Do championships mean anything today?

[Jingus]

I think we can all agree that title belts don't mean quite as much as they used to. Whether it's having too many championships, or too many title changes, or too many cheap finishes during said title changes, or too many title matches on free TV, or whatever: clearly they're not as important as in previous eras.

 

Having gotten that bit of Captain Obvious out of the way, however: just how important are they nowadays?

 

The WWE has seemed like they've been on a mission for the past dozen years to make their world titles as meaningless as humanly possible. The fact that they have two championships which are both supposed to be the Best In The World type deal (although of course in their eyes, Raw >>> Smackdown) suggests that they're not terribly serious about blatantly saying "the guy wearing This belt is the best in the world, period". But, is that just a symptom of how they do business nowadays? Aside from the bizarro asterisk-marked popularity of John Cena, Vince & Co. have been very reluctant to push any one top star as The Man ever since Austin and Rock took off. It's much more about pushing the WWE brand as a whole, rather than "come out and see Hulk Hogan! ...and thirty other guys you probably don't care about" of yesteryear. The days where the champion was considered so important that he got a percentage of every house are long dead and gone; has that been reflected in the way they book the championships?

 

(Oddly, this is one of those rare areas where TNA often does better than the WWE. They've got fewer belts, fewer title changes, and their promos tend to have a lot more talking about how important those championships are.)

 

So how important are they now? If Santino wears the US title, does that devalue it because he's comic relief who rarely ever defends it, or does it make it more important because it's getting a long reign around the waist of a very popular character? When Punk inevitably carries his belt into a semi-main on PPV while Cena has the top spot, exactly how hard does that tarnish the prestige of this particular trophy? And is any of this even close to as bad as it was back around 1999 when belts would change hands practically every other week and never with clean finishes?

[Loss]

I can't think of a single time in history that a wrestler who wasn't at a certain level already has been made a permanent fixture at that level simply by winning a title. In every case where it has been a success, demand has been created -- either organically by the fans or through good booking -- to make people want to see (or actively not want to see, in the case of some great heels) a wrestler at that level.

 

Punk is only now sort of being treated like a second-tier top guy. His 2008 and 2009 runs did not solidify him at that level. Alberto Del Rio was champion almost a year ago. Jack Swagger was champion over two years ago. They are just faces in a crowd.

 

It's hard for me to care about wrestling where the belts aren't the most important thing in the world because it's unclear what everyone is fighting for. Right now, if a wrestler who isn't a tippety top guy wears the title, he stays at the same level where he was already before winning the title. Only now, he has a championship. The idea that winning a title elevates anyone in WWE is so easily disproven.

 

John Cena should have had the Bruno run for the past several years, with guys like Orton and Michaels filling in during his few absences where he's been injured. I know that doesn't sound too thrilling, which is why I'd point out yet again that they had opportunities for guys like HHH, Undertaker, Michaels and Orton to lay down convincingly for guys who they are trying to rely on now, and haven't taken them. Punk beating HHH last year would have done as much or more for him than this long run.

[Kostka]

I had no problem with Punks title bouts taking a backseat to money-drawing programs that Cena worked against Rock and Lesnar, but once stuff like Cena/Ace, Cena/Show and the Raw MITB started closing the PPVs regularly over the WWE title matches, it started to feel like a rib and I can see why that bugs some people. It doesn't bother me personally, but I get the argument. If Punk beats Cena this Monday (which seems unlikely), does that make up for it?

 

I personally see no gain from Punk being booked as the babyface ace figure over Cena. It would be forced in a way that Ortons babyface ace run was forced. Cena is the guy, no matter how you dress it up. Which then proposes the question Loss' asked - why even put the title on Punk? I don't really have any good answer for that other than WWE obviously sees Cena as a mega-brand and entity that is bigger and far more important than even their top title. Cenas a sure bet guy, where Punk (because of bad booking or not) just isn't. I do agree that if Punk was booked differently and in a way that truly capitalized on his hot run last summer, then maybe things would be different now. But unfortunately, we know how that went down. I think Punk should turn heel. I think he makes a MUCH better Cena opponent/ antagonist than he does as a placeholder Cena-lite type of character. Outside of Big Show, WWE is lacking a really strong ace level heel. I think Punk could be THAT guy. He'd be a lot more effective in that role than #2 babyface.

