Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ
IMO, it is the biggest clusterfuck creatively, in terms of why would you want to be (or root for or against) a wrestler if there's no clear definition of who the best in the world/company is and so there's no ultimate goal for the wrestler's career. I know, kayfabe is dead, blah, blah, blah. If you don't treat it somewhat consistently seriously though (and this is just one of the (many) ways WWE has simply shit on their own product), then what's at stake and the outcome has no importance. As a result, there's no reason for me to actually or even want to tune in to watch.
|
A championship should be the answer to the question "Who is the best?" If you have two champions, you really don't have two champions -- you have two contenders. They should fight to find out who is the best.
I think this issue is underrated in terms of how off-putting it would be to casual fans. When it comes to comic books, cartoons, combat sports or wrestling, one of the most innocent and base pleasures of those forms is "Who would win between..." You want to know who the most bad-ass is. When you have "two World Champions" you are instantly negating that knowledge as a possibility.
Not that there is any doubt as to who is better between Brock Lesnar and Jinder Mahal, haha. But how is being WWE Champion supposed to mean something if
everybody knows there is someone who can kick the champion's ass?