Titles Just Don't Mean Anything Anymore

[romanstylesiii]

In every practical way.

There are currently 18 active championships (They have had 3-4 through the majority of their existence) with 24 champions (b/c of tag champs)

Even the looks of the titles makes them seem meaningless. There was 3 different Universal titles in 4 weeks, with one just looking like a creepy weight lifting belt. The IC title classic design had a lot of meaning behind it, but now it just looks like a black Cruiserweight title. 

A majority of their belts are just clones of each other with little personality. These are supposed to be coveted trophies that people are willing to fight for, but with so many being dull looking, and there being so many of them, it just does not seem to matter.

Instead of existing with the purpose of being a tool to get fans more interested in the match, they have become a marketing mechanism.

 


Get rid of the Universal Title and the NXT NA title, and have the other 3 male titles act as a path to getting a shot at the WWE title. Make it a big deal.

[MolotovMocktail]

Brand split or no, there should be 1 World Title, 1 Women's Title, 1 set of Tag Titles, the IC and the US, for the main roster (these can float between Raw and Smackdown if they insist on keeping the split), and NXT can have its set of belts, but that should be it.

[Deleted]

Nobody even actively pursues titles anymore. They kinda just randomly get booked in matches for them. Like, why does nobody on SmackDown want the IC title?

[TWERKIN' MAGGLE]

Used to be a man wore a belt to hold up his pants. Now every dumb bastard needs to have a belt that means something.

The kids these days!

[Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]]

It legitimately feels like none of the title outside of NXT mean shit anymore. Especially when Lesnar uses them as a prop at this point like he's bored

["Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik]

If booked well, two world titles can work. I thought it did back in the original brand split era. But you need two healthy rosters that are kept pretty separate and that just hasn't happened. Brock literally lost one title and then just randomly transitioned to the other. The same thing has happened a bunch with the tag titles.

[XIII]

It’s easier to use a title as a reason for a match than you know, write an actual story.....then again Rusev is currently in a cuckold story so maybe they need even more titles.

[HMARK Center]

We had a thread about this in the (w)rest section awhile back, but I think a big problem is that a lot of the belts don't really have a purpose.

First off, having multiple top titles inherently devalues them; it's not a particularly exclusive prize if the Rumble winner is able to pick which champion they'd rather face at WM, there's supposed to be one big boss at the end of the game and the main champ is supposed to be it.

After that, though, the biggest issue is the midcard belts, which are completely meaningless. In the 80s and early 90s the IC belt was meant to act as the headline title for B-market house shows, while the WWF champ would headline the A-cities. The US title, meanwhile, was used to create a #1 contender to the NWA/WCW title over in JCP/WCW. Even if those are imperfect purposes, at least they're SOMETHING. What does either belt serve to do now? There's no gimmick, no prize, no weight division, they don't even play up the notion that you make more money if you hold the title, they're just there to fill time, by and large.

Even then, though, it's possible to have too many belts but still make them feel important, still have people invested in what happens to them, if you book strong feuds around them and book strong champions to make the belts seem like valuable prizes. They can't even be bothered to try that most of the time.

[ojsampson]

Titles are props to tell stories. The stories they tell are meaningless the the titles really aren’t

[Deleted]

I'd say the only belt that really feels like it means anything at all is the NXT Women's title, since it's really the only one in the company people demonstrably actually want.

[The Rick Jericho]

The days when it was just:

WWF World
IC
Tag Team

And even those rosters pre 97 before the European title were bloated too, yet they managed.

[Cyno]

Dec 1, 2019 22:23:32 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

We had a thread about this in the (w)rest section awhile back, but I think a big problem is that a lot of the belts don't really have a purpose.

First off, having multiple top titles inherently devalues them; it's not a particularly exclusive prize if the Rumble winner is able to pick which champion they'd rather face at WM, there's supposed to be one big boss at the end of the game and the main champ is supposed to be it.

