Scott,
A few random questions regarding titles:
1. What was the concept of the original NWA Television title? Was it just some arbitrary belt they decided to stick on a singles guy, or did it really have a gimmick attached to it in which it was to be defended on every TV show?
2. Do you think we will see the WWE and World Heavyweight titles unified any time soon? The "SuperShow" thing makes the brand extension basically null and void at this point anyway. Besides, in the kayfabe sense, wouldn't one champion (especially a "best in the world" type like CM Punk) be wanting to prove who is the "real world champion" ala Ric Flair in 1991? Having two (theoretically) equal titles kind of flies in the face of the World Champ paradigm in general, especially in the kayfabe sense.
3. Do you think HHH will end up with some more World Titles so he can claim he has more than Flair? Or is that still even a 'thing'?
4. Would the booking strategy of having CM Punk hang on to the title for a year bring back any luster to the gold? He's already got a pretty long reign going by modern standards. Sad commentary?
5. We blog about regrettable title reigns often. Arquette, The Miz, Vince Russo, Vince McMahon, etc. That is more from the IWC standpoint, but what do you think are some of WWE's most regrettable title reigns? The ones that even Vince and the bookers would secretly admit they'd like to erase (aside from Benoit, for different reasons).
1. No concept, just a vague title that was supposed to be defended on TV more often than the other singles belts.
2. Two titles = Twice the merchandise that you can sell to people wanting to buy replica belts. They're just props to WWE at this point anyway.
3. No one cares anymore. Cena is like, what, a 22 time champion or something by this point? Orton has 47, right?
4. It'll mean something when he gets beat, but only as long as they make it mean something. If Daniel Bryan wins it and then jobs to someone in 18 seconds right away it'll mean nothing again. Cena held the title for over a year and then they had that PPV where it changed hands THREE TIMES in the same show and suddenly it meant nothing again.
5. I think Arquette and Russo for sure. I'd also add HHH's first two title reigns, because had they waited until he was hotter after the Steph turn the win over Big Show would have been GIGANTIC for him.
1: I vaguely remember that "electric" promo Jim Crockett cut when he made Dusty Rhodes the first "World" Television Champion. As horrible as that promo was, it's still about 500 light years better than Dixie Carter's nonexistent mic skills.
ReplyDelete2: I don't think they're going to unify the belts. If they were, it would have happened in 2007 as an explanation as to why they were going to stop doing the seperate brand PPVs.
3: Forget Triple H, I'm wondering when Jerry Lawler is going to start calling John Cena and Randy Orton's bluff on that deal. He has more world title reigns than Cena and Orton combined!
4: Logically Punk should drop the belt to Dolph Ziggler because Dolph is clearly ready for a title reign, but in all likelihood Punk will drop it to Brock Lesnar to soothe Brock's ego after they book Brock to lose to Triple H. And of course, the match will still be second-to-last, going on right before John Cena's epic grudge match with Jack Swagger.
5: I would have to say The Great Khali would top this list. Vince and Co. clearly thought his title reign would be more successful than it was, and it's very telling that with the exception of his very brief 2008 feud with Triple H, he hasn't come close to getting a main event push again.
Unless you're John Cena, Triple H or Kevin Nash, when you get a main event push and you bomb, you're in Vince McMahon's doghouse for life.
1. really not sure
ReplyDelete2. This a "grass is always greener" issue. The unified titles caused a boatload of problems because they would get stuck on one show and give an entire division on the other show nothing to do. This was especially true with the tag belts because it's not like most tag teams are ready for oe of their members to chase a mid card singles, so why have tag matches at all. Creating a Smackdown! tag title was a brilliant move because it got the Smackdown Six going, but it created it's own problems because there wasn't really enough talent to make it interesting, apart from the Smackdown Six, who were almost all upper mid carders. There is no right answer because the roster is always too deep for a unified roster, not deep enough for a brand extension.
3 Wouldn't surprise me, but even he knows how diluted the prestige is. Maybe if someone actually does bring some clout back, he'll hop back in. And on a side note, I just watched the Royal Rumble 2000 Title match again....I miss that belt. I miss it so much. I hate that stupid non-spinning-spinning title with all of my being.
