Title Discussion Thread

[Mr. Nerfect]

I remember reading a thread about this a while back, and I really enjoyed the discussion. Anyway, I just thought I'd start a topic to discuss the current title scene, depiction of the current and non-current championships (WWE and non-WWE), of the wrestling world.

I'm not an expert on championships and their histories, but I have a lot of opinions on them. I feel the WWE should bring back a title history web site, to discuss the championships, and the history behind them. Maybe a collection of DVDs could be released. One dealing with heavyweight titles, another with the IC Title, another with the US Title, another with the cruiserweight title, another with the women's championship and another with various defunct titles.

Anyway, as I said I'm not an expert, but here is my general view of the championships in the WWE:

WWE Championship
The combined product of the WWF and WCW Championships. Not a unifyed title, but defended as one. I say this, because the champion walked around with both belts for a while, until the WWE decided one to represent both would be ideal. This would mean that JBL isn't only the current WWE Champion, but he's also the current World Champion (WCW Champion). This would mean that both Bradshaw & Faarooq are both listed in the WCW's title history.

World Heavyweight Championship
I consider this a new championship, but a lot of people consider it a parrallel title to the original WWE Championship, or the continuation of the World Championship. Does anyone have the power to clear this up for us? I just consider it that the Eric Bischoff took the World Championship belt, and used it as a base model for a new RAW Heavyweight Championship.

WWE Intercontinental Championship
This title is pretty self-explainitory. One interesting thing to discover is whether or not the title still has the Hardcore Championship and European Championship dissolved into it. Both were, but then the IC Title was unifyed with the World Heavyweight Championship (adding great credibility to it), but then Stone Cold Steve Austin removed the title from the World Heavyweight Championship, so argueably the European Championship and Hardcore Championship may have been removed from the World Heavweight Championship as well.

WWE United States Championship
I originally considered this an entirely new championship, but I've grown to consider it a continuation of the WCW United States Championship. Booker T claimed he was a "two-time US Champion", although he may have just been referring to how he was a WCW US Champion and a WWE US Champion. Does anyone have any facts either way as to whether the red, blue & white gold is actually the WCW version continued or not?

Anyway, feel free to discuss current champions, future champions, divisons, ways to increase credibility or whether or not the WWE should bring back the European and Television Champions back.

[Gouda]

The US title is not the same as WCW.

Anyways, I shall talk about credability:

WWE Championship
Very low right now since nobody cares about JBL. It was at a good level of credability up until Eddie started to feud with JBL.

World Heavyweight Championship
The title with the most credability. Believe it or not, HHH's long title reigns have actually helped the credability of the title as it is perceived as that much more difficult to win. The title also got a huge boost when Bentoit decided to go after it instead of his own brand's title after the Royal Rumble.

WWE Intercontinental
The credability of this title was very low at one point. Recently through the efforts of Randy Orton, Chris Jericho, and Christian it has come back into the spotlight.

WWE US Title
This title has less credability then the Intercontinental title but it actually has more then the WWE Title right now. I mean, everybody seems to want to go for IT and NOT the WWE title anyways.

The Rest
Basically ignored, with very little credability. Used for the ocassional feud and then forgotten again.

[BigDaddyCool]

The US title is not the same as WCW.

Anyways, I shall talk about credability:

WWE Championship
Very low right now since nobody cares about JBL. It was at a good level of credability up until Eddie started to feud with JBL.

World Heavyweight Championship
The title with the most credability. Believe it or not, HHH's long title reigns have actually helped the credability of the title as it is perceived as that much more difficult to win. The title also got a huge boost when Bentoit decided to go after it instead of his own brand's title after the Royal Rumble.

WWE Intercontinental
The credability of this title was very low at one point. Recently through the efforts of Randy Orton, Chris Jericho, and Christian it has come back into the spotlight.

WWE US Title
This title has less credability then the Intercontinental title but it actually has more then the WWE Title right now. I mean, everybody seems to want to go for IT and NOT the WWE title anyways.

The Rest
Basically ignored, with very little credability. Used for the ocassional feud and then forgotten again.

WWE Title is fairly credible. JBL is a good heel champion, and every month longer he holds on to it, the better it makes Eddie look.

I agree with the World Heavy Weight title, HHH hording of it makes it look good. Who ever eventually takes it from him and keeps it from him will look golden.

The IC looks like crap right now. Orton's run added a ton of credibility to it, but ever since then, a new person held it every month, and it was striped from Edge once. That takes away what ever Orton's riegn gave to it.

US title sucks because I never watch Smackdown, plus didn't it change hands between Cena and Booker T a few times?

Women's champship, that is a credible title. It being on Trish's waist is gold. And all the more, who would have thought that little peice of eye candy would make a title credible (no I'm not kidding at all).

Both Tag Titles suck because there is no tag scene for them. Plus Beniot being holding the Raw Tag titles by himself is stupid beyond anything.

Cruiserwieght title is gay because the Cruiserwieght scene is gay (and I mean in the WWE it is, it is better as like the X Division or whatever that thing is called).

NWA-TNA Title, I would rank it along side the IC in status, it is more creidble right now what with Jarrett pulling a HHH.

And those are the only title I feel like commenting on.

[The CyNick]

Long title reigns dont make a championship mean more just because someone had it for a long time.

That point was contradicted by saying that HHH made the RAW title valuable, while JBL has devalued the WWE title. By that logic, the WWE title should be valuable because its champion has had it longer than the current RAW champion.

I see the RAW title as a new title that was created in 2002 and does not carry with it, the lineage of the WCW/NWA titles. Yes they use the old physical WCW title belt (which was used by WCW/NWA), but the way it played off on TV, I dont think it made sense that Bischoff could strip the Undisputed title (which Brock had at the time and is now the same title that JBL has) of its WCW/NWA lineage.

However, since Bischoff created a new World Championship, Brock could no longer lay claim to being the "Undisputed" Heavyweight champion, since there was another World Title on a similar level to his own title. But, like I said, I dont think that means the WCW/NWA lineage left the current WWE Title.

So, by my logic (which is a hard word to use with this topic) the WWE Title is the old WCW/NWA and WWF titles combined by Jericho, and went to HHH, then Taker, then Rock, then Brock and so on until JBL currently.

At the time the World Title on RAW was created it was done so because HHH didn't want to be the IC chmapion (which was the plan at the time), and hence they brought back the big gold belt. So, to me, the RAW Title really has the lineage of the IC Title (merged in the match with Kane), which in turn carries the lineage of about 4 other titles including the US and Euro titles.

