WWE Championship Has Been Seriously Disvalued

[ryan86]

Can anyone say that the WWE Title means what it used to 11 or 12 years ago?

That was a time when the best the business had to offer, would hold the strap. Even going back further than that, in the '96 -'97 time period, you didnt have wrestlers "bigger" than the belt. HBK and Bret Hart were the top of the line, when it came to what the WWE had to offer. So where was the belt? On the best.

98-99, SCSA/Undertaker/and later, The Rock, were the best in the business and they held the strap. Although I am aware that Mankind/HHH/and Big Show also had reigns. But their was still no-one biger than the belt.

In 2000, It was a Rock/HHH year who carried the belt, they needed it and didnt look "bigger". Ya, Stars like Angle/Jericoh were using it to break through but they were not the best, and the best were not bigger than the belt.

Today, Cena/HHH/Orton/UT and other participants in WWE are seen as larger than the belt, and the one's who hold it, are using it like the IC title in 2000; a prop to break through.

 

[Adalam]

My question is, how do you break through using the belt you are supposed to be reaching for? Yeah, everyone complains about John Cena winning and always having the WWE title, but ain't that supposed to be the top prize in the WWE? If you aren't there to win championships, then why the hell are you there? That of course is the competitor in me. The fan in me wants my favorite guy to have the WWE championship, not use it as a hot shot to nothing.

 

[ryan86]

Because there are a whole nother class of wrestlers that are larger than the belt, and would do great detrament to the future of the company if they continued to dominate the title scene. They are in a class above needing the belt, leaving the wrestlers who have the belt in a "secondary" class.

The belt is now just a prop to break through to the above class, rendering the title it's self de-valued.

I'm not saying that it is not a necissary "evil", but it still remains a fact.

 

[LODemolition]

I think that can be said for any belt, not just the WWE Championship. Mostly in part because of the large number of title changes and letting wrestlers rack up double-digit title reigns in no time. Remember when being a 5-time champ was a big deal and only Hogan and Hart had accomplished it? Now 5 is nothing. Cena's probably won it that many times in the past year alone.

 

[LODemolition]

It's also very frustrating to not see Ziggler and Rhodes defending their respecting titles. When was the last time Rhodes was in an IC Title match? There was the feud with Orton which was all non-title matches and then he was in the traditional elimination match at Survivor Series. Hopefully when Ryder defeats Ziggler, he'll defend defend defend. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Adalam]

So yeah, went to check the most amount of title reigns within the past 10-15 years, and 1999 had 11 different title reigns, which is more than any in recent years. And only the past two or three have had more than four or five max. Don't believe me? Check WWE.Com. 1999 had more hot-shots, even with Vince himself getting the belt, than recent title reigns.

 

[ryan86]

So yeah, went to check the most amount of title reigns within the past 10-15 years, and 1999 had 11 different title reigns, which is more than any in recent years. And only the past two or three have had more than four or five max. Don't believe me? Check WWE.Com. 1999 had more hot-shots, even with Vince himself getting the belt, than recent title reigns.

That has nothing to do with why the belt is "de-valued" today because in that period, their was not an entire group of wrestlers who were larger than the belt, with a seconday class using it to break through to the above class.

 

[Krobra]

I have to agree with Ryan on this one. The WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship should be the main focus of the WWE. They should be the last two matches on the card, defended in great matches with established stars, and not having a title change every month. What I mean by established is stars that's been around for a few years to build credibility. Alberto Del Rio is a prime example of this. He shouldn't of had the belt so soon in his career. When he first won the championship, he lost it two weeks later. He won it a month later, but lost it again in a month. What was the point of the title change? They could have easily kept the title on Punk.

John Cena already being a 12 time champion irks me. He first won the WWE Championship at Wrestlemania 21. It's been nearly seven years and he's won and lost the belt that many times? Some of the reigns only lasted a month or so. Having a hot potato championship damages the value.

