Will the WWE title ever mean anything again like when Austin had it?
Will the WWE title ever mean anything again like when Austin had it? The WWE title ment something like when all these guys like Cena, Orton and more have the title it doesn't mean much of anything like in 1999. It just seems like the title means nothing now these days.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
I dont think its a question of wether or not the WWE title will mean something again, I think it should be "Will being a Champion (wether WWE or WHC) be good enough to hold the top 2 matches at Wrestlemania again?" And at this point its not looking good.
Joined
·
7,244 Posts
it meant something in 07 when cena had it.
Joined
·
123,116 Posts
It will never again have the same degree of value as it did back when the greatest of all time held it, no. Mostly because wrestling is never going to be that popular again and that ties in to how prestigious the championship is.
I value the belts as much as ever, though, but most people don't and I get why. I think it will regain the credibility they think it's lost as soon as the people who they are trying to build up as stars are fully built up. The big reason why they've "lost value" is because to make people stars, they're getting the belts thrown onto them instead of becoming stars and then winning the belt. Because that's how WWE's played it, once these guys are fully built up, however long it takes, then the main event scene can get back to its usual level.
I value the belts as much as ever, though, but most people don't and I get why. I think it will regain the credibility they think it's lost as soon as the people who they are trying to build up as stars are fully built up. The big reason why they've "lost value" is because to make people stars, they're getting the belts thrown onto them instead of becoming stars and then winning the belt. Because that's how WWE's played it, once these guys are fully built up, however long it takes, then the main event scene can get back to its usual level.
And how do you figure that?
Joined
·
47,276 Posts
WWF title wasn't even the main event of the April 1997 PPV just throwin' out a reality check for my nostalgic compatriots.
Joined
·
4,573 Posts
Same for many other PPVs, Armageddon 99 springs to mind, Big Show vs Boss Man for the Title wasn't the main event, McMahon vs Trips in a No Holds Barred match was.
You could argue that made it more prestigious if anything. Sounds like a flawed logic but the title wasn't being bandied around to get a feud over.
Joined
·
3,391 Posts
Cena's 06-7 run had more prestige in it than any run in the attutide era because he held it for such a long time that fans cared (whether like to admit it or not) what happened to the title. In tha attitude era the belt swtiched hands that much that Austin losing the title in '98 to Kane wasn't as important as when Orton got the belt off Cena in 07.
Joined
·
7,589 Posts
So what you are asking would mean that Brock Lesnar, Kurt Angle, John Cena and Triple H all holding the WWE title since Stone Cold Steve Austin last held it in 2001 didn't bring anything to the title and it meant nothing. I will agree that the WWE title doesn't mean as much as it once did because of the brand split and there being two main titles but the WWE title is still the biggest and most prestigious title in the industry.
When John Cena held the WWE title from Unforgiven in 2006 through to a week before No Mercy in 2007 the title was made out to be the most important thing in the world and was the main focus of the whole company in that reign for John Cena. Edge, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton and Umaga all attempted to take the title from him and all of those feuds were centred around the WWE title rather than a storyline or a feud as such and John Cena being WWE champion and the biggest star in the industry made the title very important in itself.
That was probably the last time that the WWE title was seen as the most important thing in the company as since then WWE have booked storylines between people with the WWE title just also being involved rather than the main focus but if John Cena wins the WWE title at WrestleMania then it will bring value to the title again because of his name value. I am not bashing The Miz when i say that because whilst he hasn't had the greatest reign of all time he has done the best he could but right now he doesn't make the WWE title look important as he is getting lost in Cena/Rock which as WWE champion is something that shouldn't happen.
When John Cena held the WWE title from Unforgiven in 2006 through to a week before No Mercy in 2007 the title was made out to be the most important thing in the world and was the main focus of the whole company in that reign for John Cena. Edge, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton and Umaga all attempted to take the title from him and all of those feuds were centred around the WWE title rather than a storyline or a feud as such and John Cena being WWE champion and the biggest star in the industry made the title very important in itself.
