Dose the WWE world titles have any meaning anymore?

[thewrestlinghero]

The qustion is dose the wwe world titles have meaning anymore from now since unforgiven of 2008 the wwe and world heavy weight title have been switching hands like toys there has been at least more then 6 transition champions and they are chris jericho batistia edge jeff hardy triple h and cm punk i maybe wrong about triple h but i no cm punk has held the belt for about 2 months or so anyway also since survior series to no way out both titles have been switch twice what ever happen to long term champions then had at least a 4 or month title regin i remeber when wrestlers like stone cold rock shawn micheals bret hart hogan benoit guerrero angle lesner taker all held the titles for decent period of time and now you will be lucky to even have 6 month title regin anyway do you think the wwe's world titles well ever have some sort of meaning again cause at this point the wwe title has lost alot of its meaning in the last four months

 

[randy ortons #1 fan]

the wwe didnt know what they wanted to do for wm 25. the only reason hardy got it was cause to start the hardy vs hardy fued. the reason triple h lost the first time was cause they had to make edge look like the guy who hurt hardy at survivor series. the reason batista lost was cause he failed a urinary check or something like that.

 

[JJYanks121]

I have never agreed with those who say frequent title changes cheapen the belt. If anything, it keeps the produt fresh. I can't imagine watching wrestlng in a time where belts were held for multiple years at a time. I would think it would get boring, especially now. Hell, the only guy to hold it a long time was Cena and because of that reign, he gets mixed reactions despite trying to be the Hogan of our generation.

We all basically agree that the Attitude Era is the most popular of all time. What made that era go was the constant title changes and intense storylines with the top names. The Rock was a 7 time champion, but never more than 4 months I believe. Even good old Stone Cold never held the belt for more than a few months at a time. That is waht the era was about, UNPREDICTABILITY!! Its' what got me back into wrestling as a teen, I was drawn to the idea of "omg, what is going to happen next week?" For a while, I believe the WWE got away from that, almost had a bout of nostalgia giving long reigns to Cena and Orton. However, fans these days have short memories and attention spans, you have to always keep them guessing.

Back to the worth of titles, the title means something when those carrying it are the best performers (face or heel) and carry it as such. If you as a fan can believe the champion as being the best, then it is being used well. That is why when Rey Mysterio was champion, I think it was devalued as it was kind of a huge suspension of disbelief for him to constantly beat guys a lot bigger than him and a lot more entertaining overall. Bottom line, keep the best performers near the belt and have up and comers realy earn that spot by working hard to become great performers in teh ring and out and it will mean something.

Length of title reigns has NO affect on the meaning of the belt. If anything, a long reign means that no one else is capable of carrying it at the time and thus, devalues the belt as something no one can attain.

 

[eman11]

Edge beat Triple H for the WWE title at Survivor Series because Edge needed to come back with a bang. Then they gave Jeff the title so that they can set up a Jeff vs Matt feud. Edge lost the belt to Triple H at No Way Out because they needed Triple H to be champion for his feud with Orton. On Raw Punk lost to Jericho to get Jericho more heat. Jericho lost to Batista because of the Special Guest Stip at Cyber Sunday. Batista lost the belt back to Jericho because WWE did not want Batista to face John Cena when he came back at Survivor Series. They wanted Batista to face Cena at WrestleMania 25 which didn't happen anyway because of Batista's injury. Jericho lost to Cena because Cena came back from injury and how could he not win the belt on his return. Cena lost to Edge because Edge could bring his Ultimate Oppurtunist gimmick even further.

 

[drondog]

Yes the belts are nothing more than a prop anymore. Flair worked his ass off for his 16 titles and now Edge is a 7 time champ? He has never won a belt on his own. That is why the belts are a joke. Changing champs every week makes the belt look like a bunch of paper champs. What is the point in giving a guy a belt only to take it a week later? Oh yea it's cuz they promise them a title run to resign there contracts. It's like here Jeff were gonna give you a title run if you don't leave WWE for TNA. or TNA going hey Kurt come over here to TNA we'll make you the centerpiece of this company give you whatever you want, but in the process were gonna start an affair with your wife, make you talk shit about the company cuz were lame with our gimmick matches and were basically gonna turn you into a psycho! But don't worry your gonna win the belt a dozen times!