Cena isn't the only one who's done that. Look at Edge and Orton. Edge retired as an 11 time World Champion and Orton is a 9 time champion. Ric Flair is a 16 time World Champion and look how long it took to get him there. At this rate, Cena will be a 30 time champion by the time he reaches Flair's age.

Let's look at Miz for example. He's been around the WWE for a few years before winning the WWE Championship. He held the belt for a good six months. That's the type of reign I want to see. Miz added a bit of value to the championship because he defended it. I don't recall him getting a clean win, but he's a Heel. Heel's don't often get clean wins.

Right now, Ziggler and Rhodes are bringing value back to their respective championships, and so is Mark Henry to the World Heavyweight Championship. I would like to see reigns like these.

 

[PunkNation26]

I agree with you 100 percent ryan86. Cena, HHH, Undertaker, and Orton are seen as the "gods" of the WWE Universe who are untouchable and look down at everybody else. Punk is the WWE Champion and he isn't even in the last match on the card. A non title Cena vs Henry match is. It's utter bullshit. Now I know some will claim it's because of ratings, but the results came in and they were the same as they have been the last few weeks.

So Cena didn't cause a ratings pop as delusional Vince McMahon seemed to think would happen. It's almost like WWE has two Intercontinental Titles now, and two European Titles. Punk and Henry are IC Champions, and Ziggler and Rhodes are European Champions. Now the ultimate goal isn't to become WWE Champion, it's to become a "WWE God."

 

[Foshinzo]

That belt meant the most in the 80s when only five guys held it:

Bob Backlund: a fantastic wrestler in his day, he held the title for five years before dropping it in epic fashion to the Iron Sheik.

The Iron Sheik: Of the five, he's probably the weakest name. His legacy is that of a transitional champion, but at the time he was probably the biggest heel in the world. His strength club challenge was great, and he still stands out.

Hulk Hogan: Does anything need to be said? No matter how much of a douche this guy is in reality, his success and rise to the top made the WWF Championship what it was, the symbol that you're the biggest name in pro wrestling, and he changed wrestling forever.

Andre the Giant: Definitely the weakest run of the bunch because he won dirty and he only held the belt for a matter of minutes, he's still friggin' Andre. This man was an icon of entertainment, not just in pro wrestling, and nobody will complain at all that his name is in the record books.

Randy Savage: One of the all-time best, Savage made a legacy for himself by being as different as he possibly could while giving the audience the best matches that he possibly could. He was insane, but he was still one of the best.

There you have them, the five men who held one title in the 80s. You want prestige? You want the title to be more than a prop? Even in the 80s the title was just a prop, but the prop was a symbol that you are the biggest name, at that time.

Hogan held the belt so often and for so long because he was the biggest name. He may not have been the best, but he was the biggest draw and that was his prize for filling the seats. It helped cement him in the eyes of the public as the guy that you pay to see...maybe Cena should have just had five lengthy runs instead of 11 mixed ones.

You wanna know what's killed the WWE Championship? Lazy booking and over-saturation of the product.

"How do we set up an ADR and CM Punk feud? Well...fuck it, just let them swap the title a couple of times."
Does it matter if ADR is ready for that spotlight? No. Does it matter if ADR is a credible champion? No. All they care about is setting up something for Punk to do, but they're afraid people will get bored if Punk has the belt for too long, so they hurt both ADR and Punk by going through pointless title swaps just because they don't know how to further the story.

Also, having two titles means twice as many champions and it over-saturates the accomplishment.

Being a World Champion in the WWE anymore doesn't mean that you are the one person who stands alone as the best in the business, it just means that you're adequate enough to warrant the spotlight for a week or two.

The did that with Christian after WrestleMania. "People want to see Christian hold the belt and it makes sense now with Edge's emotional retirement...but, is he the best? Does his best friend's sad sort of retirement warrant a title run?"
"Who the hell cares? We get a payoff from it, and we can always just sling the thing back at Orton next Tuesday."

