Comments on: Column: Has Every Title Become The Hardcore Title?

By: John Bragg

John Bragg — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 03:03:33 +0000

Short reigns don’t undermine titles. Disrepect or disinterest by the company undermines titles.
I don’t think that short reigns undermine the value of the world and WWE titles, provided that they are swapped back and forth between worthy holders. In the past two and a half years (2007-09), the two world titles have been held by ten wrestlers—Orton, Batista, HHH, Edge, Cena, Punk, Jeff Hardy, Jericho, Undertaker and the Great Khali. If the Raw title hot potatoes at every pay-per-view between Cena, HHH and Orton for six months, I don’t think that that’s a problem. (The feud would get stale, but that’s a different problem). The top stars in the company are still treating the title with respect, and so are the writers. The belt is the goal and the focus of the promotion, and the focus of the fans. (Commenter above is right about Orton not coming out with the title. That undermines the title more than three title changes in a one-night championship gauntlet.)
Khali’s two-month reign damaged the Smackdown title more than Batista’s two-day reign did. Giving Batista the belt for two days was stupid, but was quickly forgotten.
The secondary titles are a different issue. No one questions why competitors want to be “the champ.” It doesn’t need an explanation. The secondary titles need an explanation. Why is a competitor content to be a lesser champ? For the women’s titles, the answer is obvious enough. For the tag titles, it’s pretty obvious. For the other titles, it’s not as obvious, and those titles have suffered.
Secondary titles prosper when the company effectively defines what these titles are for, and therefore what this division is for. Tag team specialists strive for the tag belt, Knockouts/Divas for the women’s title, small high-flyers for the Cruiserweight/X title. When the creative staff loses interest in a division, like the WWE Cruiserweight division, the TNA X Division, or the tag divisions on Raw and Smackdown, the title becomes meaningless, defended in thrown-together matches, ignored or eventually retired.
It is always hard to effectively define what a midcard title (US, Intercontinental) is for. Those are the titles most at risk. If Shelton Benjamin, William Regal, Finlay and John Morrison are dethroning each other as US Champion every two or three weeks, it is difficult to stay interested. Those are the belts that need stability, so that the holder is seen to successfully defend that belt through several different feuds, cementing his case for a place in the main events.

By: Dillon Garland

Dillon Garland — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:10:02 +0000

you know what really pisses me off everytime i see it. When Randy Orton comes out, without his title. Hes the Champion and doesnt even bring his belt out with him.

By: kenny

kenny — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:25:17 +0000

wwe is absolutely terrible. thank god 4 tna, thats all i got 2 say.

By: Scarlett Harris

Scarlett Harris — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:58:38 +0000

I’ve expressed this issue in past columns also, and I especially agree with you on Batista’s last title reign. While most fans seem to love him and can do no wrong in their eyes, I’m not such a huge fan and think it was meaningless to put the belt on him for only one day. The general consensus was that it was to give him credibility and save face going out with an injury, but who the hell cares about that when the integrity and prestige of the title is at stake?

By: paul

paul — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:37:18 +0000

Good comments from everyone i just want to quickly state a few things i do not have a vandetta against the attitude era i just pointed out one of its flaws every era has flaws.

Plus i actually respect edge alot and do think he deserved a few good years I just used his case as unfortunately for him it helped prove my point

By: Shelton Benjamin Fan!!

Shelton Benjamin Fan!! — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:18:49 +0000

mr.wondeful who cares if its fake…everyone knows that…

By: mr.wonderful

mr.wonderful — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:48:03 +0000

Wrestling is fake the title is a prop,the only thing real is the money and the miles, the title is used to elevate a character, the best characters flourish with good feuds that don’t involve titles,kurt angle vs HBK,HBK vs taker, why would lame ric flair win a world title 16 times, because he lost it and got it back 16 times!I find these records ridiculous, is triple h going to whore out and win the title 17 times? probably, That douchebag cm punk walking around with a briefcase, finally cashed it in, back in the old days the IC champ would be a strong contender for next world champ, now they don’t even follow the formula, all the past great world champions were great intercontinental champions, batutista isn’t in the top 10 of great world champs, come on, things got out of hand when rey mysterio got the world strap come on? Its been awhile since a wrestler died, whats the count to, how many days since a wrestler died? u should put up a deathboard on the website

By: Shane "Wild" West

Shane "Wild" West — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:31:41 +0000

Here’s another thing that degrands the Champions that you didn’t mention. I’ll tell it to ya in a question…. How can there be 2 people on the tip top of the same mountain? Having more than one main title is a terrible thing to do. It confuses the fans when the titles switch shows almost every year and having 2 heavyweigh champions degrands the belt because lets face it guys and gals, There’s only 1 Superbowl Champion…. There’s only 1 World Series Championship Team, NHL Champions, UFC Champions. Hell Spelling be champions… THERE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE World Heavyweight CHAMPION!!!!!

You Can’t Test…The West

By: Cody

Cody — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:17:32 +0000

I will agree with you on a few things. Yes both world titles have changed hands to many times this year. But look at it this way, when Triple H was the champion last year for a good several months, but none of the little kids liked it because they can’t make up their damn minds! So WWE decided to make the kiddys happy by changing the titles every month or so. But if you ask me it’s quite annoying. I think a good reign is about Four monthes, than we would have about three or four Champions in one year instead of nine.

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:17:39 +0000

Paul, I`m afraid I have to both agree and disagree.You are definitely right about the titles slowly losing their prestige, especially when so many of the champions are being pinned in matches with only a 3 count. There`s a time and a place for that, but to have it happen so often is VERY uncessary and undersells the said champion. The part I disagree with though is Edge winning the title 9 times, in the past 3 years. I myself believe that after so many hard working years in the business, WWE offcials finally became smart and utilised Edge to his best as a first-class heel. All of his title wins were either unexepected, surprising, and yet always entertaining. Sometimes his wins would have all of these attributes.