Does Being a Champion mean anything?

[Deleted]

oltrelamorte said:

The Real Deal =

WWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

[Corporate H]

oltrelamorte said:

The Real Deal =

"You're the one that sucks punk, NOT ME!"

You tell 'em D-Lo, you tell 'em.

[LashleyFanatic]

oltrelamorte said:

The Real Deal =

HE AINT THE REAL DEAL HEZ DA CRIPPLER

[djcdm]

I think once Lashley have a legit feud and beat RVD that will bring it alot

[rrm15]

oltrelamorte said:

The Real Deal =

YA LOOKIN AT THE REAL DEAL NOW!!!

GOD, D-Lo's theme was awesome.

[Sad sack ass fruitbooty]

lashleyfanatic said:

DA SOFT SPOKEN DUSNT MEAN AS MUCH AS DA HARD HITTIN PART THO BECUZ WHEN HE TALKS TO DA FANS WHEN REBECA NTERVIEWS HIM WE ALL KNO DAT WHAT HEZ SAYIN CUMZ FROM DA HEART BECUZ HE KNOZ DAT TEST AND HARDCOR HOLLI AINT GOOD ENOGH 2 COMPETE WIT THE REAL DEAL BOBBY LASHLEY BECUZ HE HAS EVERYTHIN HE NEEDS TO BE THA DOMINATOR

I mark for Hardcore HOLLI

[oltrelamorte]

lashleyfanatic said:

oltrelamorte said:

The Real Deal =

HE AINT THE REAL DEAL HEZ DA CRIPPLER

I thought Chris Benoit was the Crippler?

[Loki]

bencrocker said:

Sadly, no. I think around when Triple H kept losing and retaining it started losing it's value and then the title split and the out of nowhere reign of JBL really did it in. John Cena is giving it a little more value I think with his reign as I think he's finally proving himself.

What about the time the title was tossed around like a hot potato?

One-day champions, monthly title changes... that didn't help the credibility of the title.

Rock got THREE reigns in four months!

IMO the 1998-2000 era KILLED any credibility the belt had. I understand "competition" (kayfabe and not) but if the title change hands too often, the meaning of being Champion is belittled IMO.

And the Undisputed Title didn't help either, or at least the way it was booked the first time...
If the "Undisputed" Champion won thanks to several interferences, it's not a good start!

[EvilShadow76]

how can it when 1 title now looks like a toy you would buy your kid at toys r us? they've turned their main title into a laughing stock over the past 2 years.

it's things like this that makes the average guy/girl in the public view wwe and pro-wrestling for that matter as a huge joke.

[willywonka666]

to me it's not as prestigious as it once was, that belt gets passed around like a whore sometimes, and I'm not overly impressed with some of the titleholders

[skskillz]

loki said:

What about the time the title was tossed around like a hot potato?

One-day champions, monthly title changes... that didn't help the credibility of the title.

Rock got THREE reigns in four months!

IMO the 1998-2000 era KILLED any credibility the belt had. I understand "competition" (kayfabe and not) but if the title change hands too often, the meaning of being Champion is belittled IMO.

There's the right answer.

The Attitude Era, due to Russo's shock TV gimmick, saw the end of the IC title and the end of the legitimacy for the WWF title.

From 1984 to 1997, the WWF title changed hands 27 times.

From 1998 to 2001 (before the Undisputed title came in), the WWF title changed hands 25 times.

Let that marinate in your head for a bit.

The belt was devalued the second Steve Austin lost it to Kane and won it back 24 hours later. It was buried completely when Rock and Foley traded it 25 times in 2 months. It has never recovered. Now it's just a prop.

[odanobunaga]

Wait, since when Hardcore Holly got an Italian gimmick?

[amsiraK]

It should, but it doesn't. Not as much as it used to.

It's the booking. Cena's champion. It took HOW LONG to get him out there into the media to make him look special? And when he does, it's in a SUBWAY commercial?

[royboy8]

It means something, more then it use to actually. Before the brands split, the title would change hands almost monthly with the exception of a few reigns. Now, there are actually prolonged reigns and that makes me care.

[Jiren]

When all three champs are annoying F**kwads who can't be beat then i lose interest.

Besides years ago their were less PPVS so title reigns could be longer without getting boring

[Loki]

cropsy13 said:

When all three champs are annoying F**kwads who can't be beat then i lose interest.

Besides years ago their were less PPVS so title reigns could be longer without getting boring

More PPVs doesn't automatically equal more title changes and shorter reigns.

It's just a matter of lazy booking. Now the MNW is over for good, WWE'd take a step backwards and start focusing the weekly shows on the midcard titles, saviing the mainevent matches for the PPVs.

In that way one-brand PPVs could be used to BUILD-UP Championship feuds, that will then last longer, and will help to keep the crowd interested without having to force regular title changes to prevent staleness and boredom.

Of course Cena v Same Opponent variaton #256 got dead boring after a while

[salTy]

It lost credibility when The Rock and Mankind traded it back and forth for about five months.

[Deleted]

Being a champ means something if you're not yet another dull hoss face.

[x]

I think title belts are only for the fans. At the fed I'm in I don't really care who the champion is. Really when I go out there I just want to put on a solid match. The only reason I care about the push I get is to longer matches.

But I was kind of excited about the first midcard title match I got to have, hearing the fans go crazy after every two count. Shocked that a guy who had only had one match and got tore up was putting up such a good fight against a champion and getting zillions of near-falls.

But in a way having a title would be cool. If they booked anyone here to be ECW World Champ, Cruiserweight Champ, anything you would take it in a second.

You wouldn't hide the fact. Because no matter what, if you win a world title, no matter how terrible the title is, no matter how bad the booking was, you'd be able to call yourself a "former world champion" the rest of your life. And that's something no one can take away from you.

Even just getting to WWE for a day allows you to have the title of "Former WWE Superstar" Anytime you go to an indy fed, they announce you as a "Former WWE Superstar" and the marks respect you for it. Even if they have no clue who you are.

At the show that I had a title match on, Vic Grimes made a special apperance and when they announced him as a Former ECW and WWE Superstar all the kids went crazy because they know what that is. Even if Vic was only on one or two Shotgun Saturday Nights.

[joeman]

loki said:

bencrocker said:

Sadly, no. I think around when Triple H kept losing and retaining it started losing it's value and then the title split and the out of nowhere reign of JBL really did it in. John Cena is giving it a little more value I think with his reign as I think he's finally proving himself.

What about the time the title was tossed around like a hot potato?

One-day champions, monthly title changes... that didn't help the credibility of the title.

Rock got THREE reigns in four months!

IMO the 1998-2000 era KILLED any credibility the belt had. I understand "competition" (kayfabe and not) but if the title change hands too often, the meaning of being Champion is belittled IMO.

And the Undisputed Title didn't help either, or at least the way it was booked the first time...
If the "Undisputed" Champion won thanks to several interferences, it's not a good start!

Problem during those days was when there was no brand split, hence the attention span of people seeing who the world champion was. The titles were being defended at RAW, Smackdwon, and Sunday Night Heat. Remember back in 2000, a 5 month title reign was long.