I'm sorry to rant about this, but when a guy like Edge is a ten time world champion, I just think they've missed the point. Edge was a three time champion at best, but he's been a world champion twice as many times as Bret Hart, and that is just pointless. The dude was good, but does anyone who really remembers both guys say that Edge was better than Bret Hart? I'm not trying to hate on Edge, but he was a transitional champion most of the time because of nonsense stuff like Money in the Bank, and I just think it's overkill.

I'm not really that mad about the title swaps, I'm just mad about how lazy the booking has been ever since WWF won the Monday Night Wars. We remember that VKM can really pull off some interesting television, but I think he's the one who's forgotten what it was like.

 

[Workrate]

Championships in general are undervalued.

I think the only championship of value right now is Mark Henry's World Heavyweight Championship. Say what you will about Henry, but his career is what's made it so valuable. He had to work very hard and he suffered many, many setbacks and failures along the way. So his becoming champion feels like a lifetime's worth of work that's been rewarded.

On the other end, CM Punk's current WWE Championship reign feels like the result of there being no other good option. Of course, that's because they spoiled the whole Punk-leaving-with-the-title angle. But Del Rio's we're-going-to-Mexico-and-need-a-Mexican-champ idea didn't help either.

I'm more interested in Zigger's US title than any other right now, but I suspect that'll become something of a sideshow too once Ryder inevitably wins it. And Rhodes hasn't done anything with the IC title since going back to the old school aesthetic. That was a wasted opportunity.

Ultimately, they've devalued all their belts by passing them around so freely. It's like they're so starved to find new ways to put a belt on someone that they just try one lousy idea after the next. Remember when guys won and lost the title in actual one-on-one matches? Now they lose them because guys cash in briefcases when there's an injury or two guys have 15 rematches passing the title back and forth.

Which leads to another issue: there aren't enough guys gunning for these titles. It is inexcusable that for almost half a year the only people in the title picture were CM Punk, John Cena, and Del Rio. I want long feuds too, but in the real world, a guy like Dolph Ziggler doesn't go "you know, I really want a title shot, but I should probably wait until Punk and Cena are done their feud to go for it". I've never understood why a champion feuding with someone can't defend the title against other people.

 

[Sheamus' Suntan]

Im going to disagree...but based more on facts from 98.99 and 00.

I mean yeah if we look WAY off into the past, when WWWF was the name above the banner and Sammartino held the title, that belt WAS the most prominent thing...and now in comparison, it HAS lost value and it is a prop...however in comparison to the attitude era...BAD comparison.

Lets look at every year and "propelling" statuses, shall we?

98 - This was undoubtly the year for Stone Cold.
He gets his first title and then loses it after 3 months to Kane who holds it for ONE DAY.
If this isnt using the title to propel someone, I don't know what is.
Also it's using the title for shock value...

At the end of the year the title gets vacated and stays that way until November when The Rock becomes champ for the first time, propelled by the title into superstardom.


99 - For the main part the title switched between stone cold, the rock and mankind. I'm happy with that as a main argument from Ryan...but then HHH is given the opportunity at the end of the year. the title changes hands every single month up until September. Not so good for the argument of the title looked best when it stayed on one persons shoulders for longer...


00 - 2000 was actually a good year to be WWE champ. HHH held the title for a long period as did The Rock, these long periods being roughly 4 months. Angle was then pushed to the moon at the end of the year.


Here's my argument. You see the guys hilighted? they're all BIG MONEY GUYS. And you know why they had the title? At about this time, Vince realised he could go on the internet, open a shop and sell merchandise at STUPID prices and they'd make loads of money. Holy hell, it's what he did.

The more merchandise a popular guy sold, the more chance they had of making it...and that's the way it is NOW.

The way it works now is if you have a good merch range and you're popular enough to get people to buy the shirts/armbands/DVDs etc...and you become a cash cow, you WILL become the #1 man and the title WILL be tested out on you. That's the face reasoning at least.

Heels? Simple. get a BIG reaction in shows and you'll be the monster. People may not wear your stuff or buy it but you're obviously good enough and hated enough to be put against the top guys - if the top guys sell more in that month you're against them, WWE probably KNOWS they're onto a good thing.

