I feel the Raw title is the prop, Smackdown is the one that matters

[Twiztid Rodimus]

Okay. Im sure that this is felt by more people here, but I figured that I would speak my opinion on it.

The term ''Prop'' for the title belts has been the trendy thing to call it since Russo said it in TNA. So I use it loosely, not in the way he did.

Raw is the Cena show, it has been for a while. Now, dont get me wrong, Im not a Cena basher. Im just stating facts.

People tune in to Raw, Its the ''A'' show, so why not have the main Wwe guy hold the title. Regardless of how people trash him, They watch it anyway. So complaining about him is NOT the way to handle it. Your STILL supporting the show. And those who genuinely support him, are who they are, Kids/Women or whatever, They are fans nonetheless.

So,after a while, as a fan, I began to not care about the Raw title anymore. I still watch, but Ive gotten to the point of just not caring about the title no matter who's holding it.

There's too many reigns, to many transitions, and such. Ive just lost interest in that belt as a whole.

Now.

Looking at the Smackdown title, It has had so much momentum in the past couple years, Look whos had it in the past 5 years in comparison.

Raw:
John Cena
Edge
RVD
Randy Orton
Triple H
Batista
Jeff Hardy
Sheamus

Smackdown:
Triple H
Batista
Kurt Angle
Booker T
Undertaker
Khali
Edge
Cm Punk
Jericho
John Cena
Jeff Hardy
Jack swagger

Though there is a few names that are normal for both titles. Raw is less varied and has had less impressive reigns.

I personally find the Smackdown title to be the better title and the one True title that actually matters for more than t-shirt sales and a live show

 

[Zaahir3000]

I agree with the OP until WWE gets rid of the spinner Cena belt. All champs will be considered transitional to Cena who is the ultimate champ.

 

[Coco]

Are you trying to imply that the World Heavyweight Championship doesn't have transitional reigns? Are you not familiar with several reigns that Batista, Edge, Jericho, Hardy, and even Cena had? Those reigns are just as bad as, or worse, than anything we've seen in the WWE Championship scene.

Second of all, are you trying to imply that there's a problem with making the WWE Championship an exclusive, hard-to-capture property? What's wrong with less variety? Why wouldn't the absolute top guys be holding the belt all the time? Doesn't a midcarder like Swagger having a World Championship lessen its value? If anything, the WHC is being used as prop to get someone over right now rather than that appearing to be a prize that a person gets for being the top guy in the business. And the same has been done with the WWE Championship. So in that way, all titles are props today.

Third of all, what's wrong with belts generating t-shirt sales? Seeing as profit is the end all, be all of any business, wouldn't you want to use the prop to generate revenue?

 

[RatedRSuperstar84]

Both lists have some good performers on them, the biggest exception being Khali. I will say however that there has been more variety in the World Heavyweight Title picture in terms of title matches, etc.

The biggest issue I have is like someone mentioned; the spinner belt. It looks dumb as hell and second rate. For the record, I did not like the "Smoking Skull" belt either. Cena as the champion or not, that belt needs to go because for the most part it is a part of Raw; the so called "A" show and the belt needs an "A" look.

I think Raw's title is still the one that matters to most people as it is the one that most people see but feel that it looks second rate to Smackdown. Not because of the people holding them but the actual belt itself.

 

[izzardceo]

Seeing as profit is the end all, be all of any business couldnt agree with you any more the end of the day its business you go with w/e makes you the most $ regardless of the topic the fans opinions the iwc the fact remains cena = $$$$ so give him the belt make the belt spin and sell it to kids/women

 

[dman1373]

Both lists have some good performers on them, the biggest exception being Khali. I will say however that there has been more variety in the World Heavyweight Title picture in terms of title matches, etc.

The biggest issue I have is like someone mentioned; the spinner belt. It looks dumb as hell and second rate. For the record, I did not like the "Smoking Skull" belt either. Cena as the champion or not, that belt needs to go because for the most part it is a part of Raw; the so called "A" show and the belt needs an "A" look.

I think Raw's title is still the one that matters to most people as it is the one that most people see but feel that it looks second rate to Smackdown. Not because of the people holding them but the actual belt itself.

I agree, the spinner belt looks so horrible. I kind of care less about the title because of it. If it looked even like a crappy looking traditional title then i would care more about the title. Well that and the fact that its had cena holding it for like ever.

 

[People's Champ]

Varity equals better reigns or more legitimacy to a title? I don't think so. Swagger was losing to Santino and now all of a sudden he's the WH champion? Sorry but your thinking is flawed. Cena os the top guy on the top show, whether you like it or not, whether anyone here likes it or not. The fact is the best always are on top. So why not have Cena hold the belt?

The Smackdown title is now being used to try to elevate guys to main event status. Its not so much about the best guy winning the top belt. So to say that the Smackdown title is now the top belt or not the prop that Raw's belt is is incorrect.

