Should WWE Recognize Achievements outside of its walls?

[pag_v1]

I'm not sure if this has been done before, i am new here i and suspect it has, but not recently as i can tell. Basically this started for me as a mate of mine is a casual fan and was asking why Christian has never been World Champion, i replied he has, in TNA, his response was but WWE hasn't acknowledged it, i told him they usually don't, unless your Ric Flair. I then mentioned R-Truth was also a 2 time World Champion, which he didn't believe until i showed him a list of title holders, which lead me to this.

Basically as the Title says: Should WWE Recognize Achievements outside of its walls?

I feel they should, regardless of whether or not that Company is still around or not, a former World Champion is a former World Champion period. TNA acknowledges that their talent has held WWE belts, but WWE doesn't recognize it their end. Granted the actual talent that has come from TNA to WWE isn't a lot, but Christian, R-Truth, Booker T (not actually wrestling but even his TNA titles are not recognized) and soon Awesome Kong, all former world champions in TNA (not to mention tag titles etc), it makes me wonder why.

I mean the Championship in question is the NWA title technically (while it was still associated to the TNA brand, it isn't now), it has a long line of Wrestling greats, great history, a lot of Prestige to it's name, it's first champion in 1948 was Orville Brown, and it went to guys like Lou Thesz, Buddy Rogers, Harley Race, Jack Brisco, Dory Funk, Dusty Rhodes, Ricky Steamboat, Sting, Sabu, AJ Styles, Jeff Jarrett its current holder is Colt Cabana, the list is a who's who of wrestling. WWE recognizes Ric Flair's history with the titles, but not Christian or R-Truth, and i don't get why, it's burial on WWE's behalf, even if they don't ever hold a championship, they shouldn't have this history taken away from them because a) Vince doesn't feel they are championship material in his company, and b) because they earned it outside of his company.

Even Awesome Kong, while a lot of people feel the Women's Belts are somewhat meaningless anyway, the TNA Womens belts were at one time more meaningful the the actual TNA belt, when Awesome Kong and Gail Kim were headlining the shows with their awesome matches and outshining the guys. Kong is a is a three-time World Champion, i do wonder if WWE will recognize this, but i doubt it.

WWE is one of them companies that promotes itself as trying to recognize Wrestling's History at times, the Hall of Fame being a good example, as they do induct and recognize talent that has never ever worked for WWE and their achievement in wrestling, Verne Gagne for example, but they can't recognize these achievements on current superstars on their roster? Check Christian's, R-Truth's & Booker T's profiles on WWE.com, no mention of it, anywhere.

R-Truth is talented enough to be a world champion, you couldn't tell from his Rap, "Whats Up" gimmick, but if you haven't seen him actually wrestle try to track down some of his TNA work, not that crap with Pac either. Same with Christian and his TNA work, though you can also see his talent in WWE, anyway i just feel this is something WWE should recognize, and don't see any good reason as to why they don't. They don't have to mention TNA by name on TV, but at least acknowledging their Championships is a start, it would add some credibility to these guys (not that they need it, as i've said they are both talented), but it just gives them that something extra, that and it is part of their actual wrestling accomplishments, and WWE is taking that away from them.

 

[daby]

They should, because saying that Christian returned after a 4 year break of wrestling is just an insult for wrestling fans.
They acknowledge Gail Kim as 2 time Women's Champion.

 

[KaoticMayhem]

Absolutely, Without those other companies most of those other talents would have never seen daylight in a WWE ring. without territories WWE would still just be a bland regional company up north or the expansion its seen in its time would be far less than it is now. There would have never been an attitude era , monday night wars, flair would not be the 16 or more time world champ that he is and i really feel wrestling would not be as mainstream as it is now. The Take overs and talent acquisitions all came off the back and at the expense of these other companies and i think perhaps VKM is starting to understand that and is starting to acknowledge people from outside like Abdulah the Butcher. His HOF induction is an acknowledgement of another time and company and That i feel is a good thing.

