Scott,They don't care. Titles are still around basically because titles have always been around and it's considered a necessary part of the show, but the company doesn't care and neither do the fans at this point. You'll get house shows with 4 or 5 titles being defended and it makes no difference to the attendance whatsoever. I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but it's mostly because of what Vince Russo did to them during his run, as they became literal props on a TV show. They keep them now because they've always been around and you never know when they might need a quick title change to pop a rating. That's really all there is to it now.
One of the many reasons I haven't followed wrestling on a consistent basis and haven't considered myself a fan for some time is my belief that in WWE, the titles don't really mean much and haven't since the whole brand extension mess. While there have been glimmers of hope sprinkled throughout the last 10 years or so, ever since they began flooding the company with titles and establishing two heavyweight WWE championships (not to mention a US and Intercontinental title), the company still hasn't quite figured out how to make these stupid things seem even remotely important. Having two top titles is like having a Best Picture and Best Movie award at the Oscars.
To the best of your knowledge, which of these is true: A) Vince and company know full well these belts don't mean what they used to and simply don't care, or B) They aren't aware a lot of people feel the same way I do and truly feel fans care about these ill-defined and diluted championships. And now that I think of it, if the former is true, why do they not care? Why do they still feel such a need to keep around two world/WWE titles when they isn't even a brand split anymore -- not that they did a bang up job with them when they did have a split in the first place?
When I loaded the main page, at 1st I thought this was a post about Titties.
ReplyDelete"Having two top titles is like having a Best Picture and Best Movie award at the Oscars."
ReplyDeleteOr like how the Grammys has Record of the Year and Song of the Year.
RotY and SotY don't go to the same people. RotY is for the artist/producer/engineer; SotY is for the songwriter.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Russo killing the titles. Yes there were a lot of title changes, but the belts still meant something. And they did long after he left. Wrestlers not caring about them anymore(whether it came from them or the office) is what killed the importance of titles.
ReplyDeletePlus they could more easily sell replica "championships" if the belts still exist.
ReplyDeleteHmm.. I never knew that. It's weird that the Grammys would make that distinction and yet have no standards whatsoever for "Best New Artist" nominees.
ReplyDeleteIf there'd been wo titles in the attitude era, you know Russo would have tried to sell replicas of them as nipple jewelry (or whatever you call the thing Janet Jackson had during her wardrobe malfunction).
ReplyDeleteTotally disagree with the blame on Russo. He was long gone by 2001 and the WWF, IC & Tag Team title still meant something. The brand split killed all the titles by making it less special.
ReplyDeleteYou could actually argue Russo made titles MORE important because they were a constant focal point of storylines. Were the tag titles more important when the Godwinns were champs in 1996 or when Austin/Undertaker were in 1998? Was Jeff Jarrett as champ in 1995 more important than the Rock in the summer of 1998?
And it's pretty illogical to say the fans don't care but that a title change can pop a rating. Obviously fans still care because they've been trained (in sports, in UFC, in boxing, in life) that champions matter.
There used to BE two Best Picture awards at the Oscars. One was basically an artistic achievement award and the other was a more business-y production based award.
ReplyDeleteYa know, I actually wouldn't mind there being two world titles if they used them like that. The WWE title could be for the Cena types who draw money and are good for business, and are on top because of that more than because of how good they are, and the World title could be what the Intercontinental title used to be and lean more toward the Daniel Bryans
Whilst I can't deny that the titles have been diluted, they can instantly be given credibility if WWE concentrate on them for a few months, as it is proven when they do exactly that and focus on them. I will disagree with the WWE title not meaning anything, to be the WWE Champion is still a big deal (yes no where near what it use to be), but it definitely helps your credentials in the majority of cases. Maybe I'm still a mark but when the (WWE) title changes hands I still feel like its important and generally sets the direction/tone of the program in a slightly sometimes major different route from what we were seeing prior, thus showing it still plays a pivotal role in the company.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree about Russo cheapening them. I think they were cheapened when they started using the title to get guys over rather than as a sign that a guy was over. They did it first with Randy Orton and then it went into overdrive with MITB.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's necessarily a problem that there are two world titles, it's more how those titles are booked.
