Are Titles Important? And If So,...

[midgensa]

Of course the IWC is going to come out and claim that titles are not important ... but this is one of many cases where the IWC is flat out wrong.

Titles are just as important now as they ever were. Sure, Hogan had a four-year run and whatever, but back then they were only doing a few times a year and a handful of PPVs here and there.

The question of whether the title is a prop ... uh ... the title has ALWAYS been a prop. This is scripted entertainment folks. A SCRIPTED Championship title is simply a prop. That does not mean that it is not important, but it is definitely a prop.

As people get older they want to think things are getting screwed up and were better in the past, so people complain nonstop about title-reign lengths (which are not significantly less now than they were say 15 years ago). They want to complain about two World titles in the WWE (but just 15 years ago we had just as many highly coveted world titles in the wrestling landscape). And everyone wants to complain about who is the champion ... blah blah blah.

But EVERY single championship from the Divas Championship to the TNA Television Championship to the WWE Championship are props used for one thing and one thing only ... MAKING MONEY.

To put it in perspective. Devon wins a TV Title the other night and there is a thread about it and there are people whining about it. People are discussing fucking Devon. Would he be discussed if he had beaten Robbie (that is who he beat right) in a grudge match? Hells to the no.

This does not mean there are not mistakes made (Swagger should not have had a WHC run obviously, somehow giving Samoa Joe a world title just made him look fatter, etc.) but they are still VERY important.

It gives the viewers a general focus point. It always has and always will. Without them ... NOBODY would be paying attention.

[flair4ever]

Titles are not important now days, Back in the territory days titles were important because they signaled who was the top guys to the fans and to the new wrestlers. Jerry Lawler wasnt a house hold name outside of Tennessee but when he went to cali or new york people knew he had some skill cause he was the mid south champ. The NWA put a title on a guy and sent him all over be it the us title or world heavyweight championship, I mean who would go see Mr. wrestling vs Ricky Morton as the main event but seeing Worlds Heavyweight Champoin Mr. Wrestling vs Ricky Morton would get people to come to see the champ. But now days with tv and internet we know who can perform and who cant, so we dont need to see a belt to make us want to watch a match

[Rainbow Yaz]

They are still important but not as much as they used to be.

As it was said above me, in the territory days it was pretty important for various reasons.

Even after the territory days they were still more important than now. It used to be that the mid level titles like the IC and US title were either held by upper midcard guys who have had a long push or main event guys who were going to help put those guys over. The tag titles were used for up and comers as well. You used to get the push then the title. Now you usually get the title to get a push and it has devalued the lesser titles but I think the main event titles are still fairly strong

[Jenna.]

I honestly believe they should scrap the two title thing for each show. I think that contributes a lot to why titles aren't important nowadays. There was a time where the WWE championship was the holy grail. It was the number #1 prize to have. Then they bring the WCW heavyweight title over or world heavyweight title whatever you want to call it, and it just cheapened the WWE title. Now guys aren't chasing after one title. It's either or. You don't see that in other sports. I mean yeah there might be division titles, and conference/league titles, but there's ONE world title players want.

How much more epic would it be if you had the WWE title and you had Punk, Cena, Jericho, Orton, Bryan, Sheamus, etc chasing after it? The numerous of matches and story lines that could be tied to it if there was a chase for one title. You had a wider variety of heels and faces and I think you wouldn't see guys like Cena and Orton win the title often in such short spans.

Also the design of the WWE title needs to be changed already. I know it's been said, but enough is enough. Even Cena who designed the current look wants a change. It just doesn't look prestigious. At least the Heavyweight title looks like an actual championship belt worth chasing after. Unfortunately it's viewed as "the second best belt."

[pumpkinking8987]

I completely agree. Since smackdown and raw superstars are on both shows now i think it should go back to having the 1 real champion. If you are the champion you would have to be at both shows. You would lose a title match at each PPV but you could easily fill that spot with a contender match. That would also create more time for the lesser titles.

I am sick as hell of having so many multiple time champions as well.... how many time is orton gonna be the champ before he retires, i will set the over/under at 30.

