When Was The WWE Title Most Prestigious?

Mudlup50

Championship Contender
I've always heard people saying it, I didn't watch during the Attitude Era so I've always believed these people. But to be frank, I got curious. So I set up multiple Eras for WWE history and put down every champ and how long they held the belt. Then I averaged each era and created my results. *note if they didn't hold the title for a whole day, I counted it as a day so I didn't have to ignore them or count hours :lol:

The Really Old Era as I called it, this includes 1963-1984. Basically, the first WWE champion all the way until Hogan wins his first World title. The average length per recognized reign? 842 days per reign. To put that into perspective it's about twice as long as CM Punk's reign. It's 2 years and about an extra 3 months. That was the average in a 21 year period.

The Golden Era as everyone calls it, this was 1984-1994. I stopped it at 1994 because the next generation was about new stars being born, the reign I stopped on was the Yokozuna run, Bret hart ended to begin his second reign as champ. The average length of a world title run, 225 days. For perspective, Lesnar's run as champ will be just a hair longer.

The New Generation Era is the Wikipedia name for it, it lasted from 1994-1997. I ended it after the Montreal Screwjob, feel free to end it at Wrestlemania. The downward average continues, this era an average champ would hold it for 120 days. This period seems like a dark period in wrestling from at least what I've heard, Diesel had an almost year long run as champ, Bret Hart won it four times for about 490 days.

Then it's obviously the Attitude Era which I started at Survivor Series 1997 and ended at SummerSlam 2002 when Lesnar won the title and the brands split. And if you actually look back, things look bad. 31 title swaps and each reign averaged a length of 55 days. As in not even 2 months. Less than half of the previous era's average. You'd win the title and be expected to drop it after a successful title defense. That was it. Only 12 people held the title during this period, one of these people being Vince and another being Hogan. With people passing it back and forth quite frequently(Rock and Mankind pass it back and forth quite a few times). This is by no means me insulting the era but I mean, damn they passed that title around a lot!

Then I have the Brand Extension Era, 2002-2013. I know the brand extension technically ended in 2012 but there was 2 world titles still. So I'm pretending it continued until Orton won the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. There were two belts so I'll look at them both. The World Heavyweight championship, the one people don't even count sometimes, the average length of a run was 75 days. As in 3 weeks longer than the world title in the attitude era. It actually started to go up. Funny we say the titles have been deprestiged in the modern era. But let's look at the WWE championship you say, the title that matters. The belt, Orton won 2 times in one night. The one Daniel Bryan has held for less than a day on 2 different occasions. What's the average? 86 days! As in almost 3 months. Obviously CM Punk pulls it up and Orton/Edge/Daniel Bryan pull the average down but still. That is quite an improvement from 55 days.

Now the modern era. 91 days per champion. That number gets more impressive when you consider what they wanted to happen. Bryan was supposed to drop it to Lesnar, so it would've been 3 champions from TLC 2013-Wrestlemania 2015. An average of over 150. Even with Bryan being injured, Lesnar is "booked" to hold the title till Mania if he does the average length of title reigns will be 121 days. Higher than the New Generation Era.

What am I getting at here you're thinking? WWE is trying to put prestige on the main belt, I don't know how it'll work out but we're on the upside. Hopefully we won't hit the point where a 3 year reign is normal, but we might be hitting a point of time where a 4 month reign is considered average! Granted the pool of numbers is too small, so I'm not saying this is for certain. :shrug: we'll have to wait and see. I just find it funny people say the attitude era was the best yet the belt swapped so quickly, yet if it happens now it's this horrible thing. I know that the IC belt was more "valuable." Maybe I'll do that belt at some point too.