Since then both the IC and US titles were brought back, and you could argue either way whether those are new titles or still carry on the lineage of their former name sake titles. The way its played off on TV, it seems like they do, and I can accept that. Moreso with the IC than the US.

Now, just because the WWE Title has the lineage, doesn't mean its a more credible title. For me, neither title has seemed to mean much of anything since they split it in '02. Yes there have been matches here and there where the titles seemed important, but the very fact that they have two makes both seem less valuable in my eyes.

[Stickman]

It's weird how the WWE Championship has the lineage, but I couldn't care less about it. I look at the titles as Raw Championship, and Smackdown Championship. Me not giving a damn about Smackdown makes the Smackdown title mean nothing to me. Sure the World Title was made up and carries no lineage, I consider that the only title that matters. Any title involved with Smackdown is a piece of trash.

[The CyNick]

And see I see the RAW title as the HHH Memorial title, which to me is about as worthy as the Million $ Belt was. So, that just goes to show they should go back to having one Undisputed Champion.

[Disturbed316]

I consider the WWE Title the old WWF title. I see it as it was many years ago, just the WWE/F world title. No WCW/NWA/Undisputed lineage, to me its the WWE/F title I grew up watching.

For some reason, I consider the World Heavyweight title as just the main title on Raw. I dont feel it has history, or it is even a "World" title. I see it as Raw's main title, but not a World title.

The United States title is a funny one, as much as I want to think of it as the old WCW US title, reincarnated in the WWE, I just cant. I'm not really sure what to think about it at the moment, other than its the mid-card/upper mid-card title.

Much like the WWE title, I view the Intercontinental as it has always been since Pat Patterson won it lightyears ago. I had forgotten up until a second ago that the Hardcore and European title were merged with it.

The tag team titles are a tough one, I just see them as each brands Tag titles.

Cruiserweight title is a joke compared to WCW's version. If they were going to have a belt for the cruiserweights then they should go about an do it properly and have different competing for it rather than just the usual cycle of guys they currently have.

Womens title......I had forgotten who the champ was until Taboo Tuesday. That pretty much tells you what I think of it.

[redoneja]

WWE Championship
I see this title as the championship created in the early sixties when the Northeast territory(WWWF) broke off of the NWA. The last WWE Champion before the Unification in 2001 was Steve Austin. However, because Brock Lesnar refused to defend the Undisputed title on RAW, Eric Bischoff had a right to strip away the championship, because, at the time, champions were under the jurisdiction of both general managers. So essentially, the Undisputed title was divided into two parts because both parties had legitimate claims. I believe that because they were unified both titles now carry the lineage of both companies because they can all be traced back to a common point.

World Heavyweight Championship
To me this is the most prestigious title in the world. Lineage can be traced back to the early 1900's when Frank Gotch legitamately defeated George Hackenschmiddt in 2 consecutive falls. During the 30's and 40's other world titles were "created" but this World Championship became the centerpiece of a unifying confederation of territories known as the NWA. Two other major titles were spawned of this championship: the AWA championship and the WWE Championship.(On a side note, notice how the WWF(E) championship was always introduced as the World Wrestling Federation(Entertainment) Championship, not the WWF(E) World?) When the NWA fell apart, the World Heavyweight Championship was sold along with Crockett Promotions and, basically the NWA, to Ted Turner who created WCW. When WWE bought WCW, it gained the rights to this title. Saying the World Heavyweight title has no lineage or legitimacy is hypocritical because the WWE title was CREATED off the original NWA title after a controversial decision involving Buddy Rogers and Lou Thesz much like the World Heavyweight title was reactivated because of a similar controversy involving Brock Lesnar!!

WWE Intercontinental
This title went through something similar to the World Heavyweight, when it was "unified" with the WWE title. However like the WHC I percieve the current IC Title to be congruent to the original.

The rest of them are minor footnotes to me beause there have been dozens of different versions of each in the last 100 years. One could even argue that even the NWA US Title has no legitimacy because it was a ripoff of the original American Championship held by Frank gotch until 1905(when he won the World Title).

[ColdwaVer]

Personally, I beleive the World Title to be the WCW title renamed; since Vince declared the WCW title to be called the "World Title" the day after the Survivor Series after the Invasion ended, when Bischoff brought back the same belt calling it the "World Title," I see no reason to think otherwise.
And seeing as how the WCW lineage of the US title has been discussed in conjuntion with the current US title, I consider it to be the same title re-instated. With that being said"

RAW:
World Title
HHH has kept it wrapped around his dick a good bit, but it's still a strong title that usually brings out good matches in its competitors. When you ignore HHH's backstage stroke, it's presented as a real prize and something truly coveted by contenders, which is a definite plus. Looking at the guys who have held it since it was brought back in 2002, you have HHH, Michaels, Goldberg, Benoit, and Orton, which is a pretty wide range of guys for a two year stretch. Plus, the disgusting film left all over the belt's physical appearance by Arquette and Russo has pretty much disappeared.

Intercontinental Championship
The belt that's been tainted by things like Chyna and Jericho's "co-holder" run, being thrown into a river by Austin, and being swallowed by HHH's ego, it's finally getting back some of the prestige it had in the early nineties. It's once again being used as a starting point for future world champions, definitely a good thing. Still has some room for improvement, and personally I think they should bring back the old belt style.

Women's Title
WWE has the best roster of established female wrestlers they've ever had, I can't understand why they ignore them so much. Molly, Trish, and Victoria are all great wrestlers and very over, Gail and Jazz are well established with solid moves, Nidia is on their way to becoming something if they don't rush it, Lita is over enough to warrant keeping despite her somewhat unpolished ability, and Stacy is over enough for a good bit of people to ignore her current (though improving) level of skill. The title has enough credibility right now that if they'd stop letting us forget about it, they could make it something worthwhile.

Smackdown:
WWE Title
Carries a bit more intrinsic importance since it's the one that's been around through WWE history, but not really as strong currently as the World Title IMO. Bradshaw has admittedly been a better champ than I ever expected, and having him against the Undertaker has helped build up the credibility of the title. The time is right for a strong face to take the title back, and Booker T seems like a good choice to me. The problem with this title is that being on the perceived "B show" keeps it a bit out of the limelight.

US Title
I was against this at first, but it's gotten to be a good tool on Smackdown. After a good run of matches between Benoit and Eddie, I really though it was going to die an early death when the Big Show won it and then never defended it, but Cena made it something worth fighting for, especially with his series with Booker T, and Carlito is proving to be an unexpected (for me anyway) success. Carlito needs a strong opponent now to pass the time until Cena returns. I suggest Charlie Haas and/or Rico. When Cena gets back, he should take it back and then could have a great feud with Jindrak.

