"The Prop?"

[Ben-Phillips]

Alright, I'm sure this is more than likely a reoccurring thread, but I've yet to see it myself, so let me just throw this out there.

(1:42 for what I'm talking about)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7HTAeHZsFM

In an interview with Mike Tenay, Vince Russo referred to the titles in Professional Wrestling as "props." Well I pose the question, have the once illustrious championship belts in Professional Wrestling (Most notably WWE) been reduced merely to props? Bruno Sammartino held the WWE (then WWWF) World Heavyweight Championship for 11 years in his two reigns combined. Now, look at the longest championship reigns of 2009. Three, four months?

In not just Professional Wrestling, but in any sport, I have grown accustomed to see the "World Champion(s)" as the best in their given sport as long as they are champions. In the WWE most notably.

In 2009, there have already been 16 title changes between the World Heavyweight and WWE Heavyweight Championships. 20 if you include the ECW Championship, as many individuals may argue for or against the ECW Championship being considered a 'World' Championship, though I personally do, I will not get into that on this post.

Go back in time, I'm sure if you asked anyone who was around in Sammartino's time, they would say "Bruno Sammartino is the greatest professional wrestler in the world." And you could disagree, as that's merely an opinion, yet, there was more evidence to support it. Now, I can go out into the street and ask someone "Who's the best wrestler today." I could get many answers. Jeff Hardy, John Cena, Batista, Triple H, Edge, Undertaker, etc.

When did being World Champion go from meaning something, to meaning "You're the best, until [inserts date here]." Not only does it make the championships look weak to be hot-potato'd around every 3-9 weeks, but it personally makes the 'champions' look weak (to me, that is) as well.

I firmly believe championship reigns should last lengthy periods of time. Look at John Cena's 13-month WWE Championship reign. I believe he would have lost at No Mercy to Randy Orton whether or not he had been injured the week prior to, as there was no one left for him to face. Yet, everyone complained, bitched and moaned, and with good reason. I believe that's EXACTLY what we need.

You could have asked anyone during John Cena's 13-month championship reign, other than an I.W.C. smart mark fan like the vast majority of us, and those reading this rant of mine. And I guarantee a good 80%, more-or-less, would have responded with a resounding "John Cena."

HELL, I would have too! I'm no Cena mark, but there was absolutely no denying he was -THE- guy from mid-05 to late 2007. Holding three WWE Championships for *pulls out a calculator and wiki's* 793 days. *Divides by 365|Rounds up* 2.2 years, people! You can say your favorite superstar was... Whoever, but you could not deny John Cena brought credibility to the WWE championship. You either wanted him to hold the belt longer, or you wanted him to lose it, badly.

That championship, and it's champion, brought immense satisfaction, or contempt to everyone. Not one passionate wrestling fan, have I spoken to who didn't really care if Cena had the belt longer or not. Everyone had an opinion. And with long reigns, it makes the man who dethrones the champion look oh-so much better. Randy Orton was just coming into his own with his new psychotic heel gimmick, and if he had beaten Cena to take the title, fuck building him as a long-term champion, he would have been seen as the next megastar.. Just from getting the rub from someone who held the WWE Championship for such a long time.

I believe if WWE wants to build new stars, the first thing they need to do is build their champions.

CM Punk broke into the main event scene, and when he took the World Championship from Edge, it was awesome to see him as Champion, however... Once he lost the belt, no one really saw him as the guy. I didn't see him as the top guy on the brand when he had the championship, nor did the majority of those watching. Granted the circumstances, I think I picked a bad example...

Sorry to do this to you, Cena-haters. But back to John Cena. John Cena took the WWE Championship from JBL at WrestleMania 21 (Was there, btw) and since JBL held the WWE championship for 9 months, it got into the minds of fans "When the fuck is he going to lose?!" And when he did, it made Cena look like a legitimate main eventer, taking the rub from someone who was undoubtedly the #1 guy at the time being.

As much as I enjoy watching the man wrestle, Edge is a pretty big piece of this puzzle. Surely, fans don't want to see people hold championships for six or seven years, like they did with Bruno Sammartino, but Edge is more than the Ultimate Opportunist. He is the Ultimate Transitional Champion. Taking a championship for three-to-four weeks at a time does no one any favors. If Jeff Hardy had won the WWE Championship from Triple H, it would have taken him to an all new level. However, he took the belt from Edge who had the belt for three weeks.. Making the title win look like it didn't mean much, despite the fact he had been chasing the championship.

