The Official WWE Championships Thread

[Da Solo]

And?

There is nothing wrong with there being 34 reigns since 2006. It's not like there were 36 different champions If you count all of the multiple time winners. It's the top prize in WWE, of course it's gonna change hands a lot because every superstar should be aiming for that. And plus, this is a totally different climate than the 70s and 80s. Do you think you could stand Cena, Orton or HHH having a reign even half as long as Bruno Sammartino's? No, the whole IWC would bitch. While I'm not totally against year long title reigns, it has to be done properly, which would be very difficult to get by the fans with.

And also, let me say that I hate when people talk about how the world titles are "devalued" because of this or that incident. How are you gonna devalue the top prize? That's like saying the Superbowl gets devalued every time the Patriots win. Now the only way a title could truly be devalued would be if the IC/US/Tag title defense headlined Wrestlemania instead of the WWE/WHC title, which will never happen (Would the AFC championship match mean more than the Superbowl? Never).

And there will always be superstars bigger than the title. Guys like Taker, HBK, Rock, Austin, so on-so forth, those are the biggest names in WWE history, of course they are gonna get some shine over the world title (hence why Rock/Cena is headlining WM). Lets use another sports reference: When you think of basketball, do you think of the Mavericks, last years champion, or Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Shaq, Wilt Chamberlain and other all time greats? Sure, the championship match is the biggest event, but look how many of those Rock, HHH and the like have won? Obviously, their gonna take some priority

 

[Ex-Degenerate]

The Title doesn't mean as much as it once did. Now its more important to be "Over" with the crowd and the WWE Universe than it is to hold a belt. You don't need the title to be Over, just look at Cena, he has been still the face of the company without it.

 

[pottery99]

Since 2006/John Cena's 280 day reign with the WWE Championship where Super Cena began, there's been an astounding 34 WWE Title Reigns. That's right, the belt's changed hands 34 times in just 6 years! Whether you think this is good or bad for the product/the belt, everyone can agree that that is a very, very high number. On average, that's about a new WWE Champion every 2 months. Now, I'm not saying it should be like the old days, where Sammartino would hold the belt for years at a time. That would be boring and rather unbelievable. But I do feel like a new champion every 2 months is too extreme in the other direction. I'd rather have a few less reigns. What makes this number even more surprising is that this doesn't even count all the reigns that guys are getting with the World Heavyweight Championship as well. It's surprising that the WWE belt is getting thrown around so much when the WHW Title is also up for grabs and changes hands on a regular basis as well. What are your feelings on this suprising statistic? Do you think the WWE Title changes hands too much, not enough, or is it just right? Discuss.

I assume you mean since 2005, because Cena's 280 day reign was his first title won which was in 2005. That means that was 7 years ago.

2012 - 7 = 2005. 2005-2012 have 34 WWE title reigns.
2005 - 7 = 1998(steve austin WM14). 1998-2005 have 38 WWE title reigns.

No different bro. People are just overreacting about the constant title changes. Attitude/Ruthless era have more title changes than current product.

 

[PlayTheGame]

I assume you mean since 2005, because Cena's 280 day reign was his first title won which was in 2005. That means that was 7 years ago.

2012 - 7 = 2005. 2005-2012 have 34 WWE title reigns.
2005 - 7 = 1998(steve austin WM14). 1998-2005 have 38 WWE title reigns.

No different bro. People are just overreacting about the constant title changes. Attitude/Ruthless era have more title changes than current product.

No, I said since 2006, and I meant 2006. I said since Cena's 280 day reign, as in not including that. You didn't understand. His reign ended in 2006, so there's been 34 reigns from 2006 to the present. As for your comment, I don't think there's any overreaction going on. I think I and many others have a right to be displeased with all of these title changes and all of these guys getting chances with the belt, and there being so many dud champions/reigns. As previously mentioned in this thread, it's not about reign length, but about quality. But when there's not much quality (2006-present), you can't help but question all these reigns. Whereas in the Attitude Era, although there were more reigns, NO ONE seemed to mind because the quality was top-notch. But now, as mentioned, it's a totally different story.

 

[Champ1432]

Lots of good points here.

I agree the more frequent title changes are not really a recent occurrence, going back all the way into the 90's. I especially agree with midgensa's point about Raw debuting. With the advent of a weekly (and then, twice weekly) show, the exposure of all the wrestlers, including the champ, shot up to unprecedented levels. Add to that monthly PPVs. Now the belt is getting defended a whole lot more, because obviously you can't have PPVs where it's not defended, and you have to defend it on the weekly shows sometimes as well, to keep it fresh and interesting. Now since you're defending it every so often on the weekly shows, you have to sprinkle in a few title changes here and there, to keep the unpredictability. (True, not all surprises are good, but neither is always knowing ahead of time what's going to happen.)