 

[dmac]

It's funny how they pick and choose who and what they recognize. For example, Jerry "the King" Lawler is in the WWE Hall of Fame because of what he has done OUTSIDE the WWE. He won tons of titles in other areas, and basically trained or made half the guys of the attitude area because almost all of them came thru Memphis at one time or another. However, if you base the WWE HOF just on his work there, he wouldn't be in b/c they never let him do anything much in the ring in WWF/E. Similar story with "Bullet" Bob Armstrong. They have and should recogize those guys, but if they do that why not recognize other guys that had success elsewhere 2? Vince is not threatened by TNA, Japan, etc. anyway, so why not admit these guys accomplishments anywhere but in his company.

 

[CalciferBoheme]

I wouldn't mention TNA specifically, but maybe something vague.

Like mention that Kong (or even Bryan) has won titles all over the world. Like the way that Vader used to say he'd won 10 world titles on 4 continents when he was in WCW...

Truth is a bad example though. they don't even bring up the first time he was in WWE, much less what he did elsewhere.



I think it could help some people, but with others it doesn't really matter. It all just depends.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

I think its a combination of several factors. Yes they should recognize championships from other companies, but it would make Mcmahon look bad for not recognizing some talent while others did (i.e R-Truth & Christian) both NWA world champions. Another factor would be that even then most of the WWE talent nowdays come from developemental, its not like before when wrestlers jumped ship all the time from WWE to WCW to ECW and vice versa. By the way its not only WWE that doesn't recognize titles from other companies TNA does the same thing, except in TNA half the guys are already too well known because they were from WWE/WCW/ECW so most fans know the championships they held already.

 

[The Suplexer Perfecter]

Because WWE doesn't care about any other company, unless it's dead then they acknowledge it.

I get more annoyed when they get the number of titles they have had wrong, or leave out a title they won in the WWE.

 

[martymcfly]

It's simple marketing. In commercials where there is a side by side comparison of two products, if your product is #1 in the market you don't usually mention the other product's name. If your product is not #1, you do. It's been a while since I have taken a marketing class, so perhaps I'm rusty on the details, but I believe that the reason is if you're #1, you want to keep people loyal so you don't want them to think there's another real option out there in case they become unhappy. If you're not #1, you are trying to attract customers away from those who already use the #1 product, so you are trying to show that you are a viable alternative.

I think the same thing happens here. WWE has no reason really to acknowledge TNA's existence, and they are better off not doing so. Especially considering a product, like television wrestling, does go up and down a lot with respect to offering good stories and matches, and people's interest waxes and wanes.

So no, if WWE is run by smart business folks (and they are) they should not even bother to mention TNA.

 

[BLeonard]

It's simple marketing. In commercials where there is a side by side comparison of two products, if your product is #1 in the market you don't usually mention the other product's name. If your product is not #1, you do. It's been a while since I have taken a marketing class, so perhaps I'm rusty on the details, but I believe that the reason is if you're #1, you want to keep people loyal so you don't want them to think there's another real option out there in case they become unhappy. If you're not #1, you are trying to attract customers away from those who already use the #1 product, so you are trying to show that you are a viable alternative.

I think the same thing happens here. WWE has no reason really to acknowledge TNA's existence, and they are better off not doing so. Especially considering a product, like television wrestling, does go up and down a lot with respect to offering good stories and matches, and people's interest waxes and wanes.

So no, if WWE is run by smart business folks (and they are) they should not even bother to mention TNA.

This pretty much sums it up. All's WWE mentioning TNA does is gives TNA credibility. If you're the clear-cut #1, the last thing you want to do is give the #2 company any credibility. Why do you think TNA mentions that thier guys are "forrmer WWE champion?" It gives their roster more credibility, because they have a former champion from the #1 company on their roster. Why do you think pretty much all of the former WWE talent has gotten a major push, upon entering TNA?

Perfect example: Mr. Anderson. His only title in WWE was the United States Championship, which, like the IC belt, is a second-tier title. By winning TNA's World Title, that's basically saying, "Hey, a guy who wins a second-tier title in WWE can be THE CHAMP in TNA." If he ever went back to WWE, what would they have to gain by saying, "Hey, he's a former TNA Champ," when he only won a madcard title in WWE, which everyone knows... Just doesn't make much sense. Would you have been more impressed by "Mr. Kennedy" when he first entered WWE if they had announced him as a "former 3-time ACW Heavyweight Champion," while he was doing jobs on Jakked, Velocity and Heat?

