So, is the ECW Championship a world title or not in WWE's eyes?

[Creepy Old Man]

During the early 2000s, former ECW World Heavyweight Champions were declared to be former world champions on WWE programming. In 2006 when the title was brought back, it stood next to the other two; Royal Rumble winners could compete for it. Gradually it became the ECW World Championship, then just the ECW Championship.

WWE then goes schizo at this point. Sometimes they're calling it a world title; other times they aren't. ECW Champions begin competing for a world title shot in the Royal Rumble. Then the title is retired.

Since then, ECW Championship reigns are generally not mentioned and are discounted from a wrestler's overall world title figure, e.g. Big Show is presented as a six-time world champion, not seven-time. JBL seems to still consider the ECW Championship a world title and ignores all the retconning, but elsewhere, mentions of it as a world title (or even acknowledgements of its existence) are rare.

Has WWE ever officially withdrawn recognition of it as a world title? Or is the title still in a weird limbo where no one knows what exactly it was? Cheers.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

At one time, it was considered a World Championship due to WWE's desire to instill ECW as a third brand. When The Undertaker won the Royal Rumble back in 2007, all three World Champions in WWE were eventually lined up for Taker to make his choice on who he'd face. John Cena was WWE Champion, Batista was World Heavyweight Champion and Bobby Lashley was ECW World Champion. Taker ultimately chose Batista, but the fact that Lashley was one of the choices presented is a clear indicator that the title had World Championship status in WWE, at least for a while.

Of course, that all changed and Vince McMahon decided to rewrite history, as he sometimes does. Vince is known to retroactively change certain things in order to fit into the vision that he has, no matter if it makes sense or not and no matter even if his vision undoes years, or even decades, of continuity.

 

[Aquaman6686]

During the early 2000s, former ECW World Heavyweight Champions were declared to be former world champions on WWE programming. In 2006 when the title was brought back, it stood next to the other two; Royal Rumble winners could compete for it. Gradually it became the ECW World Championship, then just the ECW Championship.

WWE then goes schizo at this point. Sometimes they're calling it a world title; other times they aren't. ECW Champions begin competing for a world title shot in the Royal Rumble. Then the title is retired.

Since then, ECW Championship reigns are generally not mentioned and are discounted from a wrestler's overall world title figure, e.g. Big Show is presented as a six-time world champion, not seven-time. JBL seems to still consider the ECW Championship a world title and ignores all the retconning, but elsewhere, mentions of it as a world title (or even acknowledgements of its existence) are rare.

Has WWE ever officially withdrawn recognition of it as a world title? Or is the title still in a weird limbo where no one knows what exactly it was? Cheers.

The WWE World Heavyweight Championship was, from 1995 to 2013, called the WWF or WWE Championship. Does that make it not a World title? No. The name of a title is irrelevant. The ECW Championship was a World Championship during its entire WWE run (the original ECW is debatable because it was defended outside of the US so rarely that PWI tended to not consider it a legitimate World Championship). John Morrison, Mark Henry, Matt Hardy, Jack Swagger, etc. - all won their first World Championships by becoming ECW Champion. Vince currently doesn't like it being mentioned because he doesn't want anything reminding fans of either version of ECW, but in another few years he might change his mind again, who knows. Christian is a 6-Time World Champion, Mark Henry is a 2-Time World Champion, John Morrison and Matt Hardy were World Champions. That much is a definite fact.

 

[Rusty]

The list of ECW World Champions under the WWE is as follows:

Rob Van Dam
Big Show
Bobby Lashley
Mr McMahon
Bobby Lashley
Johnny Nitro/John Morrison
CM Punk
Chavo Guerrero
Kane
Mark Henry
Matt Hardy
Jack Swagger
Christian
Tommy Dreamer
Christian
Ezekiel Jackson

And to be honest, after the first three reigns, the ECW Championship never really felt like a world title again, but rather a mid-card/lower card belt. For me, I'd consider it a world title for RVD, Big Show and Lashley but the others don't deserve to be called a former world champion based on their reign.

