title, and the other two aforementioned titles. Rumor has it that WWE had big plans for the Intercontinental Title; the reason for all of the unifications was that they were going to make the Intercontinental Title the primary championship of Raw, thus elevating it to the same status as SmackDown's WWE Title. As the story goes either WWE management or in some versions Triple H himself killed off the idea, as the Intercontinental Title wasn't seen as prestigious enough a title to be the top title of Raw. As a result the WCW Belt was pulled out of Titan Towers and handed to Triple H making him the "first" World Heavyweight Champion. A month or so later the Intercontinental Title was merged with the World Heavyweight Title.



It would seem that the fact that the whole Intercontinental Title thing is an unconfirmed rumor should hurt my argument. However, whether it's true or not doesn't matter, as either way it helps my point. If it's true, WWE decided they needed a title more prestigious than the Intercontinental Title to represent Raw. There's nothing prestigious about just making up a title belt and handing it to some one, so they brought back the instantly recognizable WCW belt, giving the "new" title instant prestige (more on this at number 1). If the rumor isn't true that means WWE knew they were going to have two world championships. If this is the case the logic is the same as above, simply making up a belt would make that belt look less valuable than the Intercontinental Title, so they decided to use the recognizable and already prestigious WCW Belt.


VII



The WWE's Ambivalence On The Connection

One of the most confusing aspects about the whole World Heavyweight Title issue is that WWE itself is ambivalent on the topic. They just can't seem to make up their mind. If you head over to their title history page and click on the World Heavyweight Title, up comes a list of WWE's former World Heavyweight Champions. If you click on the first entry, Triple H, the text explains "RAW General Manager Eric Bischoff then declared that since Lesnar had left for SmackDown!, that RAW needed its own champion. So with that, he opened a briefcase and pulled out the old WCW Championship and gave it to Triple H, naming him the first World Heavyweight Champion." Obviously the second sentence has a (for me) a key contradiction it. How can you pull out the old WCW Championship while simultaneously declaring Triple H the first man to hold that title? Regardless this entry recognizes the fact that the belt was at one time the WCW Title.

However, this reference isn't even the biggest reference to the World Heavyweight Title being the same title as the WCW Title on the website. The main World Heavyweight Title page has a link to historical photos. Some of the wrestlers pictured holding the "World Heavyweight Title" include Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, Goldberg (in WCW), Randy Savage, Sting, and everybody's favorite David Arquette. That page in-turn has a link to an article about the history of the title. The blurb to the linking article explains "The championship is decended[sic] from a historic lineage of past champions dating back to 1904. On Sept. 2, the title celebrated its fifth anniversary of becoming a top WWE championship, being bestowed upon Triple H by then-Raw General Manager Eric Bischoff, who ironically presided over many title changes when the gold was the WCW World Championship." The article itself explains how the title was "new" yet has "an extensive history," and discusses it as both the WCW Title and the NWA Title, and describes the current version as a "reincarnation." Once again, I have to ask how can the title be old and new at the same time? It is a logically inconsistent statement. The only possible explanation is that the title is new to the WWE, but that the title is old to professional wrestling, making it the same title as the WCW Title despite the semantic games WWE is trying to play.

This ambivalence can be seen elsewhere. Segments of WWE's defunct Confidential linked the WCW Title was the World Heavyweight Title. Also, many wrestlers, including Big Show, Booker T, Ric Flair, and Batista have mentioned the lengthy history and other great champions that held the belt, including WCW only wrestlers. In fact Big Show was marketed for a while as the only wrestler to have been WWE, ECW and World Heavyweight Champion, even though the only time he held that title was in WCW. Despite all of these indicators that they are the same title, WWE continues to publish books and magazines that show the World Heavyweight Title as starting in 2002, and they have a separate entry for the WCW Title on their website (which, for a short while was linked to from the World Heavyweight Title History page). Even with these references it's clear that WWE has yet to fully decide what they officially think about the title's history.


