How Do You NOT Become World Champion?

[TUFFY54]

People are always wondering who should have been a world champion. With the way a champion used to hold onto his belt for years, there were many great superstars that never got the push they deserved. However, I believe they days of deserving champions not getting the strap are almost over. Lets look at the way title reigns have changed over the last 30 years.

1980's
If we start this project in 1980 with Bob Backland, there were a total of five different WWE champions that decade. During that ten year span, Hogan and Backland held the belt for almost nine years. Here were your champions:

Bob Backland
Iron Sheik
Hulk Hogan
Andre The Giant
Randy Savage

That's five wrestlers with a total of six reigns. Keep in mind that Sheik had the belt a month, and Andre had it for a commercial break.

With only five champions, people often talk about who should have held the belt in the 80's. The most common names are Roddy Piper, Ted DiBiase, Rick Rude, Jake Roberts, Jimmy Snuka, King Kong Bundy, Dusty Rhodes, Paul Orndorff, Don Muroco, and Ricky Steamboat. That's a solid ten guys who would have been legitimate champions that never got a chance to hold the belt.

1990's
Starting with the Ultimate Warrior, the 90's gave us 16 new world champions:

Ultimate Warrior
Sgt. Slaughter
Undertaker
Ric Flair
Bret Hart
Yokozuna
Diesel
Shawn Michaels
Sid
Steve Austin
Kane
The Rock
Mankind
Triple H
Vince McMahon
Big Show

That's 16 new world champions and a total of 39 different reigns for the decade. (Hogan and Savage are not counted in the new champions, but their reigns are included in the overall) On average, the title changed hands four times a year. (Remember, the belt only changed hands six times TOTAL in the 80's)

In addition to all those champs, people still talk about who should have won the belt in the 90's. Mr. Perfect, Scott Hall, Lex Luger, Ken Shamrock, Owen Hart, British Bulldog, and Vader all would have made great champions. That's seven worthy guys that never got the belt.

2000's
Starting with Kurt Angle, the last decade gave us 18 new world champions:

Kurt Angle
Jericho
Brock Lesnar
Guerrero
JBL
John Cena
Edge
RVD
Randy Orton
Jeff Hardy
Batista
Goldberg
Benoit
Rey Mysterio
King Booker
Khali
CM Punk
Sheamus

Thats 18 new people that held either the WWE or World Championships in the last decade. There are two main titles now, but both are seen as being a "world champion", so both have to count. If you factor in everyone who had the belt in the previous decade (Undertaker, Rock, Triple H, etc.), then you have 76 different title reigns in 10 years. That means that the world championships changed hands for a combined average of over seven times a year.

Here is where things change drastically. In the previous two decades we had a combined 17 guys who could have been a world champion that never got the chance. How many guys in the last decade that were world champion material never won it? Christian, Ken Kennedy, maybe Matt Hardy? That's only 3 guys who people could realistically argue should have won a title.

I predict that over the next 10 years, every single wrestler that people think is good enough to be a world champion will get a run with the belt. The fact that we are on the eve of so many retirements makes this even more true. Remember, the last decade only had two more new champions than the 90's did, but almost half of the people that won the belt for the first time in the 90's also had a reign in the last decade.The only thing that could change this would be an end to the brand split. However, I don't see that happening. Thoughts, comments, or critics are welcome.

Editors Note: Please don't read this entire post and respond by getting upset that I left someone off the list of people that should of been champion, or added someone that you didn't agree with. That is obviously not the main focus of this thread.

 

[sislater69]

As you rightfully show, the rate at which title changes occur has increased dramatically during the last few decades. And, also as you rightfullt state, has a lot to do with having 2 brands and 2 world championships. The fact that there is so much television now is also a major part of this. When we have 6+ hours of television every week, as well as 13 PPV's per year (where the 'E feel they have to have a title match on the card), it's clear titles will change hands pretty often.

