When and Why Do You Think the WWE and WHC Were Devalued?

[James Greiga]

Some say it became devalued when the Money in the Bank was created. I beg to differ as the Money in the bank has created much controversy, interesting storylines and kept the value still intact. That is, until about 2010. In 2010, there were 3 Money in the Bank ladder matches. After the other two were announced it became obvious why Swagger cashed his in so early and lost his title so early. The first Money in the Bank of 2010 has just ruined the prestige of the title. Swagger was immediately bumped down to what is now a lower-midcarder. Miz I will accept as a credible champion, not Wrestlemania main event worthy but still. I say the value was in tact with him.

I say that the WWE titles were not devalued until about 2008 when they began to only hold the titles for a few months. Guys like Randy Orton and John Cena have a combined total of 21 WWE and World championships. Most of their reigns have an average number of 2 and a half months. They have been known to hold the titles much longer however when you have multiple reigns that only lasted about 2 or 3 months each sometimes even less. It just takes away the prestige of the belt and that mostly began in 2008.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

The Money in the Bank isn't the direct reason, but the thought process behind the concept is most definitely to blame. WWE has forgotten how to properly build stars. Their ratings are low and they need to keep fans interested, so they jump around for person to person, throwing the belt on whoever seems popular, hoping to find the next big thing to revolutionize the product. But it doesn't just happen that way. You can have Goldberg on your roster, but if you don't have the genius to say "hey, let's give him a streak, ban him from talking, and give him this kick-ass ring entrance to make him look hardcore" he's never going to get over.

Giving Jack Swagger the World title was a huge mistake, but it was already pretty devalued by that point. It's not that any one guy in particular made the titles look weak, it's that the product as a whole has very little credibility and that reflects upon its titles. When you don't care about half the roster, you don't care about who may eventually become champion. You especially can't get behind a champion, because you know he's just going to recycle the same bullshit for 3 months and drop it to whoever is next in line, with a Cena reign in between to "mix things up".

In short, lazy booking killed WWE's titles. Not any one man, any one concept, or any one story. But who is the common denominator in all of those things? Creative and booking. ANd who is the common denominator between those two things? Vince McMahon.

 

[Headman]

Who says they're devalued? I will say the attitude era was the point where everybody who was slightly over got a short run with the belt. It didn't really devalue the title, but it caused people to come out of the woodworks screaming about top talent holding the belt to long and "When is this guy going to get a chance?". In the 80's no one was screaming for the Dynamite Kid to get a run with the title, but fans now days think the WWE should book like kids with action figures and just put the belt on everybody for shits and giggles.

 

[King Patrick Star]

There is only one real answer to this question, I think. I think the WWE and World Titles were starting their decline when Brock Lesnar won the Undisputed WWE / WCW Championship. As soon as Stephanie announced that he would not be facing Triple H for the Undisputed World Championship, I knew there was something wrong. As soon as Eric Bischoff came out with a velvet Belt bag, I knew there was something wrong. When Triple H was awarded the WCW half of the Undisputed Title, that’s when I think the Titles were devalued. Ever since then, I looked at the WWE Champion as # 1 A and the World Champion as # 1 B. I understand what they tried to do, but you can’t realistically try to compare Raw’s WWE Title to WWF’s WWF Title and Smackdown’s World Title to WCW’s WCW Title. So, in conclusion, the answer is, the day after SummerSlam 2002.

 

[ratedrdestiny]

Who says they're devalued? I will say the attitude era was the point where everybody who was slightly over got a short run with the belt. It didn't really devalue the title, but it caused people to come out of the woodworks screaming about top talent holding the belt to long and "When is this guy going to get a chance?". In the 80's no one was screaming for the Dynamite Kid to get a run with the title, but fans now days think the WWE should book like kids with action figures and just put the belt on everybody for shits and giggles.

I completely agree. I don't think it's devalued at all considering whenever someone gains popularity we are waiting to see when that person will become world champ. Example just look at Ziggler and Rhodes. Everyone is pushing for these guys to become champ this year. If the titles were so devalued as you think, it wouldn't really matter if they became world champs or not.

