Does The Title Make The Wrestler Or Does The Wrestler Make The Title?

[Agrex]

Like the title says, Does the title make the wrestler or does the wrestler make the title? Does a title launch the career of a wrestler, or does a wrestler give the title credibility?

In my opinion, it's both. At first we needed a wrestler to give the title credibility. But then later on, the title makes other wrestlers huge. Sometimes a wrestler doesn't need the title to be huge. Sometimes the wrestler made himself big. For example, The Undertaker. 'Taker has barely had any world titles, but he still is huge.

 

[Joker ' Ferreira]

John Morrison per example, he needed a little push, they gave him the ECW World Championship, he was a great champion, unfortunatelly he lost his title due to steroids...

But the ECW Championship gained a lot of credibility, because of Morrison and because his credencials as an amazing athlete.

I would say that a wrestler makes a title, John Cena made the WWE Championship more credible than the World HeavyWeight Championship, and the WWE had to trade the champions on the Draft, so sometimes titles need a good wrestler to get a great hype around them.

 

[miamicanes460]

The title makes the wrestler, IMO.

Also, I feel that the Raw title belt is the most prestigeous, because it is on the more credible brand. There are 10 guys at least who could easily hold the title on Raw, and about 3, maybe 4 on Smackdown.

For example, if Rory of the Highlanders won the title belt, he'd become a huge superstar, regardless of his ring abilities. He'd main event everything, he'd have merchandise sales, and the brand would be shaped towards him.

If John Cena never won the title, but did everything the same as he does now, he wouldn't ever be the megastar he is today.

The title makes the superstar 100%, IMO.

However, I feel that the management isn't dumb enough to put the title on somebody who doesn't deserve the title. There has never been an instance like this that I can recall...other than maybe Mysterio, but that was understandable, given the circumstances.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

The title makes the wrestler, IMO.

Also, I feel that the Raw title belt is the most prestigeous, because it is on the more credible brand. There are 10 guys at least who could easily hold the title on Raw, and about 3, maybe 4 on Smackdown.

For example, if Rory of the Highlanders won the title belt, he'd become a huge superstar, regardless of his ring abilities. He'd main event everything, he'd have merchandise sales, and the brand would be shaped towards him.

If John Cena never won the title, but did everything the same as he does now, he wouldn't ever be the megastar he is today.

The title makes the superstar 100%, IMO.

However, I feel that the management isn't dumb enough to put the title on somebody who doesn't deserve the title. There has never been an instance like this that I can recall...other than maybe Mysterio, but that was understandable, given the circumstances.

no no no no and i mean no!!!

seriously Rawry from the highlanders, you dont put a world title on someone with no credibility, the wrestler makjes the title and your comment shows this

Batista got the main event push and got put over by triple h thus getting him the world title, now if batista was a jobber then people wouldnt want him to take the belt they would boo the decision and not watch a batista match, the reason he is in the main event is because of a steady build by the wwe, he also proved this by strong title defenses against trips.

take John Cena, he had a long us title run before getting the world title strap, he built his character from the ground up before he got the strap he is a credbile champion no matter what people say

you dont just give someone a belt to make them credible its all about the build and the wrestler being placed in main event if he shows that hes credible they put the strap on him and see how he carries the company if hes crap then the title reign wont last, if he sells merchandise and tickets then he gets the push and keeps going simple as

and again rawry with the world title a no no

 

[mandie914]

I think the Wrestler Make The Title because if a bunch of bums won the world title it wouldn't mean anything. Its like The NWA title, if Ric Flair would have never won the world title it wouldn't be known the way it is today, even though the current champion is a bum.

