The World Heavyweight Championship and this Friday's SmackDown
When Vince Russo was booking WCW back in 1999 and 2000 -- back when the World Title would change hands or be vacated on an almost weekly basis -- he talked in more than one interview about how since wrestling was just entertainment, the title belt was just a prop anyway.
He was clearly overlooking the fact that the belt is more than just a prop -- it's a way to draw money, an ultimate goal for the blood, sweat and tears -- and therefore must be kept strong, almost on a pedestal. Constant title switches, vacating the title, stuff like that does nothing but lower the value of what should be the most important superstar on the TV show.
Fast forward to 2008 and the World Heavyweight Championship, where WWE made a booking blunder at Tuesday's SmackDown taping that immediately made me think back to the good ol' days of Long Island's own Vinnie Ru.
Warning: Spoilers after the jump, with my SINCERE APOLOGIES to those of you for whom I have already spoiled the surprise.
First, look back at the creation of the title itself. Just five and a half years old, the title was created out of nothing, so just establishing it as a world title in fans' eyes took some doing.
So the title's only been around since September 2002, and it's already been vacant three times! (In comparison, the WWF Title went from WrestleMania IV in 1988 to Survivor Series 1998 without being vacant **UPDATE** Many readers have pointed out that this statement is inaccurate. It was vacant in 1992 and in 1997. I stand corrected. But that was an also an established title that had decades of history behind it.)
-- After a controversial Triple Threat on Raw, it was vacated, and Triple H won it in an Elimination Chamber in Jan. 2004.
-- Batista won it from Triple H at WrestleMania that year, and so started the curse of the World Heavyweight Title. You know the one -- where it seemed like everyone who won the title seemed to get hurt. So Batista gets hurt, and Kurt Angle wins the title in a freaking Battle Royal.
(This was just two weeks before the Royal Rumble, by the way, where they put the WORLD TITLE up for grabs in a battle royal on FREE TV and then made people pay FIFTY BUCKS for a battle royal for a TITLE SHOT. What the heck!?!?)
-- Two years later, Undertaker's the champ and he gets hurt and drops the title to Edge, who then gets hurt himself, and so they put the title up for grabs -- say it with me -- in a Battle Royal on Free TV. Oh well -- at least this one wasn't a total loss -- we got to combine the terms "World Champion" and "Great Khali," which always works out well.
So a title created barely five and a half years ago has already been vacant three times -- once for storyline purposes, and twice for injuries.
Undertaker wins the title at WrestleMania for the second year in a row, and they finally have a chance to give him a good run with it, and now what do they do -- they vacate it AGAIN this past Tuesday at the tapings?? As part of a storyline !?!?!?!
I can't fault WWE for champions getting injured and having to vacate (though I can fault them for how they choose to crown a new champion). But given the circumstance that led to the last few vacancies, I can fault them for doing it again when it seems completely counterproductive to do so.
I'll give them credit -- WWE has done SUCH a good job of making the WWE Title mean something -- JBL, John Cena, Randy Orton, Edge and others have all had substantial reigns that made it mean something.
But outside of Triple H's lengthy reign in 2003, the World Heavyweight Title has fluttered around, to the point where it's just become a piece of tin, as Chris Benoit called it before walking out of the company in 2000.
To me, that's one of the main reasons why SmackDown is the clear No. 2 show in WWE.
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (24)
I think as far as bad storylines go, this isn't the worst idea. Edge/Undertaker have delivered in the ring, but their storyline has been mediocre at best. While the match would be excellent, I'm not sure I am dying to see Taker/Edge III, and I feel that I should be dying to get more of these two awesome workers.
I think this makes Taker have to fight his way back up and gives a chance for the fans to rally behind him and allows Undertaker to be a rebel to really get over THAT submission.
The biggest complaint is that the damn move doesn't have a name yet. I'm rooting for the death sentence.
If this doesn't result in Taker getting the belt back though, I will be complaining... LOUDLY!
Love the site
First of all, prepare for people to blas you for having a spoiler up. Doesn't bother me, just letting you know.