 

[Thephanboy]

I think they started to get devalued when the WWE decided they needed 2 World TItles within 1 company. Having 2 World titles lets more guys have access to a title run that wouldnt other wise get one . So basicly i think when they decided to split the 2 shows and put a title on each, it opened the flood gates for mid card talent to get a run when they shouldnt have.

 

[JJohns]

I agree with anyone that says that they became devalued when they separated the title. I get the idea of having a top belt on both shows, but as time has gone by, it really doesn't make sense, especially since you see both champions on both shows from time to time.

 

[Loveless]

The damage was done the moment there stopped being one champion. We went from 1 main man with a target on his back, the undeniable champion and the main event to "Ah well this guy is only champion on one show, he's only got half of a weak roster to compete with and PPV's can close with the other champion". In addition to that, hot-shotting the title around means no build and the belt going to people that would never have got it in the past.

 

[Frostrike]

When WWE realized that dream/fantasy matches could overshadow their WWE/World title bouts. For example, Wrestlemania X8 Rock vs Hogan (non title match) overshadowed the main event Triple H vs Jericho (Undisputed title) match that had been building for quite a while that year. In Wrestlemania XIX Stone Cold vs The Rock (non title match) had been booked to go on last originally, but on the day of the event they changed the card because they didn't know if Austin was going to perform after being in the hospital the day before and almost dying. Stone Cold vs The Rock was the second to last match that night followed by Lesnar vs Angle (WWE Champsionship).

This years Wrestlemania 28 you will have The Rock vs John Cena more than likely as the main event that night and I do not think it will be a title match. If you argue that the title match should go after The Rock vs John Cena bout then you will have the same situation Jericho and Triple H ran into back in Wrestlemania X8. Both Jericho and Triple H have also come out and stated in time that The Rock vs Hogan match should have been the main event because the live crowd had pretty much climaxed at that point and if you watch a rerun of the Triple H and Jericho bout the crowd was pretty much tired out. The belt in this sense lost a bit of its luster of intrigue to a dream/fantasy match.

With the rise of the UFC the best way for the WWE to differentiate itself from that company is by working programs and giving viewers these dream bouts. The championships therefore in a sense help define tomorrows star, but the attention will be given to the star that is present at the moment.

 

[dahvoo]

Agree that the titles were devalued when the split happened. Although the WWE title was suppose to be the more important one, I always thought Triple H having the World title was a bigger deal because he was a bigger star and it meant something. Plus it was on RAW.

 

[nwh]

Definitely when they split the titles. Unification should happen. They shouldn't need to keep bringing back old stars to get into the title picture. I think Wrestlemania next year could be headlined by WWE Champ vs World Champ to crown the undisputed WWE champion (and at the same time get back a belt that isn't modeled after the rap star bling bling spinner fad from over a decade ago). That match would be one of the most important ever and certainly mean more than Rock vs Cena.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

The title started to become devalued during the Monday Night Wars.

Before then, it was common for a champ to hold the title through the better part of a year at least... to defend against multiple challengers... to be looked at as the absolute best in the company.

Then the wars came, and in the need to one up the competition and spike ratings, the title started getting hotshotted around. Title reigns got shorter. More guys got the belt. Being "World Champion" or a former "World Champion" didn't mean being a part of an exclusive club anymore. Then the number of title reigns per wrestler started adding up, which made that less meaningful. The fact that there was so much parity with the belt made each champion look weaker compared to the previous generation. After all, when guys like Hogan were holding the belt for years, we were told that each of his challengers was one of the best in the world and that they were all capable of beating Hogan, even though they never could. The thing is, we were never told that the next generation was so much better than the last one that it was impossible for any one person to be as dominant as the Hogan's of the world were. So the competition never seemed to improve... it just turned out that none of them were good enough to be as strong a champion as those that came before them.

Then of course it got worse with things like multiple World titles, Money in the Bank quick switches, ect, until we get to the point where we are today, where the champion is not the biggest attraction on the show. This really struck me the other night, when Daniel Bryan came prancing down to the ring, doing his happy, enthusiastic, generic babyface act... and then was announced as the World Champion... and to me that moment just illustrated exactly how far the title has fallen.

It used to be that to get the big belt, you first had to get over and prove that you deserved it. Today, you get the belt to help you get over. It's all backwards now, and until that line of thinking changes... the belt will continue to be devalued.

