WWE Title vs. The World Heavywieght Title

[ISportsFan 0]

I can give you one fact to the contrary: WWE can't even keep their facts straight.

 

On Goldberg's biography on the official RAW website, he is listed as both a WCW champion and a World Heavyweight Champion, which shows they are counted as two different championships.

 

Also, the company considered Chris Benoit a former WCW champion in the past, and now they don't and consider this current reign as his first title reign. This shows they can't even keep their title reigns straight, and we can't trust them to consider lineage like that.

 

Therefore, it is our job, if we are to keep a title lineage, to keep it correctly since they can't do it. They'll change history to whatever they want it to be at the moment, and in some cases (Confidential they list WCW title = RAW title, website lists them separately) they can't keep history straight AT THE SAME TIME.

 

It's our job to keep history correct if we want it to be preserved.

 

My take on the lineage I listed already. It's all in the Smackdown title. Eric Bischoff can dispute a title all he wants and create his own for his own brand, but there's no way he had a claim to the lineage of the WCW title. He just can't, he had no power. It wasn't RAW's title to begin with -- it's WWE's. So, he did create a new title, and thus the Smackdown title is "disputed" because there are two world champions. But, just because it's disputed doesn't mean it's taking one of the lineages away from the Smackdown title.

 

Jason

[reign 0]

I challenge anyone (i.e. Tawren) to come up with three facts to the contrary.

For the record, I agree with you that those are three really good reasons to consider it the WCW belt.

 

I just believe it is a brand new title because:

 

1) Why would Brock just give up half his belt?

2) What claim did Bischoff have to half the title? It was "Undisputed champ can be on both shows", not "Undisputed title belongs to both shows".

3) Booker, Goldberg (pre-beating HHH), Steiner, Nash were not referred to as former World champions, they were (on the rare occassions it was brought up) called former WCW champs

1. Brock wouldn't have a choice because while he was the WWE Champion if the WWE(i.e. Eric Bischoff as the GM of Raw and thus empowered by WWE) decided that since Brock gave up his right to appear pn both shows as the Champion they could split the title back into two seperate championships.

2. And if I remember the Champion HAD to defend his titles for both shows...so see above for the rest of the explanation...

3. There's no doubt the WWE has screwed up their history...they may be refering to wrestlers who held that belt design...not necessarily that specific title(i.e. WCW, World Champion)....but even though the WWE has worked history into what they want it to be...I STILL think that BELT and that title of World Heavyweight Champion should have more claim to past history of WCW than the belt Eddie now wears because of this reason-

Ric Flair wore that belt as NWA champ and the same belt later as WCW champ...so did Goldberg but of course he isn't considered a former NWA champ and shouldn't be because the NWA didn't recognize that belt anymore so the point about Booker and all the rest not being recognized as former World Heavyweight Champions is not really an issue as far as the lineage of the title goes...but when WCW was beaten at SS the WCW belt became the World Title...Rock and Jericho held that title...when Brock refused to defend...they split the championship and redeclared that belt the World Championship again...so it's the same thing...right?

[Guest thebigjig]

In response to the bigjig

Oh so you ARE a fan! My mistake. Well then in that case what is your opinion on the two titles. Has the World Title surpassed the WWE Title in importance? Do you think that the World Title has a longer history than simply being the "fake" belt that was given to HHH? I would really like to know your thoughts rather than talk about how ridiculous wrestling is because that's a whole different topic my friend..and we could argue that all day long.

No, the World Title has not surpassed the WWE title in importance... because you have to judge things on a normal plane, and not what the average smart mark thinks, because we're NOT dealing with a real sport... you can argue any other real sport title all day long and have a valid argument. I find it a little silly to argue over professional wrestling title belts simply because they... are... not... real titles. And I'm saying that as a wrestling fan... a wrestling fan that has common sense. It really doesnt matter which title is more "legitimate" in your eyes, because neither title is in reality, legitimate.

 

As for my opinions... I dont care. A world title is a world title, and it doesnt matter to me what the hell the WWE claims because in the end it's just a representation, and whoever has it is the star of the company... what really matters is the quality of the product.

[Guest thebigjig]

In response to the bigjig

Oh so you ARE a fan! My mistake. Well then in that case what is your opinion on the two titles. Has the World Title surpassed the WWE Title in importance? Do you think that the World Title has a longer history than simply being the "fake" belt that was given to HHH? I would really like to know your thoughts rather than talk about how ridiculous wrestling is because that's a whole different topic my friend..and we could argue that all day long.