VI



The ECW Title

In 2005, WWE put together an ECW reunion show called One Night Stand. The show, thanks to the very loyal ECW fanbase, was such a success that WWE put in motion a plan to resurrect the promotion as a third brand under the WWE banner. The 2006 version of One Night Stand became the rebirth of ECW. The main event featured ECW alumnus Rob Van Dam defeating WWE Champion John Cena. Although many ECW fans may have been expecting a Shane Douglas like throw down of the WWE Title, or even an nWo like paint job on the belt, Van Dam simply showed up on the premier episode of ECW and was awarded the ECW Title (they actually gave him one of those $200 replica belts at first).



This applies to my argument as a means of comparison. By 2006 the ECW Title had been defunct for just over five years (a much longer period than when the WCW Title had stopped being used), and had been the fixture of another, rival, promotion to WWE. So, when it was announced that WWE would be resurrecting ECW some questions remained on how they would handle the ECW Title. These questions were rendered moot when WWE simply reactivated the belt and continued it's previous lineage. My question is, if WWE can recognize and frequently reference the ECW Title's History, why do they have such a hard time doing the same for the World Heavyweight Title? Both titles' resurrections were handled in the same way: a general manager who was linked to the brand the title was originally from awarded the title, represented by its most recently used incarnation, to the wrestler he felt deserved it the most. In the case of the ECW Title the belt was recognized as the same title, in the case of the WCW Title it has been implied that the title was not the same title. This is a glaring inconsistency, if the ECW Title is the same title as when the promotion went under, then the WCW Title is the same title as when the promotion went under, even if it has a different name.


V



The Name "World Heavyweight Title"

"What's in a name?" Shakespeare famously asked through his character of Juliet. I repeat the same question now. Why call the World Heavyweight Title, the "World Heavyweight Title?" I already mentioned earlier that the name of the WCW Title was changed to the World Title prior to it's unification, and how that established the fact that the title's name could be changed without changing the title's lineage. Yet, when the Title was resurrected less than a year after it had been unified with the WWF Title, its name was changed once again to the World Heavyweight Title. Clearly WWE had to differentiate between the "World" Championships they were now promoting, so they left the current championship belt the WWE Championship. This made calling their "new" title the WWE World Heavyweight Championship a near impossibility as the names would be too similar. Furthermore, calling it the "Raw World Title" or something similar wouldn't have had the same gravitas. And they sure as hell weren't going to call it what it really was, the WCW Title, so they settled on the World Heavyweight Title.

I think this is a very important part of my argument, because WWE could have named the belt something less ambiguous if they had really wanted to. By not putting a promotional signifier in front of the belt (or even originally on the belt, as there was no WWE logo on the original version of it) the WWE is telling us something. What they are telling us is that this belt is not a WWE belt, but a belt that transcends WWE, and draws off the title's long and impressive history which encompasses the WCW and even the NWA Title through WCW's connections to the NWA. If they didn't want to imply this they could have simply called the belt something else.


IV



Eric Bischoff

In reality the fact that it was Eric Bischoff who resurrected the World Heavyweight Title is inconsequential, yet, the narrative ramifications of having Eric Bischoff be the one to bring back the title are far reaching. It's safe to assume that a second world title would have been brought into the picture at some point, and it wouldn't have mattered who the fictional General Manager was, but the fact that it was Bischoff adds a not-so-subtle subtext to the WCW Title's resurrection. It was a jaw dropping moment when Bischoff showed up as the general manager of Raw, and it was surreal watching him hug Vince McMahon. Almost immediately Bischoff started making changes to Raw. One of the first things he did was move the announce table away from the ring and put it near the stage, just like it was in WCW. Whether this change was made in reality to help differentiate Raw from SmackDown isn't as important as the fact that it was made to look like Bischoff was responsible for doing it. Superficial changes like that were accompanied by Bischoff's smug inability to never let go of the fact that he was in charge of WCW during a period when the promotion routinely trounced the WWF in the ratings. He also had the inability to recognize the fact that he helped bring WCW to its dismal end. All in all, it seemed like Eric Bischoff, the character, was far more proud of his accomplishments as the head of WCW then he was proud of the fact that he was the general manager of Raw. Additionally he, little by little, stripped Raw of its WWE affiliation. The WWE European and Hardcore Titles were absorbed into the Intercontinental Title, then in a move that defied all logic the WWE Tag Team Titles dropped the WWE moniker and were renamed the World Tag Team Titles (while a new set of WWE Tag Titles were created on SmackDown), the Intercontinental Title was also deactivated, this left the WWE Women's Title as the only belt on Raw with a "WWE" proceeding its name. At the center of all of these changes was the World Heavyweight Title. It seemed as though Bischoff (the character) was bound and determined to make Raw his own show and, in turn, help WCW live on.



