When was the last time the WWE Title/WHC meant something

[The Naitch]

As Triple H said, these days, the title is just used to help get someone over, but when he won it for the first time, it really meant something

The World Heavyweight Championship, is just a prop to help someone get over like Jack Swagger, and a sympathy/thank you momento for aging veterans like Kane or Benoit.

When John Cena made the spinner belt, I didn't think that they'd keep using it (the same design, since it doesn't spin today) even after he stopped being champion. I thought it would be like the Smoking Skull belt, used exclusively by Cena. So with that, it's hard to take the belt seriously, from a cosmetic standpoint.

That being said, I can't wait for the WHC/WWE Unification situation.

So when do you think was the last time both titles meant something? When it was the Undisputed Championship? I think the WWE Championship still meant something at WrestleMania 19. But comes WrestleMania 20, it felt like a "thank you" title for Eddie Guerrero, and it wasn't in the last match. But what could they do? They had to create another title. The WHC felt important for that one night, but after that, it gets blurry

[Ruien]

It meant something when John Cena had it for his first crazy long run.

[Rammsteinmad]

I think it's preposterous to consider Benoit and Guerrero's title runs as 'thank you' runs.

Both men held the title at a time when WWE was more focused on wrestling, than little kids. Benoit and Guerrero were both in the primes, and were wrapped in title fueds with people like Brock Lesnar, Kurt Angle, Triple H and Shawn Michaels.

For me personally, the titles have never lost their meanings. WWE's failure to produce any new main eventers outside of Cena, Orton and Batista left them with a big void in their world title scene. So of course in this day and age they have to be a little risky and throw some fresh talent in the main event to see how they do.

That obviously comes down to WWE's failure at consistent pushes, but as far as I'm concerned the WWE and World titles, are still the WWE and World titles. And yes, we all hate the 'spinner belt', but sadly it's still the number one title, for the number one wrestling company in the world.

FTR, I've always loved the World title, and personally hold that in higher regard than the WWE title. Sure, WWE had to experiment and chuck the title on people like Jack Swagger, but for me that doesn't devalue the belt. It's just WWE trying to find a quick solution to a long-term problem.

[Fox]

For me, the WWE Title started losing meaning shortly after WrestleMania 20, around the time JBL took the belt for the first time and started feuding with the new guy, John Cena. Their extremely boring, less than 10-minute long WWE Championship match at WM 21 was insulting to the prestige of the championship - almost as insulting as the horrendous new design they brought out shortly after. More recently, I feel it lost even MORE meaning after Sheamus' bullshit win at TLC.

The World Heavyweight Title started out pretty well, but I think it peaked with Chris Benoit's WM 20 victory and started going downhill from there.

[MoFo]

Dunno, probably around the time Edge and Cena had that hot feud.

[James Steele]

For me, the WWE Title started losing meaning shortly after WrestleMania 20, around the time JBL took the belt for the first time and started feuding with the new guy, John Cena. Their extremely boring, less than 10-minute long WWE Championship match at WM 21 was insulting to the prestige of the championship - almost as insulting as the horrendous new design they brought out shortly after. More recently, I feel it lost even MORE meaning after Sheamus' bullshit win at TLC.

The World Heavyweight Title started out pretty well, but I think it peaked with Chris Benoit's WM 20 victory and started going downhill from there.


I'd argue that the Triple H/Batista feud was the peak of the World Heavyweight Championship.

Once the Reigns of Doom in 2005 started, I think the belts got devalued because the crowd didn't respect Cena and Batista just pwnd SmackDown!

[HBPunk]

the title means a bit more now cos of piper on raw

[James Steele]

the title means a bit more now cos of piper on raw

Normally you are a twat, but Piper's promo last night was the perfect fucking thing to have on the last show before the ppv.

[dhellova guy]

the title means a bit more now cos of piper on raw

I was thinking that myself, but we need to see where it goes from there.

Titles switch hands from faces to heels through unscrupulus means all the time, but the WAY it is handled is what puts value in the belt. If Cena simply goes out there and fast counts the pin and Barrett wins, the title wont mean shit. If Cena gets frustrated and hits the AA on Barrett and Orton gets the pin, the title wont mean shit.

I never but much stock into the WHC because of how it was introduced, but it gained in stature during Benoits run. It started to lose value in my eyes during Rey Mysterios run, not because of him, but because they had him getting his ass whooped every night.

[St. Jimmy]

Triple H

[BollywoodSingh]

I don't think the titles mean much right now. They are just props. I just don't think it's a big deal for a guy to win a title for the first time anymore. It just changes hands way too frequently now. I wish title reigns were longer.

Also, keeping the spinner title has made me think less of the WWE title. It just doesn't seem like something that wrestlers desire to win. I hate customized belts or redesigned belts. It adds to the prestige of the title when someone like Cena holds the same belt that Bret Hart did 15 years ago. Can you imagine the Stanley Cup being customized with Chicago Blackhawks colours?

