AJS269 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 As thread title suggests, does anyone here think any belts (apart from maybe the World Titles) are actually important any more in the big 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted November 16, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 16, 2011 What do YOU think??? Â Personally I don't think it's a straight up "yes or no" answer to if a title matters or not. It depends on who is carrying it. Their performances ultimately create the situation where beating them and taking the title becomes a big deal, i.e. the title itself takes on value. Around the right waist a title is important, and around the wrong waist it isn't. In fact, even around the right waist but with the wrong booking, it can become unimportant. Â Contrary to what you say about world titles, it counts for them too. The cimcumstances surrounding the last two WWE title changes - with more attention on the chaos surrounding The Awesome Truth - the booked main event of Survivor Series having fuck all to do with the belt, and the lacklustre nature by which champion, challenger and their match have been promoted over the last few weeks make me currently not view the WWE title as important. In fact, the United States title is much more important right now around the waist of Dolph fucking Ziggler, and were he to drop the title to Ryder in the near future in a smartly booked manner, it could make a star out of Zack. NO ONE is getting any value from the "big belt" right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve rayson Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ron Simmons Posted November 16, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 16, 2011 The constant change of champ holding the WWE title really hurts how much I care about it on a personal level. I actually had to check the WWE website before replying to this thread as I'd forgotten who was holding it. If someone held it for longer it'd feel more like an ellusive prize and it'd therefore mean more when someone else won it. The World Heavyweight belt is less meaningful in the grand scheme of things, but at the moment I care more about it. That's completely down to Mark Henry - we've got a heel champ who's the focus of his show and looks as though he may hold the belt for a decent period of time. I really hope Henry doesn't drop the belt till at least Wrestlemania. As hot as Sheamus is right now, Henry is on fire and it'd benefit Smackdown to keep the belt on him and let him kick ass the way he has been. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest Daniel Bryan will cash in at Survivor Series and lose, with an ongoing plot about him trying to regain his Wrestlemania title shot, resulting in either a heel turn, or a massive underdog story. Â As far as TNA goes, I was excited by the idea of a James Storm title run, and while the Bobby Roode win was rushed, I'm still enjoying the fresh face on top. Long may it last. Â That said, it means jack squat to me when someone wins that belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosler28 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 As thread title suggests, does anyone here think any belts (apart from maybe the World Titles) are actually important any more in the big 2? Â Â not since the 90s no. theyre just a prop now to pro long a storyline. its stupid how people can be multi time champions like cena edge and hhh for example whilst in the old days big deal was made on mumber of times u held the belt like hogan winning a 5th time and so on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 In fact, the United States title is much more important right now around the waist of Dolph fucking Ziggler, and were he to drop the title to Ryder in the near future in a smartly booked manner, it could make a star out of Zack. NO ONE is getting any value from the "big belt" right now. It's not really more important, though, is it? If Zack Ryder was given the option of winning the US title or the WWE title, chances are he'd go for the WWE title. Regardless of crap feuds or how much we enjoy a particular champion, the WWE Championship is still by far the most precious title in wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celticlion89 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Watching Bret v Shawn recently made me think about this, hearing both men talk about how important the Championship (especially the right man being Champion) was to the company. Do I think they talk in the same way about the Big Belt(s) today? Probably not, I feel its little more than a prop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonworden Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I was thinking about this the other day and started trying to think about when the last time some of the belts had a peak and meant something. I remember when the WWE Title was held briefly by the Undertaker in 02 and he was defending it against the big guys on PPV and on Raw and SD giving midcarders shots in exciting matches including the Jeff Hardy ladder match. It was about 09 that I feel the WWE Title became really worthless though when it started being hot shotted PPV to PPV. The world title happend a year or two before and was never in my eyes as worthwhile as its HHH-Batista days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Miz Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Twitter is more important to the WWE than Titles. Unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 All the titles are pretty worthless these days. People like Scott Keith whinged about glass ceilings back in the day, but the fact that you pretty much had to be part of an elite group of 4-5 to get near a world title back in the day was what kept it feeling like something exclusive, and something to get excited about when your favourite finally won one. I think the decline started when they multiplied all the titles with the invasion and the brand split, but the most damage was done for me when they started arbitrarily throwing them on midcarders on the offchance they'd catch on. Sometimes it works, like with JBL, but mostly it just gets Swagger-ed. Â I've mentioned this before, but the one chance I think they had of rebuilding the title to something worth a shit was when Cena teased the angle of keeping the belt for a full year so he could defend it against The Rock at Wrestlemania. Obviously that went to shit in a few months, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJS269 Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 I think its the constant title changes that cause the damage, a title change used to mean something whilst now its almost done on the fly, as a for example in TNA, the World Title changed hands 8 times this year and the Knockouts title has changed hands 5 times in 4 months, the TV title has been defened three times in 4/5 months, and the new champion hasn't won a singles match before hand in months. Â As for WWE, The IC title only means something every couple of years when the writers decide they can be bothered. The US title hasn't meant Jack in years, the Tag titles are lucky if the tag team holding them haven't just been thrown together, and the Diva's title might actually have less prestige than the Knockouts title. Infact the only person I think of who has benefited from being a champion is Mark Henry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vamp Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I don't even know how much they could make a World title mean much when everyone knows that the big match comes at WrestleMania and isn't about the title at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Somewhat, but they could matter a lot more. It would help to perhaps unify the World belts (especially if they're going to continue to cross shows) and the US and IC. Other than that, it appears Mark Henry will get a lengthy reign, which will help. Â I think the US title will matter if Zack Ryder should manage to win it. Â And it would be newsworthy if Daniel Bryan managed to win the World title. Â So there are instances where the belts have importance, but as I said, the titles could mean far more if there were fewer of them and less title changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey_Jim Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Twitter is more important to the WWE than Titles. Unfortunately. making money is more important to the WWE than titles, and it always has been, so exploiting a popular and completely free medium which (to an extent) lets fans interact with their heroes is something that WWE should be finding important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Arch Stanton Posted November 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 17, 2011 Twitter is more important to the WWE than Titles. Unfortunately. making money is more important to the WWE than titles, and it always has been, so exploiting a popular and completely free medium which (to an extent) lets fans interact with their heroes is something that WWE should be finding important. Hmmm. Not sure where you're going with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.