One thing you can never fault WWE for...

[The One]

They have NEVER treated another companies titles with disrespect. ECW was born on Douglas throwing down the NWA Belt, WCW had Medusa throw the Women's Title in the trash and was going to do the same thing with the ECW Belt when Awesome had it. WWE embraced Flair coming with his belt, and actually made a very popular angle off of it, they invited the NWA Championships on to their shows in 1996 or whenever to help get them more exposure in a positive light, hell they even allowed Tazz to wrestle for the ECW Belt, and then take it with him on SmackDown, where, yes he lost to Triple H, but at no point did they disrespect the title itself.

Good for you WWE. You may drags titles through the shitter once you've bought the companies, but while they're not yours, you do the stand up things. :y:

[Theo Dious]

They also had a prime opportunity to take shots at the WCW Title (if not the belt) when they had Benoit on their programming as an undefeated (if undefended) WCW Champ. They had Smokey Mountain champions on their show and always treated them with dignity. Even when WCW came into WWE, their titles were treated as things of worth; the WCW title match between the Rock and Booker T took the main event slot over Austin vs Angle at SummerSlam '01.

(Good Lord, this is my 1000th post! Go me!)

[The One]

Happy 1000th post DT.

[BigDaddyCool]

I was about to make this thread. Also another thing they do is take advantage of natural story lines the way WCW never did. Yet strangely WWE gets heat for doing this.

[Stickman]

Um...did they not merge all the belts or close to all? Didn't they have Y2J wwe and wcw champ and nobody remembers it?

[Jeritron]

As many faults as WWE has, they still do and basically always have known what they're doing. At least moreso than WCW and TNA, and even though bookingwise ECW was great, they didn't know how to run a promotion.
Not to sound like a WWE mark, they have their share of shortcomings, but they just really know how to be a wrestling promotion.

[Jeritron]

Heenan makes some great points in Death of WCW about some of huge the differences in promotions.

[BigDaddyCool]

Though, to WCW's credit, they are the only promotion that knew how to properly do an invasion angle.

[Theo Dious]

Um...did they not merge all the belts or close to all? Didn't they have Y2J wwe and wcw champ and nobody remembers it?

Yes, and that was done in a way that made both titles seem equal. Like they were each half of an Undisputed Title.

[Theo Dious]

Though, to WCW's credit, they are the only promotion that knew how to properly do an invasion angle.

Well they were also the first ones do do one on a grand scale, weren't they?

[Jeritron]

That is true. But there's a lot of things that are different about it. They were dealing with 3 quasi invaders, and though it was amazing for a year, it got stale quickly and overdone.

As for the Invasion Angle in WWE 2001, I hate it so much and a I criticize it to no end. But there was a lot more shit to handle and many plans and contracts and such fell through, the whole thing was very complicated and a massive change. Not to mention you have a lockeroom full of loyal WWE guys who suddenly see the compettition come in and get pushed over them. There was a huge amount of difficult situations.
Not making excuses, just pointing out the differences between WCW bookin the 3 man nWo invasion and the WWF purchasing and integrating an entire promotion.

[Theo Dious]

As many faults as WWE has, they still do and basically always have known what they're doing.

The problems only arise when they don't CARE.

[Theo Dious]

That is true. But there's a lot of things that are different about it. They were dealing with 3 quasi invaders, and though it was amazing for a year, it got stale quickly and overdone.

As for the Invasion Angle in WWE 2001, I hate it so much and a I criticize it to no end. But there was a lot more shit to handle and many plans and contracts and such fell through, the whole thing was very complicated and a massive change. Not to mention you have a lockeroom full of loyal WWE guys who suddenly see the compettition come in and get pushed over them. There was a huge amount of difficult situations.
Not making excuses, just pointing out the differences between WCW bookin the 3 man nWo invasion and the WWF purchasing and integrating an entire promotion.

If WWE COULD have started with a 3-man invasion, I think they would have. But with all those guys suddenly on they payroll, how could you have them slowly trickle in. The only option would have been to fire over half of them right off the bat.

[Jeritron]

Well what they wanted to do, I believe, was first bring in a slow invasion, and use the Vince/Linda divorce angle to divide the assets in kayfabe. Then they'd have her turn Smackdown or Raw into Nitro and there'd be a war between promotions.

Personally, I think they should have just had Bischoff and a crew of 10 or 12 WCW guys invade. And I mean WCW guys, not Austin Angle and midcarders.
It shouldn't have been done until Bischoff, Goldberg, Steiner, Nash and others (ie Rey) were signed. They should have been given Big Show, and DDP and Booker T should have been more important.


This is a whole other can of worms that can be discussed but I'd rather not get into the weekly Invasion rebooking convo.

[Theo Dious]

Yeah, that can be the subject of next weeks fanboy wars.