Therefore, it is fitting that the one management figure most associated with WCW was the one to reintroduce the WCW Title to Raw. The fact that Bischoff still wanted to stick it to McMahon was apparent. What better way to do that than by bringing back the prestigious World Championship of the organization that came so close to putting him out of business and making it the focal point of WWE's number one show? Having Bischoff be the one to pull out the belt created an automatic association nearly as powerful as the belt design itself: the former boss of WCW reactivating the former belt of WCW intrinsically links the "new" title with the old promotion.


III



Triple H's Claim to the Title

The visual link between Bischoff and the World Heavyweight Title is an important part of my argument, but something Bischoff said on that fateful night in Milwaukee Wisconsin (where I was in attendance) hammers home the connection even more. As he pulled the old WCW Title out of a briefcase and handed it to Triple H he said, "Triple H, you may recognize this world championship, because you were the last man to officially wear it. It's been worn by some of the greatest champions in the history of this industry, and now, Triple H, it will be again, because, ladies and gentlemen, your new World Champion, Triple H!" While "WCW" is not mentioned in the speech, it's clear that Bischoff is alluding to the title's WCW and NWA roots. Also, notice he declares Triple H the "World Champion," the name the title was known by after the demise of WCW in the invasion angle, not the "World Heavyweight Champion." Triple H's connection to the World Heavyweight Title is easy to see. Like Bischoff said in his little speech, Triple H was the last man to officially wear the title. When Chris Jericho unified the WWF and World Titles at Vengeance 2001 Jericho was not given a single title belt to represent the new Undisputed World Championship. Instead he walked around carrying both belts (I think this is how he gets away with claiming he's a five time world champion). When he lost the Undisputed Title to Triple H at WrestleMania X-8, Triple H won both belts, and for a few weeks carried both belts around before he was awarded a single "Undisputed" championship belt. Although this new belt was called the Undisputed Title, it was essentially just the WWE Title, meaning that the old WCW Title was physically, without a shadow of a doubt, gone, and Triple H was the last man to carry it.



Therefore, it makes sense that Triple H's reign as World Champion would be restarted seeing as he was the last one to hold the physical belt. This fact, and the fact that the title's history was alluded to in the awarding of the title to Triple H indicates that the World Heavyweight Title is not a new championship but a continuation of the old WCW Championship.


II



The United States and Cruiserweight Titles

It would be one thing if the World Heavyweight Championship was all alone as a former WCW belt. If it were the only WCW related title in WWE it would seem reasonable to say that "it looks like the WCW Title but it's not, it's a separate and new championship." However, the World Heavyweight Title isn't alone. In 2001 all of the WCW Titles were unified with their WWF counterparts, all except for the WCW Cruiserweight Championship. In the build up to and during the invasion angle, the WWF Light Heavyweight Title had actually experienced a degree of relevancy for the first time in its short history. X-Pac managed to actually unify the Cruiserweight and Light Heavyweight Titles on two occasions, but lost the Cruiserweight Title back to Billy Kidman. A final unification match between X-Pac and Tajiri was originally planned for Survivor Series but X-Pac was injured. As a result the Cruiserweight Title just kind of limped along until it became an exclusive part of SmackDown. In 2003 the defunct WWE Intercontinental Title was revived as a secondary title on Raw. In retaliation SmackDown General Manager, Stephanie McMahon announced that she was resurrecting the United States Championship to act as SmackDown's secondary title, un-unifying the Intercontinental and US Titles, in the same way Bischoff un-unified the WWE Undisputed Title.





