Gert T 0 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I just laughed when JR talked about how Booker T was a 5-time WCW Champion, but that does not really compare to this title. Now I know it was just a sell for the PPV, but my question is this, will a Booker T title reign (if it happens) mean anything at all? I mean I've heard the argument of belts are just props, but especially if he wins it at WM then Austin-HHH or Nash-HHH start a feud then Booker wouldn't even be the focal point of Raw, the show with the less credible championship. This is probably just a moot point anyway because he'll probably lose Sunday, but I was just struck by the irony of JR's comment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Banky Report post Posted March 27, 2003 5 Time WCW Champion means way more. Waaaay more. The RAW Championship is nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Deebo Report post Posted March 27, 2003 WCW champ means way more. The Raw title is like.. not even a real fucking title. Well, I mean it is.. but it's just like, kind of a token belt. It was just handed to HHH. I consider the WWE Title that Kurt Angle has as the real belt of the company. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Will Scarlet Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I agree. The WCW title is much more meaningful. The Raw title is a useless prop that holds no credibility to me. It's just basically the Triple H Ego title to me. May he wear in good health, and feud with guys like Kevin Nash, so I can just ignore it totally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sakura Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I don't really see the big deal behind HHH being handed the title. It has been defended, lost, won back, ect. for like half a year now. Would a mini-tournament or battle royal honestly have made that much of a difference? And the WCW title was worthless towards the end. Vince Russo and David Arquette held it. Jarrett lost and won it like 6 times in a row in the span of a month at one point. I don't understand how The RAW title means less just because HHH was handed it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BifEverchad Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Booker worked WAY harder to win those 5 WCW titles, than Hunter did to "win" that RAW Title. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sakura Report post Posted March 27, 2003 ......wrestling's fake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BifEverchad Report post Posted March 27, 2003 ......wrestling's fake. No, its not! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Mighty Damaramu Report post Posted March 27, 2003 So....that doesn't mean that a title can't mean something....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ultimo Dugas 0 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Even though the WCW World title was severly degraded during the fall of WCW, it still has a good lineage before that time. I hate to beat a dead horse, but the RAW World title goes HHH-HBK-HHH, and therefore just doesn't seem as important. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted March 27, 2003 WCW title a lot more important, no doubt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Metal Maniac Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Would a mini-tournament or battle royal honestly have made that much of a difference? Yes. That way, it would look like HHH EARNED the belt, and then he would be fighting to defend something that he EARNED. As it is, it makes about as much sense as HHH deciding that he wants to put his most recent birthday present on the line. Who the fuck cares? It just doesn't seem like a meaningful thing to win if it was literally given away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sakura Report post Posted March 27, 2003 If was I given a choice on which title to win, there is no doubt I would pick the RAW one. Yeah, the lineage is short, but that doesn't compare to how badly the WCW title was treated when Booker was winning it. I mean, one of Booker's 5 reigns ended at the hands of VINCE RUSSO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sakura Report post Posted March 27, 2003 But it wasn't just given away. It was given to him by the General Manager because he was the #1 Contender for the Undisputed Title when the Undisputed Champion left the RAW brand. It's not like HHH just came out and said "oh, by the way, I'm champ now". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gert T 0 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Sorry I was more just mocking JR's comments and the Raw title in general, but one other comment on HHH-Booker T, isn't funny how this buildup is much like at No Mercy, start with some crappy shock angle that's over-the-top (necrophila, racism) that gets panned by everyone, and as the event nears they start to draw away from it. I guarantee in the video package at WM, none of the racist comments will be included, just the "your not in my league" stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sakura Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I think of this feud as the opposite of RVD's feud with HHH. RVD got a shocking pinfall on HHH and HHH sold him as a threat and seemed worried. Then out of no where HHH was putting him down and treating him like a jobber right before the event. Booker got was put down and treated like a jobber and then suddenly got a shocking pinfall and HHH sold him as a threat and seemed worried out of no where right before the event. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I don't really see the big deal behind HHH being handed the title. It has been defended, lost, won back, ect. for like half a year now. Would a mini-tournament or battle royal honestly have made that much of a difference? And the WCW title was worthless towards the end. Vince Russo and David Arquette held it. Jarrett lost and won it like 6 times in a row in the span of a month at one point. I don't understand how The RAW title means less just because HHH was handed it. There haven't exactly been a lot of classic title defences since he got the belt either. I mean there was that Elimination Chamber Clusterfuck, and the Three Stages of Hell (for the fan) Match, Worst Match of the Year Candidate HHH/Steiner, and umm... Worst Match of the Year Candidate HHH/Steiner II. A title has to be built up over time in any circumstance surrounding its creation, but they sure haven't gotten off to a good start. The Smackdown Tag Titles mean more at this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest creativename Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Like everybody else said, the WCW title can't even be compared to the Raw title in terms of cred. Yes, it was a joke towards the end...but that still means it was completely in a different league than the Raw title, which isn't even worthy of being called a joke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest AndrewTS Report post Posted March 27, 2003 The Raw title was arbitrarily handed to HHH and then he beat a fifty-something year old man. Since then, he's only lost it to his buddy HBK, won it back, and held onto it until this day. It means JACK SQUAT until a decent champ holds it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Kurt Angle holds the most credible title in the company right now, as far as I'm concerned. That's just all there is to it, to me. I generally stray from HHHate, but even I demand that he should have won the thing somehow. I love HBK, but WWE screwed up big time when they didn't have Rob Van Dam go over right here in Charleston on RAW. THAT, to me, would have made that belt worth something. It would have made it appear that people are busting ass to get to it and to win it. Right now, Booker T winning will put things on the right track. But HHH retaining it? I fear that for some of us that may damage the belt's credibility more than anything else. And for a long time, too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I would say Booker's titles reigns meant more if i could ... maybe...possibly... REMEMBER ONE OF THEM. I have no idea who he won them from or to who he lost the things except for a trade with ... Angle? Or was that the US Belt? I have no idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest humongous2002 Report post Posted March 28, 2003 Booker tanked as a WCW champion, but it's hard to carry a dying company i guess. And if,lol,IF he beats HHH for the World title, he will be treated as a paper champion b/c Austin and HHH will steal his spotlight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest treble charged Report post Posted March 28, 2003 I would say Booker's titles reigns meant more if i could ... maybe...possibly... REMEMBER ONE OF THEM. I have no idea who he won them from or to who he lost the things except for a trade with ... Angle? Or was that the US Belt? I have no idea. Hmm... -Beat Jarrett at BATB 2000, the night of the Russo/Hogan fiasco -Beat Nash at Fall Brawl that year after losing to Nash on an episode of Nitro -Beat Jarrett for the vacant title that Russo gave up after suffering 'brain injuries' or some other bullshit -Beat Steiner on the last Nitro -Beat Angle on Raw after losing it the previous SmackDown The first win was memorable, as was maybe the one on the last Nitro, but really, he was only '5-time' champion due to Russo booking most of his run as champ in WCW. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted March 28, 2003 Neither mean a damn thing these days. The Raw title means nothing. Just something to give to HHH and have him hold onto forever (except a quick title change back and forth to a Clique buddy) And while I think the WCW title still means something...I just don't think the 2000-2001 WCW title means a goddamn thing. Title was won by Vince Russo and David Arquette. In 2000 they changed the title back and forth just about every week, the belt lost all meaning in 2000. ALL meaning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Human Fly Report post Posted March 28, 2003 The Raw title hasn't surpassed the Million Dollar Title in my eyes. Dibiase (HHH) can't get WWF title so he makes his own title. Dibiase (HHH) loses the title to Virgil (HBK) but soon wins it back to defend it rarely and never lose it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted March 28, 2003 The Raw title hasn't surpassed the Million Dollar Title in my eyes. Dibiase (HHH) can't get WWF title so he makes his own title. Dibiase (HHH) loses the title to Virgil (HBK) but soon wins it back to defend it rarely and never lose it. Damn...that makes more sense then anything else I've heard about this. All though Tripes doesn't have to cool theme music . "money, money, money, money, money..." And a few years ago the roles were reversed; Shawn/Debiase, Hunter/Virgil Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest edge007 Report post Posted March 29, 2003 The Raw title wasn't really a title to begin with in my view... and if it was to others, and myslef, I would have realised by now that HHH has made it turn stale anyway... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
