WWE.com relaunches title history section

[res37618 0]

When was Slaughter US Champ?

 

Or was he just put on there because... Er, yeah?

Slaugher was US champ back in the Mid-Atlantic Wrestling days, I believe late 70's - early 80's. I've seen several pictures of him wearing the old red-strapped US belt - the one which the main plate was a map of the US.

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

That whole arguement that the RAW HVYWT title has the same lineage as the old WCW title never made any sense to me. 

 

Brock's belt had the lineage of both titles, he was never booked in a match to defend either part of the title, he just signed an exclusive deal with SD.  RAW would have no right to strip Brock of the WCW part of the Undisputed title anymore than they would to strip him of the WWF part of the title. 

 

However, by creating a new Heavyweight title, it was logical for RAW to claim that Brock was no longer the "Undisputed" champion, because there was a second champion in the industry on the same level.  Therefore Brock was no longer the Undisputed champion. 

 

However, that doesn't mean RAW gets to lay claim to the WCW title lineage.  And the WWE pretty much cleared that part of it up on their site. 

 

If the RAW title carries the WCW title lineage, then that would mean the SD tag titles would have to carry the WCW or old WWF title lineage, but it obviously doesn't. 

 

I really dont see how anyone can argue with that (in a logical manner anyway).

I don't care what WWE.com says, the WWE title is the WWF title and the World Heavyweight title is the WCW title. WWE even did a confidential peice on the World Heavyweight title showing it being based on the WCW history. Same with the United States title, go look at the advertisement for the PPV that had the finals of the United States title tournament, it has a picture of past WCW US champions with the old WCW US belt behind the new WWE US belt. WWE without offically announcing it, seperated both WCW and WWF's titles and split them evenly on both brands. Just because one belt was absorbed into another, doesnt mean it holds that history anymore when the title that was abolished was broght back. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE POST THE PPV ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE FINALS OF THE UNITED STATES TITLE TOURNAMENT WITH STING, SLAUGHTER, ETC. IN THE BACKGROUND WITH THE OLD WCW BELT AND THE CURRENT WWE US BELT IN FRON WITH THE CURRENT COMPETITORS?

I dont think they should say the SD version of the US title is the same as the title which was absorbed by the IC and later World Title. And actually they do say that guys like Sting have held "versions" of the US title. I guess it'll be interesting to see what they put up for the history of the US title.

 

But even still, thats different from the World HVWT Title deal.

 

When they brought back the physical WCW title belt to be used as the World Title, they did say that the belt (not the championship) dates back to 1903, or whatever BS they use for the story of that title. But at around the same time, they published a magazine that showed the lineage of all the titles, and the RAW title was separate from the WCW title. So if anything there is just more contradiction.

 

Further to that, it just doesn't make sense that Bischoff would have the power to take away a title's lineage. Like I said, Brock didn't miss a match, so there's no reason to strip him of the WCW title lineage. That is still a part of the SD HVWT Title.

 

Sure they used the same physical title that WCW used, but that doesn't mean anything, and I guess WWE feels that way as well. WCW was dead as an "organization", so how can someone take back one of their titles? It doesn't make sense.

 

I can go start up a wrestling promotion and then buy a replica of the AWA Championship, or even a version of the WWF Championship, does that mean I then get to lay claim to the lineage of those titles just because I have the pysical title (or a version of it anyway)? Of course not, that would be insane. Same thing here. RAW was/is a separate "promotion" and they created a new Heavyweight Championship, they happened to have a replica of the old WCW title, but they cant lay claim to the lineage just because they have the physical title itself.

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

Y2Jerk,

 

I realize that they never claimed the SD tag titles were the WCW tag titles, but what I'm saying is that if people can accept those titles are new, why cant they accept that the RAW HVWT title is new as well?

 

As far as them saying it was, I've already addressed that int he above post, no need to repeat.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

WWE even did a confidential piece on the World Heavyweight title showing it being based on the WCW history.

 

WWE also did a confidential piece on Rikishi, without ever once mentioning the words Too Cool. Did you know that Rikishi just started dancing in the ring after a match one day because he felt like it? And Too Cool had NOTHING to do with it, because they didn't exist?

 

Confidential pieces and posters don't prove an argument, at least not in this case. The fed lies about practically everything that's ever happened, so this is no different.