ReplyDeleteAs others have pointed out the real devaluing of the titles happened when they started putting them on guys and hoping that they would get over just by holding the belt. Sheamus, Swagger, Del Rio, Miz, Daniel Bryan, Khali. None of these guys were really ready to be seen as WWE or WHC when they won the titles (some never achieved that perception either).
I don't think the situation is beyond salvation. Have all the titles be chased for a good while, make them the focal point and make it seem that whoever picks up a belt has earnt it and it means something to them.
And you know they've got a terrific opportunity to build 2012 around the titles seeing as The Rock has made it his aim to hold the strap again.
Just when you think they care, i.e. Punk's long title reign, they do things like making the two champions (Punk and Bryan) the backdrop for a GM's feud or not have either elimination chamber as the main event on a ppv...instead, Kane-Cena, huh?
ReplyDeleteTake what you can get these days...
For me the saddest thing has nothing to do with the world titles but rather the IC belt. That belt used to be reserved for the "Best Wrestler In The World" not necessarily the most marketable. Guys like Savage/Steamboat/Bret/Shawn/Perfect would fight to the death for the "secondary championship" and all of it would be fucking awesome.
ReplyDeleteI thought this said "titties". :(
ReplyDeleteThe top two matches at Wrestlemania were both not for titles so there you go.
ReplyDeleteFor me the problem can be summed up in a line from either JR or Cole at Elimination Chamber one year.
ReplyDeleteIt was the second Chamber match of the night and JR said something like "When is the last time you saw violence like this?" I said out loud "About an hour ago."
Why should I get excited about Punk and Jericho fighting over who the best in the world is (which is supposed to be represented by the WWE Title) when there's another world title match on the same show? I can live with the IC and US Titles both existing because the midcard is big enough to support them (not saying they're supported, but it could easily be done). The main event title though should be ONE belt. That's what bugs me about most Wrestlemanias. Think about to the big Wrestlemanias: 3, 5, 6, 17. Most of those had ONE main event and usually it makes for a better and more memorable show. I barely remember the Wrestlemanias from 06-08, because the main events weren't really all that big compared to the other world title matches. With one world title, this problem is mostly solved. Unfortunately, that's not likely anytime soon.
What's sad is that the situation could easily been rectified with just a little bit of focus and patience, but both are in short supply in WWE these days. People were getting into Air Boom, and while I understand that Bourne's issues caused problems, that was no reason to basically leave the division to the wolves for months. As noted, there are numerous guys stumbling around right now without a direction who might find that spark in a tag team. Considering how many future singles stars were discovered in the tag ranks, you'd think this would be a no-brainer, but apparently not.
ReplyDeleteAnd I was one of those who thought Cody's IC run would revitalize that belt, but of course he never really defended it or had any serious feuds outside of Big Show, and then he lost. Once again, the creative team has decent ideas and concepts, but absolutely no follow-through to make them count.
If they really want to keep a WWE and World Title and if they want to sell even more replica belts, they should introduce a .........WWE UNIVERSE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP. Make a big tournament with Cena and Lesnar or Triple H and The Rock in the final match. ;-)
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with all of this. What kind of bugs me is that WCW got tons of shit for having 2 titles in the mid-90's (WCW and NWA/WCW International/"The Big Gold Belt"), yet nearly 20 years later WWE is doing the same thing and it's generally regarded as OK. At least WCW had a reason to do this (the whole WCW/NWA split and reunion and split again fiasco), the WWE just created another "world" title for no good reason that I can see other than that the belt itself looks really cool. And don't give me that crap that Sheamus' belt is really the WCW title, all the WCW titles died the moment Shane McMahon showed up on Nitro. Not that it really matters with fake titles in a fake sport, but as far as I'm concerned when you have 2 world titles, one just cheapens the other and you really have NO world title.
ReplyDeleteThe IC title still exists? I think another problem is that there are too many titles for a roster this size. The WWE has about 70 guys or so and 4 singles titles. WCW had the biggest roster in history and the TV (3rd) title was still worthless, to the point where a trash can held the belt for a while. 4 belts, plus the tag title, is way too many.