CM Punk as champ...did NOT happen because he refused to sign a contract. How that happened - he cut ONE promo that changed the way EVERYONE thought about him. He changed his own fans perception enough for them to buy his gear and make him outsell Cena. Ryder's push isn't happening because he's an annoying twerp from Long Island who has spiked hair and a very very small range of annoying phrases...no, he's the man right now because he's selling stuff like nobody's business...well...like the WWE's business.

WWE isn't LOOKING to make people long term champs cus right now the title funnily enough isn't the main focus. They want to make money by getting the popular guys to the top and the only way to do that is to see how they carry the show.

Alberto was over as a heel, he had the reactions, he had charisma and they were high on him for that. He likely, as he was disliked, managed to make the face's MORE liked that he faced which resulted in MORE sales. WWE is just another retail platform right now and the title...it won't have more value added by big names holding the title.

Besides look at the DIFFERENCE IN NAMES;
Bret Hart. Shawn Michaels. HHH. The Rock. Stone Cold.

Now we look at our top five now...
Cena. CM Punk. Orton. Henry. Sheamus

The calibre of name isn't there anymore because of who WWE is marketing to. WWE wanted to push toward teenage and young adults in the attitude era and they did so, promoting on shock value. Now it's kids and girls...younger people (age 5+) have a SHORTER attention span than your average teenager so people of a younger age will get bored and then stop buying merchandise if someone is champ for TOO LONG...they need to rotate it and get fresh faces on the title, then put that old familiar face back on the title because when he wins...he gets the huge pops and a new t-shirt can then air on the RAW or SD after and people will just eat it up.

WWE is now a business. It doesn't WANT to promote it's wrestling side, that side is there more out of tradition than anything it seems.

 

[ryan86]

I agree with you 100 percent ryan86. Cena, HHH, Undertaker, and Orton are seen as the "gods" of the WWE Universe who are untouchable and look down at everybody else. Punk is the WWE Champion and he isn't even in the last match on the card. A non title Cena vs Henry match is. It's utter bullshit. Now I know some will claim it's because of ratings, but the results came in and they were the same as they have been the last few weeks.

So Cena didn't cause a ratings pop as delusional Vince McMahon seemed to think would happen. It's almost like WWE has two Intercontinental Titles now, and two European Titles. Punk and Henry are IC Champions, and Ziggler and Rhodes are European Champions. Now the ultimate goal isn't to become WWE Champion, it's to become a "WWE God."

You know, even the Mizz was a secondary fiddle. As was Del-Rio, and now Punk is treated secondary. If your not named HHH/Orton/UT/Cena, you will play a second fiddle champ, and wont headline the top PPV's as champ.

 

[Frostrike]

I think the Championship Belts became devalued the day after Wrestlemania 18. The main event of the night was Hogan vs The Rock in a non title match which was followed by Triple H vs Jericho for the Undisputed WWF championship. The problem is more fans were interested in Hogan vs The Rock match, than the Triple H vs Jericho match. The reason why is because the Hogan vs The Rock match was a dream match and thus more entertaining.

With WWF becoming WWE one month after Wrestlemania 18, the importance of what they were marketing became different. Ever since then any fued that reached dream match caliber I believe was more important than the title match because of entertainment purposes. For example, all of the Undertaker matches in recent years and The Rock's return in Survivor Series. The titles today serve to help stars make a name for themselves when competing for air time against these legends of the past.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's easy to lay the general devalue of championships in general on the company. However, there's another factor that attributes to that as well that most of us simply don't want to talk about. That factor is us.

