Does the WWE/World title still

[Guest Jason]

Before posting, just hear me out. This isn’t another random bashing thread…

 

I ask the question because the last few title changes have done very little for me. I remember a time when the WWF title changing hands was a huge occasion. There’s no bigger mark out than it, even if you liked the winning wrestler or not, you always got that buzz in your stomach from hearing Howard Finkel boom “and the NEEEEW! World Wrestling Federation champion…” At first I thought it could have been due to the name change, and although that did have a negative effect on the nostalgia of it all, it wasn’t the main reason. Most people know that having 2 world championships is the real reason for the WWF/WWE/World title falling in meaning, simply because it’s no longer a ‘World’ wrestling championship, rather just a Brand championship…not even covering the promotion.

 

The only solution I can see is to combine both World title and bring back the Undisputed WWE championship. Now I know there are points people will raise to counter the argument, so let me just comment on a few of them.

 

Firstly, people will say due to house shows, WWE need 2 world titles. Well that’s a good argument, but I fell it really wouldn’t be a problem. Currently there are 8 championships in WWE. Now that’s just too much gold for my liking. Being a champion is meant to mean something, but damn near everyone in WWE is a champion these days. With only 1 WWE World championship, the Intercontinental and U.S. Heavyweight titles will be elevated to being the main belts on Raw and SmackDown respectively. Still being the IC and US titles, the belts can go to midcard talent as well as the established performers, and with one less world title to focus on, more time can be put into developing feuds and angles surrounding those belts and so people will pay more attention to them. We also have to remember, even those the IC and US titles would be elevated, people don’t really buy a ticket to a house show to see the world title defended, they do it to see the big stars of the brand, and that’s still as possible as ever.

 

Secondly, people might say having one overall World champion for both brands will just make them seem closer and less like there own promotions. I personally think you’d be flogging a dead horse with that argument. WWE killed the chance of us viewing Raw and SmackDown as individual promotions by having them seen as divisions, almost identical to the AFC and the NFC of the NFL. People also need to remember that both those American Football divisions have an overall champion, but does that make the Super Bowl any less anticipated? Would it be better to sacrifice that in an attempt to get the AFC and NFC seen as two separate Football leagues? I highly doubt it.

 

The final point I would make is that WWE have something very unique on their hands. They have the chance to create a true World Heavyweight champion of wrestling, something that hasn’t been seen since the glory days of the NWA World championship when Ric Flair was on top. Flair would defend the historic belt against the top contenders from each territory, all over the United States and Canada. He would work from Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Calgary and beyond, making it an accurate ‘World’ title. While Hogan was WWF’s version of the champion, every true wrestling fan knew who the real man was, and that was the NWA champion Ric Flair.

 

Now WWE have the opportunity to recreate the meaning of a true World title. They can not only bring back the nostalgia, but also the pride and magic of what the WWF/E world champion is meant to be to the wrestler and fans. For each month that passes, the WWE’s world titles are becoming less meaningful, but they can change it all with one unification match, and recreate the glory days of knowing what a real champion is all about.

[Quit Calling My Mama 0]

Nothing can be done to bring back prestige to the WWE title. Because it never had any to begin with. From the day the WWWF became the WWF it hasn’t counted for much. There is no prestige involved in winning a title from a man purporting to be a walking superhero or a giant sumo wrestler or a walking corpse.

 

 

The real prestige was always with the NWA title anyway. Real men. Really wrestling each other. With no Bullshit. And look how TNA are wiping their ass on that one. Not allowing the NWA belt to be defended outside of TNA is a travesty. If they did it. It’d serve two purposes – 1) One it’d bring back the prestige to the belt. Its not like they’d allow their champion to drop the thing. 2) It’d get TNA over. It’d make all the Indies look like they aspire to be like TNA. And with TNA’s new booking rules for their contracted talents they could insist on both these goals being met. Don’t meet the goals, then you don’t get the talent. Simple as that.

 

 

Of course, this all hinges on TNA putting the belt on a worker willing to tour the Indies. And he’d have to be a worker that won’t embarrass himself. It’d have to be an amazing worker who can hang with anyone – Which theoretically should actually be the case for the NWA champion. Theoretically, of course. Not practically. I couldn’t imagine Jarrett wanting to tour the Indies. Nor can I imagine him looking good in ROH or PWG for example, both places that AJ Styles brought the belt when he was TNA champion (Making it look a million dollars too – Coming out to Flair’s theme, talking up the importance of the belt and being a fighting champion etc.). But if they put the belt back on Styles it’d work. If they put it on Daniels it’d work. It’d probably work for Ron Killings. Maybe even for – dare I say it - Jeff Hardy too.