[Mr Wrestling X]

John Cena should have had the Bruno run for the past several years, with guys like Orton and Michaels filling in during his few absences where he's been injured.

 

Completely disagree, the fact that John Cena began to attract so much negative criticism was the reason why they aborted his first title reign (which would have been the "Bruno run"). I believe that the only person in the last couple of decades of American wrestling who could have pulled off a "Bruno run" was Steve Austin - but this didn't happen due to injury. WWE again tried a long reign with Cena back in 06, but this was cut off in late 07 due to injury, but even if this hadn't happened, it's likely that Orton, Triple H or Jeff Hardy (had he not been suspended) would have raised the WWE Championship by Wrestlemania XXIV.

 

OTC, Cena hasn't required the 9 reigns (I don't count the reign between MITB and SS last year because Punk was never actually stripped off the WWE Championship) he has had as WWE Champion, lets look at who has ended Cena's reigns and the manner in which they ended,

 

1. Edge - 2005 (MITB cash in,not a proper match)

2. Rob Van Dam - 2006 (match ended with interference)

3. Nobody - 2007 (injured, stripped of title)

4. Randy Orton (clean)

5. Sheamus (clean)

6. Batista (impromptu title shot, not a proper match)

7. Sheamus (match ended with interference)

8. CM Punk (clean, but match featured a surge of distractions prior to the finish)

9. Alberto Del Rio (triple threat match, Cena wasn't pinned)

 

Out of Cena's 9 title reigns, he's only put 2 of his successors over clean in a fair contest, had he instead followed the pattern of his predecessors like Bruno Sammartino, Bret Hart and The Rock (putting over their successors clean), the succeeding title reign would mean so much more given that it changed hands fairly and after being hold for so long by the de-facto top star of the company.

 

Punk beating HHH last year would have done as much or more for him than this long run.

Agreed, even a draw or no-contest would have been more beneficial than the overbooked interference fest that occured at NOC. Had the match ended without a winner, they could have stretched out the storyline further and had Punk eventually beat Triple H fairly to cement himself as a bonafide WWE superstar and he would then go on to capture the WWE Championship as before, but with much more momentum.

[Ricky Jackson]

Gotta disagree with a few things, X:

 

Cena's first reign didn't end because of fan backlash, it was done to get over the MITB concept and elevate Edge. Cena won the title back a few weeks later. And RVD winning the belt was done in order to help get over the new ECW.

 

had he instead followed the pattern of his predecessors like Bruno Sammartino, Bret Hart and The Rock (putting over their successors clean), the succeeding title reign would mean so much more given that it changed hands fairly and after being hold for so long by the de-facto top star of the company.

Not really true. Sammartino's second reign ended with him getting pinned while Graham had his feet on the ropes "for leverage". Hart lost to Yoko after getting salt in the eyes, to Backlund in a match where he "didn't quit" (Owen conned his mom to throw in the towel), to Sid after Austin interference, and of course the screwjob to Shawn. The Rock lost to Foley on Raw after Austin interference, and I can't really remember the other losses because of the blur of the Attitude era, but I'm sure there were a few other dirty title switches in there.

 

Really, the problem isn't clean finishes to title matches, because even back in the good ol' days, there were a lot of "tainted" wins, even by babyfaces. Besides the ones already mentioned there was also Backlund in 78, Savage in 88, Hogan against Taker in 91, and Savage held Flair's tights in 92. Cena's a babyface, so of course he's going to be screwed over by the evil heel or lose in a controversial manner when he drops the belt. That's how Bruno lost to Graham, Backlund to Sheik, Hogan to Andre, Warrior to Slaughter, Hogan to Taker, etc., etc., etc.

 

Personally, I think you're a Cena hater, and that's fine. But you can't really blame him for devaluing the belt or like it was up to him to decide the manner in which he lost.

[Jingus]

I don't think Cena's "clean" losses were all that clean.

