Whats with the hotshotting of the World Title?

[monkeystyle]

Having two main titles devaluates it more then it changing hands a bit.

^ is very true. However...

I fail to see how a belt changing hands rapidly devalues a championship.

It really depends on how it's done and who gets it. One of the reasons rapid title changes were done well during the Attitude Era is because there actually were a glut of credible contenders who you could reasonably believe as champions and now there are fewer and fewer of those around so rapid changing of the belts doesn't so much devalue it as much as it's not very interesting because it's always going to the same people.

 

[MikeRaw]

^ is very true. However...



It really depends on how it's done and who gets it. One of the reasons rapid title changes were done well during the Attitude Era is because there actually were a glut of credible contenders who you could reasonably believe as champions and now there are fewer and fewer of those around so rapid changing of the belts doesn't so much devalue it as much as it's not very interesting because it's always going to the same people.

I disagree. In fact, it's not a matter of opinions. You say there were more credible contenders during the attitude era, and it was spread through more people?
Here's the official lineage of the WWE Championship holders during the attitude era. This is the list of every champion, in order, of the WWE Championship, from March 29, 1998, til April 1st, 2001.

Austin, Kane, Austin, Vacated, Rock, Mankind, Rock, Austin, Taker, Austin, Mankind, Triple H, Vince McMahon, Vacated, Triple H, Show, Triple H, Rock, Triple H, Rock, Triple H, Rock, Angle, Rock, Austin

A total of 23 reigns in 3 years
9 Men in 3 years, with Rock having the most in that span with 6.

Now, in the past 3 years of the WHC... From April 2006, til last night...

Mysterio, Booker, Batista, Taker, Edge, Vacated, Khali, Batista, Edge, Taker, Vacated, Edge, Punk, Jericho, Batista, Jericho, Cena, Edge, Cena, Edge

18 different reigns in 3 years.
9 different men in 3 years. Edge has the most reign in that span with 5.

 

[monkeystyle]

I disagree. In fact, it's not a matter of opinions. You say there were more credible contenders during the attitude era, and it was spread through more people?
Here's the official lineage of the WWE Championship holders during the attitude era. This is the list of every champion, in order, of the WWE Championship, from March 29, 1998, til April 1st, 2001.

Austin, Kane, Austin, Vacated, Rock, Mankind, Rock, Austin, Taker, Austin, Mankind, Triple H, Vince McMahon, Vacated, Triple H, Show, Triple H, Rock, Triple H, Rock, Triple H, Rock, Angle, Rock, Austin

A total of 23 reigns in 3 years
9 Men in 3 years, with Rock having the most in that span with 6.

Now, in the past 3 years of the WHC... From April 2006, til last night...

Mysterio, Booker, Batista, Taker, Edge, Vacated, Khali, Batista, Edge, Taker, Vacated, Edge, Punk, Jericho, Batista, Jericho, Cena, Edge, Cena, Edge

18 different reigns in 3 years.
9 different men in 3 years. Edge has the most reign in that span with 5.

The actual numbers are not the point. Let me illustrate my point with a story.

Remember I think it was when Test debuted? HHH had a WHC match against the Rock. Now, at the time HHH was leader of DX a popular stable but he was still at the time not a credible main eventer, more of a comedy act. But during this match you believed that he could actually win the title. He didn't but you could believe it.

Now, you take somebody like Cody Rhodes or Kofi Kingston and put him in the same type of match is anyone going to buy either as a potential winner? No.

That's what I meant by more credible contenders. Rapid switches are okay when you have a roster of believeable mid-card contenders to challenge as well. This is not something the WWE makes use of right now so for all their rapid title switches they mean nothing in terms of excitment because you always know it's going to somebody in that same small group of guys who always win it.

 

[MikeRaw]

The actual numbers are not the point. Let me illustrate my point with a story.

Remember I think it was when Test debuted? HHH had a WHC match against the Rock. Now, at the time HHH was leader of DX a popular stable but he was still at the time not a credible main eventer, more of a comedy act. But during this match you believed that he could actually win the title. He didn't but you could believe it.

Now, you take somebody like Cody Rhodes or Kofi Kingston and put him in the same type of match is anyone going to buy either as a potential winner? No.

That's what I meant by more credible contenders. Rapid switches are okay when you have a roster of believeable mid-card contenders to challenge as well. This is not something the WWE makes use of right now so for all their rapid title switches they mean nothing in terms of excitment because you always know it's going to somebody in that same small group of guys who always win it.