Cruiserweight Title
Again, why do they keep letting us forget this exists? I was actually enjoying Spike's push, give the man an opponent already! This title needs some damn consistency and there are enough fans of cruiserweights that this could become a great title... if they let it.

Dishonorable Mention: The WWE and World Tag Team Titles
The art of tag team wrestling is dead in WWE, and IMO the only area where TNA beats them hands-down. It always takes me about a minute to remember who has the damn things. Nobody cares because every team these days is a pair stapled together and thrown down the aisle to win the belts their first day out, only to lose them and then feud a few months later. Do something with them already, or put them under glass in the WWE hall of fame somewhere.

Defunt Titles: To revive or not to revive?
European Title: No. It never got the momentum it needed or the treatment that would have made it important. Sure, HHH and Owen had some good matches for it... but at that time those two could have made a great show fighting over a can of spam. Keep this title dead.
Hardcore Title: Possibly, if done right. My personal idea to revive this belt is to have it non-brand affiliated; the champion is required to attend all shows while possessing the belt. If you keep a lot of the confrontations backstage, you could tape a months worth of programming in one night. Also, feature the champion on Velocity and Heat; might draw a few dozen viewers.
TV Title: Only if you associate it with either Heat or Velocity exclusively.
Six-man Tag, Cruiserweight Tag, Intergender Tag or Women's Tag Titles: NO. They can't handle the ones they have.

[The CyNick]

Saying the World Heavyweight title has no lineage or legitimacy is hypocritical because the WWE title was CREATED off the original NWA title after a controversial decision involving Buddy Rogers and Lou Thesz much like the World Heavyweight title was reactivated because of a similar controversy involving Brock Lesnar!!



But the WWE never claimed their version of the World Title carried the same lineage of the NWA title. They created a NEW title, which was based off a controversy that gave them a reason to create a NEW title. But it took years for the title to be viewed as the centrepiece of pro wrestling. Look at any WWE history book, they claim Rogers was the first WWWF Champion, and prior to that there was no history for the title.

Similarly on RAW, they had a reason to cerate a NEW title based on the controversy of Brock beocming exlcusive to SD, but they have no reason/right to claim the lineage that the WWE Title had, which includes the old WWF title and whatever history you want to claim the WCW title had. Like the WWWF in the past, the history of the RAW title only dates back to HHH and the briefcase.

People just get caught up in the fact that they use the same physical World Title on RAW that was used in WCW, and therefore say they have the same lineage. But that doesn't make any sense.

Further proof to my point is with the SD version of the tag team titles. Because they created new physical belts, nobody will say their version of the titles have the same lineage of say the WWF or the WCW tag titles. The current SD tag titles were created in 2002, and thats as far as the lineage of those belts go. Whereas on RAW, those belts carry the history of the old WWF and WCW belts which were unified during the whole Invasion deal.

[redoneja]

IF you want to get technical than both of the current titles were created in 2002. Bischoff did have the power to strip Lesnar of the championship, which he did. Therefore, both the RAW World Heavyweight Championship and the SD! WWE Championship were either "created" or "reactivated" or whatever word you want to use when the Undisputed title ceased to exist.

[The CyNick]

IF you want to get technical than both of the current titles were created in 2002. Bischoff did have the power to strip Lesnar of the championship, which he did. Therefore, both the RAW World Heavyweight Championship and the SD! WWE Championship were either "created" or "reactivated" or whatever word you want to use when the Undisputed title ceased to exist.

Wrong.

Brock had the title, the Undisputed WWE Championship. He didn't lose it, and there was no match he didn't show up for, so his championship was never in question. The question is about what history the "RAW World Title" has.

On RAW, because they had no access to a World Title decided to CREATE a NEW championship and call it the "World Heavyweight Championship". Again, because they used the physcial version of the old WCW title, people will draw the parallel that they took the WCW portion of the Undisputed WWE title to make the new RAW title. But again, that makes no sense, there was no WCW in existence, so how can you take the WCW part of the title away from Brock? Again, use the tag titles as an example, which Ive already discussed.

Take boxing as another example. You have several key bodies that run pro boxing. A guy can be the Undisputed champ of a weight class, but then have one of his titles taken away if he doesn't fight a top contender as appointed by one of the bodies (say the WBC). So in that case the WBC has the right to "strip" the champ of that part of the title. But in this case, Bischoff had no right to "strip" Brock of any part of his title because he had no claim to the WCW or WWE brands, only the RAW brand. Therefore he had to create a NEW championship.

But SD had no right to call Brock the "Undisputed" Champion at that point, because as I mentioned a NEW championship on a similar level was created. So by its very definition it couldn't be "Undisputed" anymore. Hence going back to calling the title currently held by JBL the "WWE Championship". You could call this title the "SD Heavyweight Championship instead of the "WWE Championship", but it still wouldn't change the fact that this title carries the lineage of the WWE/F and WCW/NWA World titles.

[redoneja]

Actually during at the time the Undisputed champion was not brand exclusive, the champ answered to both GMs. By refusing to comply with one Gm by not competing on RAW, his reign was in jeopardy. Lesnar did refuse to wrestle on RAW except his opponet was unspecified. The "RAW World Title" WAS instated after Bischoff stripped Lesnar of the Undisputed Title, that is a fact. If you want a sports analogy take into account the UFC when Tito Ortiz refused to fight and an interim Lightheavyweight title was created. However the interim title WAS recognized to have the same lineage as ortiz's title. The physical strapof the World Heavyweigth title makes no difference to me .

[V]

errr they treat the Raw title, as the WCW title, don't you remember when Austin as GM, said Triple H could choose a former "world title holder" to defend his belt against, and he picked flair? Flair never held that "raw" title (if it was only just a raw title) he held the wcw one though. Trips couldn't have picked flair if it wasn't the wcw title, and plus austin listed people trips could choose and they were all former wcw champs, and like coldwaver said, vince announced the wcw title to be called the world title, which is the name they use for the world title.

So go argue with the WWE if you still think the smackdown title has both wwe and wcw titles combined in it, cuz they obviously are treating the raw championship as the wcw one... and one last thing, when bischoff gave trips the title he said "you were the last person to hold this title and so it belongs to you" yet another reason it's the old wcw title

[The CyNick]

Actually during at the time the Undisputed champion was not brand exclusive, the champ answered to both GMs. By refusing to comply with one Gm by not competing on RAW, his reign was in jeopardy. Lesnar did refuse to wrestle on RAW except his opponet was unspecified. The "RAW World Title" WAS instated after Bischoff stripped Lesnar of the Undisputed Title, that is a fact. If you want a sports analogy take into account the UFC when Tito Ortiz refused to fight and an interim Lightheavyweight title was created. However the interim title WAS recognized to have the same lineage as ortiz's title. The physical strapof the World Heavyweigth title makes no difference to me .