Call it lazy booking, call it what you will, but this trend isn't likely to change anytime soon.

I agree will you entirely in your predictions about "anybody good enough will get a chance", we have seen this to an extent already in the likes of Sheamus, Swagger and Miz. I guess this happens to keep things fresh. Who wants to see Cena and Orton exchange belts every month for a year?

I think this time next year, we could well be talking on a similar thread about Morrison, Kingston, McIntyre, and Barrett's title reigns in the same way.

 

[The Brain]

I agree with your prediction. Of course saying someone could or should have been champion is subjective. For example I don’t see Kennedy, Christian, or Matt Hardy as world champion. That’s not the point though. I understand what you’re saying. It’s a lot easier to get a world title reign now than it was years ago. There are at least three big reasons for this and even though they’re obvious to me I’m going to state them anyway.

First the brand extension. Simple math tells me and additional title will equal additional champions. Guys like JBL, Rey Mysterio, and Booker T wouldn’t have come anywhere near the title if there was only one championship. No one would have nearly the amount of reigns as they do now. Edge might have gotten one or two title reigns, but there’s no way he would have gotten nine. Same could be said for Jericho. Even Cena, Batista, and Orton would be like three time champions instead of whatever they are. So pardon me for stating the obvious but the brand extension has possibly doubled the number of champions we’ve seen.

Second is the programming format. Ever since the ppv schedule expanded in 1995 we have seen more title reigns. In the 80s and early 90s everything was based on house shows. Champions rarely appeared on weekly television shows and if they did it would be even more rare the title was on the line. If I wanted to see Hulk Hogan defend the title I had to buy a ticket to a house show. If Hogan was feuding with Paul Orndorff they might begin their series of matches in New York. Then they would go to New Jersey, Boston, Toronto, Philadelphia, and so on until they toured the country. This would take time so the title was kept on the champion at least until the tour was over. The thing is people obviously wanted to see Hogan more than once so once he was done with the Orndorff tour he may start the cycle over with One Man Gang or King Kong Bundy. It would take a full year to just go through three challengers. If the title changed back then as often as it did today Hogan wouldn’t make it through the first tour and a lot of people wouldn’t even get to see him as champion once. Today it doesn’t really matter because we get to see the champion and all the big stars every week on tv and once a month on ppv. Since we get to see the big stars on tv so much it doesn’t really matter who the champ is when they come to our town which leads me to my next point.

It doesn’t matter who the champion is nearly as much as it used to. 25 years ago Hulk Hogan was the name that sold tickets. Now WWE is the name that sells tickets. Fans are still going to come to the shows regardless of who the champion is because they know either way they’ll get to see their favorite stars. This allows WWE to be more experimental with their champions. The title match isn’t always the biggest match on the card. Neither mania nor SummerSlam had a title match as the main event this year. John Cena is the face of the company right now with or without the title so why not give Miz a shot as champ? Miz being champion now is equivalent to Honky Tonk Man being champion in 1988. WWE wouldn’t have taken a chance like that in the 80s. Now that the WWE name is bigger than any individual name they have much more creative freedom with the titles. I’m not saying that’s a good thing. I’m a sucker for a nice year long title reign, but I’m afraid those days are over.

 

[johnbragg]

Yes and no. (Mostly yes.)

First of all, one thing you don't account for is the fact that there have always (almost always) been two major world championships in wrestling. This decade, Raw and Smackdown each had their own champions. Until 2001, WCW or the NWA had a world champion basically equal to the WWF champion, at least in the eyes of "smart fans."

So the "two belts" argument doesn't hold up as much as previous posters think.

The big difference is monthly pay per views, and the fact that the audience is accustomed to much shorter title reigns and more frequent title changes. That alone means that any wrestler who we would look at today and say "future world champion" will be a world champion, barring injury or leaving the WWE. (Hi, Ken Anderson! Maybe Christian--in his time out of WWE, Edge, Jeff Hardy, Mysterio, Booker, Khali and RVD all got their first world title gold, and Orton got his first decent reign. PEople who leave WWE obviously won't hold WWE titles.)