ReplyDeleteActually it's like 57 including Rock, hhh, Lesnar and Taker. And in 98 or so, they also had 4 single titles and more or less the same number of Wrestlers.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure that Cody not really defending the title means that his run with the belt wasn't worthwhile. Bear with me, now! I'm rewatching a lot of 1997 RAW.
ReplyDeleteHHH was forgettable with the title before losing it to Rock.
Rocky was booed everywhere he went before losing it to Owen.
Owen has had MONTHS of non-title matches against the like of Bob Holly, with his pursuit of the tag titles with Bulldog being instead a multi-week story.
Owen lost it to Austin, in a match only remembered because of Austin's broken neck.
Owen won the IC tournament, in a match only remembered because it was on the same event with that original ***** HIAC match and the sad passing of Brian Pillman.
Owen lost it to Austin in a forgettable match.
Austin forfeited the belt to Rock, who held it into 1998. This is only remembered for the famous incident of the belt being thrown into the river.
So, with the benefit of hindsight, was 1997 successful as far as the IC title goes? Yes. But workrate and win/loss records had *nothing* to do with it. But! I bet any Attitude-era fan could remember at least three of those four title-holders, and all of those above events. Three of those men are future world champions, all four are considered, I believe, all-time greats.
But in an entire YEAR the belt was barely defended, treated as far less important as the tag titles - there's been SIGNIFICANTLY more attention paid to the new light heavyweight division for example. But was it a bad year for the title? In hindsight, no, just look at who held it.
The problem isn't with title defences. It's that the WWE's current obsession with 50/50 booking and meandering rocket-to-the-moon pushes mean that nobody is ever pushed as truly a threat, truly the best. Austin is for most of 1997. Owen is described as a constant threat. HHH gets a solid push all year, and Rock becomes one of the hottest part of the countries after a total character flip.
Now? It's like everyone is kept just likewarm, except for Cena, Undertaker and maybe CM Punk. And that's the fucking problem. Zack Ryder should be, at this point, 'the new Stone Cold'. Instead he's the new fucking Beaver Cleaver. Grrr.
(sorry that is so long)
"The problem isn't with title defences. It's that the WWE's current obsession with 50/50 booking and meandering rocket-to-the-moon pushes mean that nobody is ever pushed as truly a threat, truly the best. Austin is for most of 1997. Owen is described as a constant threat. HHH gets a solid push all year, and Rock becomes one of the hottest part of the countries after a total character flip.Now? It's like everyone is kept just likewarm, except for Cena, Undertaker and maybe CM Punk. And that's the fucking problem."Yeah, the booking is the central issue, since it's not like Cody's holding the belt for so long actually raised his profile or set him on the road to the main event. Actually, the Orton feud COULD have done that (especially after the bloodbath), but once again there was no follow-through as Cody just wandered aimlessly around the midcard feuding with his fellow dead-enders and announcers until the feud with Show. As you noted, the guys who held the belt in 1997 were treated as stars, threats, and (most importantly), men who would give their right testicle to be champion. Even the Show feud was more about him getting revenge for Cody's taunting, with winning the actual title as an afterthought.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't forget: During the Russo Attitude Era, it was all about the World Title. Maybe the IC and Tag Titles lost their value (which they gained back with Angle, Benoit, Jericho, E&C, Dudleyz, Hardyz etc.), but the World Title was always the main focus pf the main stories. Even the infamous montreal incident was all about Bret Hart not wanting to lay down to HBK for the World Title. WM 14 was for the World Title. Even the whole Austin vs McMahon feud was basically that Vince did not wanted Austin as the WWF Champion.
ReplyDeleteHow are we supposed to care about the World Title when it gets 18 seconds at Wrestlemania? If anything, I could see the WWE ending that title soon, especially since the last time a "brand's" title was defended in that short of time (ECW Title at Wrestlemania 24), the title was gone by that time next year.
