Should Undisputed WWE Title Reigns count for Two?

[Shocky]

It's a pretty simple question. Technically the two titles were merged together, so technically the Undisputed Championship was the WCW and WWF title. The WWE denies it, but they sure in the hell used WCW footage to relaunch the World Heavyweight championship in 2002 when the Undisputed belt was relaunched. The WWE used the Big Gold Belt and it's WCW legacy to get that belt over, so it technically was the same belt going into the merge as it was coming out of the merge.

So in this regard it would make Jericho a 4 time Champion, add another title reign onto Triple H which I'm sure he would love, add another to Hogan, Taker, Rock and Brock.

I honestly believe that undisputed champions should be recognized as two time champions while holding that belt. The legacy of both belts was there both before and after the merge. Again, revisionist history now says that the World title isn't the WCW title, but tell that to my pay per views from 2002 to 2003 that say differently.

 

[HBK-aholic]

It is one reign. It was one period in time, and it was one belt you were defending. It should count as holding one Championship. Unless you were holding both the WCW title and the WWF title separately, this was never meant as 2 championship reigns.

How can you hold the WCW championship without ever fighting in WCW? And how can you be the 'Top Dog' of a company which fell years before?

 

[Shocky]

Ah but The Rock, Kurt Angle and Booker T and Jericho are even credited with being world champions due to the WWE owned WCW championship being around their waste. All of those title reigns they won during that time from August to November count.

Jericho I think is the big loser in all of this, as we all know, tell us Chris, you did beat Steve Austin and the Rock in one night for both the WCW and WWF world titles. No Small feat. Jericho had already one the WCW title in October, so technically he should have been recognized as a three time champion, and now a four time champion. But now he is only recognized as a three time champion. Jericho was awesome and he did bring not one, but both of the belts to the ring with him until the new belt was introduced.

 

[jpfizzle]

The way I see it the Undisputed Title is a Title in itself, it takes two of the most prestigous titles in wrestling history and combines them into ONE. That's one title formed from two belts.

In regards to the question, no, I do not believe that the Undisputed title should count for two reigns but in a longer more deeper answer I do think that the Undisputed Championship was more Prestigous and worthy than its pre-decessesors as in its combined history there was more pre-decessors, double the amount of legendary matches and feuds making it altogether more powerful, yet still a standalone world title.

Say for example in football terms, they decided to combine the UEFA cup and Champions League, they allowed double the amount of competition but at the end of the day you are still ALL competing for a single thing, one championship so to speak.

 

[Richard]

The Undisputed Championship should only count as two titles for Chris Jericho because he won two seperate belts at different times. Chris Jericho won the WCW title and had only that belt for part of the night later on he won another one, he won them as separate titles and I think they should be counted separately.

Chris Jerichos world titles should stand as 4. PWI recognises him as a 4 time champion aswell.

The rest should count as one because none of the rest ever physically carried two separate belts. Even though Triple H physically held both belts, his should still be counted as one title win because he won both at the same time and the match was announced as for the undisputed championship (I think), not for the WCW and WWF World titles.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'd have to say no. The title was unified. If they count as two reigns, then for a good while, any WHC reign from Oct 2002 thru May 2003 would have to count as IC, European and Hardcore reigns as those belts were unified. While they were absorbed into the other belt, they had their own seperate history. The IC title now is the same IC title that it always was. The reigns still count because its the same belt. The belt design doesn't matter. The WHC could have been any shape or design and it would have been new. Its WWE revisionist history at its best.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I'd honestly say ONLY Chris Jericho should be credited fully with being a double Champion through that period of time because he was the only individual who carried both titles, acting on them being "one".

Triple H. won the title(s) from Jericho at Mania X-8, but the next night debuted the singular 'UNdisputed' Championship belt making it officially just one whole title, instead of two. Furthermore, the mere fact of the Undisputed title being anything as what it was meant to be is a joke. The two titles didn't stay merged for longer than 8 monthes, at that.

I wouldn't consider the reigns Hulk Hogan, Triple H., The Rock or Brock Lesnar had as two in one, but I would for Jericho simply because he treated them as such. To all the rest, it was just one title.. and not even an 'important' one at that. To Chris Jericho, they were the two highest Championships in the top two companies from that era..

Jericho deserves to be credited, but none of the rest do. However I get that if you do one you have to do them all, so ON that note.. I'd rather say they should NOT be credited, just because Hogan, H.H.H., Rock & Brock.. none of them deserve another meaningless reign to boost to their egos.

Chris Jericho was worthy of being considered a double Champion as well, because he defeated the (at that time) current W.C.W. Heavyweight Champion, as well as the current W.W.F. Heavyweight Champion. None of the others ever did that.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

any WHC reign from Oct 2002 thru May 2003 would have to count as IC, European and Hardcore reigns as those belts were unified.

I don't think that's one in the same though. The W.C.W. and W.W.F. Championships were 'merged' into the 'Undisputed' Heavyweight Championship, whereas the Hardcore, European and even Intercontinental Championships were just meaninglessly done away with.

