[PG-13]

Lots of people online claim that the titles really meant something in the AE and things were more serious.However i say that titles actually were starting to be the second fiddle in a feud after the personal issue aka the storyline.In an interview in 2002 Undertaker said that belts in the recent years(before 02)were starting to loose value and prestige.I actually completely agree with him.From 1997 to 2001 the title in the WWE was changing hands like a hot potato.I don't really know how some people can say and claim that the title in that period was the most important it ever was.
What are your thoughts?

 

[Hotdiggity11]

Attitude Era began the process of devaluing the belts. Hell, Vince Russo [Who was the primary writer for the first few years] even called them nothing more than props.

 

[reDREDD]

Looking at some of the guys who held the IC title, no, they werent were they.

The attitude era signalled the death of the concept for the classic babyface drawing champ.

 

[Quasi Juice]

Looking at some of the guys who held the IC title, no, they werent were they.

The attitude era signalled the death of the concept for the classic babyface drawing champ.

And it started the concept of the brand sells itself, it's not dependent on one or two big draws, which IMO is better.

Anyway yeah, the Attitude Era was maybe even worse when it comes to belts than nowadays.

 

[MrBelfield]

Went through all my videos of 1999 PPVs recently. The midcard belts change hands between PPVs all the time. Still a great time in wrestling though!

 

[ww4ever]

the brand split is what made the belts worthless.... 2 world "champions" is like the olympics giving out 2 gold medals

the cool thing about the AE was that it seemed the belts were up for grabs every monday.... where as now they only get defended every 2 months while everything in between is a non title situation, that way we can see the champion get his ass beat every week only to end up pulling it off at the PPV

 

[BlueMagic]

yeah the 2 champions thing just takes away from both champions. One company, one champion. Having 2 of everything just makes it less important.

 

[sharkboy22]

IC title.
European.
Hardcore (comedy at its finest)
Lightweight.
Women's

Yep that's about it.

Heck the way they played hot potato with the WWE title back in 99, I wonder if that was even important as well.

 

[JEFF.JARRETT]

Attitude Era put an end to the long reigns but it still had a level of prestige.
The reason being the pursuit of the belt lasted months even years. It was a difficult task with many defeats on the way.

WWE killed the prestige by giving it away as a way for wrestlers to "get over", which is ridiculous and doesn't work.

 

[Panzer]

the brand split is what made the belts worthless.... 2 world "champions" is like the olympics giving out 2 gold medals

the cool thing about the AE was that it seemed the belts were up for grabs every monday.... where as now they only get defended every 2 months while everything in between is a non title situation, that way we can see the champion get his ass beat every week only to end up pulling it off at the PPV

This. I prefer one title changing hands in a crazy storyline fashion over 2 WORLD TITLES any day of the week. Not to say that the former is desirable in the least bit but the AE was about larger than life characters and pushing the limits on censorship. It wasn't as gold as people claim it to be but the brand split really made people appreciate the AE a lot more. Not to mention that ANYTHING looked good compared to what WCW was putting out at the time.

 

[Hiplop]

Yeah, the golden era was when titles meant the most. I don't think anyone can justify that the Attitude had the most prestige for the titles

 

[yoseftigger]

Attitude Era put an end to the long reigns but it still had a level of prestige.
The reason being the pursuit of the belt lasted months even years. It was a difficult task with many defeats on the way.

WWE killed the prestige by giving it away as a way for wrestlers to "get over", which is ridiculous and doesn't work.

Gave the title to Triple H to get him over...

 

[just1988]

Attitude Era began the process of devaluing the belts.

My sentiments exactly, I could probably name all the champions between '84 and '96 but then the Attitude era came along and I quickly lost track because they were passed around like a party joint, leaving it looking nothing like it did when the flame was first lit.

 

[Ovidswaggle]

Probably gonna get flamed for it but I like the way it is now. If there were only 1 belt we'd see even fewer exciting champions than now. I do think the US title is pointless since they never have Danielson defend it, but it could be just as relevant as the IC title and keep my attention

 

[NoLeafClover]

Attitude Era began the process of devaluing the belts. Hell, Vince Russo [Who was the primary writer for the first few years] even called them nothing more than props.

There's a lot of truth in what you said there. The Attitude Era really did set into the motion the process of devalued belts. I think one of the main reasons for this was the fact that the story lines were so strong, that the belts became an addition to a feud, not the focal point.

There were definitely exceptions to this though, as stars like The Rock and Triple H had great reigns as the Intercontinental Champion. They had some great matches over the belt, and while the feud between the two was built off the bigger picture of the DX/Nation feud, the belt became the prize for the respective leaders to battle over. There also were so many strong tag teams back then, that the tag belts, and the whole division for that matter, actually meant something.

 

[El Dandy]

belts always meant more in WCW. It was a big fucking deal when the TV title or Cruiserweight title changed hands.

Of course... once Russo came on board in WCW title belts fell by the wayside like they did in the WWF when he was there.

 

[BreakTheWallsDown2]

I for one prefer the titles not meaning much. I could care less about how "prestigious" the title is because if every feud was centered around the title I have to watch the same storyline play itself out over and over and over again. I don't know why some of you people care about the title so much, it pretty much is a prop. Do you really want to hear the same boring promos over and over again "This sunday im going to beat you for the WHC" over and over? I think the title had perfect meaning in Orton vs Triple H because while it wasn't the center it still had a role because it was all Hunter had, but at the same time Hunter wanted revenge for his family. Feuds like Ziggler vs Edge and Miz vs Orton were/are ALL about the title and they bore me to death.

 

[PushShelton]

You had guys like Godfather, Val Venis, Goldust, and Chyna win the intercontinental title. This was your 2nd biggest title that guys like Bret Hart, Mr.Perfect, Shawn Michaels used to wear.

 

[sideon]

How did i know this would turn into a thread bashing the AA yet again. The belts were defended on raw weekly which made it more exciting and that's what the wwe lacks now. I'm sorry but having a champ defend the title only on ppv is tiresome at a certain point, but imo the most underrated period in wwe history is smackdown late 02-03 in terms of champions and quality.

 

[acracker]

They were at least better than they are now, its not becuae of howe much they passed but becaue the wwe title and the tag titles had build up and purpose and werent being given to the sasme giuys wining them 5 F****NG YEARS AGO!! BUT BEST OF ALL THEIR WAS ONE OF EACH SO YOU KNOW WHERE TO LOOK FOR WHO WAS ON TOP!!

The Hardcore title being passed around so much was poart ofi the appeal, it was a lowercard belt for those not great technically for the Euro title, which wasnt taken seriously anyway until Regal won it