This is what happened:

-Undisputed champ was allowed to appear on both shows

-Steph signed Brock (the champion) to an exclusive contract to SD

-Eric creates the World Championship as a repsonse

The point is the title Brock had at that point couldn't be stripped of its lineage, any of it.

The only way to do that is if the people in charge of making the new title have a legit right to the brands they are taking the lineage from. The UFC example would be different because Eric had no claim to the WWE or WCW versions of the World title that made up Brock's title. The only "power" he had was over the RAW brand, which up until that point never had a champion, hence the creation of a new title.

SD continued on with their title, which maintained its lineage, because nobody had a right to strip it. But like I said, he could no longer be recognized as Undisputed champion.

And again, if you say the RAW World Title has some lineage, then what lineage do the SD tag titles have? And if the answer is none, then why is it any different?

[Mr. Nerfect]

errr they treat the Raw title, as the WCW title, don't you remember when Austin as GM, said Triple H could choose a former "world title holder" to defend his belt against, and he picked flair? Flair never held that "raw" title (if it was only just a raw title) he held the wcw one though. Trips couldn't have picked flair if it wasn't the wcw title, and plus austin listed people trips could choose and they were all former wcw champs, and like coldwaver said, vince announced the wcw title to be called the world title, which is the name they use for the world title.

So go argue with the WWE if you still think the smackdown title has both wwe and wcw titles combined in it, cuz they obviously are treating the raw championship as the wcw one... and one last thing, when bischoff gave trips the title he said "you were the last person to hold this title and so it belongs to you" yet another reason it's the old wcw title

Think of it this way, in wrestling the WWE is the ultimate company. For a long time they only had one heavyweight championship (the WWE Championship, held by Buddy Rogers, Shawn Michaels, Yokozuna, Steve Austin, The Undertaker, etc.). Then Shane McMahon went on to purchase WCW (storyline-wise) and invaded the WWE. The WCW Title was brought in with them (held by Booker T).

Shane & Vince agreed to dissolve the WWE and WCW into one wrestling company. The WWE won and WCW's titles became the property of the WWE. Vince McMahon then renamed the WCW Championship to the World Championship (not the World "Heavyweight" Championship), but he soon realised that he had one to many heavyweight titles.

Instead of just destroying one of the titles, he decided to have one champion represent both championships. Chris Jericho won this right, thus became "Undisputed Champion" since he held every heavyweight title sanctioned by the WWE (who practically control wrestling). This was passed to Triple H at WrestleMania X8, who became a 5-time WWE Champion and a one time WCW Champion (World Champion). Triple H was then offered a new belt to respresent both championships. The two championships were then passed along between Hulk Hogan, The Undertaker, The Rock and finally Brock Lesnar. Lesnar then officially signed an exclusive contract with Stephanie McMahon and SmackDown!, giving her the rights to both heavyweight championships.

Eric Bischoff had nothing. So he took the old belt to mark a new championship in the WWE. He called it the World Heavyweight Championship and handed it to the "last man to hold the belt", Triple H. This doesn't mean he was the last champion, because there was nothing to signify that the title was stripped away from Triple H. He was still the Undisputed Champion, meaning that he was the technical WWE and WCW Champion, even though they were now respresented by a new championship.

Steve Austin gave Triple H the oppourtunity to face a former heavyweight champion. I believe this to be any sanctioned WWE heavyweight champion. This means that if you have held the WWE Championship or WCW Championship (which are both recognized by the WWE as heavyweight titles), then you were able to be selected. Ric Flair has held both.

Now this brings up another point. We are reminded that Triple H is always a nine-time heavyweight champion, and in third place for most heavyweight title reigns behind Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair. Now Triple H hasn't held the WCW Title nine times. The most that could be argued is 5 (that is if you count the Undisputed Championdship as two titles, instead of one that represents two). And he hasn't held the WWE Championship nine times. The most that could be argued is 5 (again if you count the Undisputed Championship). Triple H has held the World Heavyweight Championship (4 times), the WWE Championship (4 times), and the Undisputed Championship (once). All of them sanctioned WWE heavyweight titles.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are three heavyweight titles in the WWE. The WWE Championship and the World Championship were brought together by Chris Jericho, and since there was no other championship, it was undisputed. However, when Brock Lesnar took both titles to SmackDown!, they became disputed. You can't call a disputed title "undisputed". That doesn't mean both championships have to be split up. If you want to be accurate, the WCW Title's and the WWE Championship's histories were "melted" into a new belt, while the original two became vacant of any history.

So in a way the World Heavyweight Championship has a story behind the belt, but the actual history cannot be claimed because it left for the Undisputed belt (which is now disputed).

I hope that made sense.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Another reason the World Heavyweight Title isn't the WCW Championship is because of the build-up to Chris Benoit winning the title at WrestleMania. If it was the WCW/NWA Championship, Beniot would be a two-time champion.

[Gouda]

I liked the TV title in WCW before it was crap.

When you'd have guys fight it out to the time limit. It'd make for a good place to display non-World Title talents. Plus the time limit thing I just liked becuase they would always have the face just about to win or making a big comeback when the time runs out. I dunno. I found it entertaining.

[V]

Steve Austin gave Triple H the oppourtunity to face a former heavyweight champion. I believe this to be any sanctioned WWE heavyweight champion. This means that if you have held the WWE Championship or WCW Championship (which are both recognized by the WWE as heavyweight titles), then you were able to be selected. Ric Flair has held both.

nope, i remember it clearly, he said former WORLD champion, then he listed them, he would have listed a lot more people if it was any heavyweight title, he only listed chris jericho, booker T, Ric flair and a few other guys, he didn't mention kane.

[Mr. Nerfect]

[QUOTE=Alienoid06]Steve Austin gave Triple H the oppourtunity to face a former heavyweight champion. I believe this to be any sanctioned WWE heavyweight champion. This means that if you have held the WWE Championship or WCW Championship (which are both recognized by the WWE as heavyweight titles), then you were able to be selected. Ric Flair has held both.[QUOTE]

nope, i remember it clearly, he said former WORLD champion, then he listed them, he would have listed a lot more people if it was any heavyweight title, he only listed chris jericho, booker T, Ric flair and a few other guys, he didn't mention kane.

