Thread Tools

RAWImpact · 01-20-2013, 04:56 AM

I can understand why some people would want to try to make some sense of the way the titles are viewed, but I feel like if you worry too much about things like this, you're never going to be able to just sit back and enjoy the show. Personally, I would like to just view it as the two titles are equal, because that is what WWE wants you to think. However, I will admit that it is quite a bit difficult to see it that way, with the WWE Championship clearly being more prestigious these days. Hell, the last time the World Heavyweight Championship main-evented WrestleMania was at XXIV in 2008 with Edge/Taker. And also, for the last two WrestleMania events, XXVII and XXVIII, the World Heavyweight Championship has been the opening match. But even so, I like that WWE has two world titles and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

nevereveragainu · 01-20-2013, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeapingLannyPoffo

You're trying to make sense of something that is inconsistent and scripted. Good luck to you, sir.

thats like saying that one is trying to be worried for someone who accidently slips on the sidewalk but it healthy enough to walk away relatively unfazed

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeapingLannyPoffo

You're trying to make sense of something that is inconsistent and scripted. Good luck to you, sir.

any good piece of fact or fiction has semblence of sense, what's your point?

manga4life · 01-20-2013, 03:08 PM

I love how people just can't debate and enjoy the conversation and have to resort to making snide remarks as if my argument is "silly" or "stupid". Everything that has to do with pro wrestling is scripted (of course), but that doesn't mean that we can't have a little fun and try to make the sport out to me something legit or whatever we choose to make it, it's really all in the eyes of the beholder at the end of the day.

TempestH · 01-20-2013, 03:13 PM

At least explain why the bigger stars hold the WWE Title while the World Heavyweight Title is held by guys who don't have as much star power.

manga4life · 01-20-2013, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TempestH

At least explain why the bigger stars hold the WWE Title while the World Heavyweight Title is held by guys who don't have as much star power.

Yeah, guys like Orton, CM Punk, Cena, Undertaker, Edge, and Jericho just can't seem to draw fans.....,,

john2201 · 01-20-2013, 08:01 PM

well firstly, you crazy!! And secondly, the only reason it's called the World title is because they can't very well have two titles called the WWE Heavyweight Championship! That's it, that's the only reason!

Sent from my IPhone

Geeee · 01-20-2013, 08:13 PM

Technically, the WWE Championship's history includes the entirety of the WWF and WCW Championships. The World Heavyweight was a new belt Eric Bischoff handed to Triple H.

KeepinItReal · 01-20-2013, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geeee

Technically, the WWE Championship's history includes the entirety of the WWF and WCW Championships. The World Heavyweight was a new belt Eric Bischoff handed to Triple H.

Though WWE has said precisely that on certain occasions, they've also said precisely the opposite on other occasions. In their DVD on the history of the WHC (so, just for consumers who apparently love the WHC enough to buy a DVD about it), they say it begins in 1905, then became the NWA (alliance) title, then became the WCW title, then was "brought to WWE in 2002," which is what WWE.com's championship history pg says for the WHC. (Though when it says this on the championship history pg, its inherently ambiguous, cuz it could mean brought from somewhere else or brought from Eric Bischoff's asshole, who knows).

Also, in a WWE magazine issue from the last yr, in an article on the title's history, they heavily emphasize that it goes back to 1905, I remember Triple H and Daniel Bryan specifically describing it as a belt formerly held by (insert old, old names).

So, WWE is purposely ambiguous about it. Maybe once the WWE version of the WHC has been around for 20, 30+ yrs they'll say it began in 2002, but for now feel the need to refer to ancient times in order to give it significance.

Btw, I don't consider it to be so wrong for WWE to claim he NWA title's history. They can't claim that the WHC is the NWA championship, as the NWA championship continues to be defended to this day, but they can retroactively declare former NWA champions to be former WWE World Heavyweight Champions. WWE decides for itself who to consider "former WWE World Heavyweight Champions." Lol the NWA itself ambiguously claims the history of previous championships, and not just the National Wrestling Association (old NWA) title that was merged with their own. So, the NWA plays the same game.