 

 

Of course Jerry fat-senile-retard Jarrett doesn’t see it that way. So it ain’t going to happen again until TNA are about to die and are scrambling at any idea to keep them afloat.

 

 

So that’ll be next week then.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I know HHH's title is technically not the WWE title, but I got really excited thinking it might change hands on Monday night. So, as much as I (and most of us) hate HHH, I do think he is bringing meaning back to his belt. Of course they screwed us on RAW, and missed a golden opportunity to gain fan interest.

The Smackdown title has suffered from being carried by sub-par wrestlers. JBL is not world title material. Period. I love Eddie, but he's been pushed as a mid-carder for 10 years. Suddenly he wins the title, drops it, and is now a mid-carder again. The only credible champion they've got is Angle. The fault there lies in the way other great performers have been booked. Eddie, Booker, RVD, and possibly others could have done great things for the credibility of the title if booked properly, but that hasn't happened. Now they are booking Cena as a future champ. He's just not ready. It seems as if WWE is giving people the belt, hoping to get them over. The only problem in that is that the belt is not over, and can therefore do nothing for a worker. They've got to get someone who can get the belt over. The best example of this right now is Joe in ROH. He has really made that belt mean something, not the other way around.

 

If they put it on Daniels it’d work. It’d probably work for Ron Killings. Maybe even for – dare I say it - Jeff Hardy too.

 

Jeff Hardy is worse than Jarrett in every possible way, and Jarrett really, really, sucks. Never ever say that again. Oh God, I just vomited a little in my mouth and swallowed it.

Thanks.

[Guest Jason]

Nothing can be done to bring back prestige to the WWE title. Because it never had any to begin with. From the day the WWWF became the WWF it hasn’t counted for much from what I heard. There is no prestige involved in winning a title from a man purporting to be a walking superhero or a giant sumo wrestler or a walking corpse.

 

The real prestige was always with the NWA title anyway. Real men. Really wrestling each other. With no Bullshit

 

Man the WWF title was the biggest championship in the business all the way through the 90s and the late 80s. Sure, they had certain gimmick wrestlers hold the gold, but for the most part they had talent, and for every gimmick, there was a Bret Hart, a Ric Flair and a Shawn Michaels running the with the gold. When you talk about ‘real men’ holding the NWA title, you can’t forget people like Giant Baba or Ronnie Garvin, who also held the title. The guys never ‘really’ wrestled each other, because it’s Pro.wrestling, but no one can say Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michaels at ‘Mania 12 wasn’t as good a Pro.wrestling match any NWA title contest in the belts 60 year history.

 

And look how TNA are wiping their ass on that one. Not allowing the NWA belt to be defended outside of TNA is a travesty. If they did it. It’d serve two purposes – 1) One it’d bring back the prestige to the belt. Its not like they’d allow their champion to drop the thing. 2) It’d get TNA over. It’d make all the Indies look like they aspire to be like TNA. And with TNA’s new booking rules for their contracted talents they could insist on both these goals being met. Don’t meet the goals, then you don’t get the talent. Simple as that.

 

The NWA champion can defend the title outside TNA all they want, they just can't drop it. Look how many times AJ Styles did it when he was champion, he even defended the X-Division title in Europe.

[res37618 0]

Firstly, people will say due to house shows, WWE need 2 world titles. Well that’s a good argument, but I fell it really wouldn’t be a problem. Currently there are 8 championships in WWE. Now that’s just too much gold for my liking. Being a champion is meant to mean something, but damn near everyone in WWE is a champion these days. With only 1 WWE World championship, the Intercontinental and U.S. Heavyweight titles will be elevated to being the main belts on Raw and SmackDown respectively. Still being the IC and US titles, the belts can go to midcard talent as well as the established performers, and with one less world title to focus on, more time can be put into developing feuds and angles surrounding those belts and so people will pay more attention to them. We also have to remember, even those the IC and US titles would be elevated, people don’t really buy a ticket to a house show to see the world title defended, they do it to see the big stars of the brand, and that’s still as possible as ever.

