Would wrestling benefit from one World Champion?

[skinsfan87]

Wrestling has always been fractured, from the days of the territories, to, arguably, even now. Yes, WWE is the accepted "major league" of the sport/art form, at least in this country, but there is somewhat of a rebirth of what at first glance almost appears to be territories in the U.S. From Chikara to ROH to PWG to 3XW...it doesn't take much to see that there is an appetite for wrestling at least at the local/regional level.

 

These independent feds, at least some of them, all proclaim to have a "World Champion". Really, as we all know, its just the champion of that promotion.

 

WWE tries to give us the facade of having 2 different promotions under one banner, but doesn't really sell it well. We have 2 World Champions under one promotion in reality, which may in fact help explain the fact that they've lost a lot of their "seasoned" audience.

 

Wouldn't wrestling promote itself better if it somehow banded the promotions together under one umbrella (which, will never happen again), and recognized one true World Champion?

 

The NWA worked, at least for a while, because there was one true standard bearer. The WWF worked best, when it was becoming accepted as the major league of the sport in the U.S., when it had one World Champion.

 

I would tend to think that, overall, wrestling would benefit by an organized system of territories, all working together, promoting and accepting one true World Champion.

 

Or, as I hypothesized in my title, does wrestling work best when there are 2-3 major companies, and we all argue over who is the greatest champion of the sport? I can remember the days of arguing would Flair go over Hogan, or vice versa, and who was truly the "real" champion of the squared circle. Does this arguing lend itself to making the sport more popular?

 

Again, right now, due to really not having a true #2, we can't truly argue who the best World Champ is (from a performance standpoint now...as kids, it was all too real!).

 

Just interested in hearing people's opinions on the topic, and thanks for your time.

[gordi]

To be honest, half the time I don't even know who the various champs of the various federations are and the vast majority of the time I simply don't care.

 

I used to care, at least a little, on and off.

 

Belts certainly used to have meaning in pro wrestling, and people certainly used to argue about who was the greatest champion, at least a little, from time to time.

 

Now?

 

I absolutely cannot remember the last time I "argue(d) over who is the greatest champion of the sport." I find it faintly ridiculous that you suggest it's something we all do.

 

I don't think too many people really argue that any more.

 

I doubt that many people really care. I certainly don't.

 

Also: *looks around furtively, whispers to skinsfan* Pro wrestling isn't a sport

[skinsfan87]

Also: *looks around furtively, whispers to skinsfan* Pro wrestling isn't a sport

 

I know, I know. I just loathe the term sports-entertainment.

 

Let's just call it an athletic exhibition, shall we?

[gordi]

I'd suggest calling it pro wrestling.

[Mr Wrestling X]

I personally only recognise a few of the "world" titles as being true world titles, although the reasoning behind this is subject to change depending on how something pans out (I don't recognise Rey Mysterio's or John Cena's WWE Championship reigns during the CM Punk storyline last year, because at no point was CM Punk actually stripped off the WWE Championship). Anyway, my three principle rules are...

 

1) The title must be recognised and promoted as a "world" championship

2) The title must be active as a world championship for a minimum of 10 years (accumulative)

3) The title must be active in an international promotion (by international, meaning a promotion that promotes regular events outside of it's origin country, does regular business worldwide, including international broadcasts and a promotion that uses international talent), which can be during any of the title's incarnations (for example, the ECW championship which was re-activated in WWE from 2006-2010)

 

With these rules in mind, the currently active "world" titles I recognise as true world titles at this moment in time are:

 

NWA World Heavyweight Championship

WWE Championship

IWGP Heavyweight Championship

AJPW Triple Crown

GHC Heavyweight Championship

CMLL World Heavyweight Championship

CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship

CMLL World Middleweight Championship

CMLL World Welterweight Championship

 

I think it's important for each promotion to have it's own world championship because even though it's a worked business with McGuffin trophies (the belts), there is the reasoning that each promotion presents their top championship to the performer that they deem "the guy" at that particular point in time. Besides, by having just one world champion for every promotion is invoking a concept that would only work in the NWA territorial days, when promotions actually abided by unwritten rules to do fair business with each other.