As others have mentioned, they have recognized certain things in the past, such as Booker T as "5 Time" WCW Champion... But, when the mentioned it, WWE owned WCW, so it didn't really hurt the credibility factor. Much like Anderson, Booker's highest WWE-issued championship was the Intercontinental Championship.

Take a quick look at the TNA World Championship History. To date, a total of 8 wrestlers have held the title: Angle, Sting, Samoa Joe, Foley, AJ Styles, RVD, Jeff Hardy and Mr. Anderson. Kinda telling that five of them won the title AFTER coming over from WWE... The other three (Sting, Joe and Styles) have never even been in WWE.


Short answer, unless it benefits WWE to mention an achievement accomplished outside of WWE, it doesn't make much sense to mention it... All's it would do is give the promotion they are mentioning a bit of credibility and WWE, as the top dog, shouldn't do that.

-Bill

 

[Jack-Hammer]

They do acknowledge achievements wrestlers have accomplished in other promotions. For instance, during the vignette created for the Road Warriors WWE Hall of Fame induction, the fact that the Road Warriors held every tag team championship in whatever promotion they competed in was brought up. Video footage of Hawk & Animal at various points in their careers wearing different tag team championship belts was shown.

When Verne Gagne was inducted into the HOF, the fact that he was a 10 time AWA World Heavyweight Champion was mentioned.

A couple of years ago, during the build up to Ric Flair's retirement match against Shawn Michaels at WM 24, Flair brought the physical NWA World Heavyweight Championship belt to the ring with him. During this promo, he passiionately talked about what it meant to him, what it meant to wrestling, etc.

So yeah, the WWE does recognize accomplishments of wrestlers in other promotions. It's true that they don't even mention anything about TNA and why exactly should they? They have nothing to gain by acknowledging TNA on live television. TNA is the competition, competition that's taken numerous shots at the WWE at times, so why should the WWE help the competition?

Of course TNA recognizes wrestlers with WWE accomplishments. It's no coincidence that 6 of the 8 wrestlers to have been TNA World Heavyweight Champion are wrestlers that were stars in either WWE or WCW. The TNA brass has consistently attempted to use wrestlers that've been big stars in WWE, WCW or both as means of furthering their own product and increasing the size of the TNA audience.

It's true that the WWE doesn't yammer on about past championship wins from other companies and it's also an unfortunate truth that Vince McMahon does what he can to, at least attempt, to rewrite history sometimes. But the fact that there are some wrestlers in the WWE Hall of Fame that never really worked for the WWE does show the WWE takes the fact that they were stars elsewhere into consideration and what they did in those other companies mattered.

 

[triniphenom]

they doh have to mention tna just say he was a former 2 time nwa champion cause it did won those titles christian did before tna got there own world title if they can do it for flair they can do it for christian

 

[Cenation716]

Actually, Booker T's highest-tier WWE Championship was the World Heavyweight Championship. And to answer this question, I think that WWE doesn't want fans watching TNA but the truth of the matter is that most fans (besides the little kids) know what TNA is & some even watch it. I watch TNA but I am a much bigger WWE fan. I watched WCW too back in the day but I was still a huge WWE mark. I love wrestling in it's entirety & WWE should acknowledge Superstars & Divas accomplishments in ROH, TNA, indies, etc. So what if people go watch TNA? most likely those fans will still watch WWE & if they don't, then oh well, a few fans lost. But look at the WWE's massive roster & the talent that's on that roster. TNA doesn't have even 1/3 of what WWE (including FCW) has on it's roster.

 

[WJDwjdWJDwjd]

They do recognize other promotions that are/were LEGITIMATE promotions. There is nothing prestigious about the TNA World Title. Also, if they did mention TNA, that would be plugging the competition. You don't see them mentioning ROH, JCW, Dragon Gate or PWO for that matter. It's a business strategy on their behalf.

 

[Iversen]

I think that mentioning WCW title runs and ECW title runs, in essence defunct companies, is fine. When it comes to TNA title runs, ROH or whatever I have no problem them mentioning that they were a former world champion in the minor leagues but theres no reason why they should mention the company. As martymcfly says it's simple buisness. Why advertise your competition and make their titles sound prestigious. If they treat TNA and the indies like their equals then their basically advertising them to a fan base who may move over to check them out.

