Is the WWE championship more meaningful ...

[saintpat]

... now that CM Punk has held it for a year?

I remember thread after thread and post after post from before the last year about how the title had been devalued -- and the main point was that it moved around too much.

Welll, it has been around the waist of Punk for a year now -- not Cena, Triple H or Orton, but Punk. He gets through December and he will have defended it successfully on every PPV in the calendar year. And after complaints about him not "main eventing" PPVs (like his defense should go after something like Cena-Lesnar, but that's another debate for another thread) he has been in the final match and front and center of the PPV scene lately.

So has the fact that he has held it for a year -- regardless of if you're pro-Punk or meh-Punk or anti-Punk -- made the championship mean more?

Why or why not?

[Allie Kitsune]

Not really.

It's not about who's holding it, it's about how many people are gunning for it.

And WWE hasn't really had anybody except for Cena ACTIVELY gunning for it.

No matter how long you keep it on one guy, it doesn't mean more if nobody else seems to want it.

[flatsdomino]

Depends on where it goes from here.

If Punk loses it and it goes back to being a worthless prop for the same top guys and the occasional bone for a guy who deserves it, then no.

Right now, the WWE title is interesting again. And yes, Punk losing will mean something, which hasn't happened since Cena's year-long reign. Every title defense means something. But after it's off him, it's off him, and it's all on the booking.

[Mayonnaise]

Nov 19, 2012 22:41:56 GMT -5 Allie Kitsune said:

Not really.

It's not about who's holding it, it's about how many people are gunning for it.

And WWE hasn't really had anybody except for Cena ACTIVELY gunning for it.

No matter how long you keep it on one guy, it doesn't mean more if nobody else seems to want it.

Pretty much. For the longest it meant less because no one cared who had it. Jericho and Punk was over who was the best in the world (at what they do) and Punk/Bryan was over AJ. The title meant little to nothing in those feuds. Really for as much as we (and most it seems) hate the heel turn, it was when WWE really started putting focus on the title. You had Rock set his time and focus on it, Cena wanted it, and now Ryback, plus you can throw in Vince wanting it off Punk. It's not many but it's been more focus on the title in the last few months than since MITB 2011.

[wrestling4ever]

Nope. He's felt like a mid card champion until recently. Great matches here and there but It just didnt feel like a world champion. Glad that WWE FINALLY started making the damn thing important and having him as the focus. By the time the Rumble comes around, that tilte is going to be looked at as the greatest thing ever. Especially with Rock gunning for it and his hype machine. "This is the biggest of all time" lol.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

The length of a reign, let alone the wrestler holding it, doesn't do anything to make a belt meaningful. If a wrestling company gives the title itself enough hype, it'll become important. In theory, a streak of 30-day reigns could be just as meaningful as a one year-plus reign if the company hypes up the title changes properly.

But really, it's damn near impossible to devalue a title, especially one with as much history as WWE's. The question isn't what the wrestler or booking does for the belt, but rather how well the wrestler performs as champion regardless of the booking. Personally, I don't think it lost any value even during the hot-potatoing last year.

[Juice]

It's a prop. That is all...Difference is this time it's been used to feature a guy I am a huge fan of.

[Buddy Peacock]

Nope, still keeping it warm for Cena and/or Rock.

[Deleted]

"What have you done for me lately?"

The title is only ever as meaningful as it's last match. Someone could hold the title for 3 years and have one of the most dominant reigns ever but if a month after it ends there's a boring Sheamus-Del Rio type feud over the belt then people will act like it's meaningless again and the prior 3 years have somehow been undone. Similarly, titles can go years and not mean crap then all it takes is one halfway decent reign for some people to claim the prestige is back.

In all my years I personally don't think the WWE title has ever meant less over such a consistent period. We've had a year long title reign with 4 main evens in that time. And 3 of those 4 main events had screwy finishes.

[Lancers]

Heel title runs suck because the heel usually has to chicken his way into victory. At least when guys like Hogan and Sammartino were champs, they usually, if not always, won clean which made them far more formidable.

[The Gambler Fan]

No, to me it is still an ugly belt that is handed to a wrestler by a writer.

[Been burned too many times]

Nope.

