The WWE Championship has been a great ride for the past 4 years

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Survivor Series 2011 was a crucial moment for the history of the WWE Championship. Not becaue the Era of Punk begun, but because the WWE completely changed the way this title is looked at.

The WWE Championship really felt as a World Title until 2009. After 2009 its value dropped to a complete different level. Think about it. I'm talking after Hogan era, the names that held that title were big names like Bret Hart, HBK, Yokozuna, Undertaker, Diesel, Austin, Rock, Foley, Angle, Triple H, Jericho, Lesnar, Guerrero, JBL, Cena, Edge, Orton, Hardy.. Yeah you had names like Sid and JBL holding the title, but when they held it, it really felt like they were the best in the company or in their brand.

They were all really deserving names. Yes, there as some hot-potatoing during the AE and during the 2008-09 period, but the title still felt important. However all of that changed when the period of 2009-2011 came around. That period the title changed hands 24 times (Hardy to Edge, then HHH, then Orton, then Batista, then Orton, then Cena, then Orton then Cena, then Sheamus, then Cena, then Batista, then Cena, then Sheamus, then Orton, then Miz, then Cena, then CM Punk, then Rey Mysterio, then Cena, then Punk again(?), then Del Rio, then Cena, then Del Rio, then CM Punk again). During the span of January 2009 till November 2011, which is 34 months, the title changed hands 24 times(!), which means there was a new champion every 1,5 months.

However that was half the problem. The other half of the problem is that one of these of these guys, Miz, Sheamus and Del Rio became completely non-existent afterwards and never challenged for that title again in their careers! In what was for me, the worst period in WWE history, the title became a complete joke.

But then, CM Punk won the title and held it for 434 days. Have you ever thought about what followed? Rock, Cena, Bryan, Orton, Bryan, Orton, Bryan, Cena, Lesnar. CM Punk put the WWE Championship on the map one more time and then Daniel Bryan's story, made it look important once again. And finally, when Lesnar won it, it really felt as the best in the company held it.

Isn't that what is should feel like? Shouldn't the best be the champion? IMO he should, because if the best isn't the champ, the the title looks secondary. And no, that doesn't mean that Cena should always be the champ, because Cena isn't the best anymore. What it means, is that, I don't care who walks out of 'Mania as the champ, Bryan, Reigns, Lesnar, Rollins or my grandma. What matters, is that I want that person, to carry himself in that ring & out of that ring as the best, because if that doesn't happen then the title will feel like crap again.

It looks like Reigns in leaving 'Mania as the champ. I don't think anybody has yet realized the pressure on him. The next champ must carry the worrk Punk, Bryan, Cena, Orton & Lesnar did these past 4 years and make us believe that he is at their level or even higher. The WWE Championship isn't the WH Championship, it isn't a prop. When you carry that belt, especially as a face, it means that you're the best. Are Bryan & Reigns the best? Are they going to become the best? Or are we in for another "John Cena saves the day" like last year, when they didn't have anybody to give the belt to before Summerslam?

P.S.: I know I made a thread somewhat bashing the creative recently, but kudos to them for the work they've done with the WWE Championship these past 4 years. But the real challenge comes after Wrestlemania 31, for both the creative and the champ.

Just wanted to get that out of my chest.

 

[Jtrivera]

Well first off, Punk was the one who made that title relevant and important again when he challenged Cena for it at Money in the bank, and after leaving the company and coming back he and Cena fought at SummerSlam for the "Undisputed" champion, which was won by Punk, following a cash in by Del Rio, only for Punk to regain the gold at Survivor Series, so my personal opinion, Money In The Bank was when the relevance of the title began again.

As for the best in the company being champ I do agree with that 100%, but at the same time think about this, on any given night anybody could be the best...boxing it takes one lucky hit to get knocked out, baseball anyone could get that one home run to win the world series.. And football, well HI SEAHAWKS... My point is, anyone can get lucky on any given night that's why we can't and will never just have one solid champion, Lesnar is the perfect champ because his story fits with ANYONE, on the roster...big bully top dog has taken out every single person in his way, now anybody that comes to challenge him is the underdog, the story works with Reigns, Bryan, hell even Cena, that's why Lesnar is the top guy right now, once he loses the title I'm not sure the prestige will be the same as the last four years, but hey maybe we can move on from the part timers and start building the future.

 

[cornerdon26]

Whilst I agree with some of yours points, there are a few things we have to remember.

Between the Austin winning the title at WM from Bret Hart and the turn of 2001, which is pretty much 34 months too (if I did my maths correctly), there was 21 different title reigns and the title was vacated twice. Hot shotting the title is not the worst thing in the world, as long as the talent is right. Only 9 different people held the title in those reigns, but they were all top top guys. Of course that would not work in the present WWE with such start-stop pushes and inconsistent booking.

