|
but WWE writes the wrestling history, so WWE's point of view is the historic point of view, isn't it?
and alenoid, how many times have you said the same things over and over -_-
i know what happend, i did watch wrestling back then, but bischoff did have rights to the undisputed champion, it's just steph payed brock a lot to not appear on raw (he was still under both raw and smackdown contracts.. she didn't "sign" him to smackdown) so he could have just taken half of brock's title away, he did have the power to do so, and it was at this point that they started calling brock's title the WWE title, not the undisputed title. If it's not up to the WWE to decide if that has the lineage of the WCW title, who's right is it? If it's not WWE's choice then all it can be at most is a matter of opinion, i'll admit there's good arguments on both sides.. but WWE says the world title has the lineage of the WCW title, and personally that's how i look at it.
|