 

However, I am inclined to believe that what is posted on their Title Histories page is the recognized history of their belts (which, as I've said, does change from time to time) and it doesn't say anything about the WCW title.

[Guest Teckneek]

That whole arguement that the RAW HVYWT title has the same lineage as the old WCW title never made any sense to me. 

 

Brock's belt had the lineage of both titles, he was never booked in a match to defend either part of the title, he just signed an exclusive deal with SD.  RAW would have no right to strip Brock of the WCW part of the Undisputed title anymore than they would to strip him of the WWF part of the title. 

 

However, by creating a new Heavyweight title, it was logical for RAW to claim that Brock was no longer the "Undisputed" champion, because there was a second champion in the industry on the same level.  Therefore Brock was no longer the Undisputed champion. 

 

However, that doesn't mean RAW gets to lay claim to the WCW title lineage.  And the WWE pretty much cleared that part of it up on their site. 

 

If the RAW title carries the WCW title lineage, then that would mean the SD tag titles would have to carry the WCW or old WWF title lineage, but it obviously doesn't. 

 

I really dont see how anyone can argue with that (in a logical manner anyway).

I don't care what WWE.com says, the WWE title is the WWF title and the World Heavyweight title is the WCW title. WWE even did a confidential peice on the World Heavyweight title showing it being based on the WCW history. Same with the United States title, go look at the advertisement for the PPV that had the finals of the United States title tournament, it has a picture of past WCW US champions with the old WCW US belt behind the new WWE US belt. WWE without offically announcing it, seperated both WCW and WWF's titles and split them evenly on both brands. Just because one belt was absorbed into another, doesnt mean it holds that history anymore when the title that was abolished was broght back. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE POST THE PPV ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE FINALS OF THE UNITED STATES TITLE TOURNAMENT WITH STING, SLAUGHTER, ETC. IN THE BACKGROUND WITH THE OLD WCW BELT AND THE CURRENT WWE US BELT IN FRON WITH THE CURRENT COMPETITORS?

I dont think they should say the SD version of the US title is the same as the title which was absorbed by the IC and later World Title. And actually they do say that guys like Sting have held "versions" of the US title. I guess it'll be interesting to see what they put up for the history of the US title.

 

But even still, thats different from the World HVWT Title deal.

 

When they brought back the physical WCW title belt to be used as the World Title, they did say that the belt (not the championship) dates back to 1903, or whatever BS they use for the story of that title. But at around the same time, they published a magazine that showed the lineage of all the titles, and the RAW title was separate from the WCW title. So if anything there is just more contradiction.

 

Further to that, it just doesn't make sense that Bischoff would have the power to take away a title's lineage. Like I said, Brock didn't miss a match, so there's no reason to strip him of the WCW title lineage. That is still a part of the SD HVWT Title.

 

Sure they used the same physical title that WCW used, but that doesn't mean anything, and I guess WWE feels that way as well. WCW was dead as an "organization", so how can someone take back one of their titles? It doesn't make sense.

 

I can go start up a wrestling promotion and then buy a replica of the AWA Championship, or even a version of the WWF Championship, does that mean I then get to lay claim to the lineage of those titles just because I have the pysical title (or a version of it anyway)? Of course not, that would be insane. Same thing here. RAW was/is a separate "promotion" and they created a new Heavyweight Championship, they happened to have a replica of the old WCW title, but they cant lay claim to the lineage just because they have the physical title itself.

Dude, they did a confidential peice on the WHC being based on the WCW title history. That puts the magazine to rest. WWE is confused with its own history. They should've restarted the histories with the brand split and put the respective brand name infront of each world title--it would've made so much more sense. Here's what the title should've been called:

 

Smackdown! Belts:

 

WWE SmackDown! World Heavyweight Championship

WWE United States Championship

WWE Smackdown! World Tag Team Championship

WWE Cruiserweight Championship

 

Raw Belts:

 

WWE Raw World Heavyweight Championship

WWE Intercontinental Championship

WWE Raw World Tag Team Championship

WWE Women's Championship

[Taker666 0]

When was Slaughter US Champ?

 

Or was he just put on there because... Er, yeah?

Slaughter was actually US Champion during the NWA days. You could check here...