But the end result of all this inceased exposure is that shorter runs seem longer. Someone mentioned before, you used to see the champ a couple of times a month, if that. Not even talking about defending the belt, just actually seeing or hearing from the champ. Now it's at least once a week. So previously, you could have a champ hold the belt for many months (or years), and it didn't get stale as quickly as it would now, since you're seeing the champ so much more often, and he's defnding much more often as well. It would be interesting to compare the average number of successful defenses before a title change from back in the "old days" to today and see if there's that much difference in that number. But I'm honestly way too lazy for that. But I don't think there's any question the increased exposure has led to this trend.

There are other reasons, too. I think the Attitude Era and all it's gimmicks played a part, I think there are more main event level (or maybe main event possible is a better way to say it) superstars today, made necessary by the aforementioned increased exposure. You can't have the same 3 or 4 guys going after the belt every week for a year or more. (Some may say that still happens, but you know what I mean.) I also think there is a higher level of impatience today with the fans. As others have said, once a guy is champ for a few months, people start saying, "stale", "boring", "old", "time for a change". You can say it's fans in general, you can say it's the IWC, I just think it's our society these days. Everything today has to be right away. We all hate waiting, everything has to be immediate. Downloading things, getting information, streaming shows or movies, whatever it is. It has to happen now. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just how things are, and I think it's definitely affected wrestling in that way.

There seem to be people on both sides of the fence here. Although most seem to agree that quality is more important that quantity. Although I do think length of time of a title reign does affect the quality in some cases. It's not the most important factor, but it is there. But you really do have to take it on a case by case basis. You can't just look at the length of a title reign and say, "too long" or, "too short" without considering what took place during the reign.

Wow, that went a lot longer than I thought it would. Sorry about that.

 

[HBKperfect23]

You can say it's fans in general, you can say it's the IWC, I just think it's our society these days. Everything today has to be right away. We all hate waiting, everything has to be immediate. Downloading things, getting information, streaming shows or movies, whatever it is. It has to happen now. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just how things are, and I think it's definitely affected wrestling in that way.

You hit the nail on the head with this one. Society is so "right now". I think Vince is good and changing with the times.

The title changes worked in the attitude era because it was the first time we got to see it. But theres no where to go from there. The constant title changes did hurt wrestling but to me the biggest culprit is getting rid of enhancement talent but thats a whole different topic.

 

[d3thRoW]

No it's not new, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. The roster right now just flat out lacks the star power it had in the previous eras. They haven't built enough credible main eventers, and they can't, because the mid-card is almost non existent...the brands are not really separate anymore, so you have both world title pictures happening on both shows in a given week and it just sucks up all the air time. Whats left? Promos/backstage segments, whats trending, and 1 minute divas matches. There was a time when the IC and US, and even tag titles were a lot more useful in building guys up before they took that next step. They were looked at as a major prize, now there are several ppvs each year where these belts aren't even defended. Two world titles of course doesn't help. Pushing people way too fast (Swagger, Del Rio)doesn't help. Making the main event of Wrestlemania not the title match doesn't help...it's kinda supposed to be the whole point. As for the number of reigns, it wouldn't be that bad of a problem if they didn't book it so terribly. Almost every title match seems to have some kind of shenanigans in the finish, so you won't ever really think that the heel could have won clean...and the faces always have to look so strong that you never feel like they are threatened. They do way too much ego protecting, and it's been bringing down the overall quality for quite some time now.

 

[theBec2101]

i remember when to get the title it would take years. It took shawn Micheals forever. You know what i know he was a prick, but can you imagin having to wait more then 10 years for the top title. No wonder y he had to push and stomp and never let go. It was a long road for him. Anyway Austin didnt get the belt for awhile either(the Ringmaster) Undertaker didnt. Now a days the title is passed around more then the Divas. Just sayin.

 

[18dionlyone]

ugggggghhh lets break this down:

From 1963-1973 there were 6 title changes

from 1973-1983 there were 6 title changes and the title was held up one
from 1983-1993 there were 13 title changes and the title held up twice
from 1993-2003 there were 48 title changes and the title was vactated about 7 times....you see where im going with this...as the times goes on times changes..we live in a faster paced lifestyle...we as fans dont want yearlong or even 6 month reigns..

