Is it important who's world champion?

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

I've been asking myself this, and I was a little surprised to find out that the answer for me was "not really".

From the time he first debuted in WWF, I was a Razor Ramon mark, and I would have loved to see him hold the world title and I thought it sucked that the company never got around to giving it to him...but the real treat was seeing him kick ass. It was kinda the same with Owen Hart, who I was rooting for when I ordered Summerslam 94, but I didn't really mind Bret being champion. And again, it was the same deal with Hogan, who I wasn't a big fan of but also wasn't mad over him being champ.

So are there any other fans who don't sweat over who holds the big belt(s), as long as the product is decent?

(Note: The Snitsky option is back again.)

[Kevin Hamilton]

I used the sorta option, as it's kinda cool when a dude I like, like HHH is champ, but other than that, nope not really.

[x]

No. The title belts were built on kayfabe. Kayfabe is dead. And all I have to fall back on is match quality.

[BxB]

In some ways, yes. The champion will obviously get a lot more air-time than most of the other superstars. So, yeah. If one of the guys I like becomes the champ, I'd like it. But on other the hand, I'm not too bothered in the overall scheme of things. I'm not going to stop watching a show just because the champ is someone I dislike.

[Nuka Cola]

Depends who it is i do enjoy seeing my favorites with the belts though otherwise i don't really care.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Yes it matters and when it matters it makes me enjoy the product more. I don't like Cena, so I don't care when's he's the champ and usually who he fights. Cut back when Angle was champ...I loved the product. His matches were life and death for me, I was so, so happy when he won and everything he did was great.

It would be like if I had you to dinner and served you chicken shit and had chicken salad for myself. When you complain I say, "What are you bitching about? It's still chicken!"

[Red Impact]

not really, no. Belts are a tool for bookers to give guys something to fued over. Who has it doesn't really affect me that much.

[Tushingham Rimswell]

Course it's important, but i still voted snitsky

[MGH]

Yes, crucially important. The biggest and most important parts of shows are built around the Champion. They usually get the most (only term I can think of here, not meant to be taken negatively) "overbooked" matches and the biggest storylines.

If Cena is champion, I really don't enjoy Raw. I don't like watching it nearly as much when I see him beating every single person I actually LIKE watching wrestle. When Orton was champ, I was very much digging it. When Khali was champ on Smackdown I totally up and stopped watching.

The champion is very important to me.

[strykerdarksilence]

Ok noone else has done it yet so here we go....

Of course it is important that Jim Neidhart is world champion.

Thank you, I`m here all week.

Try the waitress.

[Rockhound]

Apr 28, 2008 12:24:17 GMT -5 BxB said:

In some ways, yes. The champion will obviously get a lot more air-time than most of the other superstars. So, yeah. If one of the guys I like becomes the champ, I'd like it. But on other the hand, I'm not too bothered in the overall scheme of things. I'm not going to stop watching a show just because the champ is someone I dislike.

Back when I started watching wrestling the champ rarely if ever got air time. The only time we saw the champ was in a promo but never in one of those squash matches on saturday afternoons. When he did wrestle, ususally against a midcard wrestler, it was a treat so to the champ, it usually meant only working the live event circuit. Now, since wrestling is so mainstream, the belt has a different meaning. IMO, the attitude era ruined the big belt not to mention killing the other belts. Now it's all about the show and not about being champ. Having the belt involved in a match these days is like having jimmies on your ice cream: sure it adds something but you wouldn't miss it if it wasn't there.*



*To clarify, in the not too distant past, having the IC belt meant you were on your way to the world title scene. Now, with the exception of a scant few, having the IC title really means nothing. Does anyone care that Jericho has the IC title? I sure don't because all it means is that he's holding a dead fish title and it doesn't put him in the ME scene because that's still going to involve Cena, Orton, JBL, and now probably Regal(which I'm hoping). Jericho even with that belt has no direction. Same with Matt. As happy as I am to see Matt holding a singles title, who's going to challenge him for it? MVP? That feud is wearing thin and it isn't like he's going to be going after Taker anytime soon. See what I mean?

[Loki]

As long as the feuds for the World Titles are kinda interesting and well done, I don't really care who has the belt.

The problem is when the Champion is boring (Orton) or old hat (Undertaker) and the same goes for the contenders.

Sadly, the scene on RAW doesn't look that great, and on SmackDown it's now risking to become deadly (pun intended) boring and predictable.

[Bob Schlapowitz]

When there's only one World Champion in a company, yes it matters.
When there are three World Champions in the same company, No not really.

[mo]

Yes to me it does, if someone I don't like has the belt my interest in the show drops.

[rrm15]

In the last couple of years, I find myself just watching all the midcard stuff and leaving while the main event is going on, since I already know what will happen. So to me, nah, not really.

[Bo Rida]

Apr 28, 2008 15:59:15 GMT -5 Bob Schlapowitz said:

When there's only one World Champion in a company, yes it matters.
When there are three World Champions in the same company, No not really.

QFT (or whatever the cool kids say these days).

[Mac]

Theres too many titles and redundant storylines revolving around them. It's been a long time since the title really meant anything to myself. I guess the last time a title change seemed like an OMG big deal to me was the first time Foley won it. Since that time it seems like its just something that gets passed around through the uppercard and given to someone at a random time. The only time it means anything seems to be the build to Wrestlemania.

[Deleted]

Apr 28, 2008 17:32:03 GMT -5 Bo Rida said:

Apr 28, 2008 15:59:15 GMT -5 Bob Schlapowitz said:

When there's only one World Champion in a company, yes it matters.
When there are three World Champions in the same company, No not really.

QFT (or whatever the cool kids say these days).

Haha. You beat me to it!

[x]

A company can be successful and interesting without a singles title.

My favorite wrestling company doesn't need a singles title.

[Macho Dude Handy Damage]

I just like seeing guys I like as champ. And can give leverage to feuds. Losing a mtach might not be a big deal, but losing a title, that's worse. (yes, I know wrestling, sorry.. sports entertainment is predetermined, but I like to lose myself in the disbelief thingie)