 

[dman1373]

Varity equals better reigns or more legitimacy to a title? I don't think so. Swagger was losing to Santino and now all of a sudden he's the WH champion? Sorry but your thinking is flawed. Cena os the top guy on the top show, whether you like it or not, whether anyone here likes it or not. The fact is the best always are on top. So why not have Cena hold the belt?

The Smackdown title is now being used to try to elevate guys to main event status. Its not so much about the best guy winning the top belt. So to say that the Smackdown title is now the top belt or not the prop that Raw's belt is is incorrect.

Cena is the top guy. But Cena by all means is not the best. The top guy is whoever they want on top. Alot of midcard guys could be better, but never get the chance to prove it, because the cenas and the triple h's keep them down. Thats why guys like Pope left. He could have possibly been a bigger draw then Cena, but he was never given that chance in the wwe. Now thats why the WHC is the better championship. They give younger guys a chance. And Some succeed like punk, hardy, or jericho. And those people are better than Cena and triple H anyone who has held the wwe title in the last year.

 

[Post]

What a a ******ed argument.

The Raw title is the main title, the title every wrestler wants to hold. Look at the history behind it: Samartino, Backlund, Hogan, Savage, Flair, Hart, Michaels, Austin, Diesel, Taker, Rock, HHH, Lesnar....and on and on and on.

The WWE championship is Varsity, Smackdown and the WHC is JV. While Raw and the WWE championship are currently the Cena show and the belt has a ridiculous spinner (I hate it), it doesn't take away from the history or the prestige.

The WWE Championship is the foundation of not only the WWE, but for all of professional wrestling. The NWA title is a joke and defended in high school gyms every night. WCW title...deceased. The Smackdown WHC has been around for less than a decade! Wake up!

 

[mister_b1LL]

The way I see it, if WWE got rid of the spinner belt and remade it into a traditional looking championship, the arguments about the WWE Title being a prop would cease.

Like drewpost said, the WWE Championship has so much history behind it as some of the greatest wrestlers of all time have held it at some point. You're just not seeing it with the current belt.

Personally I wish at some point JBL would have won the WWE Championship again because I know he would destroy that spinner belt once and for all like he did with Cena's US Championship.

 

[Twiztid Rodimus]

Cena is the top guy. But Cena by all means is not the best. The top guy is whoever they want on top. Alot of midcard guys could be better, but never get the chance to prove it, because the cenas and the triple h's keep them down. Thats why guys like Pope left. He could have possibly been a bigger draw then Cena, but he was never given that chance in the wwe. Now thats why the WHC is the better championship. They give younger guys a chance. And Some succeed like punk, hardy, or jericho. And those people are better than Cena and triple H anyone who has held the wwe title in the last year.

I appreciate all the responses, even the ones who don't agree with me.

Some of the criticism I have is:

Varity equals better reigns or more legitimacy to a title?
No, It doesn't. But having only the merch sellers being the champions doesn't either.
Yes, Cena, Triple H, Undertaker,are the big names. But it also sets up nothing but simple ''I lost my title, I gotta a rematch clause, So Ill get it back next month''. It makes it where NO one even gets the shots to be able to make it seem like they're worthy.

Are you trying to imply that the World Heavyweight Championship doesn't have transitional reigns? Are you not familiar with several reigns that Batista, Edge, Jericho, Hardy, and even Cena had? Those reigns are just as bad as, or worse, than anything we've seen in the WWE Championship scene.

Of course not, Most of the titles nowadays have instances of transition. But its become such a trend that you almost know whos gonna be champion. Yes, Sheamus had the title, for how long? And whos the champion now? Again?
Swagger may have lost to Santino. But didn't cena lose to Carlito? For the US title by the way?

Third of all, what's wrong with belts generating t-shirt sales? Seeing as profit is the end all, be all of any business, wouldn't you want to use the prop to generate revenue?
If money is your only focus of opinion, Than you have almost NO room for any debates, since your thoughts are buisness.

Second of all, are you trying to imply that there's a problem with making the WWE Championship an exclusive, hard-to-capture property?

Yes, I do. Because we know most of the reigns are power trips, or money plays, Its insulting to us as fans. I know that its a buisness, but wheres the entertainment value of title matches if you know that if there not selling merch, They dont matter?

So the only people who deserve it, Per your logic, Is:
Triple H
Orton
Cena
Batista....

4 people tossing it back and forth? Thats what makes it pointless to me.

Sheamus isn't selling shirts, according to your logic, He shouldn't have it. So lets NOT give the youth a shot, Lets just let the big four have it. The rest of the wrestlers are there to make sure the bathrooms dont stay packed right?

 

[Sean Valjean]

I feel it's the complete opposite; the World Heavyweight title has seemed more like the prop than the WWE title.