 

[rookie]

i also think it's both for example. the wwf title made triple h at 2000, well didn't make him but it made him stick in the main event how ever i think the rock and stone cold sort of made the wwf title or for a better example edge and christian, teh hardyz and teh dudleys made teh wwe tag team titles didn't they

 

[L4L]

The wrestler certainlyly makes the title thats why the NWA world title is regarded as such a prestigious title, because of its history one and the many great wrestlers who held it. Its why the triple crown championship in All Japan or IWGP title are regarded he way they are only the best workers in the companies get to hold those titles same with every promotion in Japan. In my opinion the best pro wrestlers in the world are in Japan without a doubt cause over there its all about workrate and physicology not your look and corny gimmick like it is here or how you cut a promo.

This is the same reason a promotions like ROH and TNA are growing here in the US because people are sick of the WWE's watered down version of Pro Wrestling. Who cares how batista looks when he cant carry a match to save his life and has to be put in matches with guys like the undertaker just so he looks good. Cena is the same case the WWE's best worker right now is CM punk and they watered down his style as well. Its all about the wrestler a title doesn't mean a thing unless a champion makes the best in the world want a crack at it then a title gets prestige and recognition.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I'm gonna go with the Wrestler makes the Title, however in all complete honesty.. its both.

Without the wrestler, it'd be nothing but a belt. Meaningless, useless. However, without the Championship, the wrestler couldn't be seen as someone slightly better than the rest.

All in all.. look back in history. Hulk Hogan, for example, made the World Heavyweight Champion mainstream. He was the top guy in the business, for practically 9 straight years. (give or take Randy Savage and Ultimate Warrior's minor success, whilst Hogan still stayed at the top, even without the strap) On this note, you'd almost have to say the Wrestler made the Championship.. because Hulk Hogan made the title mean something. Worth something.

But on the flip side.. look at it this way.

Kevin Nash was nothing more than a bodyguard and muscle, when he left Shawn Michaels. Only to turn around, in 8 seconds, to defeat Bob Backlund and become the W.W.F. Champion. At that point, because of the World Heavyweight Championship's legacy.. Diesel, Kevin Nash, whatever you'd like to call him.. was placed into history as someone, instantly.

He continued to reign as Champion, for 7 days short of a year. 11-26-94, to 11-19-95. The Championship made him known as more than a mere bodyguard, or Tag Team partner. It created a career for him.

 

[L4L]

That is true but that has been true for many WWE superstars. In the WWE these guys need to be given a title or no one would notice them because there in ring work is nothing special acutally very bad. Batista he looks great his in ring work is pretty bad you think he would be popular if not for the championship? He wouldn't but in WWE the question at hand seems to be that the title makes the wrestler cause you certainly can't have a WWE wrestler bring credibilty to a title none of them are good enough from a workrate standpoint. Then again many of these guys may be better than they are allowed to show due to WWE's watered down crappy style.

 

[PeteyEks]

Here's my personal opinion about the situation... it's really both, to be honest. In cases where you had Euro-continental Champion Kurt Angle, the belts made the champion. Indeed, Jerico/Angle/Benoit were great wrestlers at the time and had a great storyline going on... and you just couldn't wait to see who would walk away the champions. Yes, they are all awesome in our eyes but we waited to see who would get the belt to give them their proper credibility.

But then there are also times where the wrestler made the title... We can go back to The Rock and Stone Cold, hands down. Attitude era was about being the best and sometimes dirtiest you had to be to get on top. These guys had feuds with nearly everyone and did what was needed to gain the belt. The belt at this time was treated more like an item, but when either of these wrestlers nabbed it, they set something GREAT up for the future.

With such desire and work that went into gaining the belt, they unknowingly MADE the belt. They gave definition to what a belt holder is during this era, which we still carry with us today. Further examples would be people like Brock Lesnar and the Undisputed title... He made the belt.

An example of the belt making a wrestler would be Benoit winning the World Title. Benoit had to be one of the greatest wrestles of our time, but never had the gold. The World Title gave him the credibility of being the best, the title MADE him legit.

Please understand that this is how a mark would see it, of course we're better than that.... but still, we've all been caught in the emotion before... or else we wouldn't even be here!

