"It's bad enough that there's two titles in the first place", so sayeth older fans that were raised on the importance of the lone (and often beautiful) belt the men without trousers fought for in perpetuity, as was their modus operandi. But WWE's two dalliances with split brands since 2002 have just about justified the need for straps on both shows for the most part.
But then there are the dark periods.
Not to be confused with spells in which lifelong fans simply take wrestling breaks (something your writer perhaps should have indulged in a sanity-saving exercise once or twice over the last 30 years or so...), the dark periods in a two-title system cast shadows bigger than the ones left by bulky wrestlers themselves, and are substantially worse than when one sh*tty champion drags down the show.
Two top titles both being held by wrestlers not operating at the peak of their powers is effectively wrestling's saddest timeline, though it does at least create a window for the Superstar that steps in as a saviour.
It's the most subjective of debates, too. These forum views, for example, reflect that of the posters and most definitely not WhatCulture.com, but posit a hugely divisive pairing as a jumping off point. Let's analyse those first...
Square eyes on a square head, trained almost exclusively to Pro Wrestling, Sunderland AFC & Paul Rudd films. Responsible for 'Shocking Plans You Won't Believe Actually Happened', some of the words in our amazing Wrestling bookazines (both available at shop.whatculture.com), and probably every website list you read that praised Kevin Nash.