[Mark Gallows]

Of course Titles should be important, they should be the main focus of any wrestling programme. I'll steal a line from Kevin Sullivan here, "the whole point of the show is we slay dragons to get the golden chalice, if the chalice means nothing, why are we slaying dragons?" If the guys aren't going after the belt, if their main goal is not to "be the man" then the whole show is stupid, then you've just got a bunch of meatheads beating each other for no reason.
Of course it's "fake entertainment" but so is The Soprano's, so is Sons of Anarchy, but do those shows act like it's fake, or do they maintain their own contextual reality so the audience can suspend their disbelife and enjoy the show? When Chris and Paulie are stuck in the woods in Pine Barrens, did Chris ever smile to the camera? What if Paulie started cutting a promo on David Chase? It would be stupid as shit, so why does WWE do it most weeks?

One little case 'n' point for y'all then I'm done, Daniel Bryan is a wrestler, he's employed by the WWE, the biggest "sports entertainment" company in the world. To be a wrestler it's implied he can physically handle himself, even when babyface he's still a submission expert and professional fighter. Imagine this was UFC and Joe Rogan started burying Nick Diaz like Cole buried Bryan, would Diaz let it slide, or would he beat the shit out of Rogan? Or atleast challenge him? Exactly.

[iwinulose]

The titles aren't overly relevant which is hurting the company to some extent, I mean at one time to hold the title meant to be the top dog you would see the title change hands (don't quote me on this) but roughly 2-4 times a year (sometimes a guy would hold it for a year or more), but they would defend the title on a regular basis, it wouldn't just be at a PPV they would defend it on live shows, taped shows, and PPV's. The fans would be more interested because of the quality of the feuds (and because of the guy's feuding), and the fact that they are wondering *is this the night he loses the title!?* The titles had the WOW factor. Now aday's that isn't the case, it's unfortunate because they have lost a lot of steam.

[Dagger Dias]

I detest the mindset of the titles just being props. They are championships that reflect who the best in the federation (or the best in a division) is at that moment. Sure kayfabe comes into play, but if the titles were truly just props then anybody and I mean ANYBODY could win them. David Arquette and Vince Russo would win them again (luckily this is not WCW) or some random production guy no fan has ever heard of could win them. No, that is not how it works. Instead we see the very best emerge with the titles, kayfabe or not. The titles are crucial to the product and incredibly important. They give the wrestlers a reason to be out there in the first place.

Now as for the quality VS quantity issue.... Both of them are important. Guys like Cena, Orton, and Trips have held numerous world titles and many of those reigns were lengthy. It's important to have longer reigns, but I personally think having multiple reins is more impressive than only having one, no matter how long it lasted. Look at Edge. Most of his reigns were short, but he still went down in history as an 11 time World Champion. It's important to have lengthy AND numerous title reigns due to it being more impressive in the long run.

[SDS1582]

The real problem that I see with the two "main" titles (WWE title and World title) is that several characters have become "bigger" or "more important" than the championships themselves. Look, we all know that wrestling is scripted BUT the top championship should mean something. It should mean that you are the best or the top guy in the company or you just beat the best to win the title. Nowadays, Cena is bigger than the title. He main events PPVs WITHOUT THE BELT. Same goes for guys not on the regular roster: Rock, Undertaker, Triple H, etc. I'd even argue to some extent, Orton is almost bigger than the belts. This is what has made the championship belts into props. When you have multiple PPVs in a row where your championship matches aren't the main event. I'm not faulting any of the aforementioned guys. It's more so on creative for letting things get out of control and there's also a level of inevitability. Since Cena is the top draw in the company, you don't need to keep the belt on him. Same goes for the others.

As for the midcard belts, the issue is really just the storylines. The belts would be more relevant and important if they were defended regularly and the guys showed they cared about the belt as part of the feud, not just feuding with the other guy. With the IC belt, I think they're starting to get it back to where it's important and relevant but the U.S. title is well... a joke.

[Smark Madden]

Yes, titles are important. In every sport, there is a prize, to get which, the game is played. In pro-wrestling, championship titles are the prize. If they are removed, there will be nothing to fight for.