As most people tend to do, we look back over how things used to be with a certain amount of nostalgia. Nothing wrong with that in general but the problem is that we tend to romanticize those feelings of nostalgia to such a degree that we remember things as being better than they truly were. The Attitude Era has been brought up in this thread and it's a perfect example of many fans vieweing it through rose colored glasses. The Attitude Era was fun and had its moments, but it also had more than its fair share of garbage as well. Not every match was this epic encounter, not every wrestler was this mega star that changed the way the business worked, not every feud was classic, every angle wasn't gold nor was every promo the stuff dreams are made of. That's especially true when it comes to the use of championships. In WCW and WWF, it was an age in which titles were devalued. You can't have title changes that happen every 2 to 4 weeks, sometimes more, and expect those titles to retain a certain level of majesty. If we had a different President each month, the office wouldn't really mean much of anything. This was a time in which people who shouldn't have been given title runs had them, and not just wrestlers either. This was the age of Vince Russo & David Arquette winning the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. It was the age of Vince McMahon winning a Royal Rumble and becoming WWF Champion. The simple truth of the matter is that it was during this age that wrestling companies began to use titles in a different way, or at least was different to us.

A lot of people complain that one reason why titles don't mean that much anymore is because of how frequently they change hands. I can see that line of thinking but, at the same time, look back over the history of well known wrestling titles throughout American wrestling history. Hop over to Wikipedia and look over the history of the WWE United States Championship or the WCCW Championship or the NWA/WCW World Television Championship and any number of well known & well respected titles and you'll see that frequent title changes isn't something that's new overall.

We often throw around names like The Rock & Stone Cold Steve Austin as examples of stars that most of, if not all, of today's stars can't compete with. In the minds of some, nobody can because of nostalgia. Not that both weren't awesome back in the day, but we're not even willing to look at guys like John Cena or Randy Orton in the same light because they weren't our childhood & adolescent heroes. A lot of us will view Cena and Orton as inferior despite their own abilities on the mic, their own ability to get over with the crowd and the fact that they're as good inside the ring as Rock or Austin, maybe even better in some ways.

We no longer have that awe that was partially generated by the mystique of wrestling. That mystique is gone and, in some ways, we're all to blame for that. We now know a great deal about the inner workings of how pro wrestling works. We now know that every decision is made from the standpoint of whether or not the powers that be think it's good for business. Like Dorothy did in the Wizard of Oz, we looked behind the curtain and paid attention to who & what was behind it. What we saw behind the wrestling scenes wasn't the sort of fantastic, even romanticized view we had of what we thought wrestling was or it should be.

Titles in wrestling no longer mean as much to us because we don't want them to. We all have ideas & thoughts of how certain titles should be used and, quite often, we get bent out of shape if we see that they're not doing what we want with them. Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're not. Sometimes, our whims will change like the weather. Anyone that's ever spent any time on an internet forum regarding..well anything can see that after reading for a bit.

The WWE does and has screwed up at times, in my opinion, on the handling of the WWE Championship. At the same time, however, how many times have we seen them do what many have been clamoring for and still get slammed every bit as much as they were before? People want longer runs, well look what happened back in the mid 2000s when John Cena was having runs with the WWE Championship that lasted close to or somtimes in excess of a year. Constant whining, complaining and criticizing. People have been clamoring for CM Punk to be WWE Champion. Now, he's WWE Champion but there are every bit as many complaints now as there were before he had the title.

I agree that titles don't mean as much as they used to. How could they? We're grown ups that know the overall ins and outs of what goes on. Sometimes the companies do screw up and do stupid things and sometimes we get in our own ways of allowing ourselves to be entertained because, in many cases, we think that we're smarter than we actually are.

 

[kokoBawesome]

The title really only has value if you give a shit about having it. Triple H always holds on to the title for along time, and usually its the only thing needed for his storylines. He needs that fucking title. Nobody is going to take it from him. Mark Henry is playing the same character right now. That title is his, to get your hand on it your going to have to come just shy of killing him.

On the Raw brand the belt almost seems secondary. Maybe nobody really wants a dated spinner belt. on the bright side, Zach Ryder doing everything in his power just to get a shot at the US title makes it seem like a belt worth holding on to. the downside, Cody's IC belt has nothing to do with his feud. If Booker wins it he might become full time again.... great, and if he doesn't?

The World title is most relevant the first time a character wins it. The first time HBK, Hart, Stone Cold, HHH, Mankind and Christian won it, its was the justification of years of hard work. Half these guys were paraded around on other wrestlers shoulders. When Wade Barrett, Sheamus and Swagger got their first championships, i felt nothing. As far as I know these guys started wrestling six months ago.