4 Wasn't Punk supposed to be defending it almost every week, as per people power? Basically, if the belt is not the last match, it isn't a main event title. Simple as that. If you want to make your title worth something, you make it worth something. I would love to see Bryan win it and become a brilliant heel for a year, doing whatever to keep the title with psycho AJ at his side, but if he wins it at this nothing of a PPV, then it's a non event. So, he'll probably win it.
I was thinking the other day about guys Ivan Koloff, Stan Stasiak, and even The Iron Sheik. History has let us forget them, but I imagine that if the internet could travel back in time for those reigns, there would have been some pretty significant protests. They were all just transitions, but their names still got to be attached to the lineage. By contrast, some of the modern names that people deride as unworthy champions (such as JBL, Miz or Swagger) really aren't so out of place. The problem is that those guys were brief reigns between epic reigns while all the modern footnote champs are bouncing just bouncing the title back and forth so that it never recharges its value. At least Punk appears to have a solid hold on the belt at the moment, but his reign is being treated like a peripheral storyline so the impact won't be as great when he drops it. I could presume this will be to Lesnar, but maybe they'll try to book the cart before the horse again and throw the belt around Tensai's waste* to get him over. I really hope not.
ReplyDelete*pun intended
for number 5 i say Hulk Hogan in the 2000's. who in their right mind...
ReplyDeleteas for the devaluing of tittles by there being passed around like a cheep hooker, I still say that's something ROH (and some other indys) have got right, Kevin Steen's vicory is the 17th time the tittle has changed hands and he is only the 16th person to hold the tittle. 17 in 10 years versus what at least feels like 17 A YEAR for the WWE. In fact does anyone know what year had the most wwe tittle changes in a single year
I have a feeling if you asked Vince, he'd probably say the Ultimate Warrior.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's really any fault of the Warrior -- just more a miscalculation by Vince about how fans would react after he beat Hogan. He thought he had a 29 year old Hulk Hogan on his hands and that lightning could strike twice. Instead he was booed in quite a few appearances shortly after WrestleMania at house shows and TV tapings. House show attendance following WrestleMania was notably weaker than usual in what is typically a strong period for the WWF. The WWF filmed a bunch of "go to our house shows!" type promos that featured the Warrior in almost every shot and were giving away UW masks at TV tapings to make it at least look like fans were rapid for him. Then then Hogan/Earthquake stuff started and got over huge and I think the writing was already on the wall by then.
I've always really liked the idea of the TV Title because it's got a perfectly built in stepping stone for lower echelon guys. You won the belt? Fine, but you got to go out there on TV every night and defend it. Prove you're a fighter. Prove you're a champion. You lose it? Well, you been running your ass ragged defending it, so it doesn't look too bad on you.
ReplyDeleteFrom a practical purpose it lets the current champ showcase his abilities to a regular audience while management evaluates whether he is ready to move up the card. From a story line purpose, it gives the lower rung guys something attainable to aspire to.
Unlike the others, Koloff I could have at least bought as a legit champ. He had the cold war working in his favor, for one. And while he was never a ring general as we know it today, he was always fairly solid even as last as the mid '80s. He also looked like someone you wouldn't want to fuck with. And apparently Manny Fernandez proved that to be true.
ReplyDeleteIf we're counting all of Lawler's title reigns, he has more then just about every active wrestler in WWE, TNA, and ROH combined.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. It is a great concept, especially for a time period where there were fewer overall titles. It was especially a great concept for young heels. Regal, Austin, and others were able to effectively build up feuds and improve their ring work by defending the title in long series of 10-15 minute draws. It is booking 101.
ReplyDeleteThank you for mentioning Khali. He might, in fact, be the worst worker to be a world champion ever.
ReplyDeleteFine choices in the original post, except for Vince. Despite anything else, that title change was well-booked, fit into the storyline logically, and was immediately vacated as storyline title switches to non-wrestlers should be.
I think even today with two World titles and two secondary titles it could still work. God knows WWE has plenty of Justin Gabriels sitting around, waiting for Creative to come up with something for them. Put the belt on one of them, put them out there every week and let them prove they can hang (or not). You don't even need to write elaborate story lines, it's just giving young guys a shot to climb up the ladder and see who the crowd responds to.
ReplyDeleteHell, if they debuted Tensai by having him win the TV Title, then he spent the next few weeks squashing jobbers to the sound of chirping crickets they could just move the belt off him and find something else for him to do, instead of being brutally un-over and entangled in top storylines.