No, the World Title has not surpassed the WWE title in importance... because you have to judge things on a normal plane, and not what the average smart mark thinks, because we're NOT dealing with a real sport... you can argue any other real sport title all day long and have a valid argument. I find it a little silly to argue over professional wrestling title belts simply because they... are... not... real titles. And I'm saying that as a wrestling fan... a wrestling fan that has common sense. It really doesnt matter which title is more "legitimate" in your eyes, because neither title is in reality, legitimate.

 

As for my opinions... I dont care. A world title is a world title, and it doesnt matter to me what the hell the WWE claims because in the end it's just a representation, and whoever has it is the star of the company... what really matters is the quality of the product.

[reign 0]

I just read the post that I started this thread with and this has grown into a completely different animal and I 've exhausted my resources...I think I'm done talking about the WWE titles for a long time...and to thebigjig...don't be so jaded man..have some fun with it...if the titles don't mean anything to you then that's cool...this is a thread for people who do care about them in as much as any fan can actually "care" about a "fake" sport...but thanks for coming by and sharing your opinion...

[Guest Choken One]

You know Lineage really doesn't mean anything to the common fan. All that matters is the CURRENT representation of the title and there is no question that Benoit's World title is clearly the more important title then Eddy's regardless of it's history.

 

I also like the fact that in the Raw World Title History...in 18 months...Only Six Changes (Trips to Shawn to Trips to 'Berg to Trips to Benoit). Although the Smackdown title has only 7 changes in the same time frame...not really THAT different but it felt less traded around. At least the Raw title has always had more contenders while smd was generally Show/Angle/Lesnar/Taker for 18 months before Eddy and Bradshaw entered the picture...

[reign 0]

You know Lineage really doesn't mean anything to the common fan. All that matters is the CURRENT representation of the title and there is no question that Benoit's World title is clearly the more important title then Eddy's regardless of it's history.

 

I also like the fact that in the Raw World Title History...in 18 months...Only Six Changes (Trips to Shawn to Trips to 'Berg to Trips to Benoit). Although the Smackdown title has only 7 changes in the same time frame...not really THAT different but it felt less traded around. At least the Raw title has always had more contenders while smd was generally Show/Angle/Lesnar/Taker for 18 months before Eddy and Bradshaw entered the picture...

Agreed..I'm done with this topic anyways...but hey...those last posts that you and I made were both our 95th...

[SuperJerk 0]

During the video recap for the HHH vs. RVD World Heavyweight Title match at Unforgiven (2002), a clip of Chris Benoit winning the belt was shown.

 

No shit.

 

 

The WWE has more continuity problems than DC Comics in the 1980s.

[Guest Mad the Swine]

YIKES!!!!

 

THREE UNDISPUTABLE REASONS WHY THE WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP IS THE OLD WCW BELT

 

1. On the night Bischoff awarded the belt to Triple H, he said that Triple H had been the last person to wear that belt. Flair came out later and talked like he'd held that championship before. (Rewatch the episode if you don't believe me.)

 

Yeah, and Flair said WCW was the best for years.

 

He's working. He's in-character. He was told to say it. It means nothing.

 

2. WWE Confidential had a big piece about the World Heavyweight Championship the following weekend. In that segment, they talked about the former WCW/NWA champs, such as Flair, Rhodes, Hogan, DDP, and Goldberg. This segment is on the "Best of Confidential" DVD.

 

WCW is not the NWA! Those are different titles altogether.[/font color]

 

WCW's title was created in January 1991. They didn't come out and say it, but Flair was both NWA and WCW champion.

 

When Flair was fired in July, he was immediately stripped of the WCW title. The NWA's board of directors continued to recognize him as their champion until September. There is also information that Luger was briefly recognized as NWA champ in 1991, as well, but that's not for certain.

 

The NWA title remained dormant until WCW put together a title tournament in 1992.

 

In 1993, Flair defeated Barry Windham for the title in July, but lost to Rick Rude in September. The NWA's few remaining members pitched a fit and sued, saying they were not included on the decision, nor were they allowed to book Flair at their events.

 

It went to court. WCW was allowed to keep the belt, but not the NWA name. The belt had no NWA recognition after September. WCW renamed the title to the silly "International" championship. It was combined with Flair's WCW world title in June 1994, but was not the NWA title.