 

[TripleCrown]

To me, the "de-valuing" of the championship happened when too many people started having multiple title runs. Rick Flair's record of being a 16-time champion will always be "the height' to reach for but as momentous as it is, it doens't have the luster it did 20 years ago. If you think back to the 1980s, for somebody to become a 3-time champion really meant something. Not any more. There have been far too many people who have grabbed the strap 4, 5,6, 7 times etc. so that extra "punch' to any story line that would have come with "overcoming the odds to win a 2nd or 3rd time" isn't there anymore. It's really a shame because the anticipation from that perspective really heightened the matches.

 

[stephenjpunk317]

I want to bring up another point of that the IC and US title don't seem to mean as much or anything anymore, so that brought down the WWE and World Title. I remember back in the day, if you had the IC title you were going to be next for the WWF or WWE Title, but now that IC title has totally lost it's luster, and you can't seem to care who has the lower titles, so why care who has the upper titles. Just another way to look at it, and I could be completely off base with this line of thinking.

 

[Champ1432]

I think two main things have contributed to the decline in stature:

1. As mentioned above, during the Monday Night Wars, there was a lot of hotshotting in booking and title reigns got markedly shorter. Prior to that, title reigns (even midcard and tag titles) usually lasted a long time. Then the need for higher ratings and the need to outdo the competition stared this trend of shorter reigns, more changes, etc. At the time, it was great to watch, no doubt. Although the Attitude Era is over now, the trend with the titles has continued. This creates not only more former champions, but also more multi-time champions. How many times have guys like Triple H, Cena and Orton won the belt(s)? When guys start getting into double-digit number of title reigns, it doesn't seem like such a big deal when you do it anymore.

2. Two belts for two shows. It could work if there were absolutely no crossover between the shows, but many superstars (including the champions) go from show to show so often now. The idea of "champion" is to be the best, unequaled by anyone. But now there are two belts, so ostensibly there are two "bests". How can that be? We're always used to having one person be the best, and everyone else trying to get to that level. Having two people be the best simultaneously is odd. Again, if the shows never crossed over, it would seems more like two separate rosters or groups, each going for their own belt. Intermixing them makes it seem as though it's really just one big group, though. This causes people to still want to see one person as the "best", which I think in most cases is the WWE (Raw) champ, making the World (Smackdown) belt inferior. But regardless of which one is "higher", the existence of each one diminishes the other.

There are other reasons, as well. Chief among them I think would be rushing people to the main event without sufficient buildup, leading to bad title reigns. But the above two reasons I feel are the main issues.

 

[Sicc Nick]

It's not even a matter of opinion. Just think about it, really.

In 2001, Steve Austin had the belt and had tag team matches and main event matches in pay-per-views when the title was not on the line by itself. A singles championship was put as being equal to the Intercontinental and the Tag Team championship title belts. In this match was Triple H, Kane, and Undertaker going after Austin's belt, with Kane and Taker co-existing, not fighting each other over the belt, and Triple H, who a year prior to this era was obsessed with the world gold, and didn't even seem to care for it during this time.

Then you have Austin, hold it for such a long time, end up losing the belt to Angle, who then lost it to Austin just two weeks later on a Raw match, with no build or advertising for the match. Big gigantic mistake there.

Then you have the WCW championship issue, which I don't necessarily believe ruined or divided the emphasis of the WWF or WWE championship title, however merging them into one, was not the best idea when they ended up unmerging the belts to bring back the World Heavyweight and WWE championship. It made the Undisputed title mean absolutely nothing, and gave the two main world titles, who had such prestige and such history, feel like they were just on hiatus. Who was REALLY the world champion? Both title holders are undisputed champions however, there are TWO, undisputed WORLD champions. That in itself is almost like an oxymoron.

During this time though, Lesnar, Angle, Triple H, Chris Benoit, Batista, Cena, JBL, and Randy Orton did a good job on making the titles still mean something, but what ruined it is the Elimination Chamber, and the MITB.