The end of 2006/2007 was when it really felt like it was a title worth winning. Plus, the ECW Champion was by default, the face of the entire ECW tuesday night program. It was a good gig at the start but then Vince got involved and made sure it become a worthless prize. Personally, I'd prefer to have the show and title over a program like WWE Superstars or Main Event, it would give a young talent a chance to win a major prize in the WWE and be in the spotlight of being "the guy" on their own show.

 

[Dagger Dias]

The way I see it is that ECW Championship used in the real ECW was a World Championship, but the ECW Championship used in WWE's version of the brand was not. The only WWE ECW Champions who could be argued as looking like World Champions holding that belt were RVD, Big Show, and Bobby Lashley. After Wrestlemania 23 it was never treated as even coming close to being a World Championship. Vince himself held it at one point and then it was held by wrestlers who would be midcarders anywhere else. Even Christian looked like an upper midcarder with the belt when he was the undisputed top guy of the third brand. Now look at the rest. John Morrison, Chavo Guerrero, Mark Henry (3 years before the Hall of Pain angle), Matt Hardy, Jack Swagger, Tommy Dreamer, and Ezekiel Jackson all held this belt. None of them were World Champions in their reigns. Not even CM Punk. His first World Championship came through cashing Money In the Bank in on Edge in 2008. WWE's ECW Championship was an upper midcard belt below both actual World Championships and slightly above the Intercontinental Championship in importance.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

I never considered it a World Title. I didn't even consider ECW as a brand when WWE launched their version. I was relieved to see NXT replace it. ECW was great in the old version of the 1990's; and helped unleash talent like Jericho, Benoit, Steve Austin and Paul Heyman to a hardcore fan base. The WWE version was rotton, even when they did ECWCW in the invasion it was crigneworthy. The only good thing WWE has ever done is One Night Stand 2006; what a show that was! But Heyman booked that. And after, RVD's career hit the rails (mostly his own fault). Therefore, I can't consider the ECW belt as a world title (but I do consider the 1990's ECW championship a world title).

 

[Aquaman6686]

I never considered it a World Title. I didn't even consider ECW as a brand when WWE launched their version. I was relieved to see NXT replace it. ECW was great in the old version of the 1990's; and helped unleash talent like Jericho, Benoit, Steve Austin and Paul Heyman to a hardcore fan base. The WWE version was rotton, even when they did ECWCW in the invasion it was crigneworthy. The only good thing WWE has ever done is One Night Stand 2006; what a show that was! But Heyman booked that. And after, RVD's career hit the rails (mostly his own fault). Therefore, I can't consider the ECW belt as a world title (but I do consider the 1990's ECW championship a world title).

You can not consider the ECW Championship a World Championship all you want, but it was. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. It was defended internationally and PWI recognized it as a legitimate World Championship. And there is no difference between the 1990's title and WWE's version, because they OWN ECW. It's the same title. The title's earlier reigns can only be truly argued to be World Championship reigns BECAUSE WWE bought the company. When Paul Heyman ran the old ECW, the title was defended outside the US so rarely that it wasn't consistently recognized as a legitimate World Championship. Again, not opinion. Fact.

 

[Aquaman6686]

After Wrestlemania 27 it was never treated as even coming close to being a World Championship.

The ECW Championship was retired over a year BEFORE WrestleMania 27.

 

[Pedigree1]

I think its a recognized title of course it is.. It has history albeit short history,history nonetheless.. Remeber Taker winning the RR in 07? He had to choose between three people Lashley,Batista,Cena.. We all know taker chose the Animal and they went on to have a helluva of a match at WM23.

If you have been watching this business long enough,Vince changes his mind on a dime.. He has been known to change his mind during mid-script often sending the poor writers scrambling for new ideas.. ECW is a part of history no doubting that one.. So yes IMO the ECW title is a recognized title!

 

[The Boss]

I personally never saw it as as World title. It was a small time indy title that just so happened to be lucky enough to be around during the most recent wrestling boom and as all promotions do, benefited from it. When WWE brought the title back it was clearly a desperate attempt to shake things up as ratings were falling. They called it a "world" title to try to make it sound bigger than it was but ECW even with Paul Heyman wasn't catching on. So the title fell to lower mid card status and then abandoned.