So basically WCW/ECW/etc. ya TNA/ROH/etc. na.

 

[Orton Pose \__0_/]

They should, because saying that Christian returned after a 4 year break of wrestling is just an insult for wrestling fans.
They acknowledge Gail Kim as 2 time Women's Champion.

Gail Kim won the title twice in 2003-2004 in the WWE

But on the OP's question, I don't see why they should, TNA has no real relevance in the WWE, it's so far behind in all areas that there is no need for the 'E to bother acknowledging TNA's titles and accolades.

 

[ztwhite]

The WWE doesn't even recognize a guy who won the ECW Heavyweight Championship... and I mean the crappy WWE version of ECW.

Mark Henry, Christian, Big Show and several other guys aren't credited with title reigns from that floundering sham of a broadcast, so there's no reason why they would recognize TNA title reigns.

 

[RendarSelin]

I think it's been mentioned plenty that the WWE shouldn't mention a performer's TNA title wins not because they don't view TNA as significant, but because WWE is the #1 promotion in the world. It's simple marketing. Why present your audience with an alternative to your product? Acknowledging TNA's existence on the air gives your casual fans who've never heard of the product knowledge that it's out there. TNA, however, is the #2 product, and wants to use part of WWE's success and familiar wrestlers to make their name.

This reminds me of the turning point of the Monday Night Wars. WCW, the #1 company in the world at the time, made the tragic mistake of informing their audience that during the RAW tapings, Mankind was going to win the WWF Championship. A majority of their audience immediately switched the channel and even called their buddies to turn on WWF to watch a World Title change. The end result: WWF overtook WCW in the ratings. Had WCW's arrogance not gotten the best of them, many would have never watched Foley's title win, and WCW might have been on the top for a longer period of time.

 

[H33LTurn]

TNA mentions those title reigns to draw attention to themselves, having a former WWE champion in their company is major publicity that they cannot pass on obtaining. WWE doest really have anything to gain from mentioning that someone in their company was a TNA champion because WWE is currently the one on top of the two companies. Now if you said WWE got someone like a former UFC champion or WBC champion on their roster they should definately mention it because that draws fans from other walks of entertainment.

 

[whoopin' ass]

should they? yes. will they? depends on who it is. what do you hear more about from the wwe - ricky steamboat as the IC champ and his match against randy savage or him beating flair for the wcw title? it all depends on how it matches up with the person they are trying to push. for years they never mentioned kane as a former champ yet when flair was coming to wwe back in the day, the "real world's champ" was coming. i think for a majority of the people out there, they will never mention them as former champs simple because they like to "invent" the characters so they never mention their past. danielson is a perfect example - have him as a rookie on nxt even though he has been in the business for a decade. unless it is a big deal (i.e. angle, styles, etc), they will probably not acknowledge they were champs elsewhere or how many times.

 

[ccotreau1]

What is even worse is with R-Truth, he was in WWE before going to TNA as K-Kwik, and does the WWE mention what R-Truth did as K-Kwik? No...so I am not shocked they don't mention what he did in TNA...As for some of these others who either left the WWE, ie Gail Kim, Christian, or those who started out in these other promotions, ie: Daniel Bryan, CM Punk...They didn't say much with Daniel Bryan outside of him being an internet darling...CM Punk started in ROH if I am not mistaken...I think they should acknowledge their superstars success especially if they really want to sell the superstar as a legit contender.

 

[VCUpkunk11]

It's all a business thing. I mean if your sitting there watching Monday Night Raw and they start talking about titles your favorite superstar won in TNA, then its gonna make them wanna watch TNA also (those who dont already watch both now anyway).

WWE wants to get people to watch them instead of watching TNA, or WCW back when they were around. The reason WWE mentions all the titles like NWA and AWA and all those is because in a way those are like the "minor leagues" so to speak. Other then the people who go see the events live, or the people participating in the events... no one really hears about them... at least not since WWF/WWE became a "Global Phenomenon" so to speak.

Why do you think WWF/WWE had the "Monday Night Wars" with WCW? Because they wanted to get the bulk of the viewers.... knowing that they can't watch both at the same time. Ultimately WWF/WWE won and bought out WCW. TNA tried doing the same thing recently by doing at least one and maybe a few Monday night shows around the same time as Raw, trying to get more people to watch them, but it didnt really work cause WWE still gets the bulk of the viewers.