[HBPunk]

Normally you are a twat, but Piper's promo last night was the perfect fucking thing to have on the last show before the ppv.

exactly.and thanks,you are always a twunt

[XL]

As Triple H said, these days, the title is just used to help get someone over, but when he won it for the first time, it really meant something

The World Heavyweight Championship, is just a prop to help someone get over like Jack Swagger, and a sympathy/thank you momento for aging veterans like Kane or Benoit.

When John Cena made the spinner belt, I didn't think that they'd keep using it (the same design, since it doesn't spin today) even after he stopped being champion. I thought it would be like the Smoking Skull belt, used exclusively by Cena. So with that, it's hard to take the belt seriously, from a cosmetic standpoint.

That being said, I can't wait for the WHC/WWE Unification situation.

So when do you think was the last time both titles meant something? When it was the Undisputed Championship? I think the WWE Championship still meant something at WrestleMania 19. But comes WrestleMania 20, it felt like a "thank you" title for Eddie Guerrero, and it wasn't in the last match. But what could they do? They had to create another title. The WHC felt important for that one night, but after that, it gets blurry
I don't usually do this but I stopped reading after this line.

The titles have always been a fucking prop - it's a FAKE sport.

[XL]

Also, y'think we could keep this topic dead for at least three months before it comes up again in some form?

[VSG]

Benoit defended his WHC like crazy, and won every single time from WM to SummerSlam. He made sure that the WHC was a proud thing to have. No "glory" run there.

[Rammsteinmad]

I feel the world titles are pretty much the same as the WWE's content itself, people will always be comparing it to the past, and so of course, the titles aren't worth shit.

[Onyx]

Personally I think the meaning behind all the major titles have been in a steady decline for years, starting with the introduction of the European title in 1997. The title started off with some good momentum, and a great tournament to name the first champion, but by 1998 it was nothing more than a poor man's IC belt.

Another step in the decline was the hardcore title. It started as a joke, then became the title that was defended the most often on Raw and Smackdown. The 24/7 rule made this even worse. It seemed like every mid-card wrestler had the hardcore title for at least 4 seconds. Sometimes literally.

What finally killed it for me was in 2001 when they brought in all the WCW titles. Even Mick Foley pointed out that everyone had a title at that point.

When it comes to the titles, less is more, and they never meant more than they did when there was just 3: The WWF/WWE championship, the Intercontinental Championship, and the Tag Team Championship. This was back when there was actually a tag team division worth mentioning, and the tag titles weren't just used to push storylines for singles wrestlers, and the IC title was a test run for a wrestler before giving them the world title.

Furthermore, the world title was almost ALWAYS the main event. Now with two world titles and brands sharing a PPV, sometimes the WWE title has the main event, sometimes its the WHC, and often its neither. Who cares anymore?

[DLVH84]

Benoit defended his WHC like crazy, and won every single time from WM to SummerSlam. He made sure that the WHC was a proud thing to have. No "glory" run there.

That's true, even when Benoit was also a World Tag Team Champion with Edge during that reign.

[Evolution]

Personally I think the meaning behind all the major titles have been in a steady decline for years, starting with the introduction of the European title in 1997. The title started off with some good momentum, and a great tournament to name the first champion, but by 1998 it was nothing more than a poor man's IC belt.

Another step in the decline was the hardcore title. It started as a joke, then became the title that was defended the most often on Raw and Smackdown. The 24/7 rule made this even worse. It seemed like every mid-card wrestler had the hardcore title for at least 4 seconds. Sometimes literally.

What finally killed it for me was in 2001 when they brought in all the WCW titles. Even Mick Foley pointed out that everyone had a title at that point.

When it comes to the titles, less is more, and they never meant more than they did when there was just 3: The WWF/WWE championship, the Intercontinental Championship, and the Tag Team Championship. This was back when there was actually a tag team division worth mentioning, and the tag titles weren't just used to push storylines for singles wrestlers, and the IC title was a test run for a wrestler before giving them the world title.

Furthermore, the world title was almost ALWAYS the main event. Now with two world titles and brands sharing a PPV, sometimes the WWE title has the main event, sometimes its the WHC, and often its neither. Who cares anymore?

:y::y::y:

[Jeritron]

Seems like fans try to say the titles lose meaning based on when they decided they did, for them personally.
Because ____ held it, or because of what show it's on. Or whatever.

Really, the two belts hold the same meaning now as they did when brand extension first started. Obviously neither belt means what it meant when there was only one, but if they are unified it will again.

And the split-brand titles are really pretty consistent in what they mean. It's just that they share the importance. Whichever one is on Raw and/or main events the PPV has the edge.
But I don't think the belts Orton and Kane hold now mean any less as a prop than they did when it was Brock and HHH, and so on.

Apparently some will try to say the belts meant more when Eddie and Benoit walked out Wrestlemania with them, than when Cena and Batista did. I think it's the same thing, just different preference.

[BizarroKing]

When was the last time the WWE meant something

OK i'm just kidding...mostly.