But the title on RAW is the World Heavyweight Championship, not the World Championship. Austin didn't really need to say Kane, since storyline-wise, anyone who wants to defend their title against Kane is an idiot.

[V]

he had to give trips all his options whether he would face kane or not

[Mr. Nerfect]

he had to give trips all his options whether he would face kane or not

Well, there is always the excuse Kane was too busy. I can't remember who the Intercontinental Champion was at that time, but if it was Kane, then that may have been why.

Another idea is that although Kane is a recognized champion, Austin did win the title back in a rematch from the match in which he lost it. Maybe Kane's 1 day reign may have not been counted by Austin since he considers his win of the title a reversed decision?

[BigDaddyCool]

No, you are all wrong, I was the only right one.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I've come to the conclusion that the WWE United States Championship is a continued version of the WCW one. They don't have wrestlers who won both versions of the US Championship labelled differently on their official site. They only have Booker T listed as a previous WWE United States Champion, not a former WCW US Champion.

[BigDaddyCool]

The only title that ever ment anything was either the hardcore, or Tag Team Champions of the Universe (Headbangers carried around a couple of foam belts for a bit claiming then as the Tag Team Championshipt of the Universe or something).

[ColdwaVer]

Another reason the World Heavyweight Title isn't the WCW Championship is because of the build-up to Chris Benoit winning the title at WrestleMania. If it was the WCW/NWA Championship, Beniot would be a two-time champion.
Benoit's reign in WCW isn't really universally recognized though. Most casual fans don't have the kind of memory of WCW to recall that, and anyways on TV they made it out that Benoit's reign had been voided. It would have been entirely confusing to build Benoit up as a former champion going for his second reign, and it would also have detracted from his quest for the title. At the same time, if you watch the buildup, I don't think they ever actually stated that Benoit was going to win the title for the first time.

Similarly on RAW, they had a reason to cerate a NEW title based on the controversy of Brock beocming exlcusive to SD, but they have no reason/right to claim the lineage that the WWE Title had, which includes the old WWF title and whatever history you want to claim the WCW title had. Like the WWWF in the past, the history of the RAW title only dates back to HHH and the briefcase.
But consider what it was that Bischoff said, and his reasons for awarding the title to HHH. While he was spouting off about disputing the Undisputed Title, he said that HHH was the last one to hold the World Title before the unification, therefore he was giving it back to him. That would seem to me that he was reinstating the World title that previous to Survivor Series '01 been the WCW title. This differs from the matter of SD's tag title belts because those belts have neither the appearance nor name of the WCW world titles, and nobody has ever said anything to connect them to the WCW titles.

The point of Bischoff's administrative power is a storyline point, so it doesn't really affect which title is which. When it comes right down to it, this is sports entertainment and not actual competition, so belts are really just props. Bischoff didn't really come up with the idea of having a champion exclusive to Raw, that was decided by the creative team (actually wasn't it HHH and Stephanie's idea?)
Physical appearances of belts do make a bit of a difference, so it should also be mentioned that when the World Title came to Raw, the design of the Undisputed/now WWE belt was changed. You could say that it was now disputed by HHH's belt, but I think it more likely that it was due to the fact that half of the title's value had been extracted.

Further adding to this confusion now is that when anyone in WWE refers to anyone having been a "World Champion" in the past, they're counting any time that anyone has held a top belt in either WCW or WWE. Flair's 17 (or whatever the real number is) reigns include his two in WWE and all the ones in WCW; if Booker T beats JBL at Survivor Series, he'll be a six time champion regardless of which belt it is.

In the end, we really need an official WWE source on this, and they're generally not too quick to address issues regarding WCW unless it suits them at the time.

[V]

Well, there is always the excuse Kane was too busy. I can't remember who the Intercontinental Champion was at that time, but if it was Kane, then that may have been why.

Another idea is that although Kane is a recognized champion, Austin did win the title back in a rematch from the match in which he lost it. Maybe Kane's 1 day reign may have not been counted by Austin since he considers his win of the title a reversed decision?

wtf, it's in the history books that Kane won it, thats' ALL that matters, and austin had to give all of his options, he even said "these are all your choices"

if you want to consider it a new title go ahead, but the WWE obviously considers it the WCW title, i dont' wanna debate anymore.

[The CyNick]

I believe the WWE put out a magaizine a couple years back where they had all the title histories, and they showed the RAW title as being separate from the old WCW title.

They may have changed their minds since then, but for whatever its worse (which is very little since they dont care themselves) the Undisouted (SD) title was never stripped of its WCW title lineage.

[The CyNick]

But consider what it was that Bischoff said, and his reasons for awarding the title to HHH. While he was spouting off about disputing the Undisputed Title, he said that HHH was the last one to hold the World Title before the unification, therefore he was giving it back to him. That would seem to me that he was reinstating the World title that previous to Survivor Series '01 been the WCW title. This differs from the matter of SD's tag title belts because those belts have neither the appearance nor name of the WCW world titles, and nobody has ever said anything to connect them to the WCW titles.

The point of Bischoff's administrative power is a storyline point, so it doesn't really affect which title is which. When it comes right down to it, this is sports entertainment and not actual competition, so belts are really just props. Bischoff didn't really come up with the idea of having a champion exclusive to Raw, that was decided by the creative team (actually wasn't it HHH and Stephanie's idea?)
Physical appearances of belts do make a bit of a difference, so it should also be mentioned that when the World Title came to Raw, the design of the Undisputed/now WWE belt was changed. You could say that it was now disputed by HHH's belt, but I think it more likely that it was due to the fact that half of the title's value had been extracted.



Obviosuly when talking about this we all know wrestling is a work and trying to figure things like this out is difficult when they themsleves dont care about the history of the titles. However, some people do like to track the history of the titles in a sports manner. Its a little crazy at times, but hey nobody on here claimed to be 100% sane.

The main reason I dont think the RAW title carries the WCW title lineage is because of the storyline power involved. WCW as a brand was dead, so unless they restarted a WCW brand, you cant take a WCW title from an existing championship. You can get your hands on a similar looking title, but that doesn't mean you get to claim lineage. Yes Bischoff said HHH was the last guy to hold the (physical) big gold belt, that was just a storyline reason to hand him the title. I dont see where it gives Bischoff the right to arbitralily take away part of the lineage of the other title.

I mean say I started a promotion, and I somehow got a hold of the old WWF Title that Austin, Rock and HHH traded in the late 90s. Could I then claim my championship dates back to Buddy Rogers and Bruno Sammartino?