Now, I don't agree with your assessment that they've hurt the World Heavyweight Title that much because I think, given the circumstances, it has been built exceptionally well, but I do agree that it's odd for them to vacate the title here. Unless they're going to go the route of just handing the belt over to Edge (which would be incredibly lame) so there is a champion I don't know why they'd bother to vacate the title, especially since it seems injuries are more and more frequent these days and there is a good probability they'd have to vacate it in the not so distant future. You'd think if they wanted Taker to drop the belt without losing they could have just had some sort of multi-man match (even the dreaed Battle Royal) with Vickie Guerrero stacking the deck against him.
I will say that at least the reasong for the vacancy kind of makes sense; aside from sticking up for Edge, Vickie is worried about the "Death Sentence" (my name for the gogoplata since Mick Foley did such a great job of trying to come up with a name for the move). Despite the curious nature of the title vacancy I'm still interested in seeing where they go with things and hope there is at least an interesting payoff.
Just to let you know, this is my favorite wrestling site now...
Sorry for the nitpick...I believe the WWF title was vacant at some point in late 1991-early 1992, between the Hogan-Undertaker feud and the Rumble where Flair won the title. Doesn't really weaken your overall argument, but thought it was worth noting.
Ryan, you're right, of course, leading to the most famous vacancy-filling match ever ... nice job! I stand corrected!
I believe the title was also vacated in 1997 when Shawn 'lost his smile' and then won by Bret at the Final Four PPV.
I believe the title was also vacated in 1997 when Shawn 'lost his smile' and then won by Bret at the Final Four PPV.
I don't think it matters anymore because, let's face it, Smackdown's title doesn't mean nearly as much as RAWs title does. Having Taker hold the title, to me, makes no sense. Sure, the marks love him, but he's not drawing anymore money to Smackdown and he is over the hill as a wrestler. 2 world titles means you don't have ONE world title, and therefore it can't be a WORLD title.
Hey, thanks for the spoiler alert, there :\
Why did you tell me this? Spoilers aren't cool, man.
Actually Triple H won the vacant World Heavyweight Title in 2005, not 2004, at the first "New Year's Revolution" in Puerto Rico. Triple H held the World Heavyweight Title on two occasions in 2003, losing it to Goldberg at Unforgiven and winning it back at Armageddon. He held it twice in 2004, losing it to he-who-WWE-must-not-name(Benoit at WrestleMania XX), and then winning it back from Randy Orton at Unforgiven.
Seriously, why not at least put a spoiler alert up? Not everyone who likes to discuss wrestling on the internet reads all the spoilers.
I like coming on this site because you provide some interesting insight, but why not AT LEAST a warning?
If this isn't all leading to a ladder match at Judgement Day, I'll be shocked. It makes the most sense...the belt is "up for grabs," the gogoplata/Death Sentence is banned (and wouldn't be useful in a ladder match) and Vickie stacks the deck by putting Taker in Edge's match. (Of course for purporses of this, please forget the very good Taker/Jeff Hardy ladder match that was on WWE's Ladder Match DVD...) Figure Taker gets it back, so on the one hand he keeps it, on the other he gets to inflate his World title number by one!
Your article is great and to the point. I was so angry when I read the Smackdown spoilers. At first I thought the Undertaker was hurt again and then when I found out it's just a storyline that ticked me off.
Why can't the Undertaker just have a nice, long title reign where he destroys everyone and everything in his path?
John Cena gets the WWE strap for a year and they screw the Undertaker like this?
I know it's just a storyline but what in the blue hell is Vicki Guerrero doing on TV? She is a horrible actress, Edge does not need her to be a heel. Edge was an established heel before Vicki. If WWE wants to employ her, do so behind the scenes.
The storyline sucks, it's awful. And how many of us really think that the Undertaker will regain the title at Judgement Day? That's what I thought.