Someone winning the championship, standing up in victory, suddenly became not enough. Edge cashed in on John Cena in early 2006, after he defeated so many wrestlers to regain the gold, and a month later, Cena won it right back, rendering the MITB/title win useless. And in and out, ever since, you have Cena winning the belt almost more times than everyone else, however his quantity of wins makes his reigns seem like the WWE title has the 24/7 rule.

Del Rio, three wins within one summer/fall season, Cena, losing and winning the belt constantly after Elimination Chamber matches or some kind of obscure swerve having to do with the MITB or McMahon pulling unnecessary heel strings that do not lead to anything. People main eventing Wrestlemania (Miz) and then not even featured in back-to-back pay-per-views just four to five months later (Summerslam, Hell In A Cell, etc.) Comedy jobbers being runner-up's for the Royal Rumble (Santino Marella), a winning streak or an undefeated win ratio being placed as a main event over title matches (Undertaker vs. HBK, Rock vs. Cena this year), and more and more.

Basically, there are many theories, and they are all correct. This is not something that just happens. You don't just DEVALUE a championship belt, with such prestige. It's just nobody looked at the big picture, and it's too late to do so now, so don't expect anything to change.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

I will agree with most of the posters. I believe that the title was devalued during The Attitude Era. For example, Kane won the tittle and lost it the following night. 1999 had 11 title changes. And most championship matches didn't have a clean finish. Also, the damage became bigger when two World Champions came into play. Since 2002, you can't really tell who is the #1 guy. The WWE tried to do something with Cena and Batista's huge reigns and believe that was the only time when the titles really ment something. Also Orton's and Triple H's regins were pretty impressive. But that's it. I really hope WWE do something special with CM Punk. Give him a big reign if you want him to be the #1 guy. At the time the WWE is lacking main-event superstars so a long reign wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[dxraider]

Let's put it this way, for a while now, I've thinking of writing my own book entitled

"Broken Gold: How the Money in the Bank Ladder Match Destroyed the World Titles of Professional Wrestling"

While there are many reasons behind why the world titles have been devalued in WWE over the years, not only single reason comes close to the Money in the Bank Ladder match IMO. I don't care what anyone says. While I am still too disgusted with the situation to even BEGIN to really get into how ridiculous the whole idea is, I can say that one word sums up the money in the bank match and WWE's overall booking and building of stars - LAZY.

This guy seems to have the right idea as far as the situation goes beyond the MITB match....

The Money in the Bank isn't the direct reason, but the thought process behind the concept is most definitely to blame. WWE has forgotten how to properly build stars. Their ratings are low and they need to keep fans interested, so they jump around for person to person, throwing the belt on whoever seems popular, hoping to find the next big thing to revolutionize the product. But it doesn't just happen that way.

Back since mid to late 2009, it seems WWE finally got wind of the idea that some of their stars were getting old. By the time Edge shocked the world and retired after Mania 27, they went into a pure panic mode. All this resulted in them hot shotting guys to the top over the years such as Jack Swagger, CM Punk, The Miz, Alberto Del Rio and even Daniel Bryan. Bryan is one of the most respected guys in the IWC and i love him. Was a huge fan of his ROH work, but even i know, as great of an in ring technician he is, no world title belongs around his waist in WWE, not even close. But that is what WWE has become... Lazy. Gone are the days of building up a guy properly like Austin was, Rock was, and Triple was, etc. Now, if WWE sees potential in you, you're either getting the world title (i.e. Sheamus at TLC 09, Dolph Ziggler in 2010) or they are protecting you to the point where you are like pure gold as seen with someone such as Cody Rhodes.

WWE has lost many stars over the years, such as retirees like HBK, Ric Flair, JBL and Edge, and guys who have just ended their wrestling careers early like Batista and Brock Lesnar. Something happened along the way with WWE. In my opinion, Vince mcMahon seems to THINK that fans have a short attention span or something along those lines. Last year was the most disgusting portrayal of the world title swapping yet. I understand they always want to keep us on our toes, but I've never seen anything like it. It took Hulk Hogan 25 years to win 12 world titles, meanwhile John Cena has that amount in just 10. Legends like Roddy Piper and Mr. Perfect never had a single world title reign, yet Dolph Ziggler and Daniel Bryan do in what has been a blink of an eye.

