The Official WWE Championships Thread

[TempestH]

Why not make European title that's exclusively defended on NXT? Seeing as the whole rookie system is pretty much pointless, it gives the superstars on NXT a title to fight for.

Since NXT isn't a real brand and most of the guys are technically part of the RAW or SmackDown roster anyway, there isn't really a point to an NXT-exclusive title. imo, an NXT-exclusive championship creates would cause Creative to be lazy with booking, thinking all they'd have to do to push a guy and get them over is to just slap a belt on them, basically what they do with the U.S. Title now. Such booking would create a dead end of sorts for guys who have potential as solid midcarders or even those who could potentially break into the main event.

The European Champion would be "The Man" on NXT, but in the grand scheme of things he'd end up as "King of The Jobbers" making random appearances on RAW and SmackDown to be squashed by whomever.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Titles don't draw, guys holding them do. Back in the day when people thought it was more real than it was, a title could help get a guy over or sell a match. Now people know the reason you have the belt is because someone said you would.

It wouldn't really add much at all. Look at Cody Rhodes. He makes the IC title look good without even having many matches for it. Why? Because times have changed. No one gives a shit about win/loss records (typically) but if you are an interesting character, it works. The titles are mostly just tools. the most potent ones are the WWE and WHC titles. They are basically measuring sticks. It's a label.

Someone is flipping through the channels, Cody Rhodes has the IC title, they think "o, this guy is the best of the other guys but not the best, but he's entertaining, I'll watch' they don't think "well he's defended it X number of times so he's good and will be a star".

What would the European title do for anyone?

 

[mr_dna]

The best way i could see the European champioship would be for someone from the EU win the US Title and then have the champ come out saying how being the champion of a country full slobs idiots etc and this title is worthless and meaingless blah blah . Then throw the title in the trash and bring out the European Championship . It would generate major heel heat as anything anti USA seems to generate heat and makes us europeans feels represented again in the WWE

Also give a feud for a american "HERO" type char to win the title and change it back

What would the European title do for anyone?

to answer that it would build heat for a new heel or elevate a current one

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

The best way i could see the European champioship would be for someone from the EU win the US Title and then have the champ come out saying how being the champion of a country full slobs idiots etc and this title is worthless and meaingless blah blah . Then throw the title in the trash and bring out the European Championship . It would generate major heel heat as anything anti USA seems to generate heat and makes us europeans feels represented again in the WWE

Also give a feud for a american "HERO" type char to win the title and change it back



to answer that it would build heat for a new heel or elevate a current one

Why don't you respond to the REST of my post where I explained why a belt doesn't do shit anymore unless it's a top title. The Euro title wouldn't elevate anyone because nobody believes it's real. If nothing else it would just be a sticker that says UNDER-UNDERCARD!!!!

Your idea is about the only way it'd work because then it'd be a tool and not just a "look at me, someone told me I could pin a guy and wear this"

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Aside from the various WWE & John Cena complaints threads that we used to see a LOT of before each subject got their own threads, another very common thread that springs up often, cluttering up the WWE forum are threads talking about the various WWE championships. The threads tend to criticize, theorize and/or debate the "prestige" of the titles, if they're not being "used right" or begging for the return of currently inactive championships.

While there's nothing wrong with that, let's face it, the threads are filled with the exact same sort of posts talking about the exact same subjects with exactly the same information and/or opinions. There's nothing new regarding WWE championships to talk about or discuss, so let's just keep all the discussions strictly about champioinships in one place. It gets rid of the clutter of repetetive threads that, for all intents and purposes, go on & on about the same old stuff.

 

[Diet Soda]

I can see the logic, there are more European superstars on the roster now than in recent memory. However, the United States title - as I've stated elsewhere heretofore - currently occupies the same role as the Euro title did a decade or so ago, that of a lower-mid-card championship.

It was obvious that the US title was never going to be on par with the IC title in terms of prestige since it was something that had been absorbed from WCW, but there was the problem post-Invasion of there being too many titles. WWE simply decided to rid itself of the Euro title as it's meaning had long, and to have an American championship made more sense.

In fact, though the era of regional championships is long gone, if you were to put these titles in a geographical/prestige hierarchy - i.e. WWE/WHC (world); Intercontinental; European (continent); United States (country) - the US title seems to be a lesser championship.