My question would be more along the lines of why can't the Undertaker lose titles one-on-one in the ring anymore? In 1999, Steve Austin is the last guy to simply pin Undertaker for a world title in a singles match. Since then he's lost a title in a 3-way without being pinned, lost it when Edge challenged him with MITB after a cage match and a Mark Henry attack and now he's being stripped. If the guy is such a division killer that you can't take the belt off him, don't put it on him in the first place. Especially at Wrestlemania when there's zero drama about the outcome of the match. That's just a waste of the title, right there.
As to the "death sentence", that move is correctly called the "illegal choke where Undertaker pins himself and yet strangely gets neither disqualified, nor are his shoulders counted down." It shouldn't be that Vicky is making it illegal, as she's finally enforcing it's existing illegalily.
BTW: I'm also not a fan of Taker being able to get title shots by just showing up and making a "belt" gesture. I bet if Bob Holly did that gesture, it wouldn't result in a title match. Although it would be hilarious if he did it.
My question would be more along the lines of why can't the Undertaker lose titles one-on-one in the ring anymore? In 1999, Steve Austin is the last guy to simply pin Undertaker for a world title in a singles match. Since then he's lost a title in a 3-way without being pinned, lost it when Edge challenged him with MITB after a cage match and a Mark Henry attack and now he's being stripped. If the guy is such a division killer that you can't take the belt off him, don't put it on him in the first place. Especially at Wrestlemania when there's zero drama about the outcome of the match. That's just a waste of the title, right there.
As to the "death sentence", that move is correctly called the "illegal choke where Undertaker pins himself and yet strangely gets neither disqualified, nor are his shoulders counted down." It shouldn't be that Vicky is making it illegal, as she's finally enforcing it's existing illegalily.
BTW: I'm also not a fan of Taker being able to get title shots by just showing up and making a "belt" gesture. I bet if Bob Holly did that gesture, it wouldn't result in a title match. Although it would be hilarious if he did it.
My question would be more along the lines of why can't the Undertaker lose titles one-on-one in the ring anymore? In 1999, Steve Austin is the last guy to simply pin Undertaker for a world title in a singles match. Since then he's lost a title in a 3-way without being pinned, lost it when Edge challenged him with MITB after a cage match and a Mark Henry attack and now he's being stripped. If the guy is such a division killer that you can't take the belt off him, don't put it on him in the first place. Especially at Wrestlemania when there's zero drama about the outcome of the match. That's just a waste of the title, right there.
As to the "death sentence", that move is correctly called the "illegal choke where Undertaker pins himself and yet strangely gets neither disqualified, nor are his shoulders counted down." It shouldn't be that Vicky is making it illegal, as she's finally enforcing it's existing illegalily.
BTW: I'm also not a fan of Taker being able to get title shots by just showing up and making a "belt" gesture. I bet if Bob Holly did that gesture, it wouldn't result in a title match. Although it would be hilarious if he did it.
"Personally, I have no problem with the Undertaker winning the World's Heavyweight Championship...but, he's more than capable of carrying a successful title reign. Taking the belt off of Undertaker after we've been forced with a Cena on more than a few occasions as a dominant champion is a major flag raising. We have to take into account Taker's age, ability and performance level in the ring...which have all mellowed out to an interesting marriage of aerial, mat and submission tactics. He's impressive overall and gives his best with every encounter I've watched him in. It's athletes such as he who not only bring credibility and meaning to the title...but call for a credible and meaningful ending to his title reign, should there be one. For years now, the WWE has been more concerned with merchandise and Vince's branded creative direction that it's no longer about the fans or the actual wrestling aspect. It's sad that a great worker like Taker isn't given a credible fall as champion, but once again it's about where Vince wants to go creatively, he is afterall the filter. I also think that it's a major positive that Vicki works on board with WWE, but in what capacity becomes where the problem lies. Truly, she hurts Edge's character and is not a credible actress, nothing she says or does is believable. She should definitely not have an on screen role as heel, she's terrible! But with work and a vocab touch up...she'd make a moderate face as general manager. Edge and Taker's feud hasn't been the most golden to watch because Vicki is such a tasteless addition to it, but they've put on such great matches and steal the show as well. It'll be ineteresting to see where this all ends up creatively...afterall for many fans it's the wrestling they want to remember, not so much the storyline."