Thats right, does anyone even remember the joke that was on Smackdown last year when for whatever reason Dolph was awarded the world title on Smackdown only to LOSE it that night to Edge for his 11th reign??? I'd like to be in the room to hear these people when they decided that.

The company has become a joke in my eyes because of this, and I've had it for a while. I think I was just about done when Miz cashed in his briefcase. There Randy Orton was, solid champion who WWE of course threw the belt on at NOC 2010 because he was getting a good reaction as a face, and just 2 1/2 months later without any classic matches or any REAL build under his belt, Miz wins the WWE title.

So in my opinion, its been a lot of things, and while some may argue the brand split, I don't so much. It's always better with one world title for sure, but the MITB briefcase is undoubtedly the main culprit.

 

[Dalinkwent]

One problem is some of the top stars seem indifferent to being WWE champ. Cena can be screwed out of the belt, and show up the next night on Raw cracking jokes and barely mentioning the belt in question.

 

[Headman]

One problem is some of the top stars seem indifferent to being WWE champ. Cena can be screwed out of the belt, and show up the next night on Raw cracking jokes and barely mentioning the belt in question.

I'm not seeing this as a sign of Cena not caring about being champion. He seemed pretty torn up when faced with the choice of giving away his shot to get Ryder a US title shot. I think Cena is going to joke around because that's his personality. However, after losing the title at Summer Slam he seemed pissed and took out his frustration on Del Rio the next night. A side note: Cena got a good reaction for viciously beating down Del Rio. I think a lot of fans would return to his corner if the WWE would run with a more aggressive Cena.

 

[Brahma Bull]

The titles loose value then become revalued a lot i feel. But i feel that the recent devalue has occured these past 2 years due to all the big names leaving. In the past few years we have seen hbk, y2j, batista, edge, hhh to a degree and undertaker to a degree leave. (I know jericho just got back.) not to mention people that the iwc doesnt like but were also main eventers like jbl. so they threw the title on sheamus, miz, ziggler (in what was the worst possible way to win your first title), swagger, del rio, christian, and even mark henry. Now, I agree with some of these title reigns, especially christian, but having so many guys win it for the first time in such a small amount of time takes away from the appeal. Before it seemed like the best were going for the title, now it seems like anyone can have a few good matches and get the title. and im not saying that having new people get the title is bad, of course you need it to keep the wwe going, and the wwe had to since so many people left. but having 7 new guys win it in 2 years definately take away the appeal. especially when it is from some guys who never should have got it (swagger).

 

[SPR*VLN]

I feel the World Championships as well as midcard belts became devalued when they tossed the belts on new faces too soon. Nothing is wrong with putting the belt on a new guy, but if it becomes a trend and half of the roster is a former champion then it hurts the prestigue.

 

[Diet Soda]

Echoing similar sentiments in this thread, the top tier championship was devalued when it was divided by two. I've always been a firm believer that the brand extension was a failed experiment that went on for far too long, and when the WWE has it so one of their supposedly most coveted prizes is being contested for on the opening match of the card (a la Edge vs. Del Rio at WM), it becomes glaringly obvious that there is no need for two championships at that level.
Maybe the WWE hasn't just got the star power at the moment to build up towards a unification match, but one can remain hopeful for something like the thirtieth Wrestlemania.

 

[Juvenal]

I think the championships got devalued when the championships were separated into two. There should only be one championship. The main one that states your the champion for the company. Also another reason will be the short reigns each wrestler got. Seriously the championship flipped flopped every month or so. I always thought a decent championship reign should last between 3 to 8 months. It gives credibility to the championship.

 

[Dalinkwent]

I'm not seeing this as a sign of Cena not caring about being champion. He seemed pretty torn up when faced with the choice of giving away his shot to get Ryder a US title shot. I think Cena is going to joke around because that's his personality. However, after losing the title at Summer Slam he seemed pissed and took out his frustration on Del Rio the next night. A side note: Cena got a good reaction for viciously beating down Del Rio. I think a lot of fans would return to his corner if the WWE would run with a more aggressive Cena.

I'm not blaming Cena, but WWE booking. For example Cena's anger at ADR was contrived because ADR cashed in on Punk, yet all of sudden Cena is the pissed off one and demanding title shots. Once again I'm not blaming Cena, but WWE lazy ass booking.