ReplyDeleteAnd to be honest, Smackdown has been Thunder'd. It's practically a recap show of Raw at this point only with titles and some matches sprinkled in.
6 actually, if you count the Hardcore and LH belt. Whatever happened to the European title, anyway?
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting quandary. Is a true-blue tag team with a matching gimmick that sucks & the team is horrible better or worse than a makeshift tag team of main eventers that don't really need it but are a better team? I'd skew on the side of the real tag team but at the same time, if it's a choice between a makeshift team wrestling every week and Epico & Primo never being on TV, I'd take the makeshift team.
ReplyDeleteI first started watching wrestling right around Wrestlemania 14 and Superbrawl of that same year. I remember the announcers from time to time would mention that the United States Champion was a default top contender, and if a wrestler held that title for a notable length of time, they would get a title shot. DDP did this once or twice in 98, and while he never beat Sting, he was certainly made to look like his equal.
ReplyDeleteStuff like this is missing today. Rewards for FIGHTING champions who actually defend their titles. It goes a long way towards building a following for a wrestler if I can watch him on TV literally fighting his way up the card. It would take very little effort to pull this off, and then, when the secondary title holder is finally ready to be elevated, his win will mean something, and there will be earlier matches to play off of or reference. (Even if its a different opponent).
The US and IC Champs were DDP and the Rock, with DDP fending off challenges from Benoit and Raven, while the Rock fought off Shamrock and Usurped control of the nation, before going to war with DX. HUGE mid-card angles by today's standards, with the title being the center of it.
It got merged into the IC title in 2002 when RVD went on a unification rampage. He beat Tommy Dreamer to unify the Hardcore title into the IC title, and beat a Hardy to put the Euro title out of it's misery. We'll say it was Jeff.
ReplyDelete"
ReplyDeleteI think they were cheapened when they started using the title to get guys over rather than as a sign that a guy was over."
I wholeheartedly agree. I think Orton was on the rise really quick and the title would have actually helped him had they booked him to look strong.
I think the recent run of guys like Sheamus (Wasn't he losing to Goldust on ECW before winning the Raw battle royale? Cena slipping on a Banana peel to give him the belt doesn't help either) and Jack Swagger holding the belt only to look like they were nowhere near championship material definitely hurts.
Also agree about MITB. It was cool when Edge won it and even later when he did it, that was his character. Everyone else just looked like they weren't good enough to win the title on their own.
The Jericho/Punk feud and the Ryder/Ziggler feud had it right as far as booking a title feud goes. Ziggler was the US Champ and Ryder wanted to get his one shot at the title, especially since he held a victory over the champ. Jericho was attacking Punk's claim as the "Best in the World" and Punk, being champion, is Best in the World.
ReplyDeleteUgh... to think that Shawn just handing over the belt to HHH wasn't the low point of the "title". I'm almost sorry I even asked.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think Russo had anything to do with it. He hasn't even worked for the company in any real capacity since 1999.
ReplyDeleteThe brand extension and two world titles don't help build prestige, but ignoring the brand extension and keeping both championships is more detrimental.
But what really hurts is the lack of main event stars in the WWE. The WHC is mostly held by upper midcarders (Christian, Big Show, Mark Henry, Kane, Daniel Bryan) who are not booked anything like John Cena, and are not big enough draws to main event a PPV. None of those guys are pushed like the best in the world, so who cares who has the title.
I guess everyone has their own opinion, but back in 2005 when Cena and Batista were the faces of the company, and were in the middle of year long title reigns, defending against serious contenders, I felt the belts were important.
I totally agree. Edge sneaking in the back door to win the title because of his MITB contract totally fit his character. Everyone else who subsequently did it (with the exception of CM Punk, since his feud with Hardy was phenomenal) came across as weak, undeserving chumps who had no business with the belt, and eventually, that starts to hurt.
ReplyDeleteRVD used his MITB contract the way I wish more people did - pick a show, build to it, and then cash it in at that show.
I don't the number of titles hurts anything. Look at MMA and their shit-ton of titles. How many current champions are there in UFC right now? The key is to give all of them focus and treating all of them like they matter.