Ill give you an example: when CM punk won the WWE title at first the fans were going nuts saying he deserves it blah blah blah..while i agree with that...as time went on after last night all over discussion boards you see " ehh im happy he won but wouldve liked jericho to have won etc etc etc" lets say punk retains at mania and goes further soon fans will complain and turn on him faster than they did John Cena the miz randy orton the list goes on and on..when all the aforementioned stars were "in the hunt" you would hear " when is it their time?? i wish WWe would let them get a riegn..*insert aforementioned stars name here* deserves it more than anyone.....then they win it its all cheers and love the first two months but after awhile its.."ehh okay he should drop the title now" then its " why is he still campion??? let someone else get a chance" just watch..let punk hold the title a little longer youll see what i mean...

my point in this long rant is we dont want long reigns...wwe complain when its short but cry when its long....so frequent title changes keeps the product fresh

 

[Arsenal]

I agree things changed with the advent of Monday Night Raw and the quest for ratings every week. Too many PPV's also hurts. The title gets defended on TV (free TV and PPV) way more often than it did 20 yrs ago. IMO they should cut down the PPVs to 6 per year, and rarely defend the title on Raw, which would space out title matches and allow more time for proper builds. However with so much focus on ratings and the money made from the secondary PPVs, that'll probably never happen.

 

[XXJJ]

You cant compare it to the 80's because it was very different. Their were less ppv's. Guys like Hogan wouldn't wrestle much on tv. It was kind of like boxing. Nowadays you see Cena wrestle every week on tv.

I think if it's booked right I dont have a problem with shorter title reigns.

Orton and Christian was very well booked. Christian finally realized his dream only to lose the title to Orton 5 days later. Then you start seeing Christian character change. He finally wins it back in a very heelish way. Orton snaps and wins the title back at SS in a no holds barred match. That was a great title feud.

I think what they did after MITB with the WWE title was ridiculous. They went from Cena/Punk/Rey/Cena/Punk/ADR/Cena/ADR/Punk in the span of a couple of months. WTF... they were just playing hot potatoe with the title.

 

[TheExceLLenceOfExecution]

way too many title changes.. and too many freaking belts!

having so many belts really waters down the product IMO

i think they should just have the championship belt, intercontinental and tag team.. like they used to! This makes the belts mean something... how can punk say hes the best when there is another champion? makes no sense..

i think eventually vince is gonna smart up and do the right thing... i bet they get rid of this stupid two shows thing too.. well the two shows is fine, but the two rosters.. ugg why!?


While im at it, dump the divas division all together.. or give them their own show and time slot.. so everyone can see the horrible ratings, this would save us 15 minutes of raw every week

wow i feel better now after that rant

thank you wrestlezone

 

[TheExceLLenceOfExecution]

ugggggghhh lets break this down:

From 1963-1973 there were 6 title changes

from 1973-1983 there were 6 title changes and the title was held up one
from 1983-1993 there were 13 title changes and the title held up twice
from 1993-2003 there were 48 title changes and the title was vactated about 7 times....you see where im going with this...as the times goes on times changes..we live in a faster paced lifestyle...we as fans dont want yearlong or even 6 month reigns..

Ill give you an example: when CM punk won the WWE title at first the fans were going nuts saying he deserves it blah blah blah..while i agree with that...as time went on after last night all over discussion boards you see " ehh im happy he won but wouldve liked jericho to have won etc etc etc" lets say punk retains at mania and goes further soon fans will complain and turn on him faster than they did John Cena the miz randy orton the list goes on and on..when all the aforementioned stars were "in the hunt" you would hear " when is it their time?? i wish WWe would let them get a riegn..*insert aforementioned stars name here* deserves it more than anyone.....then they win it its all cheers and love the first two months but after awhile its.."ehh okay he should drop the title now" then its " why is he still campion??? let someone else get a chance" just watch..let punk hold the title a little longer youll see what i mean...

my point in this long rant is we dont want long reigns...wwe complain when its short but cry when its long....so frequent title changes keeps the product fresh

do you understand that the reason people are turning on them is because having reigning champions gives the other guys time to build and when they FINALLY win it its something special and they can have a long reign.. when the belt keeps changing every fucking month nobody develops because they get the belt right away like sheamus.. if he wins the belt at WM its not gonna be a HUGE deal as it could have been..

they need to push santino and keep giving him close calls and finally give him the belts <--- see what i did there

 

[Nada]

And since 2006 and those 34 "reigns" tell me which stars WWE has really made? Which mega stars have they managed to create?

Instead of 34, they could have had 4 long reigns that were given to people who needed them and built new stars. Instead they got Hunter (part timer), Undertaker (Mania attraction only), Rock (movie star) and John Cena (the only full active performer) as the big stars. Everyone else is a upper midcarder at best

 

[I Heart Cena]

Exactly. Without a big star that stands out, you can't have a long reign. If there isn't a larger than life star like Sammartino or Hogan, then you have no choice but to spread the wealth.

WWE hasn't had a star like that since the Attitude Era. So there's no reason to give anyone a long reign, since there's no true Alpha male in the company.