Nonetheless, the US title has serviced the Raw and Smackdown brands superbly since it's inception, and is just currently experiencing a bit of nadir. Such great matches as Eddie vs. Benoit (Vengeance, 2003), Cena and Booker T's best of 5 series (Smackdown, 2004), and Benoit and Booker T's best of 7 series (Smackdown, 2006) testify this. Oh yeah, and MVP.

So if you were to bring back the European Championship, you'd have to scrap the United States Championship. I can picture a scenario wherein Wade Barret wins the US title and renames it the United Kingdom Championship, a la Lance Storm.
Furthermore, as other right honourable posters have stated, it wouldn't even get bloody defended.

 

[TempestH]

The United States title - as I've stated elsewhere heretofore - currently occupies the same role as the Euro title did a decade or so ago, that of a lower-mid-card championship.

I'm starting to see that now.

The IC Title has is held by Cody Rhodes, a guy who goes toe to toe with main eventers on a regular basis. By comparison, the U.S. Title is held by Santino Marella, Jack Swagger before him, and Zack Ryder before him. Guys who are considerably lower on the totem pole.

 

[markwzone]

March 29, 1998 Steve Austin wins the WWF Championship.

April 1, 2001 Steve Austin wins the WWE Championship.

Including these 2 reigns, there were 22 WWE Title reigns in the 3 year window between Wrestlemanias 14 and 17. This isn't some new generation thing, this is the same shit that's been going on for more than a decade. To act like it's somehow worse now when in all actuality things have gotten an awful lot better is fucking ridiculous. Length of title reigns, number of title reigns, none of this bullshit matters. It's about the quality. Period.

I agree almost 100% with you. QUALITY is really all that matters. I do have to say that prior to the attitude era, title changes were more scarce however.

 

[ProWrestlingFan84]

Ok, I've given this some thought. I think a lot of people don't like either of the world titles tossed around like a hot potato including myself. In another thread, there is a pole on if Cena will get more title reigns than Ric Flair. CM Punk has had his Championship title since I think Survivor Series. The point being, it has been a long time since any champion outside of Cody Rhodes and Austin Aries to have a title run last over 6 months more less a year. How would people feel if CM Punk just never lost the title similar to how Cena was in 2005-2006? I think CM Punk is still very much over, hasn't grown stale and well unless he loses to Jericho at Mania, why should he lose? This is my first thread, so sorry if it doesn't look that great but figured I'd give it a shot.

 

[#SAWFT]

I think even though I'd like to see Chris Jericho as the champ, CM Punk has done so well as champion, he's kept everyone interested! Which is something 90% of the roster couldn't do.
Why not? He's good!

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

CM Punk should lose because Chris Jericho has beaten Rock, Austin, HHH, Shawn Michaels, Edge, Ricky Steamboat and other Legends in the business. If Jericho loses to Punk cleanly it will hurt Jericho's credibility and wouldn't seem believable.

 

[Fansince1992]

CM Punk should keep the Title when WM is over in my opinion.
I think last summer he was becoming the top guy in WWE. He was even owning Cena during thier Promos around Summerslam last year.
Then all of a sudden he lost all that momentum. The Rock and Jericho returning didn't help Punks momentum.
Punk has an amazing Voice and i think he is the best Mic Worker in WWE at the moment. He should Trash Talk at every oppurtunity he gets, to get back some of that momentum he had last year. If he holds on to the Belt through till SS he will have held it for a whole year. I think this would do him good.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It wouldn't bother me at all to see Punk have a run with the title that goes a year or more. I don't think it'll happen, but I do think it'll be close.

As with most subjects, this is another one that the WWE can't win in the eyes of the IWC as a whole. You've got the ones that bitch about title reigns not being long enough, then you've got the ones that bitch when they think someone's had the title for too long, then you've got the ones that bitch just for the sake of listening to themselves bitch.

Punk's done a great job as WWE Champion and the WWE seems to be serious about getting behind Punk and pushing him for the long haul. After WM is finished and Cena vs. Rock has gone down in history, I think there'll be more general emphasis placed on Punk than we've seen the past few months. I see Punk holding the title for close to a year, but probably not quite a full year and almost certainly not longer, though, as I said, it wouldn't bother me at all to see him have a long run.

"CM Punk should lose because Chris Jericho has beaten Rock, Austin, HHH, Shawn Michaels, Edge, Ricky Steamboat and other Legends in the business. If Jericho loses to Punk cleanly it will hurt Jericho's credibility and wouldn't seem believable."