ReplyDeleteEven more than today (but was the HC Title introduced in 98?), but they still had more value. And why? Because there was only one Title for the divisions. One World Title for the main eventers. One IC Title for the upper midcarders. You can have 100 titles and when they are not on the same level, it's fine. If you have only two titles but they are on the same level, it's one title too much.
ReplyDeleteAnd now Jericho that has won that battle (at Wrestlemania, which I thought was GREAT), he's upped the ante by continuing the personal attacks angle. A battle of manipulators. Works for me.
ReplyDeleteThen you've got Sheamus and Bryan. I'd argue that their 18 second match wasn't just to make it 'stand out' or whatever the hell WWE was going for. It was because they had NO ISSUE. Was Sheamus an unstoppable monster like Yokozuna? No. Did the two of them have an epic back-story together? No.I'm not surprised that the reaction to Sheamus' win was so anemic. "OH GOODIE THE GOOD GUY WIN HOORAH THE BAD GUY LOST" was the only possible response at the end, there's nothing to get behind. But was Bryan a far more entertaining character? Yeah, all the chanting has proven that out. I like Sheamus, but he's not the Great White, he's just White Bread.
I like Sheamus, but I have to give you props on "White Bread" - very creative.
ReplyDeleteI like Sheamus too. I just think it's sad that in 2012, the best they can come up with for him as a character is to marvel on the colour of his skin. It's kind of fucked up.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the amount of titles that is the problem, but how they're booked. Simple as that.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, if "Raw" and "Smackdown" were basically treated as two separate companies, then it would only make sense for each to have their own World Championship, ESPECIALLY when they were running separate PPVs. The constant interaction between the brands, the end of separate PPVs, and the numerous reigns by people that weren't ready (not to mention that "Smackdown" has been clearly positioned as the "B-Show" for the last seven years or so) are what have devalued the WHC.
If Vince and company actually gave a shit about the mid-card, there's no reason that they couldn't support the IC, US, Tag, Womens, Cruiser, Hardcore, Midgets, Super Heavy, and Trios divisions if they so desired. The titles can be made as prestigious as the company wants them to be, they just have to put the effort in.
I agree. I remember watch the Jim Crockett stuff and they had titles for EVERYTHING.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that made titles inportant was that everybody competed for all of them. For example, Sting could battle for the World title but a month later pursue the TV title with the same feriosity. That is what got on my nerves about the WWE, because the made you fight over dumb shit like shampoo commercials and the like.
Side note: They used to announce Dino Bravo as the Canadian Heavyweight Champion. Did he ever defend that title on a regular basis? I don't even remember seeing a belt for it. The could have done something more with that instead of a Euro belt
Actually Captian Ego HHH absorbed all of the minor titles into his Wold title. Think about it: RVD unified all of the secondary belts and who beat him?
ReplyDeleteHHH.
When Benoit came over to the WWE he was the legitimate WCW Champion.
Who did Benoit lose to?
HHH.
When Taz was send to ECW as a loan from WWE and beat Mike Awesome who beat him when he came back and wrestled on RAW?
HHH.
You had me until you said Zack Ryder should be the new Stone Cold.
ReplyDeleteIf they actually did a tournament with Rock, HHH, Undertaker, Lesnar, Cena, and say, Orton, Punk, and Sheamus (any other multiple world title holders around?) for some huge trophy, and spread it out across a few PPVs, that would be pretty awesome.
ReplyDeleteTo add to that, I think it would be great if they had some kind of meaningful yearly title. Not quite like King of the Ring... Don't make it a mostly-upper-midcard stepping stone but a true best-of-the-best type of tournament where the winner gets to call himself the (whatever) champion until the next tournament. Hell, maybe just turn the World Title into that and have the finals at WrestleMania each year.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little surprised that they haven't gone back to having an Undisputed World Champion for both shows like they did at the beginning of the brand split, especially given the fact that World Heavyweight Title has been demoted to secondary status at this point. I guess they want to have a world champion for both house show tours.
ReplyDeleteNipple clamp.
ReplyDelete