Originally Posted by Fatal Foresight
TNA has built up a rather credible lineage for their World Heavyweight title. Starting from the debut of the official TNA title, the following names have held the belt:
Samoa Joe (though he still isn't treated like it)
Rob Van Dam
As much as we often had to suffer through some of these title reigns, in retrospect new fans will only know that some of the best of the business held the TNA World title. A level of credibility has certainly been given to the top prize of their company. Now when a guy like Bobby Roode holds the title for so long it seems a lot more important than had guys like Sting and Mick Foley never held it.
Even the X-Division title has a full back catalog of significant names when it comes to people known for that style. The belt went through a looooong dark period for about four years which certainly hurt it but Austin Aries is helping bring it back to prominence. Because they established the title so well early in its existence Aries will more likely be remembered as an equal to the "pioneers" of the division rather than the people who held the belt recently. Irregardless of booking decisions, when a belt has a long lineage of top talents it only takes one strong champion to make it meaningful again.
And it may seem odd to say given how bad the division has been at times but the Knockouts title has a credible lineage as well. In TNA Gail Kim is a legend and Awesome Kong is going the be a legend in the entirety of the "sport" when it comes down to it. Mickie James and Tara also add a certain level of credibility to the title. Like them or hate them, the Knockouts division isn't a complete joke (even if it is often treated that way).
Given this information, that TNA hasn't done too bad a job of establishing a lineage for their more meaningful titles, is it possible to forget the dark ages of TNA? Or is the stench from so many bad decisions still tainting the people who are trying to pave a new path today? Or are you of the opinion that TNA has always been great and that the very premise of this topic is wrong? I want you know YOUR opinion!
IM afriad you are wrong my friend
the match to crown the first champ had CHRIS HARRIS IN IT, HE SHOULD HAVE WON IT, TO SHOW THAT TNA WERE READY TO MOVE INTO THE FUTURE.
this was before he went to WWE and somehow lost everything that made him stand out
half of the men on that list were decades past their prime even then, seemingly limitless lackluster title reigns and average to bad matches
the tna world title doesnt mean jack, no-one belives that it is the prize to get, no-one belives that whoever holds it is the best in the world ALL BECAUSE OF HALF THE MEN ON THAT LIST
TNA had their chance but spent the past 5 years giving it to guys who should have been fed to the likes of Joe Matt Morgan Daniels Hernandez Harris Roode Storm Tomko Anderson Desmond and KAZ
the veterans winning that belt will never be as memeorable or half as good as their WCW WWE title wins or reigns
they were just a desparate attempt to get Impact ratings, symbols of tna's paranoia, lack of guts faith in their own boys pushed aside to go to WWE in spite of guys who were clearly there for the paycheck and nothing more
WHICH when tna goes under, will make a nice segment to the documentary of the botched revival of mainstream wrestling