 

4. Randy Orton (clean)

This one involved a ref bump, with Orton tapping out while the official was down. Yeah, I know that's the mildest and cleanest form of fuck-finish by today's standards, but it's still not like Orton just definitively beat Cena without any shenanigans.

 

5. Sheamus (clean)

Not remotely clean, Cena slipped on a banana peel and accidentally fell through a table during a tables match. It was a lame copout to get the title on Sheamus without actually having him beat anybody.

 

Out of Cena's 9 title reigns, he's only put 2 of his successors over clean in a fair contest, had he instead followed the pattern of his predecessors like Bruno Sammartino, Bret Hart and The Rock (putting over their successors clean), the succeeding title reign would mean so much more given that it changed hands fairly and after being hold for so long by the de-facto top star of the company.

What? Who did Bruno ever put over clean? Certainly not Billy Graham (referee distraction, feet on the ropes), nor Ivan Koloff (injury angle, iirc).

 

Bret didn't do much jobbing either; his only clean title losses in his WWF singles career were the one to Bulldog at Wimbley (at which point he wasn't quite a top guy yet) and to Shawn at Wrestlemania 12, and that one's only "clean" if you don't consider the sudden-death portion of the match being sprung on him without warning to be unusual.

[Mr Wrestling X]

Personally, I think you're a Cena hater, and that's fine. But you can't really blame him for devaluing the belt or like it was up to him to decide the manner in which he lost.

You may think what you want, but I'm not a "Cena hater", I'm just not fooled by the incredibly flawed booking of the character from day one of his main event push. Do you like Cena, is that why you've once again brought up the fact that I'm incredibly critical of the character? Just because you've settled for mediocrity from professional wrestling, doesn't mean everyone else has to as well.

 

No, it wasn't up to him to decide the manner in which he lost (at least not that we know of), but the fact that WWE creative are incredibly reluctant to put anyone over against John Cena is a major issue. How exactly is anyone supposed to take Cena's feuds seriously when he goes over the heel wrestler clean in their first encounter and then proceed to win each subsequent rematch? If Cena has to go over, why can't they just do an extended build that results in one, and only one singles match - just like Hogan was booked during his heyday?

 

We live in an age where boring invincible heroes are just not popular, media has evolved to the point where people need things to relate to in TV, movie, book, etc, etc characters. Just because John Cena is about never giving up and overcoming the odds, it doesn't mean he has to always win and destroy everybody else in his path. If WWE wants to embrace the "reality era" then they need to embrace reality.

[Coffey]

This thread is a great idea but it already seems to be getting a little side-tracked and hostile...

 

I think we can all agree that title belts don't mean quite as much as they used to. Whether it's having too many championships, or too many title changes, or too many cheap finishes during said title changes, or too many title matches on free TV, or whatever: clearly they're not as important as in previous eras.

I think it's because of just these reasons, really. How can someone be a World Champion when in one promotion there's two world champions? How can a United States Champion be credible when it's a comedy character that loses a popularity vote to a Divas Championship with a butterfly on it (last night on RAW)?

 

Let's look for a recent example at the tag team titles: On the Money in the Bank pre-show on YouTube, Kofi Kingston & R-Truth defended their tag team titles. Then on the actual Pay-Per-View, Darren Young & Titus O'Neal (the number one contenders) had a match with Epico and Primo. Epico and Primo won, but didn't become the number one contenders. Instead, the match meant nothing and the contenders got the PPV slot over the champions. Then the next night on free TV, the guys that are the champs that weren't good enough to get on PPV beat the guys that were good enough to be number one contenders and make the PPV but not good enough to win on the PPV. So an uncredible champion team beat an uncredible contender team...and shockingly, no one cared.

[Ricky Jackson]

X,

 

I really don't remember calling you out on Cena before.

 

Anyway, what exactly is wrong with the way they've booked Cena's character? And please don't say its because he has been booked as invincible, because he hasn't. Not like the top WWF/E champs of the past anyway.

 

Sure I like Cena. He's probably the best WWE wrestler of the last ten years.

 

Yeah, I guess I've settled for mediocrity. Welcome to the 21st century.

 

And the "reality era" tag was created by that masked man dude at Grantland. It's not something anyone in WWE creative has spent one second thinking about.