Beating long established stars in big time matches at big time ppvs is a bonified way of creating & solidifing new stars. Losing to CM Punk cleanly will in no way hurt Jericho's credibility. Jericho is one of those few wrestlers who consistently puts over other wrestlers and still comes out shining like a brand new penny. Jericho has lost cleanly to the likes of R-Truth in the past with no damage to his credibility and Truth isn't anywhere close to the same level of Punk.

 

[Trill Co$by]

CM Punk should lose because Chris Jericho has beaten Rock, Austin, HHH, Shawn Michaels, Edge, Ricky Steamboat and other Legends in the business. If Jericho loses to Punk cleanly it will hurt Jericho's credibility and wouldn't seem believable.

Hogan defeated Macho Man, Roddy Piper, Andre the Giant, Ric Flair, Yokozuna, Ultimate Warrior, Kevin Nash (with a FINGER), Lex Luger.... and he still lost to The Rock.

Jericho losing couldn't hurt his credibility no more than him being on Dancing with the Stars. He's not this holy god who can't be defeated at WrestleMania... That's Undertaker's gimmick. He's just a guy who plays a guitar and spends time in a ring once in a while whereas CM Punk is a guy who spends all of his time in a ring. Plus, CM Punk is younger. So ideally, Punk SHOULD win at Mania. But that's neither here nor there. That discussion belongs at the WM discussion thread.


Moving on, I don't have a problem with a longer reign from CM Punk. I don't have a problem with even Alberto Del Rio getting a decent title reign. But to be honest, the fans will. Even the ones who are now saying "WWE needs longer title reigns" will be on here by Capitol Punishment saying "WWE needs a new champion." It happened with Orton, HHH, Cena, Batista, and even JBL... what makes you think it wouldn't happen with CM Punk? CM Punk is a great competitor IMO, one of the best in WWE... and I would love to see him put on feuds with a lot of "Summer time" Main eventers like Dolph Ziggler, The Miz, and maybe even get into a program with David Otunga and then cap it off with a match against Christian and Jericho at say Survivor Series.

To me, that would be a full year as champion in WWE's eyes and that would be a great mile stone for anybody. Losing the title then would have given him a lot of credibility and then he could be shipped over to Smackdown to start a feud with Daniel Bryan. Or who knows, maybe by then WWE will have brought up someone like Dean Ambrose to have a small feud with Punk. Maybe even a Barrett vs. Punk rivalry could take place.

Going past a year would be overkill, even for me. Simply put, WWE's seen too much in today's world unlike the days of Bruno Sammartino. So longer runs that expand beyond a year can take a toll on the crowd and can really make things more predictable. But yeah, I would agree that good five month to a year reign would be nice for any champion. Hell, I'd love to see Primo & Epico hold the tag titles until at least SummerSlam, but who knows.

 

[Paul Bunyan's Axe]

I may be alone on this, but I don't mind all the title changes. Sometimes a title going back and forth makes for a more interesting story line and helps keep things fresh. I like seeing some long title reigns to make a wrestlers credibility look better, but I don't mind all the changes that much.

 

[satanklaw]

i would agree on a long title run, but if an interesting storyline causes him to lose i'd be ok with that too, not just him losing just to lose to Cena

 

[Madeye36]

I like longer title runs. I mean with a longer reign you can have more superstars going after the belt. How many times did Orton & Cena trade the belt with each other? That's also how you move other people into the title picture instead of it always being the same ones. You have a mid card guy wrestle for either world title at a non-ppv & if they show they can hang with the champ you know you can push them more at sometime.

 

[DirtyD79]

I think he should keep the belt a good long while. As I've said in a similar thread I don't like the idea of companies playing hot potato with the belts. It just stops sounding impressive when everybody in the company has held it.

 

[Why Always Me]

I have always thought that if the brand extension ended, the IC and US titles should be unified, but now I am thinking maybe not.

Someone mentioned a scenario where a European wrestler won the US title and re-named it the European title, I think that could work.

Take two wrestlers (Zack Ryder and Drew McIntyre for example), have Ryder win the US title, then drop it to McIntyre, who decides to rename it the European title. McIntyre then drops it back to Ryder who brings it back as the US title. They could feud and do this for a few months until its decided that the two face off once and for all and both the US and European titles are abolished and the winner will be the first ever WWE Television Champion.

I have just given a lower card feud for two quite popular wrestlers who, especially McIntyre are looking to establish themselves. This feud would have a purpose and introduce a new championship that isn't geologically restricted.