Don't get me wrong, the WWE title has had it's fair share of transitional reigns, but it seems that anyone can get the WH belt and much quicker too. Guys like Khali, Punk, Mysterio, Orton (when he was much younger). And let's not forget the last 4 out of the 6 MITB winners have cashed in the world title; Jack freaking Swagger is World Heavyweight Champion.

The WWE title has always been the tougher of the two to win. In the last few years, how many fresh, new WWE champs have there been? Jeff Hardy and Sheamus? Yes, winning the WH title is a big deal, but winning the WWE title seems like the ultimate accomplishment and proof that the company has faith in you. Being World Heavyweight champion helps elevate you to the top, but being WWE champion solidifies that position. As such, I've always viewed the WWE title as the more prestigious world title.

So I disagree. Being World Heavyweight champion is no joke, but the WWE title is where it's really at.

 

[TheLoneLegend]

The WWE Title is the number one belt in the company, no matter what. Does the belt look horrible? Yes Has the belt lost any prestige? Well, maybe a little. But at the end of the day, the WWE Title is the most important belt in wrestling.

I would of loved to of heard rants back when Hogan held the titles for years, but then again Wrestling Fans are spoiled now of days and most are ungrateful. There was a point and time when you had 2 hours of wrestling a week; WWE Primetime on USA. Eventually we got a Saturday show with Vic "Venom" Russo as the host.

But between the internet and at least 5 hours of televised WWE and 2 hours of Televised TNA A WEEK on top of a 3 hour PPV every month, most are just ungrateful, bitch, whine, and complain, because "they didn't book this right" or "They do this to often" or "I don't wanna see Wrestle A vs Wrestler B anymore" or "Blah Blah Blah has held the title to long or is stale".

ENJOY THE DAMN SHOW AND STOP TRYING TO BE MINI BOOKERS AND CRITICS!!!

Sorry for the rant.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Okay. Im sure that this is felt by more people here, but I figured that I would speak my opinion on it.

In my time here, I've found that this phrase and others like it are seldom a good sign...

The term ''Prop'' for the title belts has been the trendy thing to call it since Russo said it in TNA. So I use it loosely, not in the way he did.

Raw is the Cena show, it has been for a while. Now, dont get me wrong, Im not a Cena basher [EDIT: Yes you are]. Im just stating facts.

See the edit above. Given language you use later in this post, you are most certainly a Cena hater, even if you are still in the closet about it.

People tune in to Raw, Its the ''A'' show, so why not have the main Wwe guy hold the title. Regardless of how people trash him, They watch it anyway. So complaining about him is NOT the way to handle it. Your STILL supporting the show. And those who genuinely support him, are who they are, Kids/Women or whatever, They are fans nonetheless.

I submit into evidence Exhibit A: passive aggressive dismissal of John Cena's status as a top draw and championship contender. Note the lines like "Regardless of how people trash him..." and "...are who they are, Kids/Women or whatever..."; while the OP tries to make it seem he view them fairly, it is clear that he does not approve of John Cena being in the main event spot so often, and that he feels that Cena is only there because of merch sales for kids and women, and that anyone who isn't either is just "whatever".

So,after a while, as a fan, I began to not care about the Raw title anymore. I still watch, but Ive gotten to the point of just not caring about the title no matter who's holding it.

There's too many reigns, to many transitions, and such. Ive just lost interest in that belt as a whole.

See edit above for emphasis on the OP's argument against the WWE Championship.

Now.

Looking at the Smackdown title, It has had so much momentum in the past couple years, Look whos had it in the past 5 years in comparison.

See edit above for the OP's emphasis on why the World Heavyweight Championship is more relevant.

Also, please note the the OP does not refer to the titles by their name, but instead by the show. I believe this is also relevant in exposing his hidden Cena prejudice because it hints that he does not see the titles as different, only the shows, and his preference is towards the show that features Cena less.

Raw:
John Cena
Edge
RVD
Randy Orton
Triple H
Batista
Jeff Hardy
Sheamus

Smackdown:
Triple H
Batista
Kurt Angle
Booker T
Undertaker
Khali
Edge
Cm Punk
Jericho
John Cena
Jeff Hardy
Jack swagger

Note that compared to his argument against the WWE Championship, the title has had less title holders than it's counterpart. With a few exceptions, it's holders were able to build up a measure of momentum with the title. And with the exception of newcomer Sheamus, all are established and proven stars and top draws.

By comparison, the World Heavyweight Championship has had far more holders in the same strech of time, leaving little time for most to develop any momentum as a main eventer. The WHC title is frequently entrusted to newer, less proven stars over the WWE title (again, with the sole exception of Sheamus). I'd also like to point out the The Great Khali has held the WHC title. Take that for what you will.

Though there is a few names that are normal for both titles. Raw is less varied and has had less impressive reigns.