[JerryvonKramer]

1. The Attitude era broke wrestling

2. The WWE has spent the past decade putting on the appearance of trying to put it back together again, but they know it is broken.

3. But the Attitude era broke wrestling, so what worked before wont work anymore, the WWE know this.

4. However, Vince is clever and knows that most of the fanbase think that somehow he doesn't know that, so he still goes ahead and books it the same way anyway. Why?

5. Because every fan thinks they are "smart" now and takes pleasure in ripping apart the product -- every fan has a blog or forum or whatever on which to analyse the latest Raw and Smackdown. Book Cena as Superman and they'll complain, keep the belt on him for 2 years and they'll moan about getting him shoved down their throats, job him out and they'll moan about devaluing the title -- the WWE know that whatever they do, however they book it, whichever way they write it, they'll get the product ripped to shreds week after week after week, but ...

6. They don't care, because if people are talking about their show, they are talking about their show and ...

7. All of the "smart fans" are actually just massive marks, maybe even bigger marks than the Hulkamaniacs in the 80s, why? Sure, they talk about booking, and angles, and whatnot now, but they are still programmed to think in certain ways -- for example, Shawn Michaels as the number 1 legend of all time ever ever ever, and Cena at least being in that conversation -- shit, they even control the list of guys that the fan who *thinks* he's smarter than all the rest of them might bring up in that conversation. In some ways, it's a lot more insidious than it ever was before, in others it is genius. The best way to control subversion is not to stamp on it, it's to give it some room to air itself, even to foster it -- then it is contained and doesn't grow into anything bigger. I believe that the WWE has relied on this power-containment model with its fanbase for some time now. Can only marvel at how it continues to work.

 

I am convinced that this is the case. So, yeah, they don't care about the titles or anything else. All they want is for all of its legions and legions of fans to carry on watching the show disgruntled and moaning about it on blogs, twitter, facebook etc. etc. etc. They know they aren't going to lose their audience now.

[Al]

Really, the problem isn't clean finishes to title matches, because even back in the good ol' days, there were a lot of "tainted" wins, even by babyfaces. Besides the ones already mentioned there was also Backlund in 78, Savage in 88, Hogan against Taker in 91, and Savage held Flair's tights in 92. Cena's a babyface, so of course he's going to be screwed over by the evil heel or lose in a controversial manner when he drops the belt. That's how Bruno lost to Graham, Backlund to Sheik, Hogan to Andre, Warrior to Slaughter, Hogan to Taker, etc., etc., etc.

Both Pedro Morales' title win and loss were the suplex-double pin-one shoulder up variety as well.

[Coffey]

The Attitude era broke wrestling

I actually wrote a decent length post on this just the other day, so I'll copy/paste it here because it seems relevant (and might spark some additional debate):

 

We still have to have on-air authority figures, which is a layover from the Mr. McMahon character asserting his authority on RAW back during the Attitude Era. I know a lot of people like to point to the likes of Jack Tunney (or even Sgt. Slaughter) to counter this point but today is a lot closer to the Mr. McMahon character than it is to the rest of them (see John Laurinaitis). Even when they're not heel authority figures, they need that crutch to base the show around. "We don't have any plans, send out the GM to book the night." WCW was guilty of this too, with J.J. Dillion and Eric Bischoff.

 

Although we have seen a resurgence of jobbers thanks to the likes of pushes for guys like Ryback & Brodus Clay, every match is a Superstar Vs. Superstar match, which was because of trying to win rating segments during the Attitude Era. So everyone has parity booking, wins/losses don't matter, titles don't matter and no one is over. Which in turn makes it so you blow through all of your matches too fast, nothing feels fresh and no one is worth paying for, which negatively effects PPV buys.

 

No matter who is ever on top, they can't win because they're "Not The Rock" or "Not Stone Cold." Damned if they do, damned if they don't. This is a waterfall effect that goes from the top to the bottom, no one can do anything without being compared to a wrestler from the Attitude Era and being condemned because of it. This is a staple in wrestling, comparing wrestlers of today from wrestlers of yesterday, but because of the money made and the ratings gained, with the popularity of the era, everyone else becomes insignificant.

