Weekend Wrap-Up and a Commentary on "Needing the Title"

WWE's Elimination Chamber *sigh* was the biggest event to happen this weekend, probably the only really event of note. Both World-level Championships changed hands. Undertaker lost the World Championship to Chris Jericho (thanks to some HBK-shenanigans), which sets up the Jericho/Edge title program for WrestleMania. The WWE Championship changed hands twice. First, in the actual chamber match, John Cena emerged victorious. Then, afterwards, Vince McMahon came out, swung his dick and made an impromptu title match between Cena and McMahon's newest bodyguard type, Batista. Of course, Big Dave won.

No sooner did Douchebagtista gain his rightful spot at the top of the heap as WWE Champion (no sarcasm... if you're talking the upper echelon prime main eventers the WWE has among Cena, Jericho, Triple H, Orton and Edge, Batista's the one whose character has been freshest and the most entertaining) than did the chatter from the Internet start, mainly that Sheamus wasn't Champion at the end, and that Cena and Batista "didn't need the title" to have an effective program.

Normally, I'd agree with that sentiment, if we were talking about, say, The Bash or No Mercy or whatever gimmick-named PPV they replaced both of those events with. There are times when you need to build up a new guy with strong PPV title defenses. However, WrestleMania is NOT one of those PPVs. A WM title defense has to have the luster of being the most important match on the card, or at least.

In that respect, the WWE Championship needs Batista/Cena, even if Batista/Cena doesn't need the WWE Championship.

As much as I was pulling for Sheamus to win last night, him going into WM as the Champion wouldn't have had the same aura as Batista. Let's face it, although Sheamus wasn't booked to look like dogshit, there's no denying that he got one of those "new main eventer" weaksauce title reigns. He won the title in a tables match, any bigtime title defense he had against a legit main eventer (Cena, Orton) that he retained was a screwy DQ finish and his reign as Champion was at the very best the third most intense focus on RAW, after the ZOMG DX DRAMA and McMahon vs. Hart. Not exactly the kind of momentum you want your supposedly superstar heel Champion to have going into your biggest event of the year. Winning the title needs to seem like it's an accomplishment. Beating a guy who hasn't done much in kayfabe to earn and keep his title is meh. The same would be true if Sheamus kept the belt and retained at WM. WM is not an event where you build up a heel's credibility. Generally, you either send the crowd home happy or you drop a bombshell like, say, turning Stone Cold heel. Do anything else, and you get WrestleMania 2000, where heel Triple H retained despite the right call being either Mick Foley or The Rock winning and giving the crowd something satisfying to close the show, i.e., you give them meh. The WM main event should never be meh.

Then there's the next complaint "The title is being devalued!" In this day and age, I don't understood the argument that the title gets devalued simply by changing hands in a short amount of time. Televised product drives the action nowadays, not house shows leading up to an untelevised big event at Madison Square Garden/The Omni/Mid-South Coliseum/etc. A program that would stretch out over half-a-year just so that each house show in each market could get the chance to see the progression of the product is now condensed into a-one-or-two month cycle spanning over one to three PPVs. Title reigns that back in the day lasted for years on end today would probably be the equivalent of six months.

That being said, there still needs to be a good reason to switch the title. The title switch HAS to mean something (which was a big criticism I have with the Sheamus title win looking back... what did it mean ultimately, other than the start of making Sheamus look like a chump compared to five or six guys on RAW who weren't holding the title?). The Batista win last night meant something. In the context of the feud, it worked as McMahon putting the screws to John Cena after his defiance and resistance to McMahon's lust to put Bret Hart away for good, and it worked as a reward to his loyal soldier, Batista. And again, having two of your top stars fighting for the title at WrestleMania gives that title WAY more value than the perceived devaluing it would get from a "rapid-fire" switch.

So no, I don't get the bitching about what happened after the WWE Championship elimination chamber. I think it's a smart move, and one that advances a storyline and helps make the title match more valuable than seeing Triple H or some other established star predictably plow through Sheamus.