Mark Madden: "Championship Props...I Mean, Belts"

[Steamboat Ricky]

If you haven't gotten a chance to read Mark Madden's latest column, mosey on over to the main page and give it a read. Then, come back and discuss.

In summary, Madden suggests that Championship belts have become virtually meaningless in the modern era, as titles change hands like hot potatoes and are used more as a means of advancing storylines and less as some kind of achievement. He describes old title reigns, specifically mentioning Sammartino's near 3,000 day reign. Back then it meant something...back then...belts had credibility.

I usually really appreciate Madden's columns, but this one...well, I have a hard time comprehending his train of thought.

While the person who holds a title is seen as "stronger" or "better" than his opponent is still generally the same, have belts ever been anything more than a prop? You could be the greatest worker in the world, but if you don't draw money, nobody is going to promote you. But, that won't stop a promoter from using a belt to help a guy get over. For example, Punk. He would not be as over right now had it not been for his run with the WHC. In this case, there might have been boys in the back more deserving and over, but they wanted to communicate to the masses that they had confidence in putting Punk at the head.

So, what do you think about Championship belts? Do they mean anything anymore? Did the Arquette scandal ruin the legacy of a title? Are they anything more than props?

 

[klunderbunker]

I think Madden is somewhere between right and wrong. Belts will always be to an extent a prop. Look at a guy like HBK. When did he last hold a title? Back with Cena as tag champions I believe? He hasn't been below the level of a main eventer in years. A guy like he or Taker don't need titles to prove their worth.

Then you get to a case like Jeff Hardy. Did he need the belt to get over? Yes and no. To say he was over is an understatement, but was he considered a legit main eventer? Until he got the belt to me no he wasn't. WWE hadn't yet taken the official chance of putting the title on him and saying this is our posterboy. Now while he's a former champion and will be for the rest of his life, I still think he needs the belt to be back on top. His reign was relatively short and he hasn't proven or disproven that he can handle a long reign.

Arquette's reign means very little to me in this case. WCW was dead at that point and they did somethign out of an act of desperation. Anything past around mid 99 I consider as just random stuff from them and it means very little. He was a joke and nothing more. The reigns before that show that the title meant nothing at all. However today, Cena, Orton, HHH and Punk have had good long runs with the belt that have certainly been legitimate. Madden makes some great points, but I don't agree with all of them.

 

[NSL]

I agree with KB, that he's somewhere in the middle.

In my view, the wrestlers were as important as the belt they held. Now, it's the belt is only as important as who holds it.

Hogan was who he was because he was 'THE' man in the company and had the belt. Ric Flair was who he was, because of his number of title reigns. Now, the belt is only important if the person holding it makes it special. The WHC and WWE Title are still important, but they do get flopped around pretty quickly. The mid-card belts are where it's seen the most. When Santino had the IC Belt, it was important because it was a big storyline, and although the matches weren't the best, people cared about it. When Regal won it, he did nothing with it for a long time, and people stopped caring. The same can be said about the US Title. When Matt Hardy and MVP feuded over it, I'd bet more people were tuning in for that feud, than the WWE Title. Shelton Benjamin has done nothing of importance with it, but his matches with Helms were pretty good.

I think the titles would be better aided by staying on one guy for a long time, but I understand the need to mix things up. They're doing an OK job at keeping them relevant, while still moving it around between a loaded main event scene.

 

[Lee]

When Santino had the IC Belt, it was important because it was a big storyline, and although the matches weren't the best, people cared about it. When Regal won it, he did nothing with it for a long time, and people stopped caring.

That was despite the week after the IC number 1 contenders tournament was launched, along with the IC DVD followed by Regal v Punk 3 times (plus one next week) yes Regal himself did nothing with the belt, but the interest was there. Much more so than it was under Santino Marella.

 

[NSL]

That was despite the week after the IC number 1 contenders tournament was launched, along with the IC DVD followed by Regal v Punk 3 times (plus one next week) yes Regal himself did nothing with the belt, but the interest was there. Much more so than it was under Santino Marella.

You're right, but in an odd way. The interest was there. But, it had nothing to do with the champion. It had everything to do with the person chasing it. It seemed like we all wanted Punk to win it, because Regal had done nothing, and because it's the best way to get Punk pushed back in to the main event scene.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

But what about Madden making such a big deal about how titles USED to be viewed? He mentions that he knows the title history up until Hogan's third reign, but after, the belt changed hands so much...that he can't keep track or something.

And how the title USED to mean something...did he think that there was some kind of competition occurring? Hogan had long title reigns...but he had the title because they thought it was going to...in the overall scheme of things...make them the most money. I say "in the overall scheme of things" because experiments like Punk might yield them more money later by getting him over than it would in the short term.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

You're right, but in an odd way. The interest was there. But, it had nothing to do with the champion. It had everything to do with the person chasing it. It seemed like we all wanted Punk to win it, because Regal had done nothing, and because it's the best way to get Punk pushed back in to the main event scene.

Yeah, but what does that do to the value of the belt? Punk just won the WHC in the summer...now he's holding a lesser belt on the same show? This will either result in Punk being further buried, or whoever takes the belt off of him will be seen as the recipient of an act of charity because Punk is not viewed as mid-card talent because of the WHC reign.

