WWE The History of the World Heavyweight Championship

The idea of WWE trying to convince me that the current World Heavyweight Championship can be traced back a hundred years to George Hackenschmidt and Frank Gotch is a joke. Though I appreciate this DVD showing a brief history of wrestling and this is certainly an interesting part, it really should have just been part of a 'History of Wrestling' DVD. The belt that (currently) The Undertaker holds has as many ties to Frank Gotch as I do. This was 'awarded' to Triple H in 2002 and really that is the history of that belt. I don't understand why WWE didn't just release a disk based on the eight years of the belt and then a second set purely on the NWA/WCW belt that can trace its origins that far back. Did they think that fans would not buy or enjoy that? I know I would and a lot of fans who bought the Ric Flair, WCW and other nostalgia disks would enjoy it just the same.

The DVD goes into the creation of the NWA, some notable champions Lou Thesz, Buddy Rogers through to the Ric Flair/Dusty Rhodes and Harley Race era and the creation of WCW. One line that cracked me up was 'In 1993 the lineage of the title got a bit murky'. Really? You think? What with Flair taking the belt to WWE, WCW creating their own belt and then Flair returning, WCW leaving the NWA (thus effectively stopping any links from then with Frank Gotch etc.) I'd say 'murky' is a bit of an understatement. The look at the multiple champions during this time is a bit strange when you consider what WWE are currently doing their belts and one again they looked at a few 'dubious' champions including David Arquette, Vince Russo and then oddly Sid Vicious and Jeff Jarrett? Then they oddly say that 'the prestige of the championship survived' followed by Hogan winning? Odd how many people consider it was Hogan who saved WCW and Flair declaring he was the 'greatest champion of our time' is a little hard to swallow and I'm convinced that the question was: 'If you don't count wrestling ability or ability to put anyone over who is the greatest world champion?'

The closing of WCW saw the unification of the WWE and WCW championships which effectively is where the link to that belt ends and so the disk should end there. However, instead they decide to tell us the story of the reintroduction of the World Heavyweight Championship belt as it was given to Triple H. Yes, given. Not won, not went through a tournament or even just a one on one... No Bischoff just decided 'Hey, I need a champion, who should it be? ... eeny meeny miny mo!' We then have a look at who won from Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, Rey Mysterio, but of course no mention of Benoit at all.

It's sad that this is only an hour, as there could easily be another hour of information that could be looked at here, but as a look at this title in its many forms, it is a nice overview and allows more time for the matches on the disks.

Yes, the matches. The first disk is a great DVD for wrestling. Perfect in fact. We have Jack Brisco, Buddy Rogers, Dory Funk Jr and Terry Funk, Harley Race, Dusty Rhodes and of course Ric Flair. Sadly when we get to disk two and three I don't think they thought this through much. The problem of course is that because they had already used so many matches in the WCW set and the other sets (e.g. Ric Flair) there are very few left to use. Of course we have Ron Simmons and Goldderg's win, but the rest of the seven matches on the second disk are ones I don't really think I wanted to watch (Reminding me of the leftovers used for the last Hogan set). When I think of WCW in the 1990s I think of Ric Flair, Sting and Hogan(and they are represented), but of course I forget that by the time Hogan got to WCW, Flair was made a chump, Sting was made a chump and if you weren't a buddy of Hogan or Bischoff you weren't getting to touch that belt. The inclusion of Booker T's first championship win was a nice touch and proof that WCW did have a star they could rebuild the company around and yet less than a year later it was out of business.  I expected this disk to end with the unification of the belts by Chris Jericho; instead we had him wrestle against The Rock. A good match, but really not the match I expected. The third disk is all the new WWE version of the belt and though there are some great matches on this disk, including the (in my opinion) match of the year for 2006 of Undertaker vs. Kurt Angle at No Way Out, it also included some odd choices such as a Smackdown match between Randy Orton and Rey Mysterio. I understand that WWE want to showcase all the people who have held the belt, but surely they could have picked a better match than this? And it seems odd that they would include no matches from 2003 or 2005 or even a reference Goldberg or Great Khali as a former champion. For shame!

This set is a mix bag of good and bad. If you can ignore the logical flaws behind how WWE went from the original 1908 world title to the current one, you may enjoy the documentary. However you may find it a little short, missing out a few champions or not focussing enough on particular people. Of the twenty-two matches you may enjoy the majority of them and some are interesting just for curiosity's sake. However, at times I do wish that WWE would stop thinking 'Oh we used that match already on this set' and just give us the matches. Why tell us that the Chi-Town Rumble between Flair and Steamboat was the best match ever, if we are not able to see it? Sure, it is available on other sets, but that's not the point. When they release an Elvis Greatest Hits they don't say 'If you want Hound Dog it's on the last one we put out!' and WWE shouldn't do this here either. I enjoyed the documentary somewhat and enjoyed most of the matches I just wish they would think more about their selections and give the fans what we want and not what we can get elsewhere.