 

[edgehead80]

the wrestle makes the title because the wwe title would be nothing if all the great names havent won it it depends on who has owned it and its history i belive wrestler makes the title

 

[JBK2008]

The title makes the wrestler. The WWE, World, and ECW titles have so much history, and is the ultimate prize for someone that has put their bodies on the line, made the sacrifices to become more commited to the company, and the pure will to keep going. Great Khali's reign may be an exception, however you want to take on that, but only the best and most deserving have held the titles.

They're so prestigous. From Buddy Rogers to Bob Backlund, to Ric Flair to Randy Orton. Hulk Hogan to Cena, even ECW's Taz to CM Punk. All great athletes and they all have shown they earned their respective reigns. Some had to wrestle for YEARS until they EARNED the championship. Some have indeed been handed to them, but in most cases, it was out of the companies hands.

Alot of younger superstars wait years ( alot because of Triple H and Vince), but alot of it comes with maturaty and earning the respect of their peers, and showing just how well of a wrestler they are before they can be crowned "Champion".

 

[klunderbunker]

I think it's a good amount of both. It really depends on the career the person has had beforehand. Take the undertaker and hogan for example. Earlier in the year, Sgt slaughter had been the world champion, but it seemed like a matter of time before hogan won the title back. When hogan won it at wrestlemania, it only confirmed what was already known, that hogan was the top dog in the company and had been all along. Him being the wwf champion made that belt the biggest title in america. At that point he had been the champion for about 5 out of the 7 and a half since he'd first won the belt. Then the undertaker wins it at survivor series, only to lose it less than a month later. For those few days, while he was supposed to be the figurehead of the company, it was still hogan. Hogan was still the champion because it was so common to seem him with the belt. The same thing happened with austin and flair at various times in their careers. They eventually became icons, based on the fact that they were champion so often that it seemed like it was their right to be so. In that case they made the title, but only after the title had made them.

 

[SCSA31693]

I'm gonna say the wrestler makes the title, but it is a little bit of both.

Late '97 early '98 the strap was carried in the WWF by guys like HBK and Bret Hart, and The Undertaker, who were big guys in the buisness, however even without the championship Stone Cold was the guy everyone wanted to see. He was competing back and forth with The Rock for the IC title and even when he wasnt he was the most popular guy on the roster.

In the 80's when the title was mainly strapped on Hogan, at the times when it wasnt he was still the big money drawer in the buisness, The guy really couldnt wrestle a damn, he cut decent promos, but he had huge star power and that put the WWF on the map, giving him the belt was just an addition.

I believe you get the title by having the star power to be able to carry it, in the WWE today this is why they arent handing the belt down to guys like Charlie Haas because even though he can work well in the ring, he doesnt get over with the crowd, and thats really what its all about, its who is most popular, and who will draw the most money, not whos the best wrestler.

Wrestler Makes the Championship without a doubt.

 

[TripleH]

I have read each and everyone of the points being made here, and everyone of you are right. The wrestler makes the Championship and the Championship at times makes the wrestler. For instance, take Chris Jericho's Undisputed title reign, he was just god awful yet a good worker in the ring but I feel he needed that belt to be made, no pun intended. However guys like Bret Hart, and HBK to some degree made the championship in the 90's great. Same with Stone Cold and Rock. So this question can be taken either way IMO. History has shown in pro wrestling that championships make a guy and sometimes the guy makes the title. Ric Flair in the 80's made the NWA because at the time there was no one in that organization at that time who could carry the belt and give it back the prestige that it was known for. Same to a degree back in the 80's with the WWF, Hogan was the man. Savage came close and the Ultimate Warrior too but both failed. So that's my opinion on this subject. And if you don't like it I got two words for ya................SSSSSSSSSSUUUUCKKKK IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FlairFan2003]

It's not just the championship, it's the titel reign. Now, there is no doubt that winning a title, especially off of an established star (especially one in the midst of a good title run) elevates a wrestler. However, the title REIGN said wrestler has means more than just winning the title.

