The WWE and World Championship - Second fiddle to contemporary legends?

[Xero]

I've been thinking about this for a while, and with tonight's RAW, with a World Champion vs. World Champion match going on in the middle of the show has just been another drop in this thought's validity.

I'm talking about the fact that the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships are no longer the be-all and end-all. Back just 5-7 years ago, they were still important. Even during the Attitude Era, the main storyline always revolved around the title in some way.

But now, there seems to be a roster of wrestlers who are above the titles. Who are at another level where the titles don't matter, but their feuds are as important or more important than the feud for the world title. It's almost as if the WWE and World championships are at the Intercontinental level of old, and then there's this other level.

Triple H
The Undertaker
John Cena

These three men are absolutely above the world titles. They do not need them. Their matches are or can be more important than almost anything else on a show, no matter what's happening with the titles.

Do you think there are more guys who are at this level, or can be at this level in a few years? Do you think that it's a good thing that these men are above the titles? Do you believe they should be in contention with the titles, or do you think that it's a good thing that they're away from the titles?

Discuss this topic in general.

[DrCrawford]

i was thinking this earlier too. i dont like it as a fan, but what makes them the most money are guys like cena, and thats where they'll get most of their money from. its business, so eh.

[Lara Emily]

I hate it and like it. i hate it because it kinda does make the titles less important but I like it because it keeps those guys away from the titles.

[LuigiD]

I feel like Punk is almost at that level. I have been watching Raw almost exclusively just to see what he does. I don't know if I like it or not. I don't think its something intentional. Every once in a while someone that is not at that "legend" status deserves to get the title. At the same time they can't push the top stars aside because they don't have it. I guess it makes sense.

[Emperor Smeat]

I think it also depends on what the current storylines are since Nexus vs Cena was Raw's hottest and biggest storyline for months in terms of interest compared to Orton and Miz being champions.

It shouldn't really matter that the champion doesn't always close the show but at the same time, the writers/bookers tend to only focus on the mega-stars or current crowd favorite over what would have been a better show layout. This is more of a problem with PPVs than shows themselves for a while.

For example, Benoit rarely closed out the show as champion which wasn't a bad thing but it made the WM 20 special moment feel like it was wasted when Raw kept revolving around Triple H. On the other hand, Miz appears "weak" as a champion so it would make sense to protect him a bit by placing him lower in the show and go with the hotter Cena-Nexus feud.

[BigCrippyZ]

Xero, I know you and I have discussed this in past threads, mostly one's where I've been ranting on the writing/flaws of WWE.

IMO, the title's should never be above anyone who is a legitimate full time performer, and sadly, I feel the performers themselves are and have been above the world titles for quite a while. The world title should always be the primary focus of the shows and just because someone was once a main eventer, doesn't mean that they always have to be in the world title hunt year round either.

To me, the writers have made being a WWE "superstar" and performing for the "WWE Universe", the be all end all and every superstar's lifelong dream and goal, and as long as they're doing that, they don't have any other true "ambitions" like winning a world title. It used to be the norm and understood that every superstar was there to "compete" and work their way up to winning the world title, even if you knew deep down that some guys just never would make it above mid card status.

[ooTin]

I believe to solve this matter, WWE needs to premier a new title. An undisputed championship of sorts, but by a different name.

Or maybe start more feuds based around a newly designed WWE title. To me this is the title with the least amount of prestige in the WWE. I dont believe that the Miz had anything to do with the downfall of the WWE title, in fact I believe Sheamus winning it from Cena the way he did had a lot to do with its demise.

[JimmyMess]

I believe to solve this matter, WWE needs to premier a new title. An undisputed championship of sorts, but by a different name.

Or maybe start more feuds based around a newly designed WWE title. To me this is the title with the least amount of prestige in the WWE. I dont believe that the Miz had anything to do with the downfall of the WWE title, in fact I believe Sheamus winning it from Cena the way he did had a lot to do with its demise.

Wasn't that a source of rumours about a month ago? Bringing the Undisputed championship back?

I definitely agree to do it, it would freshen up the scene, make those involved that much more important. Because to be honest... I don't buy Dolph Ziggler as a threat to Edge...

[Volare]

I've noticed when Cena was going against Barrett, the attitude towards the PPV was kinda like "well, we got the WWE title on the line here....BUT UP NEXT IS JOHN CENA CENA CENA! Oh yeah we have a WHC match too."

