Hi Scott

Was watching RVD Vs Cena from ONS II the other day and, whilst I could have lived without Edge's involvement, it really is a brilliant match. 

Booked perfectly, both men (Cena especially) played their roles masterfully and it was an unforgettable moment. That RVD shot himself in the foot a few weeks later doesn't change the greatness of his title win.

And yet….

That moment only really came about because RVD hadn't had the title hotshotted onto him when he first caught fire during the Invasion.

Which poses the question – which would you have preferred?  RVD gets the title in 01/02 and has a longer and proper main event run, but the ONS match never happens. 

Or do we prefer what we got; RVD spends most of his WWE career bouncing around the upper-midcard but caps it with the spectacular match against Cena.

Thought it might make for an interesting discussion

I have no great love for that ONS match so it doesn't really matter to me if it never happens.  I'd say that not putting the belt on RVD in 2001 or 2002 was something that hurt him much more in the long run.