 

TNA can not succeed in the eyes of Attitude Era fans because no matter what they do, they won't be WCW and they won't be in the middle of a new "Monday Night War." Wrestlers are signed to different contracts, with things such as "no compete" clauses in them so no surprises can happen again, like with Lex Luger or Rick Rude. If a show is not live it is seen as "lesser." But that live TV is now why everyone in WWE is scripted and nothing feels organic.

 

We still have the invisible camera during backstage vignettes and "reality" TV. Vince Russo trademarks. Speaking of trademarks, because WWE owned the names Razor Ramon and Diesel, we got Scott Hall and Kevin Nash. So now today, we get FIRST NAME / LAST NAME superstars that all look alike and look like they just came from a college frat party.

 

WWE is still ratings obsessed which is why we get things like John Cena Vs. Michael Cole because they think it will pop a rating.

 

Fans, not all of them but some of the more vocal ones (like you'll find online) think because the Attitude Era was TV-14 and featured blood that you can't be "good" if you're TV-PG and don't, so WWE is condemned for giving them gimmick matches, such as Hell in a Cell because expectations are too high going in. Mick Foley being thrown off a cage through a table can not be topped and it never should have happened in the first place. Look what happens when you put a bar that high...

 

Promoters will continue to try to recreate the Attitude Era in hopes that lightning strikes twice, so we get more recycled & regurgitated gimmicks and stories instead of trying new, original ideas. Which leads to boring shows.

[Guest Slickster]

To be fair, WWE's focus on popping a rating was established during the Monday Night Wars but it was cemented as the company's status quo once the company went public in 1999. Little did we know then that going public would effectively force WWE to not change its TV format for over a decade for fear of losing ratings/sponsors/investor confidence/millions of dollars.

[Coffey]

I still don't know why they went public to be honest.

[Jingus]

And oh yeah, meant to comment on this earlier:

Right now, if a wrestler who isn't a tippety top guy wears the title, he stays at the same level where he was already before winning the title. Only now, he has a championship.

That's as succinct and efficient a phrasing as possible to describe the problem with trying to "elevate" new champions and challengers by having them work in the semi-main under Cena.

 

Book Cena as Superman and they'll complain, keep the belt on him for 2 years and they'll moan about getting him shoved down their throats, job him out and they'll moan about devaluing the title

That's always annoying, until you see it so often that it becomes funny. Especially when it's the same people bitching about someone being too strong AND too weak.

 

I still don't know why they went public to be honest.

Lots and lots of free money poured directly into their pockets by all the investors who bought stock, that's why. Most of which was promptly pissed away on the XFL, but hey, I guess it's the thought that counts!

[Ronnie]

I still don't know why they went public to be honest.

$$$$.

 

The IPO (for 10% of stock, I think) generated $175m. McMahon became a billionaire by assets. Even though the stock price has dropped it's more than offset by the massive income in dividends that McMahon gets every year for his majority share.

 

On top of the simple idea that Vince now has even more money to spend, he put himself in a situation to get closer to that acceptance that he craves from his "snob" neighbours in CT, who look down on him as a peddler of low-brow entertainment. He got a company on the stock exchange, got his moment on Wall Street, made the Forbes Rich List and used the cash explosion to set up his own football league.

 

He's no worse off for having taken this action, since he still owns the majority of shares, answers to no-one and micro-manages every aspect of the business. I'd have done the same thing as him, except I'd have probably sold the lot and had a spectacular retirement instead of continuing to put in the 80-hour, 7-day weeks.

[Grimmas]

As long as there are two main titles, so many title matches and so many title changes the belts won't mean much.

[S.L.L.]

As long as there are two main titles, so many title matches and so many title changes the belts won't mean much.