 

So, the history behind the current world title goes back to January 1991 - at most[/font color]

 

3. The WWE's website declared the title dated back to the early 1900's in the official preview for the last Confidential.

 

Further, there isn't a connection back to 1901.

 

The world title is quite a disputed title.

 

The NWA's version only dates back to the early 1940s.

 

Promoter Pinkie George allied several promoters in the midwest and crowned their own world champion.

 

Orville Brown was their champion in 1949 when Lou Thesz defeated him. Thesz unified several titles and held the closest thing to an undisputed title that the world had ever known.

 

However, promoters in Omaha, Boston, Los Angeles, Georgia, etc. recognized their own world champs from time to time.

 

Most were disputing the lack of champ booking they were receiving. The NWA soothed most of these over.

 

The NWA was also in some trouble in the late 1950s. The Justice Department was investigating whether or not they were an illegal monopoly. To save themselves a ton of potential problems and heat, they allowed the AWA to exist and Verne Gagne to be champ. Sam Muchnick, longtime NWA president, and Gagne even worked together occasionally after the AWA was formed.

 

Back to the world title thingie...

 

The whole thing was dispute almost since George Hackenschmidt crossed the big pond and landed in America.

 

Disputed branches of the title date to the 1910s. There's a whole branch of it that's in disagreement (the Olin line - check http://www.wrestling-titles.com/nwa/world/nwa-h.html for further details).

 

To try and sum this up:

 

The NWA world title is not the title that Ed Lewis, Joe Stecher, Gus Sonnenberg, etc. held.

 

The WWE can claim all they want that those are the same, but they're not. It sounds real nice that Frank Gotch, Lou Thesz, and Triple H held the same belt, but they didn't.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I challenge anyone (i.e. Tawren) to come up with three facts to the contrary.

For the record, I agree with you that those are three really good reasons to consider it the WCW belt.

 

I just believe it is a brand new title because:

 

1) Why would Brock just give up half his belt?

2) What claim did Bischoff have to half the title? It was "Undisputed champ can be on both shows", not "Undisputed title belongs to both shows".

3) Booker, Goldberg (pre-beating HHH), Steiner, Nash were not referred to as former World champions, they were (on the rare occassions it was brought up) called former WCW champs

1.) He didn't have a choice.

 

2.) Bischoff had a claim to the half the lineage because the WWE title should represent and be defended against all the WWE superstars. To exclude half of those superstars demands a new title, and the WWE obviously allowed Bischoff to take the WCW side from the Undisputed belt.

 

3.) That doesn't mean they weren't former champions.

[SuperJerk 0]

The belt had no NWA recognition after September. WCW renamed the title to the silly "International" championship. It was combined with Flair's WCW world title in June 1994, but was not the NWA title.

I'd argue that the implied lineage comes from that merging. Or, at least, I think the WWE thinks that the lineage comes from that merging. The WWE is assuming the WCW International title has the same lineage as the NWA title before 1991.

[Slickster 0]

My edits to this section are underlined, like this.

 

YIKES!!!!

THREE UNDISPUTABLE REASONS WHY THE WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP IS THE OLD WCW BELT

 

1. On the night Bischoff awarded the belt to Triple H, he said that Triple H had been the last person to wear that belt. Flair came out later and talked like he'd held that championship before. (Rewatch the episode if you don't believe me.)

 

Yeah, and Flair said WCW was the best for years.

 

He's working. He's in-character. He was told to say it. It means nothing.

 

In response to point #1:

 

I know he was 'told' to say that; but fuck, then why didn't RVD or somebody go out there and say the stuff he said, like about how important the title was to him?

 

Why? Because FLAIR HAD HELD THAT TITLE BEFORE. They had HHH beat Flair to legitimize his claim to a World title.

 

.....

 

The WWE can claim all they want that those are the same, but they're not. It sounds real nice that Frank Gotch, Lou Thesz, and Triple H held the same belt, but they didn't.

 

They're making the exact same claims that WCW made about the WCW Title; shouldn't that tell you that they consider the belts to be one and the same? Granted, they *are* flawed arguments, but I don't think they would have used those claims to 1901 had WCW not done the same thing. They've never come out and definitively said it, but it is clear that the WCW Title AND the World Heavyweight Championship are the SAME THING.