The Way back Era:1963-1984
Buddy Rogers 22 days
Bruno Sammartino 2803 days
Ivan Koloff 21 days
Pedro Morales 1027 days
Stan Stasiak 9 days
Bruno Sammartino 1237 days
Billy Graham 296 days
Bob Backlund 2135 days
The Iron Shiek 28 days
9 7578 842 days on average
The Golden Era 1984-1994
Hulk Hogan 1474 days
Andre the Giant 1 day
Randy Savage 371 days
Hulk Hogan 364 days
The Ultimate Warrior 293 days
Sgt Slaughter 64 days
Hulk Hogan 248 days
Undertaker 6 days
Hulk Hogan 1 day
Ric Flair 77 days
Randy Savage 149 days
Ric Flair 41 days
Bret Hart 174 days
Yokozuna 1 day
Hulk Hogan 70 days
Yokozuna 280 days
16 3614 225.875 on average

The New Generation 1994-1997
Bret Hart 248 days
Bob Backlund 3 days
Diesel 358 days
Bret Hart 133 days
Shawn Michaels 231 days
Sycho Sid 63 days
Shawn Michaels 25 days
Bret Hart 1 day
Sycho Sid 34 days
The Undertaker 133 days
Bret Hart 98 days
11 1327 120.63 days

The Attitude Era 1997-2002
Shawn Michaels 140 days
Stone Cold 91 days
Kane 1 day
Stone Cold 90 days
Rock 44 days
Mankind 26 days
Rock 2 days
Mankind 20 days
Rock 41 days
Stone Cold 56 days
Undertaker 36 days
Stone Cold 55 days
Mankind 1 day
Triple H 22 days
Vince 6 days
Triple H 49 days
Big Show 50 days
Triple H 118 days
Rock 21 days
Triple H 35 days
Rock 119 days
Kurt Angle 126 days
Rock 35 days
Stone Cold 175 days
Kurt Angle 15 days
Stone Cold 62 days
Chris Jericho 98 days
Triple H 35 days
Hulk Hogan 28 days
The Undertaker 63 days
The Rock 35 days
31 1695 54.7 days

Brand Extension 2002-2013
WWE Title World Heavyweight
Brock Lesnar 84 days Triple H 76 days
Big Show 28 days Shawn Michaels 28 days
Kurt Angle 105 days Triple H 280 days
Brock Lesnar 119 days Goldberg 84 days
Kurt Angle 51 days Triple H 91 days
Brock Lesnar 152 days Chris Benoit 154 days
Eddie Guerrero 133 days Randy Orton 28 days
JBL 280 days Triple H 85 days
John Cena 280 days Triple H 84 days
Edge 21 days Batista 282 days
John Cena 133 days Kurt Angle 82 days
Rob Van Dam 22 days Rey Mysterio 112 days
Edge 76 days King Booker 126 days
John Cena 380 days Batista 126 days
Randy Orton 1 day Undertaker 37 days
Triple H 1 day Edge 70 days
Randy Orton 203 days Khali 61 days
Triple H 210 days Batista 91 days
Edge 21 days Edge 105 days
Jeff Hardy 42 days Undertaker 30 days
Edge 21 days Edge 29 days
Triple H 70 days CM Punk 69 days
Randy Orton 42 days Chris Jericho 49 days
Batista 2 days Batista 8 days
Randy Orton 90 days Chris Jericho 20 days
John Cena 21 days John Cena 84 days
Randy Orton 21 days Edge 49 days
John Cena 49 days John Cena 21 days
Sheamus 70 days Edge 42 days
John Cena 1 day Jeff Hardy 1 day
Batista 35 days CM Punk 49 days
John Cena 84 days Jeff Hardy 28 days
Sheamus 91 days CM Punk 42 days
Randy Orton 64 days Undertaker 140 days
The Miz 160 days Chris Jericho 37 days
John Cena 77 days Jack Swagger 82 days
CM Punk 28 days Rey Mysterio 28 days
Rey Mysterio 1 day Kane 154 days
John Cena 20 days Edge 58 days
Del Rio 35 days Dolph Ziggler 1 day
John Cena 14 days Edge 56 days
Del Rio 49 days Christian 2 days
CM Punk 434 days Randy Orton 75 days
Rock 70 days Christian 28 days
John Cena 133 days Randy Orton 35 days
Daniel Bryan 1 day Mark Henry 91 days
Randy Orton 28 days Big Show 1 day
Daniel Bryan 1 day Daniel Bryan 105 days
Randy Orton 161 days Sheamus 210 days
Big Show 72 days
Del Rio 90 days
Ziggler 69 days
Del Rio 133 days
John Cena 49 days
49 4215 86 days 54 4039 75 days