I disagree. The only reason there were more midcard guys that were valuable, and viewed as guys with legit shots as the title at that time was there was a lack of main event guys. Currently in WWE, the main event scene has Edge, Orton, Triple H, Cena, Undertaker, HBK, Jericho, Rey Mysterio, Batista, CM Punk, Jeff Hardy, and I guess Big Show. Back in the late 90's, there was a serious lack of depth. Austin, Taker, and Rock, and I guess Mankind were pretty much the only true, true main eventers. They had to have a ton of midcarders. I get your point. WWE had more midcarders that were viewed as guys who could potentially "step up" and win it back then. But that was at the lack of main eventers. Nowadays, there's still the same amount of guys, actually, probably more, who could potentially win it, it's just that the list of potential guys now includes pretty much all main eventers, as opposed to the 98/99 years where the list of potential champions was like 4 main eventers, and 5 mid carders.

 

[mancilla 86]

i disagree stop making the WH belt so worthless..its always going to the same ppl and then they win, lose ,then win again the belt (EDGE!)..at least make some long reign for wrestler who hadnt had the belt and make it seemed like they earned it..enough is enough already!

 

[monkeystyle]

I disagree. The only reason there were more midcard guys that were valuable, and viewed as guys with legit shots as the title at that time was there was a lack of main event guys. Currently in WWE, the main event scene has Edge, Orton, Triple H, Cena, Undertaker, HBK, Jericho, Rey Mysterio, Batista, CM Punk, Jeff Hardy, and I guess Big Show. Back in the late 90's, there was a serious lack of depth. Austin, Taker, and Rock, and I guess Mankind were pretty much the only true, true main eventers. They had to have a ton of midcarders. I get your point. WWE had more midcarders that were viewed as guys who could potentially "step up" and win it back then. But that was at the lack of main eventers. Nowadays, there's still the same amount of guys, actually, probably more, who could potentially win it, it's just that the list of potential guys now includes pretty much all main eventers, as opposed to the 98/99 years where the list of potential champions was like 4 main eventers, and 5 mid carders.

Almost.

You're forgetting that there are now two world titles so yes, while all those that you mentioned are there, you have to split them in half because of the two titles. And on a couple of the names, re: Rey, Punk, Hardy and Show look at their title reigns, they may have won the title but they weren't the stars during their reign, there was something else bigger going on as well or they were too short to mean anything significant. And I don't believe that the perception is at the moment that these guys are guys that can win at any time because, well, they lose the big match rather often. So it's just not really there. Leaving them out you have 9 guys. 4 and 5 of the same guys on each show who could credibly win the title at any time you're left with not as much to work with.

Which brings us to the current situation we're in now with the belts being passed around to the same four guys on each show. Draft time? Big deal, those four guys switch shows and they win the belts on the other show. Same damned thing.

 

[MikeRaw]

Almost.

You're forgetting that there are now two world titles so yes, while all those that you mentioned are there, you have to split them in half because of the two titles. And on a couple of the names, re: Rey, Punk, Hardy and Show look at their title reigns, they may have won the title but they weren't the stars during their reign, there was something else bigger going on as well. And I don't believe that the perception is at the moment that these guys are guys that can win at any time because, well, they lose the big match rather often. So the perception isn't really there. Leaving them out you have 9 guys. 4 and 5 of the same guys on each show who could credibly win the title at any time you're left with not as much to work with.
Which brings us to the current situation we're in now with the belts being passed around to the same four guys on each show. Draft time? Big deal, those four guys switch shows and they win the belts on those shows. Same damned thing.

Another thing though... back to the example you gave about feeling like Triple H could beat Rock back then, even though Triple H was just a midcarder at the time... Did you ever consider maybe that was because they were ALMOST on the same level at the time? That was Rock's first title reign, and he had only won the belt months before. Of course it would seem like Triple H could win when only 2 months previous Rock was on the same level as him. That example you gave was from when Rock was just entering his main event stint, and HHH was just a little ways away from his main event stint. In that case, there are cases of that today. Two examples today would be if a guy like CM Punk went and won the belt, thus putting him in the main event, and then Kennedy challenged him. You would believe Kennedy had a chance to win, right? Of course you would, because they're two guys near the same level, even if one is in the main event,a nd the other is upper mid card.
My point is, the example you gave wasn't like prime Rock vs midcard HHH with you feeling HHH had a shot at winning. If it was, I could see your point. But at that time, Rock was just becoming a main eventer, an HHH was a year away from becoming a main eventer, so they weren't even that far apart. Therefore, the point you were trying to make about how it felt like anyone could win, and there were legit contenders in the midcard scene as well as the main event, that had a true shot at winning, doesn't really click for me.