 

Why do they list Goldberg as a 1-time WCW and a 1-time World Heavyweight Champion? To make a distinction between the era when WCW controlled it and when WWE controlled it. If the site said that Jeff Jarrett was a 4-time former World Heavyweight Champion, the marks would be very, very confused.

[Slickster 0]

And the most damning points of all:

 

-Rey Misterio is listed as a former Cruiserweight Champion AND a former WCW Cruiserweight Champion.

 

-Eddie Guererro is listed as a fomer US Champion AND a former WCW US Champion.

 

Those two titles were the OTHER two ex-WCW titles who have been continued in WWE (both with WWE's admission that they were ex-WCW titles). Like the World Heavyweight Title/WCW Title, champions of that title BEFORE 2002 are made distinct from those AFTER the WWE brought the titles back into circulation.

 

Again, this prevents confusion among the marks about when Ric Flair won the WWE US Title; after all, he's on RAW!

 

This is another reason why WWETitleHistories.com no longer exists.

[Guest Mad the Swine]

They're making the exact same claims that WCW made about the WCW Title; shouldn't that tell you that they consider the belts to be one and the same? Granted, they *are* flawed arguments, but I don't think they would have used those claims to 1901 had WCW not done the same thing. They've never come out and definitively said it, but it is clear that the WCW Title AND the World Heavyweight Championship are the SAME THING.

 

Why do they list Goldberg as a 1-time WCW and a 1-time World Heavyweight Champion? To make a distinction between the era when WCW controlled it and when WWE controlled it. If the site said that Jeff Jarrett was a 4-time former World Heavyweight Champion, the marks would be very, very confused.

 

I'm mostly reacting to the post that tried to say that everything was one and the same. I'm not arguing about how they present the WCW and WWE brand champions.

 

Just being a bit of a stickler for the technical history of the thing.

 

I don't really expect the WWE to say anything different. It's marketing. Make the title sound as legit as possible.

 

Yes, WCW claimed that. The NWA claimed it.

 

But no matter what they say, it still doesn't make it true. There is no relationship to 1901.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

CHRIS BENOIT WAS NEVER THE WCW WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION.

 

Storyline wise:

 

Benoit "won" the title by defeating Sid Vicious via submission.

 

Special referee Arn Anderson immediately, upon viewing the footage, stripped Benoit of the title. He said the decision should have never been rendered.

 

It's not like Benoit had a reign and then was stripped due to actions, winning another title, whatever.

 

Storyline-wise, Anderson said the decision should never have taken place.

 

Thus, the PWI Almanac and various websites should have the following for the ME of Souled Out '00:

 

"Chris Benoit defeated Sid Vicious by submission to win the vacant WCW World Title. Special referee Arn Anderson reversed the decision due to an illegal submission, however, nullifying the title win. The title remained vacated".

 

Just my take on it. Benoit's WM XX victory is his 1st World Title.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

You guys are nuts.

 

The WCW U.S. Title has no lineage with the WWE U.S. Title. They're two seperate championships.

 

They advertised previous WCW U.S. Champions to show the importance of a secondary title for Smackdown!

 

Eddie Guerrero has held two different U.S. titles.

 

He is a two time U.S. Champion. Just not two reigns of the same company.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

The RAW World Title, the big gold belt, HAS NO TIES TO TO THE WCW WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE.

 

World Championship Wrestling was stripped of any notoriety on WWE program following the loss at Survivor Series 2001.

 

Current WCW World Champiopn, The Rock, now held a title that was refused to be listed as the WCW title. It was referred to as "THE WORLD TITLE", the SAME FUCKING BELT THAT BENOIT HOLDS.

 

Post Survivor Series 01, anything having to do with WCW became null and void.

 

Thus, the title became a World Title representing NO COMPANY.

 

Until Vengeance, it united with the stronger title of the two, the WWE Heavyweight Title.

 

The World Championship is Raw's premier title.

 

The Rock is the first ever World Champion.

 

Chris Jericho is the second ever World Champion.

 

During Jericho's reign, the World Championship was absorbed into a stronger championship, until Lesnar's jump to Smackdown! seperated the WWE/World Titles again.

 

Triple H is the third ever World Champion.