As well as HHH in 99, I think WWE should have waited with Sheamus too as he should have won his first world title at this year's WM in a good long match would have been a special moment too.
ReplyDeleteto me, a huge part of why the Warrior didn't catch on was the booking. no credible challengers, no good feuds, nothing. I mean how easy would it have been to insert him into the Earthquake angle?
ReplyDeleteabsolutely @ ROH title changes. how "old school" (compared to the current WWE) - and awesome! - is it that you could actually NAME 17 guys?
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you. There really are no downsides: easy to book, increases prestige of the title, gets the wrestler over. Couldn't be simpler. It's bizarre how little regard they have for wins and losses, and what impact they might have on the perception of a wrestler. They *do* matter, maybe not to WWE but definitely to the audience (sorry, 'universe').
ReplyDeleteThe lack of time limits is another odd one, because it almost makes too much sense not to use. On the one hand you keep wrestlers strong by having them go the distance with a stronger competitor (or not losing every other match), on the other it fits in with the realities of television scheduling.
Cena has never had a main-event push bomb.
ReplyDeleteWhen you look back at Ric Flair's reigns with the titles in the 80s, it was amazing how Ric not only put over his opponents, put over himself, and put over the company..but also put over the belt!
ReplyDelete"This thing is made of diamonds, gold, silver and rubies", "anyone who wants this is gonna have to go through me", "come here and get a closeup of this!", "this is what makes me the greatest wrestler in the world". Ric absolutely SOLD how important it was to be champion, and so it added to his marketability, and it made it VERY, VERY important when Steamboat was able to shock the world and win it from him.
I really don't get why the number of reigns is a big deal. Race held the record with I believe 8 and Flair doubled that, so having someone get to 17 or 18 wouldn't be nearly as big a jump when you think about it.
ReplyDeleteDef. It'd be like Austin beating Michaels at WM14, then feuding with Owen Hart while Michaels takes on Evil Authority Vince.
ReplyDelete...or Johnny Ace antagonizing Punk, only to somehow wind up with Cena/Ace as the blowoff...
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that Koloff and Sheik were definitely over and were definitely "threats" to the main event scene. I think they're probably fine in that role. Imagine British Bulldog winning the title in '95/'96 from Michaels/Hart/Diesel then jobbing it to one of the others; I think that's about the level of "name" Koloff and Sheik were then. But perhaps I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteI've never understood why people have always worried about Triple H breaking Ric Flair's record. Triple H has 8 WWE Title reigns, and 5 World Title reigns. Flair has 16 reigns with the SAME BELT. Even if Triple H was to make it past a combined total of 16, it still wouldn't be the same thing, no matter how much Hunter and WWE would try to shove it down our throats!
ReplyDeleteOne of the dumbest rumoured Vince Russo ideas that thankfully came to fruitition was in early 2000 when the WCW Title was changing hands every show and Jeff Jarrett got three title reigns in the span of a week. Rumours abounded that Russo was going to have Jarrett match Flair's 16 reigns in LESS THAN A YEAR in order to build to a Starrcade match between them!
I was going to mention ROH. In fact, if I have one knock on Steen winning it's that it wasn't a "moment" the way it was for guys like Davey and Punk.
ReplyDeleteThat said, and I don't mean to thread jack, but I think part of why Steen has gotten so over (and unlike a lot of recent ROH champions) has a chance to stay over is that he's something other than the stoic, American strong style, honor warrior type (I don't mean to knock Davey, who I think is a great worker and champion who really helped get Steen super-over, I just think his title reign wasn't helped by a dearth of main event talent).
Retroactively, I'm fine with how Sheamus won the title because of how it got DBD over.
ReplyDeleteMay I nitpick a little and suggest that (though god only knows the 100 percent actual truth) Flair's 16 reigns consist of 14 NWA/WCW and 2 WWE.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I would think total number of days as champion is a far more prestigious accolade.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of the TV title was to defend every show, but you had to do it within 10 minutes. The reason this concept doesn't work is because they defend the World title on TV so frequently it negates what they are trying to do with it.
ReplyDeleteThis is where JCP did it RIGHT. Flair came out and did an interview that MADE you want to go to a house show to see him defend his title, but rarely did he defend it on World Championship Wrestling. Bobby Roode should rarely defend the World title on Impact and it should be treated like a special occasion when he does.TV Title should be at minimum the Main Event of the first hour on the show.