I put all the info in spoilers so it wouldn't be too much all at once, hope the formatting stays legible :p
 
Bret Hart's last reign in summer/fall 1997 was the last time I didn't feel the title was just a prop. Shawn Michaels disgraced every title he held at that time, and with Steve Austin and Rock, great as they were, the title took a distant back seat to "attitude". Five reigns for Hart was a record back then (sure Cena has 15, but that's just idiotic to me) and felt like a huge, and realistic, number.

So yeah, the WWE title became a trinket from Survivor Series 1997 onward.
 
Probably early 90's...new generation era. I think this is really when the belt was always the biggest thing going.
 
I would say The Golden Era is when the strap was MOST prestigious. No matter who was holding the title, whether it be Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Ultimate Warrior, etc, the champion was ALWAYS the focal point of the show.

Also, holding the World title during that time meant you were a bonafide superstar, whereas nowadays we've seen WWE try and get people like The Miz, Ziggler, and ADR over by just handing them the title, which is why the damn thing has lost so much prestige over the years.
 
I would say The Golden Era is when the strap was MOST prestigious. No matter who was holding the title, whether it be Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Ultimate Warrior, etc, the champion was ALWAYS the focal point of the show.

Also, holding the World title during that time meant you were a bonafide superstar, whereas nowadays we've seen WWE try and get people like The Miz, Ziggler, and ADR over by just handing them the title, which is why the damn thing has lost so much prestige over the years.

Im thinking kind of a mix between a couple of era's. 90-97 is probably the best answer imo. But like I stated earlier If I had to choose just one era than Im going new generation. Im still kinda young so I didnt see much of the Golden era except for ppv's.
 
Most prestigious? I'm gonna go for an outside choice and say when it was the Undisputed Championship.

Think about it. You've got two separate shows. Two sets of titles for each show. But only one guy is on top. There's only one Undisputed champion. And he's frigging undisputed. The top guy on Raw AND Smackdown. Two full rosters call this guy their champion.

Then they decide to give each brand their own champion by just handing HHH the WHC.

Literally.

That cheapened what it meant to be a World champion, and left us with what was once WCW's big gold plate of distinction as a slightly more powerful Intercontinental title.
 
The WWE title? I'm not sure.
I believe long title reigns and multiple challengers makes it prestigious along with the champ making it seem as valuable and as precious.

Eg. When Triple H had the World title during his run with Evolution, he defeated a lot of challengers and made it seem as holding the title was the only thing worth living for. He found any and every way to retain and to gain back the title.

I believe that's what is lacking in today's title picture. The contenders have to give the impression that they WANT to be champ and aren't just in a position to fight for it. They have to show that they want it and want that honor.
 
I will always cherish the mix of the new generation and attitude era. From 1995-2002 is when the WWE title meant the most to me as a fan. When they put the time in to unify the WWF and WCW titles, only to split them up again 9 months later, it put a damper on it for me. I am extremely happy that there is 1 major championship again and I hope it stays that way. 1 title means more challengers for that 1 guy, and that makes it worth more. Not having the "I can't beat this guy, so I'll go after this guy!" option will add meaning to it. Just my opinion...
 
For me it was around 1996 and 1997.

