|
I do see the point about the WWE Title usually not being as experimental, but then again, you also had Sheamus and The Miz as champions. Del Rio won it. Rey Mysterio won it for a token run. They had played fast and loose with it before.
Even during the brief unification period, Sheamus got another run that no one clamoring for. The idea that the belt goes on the best wrestler or the biggest star in the company is no longer true even with just one of them. James Ellsworth winning a Unified WWE Championship couldn't shock me, if the idea behind it was to try and get kids to believe in themselves because "anyone can make it."
They initially try the new championship on RAW, because I think their thinking is that the prestige of the WWE Title carries over with it to SmackDown, while the prestige of the RAW brand breathes meaning into the new belt on that show, making them even. So Jinder Mahal is probably supposed to have the more prestigious belt on the less prestigious show. Slightly more meaningless would be if Mahal had won a new belt on the lesser show, but that is arguing semantics at this point.
They tossed both the WWE and World Heavyweight Titles around (to the point where they basically ignored the reigns of CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, Jack Swagger and Dolph Ziggler with the World Heavyweight Title at points), and they did it on both RAW and Smackers.
Basically: It's true that the WWE Title is probably supposed to be the belt with more prestige, but they blew all its capital a long while ago with the last brand split, and now belts only really mean something when Brock or Cena has them.
|