I completely agree with #2, however this wasn't initially a problem. Remember that at one time, both the Raw and Smackdown tag titles were defended at WrestleMania -- and if I recall, both matches were fatal fourways. At one point in time, both shows had 4 conceivable tag teams fighting for the tag titles.
ReplyDeleteBut I completely agree with the notion that the one belt, two brands thing didn't really work. Frankly, they had the solution a few years ago when the brands were kept almost completely separate (remember when even the REFEREES were brand specific?) and both titles were treated as equally important. Yeah, Raw probably main evented a bit more, but it was a 7-5 split opposed to what it is now (12-0).
1999 had Foley->Rock->Foley->Rock->Austin->Taker->Austin->Foley->Trips->Vince->VACANT->Trips->Show for 12 reigns total plus one vacancy.
ReplyDeleteThe only other year to hit double-digits is 2009.
Hardy->Edge->Trips->Orton->Batista->VACANT->Orton->Cena->Orton->Cena->Sheamus for 10 reigns plus a vacancy.
Even last year with a period where 2 people were having WWE Title reigns at the same time for a month didn't hit 10.
Yes, I can do all this without research. Sad, isn't it?
We don't have time to add more matches, there's 3 different promos about contracts that need to fit into the show.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't help that Hogan was supposed to take some time off and let Warrior carry the show, but it never happened. Ironically enough, 3 years later, they put the title on Hogan and THEN he decided he wanted time off.
ReplyDeleteKinda like Cena cutting a bizarre promo instead of doing a stretcher job for Lesnar.
In 1999 though, everything was about the belt. The whole motivation for Vince McMahon's evil character was him wanting the perfect champion to represent his company.
ReplyDeleteI think people are more upset with the idea of the hated HHH as the one who breaks generally beloved (in regards to wrestling) Flair's record.
ReplyDeleteExactly 1 tittle and 2 brands doesn't work, but there aren't *really* two brands anymore...
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you mean it wasn't a moment cause the I-PPV didn't broadcast, but being there live it felt like an awesome moment :) Credit to whoever started the OUI! OUI! OUI! chants after he won (YES! YES! YES! in french since Steen is from Quebec, for any of our American friends who don't know)
ReplyDeleteIt would bother people that he slept his way to the record
ReplyDeleteBut it still should have been Shemus' first world tittle
ReplyDeleteSo he slept with Vince? This is some interesting news!
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Cena example is fair since he was stripped of the title due to injury. There's no telling how long he would have held on to the belt had he stayed healthy.
ReplyDeletePlus I remember that PPV (No Mercy '07) being a damn fine PPV. It might look stupid now, but at the time all the title defenses played into the storylines.
How many people do you think are even aware of how long Punk has held the title? I've been aware, I'm sure bloggers and other IWC people have been aware, but I'm not sure Jethro knows or even cares.
By my count Lawler has 91 world tittles and 168 tittles total, hope i counted that right
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lawler#Championships_and_accomplishments
It wouldn't shook me, we all know how fascinated Trips is with the male bodybuilder's form ;)
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's HHH breaking the record per se but it's the fact that he's had so many "nugget in the toilet" reigns vs. some really nice long meaty turds... er, reigns. Flair had title reigns routinely lasting at least up to a year and usually more for the 1st 8 or 9 years, so there's some weight behind them.
ReplyDeleteContrast that with HHH's 2003-2005 reigns:
- loses to Goldberg in Sept 03, regains in Dec (2 months)
- loses to Benoit in March (3 months)
- regains in Sept, is stripped in Nov (2 months)
- regains in Jan, loses to Batista at very start of April (3 months)
Those FOUR reigns don't even add up to a year, while Flair's 1st reign ALONE is more than double that.
Bulldog is probably a good comparison. I'm sure both Koloff and Sheik were threats at the moment (I finally understood this about Sheik when I watched the Greatest Stars of the 80s DVD) but neither guys menace really outlasted their reign, making it clear they were only getting the one shot. Sheik got his xenophobia run in the tag division with Nikolai, but he was never going to be brought back to challenge future champs, like Savage or Warrior. I'm still blown away that they made him change his name and ignored his title reign when they put him with Slaughter. Maybe they'd watched Chi-Town Rumble and decided it wasn't even worth pretending.