Now, I realize this is different because its all WWE, but like I said, there was no WCW to remove that part of the Undisputed Championship. Furthermore, there was no match that Brock missed in order to justify stripping half of his title.

And you made my point with the SD tag belts. Since they are called the "WWE" tag titles, doesn't that mean they have the lineage of the WWF tag titles and RAW has the lineage of the WCW tag belts? I mean that would be the logical next step if we are to say the RAW title is the WCW title. But again you seem to go back to the fact that the physical belts look different, which is meaningless when talking about lineage. And since they never claim the SD tag titles have any history beyond the tourny in '02, then thats how I see the RAW title.

Bottom line is that nobody beat Brock to take part of his Undisputed title, he didn't miss a match that he was scheduled to wrestle in, and therefore just because another "promotion" creates a new World Title, that doesn't automatically mean they get lineage rights.

[Mr. Nerfect]

wtf, it's in the history books that Kane won it, thats' ALL that matters, and austin had to give all of his options, he even said "these are all your choices"

if you want to consider it a new title go ahead, but the WWE obviously considers it the WCW title, i dont' wanna debate anymore.

You don't have to, and my point was that Stone Cold Steve Austin never considers the fact that Kane should be counted as a champion. Would you count him as a champion if he stole it from you, and then the ngith after you got it back? Austin may even consider it just one interrupted reign. That isn't correct.

And the title CAN'T be the WCW Title. Triple H hasn't won it nine times.

[V]

ok i've got more proof, be warned this is a HUGE season mode spoiler in smackdown vs raw, so highlight for it:

JR says (and it is him saying it due to voiceovers) that the undisputed belt returns at wrestlemania, he says this becasue there's a world/wwe title unification match in season mode of the game... you can't argue with the WWE dude

[BJbmxXx]

I think the WWE needs to re-think there title process. Why can't raw just call it's top title the WWE World Championship? why doesn't it say WWE? Same for the tag titles on Raw. I thin raw is the dominent fed in WWE... why can't there titles say WWE?

Bring back the Euro and Hardcore title!

[Mr. Nerfect]

ok i've got more proof, be warned this is a HUGE season mode spoiler in smackdown vs raw, so highlight for it:

JR says (and it is him saying it due to voiceovers) that the undisputed belt returns at wrestlemania, he says this becasue there's a world/wwe title unification match in season mode of the game... you can't argue with the WWE dude

But that doesn't mean the World Heavyweight Title is the WCW Title, it just means there will be one undisputed champion in the WWE. I don't see your point.

BTW, thanks for keeping the spoiler discrete. :y:

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think the WWE needs to re-think there title process. Why can't raw just call it's top title the WWE World Championship? why doesn't it say WWE? Same for the tag titles on Raw. I thin raw is the dominent fed in WWE... why can't there titles say WWE?

Bring back the Euro and Hardcore title!

Because that would make the SmackDown! Heavyweight Title look crap. I would have prefered it if they called the Undisputed Title the WWE World Championship (a combination of the WWE Title & World Title), while the RAW championship was called the WWE Heavyweight Championship.

Then you could call the RAW tag titles the WWE Heavyweight Tag Team Championship, and the SmackDown! tag titles the WWE World Tag Team Championship.

[BJbmxXx]

i c ur point... smackdown would look like crap.

[V]

But that doesn't mean the World Heavyweight Title is the WCW Title, it just means there will be one undisputed champion in the WWE. I don't see your point.

BTW, thanks for keeping the spoiler discrete. :y:

highlight

undisputed title is coming back is what he said, not a new undisputed champion.. it's coming back..., emphasis on COMING BACK :)

[Mr. Nerfect]

highlight

undisputed title is coming back is what he said, not a new undisputed champion.. it's coming back..., emphasis on COMING BACK :)

That is true, but that could mean just the name. Or it could mean the way the title is defended (one champion respresenting both shows). It doesn't necissarily means that the exact same championships will be reunited.

[V]

yes it does, the WWE does not use word logic to run around an idea! it's obvious what they mean, anyway once again, i'm done with this!!!

[Mr. Nerfect]

yes it does, the WWE does not use word logic to run around an idea! it's obvious what they mean, anyway once again, i'm done with this!!!

No, all they mean is what they say. The undisputed champion is a champion who's reign is undisputed. With another hevayweight title, the Brock Lesnar's reign with the WWE Championship/World Championship was again disputed. Jim Ross saying the Undisputed Cha,pionship would be returning means the championship which represents all championships so to speak.

[XL]

Just a little thought, mot sure of the relevance.

All this talk of lineage which led someone to bring in tag titles, i was never quite sure where the tag titles lineage laid. If both titles (WCW & WWE) were combined and put on one show and then the SD! TT titles created which would you claim had WWE lineage??

As far as I was concerned the World Heavyweight Title is essentially the WCW title.

This makes me think about the placement of the tiltes. Surely it would make sense to have the 2 'WCW' titles on the same show. so on Raw we would have the World title (ie the WCW belt) and the Us championship(as the name,if not the lineage is WCW0 and then on SD! have the 2 traditional WWE belts (WWE Champ and IC Champ) if anything just to have a bit of consistency.

[The CyNick]

The tag titles on RAW have the lineage of both the WWE and WCW titles. Those belts were unified at SurvSer 02 if I recall correctly and they kept using the old WWF tag belts as the titles. Then the tag titles became exclusive property of RAW. Later Steph created new SD tag titles, had a tourny and SD had some of its best macthes.

So the SD tag titles dont carry the same lineage of any previous tag title. This is my main reason for thinking the RAW title has no connection to the old WCW title. If it did, then surely the SD tag titles must also have lineage to either the WCW or WWE tag titles, but they dont.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The tag titles on RAW have the lineage of both the WWE and WCW titles. Those belts were unified at SurvSer 02 if I recall correctly and they kept using the old WWF tag belts as the titles. Then the tag titles became exclusive property of RAW. Later Steph created new SD tag titles, had a tourny and SD had some of its best macthes.

So the SD tag titles dont carry the same lineage of any previous tag title. This is my main reason for thinking the RAW title has no connection to the old WCW title. If it did, then surely the SD tag titles must also have lineage to either the WCW or WWE tag titles, but they dont.

Exactly. The "Undisputed" Tag Team Championship is on RAW so to speak, but Steph created new tag titles to make them "Disputed".