Another thing is that you figure most of the TNA stars who come to the WWE for the first time are still young guns, haven't won a lot of big titles (except for the few ya'll have mentioned), however, TNA is made of mostly old WCW/WWE guys, and the majority of their careers either are or should be over. I mean you look at the roster- Sting (WCW), Jeff & Matt Hardy (WWF/WWE), Kevin "Diesel Nash- (WCW, WWE) even tho he's not in TNA anymore, Eric Bischoff- (WCW, WWE), Hulk Hogan- (WCW, WWF/WWE), Ric Flair- (WCW, WWF/WWE), Dudley Boyz- (WWE), Jeff Jarrett- (WCW, and I think WWF/WWE) etc. They are all getting old and most past their prime, so why not announce their accomplishments through out all their different companies.

Honestly I dont agree w/ WWE not announcing former TNA wrestler's accomplishments, but my only guess is that its a business thing

 

[Suneeboy]

Think about other sports. It's not something that should be glorified, or touted as an accomplishment on the level of the WWE's titles, etc, but it should be acknowledged. In basketball, baseball, football, and all other professional sports, they acknowledge the journey that athletes take to get to the top.

We all know that WWE is the largest wrestling promotion, so them mentioning TNA, ROH, or any other promotion by name doesn't hurt them, it only helps to develop THEIR product, and THEIR characters to the viewing audience. It helps to authenticate the product if you ask me.

 

[Mac Attack]

No

But they need to be very regulating in that nobody gets these achievements. If they do allow these achievments to be reconized than they are giving free publicity to the other companies. They have no reason to even mention them. If Tiger Woods were to hypothetically decide that he wants to play the U.S Open (tennis) does his golf accolades play anything in where he should be seeded no, so why then would other company titles matter to stars in the WWE. No need for this would be very bad if it happened.

 

[roethlisberger78]

You asked if the WWE should recongnize achievements outside of their own walls. I think they already do a pretty good job of that if they didnt recognize things outside of the WWE then they'd never put out all these DVD's showing the old school wrestling stuff, like the AWA, WCW, NWA. You know you mentioned that they recongnize Ric Flare for all his titles, well they did the same for the Dudley Boys also.

I think the reason why they dont mention Christian as a past TNA heavy weight champion is because in their eyes TNA doesnt mean much. Look at WWE's Title history compaired to TNA's title history HUGE HUGE difference. At one time the belt TNA was using as their heavy weight title was part of the NWA so at that point the belt was huge lots and lots of history, but they broke away from that. Now the TNA belt dont mean shit in history ya know. For christ sakes they took their Heavy Weight belt and turned it into a purple peice of shit(FYE I hate the spinner belt also).

I think the WWE just only likes promoting what their current superstars does in their business you know that way they can make that person into what they want and take all the credit for it. Just my opinion on why they dont.

Oh and the talent WWE has gotten from TNA other than the superstars the WWE let go and then resigned so the home grown talent that the E has gotten from TNA hahahaha what a joke. I like watching TNA but compared to the E its two different worlds.

 

[deadtaker]

As everybody seems to agree on is that it makes no sense for the WWE to acknowledge anything with TNA. They are the competition and an inferior competitor in that. Coke doesn't compare itself with RC cola or MLB with the Japanese League even though great players like Ichiro and Daiske Matsuzaka have come from there.

When WCW and ECW were strong WWE didn't acknowledge them much either. When The Big Show, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Ron Simmons, Vader came over from WCW there title reins were never mentioned. Even when WCW was beating WWE they were never mentioned. WCW kept sticking it too WWE saying how much better they were which led to there demise. They say any publicity is good publicity as it gets your name out and more people aware of it.

When WCW gave away that Mankind was going to win the title there was a big shift in television viewers. There was also the tim Eric Bischoff came out and announced that WCW Nitro had beat WWE Raw for the 100th or whatever it was straight week and the very next week Raw beat Nitro in the ratings. Arrogence and jealousy killed the steam that WCW had.

The best thing anybody can do to squash competition is to either be superior in quality and not give any acknowledgement to them as being equal. Ignore them and don't try to pound in that your better it will backfire