You're forgetting a several incidents of the SMACKDOWN CURSE.
It goes like this:
- Brock Lesnar is injured, so he drops the WWE title to the injured Big Show, who drops it to Kurt Angle.
- Kurt Angle's neck is in such bad shape that there was a backup plan where Chris Benoit would beat him and turn heel to main event Wrestlemania against Lesnar, but Angle works through it until WM. Things are steady for about a year, as the belt goes back and forth between Angle and Lesnar, ending with Lesnar essentially winning the feud before dropping the belt to Eddy Guerrero.
- Eddy Guerrero has to drop the title to JBL in the middle of what was planned as a long reign due to major psychological issues. After this, things were okay with JBL dropping the belt to Cena, who swapped brands w/ Raw champ Batista.
- Batista tears his lat, is scheduled to drop the title to either Randy Orton or Eddy Guerrero on Smackdown during a double taping. Eddy Guerrero dies, Batista keeps working on the injury due to the mess that the company is in. Eddy's ghost decides to haunt this belt.
- Batista tears his tricep a month later and has to go home. He vacates the title in that awesome segment where they showed the women in the crowd crying. Kurt Angle wins the title in battle royal and loses it to Rey Mysterio a few months later at Wrestlemania.
- JBL is scheduled to win the title but his back is a mess and he has to retire for about 18 months. Rey retains the title, and it goes from him to Booker to Batista to Undertaker without incident.
- Undertaker tears his (I forget which)icep and has to go home. Mr. Kennedy is scheduled to cash in his MITB shot (originally planned to be used at Wrestlemania 24) on Smackdown after the Taker-Dave cage match but injures his own tricep (believed to be a tear, it turns out to be a huge hematoma) and has to go home. Edge beats Kennedy for the MITB shot and then takes over where Kennedy would have gone, winning the title.
- Edge tears his pec and has to go home, so he vacates the title, which Great Khali wins in a battle royal. The title goes then to Batista, back to Edge, and then to Undertaker who's then stripped of the title, all without incident.
Also, independent of the Smackdown curse, John Cena tears his pec in October '07 and has to vacate the belt. Cena injects massve amounts of [PHYSICAL THERAPY] into his butt and comes back early.
I really enjoy this column, I havent enjoyed reading about wrestling so much since Chris Hyatte stopped being funny. Keep up the good work, but I agree with the marks, you gotta put up spoiler warnings man.
I apologize for the lack of spoiler alert -- I'm still new to this!
Maybe this is just a prelude to Vicky being demoted as General Manager. Vicky takes the title and is prepared to give it to Edge as an engagement present, but some higher authority (Vince, trying to get a few cheers or something) comes out and stops it, demotes Vicky and promotes Teddy Long back to GM. Teddy can't just give the belt to Taker, so he sets up a final match between Edge/Taker, maybe last man standing or ladder or something like that.
From there, the storyline moves on. Taker goes to the next opponent (possibly MVP now that he has no belt), while Edge tries to create distance from Vicky, maybe a split within La Familia. A feud within La Familia would be weak (it would be better than another Edge-Batista squabble) and would only last until the draft and some new talent came to Smackdown (Kennedy returns).
Uh Matt Norman, you're just as much of a mark as anyone else on here...
On a side note about why have Taker as a champ, last night I watched Smackdown with 4 of my friends. None of them regularly watch the product. 2 of them used to during the attitude era. But I had the remote and told them they had no choice.
After explaining every character throughout the show and trying to get storylines over to them so the show made some amount of sense, one of them was like "Man, I wish the Undertaker was still around. He was amazing." and about five minutes later, they pop up the graphic for Taker vs Khali and they all got excited. Of course when they took the belt off of him, they thought it was ridiculous and lost interest again, but Taker still does have an emotional draw from people who would randomly tune in from time to time.