 

[klunderbunker]

I can give you the WWE Title reigns until probably the year 2000 or so. That doesn't mean that the title became less important around that time, but simply that it began to change hands a bit more often or was simply not on as many huge names. After Hogan's third reign it went onto a man you may have heard of: Ric Flair. He and Savage traded it before Hart got it for the first time. That sort of begins the time where the lesser known people from the generation formed their own legacy. Maybe Madden wasn't a fan of the new generation or something like that. The title reigns were still memorable, just not with such big names having those reigns.

 

[NSL]

Yeah, but what does that do to the value of the belt? Punk just won the WHC in the summer...now he's holding a lesser belt on the same show? This will either result in Punk being further buried, or whoever takes the belt off of him will be seen as the recipient of an act of charity because Punk is not viewed as mid-card talent because of the WHC reign.

I agree wholeheartedly that this has a negative effect on Punk. I keep the hopes that he will move on to the main event, but in all likelihood, he'll be buried by someone that is really on their way up.

As far as the belt, I think it was put on Punk in hopes of making it important again, because he already held the WHC, not in spite of him already holding it. Ric Flair getting the title late in his career did nothing negative to him, but made the title relevant, because everyone noticed that Ric Flair had it. He even went as far as matching his robe to the belt. Grangted, Punk is, and won't be, anywhere near Flair's league ever in his career, but for right now, he's the only former champion that could hold the belt.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

I agree wholeheartedly that this has a negative effect on Punk. I keep the hopes that he will move on to the main event, but in all likelihood, he'll be buried by someone that is really on their way up.

As far as the belt, I think it was put on Punk in hopes of making it important again, because he already held the WHC, not in spite of him already holding it. Ric Flair getting the title late in his career did nothing negative to him, but made the title relevant, because everyone noticed that Ric Flair had it. He even went as far as matching his robe to the belt. Grangted, Punk is, and won't be, anywhere near Flair's league ever in his career, but for right now, he's the only former champion that could hold the belt.

I think Mysterio could well hold the IC title well. They really should be putting the likes of him, Mike Knox, and Kofi into the IC title picture with Regal, and I guess Punk.

Maybe Priceless will get into the picture soon as well. THAT is what the IC belt needs right now. Those tow guys are LEGIT but not established main-event/world-champion guys. That will only do wonders for both Priceless AND the IC Title.

 

[NSL]

I think Mysterio could well hold the IC title well. They really should be putting the likes of him, Mike Knox, and Kofi into the IC title picture with Regal, and I guess Punk.

Maybe Priceless will get into the picture soon as well. THAT is what the IC belt needs right now. Those tow guys are LEGIT but not established main-event/world-champion guys. That will only do wonders for both Priceless AND the IC Title.

Rey would be an excellent choice for the IC title, especially if they want to get him back in the role he was in, not too long ago. He can start the bilingual promos again, and push the IC belt as being truly intercontinental. His style works well for the mid-card, and heels would be lining up to have a match with him.

The only reason I didn't include him, whe I said Punk was the best choice, is because Rey never has a grey area. He's either insanely over, and chasing for the title, or he's going through the motions of a feud, that never really pushes anyone anywhere, except the feud with Khali, but Khali was beating everyone.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

The bottom line is this: they have to have it defended on Raw pretty much every week. If you remember back when Rock and Shamrock were feuding over it...they'd be defending it like every week. It was awesome, and it really built up their credibility as champions. Furthermore, it gives guys exposure in matches for something that "counts." This just makes the card so much stronger.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

For the general audience belts are more than just props atleast in my eyes and are a big part of a wrestling. Yes you and I may know that the best worker doesnt always hold the belt and that it doesnt mean a whole lot but it does mean something to your average viewer. Which is why every main event at a pay per view is ended with a title match. Which is why most of the major feuds in wrestling had a belt in them. The fact is no matter what type of competition you are in you need a championship or something to show who the best is, you need to make people feel that there is something that your competitors are working for which is why you need a belt. Would wrestling be as exciting if there werent any belts? I dont think so.

Now Im talking in about the masses not smarks that enjoy wrestling just for the artform, those people probably couldnt care less if there were belts or not. But when you're younger the best part of wrestling was watching your favorite wrestler chase the championship and ultimately win it. Even now everybody wants to see their favorite wrestler with the gold. Anytime that happens Im sure you mark out. If you're an HBK fan dont tell me you wouldnt be pumped if he happened to win the championship out of nowhere, you would be much more excited than if he just won a regular match. Its these reasons why I feel that the belt is more than just a prop and that it does actually mean something to alot of viewers.

With that said I still think they need to defend it more on TV and maybe even have a title change here and there on TV. I think that will help, yes it may devalue the title a bit in smarks eyes but I dont think the general audience would think any less of it as long as it doesnt get completely out of hand. I think that would generate more interest for Raw or Smackdown. Because back in the attitude era you would see titles change hands on TV(I wouldnt want it to happen to that extent) so you would always tune in because you might just see history. You dont have to worry about that now, if you miss a Raw one week you're not going to miss anything major, atleast that's what your mindset might be. Now if there was a World Title match and Raw showed before that they would change titles on a telecast you are gonna want to tune in just so you dont miss it. So even if they held a Championship match once a month on Raw and had the title change hands out of nowhere on Raw twice a year it would atleast put that thought in your head that you just might see a title change so you wouldnt want to miss an episode cause right now people arent thinking that.