That was probably the last time that the WWE title was seen as the most important thing in the company as since then WWE have booked storylines between people with the WWE title just also being involved rather than the main focus but if John Cena wins the WWE title at WrestleMania then it will bring value to the title again because of his name value. I am not bashing The Miz when i say that because whilst he hasn't had the greatest reign of all time he has done the best he could but right now he doesn't make the WWE title look important as he is getting lost in Cena/Rock which as WWE champion is something that shouldn't happen.
Joined
·
5,112 Posts
The belt in the current structure of WWE needs a long title reign, it's really as simple as that. Remember how much the belt meant when Cena had it for what felt like an eternity? Everyone was so desperate for him to lose it and it was a big, big deal when Orton finally won it. WWE need to pick someone after Mania who can carry the belt all the way to the next Mania. Personally I'd pick either one of Punk or Orton. They're the ones who need it the most right now and the ones who could do a good job of bringing credibility back to the title. For how well Miz is doing right now, he is not bringing credibility to the title.
Joined
·
285 Posts
To me the title lost all credibility when they introduced the "spinner belt". Can you honestly take a guy seriously when hes wearing that crap.
Joined
·
4,666 Posts
Not when the title is being put up on the line against a 52 year old announcer that is over in ONE state out of fifty states. FIFTY!
Joined
·
41,146 Posts
Stone Colds gimmick was based on not giving a fuck about anything but the title, in the 2 man power trip he was basically using the McMahons to keep the title. The title still has great meaning but through out the end of 2009 entering 2010 the era of bad booking the title has been going through some story lines that have made it really irrelevant. So until the booking system has gone back to proper order the title might not be that important.
Joined
·
103 Posts
The title won't be relevant to me until
1. They get rid of the spinner belt and change it to something more respectable looking (none better than the blue eagle belt)
2. The brand extension is no more and both heavyweight titles get merged. There is no way I will ever take any champion seriously as long as there is an equal in the same company.
3. The biggest feuds in the WWE revolve around the championship the way it should be.
4. Someone has a long title reign that keeps the fans wondering when/hoping someone else beats him for it.
1. They get rid of the spinner belt and change it to something more respectable looking (none better than the blue eagle belt)
2. The brand extension is no more and both heavyweight titles get merged. There is no way I will ever take any champion seriously as long as there is an equal in the same company.
3. The biggest feuds in the WWE revolve around the championship the way it should be.
4. Someone has a long title reign that keeps the fans wondering when/hoping someone else beats him for it.
Now I don't know that much of wrestling like the rest, since I began to watch/follow when the Nexus first appeared, so forgive me for that.
The WWE titles should be a big deal but how the cards are played is just wrong. The focus is just to much on heels getting wins and titles, that the entertainmentlevel is almost gone. Maybe the best thing to watch in WWE is the feud between New Nexus and Orton? But about the titles here's my opinion.
* WWE: The Miz: just not champion worthy to have a puppet like Alex Riley (now gone) in the corner who helps you in trouble. He doesn't need to get involved in matches he isn't assigned to. A true champion must be on himself and can win matches on his own strength. It's possible to have once in a while some interference, but it's strange that the champion does it all the time instead of the challengers. He is a good wrestler who can make it to the top all by himself. It would be nice for the Miz now that Riley is gone to get a clean sweep over the Raw Roster and finally win at WM. Only then he might get the credability he deserves as a wrestler.
* WWE Heavyweight: The feud between Edge and Vicky+Ziggler was painfull in the eyes because there wasn't any excitement. From the beginning it was clear where it was going to lead. Now that ADR is challenging, I think he must also get some clean sweeps and not only smashing in an arm and then his submission-manoeuvre, because it seems thats the only skill he got. Maybe he must lose the match and start a Mexican Feud?
* Intercontinental: The feud between Ziggler, Swagger and Kofi was good and intense and I liked it to watch. Now it's with Kofi and ............ nothing more. Maybe that Barret and/or Drew Macintyre (or something like that) should feud with Kofi and battle for this belt?
* Other Titles haven't followed it really so there's nothing much to say about it.
The WWE titles should be a big deal but how the cards are played is just wrong. The focus is just to much on heels getting wins and titles, that the entertainmentlevel is almost gone. Maybe the best thing to watch in WWE is the feud between New Nexus and Orton? But about the titles here's my opinion.
