Title Discussion Thread

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Gohan3k 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? 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly.

[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]

Originally Posted by Gohan3k 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 ( ), 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=

[The CyNick]

ha ha

thats a crazy analogy, but I agree with it.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gohan3k 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]

Originally Posted by The CyNick ha ha thats a crazy analogy, but I agree with it.

Thanks.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick 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]

Originally Posted by The CyNick 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.