 

[Quintastic One]

I disagree. The only reason there were more midcard guys that were valuable, and viewed as guys with legit shots as the title at that time was there was a lack of main event guys. Currently in WWE, the main event scene has Edge, Orton, Triple H, Cena, Undertaker, HBK, Jericho, Rey Mysterio, Batista, CM Punk, Jeff Hardy, and I guess Big Show. Back in the late 90's, there was a serious lack of depth. Austin, Taker, and Rock, and I guess Mankind were pretty much the only true, true main eventers. They had to have a ton of midcarders. I get your point. WWE had more midcarders that were viewed as guys who could potentially "step up" and win it back then. But that was at the lack of main eventers. Nowadays, there's still the same amount of guys, actually, probably more, who could potentially win it, it's just that the list of potential guys now includes pretty much all main eventers, as opposed to the 98/99 years where the list of potential champions was like 4 main eventers, and 5 mid carders.

What I am confused on is that you are only using one line of lineage of a main event belt to illustrate your point, when in fact there are two main event championships so the second one effectively would double the amount of World title reigns comparing the last 3 years of today to the 3 years of the attitude era. So there has been TWICE as much shuffling around of the belts with HALF the number of legit contenders.

So I will have to disagree with your examples usage.

EDIT: I'm talking per show not company wide here.

 

[monkeystyle]

Another thing though... back to the example you gave about feeling like Triple H could beat Rock back then, even though Triple H was just a midcarder at the time... Did you ever consider maybe that was because they were ALMOST on the same level at the time? That was Rock's first title reign, and he had only won the belt months before. Of course it would seem like Triple H could win when only 2 months previous Rock was on the same level as him. That example you gave was from when Rock was just entering his main event stint, and HHH was just a little ways away from his main event stint. In that case, there are cases of that today. Two examples today would be if a guy like CM Punk went and won the belt, thus putting him in the main event, and then Kennedy challenged him. You would believe Kennedy had a chance to win, right? Of course you would, because they're two guys near the same level, even if one is in the main event,a nd the other is upper mid card.
My point is, the example you gave wasn't like prime Rock vs midcard HHH with you feeling HHH had a shot at winning. If it was, I could see your point. But at that time, Rock was just becoming a main eventer, an HHH was a year away from becoming a main eventer, so they weren't even that far apart.

Disagree. Prior to Rock winning that title at SS 98 he had gone from hated cocky NoD member to fans itching to love him, then leading up to that event with Vince working with Mankind against the Rock in the tournament, whom the fans now loved almost on par with Steve Austin at the time. When they re-enacted the screw job at the end of the match with Vince screwing Foley and Rock becoming champion revealing that he had been with Vince the entire time the people went rabid. That was his first title reign yes, but it was also the night the Rock practically attained wrestling godhood which put him far above any level HHH may have been at the time.

 

[MikeRaw]

What I am confused on is that you are only using one line of lineage of a main event belt to illustrate your point, when in fact there are two main event championships so the second one effectively would double the amount of World title reigns comparing the last 3 years of today to the 3 years of the attitude era. So there has been TWICE as much shuffling around of the belts with HALF the number of legit contenders.

So I will have to disagree with your examples usage.

Valid enough point, but I only used 1 title belt on one show to illustrate the point because back in the day that I'm comparing to, there was only one show, and one belt. So the only flaw in mine would be that I counted all the main eventers (from both shows) while only counting 1 title. So, to fix that, use roughly half of the guys I listed as main eventers, and you still have more main eventers on one show than you would've on one show (Raw) back in the late 90's, and still less title changes and champions.

Disagree. Prior to Rock winning that title at SS 98 he had gone from hated cocky NoD member to fans itching to love him, then leading up to that event with Vince working with Mankind against the Rock in the tournament, whom the fans now loved almost on par with Steve Austin at the time. When they re-enacted the screw job at the end of the match with Vince screwing Foley and Rock becoming champion revealing that he had been with Vince the entire time the people went rabid. That was his first title reign yes, but it was also the night the Rock practically attained wrestling godhood which put him far above any level HHH may have been at the time.