"So many title changes" is always an issue when it's present, but the other two I've been able to roll with as logical by-products of the brand split. But the brand split no longer exists in any meaningful way, and after Money in the Bank, when you look at the disparity in star power and significance between the WWE Title MITB match and the World Title MITB match, it's really hard not to see the World Title as the Intercontinental Title. Which I guess makes the Intercontinental Title the TV Title, and the US Title...I don't Know, the Western States Heritage Title? And yeah, I know the WWE Title was always the most important belt, but when the rosters were clearly divided up, you could at least pretend that each brand's champ was the best they had, and if one of them seemed more important than the other, well, that's just the cards they were dealt, and they were still theoretical equals. Now every wrestler, regardless of what brand they're officially attached to, appears on every show and can challenge for every title. So when I see an elite club of five main event players in the WWE Title MITB match, and a field of eight that includes Tyson Kidd and a guy who just made his in-ring debut in the World Title MITB match, there's really no way for me to suspend disbelief on that anymore.

[Grimmas]

As long as there are two main titles, so many title matches and so many title changes the belts won't mean much.

"So many title changes" is always an issue when it's present, but the other two I've been able to roll with as logical by-products of the brand split. But the brand split no longer exists in any meaningful way, and after Money in the Bank, when you look at the disparity in star power and significance between the WWE Title MITB match and the World Title MITB match, it's really hard not to see the World Title as the Intercontinental Title. Which I guess makes the Intercontinental Title the TV Title, and the US Title...I don't Know, the Western States Heritage Title? And yeah, I know the WWE Title was always the most important belt, but when the rosters were clearly divided up, you could at least pretend that each brand's champ was the best they had, and if one of them seemed more important than the other, well, that's just the cards they were dealt, and they were still theoretical equals. Now every wrestler, regardless of what brand they're officially attached to, appears on every show and can challenge for every title. So when I see an elite club of five main event players in the WWE Title MITB match, and a field of eight that includes Tyson Kidd and a guy who just made his in-ring debut in the World Title MITB match, there's really no way for me to suspend disbelief on that anymore.

 

With Raw being a supershow and the names of the titles its a fail. I think if they just changed the World Title to the IC Title and the IC Title to the TV Title or something, then there wouldn't be as big of a problem.

[JerryvonKramer]

They missed a trick by not linking the World Belt to the NWA/WCW lineage.

 

However, I broadly disagree on the "too many belts" thing. Watch 80s NWA, then you'll know what "too many belts" means.

[Sean Liska]

To be fair, WWE's focus on popping a rating was established during the Monday Night Wars but it was cemented as the company's status quo once the company went public in 1999. Little did we know then that going public would effectively force WWE to not change its TV format for over a decade for fear of losing ratings/sponsors/investor confidence/millions of dollars.

The company dies without TV, and cable TV is more competitive than ever. I don't see how going public ties in.

[Mad Dog]

They missed a trick by not linking the World Belt to the NWA/WCW lineage.

 

However, I broadly disagree on the "too many belts" thing. Watch 80s NWA, then you'll know what "too many belts" means.

No, it worked in the 1980s NWA. Every title was important and there were always feuds over the belts that were good. I've explained in the past how in 1985, there was something memorable going on with with all of the belts minus the Mid-Atlantic and Six-Man belts. The NWA managed their titles a lot better than the WWE does now. It's about booking, not number of championships. The WWE couldn't manage three championship belts well right now.

[Bob Morris]

On the subject of guys winning titles cleanly, when it comes to heels, there's always going to be a certain amount of cheating done by the heels to get the title because that's what heels do. The problem comes when overbooking comes into play. It's one thing to have the heel to use a foreign object, it's another thing when there is a ref bump and multiple people interfering that determines the outcome.

 

I think the real issue that comes into play is that poor booking in general. I've already mentioned how WWE Creative isn't good at booking a storyline from start to finish, so when you aren't able to do that, you aren't going to be able to make the belts meaningful and thus truly put over somebody as being the top guy and stressing the importance of the belt.

 

While the base of the storyline should be regarding "Wrestler A has the belt, Wrestler B wants it," you have to be able to put the details together to truly make it work.

[S.L.L.]

They missed a trick by not linking the World Belt to the NWA/WCW lineage.

Very first thing they did with the belt, actually, right down to it being the same belt.

 

However, I broadly disagree on the "too many belts" thing. Watch 80s NWA, then you'll know what "too many belts" means.

I have seen 80's NWA. They have too many belts.

[JerryvonKramer]

SLL are you agreeing with me there or are you saying they somehow linked the World title to the NWA/WCW title with more than the visual representation of Big Goldy?