Round 8: jmt225 -vs- Mr. Steve

[D-Man]

Are multiple title changes damaging the prestige of a championship??

This is a eighth round match in the Debater's League. jmt225 is the home debater and gets to choose which side of the debate they will be on and who debates first, but they have 24 hours to make their choice.

This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY and will end on Friday at 2pm EST.

Anyone that posts in this thread besides the debaters, league admins, and judges will be infracted!

Good luck.​

 

[jmt225]

I'll argue the side that multiple title changes does indeed damage the prestige of the title, and I will go first.

--------------------------------------------​

Each and every single World Title that was ever been truly relevant to the business was built on long reigns.

The NWA Championship, for example, was built on Lou Thesz's 6 year run with the title. The WWWF Championship (the WWE Championship today) was built on Bruno Sammartino's 8 year run with the title. These reigns by these two wrestlers are what made those championship titles important and prestigious.

Now, I'm not saying that the title has to be held for as long as Sammartino and Thesz held on to them for their prestige to last, but if they're tossed around like a hot potato, then yes... the title's prestige does devalue and people stop caring about the belt.

Let's define the word prestige real quickly. Here's the definition according to Merriam-Webster:

Prestige - standing or estimation in the eyes of people : weight or credit in general opinion

Now, let me ask you... when the World Title is being constantly being won and lossed, why should people hold it in such high regard? They shouldn't, which is why they don't.

The fact of the matter is that today, belts mean nothing, and it's because they've been tossed around like the workplace ****. Seriously, think about this... one random day at work, this absolutely gorgeous, extremely sexy woman walks through the door and you find out that she's now working there right next beside you. However, if a month later you find out she's been fucked by 3 of your co-workers... will you still want anything to do with her? No, which is equivalent to World Titles being won and lossed every couple of months. Why should people care about the championship belt and whoever has it when they know that he will undoubtedly lose it soon, and that it's already been held by a bunch of losers who should have never had it in the first place?

Championship belts today are a prop, nothing more. They are simply used as a way to either make random matches "important," or give a wrestler something to lean himself on. Again, a prop, and it's become a prop because of multiple title changes during short periods of time. What in the World is prestigious about a prop? Nothing, that's what.

 

[Mr. Steve]

Well, no, multiple title changes don't actually hurt the title itself.

The answer to this question lies in what the product is at the time. Nowadays, there's a need for quick title reigns. Yes, there's this whole debate as to whether or not the prestige is lost, but I'd say not. On the whole, the main thing about a title is that it's defended and contested often. If you want an example, look at The Miz. There are plenty of guys that he could have had a run to feud over the title, and now look, after having just, what one match with R-truth, he dropped the title to Bryan, which hopefully can get the title up to its prestige. Which is done by contesting it often.

Granted, to contest and defend it for a long time gives cred to the holder and the title, but how come sudden title changes have to be the opposite?

 

[jmt225]

On the whole, the main thing about a title is that it's defended and contested often.

Yeah, but when it becomes tossed around, the title becomes less meaningful. Back in the day, guys defended the title just as much as guys do today, but the title meant a lot more, because when someone would lose it, it was a HUGE deal since it didn't happen frequently.

When Hulk Hogan had the WWF championship in the eighties, people really looked at him as a champion. However, right now... does anyone really give a damn that Randy Orton is WWE Champion, or that Kane is World Champion? No, not really. BUT if a year from now let's say if either one is still champion, then you're damn right people will care. Each title fight will be looked at with the big question, "Is this finally the time Orton or Kane loses!?"

If you want an example, look at The Miz. There are plenty of guys that he could have had a run to feud over the title, and now look, after having just, what one match with R-truth, he dropped the title to Bryan, which hopefully can get the title up to its prestige. Which is done by contesting it often.

No, if the U.S. Title was so important than it wouldn't play 2nd fiddle to the MITB Contract.

Back in the late eighties and early nineties, the U.S. Title meant a lot; however, after WCW took away all its prestige by constantly tossing it around, it became meaningless. And when WWE brought the championship back in 2002, they haven't done a damn thing to bring the prestige back to it either, since they've basically treated it like WCW did.

Not one fan cares about the U.S. or I.C. Championship these days. Same goes with the Tag Titles. And the main reason why is because the matches over the titles are meaningless, and that all started with constant title changes.

Granted, to contest and defend it for a long time gives cred to the holder and the title, but how come sudden title changes have to be the opposite?

Because people stop caring about championship matches is why. The belt today usually always plays second fiddle to the storyline. It's just a prop, as I mentioned earlier, to give matches a little bit more meaning. But title matches are nowhere near as prestigious as it were in the eighties and before.