[Juan]

I loved the 2001 InVasion... :-\

[M-A-G]

Can't fault them for the sucktitude of a lot of wrestlers.

[NeanderCarl]

Did you never see the "New Generation" promos of 1994, which tended to show WCW stars back in their WWF "glory" days in grainy black and white film with old fashioned music, or in losing efforts to the then-current WWF stars?

Or the "Billionairre Ted's Wrasslin' Warroom" skits, which implied that WCW was full of ancient past-it wrestlers. (Of course, this at a time when WWE was pushing Jake Roberts, Bob Backlund, Jim Neidhart, Barbarian, actively pursuing Rick Rude, Ultimate Warrior and Sgt Slaughter to make returns).

[NeanderCarl]

Just realised you said "companies' titles", not just "companies".... my bad.

[311]

Even when Flair jumped with the WCW belt they didn't disgrace it. They let Flair call himself 'The Real World Champion,' ect.

I mean, they exploited the belt, but didn't disgrace it.

[NeanderCarl]

Although they did steal a lot of reigning champions from various promotions over the years, the final one being Haku/Meng in 2001, they never made them trash the title on TV.

If anything, they had Ric Flair describe his "real World title", the NWA belt, as being worth more than Hogan's belt... although, his being a heel, you were not supposed to believe him, and when he finally won the WWF belt he announced that it was the only belt that was worth a damn. I suppose that was supposed to disparage the NWA title.

[NeanderCarl]

They have knocked the WCW title several times SINCE they bought the company actually.... which shows how genius they really are... discredit a title you own, that you could still make money off....

For example, how can WWE ever market a 'History of the NWA/WCW Championship' DVD, when The Rock and Triple H, among others, have mocked the title, it's legacy and it's worth over the years.

[Jeritron]

Rock and HHH did it to put themselves over as more important. Bottom line is the WCW belt was the WCW belt, and having The Rock and others in WWF want it, win it and care about holding on to it, as well as making it a big deal (main events of ppvs) means that they honor it. Even if they did deride it in promos here adn there, the way they treated it more than made up for that.

[NeanderCarl]

The way they treated it more than made up for that?

What? Taking it off Booker ASAP and passing it around WWE guys, before abandoning it altogether?

[Jeritron]

The WCW title had more credibility in WWF 2001 than it did in 2000 WCW

Abandoning it all together? What'd you want them to do with it?

[CSL]

The way they treated it more than made up for that?

What? Taking it off Booker ASAP and passing it around WWE guys, before abandoning it altogether?

<font color=white>They took it off Booker quick time, fair enough but at least the guys that held it after him were worth a damn (Angle, Rock, Jericho)

It's not like they went and put it on someone like Billy Gunn etc</font>

[Jeritron]

Yea it was treated as a top belt. It was treated as being on par with the WWE title. That's why they were merged.

[NeanderCarl]

It wasn't treated as "equal" to the WWF title. Anytime both belts shared a PPV or big show, it was the WWF title that took the main event slot (which is how it should have been).

They didn't SHIT on the WCW belt, no. But I wouldn't say they treated it spectacularly in 2001 either.

[El Fangel]

I am going to get so flamed for this. But Yes WWE did trash a title.

Storyline wise, when Stephanie awarded Booker T's US Title to Kanyon.

[Jeritron]

It wasn't treated as "equal" to the WWF title. Anytime both belts shared a PPV or big show, it was the WWF title that took the main event slot (which is how it should have been).

They didn't SHIT on the WCW belt, no. But I wouldn't say they treated it spectacularly in 2001 either.

Might wanna check your PPV results for that one because it's not true.

[Theo Dious]

I am going to get so flamed for this. But Yes WWE did trash a title.

Storyline wise, when Stephanie awarded Booker T's US Title to Kanyon.

Whether or not that was "trashing" the title is a matter of opinion. Yeah, it wasn't the most spectacular way to do it, but at least they made the title seem like something he should be happy to be getting. It was his reward for being the "MVP" of the Alliance. As in, "you're the best guy we have. Have a present." Yes, not the best thing to do with a title, but definitely not trashing it IMO.

[Theo Dious]

It wasn't treated as "equal" to the WWF title. Anytime both belts shared a PPV or big show, it was the WWF title that took the main event slot (which is how it should have been).

Like I just said, SummerSlam '01, the WCW title match between Booker and the Rock was the main event, and Austin/Angle was beneath it.

[hb2k]

Well, firstly, they really had no choice while WCW was still alive, because WWF sued WCW for the Madusa situation, under the precedent set in 1991 when WCW took legal action to get their belt back from Flair and WWF, the argument being that a belt is a recognisable symbol of a promotion, and to disgrace the object is unjustly slanderous, or some other legal crap.

