About Titles Is there a need for them today?

Papa Shango

Alright, simple question. Does a wrestler give a title credibility? or does a title give a wrestler credibility?

Not such a simple question in this day and age.

Back in the 80s all the belts were very prestigious. They werent over exposed.

The tag belts, IC and world Title only really had 2 prestigious defences a year. One at Wrestlemania and One at Summerslam. Survivor Series and Royal Rumble were reserved for more specialised confrontaion such as 4 on 4 and of course the Rumble match itself.

Of course you had the token defenses on Saturday Nights Main Event.. but they were usually against lower profile guys. e.g Hulk Hogan vs Haku, or Ultimate Warrior vs Koko B Ware or whatever.

The high profile matches on SNME were mostly a vehicle for storylines and not much in the way of title switching took place.. unless again it was to progress or start an angle (Hogan v Andre for example).

Then eventually we came to 12 PPVs a year with titles being defended on most, as well as some defences on Raw or Smackdown. its fair to say that a title can be defended over 40 times a year in some instances.. compare that to the relatively low number of yesteryear and your going to have a hell of alot of title changes on your hands. Titles have been known to change hands once a month these days. where as before it was 3 months minimum with one or two rare exceptions. Now all this has seriously damaged the credibility of all belts.

Another thing that has damaged the credibility of the titles is the storylines surrounding them. belts now are somewhat of an afterthought of a feud.. such as Edge and Christian feuding after the break up but one of them happened to be the title holder.. or maybe Shawns feud with HHH because HHH turned on him.. it had nothing to do with the title.. but one of them happened to hold the belt.

In earlier years people fought almost exclusively for the title and a storyline developed around it.. no one ever jsut wants to be the champ anymore.. they just want to fight the title holder because he hates him.. not because he holds the belt.

So back to the original question.. Are titles credible enough to elevate a wrestler? Will a long title reign elevate a title? or is it a case of both.. A credible, and over wrestler should defend the title in some great matches and thus make the title more prestigious?

Is a title even important in this day and age where kayfabe doesnt exist? Is there even a point in half the wrestlers being in the WWF because nobody seems to WANT to be a champ anymore...

Miakal

Titles are clearly not worth what they used to be. I think Triple H's Title is worth quite a lot seeing as how he's had it for such a long time.

I think the title is still the "big" thing to have in WWE. You can be over with the crowd and get good reactions but until you have the WWE World Title you're really not on the same level, and it's safe to say that you can easily be a passing trend.

I think you said a lot of it already. Before there were less events and less title changes, and now there are more events and more title changes...isn't that the natural flow of how it should be? These guys are wrestling a lot more then they used to so naturally they have to lose it, people want to see that, faster then they used to.

I guess for me personally, I wish they'd keep the World Title on wrestlers a lot longer and every other title should be shifted and used in a more important fashion. For example, we should be seeing a lot of IC Title matches on RAW for the Main Event. The IC Title shouldn't be so far down the ladder as it appears to be. The IC Champion should be made to look like a decent contender to the world champion. If Booker T has it, it should be as a means of telling the fans that Booker T could easily take out Triple H.

The title has become a joke mostly because anyone who has some political power can gain it and keep it for far too long. Triple H, and soon to be Goldberg are people who shouldn't be holding the title. Give it to the most deserving, the hardest working, and the most over wrestlers in the company.

I agree that titles are no longer viewed as a "feud" anymore and thats wrong. WWE can only use storylines and personal hatred for wrestlers as a means to entertain us for so long. Lets go back to the spirit of competition. A lot of Main Events with the world title aren't really about the world title, but they are about "will this guy do this" to his opponent. That's fine, but these kind of feuds should be used for lower card matches where the guys really need something to work off of.

If guys are fighting strictly for the title you've got a lot more space to be working in. You can have guys do re-matches over and over again, because it's not about the storyline, it's about the wrestling and the winners.

Mity1

I agree with almost all that was said. The title(s) should be held a little longer, like HHH has recently, not only to give it some credibility but also think of the fans reaction when he does lose it! Everyone (except me) is itching for him to drop it.

I agree there are too many title defenses and some things like you said should be implemented. Sometimes put the IC championship as the main event and have the world's champ wrestle before in a non-title match. Why is it almost everytime the big champ wrestles it has to be for the belt?

What happened to the times when one person held the main belt for quite a while and the spot shifted to the IC title? I remember top superstars wrestling for the lower belt because it was more of a fighting championship and the world title was for a select few to battle for.

Not really alot that can be said since you two covered most of it. Why is it always a hatred/storyline thing? What happened to the time when it was about being the better wrestler/preformer? How come you don't see a "passing the torch" kind of match anymore? Andre vs. Hogan...

One thing I am glad they have done for HHH's title reign is that 'most' of the time he has kept the title with minimal interference. I don't have the memory anymore like most of you do for matches, but at least he hasn't always kept the belt because of cheating or help, at the PPVs at least.

Ten out of ten people die, so don't take life too seriously.

Drunksader

First off, welcome to the forum, Mity1!

Secondly - I think there's very little I can add to this conversation save for the suggestion that the titles only be up for grabs on the Big Four events throughout the year, with the rest of the time determining who is the # 1 contender.

I've preached constantly in the past about how the # 1 contendership should be considered a pseudo-title, and this would be further buttressed if the titles were defended only periodically. You can throw ANYONE into a # 1 contendership match - it'd give the younger guys a chance to strut their stuff.

Meanwhile you can have the champions intervene in the # 1 contendership process, as they try to eliminate rivals by helping other wrestlers get the shot at the title and thus an easier match for the champion.

I think that'd spice things up nicely. ;)