Thinking about it, though, the night of the title "unification" (Survivor Series 2001, I think) The Dudleys beat The Hardyz. Now, they then came into possession of both the WWE Tag Team Championship, and the WCW Tag Team Championship. At this point in time, there was going to be a match later that would decide which company survived. I think I remember hearing something about one title simply becomming defunct at the end of the night. So in a way, maybe the titles weren't "unifyed", but more that only one title would remain after the night as the superior championship, while the other would simply become a mark in history. The WWE won, so The Dudleys (who were WWE & WCW Tag Team Champions) became the WWE Tag Team Champions.

That could explain why Stephanie McMahon had access to revive the United States Championship (which may have had a similiar deal with the IC Title at Survivor Series 2001), and might have allowed her to revive the WCW Tag Team Championship (under a different name). I don't think she did, though, but it would make an interesting story, instead of creating a new tag team legacy.

So maybe the World Tag Team Championship on RAW is just the former WWE Tag Team Championship that The Hart Foundation, Demolition, Money Inc. & Edge & Christian held, or maybe it's a composition of WWE & WCW Tag Team Titles? It would be interetsing to see how they explain the Undisputed Championship in the "History of the Championship" DVD. It would be interesting to see one on the World Championship (not World Heavyweight Championship, but WCW Championship), the IC Title, the US Title, the Euro & TV Titles, the Women's, Hardcore & Ligth Heavyweight, the tag team titles of each company, and the Cruiserweight Championship.

[V]

i said i'd stop, but i just wanna give even more proof and let you try to find fault in these words

again in SvR, Jericho and Benoit's tale of the tape say they both won the "World Heavyweight Title" now Jericho won it before bischoff gave it to trips, and benoit won it after that... now they're both stated as world champions, same belt? DUH!

so what are you gonna say, that the belts have the exact same name but they are different belts? :nono:

i swear, if you argue this, you really are just clinging to your theories, comparing this to science, if someone is proven wrong they should let go of their hypothesis, if they don't then scientists claim they have performed BAD SCIENCE!

[Mr. Nerfect]

i said i'd stop, but i just wanna give even more proof and let you try to find fault in these words

again in SvR, Jericho and Benoit's tale of the tape say they both won the "World Heavyweight Title" now Jericho won it before bischoff gave it to trips, and benoit won it after that... now they're both stated as world champions, same belt? DUH!

so what are you gonna say, that the belts have the exact same name but they are different belts? :nono:

i swear, if you argue this, you really are just clinging to your theories, comparing this to science, if someone is proven wrong they should let go of their hypothesis, if they don't then scientists claim they have performed BAD SCIENCE!

But you're going under the assumption that the belt is the championship. This is not the case. How many models of the WWE Championship have we seen over time? Belts change, and they mean NOTHING. Generally speaking, yes, both Jericho & Benoit have held both a WWE sanctioned heavyweight championship, and the WCW Championship. But WHICH WWE sanctioned championship is up in the air.

Unless you can offer proof that the CHAMPIONSHIP was withdrawn from the Undisputed Championship (now WWE Championship) by Vince McMahon, and turned into the World Heavyweight Championship, you're just argueing that the possession of a heavyweight title, and a similar belt makes for them being one in the same.

The name of the championship has nothing to do with a title either. You go by history. Find me where in the WCW Title's history where Triple H won the title a previous 5 times. The World Heavyweight Title is a title created to mimic the WWE Championship, and all sanctioned Heavyweight Titles (WCW Title). A wrestler who has been a WWE Champion (especially an undisputed champion) can lay claim to being a former "World Heavyweight Champion" in a way. I'm not really saying this the way I'm thinking, so I'll give it another go.

-Jericho wins the WWE Championship and the WCW Championship.

-Triple H wins both, and throws them in a symbolic blender, and comes out with a new belt, merging the titles into one championship belt. This Undisputed Championship can be traced back two ways. WCW & WWE.

-Triple H loses this new belt to Hogan.

-Hogan loses the Undisputed Championship to The Undertaker.

-Undertaker loses it to The Rock.

-The Rock loses it to Brock Lesnar (who becoems the last "Undisputed" Champion).

-Lesnar signs with SmackDown!, and takes the Undisputed Title with him. The title is not undisputed, though, because it is disputed, as Eric Bischoff takes the now "absent of life" WCW Title belt, and offers it to Triple H, who now becoems the first World Heavyweight Champion.

-This is why JR got so angry at him being awarded the championship. Titles are usually determined by tournaments, etc. Triple H got a new championship, which immediately resumes the status of a WWE heavyweight title rank. JR is angry because Triple H was given it because he was the last to hold the "belt". Championships aren't measured by material value, which is a trick Eric Bischoff used to make his title seem more important (he can lay claim to Bret Hart, Sting, Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, etc. holding this belt), despite the fact that this title had literally no HISTORY to it. Now the belt has been tinted with that connection to the WCW Championship. A smart move by Bischoff, since he can't lay legal and sanctioned claim to any of the Undisputed Title components.

-Triple H loses this mimic title to Shawn Michaels, Goldberg & Chris Benoit. Randy orton also holds the belt. All these men are part of the championship's history.

-Men like Jericho & Booker T have been in legal possession of the belt. That doesn't mean they are in the championship's history. Jericho can be considered World Heavyweight Title calibur, because he's held the WWE Championship and WCW Championship (both of which are sactioned heavyweight titles). If you generally list all WWE sanctioned heavyweight champions, you'd list everyone in any of those titles history. But if you went into particulars, you'd find that Shawn Michaels never held the WCW Championship, and Sting never held the WWE Championship, etc.

[The CyNick]

Yeah I look at this issue, from a wrestling history point of view, not so much a WWE point of view.

The WWE can say whatever they want, they control the hidtory. But I just look at it from a logic standpoint, and I dont see how anyone can argue the RAW belt has the lineage of the WCW title. The way it all went down doesn't jive with that theory.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Yeah I look at this issue, from a wrestling history point of view, not so much a WWE point of view.

The WWE can say whatever they want, they control the hidtory. But I just look at it from a logic standpoint, and I dont see how anyone can argue the RAW belt has the lineage of the WCW title. The way it all went down doesn't jive with that theory.

Exactly. :y:

[V]

but WWE writes the wrestling history, so WWE's point of view is the historic point of view, isn't it?

and alenoid, how many times have you said the same things over and over -_-

i know what happend, i did watch wrestling back then, but bischoff did have rights to the undisputed champion, it's just steph payed brock a lot to not appear on raw (he was still under both raw and smackdown contracts.. she didn't "sign" him to smackdown) so he could have just taken half of brock's title away, he did have the power to do so, and it was at this point that they started calling brock's title the WWE title, not the undisputed title. If it's not up to the WWE to decide if that has the lineage of the WCW title, who's right is it? If it's not WWE's choice then all it can be at most is a matter of opinion, i'll admit there's good arguments on both sides.. but WWE says the world title has the lineage of the WCW title, and personally that's how i look at it.

