|
As for the original question... I'm really not sure which championship holds more meaning to me. They've both had some great champions over the years (Flair, Hogan, Savage, Hart, Michaels, Sting, Austin, Rock, Foley, DDP...) and some not so great ones (Arquette, Vince McMahon...)
As for the lineage of the World Heavyweight title, it's strictly opinion. WWE.com doesn't care to list the World Heavyweight Championship reign dating back past HHH's victory. Why? Probably because of stuff like Arquette, the fact that that the inVasion angle was a flop and that Vince doesn't like WCW and has and will rewrite their history where he sees fit.
It still, however, is opinion.
The fact is that Brock was Undisputed Champion. He signed solely to Smackdown which left Raw without a champion.
I personally feel from this point that when Bischoff introduced the World Heavyweight Championship, he was disputing the fact that Brock was Undisputed Champion since he wouldn't face Raw's number one contender in HHH. From there, he seperated the titles and awarded the WCW half to HHH, due to Brock not accepting HHH/Bischoff's challenge, who was a worthy adversary.
The whole thing was a "storybook/similar" version of what WWWF did with the NWA title in the first place (as well as AWA and WCW).
Again, though, it's opinion. You either see the WCW and/or InVasion lineage or you see HHH as the first champion. I remember some folks saying when WWF bought out WCW that none of the WCW Championships carried the lineage they had from that point forward. Again, that's just opinion.
|