Basically the time period where it went from:

Diesel
Bret Hart (3)
Shawn Michaels
Psycho Sid
Shawn Michaels (2)
Bret Hart (4)
Psycho Sid (2)
Undertaker (2)
Bret Hart (5)
Shawn Michaels (3)
Steve Austin

I said in another thread about 1997 how the product just felt so real back then, and it could mostly be attributed to the real life heat between Bret and Shawn. But even between Bret/Austin and Austin/Pillman there just seemed to be so much passion amongst the top guys to be the best. Bret, Shawn and Austin just made the title feel like something worth dying over. That made it feel prestigious.
 
For me (I started watching regularly around 1990), I would say when there were only 4 PPVs. I remember when Hogan and Warrior were champion and they would only defend their belt at the PPVs and the occasional Saturday Night's Main Event. That's why I like Brock as champ. He's probably only going to be at a handful of appearances through the rest of the year. I like him as champ. Hell, I wouldn't mind if he wins at mania
 
I think people are mistaking POPULARITY with PRESTIGE. To me, prestigious means "special". When did one feel like the title was NOT a prop? If that is the question being asked, there can be only one answer: The "Really Old Era".

Back then, being the champ MEANT something. It did not only mean that you put asses in the seats. Back then, you did not see the WWWF Champ defend his belt on "Championship Wrestling" or "All-Star Wrestling". You wanted to see Bruno beat up the likes Stan Hansen, Spiros Arion, George "The Animal" Steele and Killer Kowalski, you had to buy a ticket, period. Those with the WWWF Title sold out arenas all over the Northeastern USA. How special was the WWWF Title? When Ivan Koloff beat Sammartino for the strap in 1971, Madison Square Garden nearly became a war zone as fans started to riot. Sammartino had to stay in the ring to keep people from killing Koloff! Now, who will start a riot if Cena dropped the belt? How many actually rioted when Bret Hart got the "Screwjob"? To the modern-day WWE fan, the WWE strap is nothing more than a prop. Like fake swords and shield in a movie like "300". But, to those of us who were around to remember back in the day, we remember when the WWWF title actually meant something.
 
For me the time the title meant the most was the ten years from Wrestlemania 4 all the way through to Wrestlemania 14. Think about those amazing main events. Savage, Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, The Undertaker, Bret Hart, Ric Flair, Shawn Micheals, Yokozuna, Kevin Nash.
 
Well, in my view as a wrestling fan overall and not just WWE, the WWE title meant the most from 91-93, a time when WCW was nearly out of business and the AWA went under and was gone. There was no other national/international promotion other than WCW competing with WWE and at that point WCW was no longer competition.

The WCW Title lost A LOT of prestige when they fired Flair without giving him the chance to lose the title properly and put over the next long term champ (Lex Luger). That whole PPV afterwards was a giant cluster, Flair was gone but instead of a tournament with all the worthy contenders fighting to fill the void (Luger, Sting, Vader, Simmons, Austin, Pillman, Anderson, etc) we just got Barry Whyndam out of nowhere facing Luger, plus the match suffered greatly as both performers seemed well aware of the giant "We Want Flair" protest chants filling the arena during their bout. This was a low point for WCW and killed much of the prestige of the title. The fact Flair showed up in WWE and was wrestling Hogan for the WWE Title (proclaiming himself "The Real World Champion" complete with the WCW Title Belt) and won the WWE title himself a short time later only enhanced the image to wrestling fans that the WCW Title no longer was comparable to the WWE Title.

In the 80s most wrestling fans were split....Hogan was a huge star but he rarely faced the caliber of competition Flair did in the NWA/WCW and never came close to wrestling as often or putting on the quality of matches. Some fans would argue Hogan's star status made the WWE Title more prestigious, other would point to Flair's match schedule, competition quality, and the fact he truly was a "World" Champ defending the title through out South America, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, etc, a schedule Hogan never came close to.