The AP poll can declare a college football champion, pro football champion, pro wrestling champion, w/e they want w/o any permission from those sports' (or fake sport's) sanctioning bodies, and thus WWE has the same right to say "Lou Thesz was a WWE World Heavyweight Champion, because we at the WWE consider him the World Heavyweight Champion in 1947. Congrats to Lou." I know this is another issue, kind of, but it certainly plays into the VALUE of the WHC. Saying that all these fantastic wrestlers going back to 1905 held the WWE WHC goes a long way in making the case that the WHC is of equal or greater value than the WWE title, in precisely the way the OP claims: its above the WWE, but a part of it currently.

KeepinItReal · 01-20-2013, 08:49 PM

If you find the DVD "WWE: The History of the World Heavyweight Championship" on Amazon, and look at the contents, it goes back all the way to Frank Gotch. So, as far as WWE's fictional world, their title history includes the wrestlers who held the NWA title. NWA can complain all they want (and they do), but they play the same game with championships that came before their's, and, again, both WWE and NWA used to promote wrestling as real when it wasn't, and used to refer to matches that never even occurred to pad wrestlers' records (or justify a belt around their waist), so made up title lineage is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, just like any reference to CM Punk as the WWE Champion; its not true either, but if you suspend disbelief, then CM Punk is worth your money. Its part of the fictional universe. So, if the viewer wants to believe that Lou Thesz was a WWE World Heavyweight Champion because WWE claims its part of the WHC's history, then the viewer can believe it, and thus believe the WHC is pretty g-d damn important.

Geeee · 01-20-2013, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeepinItReal

Though WWE has said precisely that on certain occasions, they've also said precisely the opposite on other occasions. In their DVD on the history of the WHC (so, just for consumers who apparently love the WHC enough to buy a DVD about it), they say it begins in 1905, then became the NWA (alliance) title, then became the WCW title, then was "brought to WWE in 2002," which is what WWE.com's championship history pg says for the WHC. (Though when it says this on the championship history pg, its inherently ambiguous, cuz it could mean brought from somewhere else or brought from Eric Bischoff's asshole, who knows).

Also, in a WWE magazine issue from the last yr, in an article on the title's history, they heavily emphasize that it goes back to 1905, I remember Triple H and Daniel Bryan specifically describing it as a belt formerly held by (insert old, old names).

So, WWE is purposely ambiguous about it. Maybe onece the WWE version of the WHC has been around for 20, 30+ yrs they'll say it began in 2002, but for now feel the need to refer to ancient times in order to give it significance.

Btw, I don't consider it to be so wrong for WWE to claim he NWA title's history. They can't claim that the WHC is the NWA championship, as the NWA championship continues to be defended to this day, but they can retroactively declare former NWA champions to be former WWE World Heavyweight Champions. WWE decides for itself who to consider "former WWE World Heavyweight Champions." Lol the NWA itself ambiguously claims the history of previous championships, and not just the National Wrestling Association (old NWA) title that was merged with their own. So, the NWA plays the same game.

The AP poll can declare a college football champion, pro football champion, pro wrestling champion, w/e they want w/o any permission from those sports' (or fake sport's) sanctioning bodies, and thus WWE has the same right to say "Lou Thesz was a WWE World Heavyweight Champion, because we at the WWE consider him the World Heavyweight Champion in 1947. Congrats to Lou." I know this is another issue, kind of, but it certainly plays into the VALUE of the WHC. Saying that all these fantastic wrestlers going back to 1905 held the WWE WHC goes a long way in making the case that the WHC is of equal or greater value than the WWE title, in precisely the way the OP claims: its above the WWE, but a part of it currently.

I just don't see any other way it could be. The WWE and WCW titles were unified when Chris Jericho beat The Rock and Steve Austin. The World title was a completely new title without any previous lineage.