I noticed that alot of people on this forum view the world title as a prop and nothing more. Regardless of whether wrestling is scripted or not, I have always felt that the world titles were meaningful and prestigious because of the great superstars who held the title along with the story lines they were placed in. I agree with many of you that short title reigns hurt the talent and the value of the title so when do you think the title was more prestigious and when do you think it lost its prestige?.... If people believe that short title reigns hurt the titles credibility than do people believe that the majority of title reigns during the attitude era were not meaningful, and what about the undisputed title and how that was treated? What are thoughts on these questions?
World title a prop?
- Thread starter aceofspades7778
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
Essentially, the world title is a prop in that it is used to either assist in putting someone over and make them someone who people wish to see, because they then think of those people as important because they're 'the best', or because they wish to see people competing to be 'the best'.
I think the titles have been dealt a lot of damage over the past few years. Go back to 2007 and Cena had a long run, then Orton had a good reign heading into 2008. However, since late 2008 through until now, the belts have been traded way too often, and as a result, a title change is nowhere near as significant as it used to be. The problem is that WWE seems to fold to pressure, because ever since people started to complain about Cena having a good (yes, good), long reign, the reigns have grown shorter and shorter.
The Undisputed Title was treated like crap. It meant a lot initially, but then it went from Jericho, to Hogan, to 'Taker to Rock in a matter of months. The only person who benefited from the title, aside from Jericho, was Lesnar because he got to beat Rocky from it. Had Lesnar dropped the belt in a months time, much like the others had, no one would have cared about it.
Didn't watch the attitude era. Too young.
I think the titles have been dealt a lot of damage over the past few years. Go back to 2007 and Cena had a long run, then Orton had a good reign heading into 2008. However, since late 2008 through until now, the belts have been traded way too often, and as a result, a title change is nowhere near as significant as it used to be. The problem is that WWE seems to fold to pressure, because ever since people started to complain about Cena having a good (yes, good), long reign, the reigns have grown shorter and shorter.
The Undisputed Title was treated like crap. It meant a lot initially, but then it went from Jericho, to Hogan, to 'Taker to Rock in a matter of months. The only person who benefited from the title, aside from Jericho, was Lesnar because he got to beat Rocky from it. Had Lesnar dropped the belt in a months time, much like the others had, no one would have cared about it.
Didn't watch the attitude era. Too young.
The value of a World or WWE title these days certainly does not mean as much as it did a few years ago. With the same superstars continuously holding it over the span of several years the meaning starts to diminish. It is like a re-run of a TV show, re-run's do not make a TV show great, new seasons make it great to keep the TV show alive. Sure multiple reigns of one superstar might benefit that one superstar but it doesn't really do anything for the belt or the company. You can only promote someone to a certain level before someone else HAS GOT TO come along and continue the tradition/legacy/etc.
Any and all "world" titles haven't meant squat in more than a few years ago, over twenty years and Ric Flair was the last true world champion, as he traveled all over the world, defending the gold against different competition from different companies. He was a true world champion, and the NWA World's Heavyweight Title was the truest world title since the sport was legit.
But as far as "the same superstars continuously" holding the belt for the several years, well of course. How long have you been watching wrestling? In the 70's it was the Races, Funks and Briscoes of the world, in the 80's it was the Hogan's, Flairs, Dusty's of the world, in the 90's it was in WCW, the Stings, Flairs, Hogans of the world, in the E it was a carousel of HBK, Hart, Taker, Sid then we got to the Austin-Rock-HHH-Foley dominated era. And now we have the Taker's, Cena's Ortons, Edges and Jericho's of the world.
Every now and then an Ultimate Warrior or a Benoit or Eddy get thier shine on, but to really hold this prop, you have to draw. The belt is a prop to justify someone's spot on the card. That's called your main event scene. You can't dillute it for the sake of spreading the title around.
I believe Sammartino's first reign was about 8 years in a row and then he lost it and got it back and held it for like another 5 years. The Fabulous Moolah had her title for almost 30 years. I know these are different times now but I still think a longer reign is better than a short one (though not as long as the old days but reigns that are too short are garbage). Having people hold it for a night or a few weeks or a month, etc. ruins it more than anything, imo. It makes it just a toy passed around for people to play with. If a wrestler holds it for a while, that kinda solidifies their championship reign. If someone holds it for one night, no one will care and most will forget it even happened.
On the other hand, I don't think in this day and age, an 11 year or 30 year reign would sit well with people, especially knowing wrestling is fake. Like I've said before, it's the fake factor for me personally that kills any meaning the belts once had, anyways.