[ooTin]

Wasn't that a source of rumours about a month ago? Bringing the Undisputed championship back?

I definitely agree to do it, it would freshen up the scene, make those involved that much more important. Because to be honest... I don't buy Dolph Ziggler as a threat to Edge...

Agreed. Dolf is good, and in time I believe he will be great but not yet. Its just to early. I would like to see more character development so we as fans can know his strengths and weaknesses.

The rumor I herd was about a brand new title. Not sure if it was going to take the place of a current title or a redesign of the hard to look at WWE Championship. I have searched and searched for a leaked picture of said belt but to no avail. Personally, I believe a revamp of the WWE title is needed.

As for bringing the Undisputed title back. I would be all for it.

[Loose Cannon]

I agree with you in a sense, but this is not the first time it's happened over the course of wrestling history. Like you mentioned, there are always going to be certian guys whose matches are seen as more important then the World title matches.

1990: Warriror was Champion, but Hulk's feud with Earthquake quickly became the focus.

1992: Bret was Champion, but his matches were second fiddle to the whole Warrior/Savage vs Flair thing for a bit.

Benoit played second fiddle a lot when he was champion.

And there's a ton of other cases I could go through.

Fact is when you have a "new" champion like Miz, he's not going to get the all mighty treatment. He just hasn't been around that long. Especially when you still have so many over guys this day and age. The WWE would rather have the guys that have "been there, done that" be the focal points of the show.

And that's fine by me as long as the champions are booked strong in thier feuds and matches.

[ooTin]

I agree with you in a sense, but this is not the first time it's happened over the course of wrestling history. Like you mentioned, there are always going to be certian guys whose matches are seen as more important then the World title matches.

1990: Warriror was Champion, but Hulk's feud with Earthquake quickly became the focus.

1992: Bret was Champion, but his matches were second fiddle to the whole Warrior/Savage vs Flair thing for a bit.

Benoit played second fiddle a lot when he was champion.

And there's a ton of other cases I could go through.

Fact is when you have a "new" champion like Miz, he's not going to get the all mighty treatment. He just hasn't been around that long. Especially when you still have so many over guys this day and age. The WWE would rather have the guys that have "been there, done that" be the focal points of the show.

And that's fine by me as long as the champions are booked strong in thier feuds and matches.

Excellent point. But would you agree that throughout the majority of WWE history, the WWE Championship has been the focal point of the story line? Would you also agree that this is how it sould be? I mean there are some guys Austin, Hart, HBK, HHH... that will always be over weather they are champ or jobbing to Zack Gowen. That being said do you think that they should always get the glory of the spotlight?

[Supreme Olajuwon]

I agree with you in a sense, but this is not the first time it's happened over the course of wrestling history. Like you mentioned, there are always going to be certian guys whose matches are seen as more important then the World title matches.

1990: Warriror was Champion, but Hulk's feud with Earthquake quickly became the focus.

1992: Bret was Champion, but his matches were second fiddle to the whole Warrior/Savage vs Flair thing for a bit.

Benoit played second fiddle a lot when he was champion.

And there's a ton of other cases I could go through.

Fact is when you have a "new" champion like Miz, he's not going to get the all mighty treatment. He just hasn't been around that long. Especially when you still have so many over guys this day and age. The WWE would rather have the guys that have "been there, done that" be the focal points of the show.

And that's fine by me as long as the champions are booked strong in thier feuds and matches.

Adding to this, there's always going to be that generational star that always is the center of attention. He's just that popular and the fans will focus on that guy no matter what.

First it was Hogan, then Austin, and now Cena.

Randy Savage and Ric Flair fought at WrestleMania for the WWF Championship. That should be one of the biggest matches ever. But it wasn't even the main event. That was Hogan vs. Sid.

Mick Foley and the Rock had an epic feud over the WWF Championship, but even when they were putting on classics, it was still secondary to Austin/McMahon. When Mick won the belt, the focus of the match was Austin running in and screwing over McMahon. When Mick and Rock had their I Quit match at the Royal Rumble, it was overshadowed by the whole No Chance in Hell theme with Austin and McMahon entering #1 and #2 in the Rumble.


So yeah I kinda see where you're coming from, Xero. But it's just something that happens every now and then in wrestling. And the people who say it's the fault of the modern day programming can shut their stupid faces.

