Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
Yeah, the WWE & WHC are in the same "tier".

Personally though, I look at the WHC as more prestigious than that stupid-looking WWE Championship. Also, the WHC was the same one used in WCW so, yeah.
But damn does the WWE Title suck. So childish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
If i had to chose one that i would want it would be the bog gold belt. The whc just looks more prestigious and when i think of champiomship belt i think of that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
WH belt is better looking than the wwe belt when you think World Heveyweight you think of a big belt. The wwe belt is a typical pg style belt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
the look of the belt has nothing to do with the prestige of the belt. they both are looked at as top tier titles. even though they are held in the same regard...the person who is actually carring the title i think adds to the prestige of the title. but as far as which one may seen the most important, it would have to be the wwe title because that's the title that is on the flagship program.
 

·
Asuka
Joined
·
96,245 Posts
The titles themselves are fully equal. Being World Heavyweight Champion and WWE Champion are the same thing. You hold it, you're at the top of the mountain. In fact, when they talk about guys like Triple H, John Cena and Edge and how many titles they've won, they just use the name of the title on their brand as generalization. 13 time WWE Champion, 13 time World Heavyweight Champion, etc. Even though Triple H has never held either individual belt 13 times.

However, if you hold the top title on Raw, it feels more important than on SmackDown! due to the added attention Raw gets, the number of viewers and the level of higher competition...but this is only an unwritten rule that stays in the back of people's minds. It's not something WWE would ever acknowledge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
The World Heavyweight Title is the best looking title in the history of sports. It has "champion" written all over it. Whoever designed that belt is a genius.

Both are equals, but being on RAW makes it more "important", since it is the flagship show. When the World Title was exclusive to RAW during the first brand split it was the bonafide "lead" title in the company. Now that the WWE Title is on RAW it is now the lead title.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,591 Posts
They both have the same prestige...and by prestige I mean they are both seen as the joint top titles in the company, but they are far from prestigious.

There are 55 guys on the active roster and 12 of those have heald the titles at some point. That is a better than 1/5 ratio of guys having won the title. If you compare that to 20 years ago when there was approx 50 guys on the roster only 3 guys had heald the title. Now that's prestigious with 94% of the guys on the roster to that point having never of heald the WWF title.
 

·
"The Sex Tornado"
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
When you talk about prestige, you have to also count the history of each individual title. The length of each title reign (Bruno's 7 year WWE title reign!!!), the age (NWA/WCW/World dates back to 1948), name value of title holders, and how much each reign meant to the company. By that logic, both are virtually the same. However, IMO I prefer the World Championship.
 

·
Asuka
Joined
·
96,245 Posts
For two reasons.

1. The belts are passed around more than Jenna Jameson's vagina
2. There's two of them
By that criteria, you might as well say the TNA title is worth more, and that's a load of bull.

Having 2 world championships is not a bad thing. It opens the door for a lot of people who would've been passed up otherwise. If it wasn't for the WHC, Chris Jericho's last world title reign would probably still be the Undisputed title reign in 2002, and that would be a shame. Furthermore, they need 2 world champions because they have to have 2 brands. It's a must. Not only do they make more money that way, through specific brand house shows and whatnot, but having 2 brands (and by extension, 2 champions) is necessary because of the hectic WWE schedule. It already takes it's toll, but if they had 1 brand and 1 champion, it would severely increase the number of injuries on the champion and potential challengers and affect business. It also helps create a lot of new stars, which partially ties in to the original point about people getting passed over with 1 belt in play.

And as a small bonus, because that shitty WWE title they made for Cena isn't being dropped for a new design because it sells like hotcakes, by having a second world title, it ensures that not everyone who holds a world title for WWE has to look like a fucking fool.

The belts are always going to mean a lot. This is a world champion of the biggest wrestling company in the world, on worldwide television we're talking about. Passing the belt around won't change the level of exposure you get from that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
By that criteria, you might as well say the TNA title is worth more, and that's a load of bull.
Not talking about TNA title. The way WWE is handling it's championships has made it lose
it's prestige. Is the belt as prestigious as it was 15 years ago?
I think of the WWE's world championships like this, currently. It's like an overinflated economy.
They're making up for their lack of mid-card by giving many world championships out to people or
letting them win well before it's due. This two world title thing and hot potato'ing is just a phase
in WWE and will subside.
 

·
Asuka
Joined
·
96,245 Posts
Is the belt as prestigious as it was 15 years ago?
Yeah, it is, because 15 years ago, there wasn't a single reign on the record for Austin, not a single one for Rock, none for Lesnar, none for Kurt Angle, none for Cena and all the other huge names that have held it since then.
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top