Anyways, as I've done in the past, I ranted rather unnecessarily long, and I'll put it to rest.

OH OH OH, ANOTHER EXAMPLE! CM Punk won the World Championship from Jeff Hardy at Summerslam. I personally don't believe Jeff should have ever regained the title. Punk won the strap, got DQ'd at one show, and at the next PPV, he lost, cleanly. He regained the title, got heat for it, but was still seen as less than Jeff Hardy. Once Jeff leaves the company, Punk goes under in a feud with Undertaker. I believe if he held the belt for at least three or four months, he would have been taken more seriously, and wouldn't be dropped back into the mid-card as quickly as he has been. Granted, he's being used to elevate R-Truth (or so we've been led to believe).

So, thoughts on the credibility of WWE's World Championships, or shall we just give in and side with the most notorious, and worst great (Lawl) booker of all-time, Vince Russo... And just say the championships that used to mean something, are no more than mere props.

 

[theviolentmessiah]

Well obviously I think all WWE needs to do is look at ROH's World title reigns, Samoa Joe held the belt for 645 days, when Austin Aries beat him he became instantly made, in my opinion he's still running off that to this day. Austin Aries was virtually obscure to me a year before, he came in, had some great matches, joined Generation Next, and when that title belt finally changed hands the crowd was through the roof. Every ROH title means something and every champion has massively advanced their career because of it. Danielson, McGuinness, Low Ki. The proof is in their success.

 

[Ben-Phillips]

I agree that the Ring of Honor Championship is undoubtedly the most reputable championship in professional wrestling. Behind it, I would have to say the PWG Championship, granted.. The championships are looked upon as much lesser belts, the champions get actual title reigns. In wrestling, it should be quality over quantity. I think companies, specifically WWE, think making people like Edge a 9-time world champion in 3 years makes him look better, when in fact. It makes him look weak. It makes him look as if he cannot hold onto a championship, and it makes the title look like, as I said, a mere prop.

Long, belated title reigns make it memorable when the championships finally do change hands. I think Tyler Black's winning of the ROH Championship at Final Battle (if it happens) will be a lackluster victory if anything. Aries would have held the championship for, what, six months?

Austin Aries is constantly mid-carding ROH right now. I truly believe it's because he didn't have the fire and the momentum this reign as he did after he defeated Samoa Joe. Jerry Lynn had only held the ROH Championship for 2 or 3 months, I do believe, then straight up lost it. Making Jerry look transitional, and Austin as just some slimy heel that won the championship from a guy who wasn't even in the final stage of an elimination match.

In wrestling, it really should be quality over quantity. Austin Aries is the only person to hold the ROH Championship multiple times, which is a true testament to exactly how much being the Heavyweight Champion of Ring of Honor really means. I mean, technically, Johnny Nitro was a "World" Champion in WWE. Yet, no one really cares. And I can't tell you how many times I forget how many title reigns Orton has had. He's had 6, but his longest title reign, other than his 2007-2008 run, was three months.

Championships nowadays do more damage to characters than they do good.

 

[Dagger Dias]

So, thoughts on the credibility of WWE's World Championships, or shall we just give in and side with the most notorious, and worst great (Lawl) booker of all-time, Vince Russo... And just say the championships that used to mean something, are no more than mere props.

I do agree that the longer reigns mean more to both the fans and the wrestlers themselves because of what a huge moment it is when someone finally dethrones the champion, it gives the new title holder more credibility because they had to overcome such odds. The title runs (especially the two world titles) need to last longer so that this can happen more often.

As for the never-ending debate on whether the belts are "props" or not.... I don't think they are, at least not the two world titles in WWE. Sometimes it depends more on who the champion is and how they are booked, but in the case of most of the world title runs in WWE, I feel that these guys truly were the best at the time. That is why they were given the title, because they were the best in the company at the time and the fans will pay to see "the best" take on any challenger who stands a chance. Now is that the case with ALL former world champions? Not a chance. Most of them though. The belts might not mean as much as they did long ago.... but let me ask everyone this. "The belts are props" came from Vince Russo. Are you really going to believe in something this man says? I would not be quick to take something he says seriously, just look at what he did to WCW. Although that is a topic for another thread.

I don't think that the belts are just "props" because most of the time they really do give the titles to whoever is "the best" at that moment in time.