After the New Generation Era started Brett Hart was a worthy champ as was Yokozuna. Sting, Ron Simmmons, & Vader had all had turns as WCW Champ with varying levels of success, but WCW started getting noticed again when Flair returned and challenged Vader - Starrcade 93 was WCW's biggest PPV of the year by far their ratings started rising again. Flair's stature made the WCW Title comparable to WWE again. Having Hogan as champ with his star power just enhanced it. From 93 till probably 99 the WWE Title was about equal, maybe less so, compared to the WCW Title. The advent of ECW didn't change that because they were not nearly as big nationally or internationally as WWE and WCW.

From 2000 on the WCW Title took a huge hit, largely due to Vince Russo's booking style (David Arquette) and the fact it seemed to change hands almost weekly on Nitro. There were some worthy names (namely Nash & Flair) who had reigns but they were so short they didn't budge the needle. The WWE Title was far ahead at this point. Booker T's WCW Title reign brought some stability to the title but in reality Booker T, though a good performer, was always viewed as a tag team guy mid carder, he wasn't World Champ material. He gave the belt some stability but he wasn't near on par with Austin or The Rock in WWE.

After WCW ended it really doesn't matter. Even when they did the title split the WWE Title was always portrayed as more important. Lesnar's initial win over The Rock should have been huge but WWE sabotaged it by sending him exclusively to the "B Show" on SmackDown and showed how prestigious the belt on RAW was with HHH battling Flair for the gold. RAW always had the better oppponents and was always the "A Brand" so that title was always most important. That's not say there weren't some good moments on the other brand, particularly with Edge, who was great on RAW as well, but anything associated with RAW was always portrayed as more prestigious.
 
Honestly the WWE Title in my opinion was at its most prestigious during the Attitude Era (1997-2001) or hell even before that in the early to mid 1990s anywhere from 1992-1996 then I would also definitely say that was when the WWE Title was actually important, when the title actually meant something but then as soon as the Attitude Era hit the WWE Championship's worth skyrocketed even more but then after that into the Ruthless Aggression Era I think that is when the title started to lose its importance
 
Honestly the WWE Title in my opinion was at its most prestigious during the Attitude Era (1997-2001) or hell even before that in the early to mid 1990s anywhere from 1992-1996 then I would also definitely say that was when the WWE Title was actually important, when the title actually meant something but then as soon as the Attitude Era hit the WWE Championship's worth skyrocketed even more but then after that into the Ruthless Aggression Era I think that is when the title started to lose its importance

Now pardon my asking but you're saying it was most valuable when it got passed around the most? So when everyone complains about belts being passed around too much, that actually raises the prestige for you? This is why I've never gotten this concept.
 
Then when would you say the WWE Championship was at its most prestigious? Honestly the WWE Championship now current day is a title that has lost its meaning but with Brock holding the now WWE World Heavyweight Championship he will actually give the title meaning again, he will actually make it worth a damn
 
Now pardon my asking but you're saying it was most valuable when it got passed around the most? So when everyone complains about belts being passed around too much, that actually raises the prestige for you? This is why I've never gotten this concept.

Because sometimes passing the title back and forth can actually increase the value of the title, depending on the right circumstance. This is just my opinion, but if we break down the attitude era, sure there were examples of the title getting passed around, but in my opinion more often then not it didn't hurt the prestige of the belt. Long boring title reigns can be far worse than a meaningful feud with the title switching.

From WrestleMania 14 - Survivor Series 98:
Stone Cold Steve Austin - 91 days
Kane - 1 day
Stone Cold Steve Austin - 90 days
--vacated--

OK, there is one meaningless title switch in there to pop a RAW rating, but really it was Austin as champion for 6 months and then the title was vacant for 2 months

From Survivor Series 98 - WrestleMania 15
The Rock - 44 days
Mankind - 26 days
The Rock - 2 days (7 days depending if you go by air date or taping date)
Mankind - 20 days
The Rock - 41 days

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, this is a lot of title changes in a four month period, but I don't feel in any way that it going back and forth between these two devalued the title. The intensity of this feud, and how even the two were portrayed and how they killed each other over the belt... I think in fact increased the prestige of the title.