I would want the following title belts in the WWE.

WWE Title
Intercontinental Title
Television Title
Tag Team Titles
Cruiserweight Title
Women's Title

WWE, give me a job .

 

[NotoriousWWE]

Ever since Dolph Ziggler lost the United States Championship back in December to Internet-favourite at the time Zack Ryder, I have felt that the title has lost its credibility. In the olden era's of WWE the US Title was not reguarded as a top title but it was one that would be worn by someone who's career was on the road to be elevated to superstardom.

Dolph Ziggler won the title after beating Kofi Kingston. He would defend it at PPV after PPV earning the title its rightful prestige. However, Ziggler would be on the roll of his life nearing the end of 2011 and many were anticipating a huge push for the Show-Off so he dropped the title to Ryder.

WWE took the wrong approach with Ryder and booked him extremely poorly. Ryder sustained a supposed back injury at the hands of Kane and was put out of action. Ryder would then have to compete against Swagger for the title with a broken back, losing hold of the title and therefore in my eyes losing all its prestige. After Ziggler had worked so hard to make the title mean something for me it lost all his hard-work.

The reason why I say its irrelevant now is because it doesn't matter for whomever wears it. Santino shows NO emotion about wearing it other than when he won the title against Swagger. Swagger also did not really feel like a champion with it around his waist. And when you talk about a title being only a prop in many feuds, I truly believe that is the case now with the US Title.

There is one huge advantage that WWE have however. They have two guys who could really use a title in order to re-gain momentum towards heading back to main event status, The Miz and Dolph Ziggler. I think by putting the title back on one of these former champions they have a chance to re-make themselves after losing so much steam.

The IC Title for me differs because it is now on a guy who legit feels like a champion. He looks unstoppable, unbeatable and we all know that he will defend it on a regular basis seeing as he's a household name. Ziggler and Miz are both nearing that sort of status and therefore the US Title would be given back its prestige on a guy who actually cares for wearing it.

(Don't get me wrong, I love Santino. I think he's comedy genius but he doesn't need a title does he?)

 

[#Zombienatureboy]

Agreed. A lot of the titles seem to have little or no meaning. Big Gold belt gets jobbed away in 18 seconds. WWE Title match isn't even your main event of wrestlemania. etc etc etc

 

[JM Punk]

I thought that the title meant something when Ryder won it only because you can tell how much he busted his ass to get to that spot on the card. He chased the title for months, and for some reason I will never understand, got passed over at MSG for JoMo for the title shot at Survivor Series, and then finally won it at TLC the following month. You can tell how much it meant to him when he won it, hence making the title feel more important in the process.

 

[Peridot]

The title does mean something again imo. Santino is way way over and making it relevant in the eyes of the WWE. I actually think the tag titles are the most irrelevant titles in the WWE. I mean they have the talent and refuse to use it. The usos are a great tag team, and epico and primo with rosa are a good unit. But that's off topic. The fact is, fueding santino with dolph and swagger, creating some tension in that stable which is getting great heat because of the US title makes it relevant.

 

[ITrippedTheShockmaster]

I'd have to say that the Tag Team title is the most irrelevant title right now in WWE.

Think about it. How many tag title defenses have you seen lately? Exactly. At least the U.S. title gets defended on TV and PPVs, not in dark matches. I don't get to watch every WWE television program or PPV, but I don't remember seeing Primo & Epico on that much lately to defend the titles. In fact, I don't see either of them on TV much period. Know why? Because no one cares.

I agree that the other titles can often time be marginalized. I think the IC title is coming back in a big way with the Cody Rhodes/Big Show feud. The U.S. Title is in play as well, with a popular wrestler like Santino carrying the strap right now. However, putting WWE Championship or World Heavyweight Championship title matches at the beginning of PPVs or in the middle of TV shows or changing hands in squashes takes away from their importance a little, IMO. Those are the two biggest titles in the company, supposedly. And remember the day when the IC and U.S. champs were the No. 1 contenders for the big singles titles? Those days are long gone.

I understand that there are big matches between non-champions that need headline status, but the biggest titles in the company need to be respected.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I would have to say right now the tag team titles are the most irrelevant titles in the WWE. It's too bad because this championship has a long, illustrious history. With the way WWE has neglected the tag team division, the belts are a joke. They're barely ever defended on big PPVs, they barely ever have a good storyline surrounding the tag belts or any of the tag teams.