The midcard title(s) don't mean as much as the Heavyweight title. Now if they proclaimed the World Heavyweight Championship as the new "Ultimate Undisputed Overall Championship" I'd agree with you that an agrument could be made. But the technical ruling wasn't any type of "merging" of titles, to my knowledge.. it was..

Whichever Champion wins, that title stays. The other leaves. Whereas with the W.C.W. & W.W.F. titles.. they weren't about to 'risk' having the W.C.W. title shown as above their own Heavyweight title.. so they brought up the idea (for marketing purposes) to merge them into an Undisputed Championship.. which can truly only be done in cases like that, when one company buys out another.

 

[Enigmania]

As Jericho won two separate titles that night, yes he should be credited as a 4 time world champion. It shouldn't count as 2 separate reigns as the WWF and WCW titles were pretty much defunct as soon as Jericho picked up both of those belts. It can be seen as he either won the WCW Title then the WWF Title which merged into the Undisputed Title or he won the WCW Title then the Undisputed Title either way it's 2 world title wins.

As the others like Rock, Triple H, Hogan, Taker only won one belt they would only class it as one reign.

Jericho is the ONLY Undisputed World Champion due to him merging the belts at Vengence the others was just undisputed in name only.

 

[Father:_Polley]

I don't think it should be counted as two reigns. It's not like the second title is actually being defended at the time after it has been unified, simply because both titles become one, not two.

As far as Jericho winning the first Undisputed title is concerned. As far as I'm concerned, Jericho was the last man to hold the WCW title, and the first person to hold the Undisputed Title, but only because the titles were merged. To me, that's one reign, as the other belt was merely scrapped as a result.

 

[AFC1986]

Jericho should be the undisputed champion to have two reigns as he had two different matches for two different titles whereas Triple H only beat Jericho in the one match at Wrestlemania 18.

Not sure if the same thing applies, but is Rob Van Dam also a two time champion even though he had one title reign as he beat John Cena for the WWE title at ECW One Night 2006 but was also given the ECW Championship by Paul Heyman on the next show or is only a one time champion

 

[Richard]

Rob Van Dam is counted as having two titles because I think the rule was, was that if Sabu and RVD won the titles in their matches then they would be unified? (Something along those lines) Sabu did not win the title which caused Paul Heyman to introduce the seperate ECW World Heavyweight Championship.

2 titles = 2 reigns for RVD

 

[Shocky]

The whole one night stand situation was Heyman was certain that either RVD or Sabu would win one of the World Titles. Heyman's plan at the time was for one of his new champions to throw down that title, and rename it the new ECW world championship.

Instead, RVD wins, and not only is RVD the WWE Champion, but Paul Heyman gives the ECW championship to RVD. He becomes a double champion. The difference is, the WWE and ECW titles were defended at different times. RVD never defended both the titles at once. This is how he lost the WWE title on one night, then the ECW title on another night. Those titles were never merged, he was a co-champion.

 

[Tim]

One belt, one reign. It doesn't matter if the belts were merged, it still counts as only one title reign. You're not defending two belts, you're only defending one and as such, it only counts as one reign. Other titles have been merged, their reigns didn't count, why should it change for one title? Just winning the title which shows that you were the undisputed top person in the company is good enough, isn't it?

 

[FallenAngelV2]

I believe that each guy who held the Undisputed title in 2002 should be credited with 2 reigns, as while it was one "title" being defended, the Undisputed Title was just a fancy way of saying WWE and World Heavyweight Champion. At the time, the titles were defended together, but because the World Title was essentially "stripped" from Brock Lesnar and given to Triple H, they became separate again.

As far as the WCW Title and the World Title being different titles, I disagree. In fact, I look at Booker T, Kurt Angle, The Rock and Chris Jericho as having won the World Heavyweight title during the invasion, because WCW ceased to exist when it was purchased by WWE. If WWE would have ran the company as a separate entity, then I could see the point. But that didn't happen. So the last WCW champion was Booker T.
I consider the WWE US title to have begun with Booker T as champ. I also consider Sean O'Haire and Chuck Palumbo as being the first Smackdown tag champs.

 

[Enigmania]

As far as the WCW Title and the World Title being different titles, I disagree. In fact, I look at Booker T, Kurt Angle, The Rock and Chris Jericho as having won the World Heavyweight title during the invasion, because WCW ceased to exist when it was purchased by WWE.

I think Booker T saying he was a 4 time WCW Champion would really spoil his spineroonie.


Jericho won 2 belts - his WCW Title reign ended when he won the WWF Title, the Undisputed Title came into effect then. So it's only 1 reign. Everyone who won it thereafter is winning one belt so again it's one reign. If he defended the WWF Title or the WCW Title then it could considered as 2 reigns.

The RVD situation would be 2 reigns because he defended them sperately. He wasn't WWECW Undisputed Champion. He was ECW Champion & WWE Champion.