[BigCrippyZ]

Mick Foley and the Rock had an epic feud over the WWF Championship, but even when they were putting on classics, it was still secondary to Austin/McMahon. When Mick won the belt, the focus of the match was Austin running in and screwing over McMahon. When Mick and Rock had their I Quit match at the Royal Rumble, it was overshadowed by the whole No Chance in Hell theme with Austin and McMahon entering #1 and #2 in the Rumble.


I don't know how you can say that the world title still wasn't the focus of the show during this time. After all, the whole Austin vs McMahon feud was all about Austin trying to get the world title and McMahon not wanting him to have it.

[Xero]

Yeah, I don't think that particular era can be seen in this light because everything was intertwined in some way. It might be true that Austin and McMahon were the top feud and Foley and Rock were a rung down, but it was about getting the title shot. At least the title was in some way the centerpiece of the feud and was made to seem important. Austin was willing to go through hell to get the shot.

[#1-norm-fan]

It's awful. Being a world champion is by FAR at an all time low in wrestling. It barely means anything. All comes down to the booking.

And on top of that, there does need to just be one world title but even with two, it's still possible to make them look good. There's just no effort put into it. I feel like the concept of a title mattering died with the roster split unfortunately.

[#1-norm-fan]

Yeah, I don't think that particular era can be seen in this light because everything was intertwined in some way. It might be true that Austin and McMahon were the top feud and Foley and Rock were a rung down, but it was about getting the title shot. At least the title was in some way the centerpiece of the feud and was made to seem important. Austin was willing to go through hell to get the shot.

Yeah. Austin and McMahon revolved around McMahon not wanting a rebellious, anti-corporate champion. Made it seem like who held the title was a huge deal in the boss' eyes. Same with Rock and Foley even. Rock was McMahon's champion and Foley didn't fit his "mold".

[Supreme Olajuwon]

Cena and Punk are feuding about winning the Royal Rumble so they can get a title shot. I dunno how that is not about the title but OK. You guys are right. The title is meaningless.

[#1-norm-fan]

They're feuding right now about winning the Rumble because the rumble is coming up and they are both in it. That is all. The feud is NOT about that. It started with Cena-Nexus, Punk took over Nexus and talked about his dislike of Cena personally making him focus his attacks on him.

The only reason the Rumble comes into effect is because the feud happens to be taking place in January.

[Xero]

#1-wwf-fan's right.

[Xero]

Although, at the same time, Punk is definitely putting the title over when he says he'll main event WrestleMania and winning the title will make Nexus the most dominate force in WWE. So I guess they are putting it over in a way.

But there's still a lot less emphasis on the titles now and they come off as props rather than a centerpiece that everyone vies for.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

You guys are just looking for reasons to bitch. When Cena has the title, you bitch about how predictable and boring it is. When Cena's not chasing the title, you bitch about how the focus isn't on the title.

[Xero]

It's not that Cena doesn't have the belt it's that if you're not Cena you don't matter.

[#1-norm-fan]

I'm not looking for a reason to bitch, actually. I'm just pointing out now that you're way wrong and there's no way the Punk-Cena feud is about the title. So your argument is invalid.

[#1-norm-fan]

The titles mean nothing. Jack Swagger and Sheamus have been champions recently. And neither of them are anywhere NEAR realistically on Cena, Triple H, Undertaker level right now. If the writers can't actually book guys well enough to be stars, I'd rather see Cena or Triple H or Orton with the title until they figure out how to make these guys seem like they're on that level.

[Xero]

Yeah, the titles should be used in a way to get wrestlers close to the level of a Cena, Taker or Triple H. And while the titles do boost them, there is still a very large gap between a champion and them.

I don't think a lot of people COULD realistically be at their level, but if at least give the perception that they can at least hang with guys like it would help out tremendously.

My original intention of the thread was never to shit on Cena. I believe he is above the belt. I personally think it's a good thing that there are guys at that level. But that doesn't mean they have to be the be-all and end-all of the focus of a show. Cena is still going to be as over as ever if he isn't in the main event in a reffing spot, for example. Give the titles the main event when someone like Cena isn't going for it unless you have a white-hot feud like Taker vs. Michaels.