[Mr. Nerfect]

but WWE writes the wrestling history, so WWE's point of view is the historic point of view, isn't it?

and alenoid, how many times have you said the same things over and over -_-

i know what happend, i did watch wrestling back then, but bischoff did have rights to the undisputed champion, it's just steph payed brock a lot to not appear on raw (he was still under both raw and smackdown contracts.. she didn't "sign" him to smackdown) so he could have just taken half of brock's title away, he did have the power to do so, and it was at this point that they started calling brock's title the WWE title, not the undisputed title. If it's not up to the WWE to decide if that has the lineage of the WCW title, who's right is it? If it's not WWE's choice then all it can be at most is a matter of opinion, i'll admit there's good arguments on both sides.. but WWE says the world title has the lineage of the WCW title, and personally that's how i look at it.


I agree with you, the WWE does control the titles, but they can't change the past, and they blended the titles together. If they had used any other belt, we probably wouldn't be having this arguement. We probably will never know for sure, but the WWE hasn't really stated either way.

I like to think that if Bischoff was in control of both titles, he would have of made a match for Triple H vs. Lesnar or something, and when Brock didn't show up, he could announce Triple H was the winner via forfeit. I think of the World Heavyweight Title like this:

There are two horse stables. One is the RAW stable, the other is the SmackDown! stable. Now for the last 10 years, there have been two horses that are really impressive. A red horse, and a blue horse. Now, the people who own the RAW & SmackDown! stables buy this red horse (they own the blue horse already) and they breed it with the blue horse ( :naughty: ), which makes a purple horse. Now the blue and red horse are older now, and they can't run. But the purple horse is a mixture of them, and carries on the blue & red heritage.

Now the people in the SmackDown! stable get greedy, and decide to keep the purple horse for themselves, so the RAW people buy a yellow horse, but paint him red, so he looks exactly like the red horse that was famous all those years ago.

The horses look the same, are the same rare colour and can both run really fast. But they aren't the same horse, as much as they advertise the new red horse as "the red horse", the original red horse is retired and its work carries on in its child, the purple horse. There is no way to "undo" the red & blue horse's relations, and there is no way to remove the red horse's DNA for the pruple horse

Red Horse= WCW Championship
Blue Horse= WWE Championship
Purple Horse= Undisputed Championship
Yellow Horse= World Heavyweight Championship
Horses Breeding= :drool:

[The CyNick]

ha ha

thats a crazy analogy, but I agree with it.

[The CyNick]

but WWE writes the wrestling history, so WWE's point of view is the historic point of view, isn't it?

and alenoid, how many times have you said the same things over and over -_-

i know what happend, i did watch wrestling back then, but bischoff did have rights to the undisputed champion, it's just steph payed brock a lot to not appear on raw (he was still under both raw and smackdown contracts.. she didn't "sign" him to smackdown) so he could have just taken half of brock's title away, he did have the power to do so, and it was at this point that they started calling brock's title the WWE title, not the undisputed title. If it's not up to the WWE to decide if that has the lineage of the WCW title, who's right is it? If it's not WWE's choice then all it can be at most is a matter of opinion, i'll admit there's good arguments on both sides.. but WWE says the world title has the lineage of the WCW title, and personally that's how i look at it.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I just dont see it that way from a historical point of view. I dont think a company can re-write history for people who were paying attention while the history was being made.

And even though they seem to equate the RAW title with the WCW title now, there was a time when they didn't; which was evident by a magazine released by the company that showed the RAW title and the WCW title as being totally separate. So even they cant keep it straight.

[Mr. Nerfect]

ha ha

thats a crazy analogy, but I agree with it.

Thanks. :D

[Mr. Nerfect]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I just dont see it that way from a historical point of view. I dont think a company can re-write history for people who were paying attention while the history was being made.

And even though they seem to equate the RAW title with the WCW title now, there was a time when they didn't; which was evident by a magazine released by the company that showed the RAW title and the WCW title as being totally separate. So even they cant keep it straight.

I agree. Gohan3K has turned up some interetsing facts, but I don't think any of them PROVE the World Heavyweight Title is the WCW Championship.

I don't think a company can go back and just say that "X" title change never happened, and these two titles were never unifyed. I think the championships are the one thing in the WWE that shouldn't be worked. If a booking team decides to put a title on a wrestler EVER, no matter if they regret it later on, it should be recognized as a full and worthy title reign. I think the same way about unifications. If two championships are blended together, I don't think the WWE should just go back and say "Nope, we're changing title history, and we're splitting the titles.".

Baiscally I think championships should be stone tablets, and you mark them with their champions as you go, and you can't just "erase" on from its history.

[diamondcutter]

But the WWE never claimed their version of the World Title carried the same lineage of the NWA title. They created a NEW title, which was based off a controversy that gave them a reason to create a NEW title. But it took years for the title to be viewed as the centrepiece of pro wrestling. Look at any WWE history book, they claim Rogers was the first WWWF Champion, and prior to that there was no history for the title.

Similarly on RAW, they had a reason to cerate a NEW title based on the controversy of Brock beocming exlcusive to SD, but they have no reason/right to claim the lineage that the WWE Title had, which includes the old WWF title and whatever history you want to claim the WCW title had. Like the WWWF in the past, the history of the RAW title only dates back to HHH and the briefcase.

People just get caught up in the fact that they use the same physical World Title on RAW that was used in WCW, and therefore say they have the same lineage. But that doesn't make any sense.

Further proof to my point is with the SD version of the tag team titles. Because they created new physical belts, nobody will say their version of the titles have the same lineage of say the WWF or the WCW tag titles. The current SD tag titles were created in 2002, and thats as far as the lineage of those belts go. Whereas on RAW, those belts carry the history of the old WWF and WCW belts which were unified during the whole Invasion deal.


Good point about the tag title lineage, but shortly after WWE re-introduced the
"World" title on RAW in 2002, WWE Confidential ran a segment about its history, which mentioned the NWA/WCW. Not only that, but when they brought up a few past champions, they highlighted Booker T. as a 5-time World Champion, Big Show as a 2-time World Champion, and Diamond Dallas Page as a 3-time World Champion----basically saying that the "World" title does carry the NWA/WCW history.


Same deal with the US title on Smackdown! During the Benoit/Guerrero match for the revived belt, Michael Cole and Tazz mentioned past US champions such as Sting. They may as well have mentioned that the two guys fighting for the vacant title were also former US champs as well.