 

http://www.titlehistories.com/WWE%20United...ght%20Title.htm

 

Anyways, more proof that the WWE US title has the WCW/NWA linege(like it really needs it). I got a SmackDown! Magazine telling the story about the history of the US title and the complete linage with pics from the NWA/WCW days and recently WWE.

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

So Confidential trumps the magazine, why exactly?

[SuperJerk 0]

Y2Jerk,

 

I realize that they never claimed the SD tag titles were the WCW tag titles, but what I'm saying is that if people can accept those titles are new, why cant they accept that the RAW HVWT title is new as well?

 

As far as them saying it was, I've already addressed that int he above post, no need to repeat.

Ooooooooh, I see what you mean now.

[Slickster 0]

When was Slaughter US Champ?

 

Or was he just put on there because... Er, yeah?

Slaughter was actually US Champion during the NWA days. You could check here...

 

http://www.titlehistories.com/WWE%20United...ght%20Title.htm

 

Anyways, more proof that the WWE US title has the WCW/NWA linege(like it really needs it). I got a SmackDown! Magazine telling the story about the history of the US title and the complete linage with pics from the NWA/WCW days and recently WWE.

Also, from the 1st day Steph announced the return of the US Title, the announcers explicitly stated that this was the NWA/JCP/WCW US Title being brought back to active use.

[Slickster 0]

When was Slaughter US Champ?

 

Or was he just put on there because... Er, yeah?

Slaugher was US champ back in the Mid-Atlantic Wrestling days, I believe late 70's - early 80's. I've seen several pictures of him wearing the old red-strapped US belt - the one which the main plate was a map of the US.

This pic shows him wearing the classic US Title.

[Promoter 0]

The wwe can't even get their own storylines correct. That Hogan title loss to Andre was later discovered to be Dave and Earl Hebner being twins. They had it all over the programs and magazines around WM 4. The "evil twin" sold out and locked his brother in the back to referee the match.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

Bumping this again.

 

Women's Title history is up now.

 

Yeah, it's not much to cheer about, but yes, it is up.

 

5 down, 3 to go now.

 

http://www.wwe.com/inside/title_history/women/

 

There's the link.

[Perfxion 0]

Few things:

 

-WWE US title starts with Eddie Guerrerro and is NOT the lineage of the NWA/WCW title. However, if Titan wants to say that is reinstating the US title, then yes the title goes back ot the belt worn by Edge when he beat Test.

 

- RAW World Heavyweight Title starts with Triple H. It has NOTHING to do with NWA title or the WCW title or the World title that rocky has. That belt is born and dead with HHH.

 

-NO WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP title goes back beyond 1948. That is the earliest of any title. All shit before then is kayfabe to make the title look bigger than it is. The first world heavyweight title champion is Orville Brown.

 

-WWE Champion only goes back to a "tournament" in Rio when The Nature Boy won it.

 

-The ONLY title to go trans promotion is the Cruiserweight title.

[cbacon 0]

That's about right.

 

Although I did not know about the pre-1948 world title issue.

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

Few things:

 

-WWE US title starts with Eddie Guerrerro and is NOT the lineage of the NWA/WCW title. However, if Titan wants to say that is reinstating the US title, then yes the title goes back ot the belt worn by Edge when he beat Test.

 

- RAW World Heavyweight Title starts with Triple H. It has NOTHING to do with NWA title or the WCW title or the World title that rocky has. That belt is born and dead with HHH.

 

-NO WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP title goes back beyond 1948. That is the earliest of any title. All shit before then is kayfabe to make the title look bigger than it is. The first world heavyweight title champion is Orville Brown.

 

-WWE Champion only goes back to a "tournament" in Rio when The Nature Boy won it.

 

-The ONLY title to go trans promotion is the Cruiserweight title.

I couldn't agree more

[Guest sek69]

The last couple pages of posts illustrate exactly why they used the WCW belt for the RAW World Championship: use a familiar belt to subconciously create a link between the RAW title and the NWA/WCW legacy.

 

Its like if Stan Hansen started a new fed and used the old AWA belt as his fed's championship, that doesn't mean that fed's champ had any connection to the AWA.