Unless you have something like Taker vs Michaels, a title match should have as much or more focus than these guys' feuds get. Because, if they have that focus and the perception that the title is as important as someone like Cena, then you can start really making stars in a more direct way that will eventually be able to hang with someone like Cena without ever having to set foot inside a ring with Cena. And I think that's what WWE is lacking and what the titles can bring to WWE. A way to raise someone without having to be in the ring with one of these contemporary legends.

And for the record, I'm only using Cena as the example here. You can replace it with Undertaker and it'd be the same thing.

[Anybody Thrilla]

The Royal Rumble has always been about getting a title match at Wrestlemania. There's 40 guys in it, and they're trying to create an air of unpredictability. The focus shouldn't be on the guys who are already champions. It should be on the Rumble itself and its participants. Did you see how pissed Barrett and Punk were when they thought they were out of the Rumble? The title is definitely the endgame for both of those guys. I don't see it as a problem at all.

After the Rumble is Elimination Chamber, where six guys will be going after EACH title. After that, the Wrestlemania build will be all about the title matches and the Undertaker's streak inevitably. I think the titles are still important...it's just the nature of the Rumble that the actual titles seem less so.

[Anybody Thrilla]

It's not that Cena doesn't have the belt it's that if you're not Cena you don't matter.

I feel like Edge v. Miz was the longest segment on Raw last night. Cena reffed a match and cut a promo...where he was interrupted by the champ. I don't think it's fair to say that Cena was the focus of last night's show.

[Anybody Thrilla]

And I know Edge and Miz was "middle of the card", but they've been doing a "first hour main event" format for quite some time now. The end of a show is supposed to leave people wondering what's going to happen next so they'll tune in next week. If Edge and Miz closed the show, we would have ended Raw on a Dolph Ziggler run-in instead of an epic free for all in the middle of the ring involving superstars from both shows. I think the booking made perfect sense.

[Sycophant]

I agree with what someone said earlier about keeping these guys away from titles. If the world titles were always the center of attention...the main draws would ALWAYS have the title. John Cena and Randy Orton would just pass the title back and forth constantly. Miz would have never been champion and nobody would ever be pushed above mid-card status until Cena, Orton, Taker, HHH, and Edge retired or got injured. I dislike how the title doesn't mean as much as it used to just as much as the next fan, but it is almost a necessary evil or the product would get extremely stale...quickly.

[#1-norm-fan]

I agree with what someone said earlier about keeping these guys away from titles. If the world titles were always the center of attention...the main draws would ALWAYS have the title. John Cena and Randy Orton would just pass the title back and forth constantly. Miz would have never been champion and nobody would ever be pushed above mid-card status until Cena, Orton, Taker, HHH, and Edge retired or got injured. I dislike how the title doesn't mean as much as it used to just as much as the next fan, but it is almost a necessary evil or the product would get extremely stale...quickly.

The title SHOULD be on the top guys. If it's what everyone strives to have, then not having it on the top guys is ridiculous. I think you're just thinking "Well, if it has to go on the top draws, then it would always be Cena and Orton" while ignoring the option of actually MAKING more guys top draws.

I'm not saying don't give the title to a Jack Swagger or a Sheamus. I'm saying put them on the level of an Orton or a Cena and THEN give them the title. Having obvious mid-carders with the title only makes the title a mid-card title. It doesn't make them superstars. Jack Swagger and Sheamus did not become mega-stars because of their title regns. They did make the title seem more like a piece of shit though that anyone can win.

[Anybody Thrilla]

I think The Miz is looking more and more like a mega star each day.

[The Naitch]

because the titles are just props to put over younger guys

Rock had the title in The Corporation, but the main storyline was still Vince vs. Austin. Rock vs. Mankind was playing second fiddle to that

[#1-norm-fan]

Miz is getting there, but I still think he should have been booked to look more threatening BEFORE winning the title as opposed to giving him the title and then worrying about making him look strong. It's such an easy concept but it seems like the writers have such a hard time grasping it.

[#1-norm-fan]

because the titles are just props to put over younger guys

Even if that is what the titles have been relegated to, they've failed miserably even at that. Sheamus and Swagger are in no way more over in my eyes having been former champions. No matter how much Michael Cole might throw out the "Former world champion" comment during their matches, it's more of a reminder than an impressive fact. It means nothing.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Miz is getting there, but I still think he should have been booked to look more threatening BEFORE winning the title as opposed to giving him the title and then worrying about making him look strong. It's such an easy concept but it seems like the writers have such a hard time grasping it.

