https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFyOWc48RDA WCW got a serious amount of flack for putting their belt on non-wrestlers (Vince Russo and David Arquette) , so I never understood why I hardly heard any criticism for the same thing happening in WWE. Look, I know Vince vacated the belt the very next night, and there was a LOT of interference in the match, but still. I've always been in favour of seriously long championship reigns by the top guys. Hotshotting a belt all over the show serves only to devalue it in the eyes of the consumer, and to put it on a non-wrestler is disrespectful to the business, and the guys who bust their ass to try and win it. Then you realise, it was Vince's idea to put the belt on Vince. That makes a bad situation even worse, he should know better but hey, guess he wanted to have a title run. It cheapens the belt and insults the great champions of wrestling such as Bruno Sammartino and Pedor Morales. Also more negative points for winning the '99 Royal Rumble.