[ohtani's jacket]

The CMLL World Heavyweight Championship isn't the top belt in CMLL.

[Jingus]

How many shows do the puro feds ever run outside of Japan nowadays? Or CMLL outside of Mexico?

 

Since they're all just fake props, around the waists of actors and stunt men, I've never worried too much about what belts count as "legitimate" world titles. In a real sport, there would only be one big heavyweight belt anyway and all the others would be looked at as second-class or wannabes, like it is with boxing.

 

And has there ever really been a true unified "world championship"? Even at the peak of the NWA's heyday, I'm sure there were always competing promotions which formed their own smaller alliances and proclaimed some other dude to be the real world champ.

[Al]

Even the NWA briefly attempted to run multiple world champions at one point (Thesz and Carpentier).

[JerryvonKramer]

I pretend wrestling ended in 2002.

[skinsfan87]

Good discussion.

 

Boxing, before the days of the alphabet soup organizations, did certainly benefit from one major champion in each weight division, certainly during the days of Joe Louis through Marciano (and, arguably Ali's early reigns) in the heavyweight ranks. Boxing would greatly benefit from this again.

 

Wrestling, due to its worked nature and being a pseudo-sport...well, maybe nobody truly cares about the belts any longer. Being an old bloke, I remember fondly a day when people did care about who was the World champ, and long for those days quite honestly.

 

I believe those days aren't coming back any time soon, but hold out one kernel of hope in how WWE views itself against UFC/MMA. Meltzer would have us all believe...at times...that MMA = pro wrestling, when, truly it doesn't. But, they are, to a degree, competitors. And, fans have shown they take to an organized system where there are clear World Champions.

 

If WWE views UFC as competition, it may have to evolve to the point where it has one World Champion again, IF its fan base starts to care about it in viewing UFC's organized title structure. If WWE doesn't view UFC as competition, well, we're probably stuck with what we have.

 

And, if the major league of wrestling if you will in the States doesn't see the need for one clear World champ, then it ain't going to happen.

 

Thanks for the discussion.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think that 18-second match at Mania has relegated Big Goldy to being a joke title now. That and the fact that almost everyone on the roster has held it at one time or another.

 

I'd like to see an end to the brand split. I'd like to see a drastic reduction in the number of PPVs. I'd like see guys of different shapes and sizes and types in wrestling again. I'd like to see storylines that run for a year.

 

None of these things are going to happen.

[Mr Wrestling X]

The CMLL World Heavyweight Championship isn't the top belt in CMLL.

You're right, I made a typo by inputting "Heavyweight"! I wasn't going to bother putting in every individual weight class title and it was just going to be CMLL World Championship, although this might mean having to list only the titles that have existed for a total of a decade. I'll go back and sort that out right now

 

I don't count the Universal Championship because it's treated more as a tournament (a'la KOTR) than a championship, it may be seen as the top accomplishment in CMLL, but that doesn't come into my rules. I also only recognise the WWE Championship currently because the WHC is not quite a decade old (it will be in September, at which point I'll recognise it as a "true" world championship).

 

The 18-second Mania match is just a minor blip in the belt's history, comparable to any "regular" MITB cash in, in terms of detriment. The WHC would be much better booked if it recognised the WCW reigns and was treated as being a continuation of that title - hence the design similarities.

 

How many shows do the puro feds ever run outside of Japan nowadays? Or CMLL outside of Mexico?

Not enough, but they still do promote events outside of their origin countries, usually bi-annually or annually which still counts as regular, given that they aren't staying away from international promotion for years at a time. It's a very loose set of rules where I even count a promotion's talent defending a title in another promotion outside of their origin country as being an internationally promoted event, given that the champion's promotion is involved in presenting that talent to another promotion and agreeing with them the outcome of that match, etc - thus they are having a hand in booking an international event.

[Victator]

Since they're all just fake props, around the waists of actors and stunt men,

Why do you watch something you have such blatant contempt for?

