[Paranoid Hysteria]

Well thought and well written.I think its necessary to assign a certain level of prestige to certain belts because,at least kayfabe,those belts are kinda way to pay tribute to certain wrestlers for their hard work and amazing talent.So the more higher tiered belt/championship=more talented/hard working wrestler,again,at least kayfabe.

 

[Thumbinthebum]

Of course it does, the title match is one of the big selling points for any PPV. Obviously the World title usually means more than other belts but there's no reason why that has to be the case all the time, Bret Hart vs Davey Boy for the IC title was worthy of main-eventing SummerSlam '92 because it was at Wembley Stadium (The Road Warriors vs The Steiner Brothers over the tag-team titles was more than worthy of main-eventing a PPV when they were in their prime). If the IC belt had been de-valued in the way it is now that match would've been far less important and the PPV sales would've relied far more on a world title match that wasn't as hotly anticipated.

 

[Ph3n0m]

If you look at it like that, then you probably shouldn't watch wrestling. The belts might not ACTUALLY be decided competitively, but being the champion should still come with honour. This is what most fans gripes are with the belts when they say there's no prestige in the belts.

In the 1990's and before - if you had the World belt in a company - you were THE man. You were drawing the fans and you were earning the top cheque. Back then they used the term transitional champion to denote short title reigns which were designed to give the belt from one big star to another without giving either a big loss/win.

These days, every reign feels like a transitional reign, although The Miz has made a liar of me to some extent just now, but that's not the norm.

 

[Thumbinthebum]

These days, every reign feels like a transitional reign, although The Miz has made a liar of me to some extent just now, but that's not the norm.

This is the only point of yours that I need to take issue with. The term transitional is overused and often wrongly to describe any short reign. While a transitional reign will indeed be short as a rule, they are used to pass the belt indirectly from one big star to another without having them face off. Examples include Nikolai Volkoff who held the title between Sammartino and Morales and Iron Sheik who held the title between Backlund and Hogan. When a wrestler loses the belt and then wins it straight back that's just a bullshit booking decision.

 

[jimboystar24]

If you look at it like that, then you probably shouldn't watch wrestling. The belts might not ACTUALLY be decided competitively, but being the champion should still come with honour. This is what most fans gripes are with the belts when they say there's no prestige in the belts.

In the 1990's and before - if you had the World belt in a company - you were THE man. You were drawing the fans and you were earning the top cheque. Back then they used the term transitional champion to denote short title reigns which were designed to give the belt from one big star to another without giving either a big loss/win.

I agree with all this and I want to add that this is the reason why I hate with a passion, when the World title match is not the last match of the night.

As mentioned above you were the draw. Now we have two World titles, and that is another argument in itself. But when neither world title match ends a show, that shows me that the belt is really not important whatsoever. But that might just be me.