 

[Ben-Phillips]

... but let me ask everyone this. "The belts are props" came from Vince Russo. Are you really going to believe in something this man says? I would not be quick to take something he says seriously, just look at what he did to WCW. Although that is a topic for another thread.

I do agree, topic for another thread. But let me ask you something... Vince Russo was the lead writer (except for Vince McMahon, of course) until 1999. Is he not partially responsible for booking the edgy material that led to the attitude era? I think he's fine as long as he doesn't have 100% control. If Russo can have someone to filter his ideas and squeeze a lump of coal into a diamond, TNA would be in a much better position now than it is.
__________________

Back on topic, does giving the belt to "who is best at that time" not continue to degrade the championship's worth, though? CM Punk was one of the most evoking and compelling characters this summer. My sisters, who despise wrestling with a fiery passion, would hear his promos and even they would watch intently. Does putting a title on someone who is truly working their tail off, and getting phenomenal crowd responses, and put on good matches on top of that not deserve to be deemed the best. And if they are, deemed the best for a mere matter of weeks before someone else who draws more shows up?

John Cena in my opinion is the best in the WWE because of his charisma, (not much, but enough) in-ring prowess, can carry anyone (except Khali) to a decent match, and draws tons upon tons of money in many different fields. So does putting the WWE Championship on him for three weeks, then have him lose it 3 weeks after WrestleMania, then the same situation just these last few months. Winning at Breaking Point, losing at Hell in a Cell, and regaining 3 weeks later at Bragging Rights, does that not defeat the purpose of the belts meaning something?

I love Randy Orton, but he has gotten stale for me as of late, to an extent where I find Cena more entertaining (right now, not in general and might I note, Cena is boring as fuck). It's at the point where the writing staff must figure "Huh... The crowd fell flat with Randy losing the belt and don't seem to care for Cena much. Let's have Cena lose to keep Randy over, and make people love Cena more!"

It's become more of a hot potato-esque sort of circle the WWE will use to keep any guy from going under. It's not even the world titles. The IC belt was the same until just recently. Santino had the belt for a month or two, then Regal had it for a few weeks. Punk had it, lost in one of his first defenses to JBL who lost a few weeks later, to Rey to held the belt for a few months. Lost to Jericho, won again 3 weeks later, and was supposed to lose to Dolph but Rey politicked to keep it longer then moved it to JoMo by circumstance.

The WWE uses belts now to get people over. No one cares about Drew McIntyre except smarks, so I wouldn't be surprised if he won the Intercontinental Championship within the next month, just to try and make people take him seriously.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I do agree, topic for another thread. But let me ask you something... Vince Russo was the lead writer (except for Vince McMahon, of course) until 1999. Is he not partially responsible for booking the edgy material that led to the attitude era? I think he's fine as long as he doesn't have 100% control. If Russo can have someone to filter his ideas and squeeze a lump of coal into a diamond, TNA would be in a much better position now than it is.

True, but Vince was there to tell him what not to do. I give Vince more credit for the edgy product. That's a debate for another thread though, now I'll tackle the rest of your post.
__________________

Back on topic, does giving the belt to "who is best at that time" not continue to degrade the championship's worth, though? CM Punk was one of the most evoking and compelling characters this summer. My sisters, who despise wrestling with a fiery passion, would hear his promos and even they would watch intently. Does putting a title on someone who is truly working their tail off, and getting phenomenal crowd responses, and put on good matches on top of that not deserve to be deemed the best. And if they are, deemed the best for a mere matter of weeks before someone else who draws more shows up?

Yes. They certainly do. If they hold the world title then they ARE (with the exception of some flukes) the best. When Punk had the World Heavyweight Championship it was believable that he was the best. I honestly did not support him losing it to Undertaker.... but I don't work for WWE, I'm just a fan.

John Cena in my opinion is the best in the WWE because of his charisma, (not much, but enough) in-ring prowess, can carry anyone (except Khali) to a decent match, and draws tons upon tons of money in many different fields. So does putting the WWE Championship on him for three weeks, then have him lose it 3 weeks after WrestleMania, then the same situation just these last few months. Winning at Breaking Point, losing at Hell in a Cell, and regaining 3 weeks later at Bragging Rights, does that not defeat the purpose of the belts meaning something?

John Cena IS the best. I agree with that and would argue it to the grave. You also make a valid point that the short title reigns defeat the purpose somewhat because longer reigns mean more. His year long reign was amazing, and probably the best world title reign we will see this generation.