C.M. Punk made the title feel important again, for two weeks. Than we got to see two lame looking spinner belts right next to each other and realized its not the Stanley Cup they're after, its a product that can be bought online for roughly 300 bucks.

Fuck it, short answer David Arquette and Vince Russo.

 

[The Bearded One]

The belt is now just a prop to break through to the above class, rendering the title it's self de-valued.

Every title belt is just a prop. There is no value in holding the belt other than the value the viewer gives it. The reason you don't think it's as valuable as it once was is because you don't view as valuable. The belt is a prop that has no value. If I think the belt is more valuable now that it was 20 years, then the belt is more valuable than it's ever been. Props have no inherited value, just the value the viewer gives it.

I hope that made some kind of sense. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time since people always say something is always devaluing the titles, but I have no idea how to say it. The belts are nothing but props on a show. They have pretty much no value other than what the viewer gives them.

I doubt my idea of all the belts being nothing but props is going to popular here, but Vince Russo is actually right about something.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Maybe not, but it was second to last... and the WWE Title's supposed equivalent title WAS in the main event. I mean sure CM Punk wasn't Main Eventing, but then again, there's another main event title that people have to remember... So what was wrong with WWE booking the way they did this past week?

The way I see it, there is no true "prestige" to a title unless a champion makes it that way. People like CM Punk, Miz, Mark Henry, Del Rio, Ziggler, Ryder, Rhodes, and even Wade Barrett make it seem that they truly want to be a champion, and at the beginning of their reign so did Air Boom... but then every once in a while you get guys like Ezekiel Jackson who make it seem like it's no big deal.

I mean take the Diva's title, for example... Since Lay-Cool has held the belt, the Diva's title has had more full length somewhat meaningful reigns (minus Eve's forgetful one). Champions such as Brie Bella, Kelly Kelly, and now Beth Phoenix have made it seem just as important as the women's title was, and I love them all for that.

Sure, this week the WWE title holder wasn't in THE main event but that doesn't devalue anything... mainly because the equivalent main event title (the World title) was in the main event and because the WWE title holder's match was still A main event bout of the night.

That's just my two cents on the subject.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

You know, even the Mizz was a secondary fiddle. As was Del-Rio, and now Punk is treated secondary. If your not named HHH/Orton/UT/Cena, you will play a second fiddle champ, and wont headline the top PPV's as champ.

I seem to remember that Miz guy who was champion for about five or six months. I believe he was the champion leading into Wrestlemania. My mind is a little fuzzy. Didn't Punk headline that little event called Summerslam? Even though both were champions, Punk was still headlining. The biggest draws will headline the biggest PPV's. It is called business.

 

[LODemolition]

This year's WrestleMania is a perfect example of them devaluing the championships. The Rock and Cena will go on last despite CM Punk being the man of the hour and if he does indeed face Jericho, their match will be a thousand times better.

Edge and Del Rio last year? World Heavyweight Championship match. First on the card. I couldn't believe my eyes. A freakin' 6 person tag involving Snooki was booked 2nd to last. Thumbs up, nice booking.

 

[H33LTurn]

Its been somewhat disvalued but WWE's entire product isnt what it used to be a decade ago. A decade ago you had larger than life characters fighting for that title. Now the only superstars on the roster who have reached that level are Cena, Orton, and Taker. Punk is getting there and Del Rio is also progressing. With the lack of superstars and the surplus of green talent the only solution is to put the guys who get the biggest reaction in the title picture. I like todays title picture and how often the title changes hands. It makes the product seem more realistic.

 

[Skinsley]

That belt meant the most in the 80s when only five guys held it:

Bob Backlund: a fantastic wrestler in his day, he held the title for five years before dropping it in epic fashion to the Iron Sheik.

The Iron Sheik: Of the five, he's probably the weakest name. His legacy is that of a transitional champion, but at the time he was probably the biggest heel in the world. His strength club challenge was great, and he still stands out.