 

[FromTheSouth]

I think the belts mean everything. Ask Jeff Hardy is they mean anything. Ask a Jeff Hardy fan is they mean anything, and the answer to both questions is yes. As far as story lines go, I think the titles mean more now. The title puts you in the top story. Wearing the belt means you will be elevating someone by your mere presence.

The belts just mean something different these days then they used to. When Hulk Hogan would hold the belt for a year or two, a superstar didn't need to have it to get over. Now, having the belt is a sign to the fans that you are in. The belts may change hands, but not to new people very often. The only brand new World Champions in the last two years are Jeff Hardy, who has been super over for ten years, and CM Punk, because of a mistake by Hardy. The same guys are the champions, they just change them more to add some excitement for the fans.

 

[GameOver]

The world titles don't mean what they use to, but atleast they get exposure still.

what about the US/IC Titles that rarely get a mention let aknown a defence.

Yes the belts are nothing more than a prop anymore. Flair worked his ass off for his 16 titles and now Edge is a 7 time champ? He has never won a belt on his own. That is why the belts are a joke. Changing champs every week makes the belt look like a bunch of paper champs. What is the point in giving a guy a belt only to take it a week later? Oh yea it's cuz they promise them a title run to resign there contracts. It's like here Jeff were gonna give you a title run if you don't leave WWE for TNA. or TNA going hey Kurt come over here to TNA we'll make you the centerpiece of this company give you whatever you want, but in the process were gonna start an affair with your wife, make you talk shit about the company cuz were lame with our gimmick matches and were basically gonna turn you into a psycho! But don't worry your gonna win the belt a dozen times!

Um if Kurt was dumb enough to believe TNA was gonna give him everything WWE could and did he deserves to suffer there, and as for the storyline. Those affair storylines are old, they are acting out there real feelings, everyone does that, It's called Sports "Entertainment" Kurt is a cockhead and a psycho that's his own doing. He bitched that WWE wouldn't let him be top dog forever and subsequently they fired him cause he refused to take time to heal his ongoing wounds and help the new up and comers in the meantime and whats happening in TNA, he consistantly getting injured and ignoring it. Thats his fault noone else's

Jeff already went to TNA then came back cause, in his own words "TNA SUCKS!" Vince didn't have to let him come back let aknown put him immediately in the main event and give him a world title within a yr. No way in hell he woulda got it purely on his overall package.

Same with Christian, ok he was underutilised then went TNA only to find out he still had it better in WWE so he's back.

Now if ya want to talk about titles that really don't mean anything, just watch TNA.

I do agree though that belts changing hands every few weeks is just stupid. Same with storylines only going 1 month.

But saying that there's also no need to have someone as the champ for yrs or even most of a yr.

 

[AgeOfOrton]

recently i dont think the world titles have had much meaning since the whole Jeff Hardy reign as the reign wasnt exactly about the title it was more focused on Jeffs journey and that really didnt mean anything after the whole Matt swerve at the Royal Rumble

 

[cenasucks52]

Really there is no way the world titles mean anything anymore...World, WWE, ECW...3 world titles? That's 2 to many...though I will say if there wasn't 3 titles I don't think CM Punk or Jericho wouldve been champion...but I say unify them and start new rivalries over one very important title...you can only see HHH-Orton or Edge-Cena so much and Jack Swagger is no world champ. Until then they will be lessened in value

 

[supergav67]

After No Way Out Im sorely tempted to agree but its the OnlY titles really getting a look in on PPVs & on TV.Im sure after WM & the draft all wil become clear which titles going where & normal service will resume.
As for the short title reigns,its just the modern nature of the TV beast.Three shows a week & a PPV nearly every month,would Hogan hold it for SO long in that enviroment (sorry,thats another thread for another day),
But I understand what you mean,on a lesser note it seams like The Dirt Sheet have been together for yonks in TV terms.

 

[dadadavie]

it has no meaning and as long as its a spinner belt it will never have any meaning again

 

[Chill]

Nowadays it seems the belts which don't change so frequently are the IC, Tag and US titles. Personally I don't mind seeing the major belts change so often because it keeps things fresh and unpredictable..however what I don't like is Edge just losing one major title then picking up another on the same night...nobody..not just edge deserves to chop and change titles like that...he seems to win one every other month...that is overkill. Why not put the belts on people like Kane or HBK, something we don't see or haven't seen in a long time? But back to the main point, i think rotating the titles is a good thing but its just WWE's chocie of champion is questionable imo sometimes. Putting the belf on different people will keep things fresh not just the usual suspects.