Kevin Nash was mentioned - just winning the WWE title did not make him a superstar, the fact he successfully defended the title against a wide array of opponents for nearly a year without a loss DID make him a superstar. Winning the title certainly elevated him somewhat but the effects would have been much less had he lost in three weeks to Brett Hart for instance and never won the championship again.

In Feb 2006, Shelton Benjamin, complete with a new (somewhat humorous) gimmick defeated Ric Flair on RAW to win the IC Title. Flair is just about the most established guy on the planet and his reign as IC champ (roughly 5 mths long) was pretty good as he defeated HHH and Edge as well as former champ Carlito in high profile matches, plus he nearly won the World Title in a TLC match during this run. Benjamin was poised for a huge career boost, instead he peaked early, held the title for only a short time, and quickly descended into the mid card. By the time SummerSlam roled around Benjamin was an after thought while Flair was near main eventing against Mick Foley in a high profile "I Quit" Match.

Being US Champion was a huge boost to Lex Luger's early career and in fact he dominated that title from 1987-1990, consistently remaining near the top of the NWA/WCW. His title reigns usually had high profile feuds though (Dusty Rhodes, Stan Hansen, Ricky Steamboat, Sting, Nikita Kolloff). If Luger had been matched up against second tier guys exclusively or not held the title as long as he did he never would gotten the same boost. Luger actually made a really good, near 15 yr career out of this three yr period in which he dominated the US Title and lost some PPV matches to Ric Flair.

Sometimes you don't even need a title to elevate a star, you can move up the radar screen LOSING. Sting became a superstar in large part because of how well did NOT beating Flair in 1988. Just the fact he could hold his own against him elevated him in the minds of fans and made a significant push for him a believable reality for fans. Likewise, winning the IC Title from British Bulldog helped establish Shawn Michaels as a singles star after 10 yrs of almost exclusive tag team wrestling. Bulldog however was a career mid carder as a singles star and his reign as IC Champ was short and unremarkable (although his initial victory over Brett Hart was very impressive). When HBK co-main evented Survivor Series that year (1992) against Hart he gained significant credibility with the audience even though he lost cleanly (he taps out to the sharpshooter after about 35 minutes).
Fans believed he was a serious high level star because he went the distance so to speak with Hart, already an established singles star with an impressive near two yr dominance of the IC Title and high profile wins over Curt Henning and Roddy Piper to his credit, plus his world title win over Flair.

Certainly winning the IC Title did not make The Mountie a legitimate main event level superstar, even though he beat Brett Hart to do it. Likewise, winning the NWA World Title did not elevate Tommy Rich to legendary status in the 1980's, even though Harley Race, Dusty Rhodes, & Flair (all champions during that decade) ARE considered legends. In the end, while a good wrestler can add credility and restore luster to a championship, and winning a title does help raise the credibility of a wrestler, the level to which these things occur relates to the title reign more than just winning the belt.

 

[L4L]

I personally don't care if a wrestler has a title. I can't stand the WWE its all a popularity contest there it doesn't matter who is actually the best in ring wrestler it about look personality marketability. That is how the WWE places belts on there wrestlers. When it comes down to actually knowing how to put on a good match and have it make sense like Flair used to do that is how a wrestler makes the title. Not guys like Cena Orton Batista they are garbage. I am a japanese pro wrestling fan not an expert in it but i love watching it everything is done for a reason and everything is very physical. Its just a great style and there are so many different styles in Japan they differ from promotion to promotion.

 

[I_Like_All_Wrestling]

It's a bit of both. A true contender legitimizes a title and a true title legitimizes the contender. If the Brooklyn Brawler held the title do you really think that it would have elevated him to main event status? Perhaps in the fact that because he is the champ he'd headline, but he would not be a draw and people would ignore him as champ. Because of just that, if the title stayed on low level wrestlers the overall view of the title would drop. It simply cannot be just one facet.

Plenty of guys get over without a title. And really, does anyone care about the WWE IC title anymore? I often forget that Hardy even has it. I don't think it's lost its luster and go no longer "help" to elevate someone.