After that, though, the biggest issue is the midcard belts, which are completely meaningless. In the 80s and early 90s the IC belt was meant to act as the headline title for B-market house shows, while the WWF champ would headline the A-cities. The US title, meanwhile, was used to create a #1 contender to the NWA/WCW title over in JCP/WCW. Even if those are imperfect purposes, at least they're SOMETHING. What does either belt serve to do now? There's no gimmick, no prize, no weight division, they don't even play up the notion that you make more money if you hold the title, they're just there to fill time, by and large.

Even then, though, it's possible to have too many belts but still make them feel important, still have people invested in what happens to them, if you book strong feuds around them and book strong champions to make the belts seem like valuable prizes. They can't even be bothered to try that most of the time.

That's why I appreciate the way the IWGP IC Champ is booked in New Japan. It's treated like a legit big deal and second only to the IWGP Heavyweight Championship, like how the WWF IC and WCW/NWA US titles used to be booked.

[Toilet Paper Roll]

People have been saying that for a while now, and it's done nothing but get worse.

How many people on the roster have had a title? How many have had 2, 3, 10 championships?

The Secondary titles are basically lazy booking for guys to have a match, or something to do when they have nothing else for you.

[Perd]

The mid-card titles are what gets me. Those mean less than nothing. Nakamura may as well be carrying a bag of shit on his shoulder. Now there’s a gimmick.

[Deleted]

Dec 1, 2019 22:48:03 GMT -5 Perd said:

The mid-card titles are what gets me. Those mean less than nothing. Nakamura may as well be carrying a bag of shit on his shoulder. Now there’s a gimmick.

I don't even know which of them is the most useless. The North American belt is nothing but an excuse to get main event guys onto Takeover cards without coming up with a storyline for it, Rey Mysterio is the ninth person to have the US title this year (did you even remember R-Truth winning it in 2019?), and the Intercontinental title is basically just shorthand for, "This guy is getting his ass kicked every single time he's out there."

[Toilet Paper Roll]

Just a quick look

Rey Mysterio has had 23 title reigns
Kofi Kingston has had 15 title reigns
Dolph Ziggler has had 12 title reigns
Miz had has 18 title reigns


There are ***30*** Triple crown Champions. In the first 30 years of WWE they had 3, In the 25 since they have had 27.

Whats a titles worth?

[Dean-o]

It doesn’t help that champions lose on TV consistently just to set up a title match at the PPV. With a roster this huge, you can’t build a division that fights each other to earn a shot instead? The belts are completely meaningless, and now because belt makers are all over the place selling fakes, the collecting circle is growing, WWE wants to cash in.

[Bub (BLM)]

I misread the thread title and came in to vehemently disagree.

Oh, TITLES. No, they don't mean shit. Haven't for a long time.

A lot of people blame Russo for throwing the belts around hot potato-style in the Attitude Era, but I say that's false blame. The titles still felt important because the people holding them felt like Superstars with larger than life characters. Big Boss Man. The Godfather. Val Venis. D'Lo Brown. Mr. Ass. Road Dogg. Gangrel. List goes on and on. Any of them could hold the European or IC Title and they wouldn't feel meaningless because they were being held by actual characters who were OVER.

Now?

"COMING DOWN THE AISLE...GENERIC FORMER INDY GUY #2,371!!!!!!!"

[Sam Punk]

To me it's booking. I don't care how long or short somebody's reign is if it's booked well. I'll take a well booked short reign over a long reign where nothing memorable happens beyond a guy bragging how he's held the belt for x amount of days.

[A Platypus Rave]

Dec 1, 2019 23:02:42 GMT -5 Dean-o said:

It doesn’t help that champions lose on TV consistently just to set up a title match at the PPV. With a roster this huge, you can’t build a division that fights each other to earn a shot instead? The belts are completely meaningless, and now because belt makers are all over the place selling fakes, the collecting circle is growing, WWE wants to cash in.

They also devalue matchups that way...

here's Bob vs. George in a match... like 20 times... now pay to see Bob vs. George ... ON PPV!

why the hell would I? I've seen it... in multiple variations already...