ReplyDeleteBulldog probably had his moment when he could have grabbed the title as well, but that window started closing during The Hart Foundation angle and it was firmly shut by the time he went to WCW. When he was thrown into the main-event at 6 Pack Challenge he was clearly out of place, despite his previous upper-card experience.
I suppose the question is then, if a champ falls back into the midcard, do we view his run as a failure--since it didn't cement his status. Right now it's looking like Swagger and Miz might not get near the title again, and since neither served as a useful transition, maybe they were worse champions than Stasiak, Koloff, and Sheik. Those three never got near the title, or even main-event again, but at least they played a role in ushering in important reigns. Sheamus is someone who might have fallen on this list, but his current reign at least feels real and it's easy to imagine him remaining in the main-event scene for some time to come. I'm starting to suspect Del-Rio might have been a bust in this respect. At least the WWE is still trying with him, but this current effort has met nothing but apathy. Kahli definitely fails this test. They did shoe-horn him into the last Elimination Chamber, but I imagine the company would have to be in dire straits talent-wise for him to get near a title program again.
THAT is the point. Why are the titles today only props? Because THEY don't care. If they would care, they would unify the titles AND the roster and then give BROCK LESNAR the title - even with his limited schedule. The title would be instantly getting more value than any UFC or boxing title. And he can say, that he does not have to show up during every show, BECAUSE he is the freaking undisputed Champions and nobody is better. The guy who will beat him for the title, will be the next big thing...
ReplyDeleteThere is no blowoff. There will be no blowoff. This feud... MUST... continue...
ReplyDeleteI meant more that it was always great at first, and then after awhile it was like "Uh...so...do we really need 2 titles?" Same with the current US Title/Intercontinental picture. I keep hoping they unite them, but I know soon after that, I'll keep saying "Why don't they have a top midcard title for both shows?" It's just one of the weird things about the brand extension.
ReplyDeleteI wish there was some fan slashfic of this!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I absolutely agree. The % of blame is definitely shared among many parties/factors and this was a big one.
ReplyDeletewouldn't surprise me, and the relationship of Shaemus and HHH is little "suspect" and gym spotter, please lol as if he was the only big muscled guy who wanted to be in the WWE when Trips just so happened to work out there
ReplyDeleteThat's a valid point.
ReplyDeleteThat's a funny story Mark.
ReplyDeleteIs it really sad that I thought you said "world titties"? Seriously, every spelling of titles looks like titties to me! I need help?!!?
ReplyDeleteI guess you imagined this in Howard Finkel voice? because I definitely did.
ReplyDeleteJerry Lawler is the most decorated champion in wrestling history by far. A few years back, someone added up all of the regional and national titles he'd won and the number was somewhere around 130.
ReplyDelete"Two titles = Twice the merchandise that you can sell to people wanting to buy replica belts."
ReplyDeleteThere's no reason that they can't unify the titles and keep both belts. Hell, All-Japan's world title is 3 belts. I think it would look pretty bad-ass, actually. "Our title is such a big deal that one belt can't contain it!"
Bingo bango. The titles used to be for guys who'd gotten over, not to get them over (Orton was the first time that wasn't the case). Imagine that Sheamus had never won a title, it would have been a cool moment for him.
ReplyDeleteIt felt like a really quick build up. Usually ROH is too slow but I felt like this was a little fast.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons Jericho's Undisputed Title reign stood out more than the others (besides picking up Lucy's dog poop) was because he was the only one who got to carry around two belts.
ReplyDeleteI keep thinking he held the title since Money in the Bank, but I forgot about the three crappy reigns (Cena's one month and the two Del Rio's that sandwiched it) that preceded him regaining the title at Survivor Series.
ReplyDeleteAnd it didn't work for Orton the first time either
ReplyDeleteI can see that, but i saw the build up less as Steen vs. Davey, witch started in earnest in March, and more as the evolution of Steen's character since he turned heel way back at final battle 2009. In that respect having him win it at Final Battle would have been his fourth important Final Battle in a row, but i'm not sure they could have kept it interesting that long without Steen looking like a choker
ReplyDeleteI'd agree with Brock getting the tittle...if he didn't lose his first match
ReplyDeleteAnd you invited all my friends...good thinking!
ReplyDeleteFuck I love that movie.
And even if you bring back a single undisputed title, you can always sell the old WWE and World Title. And so you have TRIPLE the merchandise...
ReplyDelete