It never should have been brought back in the first place.

 

[Slash-LN]

I consider it a World title but just like a lesser tier one if that makes any sense at all.

Also when Matt was feuding with Jeff didn't he kind of throw the ECW title under the bus during a promo against Jeff? I can't remember the show or anything and YouTube isn't helping right now.

 

[WBL]

The core question isn't about if we consider it a World Heavyweight title. The core question is does the WWE consider it a World Heavyweight title.

http://www.wwe.com/play/games/type-or-tap/ecw-world-heavyweight-champions

I typed in "Terry Funk" and it counted.

The name of the game is "ECW World Heavyweight Champions".

Case closed.

 

[King Patrick Star]

Just like everything else in the WWE, they like to change their views and opinions on just about everything. Ever since its debut, I’ve always viewed the ECW Championship as a World Title. When it was reactivated in the WWE, I considered it a World Title all the way to Ezekiel Jackson’s reign. Yes, I consider Ezekiel Jackson a former World Champion, as well as all the other former ECW Champions.

Then again, I also consider the WCW Title and the World Heavyweight Title as one Championship, but that’s just me.

 

[FlairFan2003]

ECW never seemed like a World Title. When they were in existence in the 90s they were a small time gig, maybe smaller than TNA which has international broadcasts, casual fans never bought them as "World Title" worthy. Very similar to the UWF in the 1980s, great wrestling action, never seemed on par though with the WWE, NWA, & AWA - To this day no one talks about Dr Death Steve Williams great World Title reign in the UWF.

When WWE tried to bring back the ECW brand in the mid 2000s they at first treated it like it was "World Title" worthy....by this time WWE had unified the WWE & WCW Titles but effectively split them when Brock Lesnar chose to go "Smackdown only" and RAW Brand GM Eric Bischoff announced a championship match between HHH & Flair to fill the void for RAW. Both of those titles were effectively treated by WWE as World Titles.

The ECW Title very briefly was treated by WWE with similar reverence but only for a short time. Even after Taker won the 07 Rumble no one was buying the ECW Champ as main eventing W-Mania vs Taker. Although Big Show had an excellent run as champ early on, after him the title, and the brand in general were basically relegated to mid card status, either the place guys they really didn't care for went to die or the place up & comers were sent to hone their skills for the "big" shows. ECW became "WWE Pre Season" and the titles were not treated with the same level of importance as titles on RAW & Smackdown.

I would say in terms of "World Championships" that ECW never was, they weren't big enough or established enough on their own and they weren't a big enough part of WWE during their comeback.

Currently WWE doesn't look at the title as having been "World Title" worthy and neither I believe does Pro Wrestling Illustrated.

 

[Vintage]

To properly answer this question we'll first need to know what day of the week it is and which former ECW champion we're talking about. On second thought, we'll just go by the belt design and clearly we got one for the no column.

 

[No Count Pup]

Sometimes WWE's logic is unclear. Sometimes WWE is illogical. It appears that WWE doesn't consider the ECW Championship (2006-2010) a world title. I consider it a world title for five reasons:

(1) Paul Heyman as the authority figure of ECW had the same theoretical right to make a world title for his brand that Eric Bischoff had as General Manager of Raw. Teddy Long was about to create a world title for Smackdown in 2005 before Batista's arrival. Thus, precedent shows that an authority figure can create a world title for a brand when none is active.

(2) ECW's theoretical pool of talent was the entire WWE roster.

(3) ECW had the third broadest wrestling audience in North America.

(4) The same ECW originals that made the belt a world title in its Philadelphia days were wrestling in the WWE version.

(5) It was called a world championship upon its re-commissioning.

 

[Trill Co$by]

It IS a world title. WWE even refers to Jack Swagger as a former ECW World Champion at times, as they did for Christian. It was the far lesser of the three, but it was still a world title.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

Firstly, the term 'world heavyweight champion' is simply designed to establish the top singles wrestler in any given promotion, so whether people see the original ECW title as a world title or not, it was still the flagship championship of that promotion, the same as the TNA world title or ROH world title today.

As such, when WWE positioned ECW as a seperate brand (effectively a seperate 'promotion') the reactivated ECW world title was the peak of that brand.