I personally find the Smackdown title to be the better title and the one True title that actually matters for more than t-shirt sales and a live show

I submit into evidence Exhibit B: further passive aggressive dismissal of Cena's status. A common tactic of the Cena hater is to write off his status as a top draw as a result of merchandise sales and charisma instead of "actually deserving it", whatever that means. The idea is that the "real fans" know that Cena is bullshit, and is killing the industry, and is the devil, etc. They let their blind hatred born of jealousy cloud and warp their judgement and leaves them only able to hammer out badly written threads based on provably faulty logic.

Ladies and gentlemen, while I would love to have an honest discussion about which title means more, I simply cannot allow trash likes this post to sully the eyes of the fine members of these forums. I leave it to you to make the right decision.

 

[Twiztid Rodimus]

The WWE Title is the number one belt in the company, no matter what. Does the belt look horrible? Yes Has the belt lost any prestige? Well, maybe a little. But at the end of the day, the WWE Title is the most important belt in wrestling.

I would of loved to of heard rants back when Hogan held the titles for years, but then again Wrestling Fans are spoiled now of days and most are ungrateful. There was a point and time when you had 2 hours of wrestling a week; WWE Primetime on USA. Eventually we got a Saturday show with Vic "Venom" Russo as the host.

But between the internet and at least 5 hours of televised WWE and 2 hours of Televised TNA A WEEK on top of a 3 hour PPV every month, most are just ungrateful, bitch, whine, and complain, because "they didn't book this right" or "They do this to often" or "I don't wanna see Wrestle A vs Wrestler B anymore" or "Blah Blah Blah has held the title to long or is stale".

ENJOY THE DAMN SHOW AND STOP TRYING TO BE MINI BOOKERS AND CRITICS!!!

Sorry for the rant.

I appreciate your response, buT YOUR MISSING MY POINT.

What Im saying is, Is that theres so much of the same people in the same positions in the title picture. Who cares about a Cena vs insert name here rematch over and over.

Im not asking for anyone specific to be in that spot. But if Triple H wasnt hurt, Do you think he would have put over Sheamus? Hell no. He didnt at mania. Of course not.

The title picture is so damn boring on Raw because its always the same people.

Speak on how you would have liked to see the rants in the 80s. Im 27, so I was a friggin child then, So of course my opinions werent as jaded.

If they had long decisive reigns, I wouldnt have so much of an issue. I mention Raw because its within the same four people. Even when they fight withOUT the title, Its almost the same people in random tag matches.

Look at Smackdown. Though the roster just changed. Did Swagger fight jericho last night? NO, He fought Morrison. A young former Ecw champion who many feel is a future world champion in his own right.

Your spewing of ''Enjoy the show'' means, DOnt speak for change, Dont speak on things that YOU are paying to see, and give time to watch. You my friend are a conformist, I for one, am not.

If I dont like something I speak on it.

I wasnt bashing anyone in particular on either roster.

Only wanting to see more varied matches and feuds.

They seel the drafts as if they truly matter, when if you werent already a main eventer it doesnt matter if you get traded. You essentially dont matter.

 

[Coco]

, Cena, Triple H, Undertaker,are the big names. But it also sets up nothing but simple ''I lost my title, I gotta a rematch clause, So Ill get it back next month''. It makes it where NO one even gets the shots to be able to make it seem like they're worthy.

Your issue is one that exists on SmackDown as well. Last year after Mania and into the fall, you were subjected to rematch after rematch between Hardy and Edge, Hardy and Punk, and Punk and Undertaker. They were moving through title feuds at the same rate as Raw, which went through conflicts between Orton and Triple H, Orton and Batista, and Cena and Orton. Nobody was really stepping up on either show.

Could younger guys be build towards title shots more efficiently and title feuds be given more thought? Yes. Is Raw any worse off in this department? No.

If money is your only focus of opinion, Than you have almost NO room for any debates, since your thoughts are buisness.

You just tried to imply that revenue should have almost no influence on the decision to make someone champion. Do you understand how silly that is?

Yes, I do. Because we know most of the reigns are power trips, or money plays, Its insulting to us as fans. I know that its a buisness, but wheres the entertainment value of title matches if you know that if there not selling merch, They dont matter?

Seeing as Cena's both the right decision for business and someone that keeps most fans satisfied, not insulted, I'm still not seeing the problem.

So the only people who deserve it, Per your logic, Is:
Triple H
Orton
Cena
Batista....

4 people tossing it back and forth? Thats what makes it pointless to me.

I actually think Cena, Batista, Taker, and Rey would make a superior core four.

The problem isn't who has the belt. If anything, it's how the reigns are handled. Fighting the same people is what hurts perception of the belt, IMO. I say the pool of potential contenders should be widened by superior star building at the lower levels on the card. You know, so those four guys have more people to run over and so that when someone joins that core star group and wins the title, they deserve it.

Also, there were years in the past without world title changes. Your ADD doesn't signal any problem with the product.