The title definitely has become more credible though. Such a shame though they messed around with it after Summerslam as they were in panic mode without John Cena about. Personally I would have let Bryan run with it till Mania and face Punk (the winner of rumble, I bet he would have stayed for that). Bryan should not have won at NoC only for it to be vacated though. Bryan now has the same no. of reigns as Mankind and Michaels, one fewer than Angle, Taker and Lesnar but has had to 1 or less day title reigns!

 

[Wald]

Yeah I agree with you that the Punk reign really put the title back on the map. Main reason for that isn't that he held it for so long though, it's because he talked and acted like the WWE title was the only thing in the world that gave you legitimacy in claiming that you were the best wrestler on the entire planet.

Go back in time and look at great champions like Ric Flair put over the title at Royal Rumble 92 or watch Bret Hart tell Shawn Michaels that until HBK can take the title away from him that he has no right to call himself the showstopper or the number one guy in the company. That's the way you treat you main title. You have your top guys talk and act like it means the world to them. Punk acting like that, Rock saying he wants to win it, Bryan acting like he needed to win it off Cena to really call himself a top wrestler, Batista coming back to say he only did so to work the title match at Wrestlemania and Brock going for th belt all add up in the fans' minds to the title meaning everything.

I also agree that 2009 to 2011 was dark days for the belt but I wouldn't leave the Attitude Era off so lightly. I know they were in a ratings war and all that but garbage like Vince winning it, Kane have a one day reign and HBK, Sid and Bret all holding it between Royal Rumble 97 and Wrestlemania XIII all diluted the title too.

 

[Mustang Sally]

As professional boxing and mixed martial arts have shown, fans like title matches. In boxing, over the years, they've created a ridiculous number of titles in every weight division for fighters to win, knowing that people will be more interested in a bout for the "WBA Northwest Inner-city District Super Bantamweight Title" than just a regular boxing match.

In pro wrestling, people like championship matches too, but there are far fewer titles to win.....and the one we're most interested in, the World Heavyweight Championship, is the one every wrestler is supposed to aspire to.

By nature...and by design....there are going to be a lot of title matches for that coveted belt. Until Brock Lesnar came along, it was defended every month, so it naturally follows that there will be a bunch of title changes. That seems okay with fans as the months go along, but when we take a block of time and examine it, we conclude there are too many title changes. So be it; I thought most of them made sense at the time. At any rate, we want title matches for the same reason we want them in boxing and MMA; they're crowd-pleasers.

Isn't it ironic, then, that the Brock Lesnar Experiment changed the landscape. Now, instead of a champion who's constantly defending, we've got one who's barely around. A lot of folks like Brock as champ because he's been clearly painted as the best WWE's got.....and proved it against John Cena, no less.....but that he became the champion at all is a radical departure in practice for WWE. For that reason, a lot of folks don't like that Brock is the top dog, because he comes off as a mercenary rather than one of the regular performers.....which, of course, is exactly the case.

So, as usual, folks who want WWE to "listen to the fans" should realize that it's hard for the company to accommodate everyone since they're getting conflicting opinions. On one side, they're hearing the folks who decry having the belt defended so often and the title change hands so much because they feel it diminishes the impact of the championship.....but on the other side, when they get a situation such as exists today, they want the champ to defend more often because they like to see title matches. As usual, WWE is damned if they do....and damned if they don't.

But, one way or the other, I have to agree with the OP when he says the WWE Championship has been on a hell of a ride.

 

[MCMG]

I think the WWE title definitely means more as of late. Having one World Title definitely helps. Passing the belt around definitely hurts the prestige but it can work. They did it in the Attitude Era but the quality of talent and the storylines allowed it to work.

It definitely started around the time of the Pipebomb and the Cena/Punk match at MITB. An iconic promo and an iconic match that highlighted the title as the main part of the show. I mean, wasn't Cena feuding with R fucking Truth just before this....

Punk holding the belt for 434 days was amazing. He was unstoppable. He was the best. Even after that the belt goes onto The Rock (one of the best ever) and he drops it to Cena. Again, a big, big deal.

Bryan chasing the title was one of the best things the WWE have done in a long time. He was in the main-event and closing every show but it didn't matter; because he wasn't the champ. The fans wanted him to have that title and he wouldn't accept anything else. Wonderful. Orton and The Authority were also great. That belt meant control which makes it important. Indeed, Triple H put his boots back on just to stop Bryan winning.

I've sort of enjoyed Lesnar's reign. It's not been perfect but people were talking about the belt not being on the show. Brock is the best so he has the belt... rather simple actually. The reaction at The Rumble for Reigns was another interesting moment. Fans know that holding the WWE Title is important and they care who has it. The WWE title means you are the guy and that is the perfect message the WWE should be trying to send.

If the fans understand the title is important then that's a good thing. If there are only elite level talents competing for it, that is a good thing. Getting invested into these feuds and storylines is vital and it definitely highlights the WWE are getting the booking of the title right.