 

HBK 4th, HHH 5th, Goldberg 6th, HHH 7th, and Benoit is the current and 8th World Heavyweight Champion of the WWE.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Quote:

 

***At least the Raw title has always had more contenders while smd was generally Show/Angle/Lesnar/Taker for 18 months before Eddy and Bradshaw entered the picture...***

 

Show/Angle/Lesnar/Taker put up the following matches:

 

Show/Angle/Lesnar at Vengeance 03

Angle/Lesnar at WM

Angle/Lesnar Iron Man

Angle/Lesnar at SummerSlam

Lesnar/Taker at No Mercy 02

Taker/Angle Smackdown match

 

THAT is just until late 2003.

 

 

From Sept 02...let's count the good Raw world title matches...

 

Cant think of any in 2002.

Flair/HHH in May 03 was decent for 5 minutes.

HBK/HHH in December 03.

 

I'll take "those 4 on Smackdown" (including the frickin Big Show who had the best year of his career) over HHH/Goldberg Vs. Unproven Jobber League of America (RVD, Booker, Mark Henry, Scott Steiner, Kevin Nash, Christian) and their shitty matches anytime!

[Mecha Mummy 0]

Define "unproven." Because calling Booker T and Kevin Nash unproven jobbers is a bit odd.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Booker T had done jack and shit to earn a shot at HHH's World Title.

 

Except win a battle royal and suddenly have a shot at WRESTLEMANIA?

 

There you go. he wasn't even ON THE PPV the month before.

 

As for Nash...

 

A run-in on Raw, and a PINFALL LOSS as the PPV before (Backlash) does not warrant a title shot either.

 

Thus, neither were credible/believable challengers.

[Guest Razor Roman]

It's much better the titles aren't unified.

 

How would you like to see this on TV every night?

[Slickster 0]

The RAW World Title, the big gold belt, HAS NO TIES TO TO THE WCW WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE.

 

World Championship Wrestling was stripped of any notoriety on WWE program following the loss at Survivor Series 2001.

 

Current WCW World Champiopn, The Rock, now held a title that was refused to be listed as the WCW title.

"The only remnant of WCW that still exists is the championship that's wrapped around the Rock's waist. And from this night forward, will no longer be known as the WCW title; no, it's simply known as the world championship."

-Vince McMahon, RAW, 11/19/01

 

Umm....if it's no longer referred to as the WCW Title, that means that it WAS the WCW Title.

[Slickster 0]

You guys are nuts.

 

The WCW U.S. Title has no lineage with the WWE U.S. Title. They're two seperate championships.

 

They advertised previous WCW U.S. Champions to show the importance of a secondary title for Smackdown!

 

Eddie Guerrero has held two different U.S. titles.

 

He is a two time U.S. Champion. Just not two reigns of the same company.

...Except that Cole has said that the CURRENT U.S. Title is the same as the one defended in Mid-Atlantic/WCW since 1975.

 

And Tajiri WORE the WCW CW Belt as the WWE CW belt from 4/02 to 6/02. In fact, it's the CW Belt in the SmackDown: Shut Your Mouth video game.

[reign 0]

Then that settles the argument...yes..the WWE has completely f'd up the history of wrestling by saying one thing and writing(or listing) another when it comes to titles..on one hand from their interviews and form what many of you have said..the World heavyweight Title has the same lineage as the WCW Title(from what Vince said)...so I'm willing to buy that...and for those of you who can't believe that at least admit,as usethesledgehammer said, that the World Title is the same championship as the one the Rock wore after WCW died.....but I still think that the title currently around the waist of Benoit is the WCW title renamed by Vince,unified by Jericho and the de-unified by Bischoff and given to HHH.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Stupid fucking WCW.

 

I'll say this, I just watched the WM 20 DVD main event.

 

That title match was more important and emotional to me and to a helluva lot of people than a WCW title match could ever DREAM of.

 

The difference? It isn't help by pathetic champions like Ron Simmons, David Arquette, Jeff Jarrett, Ron Garvin, Vince Russo, Booker T, and Harley Race.

 

That's how I see it.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

...Sledge...I agree with a good portion of the names you listed there for WCW champions...and Booker T is arguable...

 

But why is Harley Race on your list of all people?

[reign 0]

Amen to that Sledge..but yeah take Race of your list..and in his defense Booker deserved that title in WCW...it isn't really his fault that the rest of the company was worthless..he always remained a good worker and was the only bright spot in the main event division for a long time.........

[SuperJerk 0]

For those of you who missed it the first time I said it:

 

During the video recap for the HHH vs. RVD World Heavyweight Title match at Unforgiven (2002), a clip of Chris Benoit winning the belt was shown.

 

 

Thank you, and good afternoon.