Sheamus isn't selling shirts, according to your logic, He shouldn't have it. So lets NOT give the youth a shot, Lets just let the big four have it. The rest of the wrestlers are there to make sure the bathrooms dont stay packed right?

Pointlessly thrusting the world championship on people isn't the only way to make someone significant. Don't let the current booking philosophy fool you. Non-title main event level feuds and proper midcard feuds can be treated more as significant than they are now.

However, the top title should be held by the VERY top guys. Letting people hold it to get over rather than building them up at the lower levels devalues the belt.

I'm not saying youth shouldn't get a shot. I'm saying giving everyone a turn with the belt isn't the way to give people chances.

 

[Twiztid Rodimus]

In my time here, I've found that this phrase and others like it are seldom a good sign...



See the edit above. Given language you use later in this post, you are most certainly a Cena hater, even if you are still in the closet about it.



I submit into evidence Exhibit A: passive aggressive dismissal of John Cena's status as a top draw and championship contender. Note the lines like "Regardless of how people trash him..." and "...are who they are, Kids/Women or whatever..."; while the OP tries to make it seem he view them fairly, it is clear that he does not approve of John Cena being in the main event spot so often, and that he feels that Cena is only there because of merch sales for kids and women, and that anyone who isn't either is just "whatever".



See edit above for emphasis on the OP's argument against the WWE Championship.



See edit above for the OP's emphasis on why the World Heavyweight Championship is more relevant.

Also, please note the the OP does not refer to the titles by their name, but instead by the show. I believe this is also relevant in exposing his hidden Cena prejudice because it hints that he does not see the titles as different, only the shows, and his preference is towards the show that features Cena less.



Note that compared to his argument against the WWE Championship, the title has had less title holders than it's counterpart. With a few exceptions, it's holders were able to build up a measure of momentum with the title. And with the exception of newcomer Sheamus, all are established and proven stars and top draws.

By comparison, the World Heavyweight Championship has had far more holders in the same strech of time, leaving little time for most to develop any momentum as a main eventer. The WHC title is frequently entrusted to newer, less proven stars over the WWE title (again, with the sole exception of Sheamus). I'd also like to point out the The Great Khali has held the WHC title. Take that for what you will.




I submit into evidence Exhibit B: further passive aggressive dismissal of Cena's status. A common tactic of the Cena hater is to write off his status as a top draw as a result of merchandise sales and charisma instead of "actually deserving it", whatever that means. The idea is that the "real fans" know that Cena is bullshit, and is killing the industry, and is the devil, etc. They let their blind hatred born of jealousy cloud and warp their judgement and leaves them only able to hammer out badly written threads based on provably faulty logic.

Ladies and gentlemen, while I would love to have an honest discussion about which title means more, I simply cannot allow trash likes this post to sully the eyes of the fine members of these forums. I leave it to you to make the right decision.

Feel that I am a Cena fan all you like. I enjoy Cena's work. I always have. Its just that I would like to see different match ups or at least something varied in the match ups. If they MUST keep the title on him, why not have other opponents seem like legit threats, Rather than trash them and make them just notches on his belt.

They had Cena feuding with Sheamus, I was excited. I loved it, It was different. The promos were interesting, Fresh. And such. The title wasn't even necessary, It was a decent, but short fued.

But then

They go BACK to Cena/Batista.

The fact that there's so many conformist to the norm, is why things never change.

I dont post often in the wrestling section due to the complete and utter arrogance of the responses, but I chose to do so, Now I see why I dont anymore.

You dont have to agree with what I said. But obviously, proving point after point of why Wrestling fans are knocked so hard, Theres no consideration when things are debated than to try and ''Own'' somebody in a lame ass way to get your smark cred up with the Mods, or 10,000 post counters.

Its sad. But I stand by my opinion. And was curious of yours, Rather than taking apart posts with ******ed ''Exhibit '' crap, How about you try and disprove what Im saying, Or at least have a mature response.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I appreciate your response, buT YOUR MISSING MY POINT.

What Im saying is, Is that theres so much of the same people in the same positions in the title picture. Who cares about a Cena vs insert name here rematch over and over.

Im not asking for anyone specific to be in that spot. But if Triple H wasnt hurt, Do you think he would have put over Sheamus? Hell no. He didnt at mania. Of course not.

The title picture is so damn boring on Raw because its always the same people.

Speak on how you would have liked to see the rants in the 80s. Im 27, so I was a friggin child then, So of course my opinions werent as jaded.

If they had long decisive reigns, I wouldnt have so much of an issue. I mention Raw because its within the same four people. Even when they fight withOUT the title, Its almost the same people in random tag matches.

Look at Smackdown. Though the roster just changed. Did Swagger fight jericho last night? NO, He fought Morrison. A young former Ecw champion who many feel is a future world champion in his own right.

Your spewing of ''Enjoy the show'' means, DOnt speak for change, Dont speak on things that YOU are paying to see, and give time to watch. You my friend are a conformist, I for one, am not.