From WrestleMania 15 - SummerSlam 99
Stone Cold Steve Austin - 56 days
The Undertaker - 36 days
Stone Cold Steve Austin - 55 days

Again, probably one meaningless title switch here in the grand scheme of things, which was only designed to put over The Undertaker and the new Corporate Ministry angle, which was bad from the start. Austin likely should have held it straight through to SummerSlam.

SummerSlam 99 - Backlash 2000
Mankind - 1 day
Triple H - 22 days
Vince McMahon - 6 days
--vacated--
Triple H - 49 days
The Big Show - 50 days
Triple H - 118 days

I assume this is probably the period you are referring to the most. Mankind's 1 day reign was unnecessary and speculated to be only because Ventura didn't want to raise the hand of a heel champion in his hometown. Likewise, McMahon's reign and subsequent vacating of the title was obviously unnecessary as well. The Big Show's win was random since he wasn't even advertised to be in the match. Although it did start the build towards WrestleMania, and made him a credible main event threat so I wouldn't classify it as meaningless.

Backlash 2000 - WrestleMania 17
The Rock - 21 days
Triple H - 35 days
The Rock - 119 days
Kurt Angle - 126 days
The Rock - 35 days

You could argue Triple H's reign here is an example of passing around the title... but like The Rock and Mankind, the title meant a lot to these two guys during this feud. Triple H would do anything, very desperately to keep it but you knew The Rock would have his number. Rocky and Angle had long reigns, and then it went back onto The Rock for the biggest match of the era.

OK so in a 3 year period I count 4 really meaningless title switches (Kane 1 day, Undertaker 35 days, Mankind 1 day, Vince McMahon 6 days). In my opinion, this is easily offset by some of the hottest feuds in the history of the company during the same time period over the title (Austin/McMahon, Rock/Mankind, Austin/Rock, Rock/Triple H). Each of those feuds made the title feel prestigious, no matter if it switched back and forth. At least that's my opinion.
 
Because sometimes passing the title back and forth can actually increase the value of the title, depending on the right circumstance. This is just my opinion, but if we break down the attitude era, sure there were examples of the title getting passed around, but in my opinion more often then not it didn't hurt the prestige of the belt. Long boring title reigns can be far worse than a meaningful feud with the title switching.

From WrestleMania 14 - Survivor Series 98:
Stone Cold Steve Austin - 91 days
Kane - 1 day
Stone Cold Steve Austin - 90 days
--vacated--

OK, there is one meaningless title switch in there to pop a RAW rating, but really it was Austin as champion for 6 months and then the title was vacant for 2 months

From Survivor Series 98 - WrestleMania 15
The Rock - 44 days
Mankind - 26 days
The Rock - 2 days (7 days depending if you go by air date or taping date)
Mankind - 20 days
The Rock - 41 days

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, this is a lot of title changes in a four month period, but I don't feel in any way that it going back and forth between these two devalued the title. The intensity of this feud, and how even the two were portrayed and how they killed each other over the belt... I think in fact increased the prestige of the title.

From WrestleMania 15 - SummerSlam 99
Stone Cold Steve Austin - 56 days
The Undertaker - 36 days
Stone Cold Steve Austin - 55 days

Again, probably one meaningless title switch here in the grand scheme of things, which was only designed to put over The Undertaker and the new Corporate Ministry angle, which was bad from the start. Austin likely should have held it straight through to SummerSlam.

SummerSlam 99 - Backlash 2000
Mankind - 1 day
Triple H - 22 days
Vince McMahon - 6 days
--vacated--
Triple H - 49 days
The Big Show - 50 days
Triple H - 118 days

I assume this is probably the period you are referring to the most. Mankind's 1 day reign was unnecessary and speculated to be only because Ventura didn't want to raise the hand of a heel champion in his hometown. Likewise, McMahon's reign and subsequent vacating of the title was obviously unnecessary as well. The Big Show's win was random since he wasn't even advertised to be in the match. Although it did start the build towards WrestleMania, and made him a credible main event threat so I wouldn't classify it as meaningless.