 

[hArdyPUNKmArk]

While im at it, dump the divas division all together.. or give them their own show and time slot.. so everyone can see the horrible ratings, this would save us 15 minutes of raw every week

Firstly, 15mins? That&#8217;s a stretch&#8230;

Instead of 34, they could have had 4 long reigns that were given to people who needed them and built new stars. Instead they got Hunter (part timer), Undertaker (Mania attraction only), Rock (movie star) and John Cena (the only full active performer) as the big stars. Everyone else is a upper midcarder at best

There&#8217;s plenty of big stars they made in addition to the 4 above. Batista was elevated then left. Orton is certainly a mainstay and if not for Cena would be the biggest guy in the company. Punk is obviously there. Jeff Hardy was even in that spot before leaving. Look, title reigns are there to create main event stars and be pushed to the forefront to promote the company. It&#8217;s not always going to work but it&#8217;s worth a shot if someone has earned it behind the scenes and in front of an audience.

True, on paper it looks like a shit load of reigns in just 6 years but looking back I don&#8217;t feel like it was too many. At times it was frustrating seeing it switched from Orton to Cena every month or 2 but that&#8217;s a minor thing. Everyone has their opinion I guess but I really don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s too many as the action and excitement has kept me entertained. I don&#8217;t watch wrestling to watch one guy have a title for a long time, I watch wrestling to be entertained, simple as that and as long as I&#8217;m being entertained I couldn&#8217;t care less about who has how many title reigns or who&#8217;s held it the longest etc.

Sit back, watch the product and quit bitching. Unless of course you&#8217;re not entertained in which case, please continue with your bitching&#8230;

 

[DustyTheManiac]

With quite a few it superstars being from Europe would it be a good idea to bring back the European Championship as a title just for the superstarsfrom Europe and make the United States title just for the ones from the US?

 

[ProWrestlingFan84]

Interesting idea on paper but the reality is that the WWE already has too many titles they chose to never defend, prime example being Santino not defending his US title and the tag team champs not even on the card for Mania. The IC and US titles are already a mere shadow of what they once stood for, having yet another mid to lower tier title would just be pointless. I understand your idea and maybe if WWE cared about the titles more then yeah this idea would work but the current system, it's just a bad idea all around.

 

[The Ram]

WWE has enough work trying to keep the Intercontinental title and the U.S. title meaningful. There hasn't been a good intercontinental title feud since maybe Morrison or Mysterio had it. The intercontinental championship is barely defended. Same for United states title except I can't really tell you the last time there was a feud oer the united states championship, when MVP had it is the last time that comes to mind lol. It's barely enough people contending for either of those titles and puttn the u.s. title for only u.s. people and european title for European people would make it even harder for people to feud over either of those titles.

 

[jonboi24]

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.

 

[Mr. HD]

Yeah, there's really no need for a European Title return. There are already secondary titles to compete for on RAW and SmackDown. Bringing in the European title would complicate things a tad.

The only way this would work, is if a European superstar on the roster wins the US Title and says he's not gonna hold a title that represents America. This prompts said superstar to bring back the European Title.

WWE 12

But in this Era, I don't see that happening, so the European Title is pretty much dead, buried and not coming back.

 

[DeathClutch]

In fairness WWE doesn't need the belt at present, but if there was ever a time in wrestling when the European title would have been great is now; since they're always doing tours in Europe.

Personally I'd rather see WWE bring back King of the Ring to PPV than bring back another title that'll be dropped once the novelty's wore off.

 

[mlp420]

The only way this works is if they unify the world titles and the ic/us titles like they have with the tag team and divas, and then bring back the european as a third level title. WWE title for main eventers, IC title for midcarders and European for the lower level guys.

IMO this would be great because then we could see guys work their way up starting with the European title, moving up to the IC and then the World title (like Kurt Angle and Eddie Guerrero), instead of catapulting into the WWE title picture without accomplishing anything (like Sheamus and Wade Barrett, among others).

That's the only way it could work.

 

[C-Dawg]

If they brought back more meaning to the title belts then yes I think it would be a viable way of getting some of the deserving lower card talent some exposure. Maybe not the European title even, maybe something like the TV championship that WCW used to have.

Although the rate we're going with this twitter crap on the programming, would anyone be surprised if Vinny Mac brought in a trending championship? Sadly I'm only half kidding!

 

[GameOver]

once again what is the point of having another title when the titles that are there go undefended.

and who are the mass of Europeans invading WWE now to justify a European title. the Euro title when it was created was more like a Million Dollar Belt it was just a place card to give i believe it was the British Bulldog a championship to brag about

then it went onto to be held by mostly American/Canadian's not Europeans.