[Jingus]

Since they're all just fake props, around the waists of actors and stunt men,

Why do you watch something you have such blatant contempt for?

 

How else would you describe them? It's not a sport. It's fake. No modern champion ever "won" their belt in a competition. They were given that title, according to a prewritten script, and pretend that it really belongs to them. So yeah, that's a textbook definition of a prop.

[Victator]

ITS PRO WRESTLING, it is its own thing. It has existed for a 100 years as PRO WRESTLING.

[Jingus]

So what? Why do you find it so insulting to apply the same vocabulary towards wrestling that we use in every other form of live-action entertainment media?

[Negro Suave]

So what? Why do you find it so insulting to apply the same vocabulary towards wrestling that we use in every other form of live-action entertainment media?

Its a meaningful prop. It does color a wrestlers career. So it's a little rude to call it a prop. It is more an award akin to an Oscar. Let's not pretend that it has zero meaning in the context of the conversation.

[Jingus]

In any other on television, if the people on the screen are holding any item in their hands, it's called a prop. Same in the movies, and on the stage. I don't see how it's insulting the belt to call it such. It has no inherent meaning or value, it's just a big chunk of metal and leather. The WWE's championship belts aren't any more important in real life than the kings' crowns are in Game of Thrones. The only importance it has is the importance that the fans believe it has; and these days, that's not very damn much.

[Negro Suave]

In any other on television, if the people on the screen are holding any item in their hands, it's called a prop. Same in the movies, and on the stage. I don't see how it's insulting the belt to call it such. It has no inherent meaning or value, it's just a big chunk of metal and leather. The WWE's championship belts aren't any more important in real life than the kings' crowns are in Game of Thrones. The only importance it has is the importance that the fans believe it has; and these days, that's not very damn much.

It's just a ham handed way of looking at it. And even in the realm of something like Game of Thrones, you better believe if the writers decided to change who was wearing the crown, it would be a big to do and whomever it was would be all over the magazines as the latests break out star due to him being "promoted" in the realm of a fake show.

[FLIK]

Belts certainly used to have meaning in pro wrestling, and people certainly used to argue about who was the greatest champion, at least a little, from time to time.

 

Now?

 

I absolutely cannot remember the last time I "argue(d) over who is the greatest champion of the sport." I find it faintly ridiculous that you suggest it's something we all do.

Pretty much my exact thoughts when reading the thread title.

The innocent days of arguing champion A is better then champion B are long over

[Matt D]

There's a history component now anyway. I can see us arguing who the greatest TV champion of all time was.

[Victator]

The only people ever hear refer to belts as "props" are Vince Russo or his disciples. That mentality has lead to nothing good.

[gordi]

There's a history component now anyway. I can see us arguing who the greatest TV champion of all time was.

Now THAT I could see happening here.

 

(It's Tully)

[Jingus]

The only people ever hear refer to belts as "props" are Vince Russo or his disciples. That mentality has lead to nothing good.

And the clinging-to-kayfabe mentality has led to nothing but awesome stuff? Wrestling is a fictional show. Its strange insecurities and insistence on being treated as being more "real" than other fictional shows is a liability now. Of course Russo-style "IT'S A SHOOT, BRUDDA" stuff is pointless, and nobody should ever call a belt a prop during the show, because no other shows do that and it would just be stupid. But I've never seen the point in pretending that wrestling is somehow more legitimate or kind of a sport or that you should refer to the wrestlers as athletes and it's an insult to call them actors. All of that "if someone asks if it's fake, attack them" bullshit mindset should be long dead and buried.

[Loss]

Well, the idea used to be to avoid those terms, because wrestlers thinking about their programs in the right framework and context made their stuff better. Cornette has talked about terms like "character" and "backstage" being used by people within wrestling as a relatively recent thing. It's hard to deny that talking about wrestling off of television in these terms has had an impact on the way wrestling is presented on television. Miz's whole gimmick is that he's charismatic. Victator is right that calling it a prop is the kind of thing that led to that mindset, and it does indeed bleed into what you see on television.

 

It's not an insult to wrestlers or anything like that. It's just a mindset that has been proven not to work.