A little trip to WWE's Title History page, or even a look at their Title History magazine they put out a few years ago shows that, without a shadow of a doubt, the WWE versions of the Cruiserweight and United States Titles are, in fact, directly linked to their WCW histories. This shows that WWE has no problem recognizing the lineages of other championships that originated outside of their promotion. It is just the World Heavyweight Title that gets denied it's significant history. This hypocritical stance makes no sense. The Cruiserweight Title was simply allowed to change its name and live on. The United States Title had been inactive for years (unlike the few months the WCW Title had been inactive) and it was brought back under exactly the same circumstances as the World Heavyweight Title was (only it didn't even resemble the old US Title belt) and allowed to keep its history. Why is WCW's World Title treated so differently? The ECW Title gets a pass because ECW was never a real threat and because WWE has made it into a bastardized version of its former self. The Cruiserweight Title gets a pass because WWE has never given lightweight wrestling a real chance, so they simply didn't care. And the US Title gets a pass because the belt is just a secondary title. I believe the reason the World Heavyweight Title gets singled out is because WWE doesn't want to recognize the fact that another, defunct, promotion's (one that almost put it out of business) World Title is one of their top two championships. Which segues perfectly to number one…


I



It's The Same Belt (Revisited)

If, in fact, WWE doesn't want to recognize another promotion's World Title as one of their two World Championships, why in the world did they use another promotion's belt to represent their "World Heavyweight Championship?" The argument is really just as simple as that, everything else is just corroborating evidence. Using the WCW Title made sense in the storyline. If Brock Lesnar was going to walk around declaring himself the Undisputed WWE Champion, yet refused to appear on Raw, the title could no longer be considered to be "undisputed." WWE wasn't about to abandon a new belt design, and bringing back the old WWF belt would have led to confusion, so using the WCW Title made the most sense practically and from a narrative standpoint. However, the WCW Title was chosen to represent the World Heavyweight Championship for one reason. That reason is because the belt was instantly recognizable as a legitimate world championship. The Big Gold Belt is the most famous wrestling belt in the history of American wrestling, so by using that belt the WWE gave the "new" title instant credibility. It almost goes without saying then that the reason the title was recognizable and credible is because of its lengthy history both as the WCW Title and the NWA Title. Although the title's history is highly contestable, due to all sorts of promotional splits, it's possible to trace its lineage all the way back to 1904 (I would argue that you could do the same for the TNA World Title as well).

WWE had to recognize the fact that the belt, by its very design would be recognized as the WCW Title. Therefore, if they knew that people would see the belt as the WCW Title, then it follows that they intentionally chose to use that belt because of the fact that people would recognize it. In other words, WWE didn't set out to create a new "World Title" at all. All of their actions indicate that the opposite is true; that they decided to resurrect an already established World Title. If they wanted a new World Title they could have just commissioned another belt, but they didn't do that, they chose to use a belt that was already famous, already associated with world title status, and already had a long, established and prestigious history. All of this showed explicit intent on the part of WWE to use the former WCW Title, and all of the attributes that came along with it, to represent their World Heavyweight Championship. This means that not only do the WCW and World Heavyweight Titles look the same, but they unequivocally are the same.

WWE can try to hide this fact, people can deny it to be true, but in the end, if it looks like the WCW Title, has it's WCW history referred to by wrestlers, websites, and general managers, and is in a promotion where other former WCW belts have been and are active, then it probably is the WCW Title. Regardless of what anyone says otherwise.