Why does a champion have to be threatening, though? He's a cunning guy who is at least pretty compotent in the ring...he won the Money in the Bank contract, and that felt believeable...he has a diehard sidekick willing to do anything for him...sounds like he could easily win the belt to me.

He was pretty credible already, having a super long U.S. Title run and a great tag title run with The Big Show. Just because he didn't ever beat Cena in a squash match doesn't make him a bad title candidate.

[BigCrippyZ]

The title SHOULD be on the top guys. If it's what everyone strives to have, then not having it on the top guys is ridiculous. I think you're just thinking "Well, if it has to go on the top draws, then it would always be Cena and Orton" while ignoring the option of actually MAKING more guys top draws.

I'm not saying don't give the title to a Jack Swagger or a Sheamus. I'm saying put them on the level of an Orton or a Cena and THEN give them the title. Having obvious mid-carders with the title only makes the title a mid-card title. It doesn't make them superstars. Jack Swagger and Sheamus did not become mega-stars because of their title regns. They did make the title seem more like a piece of shit though that anyone can win.

Hell yeah man. This is the problem I have with the title scene right now too. It's not that I can't buy Sheamus, Swagger or Miz as credible world champions, it's that your world championship should always primarily be the focus of the show.

Take a look back at the build up to Mania 17 for example. You had Rock and Austin feuding for the world title, while former main event guys and world champions like Undertaker, HHH, Big Show, Angle and Kane were in secondary feuds at this time. When the Austin vs Rock feud was over, they had other main event level guys come in to the title scene again with no problems, and it felt legit and important.

[#1-norm-fan]

Why does a champion have to be threatening, though? He's a cunning guy who is at least pretty compotent in the ring...he won the Money in the Bank contract, and that felt believeable...he has a diehard sidekick willing to do anything for him...sounds like he could easily win the belt to me.

He was pretty credible already, having a super long U.S. Title run and a great tag title run with The Big Show. Just because he didn't ever beat Cena in a squash match doesn't make him a bad title candidate.

He has done the whole "cunning guy who gets a little edge on his opponents with it" thing well. When I say "threatening", it doesn't necessarily mean he's intimidating or anything. It just means he can beat anyone anytime. And he's starting to come into that to me. I just think he should have been a bit more entrnched in that Cena-Orton scene and hit that level BEFORE winning the title as opposed to the way he is doing it now.

I can't really see him main eventing a WrestleMania though. I feel like if you have to do a quick title change to get the belt off someone so they aren't main eventing WrestleMania, then you need to not put the title on them yet. It's been done too much and it's ridiculous.

[Anybody Thrilla]

I would honestly love Cena v. The Miz at Wrestlemania. A Wrestlemania crowd would eat that up. Even though I don't see that happening this year, I really hope that The Miz at least goes into the show with the belt, just to continue proving everybody wrong (like he's done from the very beginning).

[BigCrippyZ]

I feel like if you have to do a quick title change to get the belt off someone so they aren't main eventing WrestleMania, then you need to not put the title on them yet. It's been done too much and it's ridiculous.

Agreed. I feel like they've been doing this quite a bit the last year or two around Mania and the BIG PPV's.

[Damian Rey]

In my view, the hottest going angle should be at the top of the show. As mentioned earlier, back when Foley and Rock were stringing classics together, Austin/McMahon was the dominant storyline.

I don't think this is a bad thing per say. It is bound to happen at some point, and sometimes needed. The Nexus/CM Punk/Cena angle is so big right now that it'd be a tough argument to bump it behing the title. For a while, the title intertwined with Nexus.

As long as they keep mentioning the importance of winning the Rumble as a way to headline Mania for the top belts, than I think it's fine. Right now, the Rumble is all the talk. You have Barrett, Cena and Punk, 3 top main eventers, with the same goal; win the Rumble, then win the title.

I also think that the way the Miz is being booked and the promos and face time he has gotten since getting his run have kept the title relevant. He's been on SmackDown! several times and is currently in a fued with arguably the hottest face in the company.

Honestly, the fueds, matches, and promos surrounding the belt since the Miz won it have been pretty good. I don't think having the angle booked in the middle of the show is such a bad thing. The main storylines on Raw right are so good that, to me, they're interchangeable in terms of where on the show they're booked.