If I dont like something I speak on it.

I wasnt bashing anyone in particular on either roster.

Only wanting to see more varied matches and feuds.

They seel the drafts as if they truly matter, when if you werent already a main eventer it doesnt matter if you get traded. You essentially dont matter.

I reckon that two things people want the most are main eventers to engage in feuds without the title and new champions. I hear complaints about Cena, HHH, Batista, and Orton and how they are always in the title hunt. I'm going to shed some light on that since 2007.

HHH: He came back in August 2007 and won the title eight months later at Backlash. He went on to hold that title for seven months before losing it to Edge at Survivor Series. He won it again at No Way Out in 2009 and held it for two months before losing it to Orton at Backlash. He hasn't held it since and has had feuds with Rhodes, DiBiase, Miz, Big Show, and Sheamus which is what people wanted.

Cena: He had to give up the belt in October 2007 due to injury and didn't win it again until November of 2008. He was in feuds against JBL and Big Show without the title.

Batista: He lost the title to Edge at Survivor Series 2007 and won it again at Cyber Sunday the following year. After losing it to Jericho again he wouldn't hold the title again until Extreme Rules and had to give it up again to injury and won it back in February.

Orton: He hasn't held the belt since Bragging Rights which was about six or seven months ago.

We moan about the same people being champion over and over again when we should realize that they have had long stretches without the title and have been put in midcard feuds and also the fact is that those four are the most sure wrestlers to be champion. They draw the most and are assured to put on a great match when called upon. RAW is the flagship show and therefore you should have your best wrestlers being champion. Punk being champion on RAW wasn't working out but Cena and Batista were feuding at the time and you had JBL left so maybe I don't put that much stock into it. Sheamus was a nice experiment for starters so I have much confidence in him being a great champion the next go-around because it has already started with his feud in HHH.

When it is all said and done, RAW has the title that matters because it is the top brand in the company and will always be that no matter what title is on the show.

Smackdown is the test run for new young champions. They sort of did it with Punk and they have done it with Hardy and are doing it with Swagger. You will see much more new champions on Smackdown then you will on RAW and I have no problem with it.

HHH did put Sheamus over at Wrestlemania. You don't have to lose to somebody to put them over. You and others should know this by now.

 

[Twiztid Rodimus]

I reckon that two things people want the most are main eventers to engage in feuds without the title and new champions. I hear complaints about Cena, HHH, Batista, and Orton and how they are always in the title hunt. I'm going to shed some light on that since 2007.

HHH: He came back in August 2007 and won the title eight months later at Backlash. He went on to hold that title for seven months before losing it to Edge at Survivor Series. He won it again at No Way Out in 2009 and held it for two months before losing it to Orton at Backlash. He hasn't held it since and has had feuds with Rhodes, DiBiase, Miz, Big Show, and Sheamus which is what people wanted.

Cena: He had to give up the belt in October 2007 due to injury and didn't win it again until November of 2008. He was in feuds against JBL and Big Show without the title.

Batista: He lost the title to Edge at Survivor Series 2007 and won it again at Cyber Sunday the following year. After losing it to Jericho again he wouldn't hold the title again until Extreme Rules and had to give it up again to injury and won it back in February.

Orton: He hasn't held the belt since Bragging Rights which was about six or seven months ago.

We moan about the same people being champion over and over again when we should realize that they have had long stretches without the title and have been put in midcard feuds and also the fact is that those four are the most sure wrestlers to be champion. They draw the most and are assured to put on a great match when called upon. RAW is the flagship show and therefore you should have your best wrestlers being champion. Punk being champion on RAW wasn't working out but Cena and Batista were feuding at the time and you had JBL left so maybe I don't put that much stock into it. Sheamus was a nice experiment for starters so I have much confidence in him being a great champion the next go-around because it has already started with his feud in HHH.

When it is all said and done, RAW has the title that matters because it is the top brand in the company and will always be that no matter what title is on the show.

Smackdown is the test run for new young champions. They sort of did it with Punk and they have done it with Hardy and are doing it with Swagger. You will see much more new champions on Smackdown then you will on RAW and I have no problem with it.

HHH did put Sheamus over at Wrestlemania. You don't have to lose to somebody to put them over. You and others should know this by now.

This is probrably the most respectful and thoughtout response so far. I with your logic, and it does make me rethink a bit of what I was trying to say.

It seems like your idea is that the WHC is the new IC title. A way to prep someone for Raw. I figure that is the way it is, But I dont like it to be so obvious.

They are practically farming our responses, Ya know.

If swagger holds this title for a year and has great matches, People will STILL say that he got it to soon. I guess you can't make everyone happy.

But my whole reasoning is that I prefer the title picture of Smackdown over Raw since it seems like the people have something to fight for, and could win it.

Raw is the show that if your not a big merchandise seller, you have NO chance.