I love Randy Orton, but he has gotten stale for me as of late, to an extent where I find Cena more entertaining (right now, not in general and might I note, Cena is boring as fuck). It's at the point where the writing staff must figure "Huh... The crowd fell flat with Randy losing the belt and don't seem to care for Cena much. Let's have Cena lose to keep Randy over, and make people love Cena more!"

Didn't quite understand this part. Did you mean how they kept passing the title back and forth between Cena and Orton this semester? I did not really enjoy that either, and they are my two favorite wrestlers.... if that says anything about how wrong it seemed that they did that to the title.

It's become more of a hot potato-esque sort of circle the WWE will use to keep any guy from going under. It's not even the world titles. The IC belt was the same until just recently. Santino had the belt for a month or two, then Regal had it for a few weeks. Punk had it, lost in one of his first defenses to JBL who lost a few weeks later, to Rey to held the belt for a few months. Lost to Jericho, won again 3 weeks later, and was supposed to lose to Dolph but Rey politicked to keep it longer then moved it to JoMo by circumstance.

Precisely. Santino should have just finished the Honk-a-Meter storyline because the Regal reign was POINTLESS, and the reigns that followed up until the current one with Morrison were not that great either. Imagine if Santino had overcome the Honk-a-Meter and Morrison were the one to finally end that reign? That would have given us a more memorable reign (Santino's) and a great victory for the new champ (Morrison). The IC belt would have meant more too.

The WWE uses belts now to get people over. No one cares about Drew McIntyre except smarks, so I wouldn't be surprised if he won the Intercontinental Championship within the next month, just to try and make people take him seriously.

I'm actually a fan of Drew McIntyre. He reminds me of a younger Triple H. If he does win that title, I hope he would at least get a decent reign with it!

 

[Super Crazy]

I firimly believe the title has become less of a prop and it's garnering more respectability again. And I don't understand why people make countless threads about this. Week after week, month after month, someone makes a thread about how the titles have all become props and mean nothing and have no credibility or prestige anymore. I'm going to out on a limb here and say that this year has been a good year for all the championships. They've all been held by respectable wrestlers who have all had meaningful feuds over the championships, thus giving it credibility and prestige.

I know Samoa Joe had the longest reign in ROH history with the championship, but I honestly believe that is just too long of a reign. In a company like the WWE or TNA it would not work. There is no way to keep things fresh month in and month out for a champion to hold the belt that long. It works in ROH because ROH focuses more on the wrestling and less on the story.

Now I understand that if someone had a long reign, that the person to beat them would undoubtedly garner respect and credibility, but at the same time, would you not garner credibility by taking the title off a man like Edge whose had 9 reigns in total I believe, and yet they are all short.

It's not the length of reign and taking the championship that puts the wrestler over all the time, sometimes it's the man behind the belt. And I frimly believe that even though Edge's reigns have all mostly been about a month long, you'd still gain the same credibility from him as you would from say, Triple H or John Cena.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Now I understand that if someone had a long reign, that the person to beat them would undoubtedly garner respect and credibility, but at the same time, would you not garner credibility by taking the title off a man like Edge whose had 9 reigns in total I believe, and yet they are all short.

It's not the length of reign and taking the championship that puts the wrestler over all the time, sometimes it's the man behind the belt. And I frimly believe that even though Edge's reigns have all mostly been about a month long, you'd still gain the same credibility from him as you would from say, Triple H or John Cena.

You make a pretty good point. People complain that Edge's reigns were too short or that he is just a transitional champion because of that.... but he had many short reigns because it deals with his character, the Ultimate Opportunist. Someone in real life who relied mostly on being opportunistic would not do as well in a fair fight, and would get many wins against an already weak opponent. That's exactly what Edge does. He might get a long reign eventually, but most if not all of his title wins will probably be like the one's he has already had.

I also like your "the man behind the belt" point. The belts are not "props" because whoever has them (most of the time) really is the best on that brand at the time that they are champion, and once someone else beats them then THAT person is the best on the brand. When Edge was champion, he was the best. When Cena is the champion, he's the best.... and so on.

Belts being viewed as props was just a dumb idea of Russo's and now that he is gone from WWE, the belts being viewed as "props" there is much less of a problem than it used to be because he is off at TNA instead. However.... I don't feel that the belts are "props" in TNA either because, for the most part, TNA has had good champions and good feuds with all of their belts lately.

The belts are not "props" anywhere anymore, if you ask me.