To defend or not to defend
Jeff Hardy will defend his World Heavyweight Championship against John Morrison this Friday on SmackDown, after going through the physical and emotional exhaustion of winning the gold against CM Punk at Night of Champions just five days earlier.
World Champions usually have to defend their titles within 30 days. For their own good, should there also be a mandatory seven-day period where champions are exempt from defending their newly won titles?
One viewpoint says that a true champion must be ready to defend their gold anytime, regardless of the state of their mind and body. The champion is the champion whenever called on, not just when he is ready. A true king must always be on his guard because absolutely everyone is gunning for his kingdom. If Chris Jericho would have been asked if he would have preferred to face "Stone Cold" Steve Austin after facing The Rock to become the first-ever Undisputed WWE Champion, he almost certainly would have said no. But it's heroic moments like those that define the greatness of a champion. The champion must do more than the norm in order to be singled out as being better than the rest.
But another important viewpoint says that in the modern squared-circle, the only way to decide who is truly the champion is for the two top Superstars to face off at their best. Jeff Hardy's success at Night of Champions is a tremendous example of the modern-day WWE warrior, one who incorporates an extremely dangerous high-flying assault with every bit of his emotion. The Charismatic Champion won the gold at great risk to his physical well being after leaving every bit of himself on the canvas. That alone should serve as the ultimate test of whether he is the greatest. He should not have to go through all that, only to lose the title in a match five days later for no other reason than being war torn.
The debate rages on. Which viewpoint do you agree with? Or do you have another view of your own? Weigh in with your thoughts at WWEUniverse.com now.