Backlash 2000 - WrestleMania 17
The Rock - 21 days
Triple H - 35 days
The Rock - 119 days
Kurt Angle - 126 days
The Rock - 35 days

You could argue Triple H's reign here is an example of passing around the title... but like The Rock and Mankind, the title meant a lot to these two guys during this feud. Triple H would do anything, very desperately to keep it but you knew The Rock would have his number. Rocky and Angle had long reigns, and then it went back onto The Rock for the biggest match of the era.

OK so in a 3 year period I count 4 really meaningless title switches (Kane 1 day, Undertaker 35 days, Mankind 1 day, Vince McMahon 6 days). In my opinion, this is easily offset by some of the hottest feuds in the history of the company during the same time period over the title (Austin/McMahon, Rock/Mankind, Austin/Rock, Rock/Triple H). Each of those feuds made the title feel prestigious, no matter if it switched back and forth. At least that's my opinion.

I really appreciate your points here :) so thank you and I'll rep you for actually making an argument here.

Now I didn't mean any year or few month stretch, the attitude era had the title bouncing around so much. I was typing the list and before the attitude era you'd have maybe 10 guys who were champion over periods twice as long as the attitude era, then you have the attitude era and it's like no one can hold on to it. Which does add prestige to it in the way you put it. If the Rock and Mankind are in a feud that's hot enough and they pass the title back and forth I can see it adding prestige, but it was also being passed PPV after PPV. Imagine if Lesnar dropped it at Night Of Champions, is that the same logic? But it is a good point you bring, back when I started watching Triple H held it and it was his life, it wasn't the days he held it, it was how he held it.
 
Bret Hart's last reign in summer/fall 1997 was the last time I didn't feel the title was just a prop. Shawn Michaels disgraced every title he held at that time, and with Steve Austin and Rock, great as they were, the title took a distant back seat to "attitude". Five reigns for Hart was a record back then (sure Cena has 15, but that's just idiotic to me) and felt like a huge, and realistic, number.

So yeah, the WWE title became a trinket from Survivor Series 1997 onward.

Did u watch wm12? Shawn Michaels made that belt feel more important than anything in the world. I mean shawn should have been more professional, sure but thats a seperate issue.
 
There can be a legitimate argument made that today's WWE title is the most prestigious its ever been. Because it is held by Lesnar, a UFC champion. This guy is not only the King of staged fighting, but also reigned supreme in real fighting too. Right now the Title is in the hands of someone who has proven that he can kick almost anyone's ass.
 
There can be a legitimate argument made that today's WWE title is the most prestigious its ever been. Because it is held by Lesnar, a UFC champion. This guy is not only the King of staged fighting, but also reigned supreme in real fighting too. Right now the Title is in the hands of someone who has proven that he can kick almost anyone's ass.

You bring up a very good point! I mean we most likely won't see someone like Mr McMahon holding the title anytime soon :p Lesnar is very dominant and adds a lot to the title in terms of being seen as a legitimate title
 
How about when Shawn Michaels held the title back in 1996-97, a case in argument could be made in the sense that when Michaels was champion the WWE Championship was perhaps its most prestigious especially after he won the title at WrestleMania 12 beating Bret in the 1 Hour Iron Man Match
 
How about when Shawn Michaels held the title back in 1996-97, a case in argument could be made in the sense that when Michaels was champion the WWE Championship was perhaps its most prestigious especially after he won the title at WrestleMania 12 beating Bret in the 1 Hour Iron Man Match

Interesting point, nothing against other WWE guys but Shawn and Bret are two of the best actual wrestlers. 1 Hour Iron Man to determine the champ. Dare I say that would prove without much doubt who the best superstar is
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,837
Messages
3,300,747
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top