* WWE: The Miz: just not champion worthy to have a puppet like Alex Riley (now gone) in the corner who helps you in trouble. He doesn't need to get involved in matches he isn't assigned to. A true champion must be on himself and can win matches on his own strength. It's possible to have once in a while some interference, but it's strange that the champion does it all the time instead of the challengers. He is a good wrestler who can make it to the top all by himself. It would be nice for the Miz now that Riley is gone to get a clean sweep over the Raw Roster and finally win at WM. Only then he might get the credability he deserves as a wrestler.
* WWE Heavyweight: The feud between Edge and Vicky+Ziggler was painfull in the eyes because there wasn't any excitement. From the beginning it was clear where it was going to lead. Now that ADR is challenging, I think he must also get some clean sweeps and not only smashing in an arm and then his submission-manoeuvre, because it seems thats the only skill he got. Maybe he must lose the match and start a Mexican Feud?
* Intercontinental: The feud between Ziggler, Swagger and Kofi was good and intense and I liked it to watch. Now it's with Kofi and ............ nothing more. Maybe that Barret and/or Drew Macintyre (or something like that) should feud with Kofi and battle for this belt?
* Other Titles haven't followed it really so there's nothing much to say about it.
Joined
·
7,142 Posts
you cant compare the greatest superstar in the wwe to anyone of this generation every body in the 90's watched wrestling now mostly only little kids watch it, the attitude made it cool to watch wrestling, now its all about selling it to little kids, so most superstars cant deliver good promos anymore, so answer is no. even CM punk if he won the title i doubt alot of people wont care maybe on the IWC but its just not the same as it was back in the day
Joined
·
174 Posts
The only reason why it doesn't mean as much in recent years is because they use it as a tool to put wrestler's OVER with crowd when a wrestler should win it if they are OVER with the crowd.
Swagger's title reign was a perfect example, he wasn't big with the crowd so WWE put the title on him to give him recognition
Swagger's title reign was a perfect example, he wasn't big with the crowd so WWE put the title on him to give him recognition
No it won't and the prestige of the title had already started to diminish around 1997. The monthly PPV format and pressure to give must see weekly TV programming is what killed the titles (especially the world title) as the WWE was always dropping the title to give some other a guy a one month feud with someone else and keep things fresh. When there were 4 PPVs a year we could see 2-4 different feuds for a champion that last a year without getting stale. However these days the feuds will get really stale watching the same guys compete (and sometimes win) for 4 straight PPV's plus have confrontations every week on TV. The only way to keep it fresh is to give a few different guys a run with the belt every year which leads to one month title reigns.
If the WWE went back to a 4 PPV format and kept the guys apart for weeks at a time then title reigns could last a whole hell of a lot longer and begin to regain some value I guess. The titles even had more value when there were single brand PPVs so we would get less title defenses a year making them more important and adding more to the feuds.
Title changes may spark interest buy sometimes too much of a good thing ends up hurting the value of it. We have been desensitized to title changes etc. because there have been so many over the years. For myself the last truly satisfying title change was when Anonymous won the title at WrestleMania 20. Never since then has a title win felt so special because A. people are fucking handed titles in a couple years now and B. Triple H had basically been dominant for 2 years on Raw and Benoit making him tap actually meant something. When you beat some guy that was world champion for 2 weeks like Edge it doesn't exactly mean anything.
If the WWE went back to a 4 PPV format and kept the guys apart for weeks at a time then title reigns could last a whole hell of a lot longer and begin to regain some value I guess. The titles even had more value when there were single brand PPVs so we would get less title defenses a year making them more important and adding more to the feuds.
Title changes may spark interest buy sometimes too much of a good thing ends up hurting the value of it. We have been desensitized to title changes etc. because there have been so many over the years. For myself the last truly satisfying title change was when Anonymous won the title at WrestleMania 20. Never since then has a title win felt so special because A. people are fucking handed titles in a couple years now and B. Triple H had basically been dominant for 2 years on Raw and Benoit making him tap actually meant something. When you beat some guy that was world champion for 2 weeks like Edge it doesn't exactly mean anything.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