 

[Mr. Steve]

Yeah, but when it becomes tossed around, the title becomes less meaningful.

Is it really? Or is it the fact that its the HOLDER that loses the prestige, not the belt? Isn't it a mantra of "its one thing to earn it, than it is to keep it"? It holds true, even in multiple title changes.

Back in the day, guys defended the title just as much as guys do today, but the title meant a lot more, because when someone would lose it, it was a HUGE deal since it didn't happen frequently.

But people nowadays don't really care for titles as much rather than the storylines. This is pretty much dating way back in the AE. This just changed the mentality of the Mainstream Wrestling Audience.

When Hulk Hogan had the WWF championship in the eighties, people really looked at him as a champion. However, right now... does anyone really give a damn that Randy Orton is WWE Champion, or that Kane is World Champion? No, not really. BUT if a year from now let's say if either one is still champion, then you're damn right people will care. Each title fight will be looked at with the big question, "Is this finally the time Orton or Kane loses!?"

Again, it's not the fact that the title is the oft focus on some promotions. This was more of a change in what people wanted to see. The prestige is still there. if you look at it, the WWE title for example is still seen around the top guys. Not the WHC. The latter, I think is more of an experiment for the new champions.

Also, I'd rather think that it's better to focus on the HOLDER of the title rather than the TITLE itself. Look at when Jericho held the WHC for example.

Not one fan cares about the U.S. or I.C. Championship these days. Same goes with the Tag Titles. And the main reason why is because the matches over the titles are meaningless, and that all started with constant title changes.

That one I could chalk up to lack of defending. Again, it's a matter of defending the titles, and giving the exposure that is needed for the champions. Holders, not titles.

 

[jmt225]

Is it really? Or is it the fact that its the HOLDER that loses the prestige, not the belt? Isn't it a mantra of "its one thing to earn it, than it is to keep it"? It holds true, even in multiple title changes.

No, it's not the holder, because there are so many names who hold the belt over let's say a 5 year span that most people forget who held the belt and when they held it, which makes the belt less meaningless.

And as long as the holder can at least claim he was once World Champion of this company, he'll have something to lean on, so I don't see how that's a bad thing necessarily.

But people nowadays don't really care for titles as much rather than the storylines. This is pretty much dating way back in the AE. This just changed the mentality of the Mainstream Wrestling Audience.

That's not true. If it were, then why did so many people tune into Raw once they heard on Nitro that Mick Foley was about to win the WWF Championship back in 1999, which was well pass the Bret Hart incident?

Again, it's not the fact that the title is the oft focus on some promotions. This was more of a change in what people wanted to see.

Do you have any proof to back up this statement? How did you come to this conclusion that "people want to see more title changes"?

The prestige is still there. if you look at it, the WWE title for example is still seen around the top guys. Not the WHC. The latter, I think is more of an experiment for the new champions.

Sheamus and Jack Swagger both had World Titles during the summer, and they only won those championships because WWE wanted to give the fans a reason to buy into these guys. However, both runs failed miserable. How exactly is that prestigious in the least bit?

Also, I'd rather think that it's better to focus on the HOLDER of the title rather than the TITLE itself. Look at when Jericho held the WHC for example.

Well, I completely disagree. People should care more about championship matches than anything else on the show, so it's important for wrestling companies to establish first how much being World Champion means to the wrestlers. However, there's no prestige or excitement seeing a guy win a belt when he's already won the damn thing 9 times over a 5 year span like Edge did.

That one I could chalk up to lack of defending.

But how can someone defend the title often when it changes hands so frequently?

Again, it's a matter of defending the titles, and giving the exposure that is needed for the champions. Holders, not titles.

But see, the thing is, for people to be able to take the HOLDERS seriously, then those holders of the titles should actually hold on to the title for more than a couple of months. How can people ever care about the title holder when they take away the suspense of title matches by having the titles switch so often?

 

[Mr. Steve]

And as long as the holder can at least claim he was once World Champion of this company, he'll have something to lean on, so I don't see how that's a bad thing necessarily.

This just helps my case, man. Nowadays it's the case of the Holder, not the title. I did say this, yes?

That's not true. If it were, then why did so many people tune into Raw once they heard on Nitro that Mick Foley was about to win the WWF Championship back in 1999, which was well pass the Bret Hart incident?

People wanted a sure title-change, in my opinion.

Sheamus and Jack Swagger both had World Titles during the summer, and they only won those championships because WWE wanted to give the fans a reason to buy into these guys. However, both runs failed miserable. How exactly is that prestigious in the least bit?