Hulk Hogan: Does anything need to be said? No matter how much of a douche this guy is in reality, his success and rise to the top made the WWF Championship what it was, the symbol that you're the biggest name in pro wrestling, and he changed wrestling forever.

Andre the Giant: Definitely the weakest run of the bunch because he won dirty and he only held the belt for a matter of minutes, he's still friggin' Andre. This man was an icon of entertainment, not just in pro wrestling, and nobody will complain at all that his name is in the record books.

Randy Savage: One of the all-time best, Savage made a legacy for himself by being as different as he possibly could while giving the audience the best matches that he possibly could. He was insane, but he was still one of the best.

There you have them, the five men who held one title in the 80s. You want prestige? You want the title to be more than a prop? Even in the 80s the title was just a prop, but the prop was a symbol that you are the biggest name, at that time.

Hogan held the belt so often and for so long because he was the biggest name. He may not have been the best, but he was the biggest draw and that was his prize for filling the seats. It helped cement him in the eyes of the public as the guy that you pay to see...maybe Cena should have just had five lengthy runs instead of 11 mixed ones.

You wanna know what's killed the WWE Championship? Lazy booking and over-saturation of the product.

"How do we set up an ADR and CM Punk feud? Well...fuck it, just let them swap the title a couple of times."
Does it matter if ADR is ready for that spotlight? No. Does it matter if ADR is a credible champion? No. All they care about is setting up something for Punk to do, but they're afraid people will get bored if Punk has the belt for too long, so they hurt both ADR and Punk by going through pointless title swaps just because they don't know how to further the story.

Also, having two titles means twice as many champions and it over-saturates the accomplishment.

Being a World Champion in the WWE anymore doesn't mean that you are the one person who stands alone as the best in the business, it just means that you're adequate enough to warrant the spotlight for a week or two.

The did that with Christian after WrestleMania. "People want to see Christian hold the belt and it makes sense now with Edge's emotional retirement...but, is he the best? Does his best friend's sad sort of retirement warrant a title run?"
"Who the hell cares? We get a payoff from it, and we can always just sling the thing back at Orton next Tuesday."

I'm sorry to rant about this, but when a guy like Edge is a ten time world champion, I just think they've missed the point. Edge was a three time champion at best, but he's been a world champion twice as many times as Bret Hart, and that is just pointless. The dude was good, but does anyone who really remembers both guys say that Edge was better than Bret Hart? I'm not trying to hate on Edge, but he was a transitional champion most of the time because of nonsense stuff like Money in the Bank, and I just think it's overkill.

I'm not really that mad about the title swaps, I'm just mad about how lazy the booking has been ever since WWF won the Monday Night Wars. We remember that VKM can really pull off some interesting television, but I think he's the one who's forgotten what it was like.

I want to print this off, put it in an envelope and mail it straight to Vince Mcmahons house..... What you said is exactly what he needs to read, and he needs to read every word of it! YES people love title changes, but this hot potatoe bullshit it really getting on my tits of late.
The WWE and Heavyweight titles have been vastly Devalued and for once this Ryan69 dude has gotten something right.
Sadly however I doubt heavily that even if I tied Vince in my Basement for a month would he do a damn thing about our cause

 

[Hazardous]

even in the 90's, the Undertaker was above the belt. he could have been chasing it, or doing stuff with Kane, but he was still above the belt. When Hogan and the NWO came back to the WWE, Hogan, and Rock were both "above the belt" Hell, off the top of my head i can't even remember who the champ was at that 'Mania. Jericho i think.. But yes, the title(s) may not mean as much today as they did back then, but so what? Maybe they finally got something with the CM Punk reign, and they'll let him keep it for more than a month or 2. It happens every now and then. Remember a few years back, Jericho brought the IC title back into the spotlight. Rhodes is doing that again now. Henry was defending the WHC at every PPV since he won it! ect..ect..ect..

So while I see your point, it's just a phase, and it'll pass. It always does. But there was someone who was bigger than the title back in the late 90's.