Thank you for the response Little Jerry Lawler

 

[DirtyJosé]

Feel that I am a Cena fan hater all you like. I enjoy Cena's work. I always have. Its just that I would like to see different match ups or at least something varied in the match ups.

And there are totally legit ways to bring that discussion about. But half the stuff you are writing is wrong, and the other half is poorly disguised bias against Cena and is not focused on the titles.

They had Cena feuding with Sheamus, I was excited. I loved it, It was different. The promos were interesting, Fresh. And such. The title wasn't even necessary, It was a decent, but short fued.

Best stuff of '09.

But then

They go BACK to Cena/Batista.

It's called the Road to Wrestlemania. It's called trying to push the fuck out of your biggest PPV in the year. Remembering that everyone in this business is in it to make money, not mark out over themselves, why wouldn't you top the card with two of your biggest stars?

The fact that there's so many conformist to the norm, is why things never change.

Oh jesus, go back to high school, man. "Ooo, you're so conformist", BARF! I like how you and people like you are the "wrestling fans getting screwed/insulted", but the majority that enjoys Cena's work (and really, all the top guys' work) as conformists and zombies and blah blah blah. Things do change, but they happen at their own pace. I certainly think that more work could be done to freshen up the main event, but people do still like seeing the big names fight each other, so you're going to see plenty of "old" match ups in the future.

I dont post often in the wrestling section due to the complete and utter arrogance of the responses, but I chose to do so, Now I see why I dont anymore.

Because you have poor grammar and no leg to stand on?

You dont have to agree with what I said. But obviously, proving point after point of why Wrestling fans are knocked so hard, Theres no consideration when things are debated than to try and ''Own'' somebody in a lame ass way to get your smark cred up with the Mods, or 10,000 post counters.

The thing is that you haven't proven point after point of how the wrestling fans are getting knocked. You have only pointed out how unhappy you are about it. And while the main event scene is a bit musty, that's pretty much common place for the main event scene at any point in time. Only so many guys can populate it. WWE has done much in the last year to bring up newer faces into the main event, but to take your advice and do it all overnight would result in "New Blood 2.0".

There's for sure a good amount of stuff to have a decent discussion with out of your post, but you dismiss the business aspect of it, like a fool. Once again, you are another in a long line of entitled children who feel that the product should be tailored to their desires and wishes regardless of where the better revenue is. You get mad that the industry is about making money because it takes away a bit of the realness from you.

Its sad. But I stand by my opinion. And was curious of yours, Rather than taking apart posts with ******ed ''Exhibit '' crap, How about you try and disprove what Im saying, Or at least have a mature response.

I feel that your thread is entirely too biased to be taken seriously. It assumes as fact that the majority of wrestling fans are as insulted and unsatisfied as he is with the Raw product, any you have dismissed most all logical responses involving the business of the industry and of being a title holder as irrelevant. It is clearly hostile towards fans of the product who are quite happy with the top stars, and openly dismisses them as kids and women as if that rendered them unimportant to the conversation. On top of that, it is also poorly written and full of errors which could have easily been fixed with a quick read through and a spell check. I realize that the point of the non-spam sections is to share and debate opinions, but the arguments you make defending that opinion are trash.

 

[stryfe604]

And there are totally legit ways to bring that discussion about. But half the stuff you are writing is wrong, and the other half is poorly disguised bias against Cena and is not focused on the titles.



Best stuff of '09.



It's called the Road to Wrestlemania. It's called trying to push the fuck out of your biggest PPV in the year. Remembering that everyone in this business is in it to make money, not mark out over themselves, why wouldn't you top the card with two of your biggest stars?



Oh jesus, go back to high school, man. "Ooo, you're so conformist", BARF! I like how you and people like you are the "wrestling fans getting screwed/insulted", but the majority that enjoys Cena's work (and really, all the top guys' work) as conformists and zombies and blah blah blah. Things do change, but they happen at their own pace. I certainly think that more work could be done to freshen up the main event, but people do still like seeing the big names fight each other, so you're going to see plenty of "old" match ups in the future.



Because you have poor grammar and no leg to stand on?



The thing is that you haven't proven point after point of how the wrestling fans are getting knocked. You have only pointed out how unhappy you are about it. And while the main event scene is a bit musty, that's pretty much common place for the main event scene at any point in time. Only so many guys can populate it. WWE has done much in the last year to bring up newer faces into the main event, but to take your advice and do it all overnight would result in "New Blood 2.0".

There's for sure a good amount of stuff to have a decent discussion with out of your post, but you dismiss the business aspect of it, like a fool. Once again, you are another in a long line of entitled children who feel that the product should be tailored to their desires and wishes regardless of where the better revenue is. You get mad that the industry is about making money because it takes away a bit of the realness from you.