However, when Flair came in, they never made his claim to champion legit, the idea was he was always a pretender. Gorilla would constantly put down his claim as a champion. It wasn't the top guy against the top guy, he was just a heel with a belt. Good angle, but it did, in a backhanded way slight WCW, as it made their belt a joke in the land of the big guys.

WWF totally shit on the ECW belt by having Tazz wear it on Raw before doing a job, as well as losing to Triple H, who also kicked Dreamer's ass, giving both guys and the belt absolutely nothing, solidifying on WWE TV that ECW wasn't worth a damn.

Of course it really wasn't by that point, but that's hardly the issue.

[Theo Dious]

Well, firstly, they really had no choice while WCW was still alive, because WWF sued WCW for the Madusa situation, under the precedent set in 1991 when WCW took legal action to get their belt back from Flair and WWF, the argument being that a belt is a recognisable symbol of a promotion, and to disgrace the object is unjustly slanderous, or some other legal crap.

The actual legal circumstance surrounding the belt was a little different. Per WCW policy, Flair he had paid a deposit on it (25,000, I think?), and as WCW had not returned that money to him, it was legally his property. WCW was able to get a legal decision to make WWF stop using the belt on TV and at live shows; that it's visual image was WCW's intellectual property, even if Flair legally owned the belt. Hence the ensuing "visual distortion" image.
As far as the storyline went, the reason you can't say they degraded the belt was that they never really said in an emphatic way "this is not a legitimage World Title," simply "you cannot show this belt on our programming."
Now, someone is sure to point out that Roddy Piper did in fact spit on the belt at one point. This, again, was an act of one man as part of his character. The difference between these one man acts and the trashing of the women's title in WCW, or the destruction of the supposed ECW title on Impact, or the throwing down of the various titles in ECW, is that in those instances, you had the entirety of a promotion basically saying "this/these titles is/are garbage," as opposed to one person expressing their disgust. And incidentally, when Piper spat on the belt, he was more showing his disgust with Flair than the WCW title. Given that that same belt would be carried around with black spray paint on it for a number of years after that, I think a little spit from a hothead like Piper is a small matter.

[Theo Dious]

WWF totally shit on the ECW belt by having Tazz wear it on Raw before doing a job, as well as losing to Triple H, who also kicked Dreamer's ass, giving both guys and the belt absolutely nothing, solidifying on WWE TV that ECW wasn't worth a damn.

It's not a degradation of a championship to put one champion over another.

[El Fangel]

Whether or not that was "trashing" the title is a matter of opinion. Yeah, it wasn't the most spectacular way to do it, but at least they made the title seem like something he should be happy to be getting. It was his reward for being the "MVP" of the Alliance. As in, "you're the best guy we have. Have a present." Yes, not the best thing to do with a title, but definitely not trashing it IMO.
Look at the second post, in the TPWW Stable thread.

[BigDaddyCool]

Well, firstly, they really had no choice while WCW was still alive, because WWF sued WCW for the Madusa situation, under the precedent set in 1991 when WCW took legal action to get their belt back from Flair and WWF, the argument being that a belt is a recognisable symbol of a promotion, and to disgrace the object is unjustly slanderous, or some other legal crap.

However, when Flair came in, they never made his claim to champion legit, the idea was he was always a pretender. Gorilla would constantly put down his claim as a champion. It wasn't the top guy against the top guy, he was just a heel with a belt. Good angle, but it did, in a backhanded way slight WCW, as it made their belt a joke in the land of the big guys.

WWF totally shit on the ECW belt by having Tazz wear it on Raw before doing a job, as well as losing to Triple H, who also kicked Dreamer's ass, giving both guys and the belt absolutely nothing, solidifying on WWE TV that ECW wasn't worth a damn.

Of course it really wasn't by that point, but that's hardly the issue.

To be hoenst, ECW isn't worth a damn.

[Theo Dious]

To be hoenst, ECW isn't worth a damn.

If you're trying to get THAT kind of heat, why don't you just come out and say that Jesus was gay.

[hb2k]

Yeh, I understand the issue, I was just clarifying why WWE didn't do it after that - legal precedent had been set with the Flair incident in court, and when the Madusa thing happened, WWF sued and there was a stand still from that type of action.

Putting one champion over another can absolutely bury the belt the loser holds if it's done in such a way where that is the intent.

[Juan]

They should rename the WHC belt to the WCW title.

[NeanderCarl]

Like I just said, SummerSlam '01, the WCW title match between Booker and the Rock was the main event, and Austin/Angle was beneath it.

Okay, time has done a number on my memory, so I''ll take your word on that one. But that's just the exception to prove the rule.

Plus, there was Shane McMahon involvement, and it was the Rock, one of the WWF's biggest homegrown stars.