Like Foley said "It's not about dates" Also the fact that there's barely any new challengers trying to get the belt away from him. The reign just feels long for the sake of being long, just so they can say "Hey look Punk's up there with these guys, LOOK HOW LONG THIS TITLE REIGN IS!"

[Savage Gambino]

Nov 19, 2012 23:54:15 GMT -5 @hhhdiedforoursins said:

"What have you done for me lately?"

The title is only ever as meaningful as it's last match. Someone could hold the title for 3 years and have one of the most dominant reigns ever but if a month after it ends there's a boring Sheamus-Del Rio type feud over the belt then people will act like it's meaningless again and the prior 3 years have somehow been undone. Similarly, titles can go years and not mean crap then all it takes is one halfway decent reign for some people to claim the prestige is back.

In all my years I personally don't think the WWE title has ever meant less over such a consistent period. We've had a year long title reign with 4 main evens in that time. And 3 of those 4 main events had screwy finishes.

[Juice]

Nov 20, 2012 0:33:33 GMT -5 Been burned too many times said:

Nope.

Like Foley said "It's not about dates" Also the fact that there's barely any new challengers trying to get the belt away from him. The reign just feels long for the sake of being long, just so they can say "Hey look Punk's up there with these guys, LOOK HOW LONG THIS TITLE REIGN IS!"

Sort of the point for any reign though, isn't it?

[Been burned too many times]

Nov 20, 2012 0:38:22 GMT -5 Juice said:

Nov 20, 2012 0:33:33 GMT -5 Been burned too many times said:

Nope.

Like Foley said "It's not about dates" Also the fact that there's barely any new challengers trying to get the belt away from him. The reign just feels long for the sake of being long, just so they can say "Hey look Punk's up there with these guys, LOOK HOW LONG THIS TITLE REIGN IS!"

Sort of the point for any reign though, isn't it?

Just to say "It's long" ?

My point is I don't care how long it is, it's the content of the reign that matters. Though I did enjoy the Daniel Bryan feud, the second half of the Jericho feud and the mini-feud with Mark Henry.

[Deleted]

Nov 19, 2012 22:41:56 GMT -5 Allie Kitsune said:

Not really.

It's not about who's holding it, it's about how many people are gunning for it.

And WWE hasn't really had anybody except for Cena ACTIVELY gunning for it.

No matter how long you keep it on one guy, it doesn't mean more if nobody else seems to want it.

Yup.

Though I will say, between Jericho, Bryan and Ziggler, Punk's title reign at least opened up the field beyond just the usual suspects- which made it more meaningful.

[Bang Bang Bart]

Y'know, all that people are going to remember about this reign are three things: Pipe Bomb, "Respect!" Heel Turn, and The Rock beating Punk.

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2012 0:44:31 GMT -5 Bang Bang Bart said:

Y'know, all that people are going to remember about this reign are three things: Pipe Bomb, "Respect!" Heel Turn, and The Rock beating Punk.

"BEST IN THE WORLD" is something I think people will hold on to.

I could see people using it in day-to-day stuff, like winning at Scrabble and then shouting it like Punk would.

[Juice]

Nov 20, 2012 0:39:56 GMT -5 Been burned too many times said:

Nov 20, 2012 0:38:22 GMT -5 Juice said:

Sort of the point for any reign though, isn't it?

Just to say "It's long" ?

My point is I don't care how long it is, it's the content of the reign that matters. Though I did enjoy the Daniel Bryan feud, the second half of the Jericho feud and the mini-feud with Mark Henry.

What I meant was, when they choose someone new to put the title on they are essentially choosing to sell a story. A story that doesn't necessarily need to involve the history or prestige.

Yes they are choosing to give punk a long reign. but the merit is no different then when Cena had his long reign either. It's purpose was, look how good Cena is. And when HHH had his reign of terror, the purpose was look how good he is.

I just don't get the necessity of this argument about prestige. It's not like a real title belt that once was held by great fighters and is now defended by bum fighters. A fake title, given to people as a prop to sell a story doesn't have prestige IMO. Rather it's a tool to say this guy is cool and we want to sell him to the crowd for now.

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

What's funny is, he has pretty much beaten everyone active in the company during this title reign, but still it hasn't been enough.