I feel that your thread is entirely too biased to be taken seriously. It assumes as fact that the majority of wrestling fans are as insulted and unsatisfied as he is with the Raw product, any you have dismissed most all logical responses involving the business of the industry and of being a title holder as irrelevant. It is clearly hostile towards fans of the product who are quite happy with the top stars, and openly dismisses them as kids and women as if that rendered them unimportant to the conversation. On top of that, it is also poorly written and full of errors which could have easily been fixed with a quick read through and a spell check. I realize that the point of the non-spam sections is to share and debate opinions, but the arguments you make defending that opinion are trash.

That is a thorough "owning". I totally agree with Jose. The only thing I can add is the business is a balance between keeping it fresh, exciting and making money. Making money will always take precedent over fresh and exciting. New people running for the title moving Mid-Carders to the Main Event you do that for 9 or at max 10 months out of the year. January hits you go with your big guns. Look at the first 10 Wrestlemania's, aside from 4 and 10 Hogan headlined ALL of them. And each and every time people payed to come and watch. No one complained because everyone (the fans) loved Hogan.

The only reason people complain about Cena, Batista, etc... in the main events is because of the internet (not blaming the internet and sites like this great one just making a point), which gives people a view into the wrestling business. Giving them some distorted view that they know how it should be run and how to run it and blah blah blah. That's all I wanted to add. thanks

 

[stilltippin]

Hey none of this will matter soon enough.. The World Heavyweight Championship will be trashed soon enough!.. believe it! jack swagger is cool and all but hes not heavyweight champion material!.. were gonna see guys like kofi kingston and christian(no offense to anyone) and cody rhodes champion on SD! while edge and orton are champions on raw! its wack!

And read this before you jump about my above statement.. I dont mind kofi or christian being the WHC.. IF they win the title over someone who has already established themselves as a main eventer like orton or jericho or edge..

i mean can you see kofi kingston and cody rhodes batting over the WHC?? or would you rather see kofi vs orton for the title?

its the logic of the veteran putting over a mid carder to establish themself.. you cant do this with 2 mid carders itll just make the World heavyweight prop look bad!

 

[gbaby_steve25]

here is the current problem... Who is the main attraction on smackdown? Undertaker is on a hiatus for the time being, and theres no one really left since Edge and Jericho went to Raw. Rey and Punk cant carry that show. So the title picture there is non-existent with the exception of Rey, Punk, Swagger, Christian, and Taker when he returns.

if you look at your title reigns for smackdown you'll notice most of those reigns were done over a year ago. This was in a time when Smackdown had top names on it regularly. This doesnt happen much anymore. Raw has the big names and the Raw title scene will change again. Batista is just getting his one last shot before he leaves. Lets look at the top names in Raw and Smackdown....

Raw-
John Cena
Triple H
Randy Orton
Edge
Chris Jericho
Batista
Sheamus

Smackdown-
Swagger (only cause he is the Champ)
CM Punk
Rey Mysterio
Christian
Undertaker

Now correct me if Im wrong but that seems to favor Raw. Live in the past all you want but the fact is Raw is the title to have (regardless of what it looks like). As for the spinner, the title actually doesnt spin, and hasnt spun in a few years. Even Cena has said he wouldnt mind a change with it, but it appeals to kids. And as long as everything they have appeals to kids its gonna stay. As for who had the best reigns... Smackdown gets that from 2004-2008ish but after that it goes to Raw and was Raw before that. Now this is all my opinion. have a nice day.....

 

[Matowar]

This has to be the stupidest forum i have ever read. Of course it is a prop every title in wrestling is a prop. Definition of prop - objects that are used by performers onstage or are necessary to complete a set. Your argument about the Smackdown title being better than the Raw title is ridiculous, when Hogan and Flair were champions back in the day did anyone say that Flair's title was a prop because he would drop it to Sting or Rhode's and then win it back? No! Did anyone say Hogan's title was a prop because of the lack of people who held it? No! If anything I say both titles kind of suck lately with the fact that rookies have been winning them. What ever happened to paying your dues and working to develop and master your skills? Im sorry but people like Cena, Triple H and Orton who have been wrestling for years now are a lot better than Swagger and Sheamus. Everyone is always bitching about pushing new talent, young talent, creating talent. I for one am not a Cena fan but atleast he is put his time in. I would rather see Cena hold the belt for a decade then watch some kid who has been wrestling for a year win it. It is a shame that Swagger has won it because he has potential but now when he loses it and has to do midcard again he will be considered washed up. He peaked to soon and sadly WWE will sweep him under the rug within a year or two. It doesnt hurt to let these kids wrestle for about 8 years before they get their title shots. Do we really need 22 year old champions? Or does it make more sense to have someone prove themselves in the ring and on the mic?

 

[Matowar]

Oh and as far as titles looks go they should go back to the Eagle belt that Macho Man won at WM4, that belt looked awesome. That was the belt of a champion. Look at how long that belt stuck around.