I'll give you Swagger, but Sheamus? You're really saying that the Sheamus experiment failed?

Well, I completely disagree. People should care more about championship matches than anything else on the show, so it's important for wrestling companies to establish first how much being World Champion means to the wrestlers. However, there's no prestige or excitement seeing a guy win a belt when he's already won the damn thing 9 times over a 5 year span like Edge did.

I mean, isn't Edge's gimmick about the "Ultimate Opportunist"? How he'd be able to capitalize on a match and get the title, or how a couple of those wins were because of MITB?

But how can someone defend the title often when it changes hands so frequently?

It's like you're making me picture that the title changes every month. Which it does, yet doesn't. So in a way, we're both right. It both does and doesn't hurt the prestige, in the same manner that it hurts and doesn't hurt the holder himself. Which is exemplified in Sheamus and Swagger. One is capable of hanging in the Main even scene in a legitimate manner, and the other one didn't.

It's not a matter of the title changing hands; it's the holder that reinforces the credibility of the title.

 

[jmt225]

This just helps my case, man. Nowadays it's the case of the Holder, not the title. I did say this, yes?

But if the title was more prestigious, then it would help the holder much more, yes? Instead, it's just used as a prop to add to matches and make sorry wrestlers look important.

People wanted a sure title-change, in my opinion.

No, people were interested in Foley capturing his dream of becoming World Champion. However, today, fans aren't that interested in seeing someone become World Champion, because they're seen too many people accomplish and re-accomplish that feat over the years.

I'll give you Swagger, but Sheamus? You're really saying that the Sheamus experiment failed?

Yes. What did he do as World Champion, exactly? He played 2nd fiddle to Nexus, and nobody gave a damn about him.

I mean, isn't Edge's gimmick about the "Ultimate Opportunist"? How he'd be able to capitalize on a match and get the title, or how a couple of those wins were because of MITB?

The MITB wins were fine, but overall Edge has been champion way too many times. Don't you think the Ultimate Opportunist gimmick would be more effective if he was able to actually hold on to the title, rather than constantly lose it?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Clarity of debate: jmt225
Both of you guys could have worked on your clarity, but I hard a particularly hard time trying to understand Steve's argument. It came across as if he wanted to argue the side jmt225 chose.

Punctuality: Draw
I want to give the point to Mr. Steve for coming in a minute before the 24 hour deadline, but that would be unfair. So, you guys split the point.

Informative: Draw
This debate was lacking on relevant and good information. There were a few facts presented, but they were used in an extremely awkward fashion, as if they were being recalled from forum conversations rather than actual, credible sources.

Persuasion: Draw
Read what I wrote throughout the rest of this rubric.

Final Score
jmt225: 3
Mr. Steve: 2

 

[Phoenix]

Clarity of debate: jmt225
Better presenting and a good understanding of the subject here.

Punctuality: Draw
Mr. Steve just managed to keep this one within a minute.

Informative: jmt225
Despite the information being more spoken resource as Tdigs said, jmt provided information to back his reasons where I didn't see Steve use any here except as responses to what jmt has already said.

Persuasion: Draw
That being said, I didn't find myself swaying to jmt's dominating performance, it lacked the killer point and I think it's because the debate didn't last out as long, which is a shame as it was a good one so far.

Final Score
jmt225: 3.5
Mr. Steve: 1.5

 

[BooCocky]

Clarity- Neither were too clear but I understood JMT's argument more than Steves.

Point- JMT

Punctuality- both were punctual.

Point- Split

Informative- JMT had some information to back his points. More so than Steve. Even though there wasn't a lot of info, I believe JMT used more.

Point- JMT

Persuasion- I pretty much agree with PHX. JMT had some points but he didn't go for the knockout blow.

Point- draw

Final
JMT-3
Steve-2

 

[Miko]

Clarity: Honestly I couldnt see much of a difference here

Point - Split

Punctuality: The other judges said ya'll did fine, so there you go

Point - Split

Informative: What was it the others called it, spoken word information, not exactly backed up but neither was it challenged

Point - jmt225

Persuasion: This is a very similar to the debate that Dave and Blue Cardinal had, just change "multiple changes" with "short reigns" and you've got it. Well debated but ends in much the same way as the other, right down the middle.

Point - Split

My Scores;

jmt225 - 3
Mr. Steve - 2

 

[Phoenix]

After a complete judge's tally, jmt225 is the victor with 12.5 points to Mr Steve's 7.5.

Congratulations and great debating by the both of you!