I agree to a point, but I also see the need in having all the belts for each brand. If you look at each brand as a seperate fed, so to speak (at least that's what the seperately branded PPV's are supposed to accomplish), then it's necessary to have a full set of titles for each brand. With only one world champ floating between the brands, it causes storyline conflict . . . . should his main feud be on Smackdown or Raw? What does the other show do when the champ is caught up in a feud on the other brand? Can the fans really buy the IC or US title as the main belt for each brand? How does it affect house show business (which is already bad) when one brand can't even advertise a World champ appearing on the show - after all, he can't be in two places at once.

 

I think the problem with the World titles at this point is strictly storyline-based. Smackdown's title seems weak because the main event feuds have suffered since before WrestleMania. And Raw? Well, until it's not the HHH show anymore, then we'll all be complaining.

 

If they really want to shake up the title scenes, then some talent swaps are in order . . that, coupled with some elevation of new talent, and better writing, would make things at least seem better, even if the financial numbers don't show it.

 

My two cents, anyway

[Grenouille 0]

When you talk about ‘real men’ holding the NWA title, you can’t forget people like Giant Baba or Ronnie Garvin, who also held the title.

Does anyone else see a slight discrepancy here?

[Guest BGNJ]

The point was made about what should be done with RAW if an Undisputed champion is over on Smackdown. I would do 2 things:

 

1) Have Undisputed Tag Champs on RAW and have the stipulation that the Undisputed World Title and Undisputed Tag Titles can't be on the same show except the Big 4 PPVs. I would also make the respective champions stay with a brand for a 3 month period.

 

2) Have the ENTIRE ROSTER treat those titles important. If you go back to Flair and the NWA title he never feuded with just one wrestler. He feuded with all the top contenders. In Mid-South it was Dibiase, Butch Reed, JYD, Dick Murdock, etc.... All those guys fought each other for the right to fight Flair. They need to weave the stories together. This would be the direction I would go.

 

Also if you have the World Champ on SD then the tag teams on SD should not only be feuding over their brand tag titles (Treat them like the old U.S. tag belts) but also jockying for position when the World Tag champs come 3 months later. Do the same for the World title on RAW.

[Slickster 0]

When you talk about ‘real men’ holding the NWA title, you can’t forget people like Giant Baba or Ronnie Garvin, who also held the title.

Does anyone else see a slight discrepancy here?

That's taken out of context, he's pointing out that there have been NWA champions who weren't great 'wrestlers.'

[Grenouille 0]

When you talk about ‘real men’ holding the NWA title, you can’t forget people like Giant Baba or Ronnie Garvin, who also held the title.

Does anyone else see a slight discrepancy here?

That's taken out of context, he's pointing out that there have been NWA champions who weren't great 'wrestlers.'

If we're talking about 90's Baba I'd agree, but if you've seen his work from the 60s, 70s and early 80s he was a very competent worker, especially for a big man.

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

The NWA/WCW was always a joke compared to the WWE/F title. How many times did a WCW title match do 950,000 buys on PPV or sell 78,000 tickets to a show?

 

Just because workrate marks used to see the NWA title as the "wrestling" title or the title with more lineage or whatever reaosn you want to use, the only thing that matters is which title drew the money. And that was the WWE title.

 

Anyway, neither title right now has any value. They need to create an Undisputed champ in order to have any chance of getting credibility back to the title.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I dunno, I got a pretty good rush when we got the Finkel "NEWWWWWWWWW" at Wrestlemania after the main event. Title changes might not mean much anymore, but they can still make you feel a buzz.

[Guest dreamer420]

The current state of the titles in the WWE (and I mean all titles) is pathetic to what it used to be. As soon as the Attitude era took over, titles were passed around like doobies, and it cheapened the matches. Longer title reigns and having the titles defended only on major Pay Per Views, and the odd TV show, would bring a little class back to any of the titles in the WWE.

 

I would have liked to have seen Triple H never lose the title, defend it less, and keep it until the fans are paying big money again just to see him lose it. Imagine if his previous long title reign had lasted maybe as long as two years. He is a great heel, he can work, and the fans loath him. Buyrates would be on the rise, as would attendance, from old school fans, who would pay the money just to see the possibility of H losing the title.

 

I don't think having a undisputed champion is the way to solve the problem. They tried it before, and it was a failure from the beginning. They were breaking the rules of the Brand Extension weekly, and there was no continuity. Maybe ending the Brand Extension would bring some prestege back to the titles. Seeing the respective champions fighting the same guys week in and week out is just not exciting.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Maing?

[Guest Jason]

I mean meaning, lol...I made a mistake and couldn't edit it

[Taker666 0]

Eh, I don't look into this much. I still see the WWE and World title just as important as when they were in the WWF and WCW respectivly.