|
|
Post by gamtime247 on Sept 15, 2004 15:57:45 GMT -5
Just wondering if any of you guys out there think that becoming a world champ in wrestling now has lost a little of its luster. I remember even as recent as the Big 3 still being around when becoming a world champ meant so much. I think of guys like Diabse, Muraco, a young Barry Windham, piper, plenty of others that never held the gold because it was so hard to achieve. I see the belt get passed around every 2 months now to guys like Bradshaw or David Arquette and just wonder what ever happened to being a world champ. I know you can't have guys strive for years to achieve that now as the average viewer/fan's attention span has dropped dramatically with ppv's every month. I just wonder if you think it has lost a little of its glare, do you really think there is a chance to get that back?
|
|
|
|
Post by sickman on Sept 15, 2004 22:40:57 GMT -5
I've always felt that the NWA/WCW title always carried more weight than the belt. For a long time I did not watch WWF because of all the Doinks and hokey wrestler names. So to answer your question the championship has lost its luster in the past years. I would actually say that the belt has lost its luster since the turn of the century. Even in the 90's the WWF belt meant something but now the tilte is just there. |
|
|
|
Post by JimSteel on Sept 18, 2004 10:00:59 GMT -5
Yes the World Title has lost its luster.
I always thought the NWA/WCW Title was definately the bigger and more prestigise belt. I miss the good old days when you never knew when a title change was going to happen
What killed the WWE Title if it wasnt already dead was having two world champions
Now people that dont deserve the title like Bradshaw get it
David Arquette winning the WCW Title is what killed WCW
|
|
|
|
Post by ewt on Sept 19, 2004 11:17:13 GMT -5
YES YES YES!! The world title changes hand so often and goes through and has gone through so many unworthy hands that it is now worthless. Just look at Bradshaw, nice talent BUT not the big dog. If any question exists just look at David Arquette. Sadly it is not just the World but most if not all the secondary titles have been devalued. Thanx VinnyMac.
Last the NWA/WCW was in my mind more important because for years Hogan never defended against fellow faces.
|
|
|
|
Post by Talison on Sept 19, 2004 13:19:47 GMT -5
PWI actually stopped recognizing the WWF Belt as a World Title for a period in the 80s cause Backlund didn't defend against other faces.
|
|
|
|
Post by tuxedo on Sept 26, 2004 17:05:32 GMT -5
The WWE has had more world title changes in the past three years than it had in the first thirty years that it exsisted. I think that that fact speaks volumes about the prestige of the belt. There is none.
It's like a cheap woman. Everybody gets a turn.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Artist on Nov 5, 2004 18:20:44 GMT -5
I cant agrre with you more. WWE should unite the brand sand have one champion. And the champions should be champs longer. Like the good old days. Im not asking for like 3 years but maybe around a year and something would come back
|
|
|
|
Post by Minotaur on Nov 6, 2004 8:29:59 GMT -5
the "casual fan", who now seems to dominate the wrestling arenas, are who I tend to blame for the downward spiral of Pro-Wrestling (and thus, the lack of luster of being the Champion).
For WCW, the deathblow was Arquette winning the title. For WWE, having 2 World Titles.
Fans now-a-days do not have the attention span to watch a 20 minute match, much less have a 2 year champion. To me, the longer a wrestler is the champion, the more prestige is added to that title. Look at Hogan during the 80's.....when he lost the title....it was a BIG deal. Even though flair lost the NWA Title quite a bit (how else could you be a 19-time world champ), he still dominated the title. And, to see Flair without the title....well, it just didn't feel right. And for that reason, when Flair lost the title, it was a BIG deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Nov 6, 2004 11:19:16 GMT -5
i think a big problem too is that we are treated to bad feuds that lead to bad matches
so when we see triple h with the title all the time we just get sick of it
WWEs feuds rarely last longer than a month or 2 and so honestly watching triple h beat shawn michaels one month, benoit the next, shelton benjamin the next, and randy orton the next just doesnt do it for me anymore i want to see that title go to someone else
basically i think the feuds are repeatedly mishandled and that hurts the credibility of the titles now a days
|
|
|
|
Post by Kreaton on Dec 17, 2004 10:23:58 GMT -5
Have any of you guys been watching the product lately?
HHH has dominated the RAW belt forever, and people get pissed when he won't give it up, but then people get pissed when he does lose, b/c it "devalues" the title. You can't have your cake and eat it too folks.
The same could be said for JBL on SmackDown.
The whole Undisputed Title angle was handled completely wrong in my opinion, but, since we're staying with the split rosters, then we need one champion for each roster.
I don't think the titles have been devalued, they are being defended a lot more often than they were in the old days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike M on Dec 17, 2004 10:43:37 GMT -5
Personally, I think that the WWE should have 3 "big" belts:
1. The RAW Heavyweight Champion
2. The Smackdown Heavyweight Champion
3. The WWE World Heavyweight Champion
The WWE World Heavyweight Championship should be defended less often (maybe only once a month on a show and on joint PPV's). Give the TV shows a couple of belts with SOME prestige to toss around (and maybe get rid of the smaller belts) but have the true WWE World Heavyweight Champion be more prestigious and harder to attain.
|
|
|
|
Post by ringking on Feb 26, 2005 5:29:46 GMT -5
The whole HHH thing is so true. I believe if the belt is lost correctly it can have value. It's just it needs to last a while on the wrestler. Trip is a exception to me. I feel he is a good wrestler. But there is so many more deserving that belt. You may disagree with me but I could easily see Edge or Batista taking that belt. And JBL needs to lose that belt. Luckly from what I hear my prayers will be answered at Wrestlemania when Batista and Cena are supposed to win their respected belts. But I believe if the champion is shown as being the true top dog then the belt keeps the same value. I mean look what happened to the WCW title. I mean when David got the belt it ruined it. Yet by then I looked at WCW as a fun fed. TNA is my fun fed now and I dont look at any fed as a serious thing. I mean WWE lost me when they took the belt from Trip he took it back fast. I lost all faith in WWE by then. However I love wrestling so I have to watch something. TNA doesnt do the job and WWE is only other thing in town for me. So I will keep watching and hope for the best. But maybe title changes kill a belt. But I believe if a loss is handled with care then it will be a great defense. Well atleast we don't see the champion lose his belt on the house show and they atleast wait for a PPV. I mean Vince is smart enough to know to only drop the belt once in a while on TV if not at all. And no matter what anybody says Vince is a smart man and knows how to run the product (he does screw up alot though. We all human).
|
|
\m/