11th January

Those of you reading this in Britain will know of Alex Shane's recent FWA title victory over Doug Williams and British Uprising III. However, although I'm sure Alex will make a fine FWA British Champion, from a story line perspective, did he really earn his title shot?

Alex had just come off a long feud with Steve Corino. During that time he also suffered losses to the rookie, Aviv Maayan, before losing the big payoff match with Corino. Alex said in a telephone interview on Blake Norton's Bagpipe Report show on The Wrestling Channel that he didn't know if he was going to get a shot at Doug's title because of his loss to Corino. Yet come November 13th, Alex was crowned the new FWA British Champion.

Late last year Booker T lost a thrilling best-of-five series with John Cena, and lost the WWE US title in the process. After his loss to Cena, Booker was thrust into a story line where he challenged John Bradshaw Layfield for the WWE title. At the time I wondered why Booker was challenging for the title when he had just lost to Cena. If he couldn't defeat Smackdown's secondary champion, why did he deserve a crack at Smackdown's main man?

Go back a few months further, and look at how Bradshaw himself became the WWE Champion. Prior to defeating Eddie Guerrero at The Great American Bash, JBL hadn't done anything of note in the singles ranks since winning the Hard-core title on Raw shortly after the brand extension. Until Ron Simmons left the company, he had languished in the tag-team ranks as one half of the APA. In short, he hadn't really earned his title shot.

I could probably come up with a few more recent examples, but I think you get my point here. When you think of the boxing and mixed martial arts worlds, you never hear stories of boxers getting title shots after they've lost other high profile bouts, unless they're former champions with rematch clauses in their contracts. To me it kind of makes a mockery of story lines when title shots are give in this manner. It's hard, as a wrestling fan, to suspend your disbelief in situations like this .

When he was in control of WCW, Vince Russo stated that titles were little more than props. Russo couldn't have been further from the truth as far as I'm concerned. When a wrestler is awarded a title, it means that at that moment in time, and for however long they hold that title, they are the best they are at what they do. But how can a wrestler be considered the best when they lost that important bout before that big title match?

This is why I think Japanese promotions like NOAH, Ring of Honor in America, and WAW in Britain have got things right. In these companies title shots are earned, not handed out like candy at a street parade. It makes the titles more respectable when you see undercard wrestlers claw their way to the top so they can get a title shot. Just look at the Ring of Honor title. Samoa Joe held the belt for nearly two years, and defended it with pride against all the top contenders until he lost the belt to Austin Aries last month. In Japan, the GHC crown has grown in stature around the waist of Kenta Kobashi.

Sadly, the same can't be said of other major titles. A lot of fans are really down on wrestling, and the WWE in particular at the moment. Maybe if the creatives made the championships special again, instead of treating them like a prize in a children's party game, then the fans might start to view things differently again.

Now let's take a look at what's been happening on TV this week.

Raw made it's Monday night (or rather early Tuesday morning) debut here in Britain this week, but the novelty wore off very quickly. You Americans are probably used to it, but the constant commercial breaks spoiled my overall enjoyment of the show, even though the run-up to the New Year's Revolution show was good to see.

Smackdown continued to move towards the Royal Rumble, and the emphasis on the WWE title match, and the casket match between the Undertaker and Heidenreich. Seeing the Undertaker stuffing Paul Heyman into the casket made you wonder if the WWE were burying Heyman's career on and off screen as well.

The WWE ended the week with a trip to Puerto Rico for the New Year's Revolution pay-per-view. For me this was a good show to start the 2005 PPV schedule, with injuries to Eugene and Lita the only blight on the show. However, was it really any surprise that Triple H came out of the Elimination Chamber as a ten time World Heavyweight Champion?

On to The Wrestling Channel, and the good news is that an agreement has been reached with TNA, which means that new programming, including Impact and the monthly pay-per-views should be available here in Britain soon.

Sticking with TNA, TWC Bloodbath gave us a chance to see the hair v hair, Raven v Shane Douglas bout, which proved that James Mitchell would make a useless barber. It was quite apt seeing this match this week, seeing as one of their WCW matches from 1992 was shown in the last ever WWE Classics slot on Sky last week.

Speaking of classics, the first series of UK Roundup has apparently come to an end, to be replaced by FWA Classics, looking back at some of the great bouts from the past couple of years. However, given the arguments about British wrestling production standards, don't expect to see any bouts from the first two years worth of shows. Although some of the matches are good, especially Doug Williams v Nova from When Thunder Strikes in April 2001, the video production values of those early shows means that they probably won't see the light of day on TWC.

There was some disappointment with the shows I keep a regular eye on, as both World of Sport and TWC Spotlight were again repeat showings, as was the Supercard show. I really can't wait for the new shows coming up in February. TWC is taking a lot of stick at the moment, and I don't really want to add to the criticism here.