Two things happened in 2007 which transitioned it from a world title to a mid-card title, the same status as the IC or US belts.

The first was the double murder-suicide of Chris Benoit.

I don't know why this affected ECW - perhaps because of the connotations of violence from the promotion, particularly in its original incarnation - but the day of Benoit's suicide he was due to face John Morrison in a match for the vacant ECW title on pay per view. Obviously that never took place, and Morrison beat Benoit's replacement, CM Punk, to win the title. The way he was being booked, Benoit was nailed on to be ECW world champion by the end of the ppv. But for some reason, Vince really gave up on ECW after the tragedy.

Secondly, and this was the final straw, was the 'Smackdown-ECW talent sharing agreement' towards the end of 2007. This meant ECW brand wrestlers would appear on Smackdown and fight for the Smackdown titles (ECW wrestlers took part in the 2008 Smackdown Elimination Chamber, for example, and Miz and Morrison formed a cross-brand team which would win the tag titles.) Suddenly, the ECW title wasn't the pinnacle of the ECW brand, the World Heavyweight Title was an achievable alternative. This is when it truly stopped being a world title, in my eyes.

The final nail in the coffin, the giveaway that it was now perceived as nothing more than a mid card belt, was when the reigning champion, Chavo Guerrero, participated in the 2008 Royal Rumble match to get a world title shot at Wrestlemania. Had the ECW title been treated as a world title by WWE, this would never have happened.

So, in answer to the question, the ECW title WAS considered a world title by WWE former about the first year of its existence, but several factors relegated it to a mid card title by late 2007.

 

[timothy26]

In my opinion only those who won the ECW championship during the original run of the promotion should be recognised as World Champions as they were the top of that promotion. The WWE version of the ECW championship shouldn't be recognised as a World Championship because it was the third championship behind the WWE & The World Heavyweight in the promotion at the time and the champion can't really be considered a World Champion as it was really only like a midcard / NXT championship level

 

[Aquaman6686]

In my opinion only those who won the ECW championship during the original run of the promotion should be recognised as World Champions as they were the top of that promotion. The WWE version of the ECW championship shouldn't be recognised as a World Championship because it was the third championship behind the WWE & The World Heavyweight in the promotion at the time and the champion can't really be considered a World Champion as it was really only like a midcard / NXT championship level

In my opinion it's the exact opposite. Only those who won the ECW Championship during it's WWE existence should be recognized as World Champions. The original ECW was an independent promotion that had an unusual amount of success, but they were still independent. Their title wasn't defended frequently enough outside the US for PWI to consider it a legitimate World Championship, and that's enough for me. If the original ECW Championship was a World Championship, then every fly-by-night indy promotion can argue that their top title is a "World" Championship.

 

[timothy26]

In my opinion it's the exact opposite. Only those who won the ECW Championship during it's WWE existence should be recognized as World Champions. The original ECW was an independent promotion that had an unusual amount of success, but they were still independent. Their title wasn't defended frequently enough outside the US for PWI to consider it a legitimate World Championship, and that's enough for me. If the original ECW Championship was a World Championship, then every fly-by-night indy promotion can argue that their top title is a "World" Championship.

Yes they can argue that, promotions such as ROH do. However ECW was bought and recognised by the WWE so I believe it's world champions should be recognised historically by the WWE at least

 

[bko]

A "world Title" is just the term for any title that happens to be the highest ranking title in said company, so yes it was a world title.

 

[TheJF]

In my opinion it's the exact opposite. Only those who won the ECW Championship during it's WWE existence should be recognized as World Champions. The original ECW was an independent promotion that had an unusual amount of success, but they were still independent. Their title wasn't defended frequently enough outside the US for PWI to consider it a legitimate World Championship, and that's enough for me. If the original ECW Championship was a World Championship, then every fly-by-night indy promotion can argue that their top title is a "World" Championship.

As much as my inner ECW fan wants to argue this point, I 100% agree. For a "World Title" to be truly considered, there has to be an element of defending the title oversees/around the world. For that part the "Original" ECW world title wasn't truly a world title whilst the WWE one could easily be considered