 

Even the way they worded the promo when HHH was awared the belt give it away. Eric said how great champions of the past have worn the belt but they never really said that the RAW champ had any connection to the WCW championship.

 

The belt with the real history is the WWE championship, its the one with the full WWWF/WWF/WCW line.

[Perfxion 0]

Two more notes:

 

- How the fuck is Moolah a champion of a company with a title that is OLDER than the company? The World Wide Wrestling Federation started in 1963, how is she champ in 1956?

 

-Just an FYI, the NWA title and the WCW title or two seperate things. Jarrett holds the belt that goes all the way back to 1948. Booker T came to the WWE holding a title that only goes back to Flair beating Sting in New Jersey.

[res37618 0]

Two more notes:

 

- How the fuck is Moolah a champion of a company with a title that is OLDER than the company? The World Wide Wrestling Federation started in 1963, how is she champ in 1956?

 

-Just an FYI, the NWA title and the WCW title or two seperate things. Jarrett holds the belt that goes all the way back to 1948. Booker T came to the WWE holding a title that only goes back to Flair beating Sting in New Jersey.

While the second part of that is actually true, most "casual fans" that have followed wrestling since pre-'91 associate the Big Gold Belt with the NWA years as well, just due to the fact that Flair introduced that particular belt as the NWA World Heavyweight Title back in '86. I daresay most of those fans could give a rip less about the whole NWA-becomes-WCW-but-not-really fiasco from July '91. Most of those fans usually just think that the NWA became WCW, period. They have no clue about the way the whole thing worked. In fact, I have one of those "causal fans" as a friend, and he pointed out that "Flair's old NWA belt looked weird on Triple H" . . . so I had to have a little talk with him

 

The title history section of WWE.com should've at least claimed the history of the title going back to '91, as it deserves to be. It sounds cheesy and lame to say that "Bischoff dusted off the old WCW belt and handed it to Triple H." That statement in and of itself makes the belt sound less meaningful. They ADMIT that it's the WCW title, yet fail to use the WCW's title lineage in the history. Unless they just refuse to have David Arquette's name attached to anything on their site, it's just crazy.

 

The title history paragraph should've read something like "Feeling that RAW fans deserve their own World title, Bischoff decided to reinstate the World Heavyweight Title, using the WCW belt, and proclaimed Triple H the new champion. This title dates back to 1991, with such stars as Flair, Sting, Goldberg, and Booker T laying claim to a title reign." That would've given the belt at least some semblance of importance.

 

But they couldn't be that classy, could they . . . had to just make it sound like a junk title, even though it's main eventing PPV's ahead of the actual WWE title on most dual-brand PPV's.

 

And, going back to the Fabulous Moolah thing, she was recognized in America as the World Women's Champion since 1956 when she entered WW(W)F, and the title just sort of became a WW(W)F title. I don't think it belonged to any specific territory or promotion pre-WW(W)F.

[res37618 0]

OK, new quandry here . . .

 

Should the Cruiserweight title history acknowledge the few WWF Light-Heavyweight champs there were from '97 to '01, or should it just be ignored and strictly follow the WCW Cruiserweight title history?

 

Methinks it should follow the WCW version of the title, with a "mini-history" at the bottom of the page explaining the absolvement of the WWF Light-heavy title into the current CW title.

 

But they're not that ambitious . . here's thinking all previous WWF LHW champs get ignored completely.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

Two more notes:

 

- How the fuck is Moolah a champion of a company with a title that is OLDER than the company? The World Wide Wrestling Federation started in 1963, how is she champ in 1956?

They recognize Moolah winning the title that was the NWA Women's Title...or at the very least the Capitol Wrestling (Vince Sr.'s company pre WWWF) Women's Champion, and carrying it all those years.

 

They don't, however, recognize the title changes that did happen during that time period. And there were a couple.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

And I have a good feeling that the World Tag Team Title history will be the LAST title history that is put online, as it does have the longest amount of title changes.

 

Not counting the times it was the US Tag Team Titles in WWWF and just going by the first reign as WWWF Tag Team Champions by Luke Graham and Tarzan Tyler, there's over 100 title changes. Most, of course, during the 90s.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

CW title history is up does indeed date back to 1991.

