So Monday’s edition of WWE RAW, a taped show from the O2 Arena in London, England, has come and gone. Despite hype all week from WWE that the company would make a “big announcement” regarding the status of the WWE World Heavyweight Championship due to Daniel Bryan being on the shelf recovering from neck surgery, we have more questions than answers following RAW.
As usual, the “big announcement” was a letdown, and in many ways, wasn’t an announcement at all. Basically, story lines aside, WWE’s “big announcement” on Monday night was to tune into RAW next week to really find out what’s going on.
As the story goes, Stephanie McMahon came to the ring and despite some online confusion prior to the start of RAW on Monday night, did not strip Bryan of the title. She did, however, encourage him to attend RAW next week and “do the right thing,” which is to voluntarily relinquish the gold.
So, here’s what we know: Daniel Bryan will be at RAW next week. An angle will go down involving either Bryan being stripped of the title, or somehow returning to the ring so soon after surgery to defend the title, as to avoid being stripped of it.
While we’re on the subject of the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, why is there still two title belts being used to represent the WWE Champion these days? Upon the initial unification of the belts, which saw Randy Orton defeat John Cena to become the “first” undisputed champion (even though Chris Jericho — the original WWE “undisputed” champ — still uses that bragging right to this day) you would expect there would still be two belts.
After a week or two, however, and certainly by the time the title is finally defended, what is the story line purpose of keeping both championship belts involved?
You’ll notice I made sure to word the question as, “what is the story line purpose?” as I fully understand the business reasons behind it. On that front, it’s actually very easy to figure out.
First and foremost, if you have two world title belts on television, you have the ability to market two separate replica title belts and sell them as part of your merchandise setup at shows and on your WWE Shop website.
Secondly, when it comes to the live touring side of WWE’s business, I’m sure there’s an advantage in terms of promoting when marketing separate tours with different talent, it helps to be able to advertise a world title match on each card. That kind of doesn’t work when one person is guaranteed to hold both belts, considering the fact that they are now “unified,” however it does allow WWE to put the title on someone who isn’t John Cena, which gives them the ability to have one crew on the “John Cena tour,” while the others will work on the “WWE Title tour” or the “Daniel Bryan tour.”
But that’s the business side of things. What’s the story line purpose?
Can anyone explain to me how it makes any sense from a television story line perspective? Why isn’t anyone — especially the announcers — not questioning the reason behind a champion carrying around two belts when really only one world title exists?
In the end, I assume WWE will split the two titles apart again and have them on two separate wrestlers, returning to their style of promoting two world champions within one company. So it would make sense to keep the fact that there are two title belts established visually by seeing them both every week on television, however again, that is the end-game. That still doesn’t really answer my question.
So, to summarize, I understand the business reasons WWE still has two belts. I understand what the company may be working towards in terms of a possible story line for the future. My question, however, remains.
Why does WWE’s World Champion still have two belts?
Another question that remains is what do you guys think? As always, you can let us know by posting your feedback in the “Comments” section below. Additionally, you can hit me up on Facebook at Facebook.com/MattBooneWZR and/or follow me on Twitter @MBoone420.