But prior to winning the title, he still wouldnt' have been considered a main eventer. Everyone would agree that it doesn't matter how much the fans love you, kayfabe or non-kayfabe, it doesn't make you a main eventer. So he was mega-over before this particular point we're talking about, but he wasn't actually considered a main eventer until the winning of the title. And like we both said, the winning of the title made him a main eventer, because it culminated all of the previous build up for him. What my point is, though, is that at the time he faced Triple H, it wasn't like he was THE guy yet, and at the highest point of his career. If he was, that would've backed up your point of people believing a midcarder (like HHH at that time) could've had a legit shot at the title. However, I just don't see that as the case here, because I don't see this as an example of a case where people believed a midcarder could beat a true main eventer. I don't think Rock was far enough in his main event tenure to have him considered as leagues ahead of Triple H. I think Triple H was only slightly behind him (not in fan support, but in build and credibility) therefore the idea of Triple H beating the Rock wasn't as absurd.
Just to see if there's any more to your point though, can you provide another example of the point you're trying to make? If so, I'd gladly accept defeat, lol. I just don't see this example as backing up your point, because I could find examples of that same thing today. If you can find another example of when in the late 90's you thought a midcarder had a true shot at beating a true main eventer, to show it happened on more than one occasion (or at least one, seeing as I don't buy this one ), then your point is well proven. Until then, I just don't see it, because the example you gave of a high midcarder having people believe he can be a low-main eventer (at the time) isn't the same as beating a full out main event guy.

 

[Enigma22]

they just didnt know where they wanted to go with it for a while. i think edge will hold it for atleast a few months and lose it to punk again eventually.

 

[noumenon]

I actually enjoy when the title bounces around quite a bit. It really helps to spice up feuds and give them more of a back and forth element. Unless someone is going on a tyranical reign of terror I really don't think the belt should sit on anyone for more than around 3 months. That's one of the main ways I think people get stale... simply sitting at the top and doing nothing with the title.

 

[-TJ-]

WWE is showing that it is hard to keep the WHC now a days. I'm guessing they will give Edge a long reign thus giving him more glory to go along with a great WWE superstar

 

[He who knows more than Nation]

The main reason the belts change hands so quickly is as old as television. People have near Blue attention spans these days and really, every time someone has held the title longer than say four months the numbers start to dwindle, unless your Cena or a cock sucker backstage politician like the Walking Quad Tear, and if numbers dwindle, just like any show on TV, changes are gonna come. That's the business model the E follows and they do try and freshen things up and try to stick by it, like with Punk's somewhat lengthy reign. The difference between drawing a 3.1 and a 3.3 is hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost ad revenue on a weekly basis to the E, and even though it should be a group effort and at fault, the champ is usually the one under scrutiny to perform well for the company.

And with there being TWO world titles, it's an even bigger issue since the E expects the SD! champ to perform similar to the Raw champ despite the huge disparity in advertising the E puts into Raw and SD!, not to mention SD! has a shitty timeslot (c'mon, who the fuck is gonna piss away a Friday night to watch wrestling?) and CW is not as available or as visible to the average WWE fan/TV viewer as USA. I think with the topsy turvy numbers are why you see so many title changes on SD! with the all the Edge reings, Batista reigns and very short Undertaker reigns, and it's also where the E likes to give first time champs the Litmus test, except for Cena and Edge (and RVD if your technical) all first time champions since the Brand split-Brock,Booker,Tista,JBL,Rey- all had their first reigns on SD! to see how they fared in an unstable market. Numbers driven by the american tv watcher's habits and whims are one reason the belts are changing so fast.

About the Attitude Era...The belts changed hands so often because there was what wrestling is lacking so severely today, very strong competition. Anytime a promtion had a title change, it had the fans buzzing, plus and this is a majore plus, the WWF had EXTREMELY OVER TALENT. You had the biggest draw in wrestling history (you can argue Hogan all you want, but when did Hogan ever draw a billion dollars in three years during his 20 year run??)in Stone Cold, you had the third biggest draw and most media endeavored star ever in the Rock, you had an intelligent author in the guise as a sick freak that fell from everywhere and had been hit with everything in Mick Foley and you had a solid heel in Triple H who had been over with through DX. Plus the Taker, Kane, Show, Jericho, Benoit and Angle were all incredibly over stars stacking the roster. The WWF has never had a better roster with more over talent and recognizable faces than it had at it's disposal from 99-02, so it really didn't matter who held the title, the Roster was filled with so many legit stars that the company was going to perform at the high mark as long as Rock or Austin were there to serve as the anchor. The company never lost steam when Austin went down in 2000, the Rock was so cemented that he carried the load like Austin never left. The title changes were certainly not numbers driven. They were completely creative and competitive tools.In the crash -tv era of WWF booking frequent title changes helped keep the fans drawn to their product by instilling the idea that "anything could happen in the WWF" and it worked so well for them that you saw the bastardizing of the WCW title under Russo's Blue run over there. There is a complete difference in booking for freshness and angle longevity and booking for stupid attention stunts that are diggin the hole deeper. Either way it worked for the Attitude era and drew wayyyyyyyyyyy more money in 3 years than any 10 years in the company's history.