 

I don't think they are finished as it does not have a link on the main Title Histories page hub, only a link on "Inside WWE" with the headline "Did you know that Madusa once held the Cruiserweight Championship while in WCW?".

 

In regards to the "unifcation" of the CW/LHW titles:

 

"Billy Kidman came into the July 30 edition of RAW as the WCW Cruiserweight Champion and X-Pac came in as the WWE Light Heavyweight Champion. The two met in a unification match. The action was fast and furious as one would expect from these two Superstars, but in the end, X-Pac was able to pick up the pin and unify the belts to become the Cruiserweight Champion. The rivalry between the two Superstars would not end here, though, as they would continue to fight each other over the next couple of months."

 

Then it just has Billy Kidman winning it back in October and continues the lineage from there.

[cbacon 0]

That is one ugly title lineage.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

I like the totally needless knock on WCW, too. Well, maybe it was needed, but still, it seems like just another case of shooting the corpse.

 

"The flamboyant Lenny Lane defeated Rey Mysterio for the Cruiserweight Championship in Lubbock, TX, in August 1999. The victory appeared to be just what Lane needed to boost his career into overdrive. But then out of nowhere, WCW stripped Lane of the Cruiserweight Championship without ever giving an explanation. In an equally baffling move, WCW then gave the title to Psicosis - again, without offering explanation"

[cbacon 0]

How did that scenario really go down?

[SuperJerk 0]

The last couple pages of posts illustrate exactly why they used the WCW belt for the RAW World Championship: use a familiar belt to subconciously create a link between the RAW title and the NWA/WCW legacy.

 

Its like if Stan Hansen started a new fed and used the old AWA belt as his fed's championship, that doesn't mean that fed's champ had any connection to the AWA.

 

Even the way they worded the promo when HHH was awared the belt give it away. Eric said how great champions of the past have worn the belt but they never really said that the RAW champ had any connection to the WCW championship.

 

The belt with the real history is the WWE championship, its the one with the full WWWF/WWF/WCW line.

Hmmm...you put it that way and it makes sense.

 

They were so ambiguous the month they gave it to HHH, confusion was almost guarenteed.

[reign 0]

I though that Kidman only won the CW title from X-Pac and that he was still technically the LHC or something like that...I know i must've read that somewhere...anyone care to back me up on this and elaborate...I always thought that there was a title change with the CW title and that the Light Heavyweight title was sorta lost in the mix for a while...

[Guest Evolution]

How did that scenario really go down?

Lenny Lane beats Rey Mysterio at Thunder in Lubbock, Texas, on the 19th, and then suddenly, the announcers explain that before the October 4th Nitro, Psychosis won the title from Lenny Lane. But that match never happened. The story is that Lane's gay gimmick with Lodi was catching WCW some heat, so they stripped him of the title, buried Lane and said that Psychosis beat him.

 

Of course, the same booking team that came up with the gay gimmick for Lane and Lodi stripped Lenny of his title.

[JHawk 0]

How did that scenario really go down?

Lenny Lane beats Rey Mysterio at Thunder in Lubbock, Texas, on the 19th, and then suddenly, the announcers explain that before the October 4th Nitro, Psychosis won the title from Lenny Lane. But that match never happened. The story is that Lane's gay gimmick with Lodi was catching WCW some heat, so they stripped him of the title, buried Lane and said that Psychosis beat him.

 

Of course, the same booking team that came up with the gay gimmick for Lane and Lodi stripped Lenny of his title.

I remember listening to WCW Live on wcw.com that night, and Mark Madden and Bob Ryder kayfabed it by saying "Two days ago in Rio de Janiero, Psicosis defeated Lenny Lane to win the WCW Cruiserweight Title." If only they'd done something similar on Nitro, if only to see how many people would have gotten the joke.

[Guest Evolution]

I remember listening to WCW Live on wcw.com that night, and Mark Madden and Bob Ryder kayfabed it by saying "Two days ago in Rio de Janiero, Psicosis defeated Lenny Lane to win the WCW Cruiserweight Title."  If only they'd done something similar on Nitro, if only to see how many people would have gotten the joke.

They probably were too busy shilling Flair/Hogan vs. Sting/Luger for later in the night to care about some puny cruiserweights.

 

Even if it would've been a good jab at the WWF, it's not like a ton of people were watching anyway.