But the more people win the title, the lower the bar to win the title becomes. If Khali, Booker, JBL, Mysterio and RVD weren't on the list of champions, would people really look at Matt Hardy as a shoulda-been?

There will always be SOMEONE who doesn't win the title. In a few years, if Kofi Kingston or John Morrison flames out, there will be a thread saying that he should have been a world champion, that he was every bit the equal of Seamus, Swagger, Barrett, Otunga, Miz (EDIT:thanks Dwith!) and Ted Dibiase Jr. There will always be someone who doesn't win the title, and there will always be someone who says they should have.

 

[billm75]

I think alot of it comes down to oversaturation of the superstars to be honest. I like Cena when he doesn't have the belt. He just comes off more driven or something, I can't put my finger on it. I grew up with the 80's style of WWF. Title matches were a rarity, title changes even more so and it made it feel like a real sporting event in that sense. These guys labored for years fighting to get noticed. (Much like boxing, there are some guys who NEVER get a title shot, but fight regularly)

I don't like everyone getting the title. I think it cheapens it. And I think having the champion fight every week, multiple times a week, cheapens the performer. Build a character, let him have feuds that don't culminate in a title match and let these feuds go for a few months at a shot. You'll regain some of the prestige, and you'll have a roster full of competent guys who, with a small push, can jump into the main event scene when needed.

 

[Dzone]

To put it perfectly I do believe, if looking at figures (just for WWE champion and WHC) Randy Orton is a better "wrestler" than Shawn Michaels *¬.¬*. Orton's won 7 world titles and Shawn's won 4... Thats what it would look like to a casual fan who has never watched wrestling/title reigns of the "old" days.

They just need one LONG title reign and to be honest I couldn't care less who it is... even if it was Cena, but I'd prefer a heel Cena 6-8months+ reign.

On top of the title reigns becoming shorter what I hate more is fueds becoming shorter; thus the reason for me enjoying Shawn Michaels vs Undertaker WM 25-26 matches because it felt like a 2 year bad-ass fued. I wouldn't mind titles switching hands often if fued were longer, but these days they include a title mainly so it stands to reason that title reigns should be longer.

 

[shagonzalez]

With all that's been said i believe that in ten years if this discussion were to take place every superstar who is deserving of being champ will have held the title at least once,whether it be WWE champ or WORLD heavyweight champ.

 

[johnbragg]

With all that's been said i believe that in ten years if this discussion were to take place every superstar who is deserving of being champ will have held the title at least once,whether it be WWE champ or WORLD heavyweight champ.

I'd say that's pretty much true today. The only exceptions are guys who didn't stay in WWE--Lashley, Kennedy/Anderson, Christian a few years ago.

Who exactly is the "best wrestler to never win a world title" today? And, if they get bypassed by Seamus, Swagger, Miz and soon enough others, do they really deserve to hold a world title? Or are they the modern day Test or Billy Gunn, guys who just never were able to get to that level?

Seriously, did MVP or Carlito "deserve" a world title run? Does Morrison? Kofi? Who else? Dibiase? McIntyre? Barrett and Bryan and Del Rio are still pretty new to WWE--if they're still trying to break through in 2-3-4 years, does that say something about them?

 

[Heartbreak_Kid_707]

Well as far as the post by JohnBragg...I do think Morrison ios ready, Wade Barrett is rady as well..Kofi, Dibiase, Mcintyre, MVP, Carlito, will never have what it takes to be World Champion (maybe Mcintyre). Daniel Bryan i could NEVER see him as World Champion, he doesnt have the look, the mic skills, and im not totally impressed by his wrestling skills.

For some reason I thought Matt Hardy held a world championship already?? In ECW maybe?