Should WWE.com recognize the WCW and WHC World titles as one and the same?

[The_Boss]

I think they should. After all WWE has ALREADY confirmed this with the DVD "History of the World Heavyweight Championship" and the publication "The Complete History of Champions" (where it said that the WCW title was re-instated). Plus it adds more history and prestige to the championship.

What do you thin? Please explain why you think this way.

[kito333]

I always thought that they should recognize it at the WCW Title. I always thought it would make it more prestigious if the history went back to the WCW and even the NWA days if you want to take it that far.

[The_Boss]

Clearly they designed it after the Big Gold Belt so that fans would make the visual connection. JR has made the connection on TV multiple times. They published a magazine that said so and then the DVD. In reality, WWE.com is the ONLY area of WWE that does NOT recognize that the titles are in fact the same.

[merle]

Anyone old enough to have been around when WCW was still alive pretty much knows that it is the same title design with just a couple of tweeks. I know that I still think of it as the renamed WCW title. Why not recognize them as the same title? Same thing with the United States Championship (although the title design is vastly different). Recognize the title history going all the way back.

[Heteroflexible]

Clearly they designed it after the Big Gold Belt so that fans would make the visual connection. JR has made the connection on TV multiple times. They published a magazine that said so and then the DVD. In reality, WWE.com is the ONLY area of WWE that does NOT recognize that the titles are in fact the same.

Also so Vince could rub it in the face of all of his former rivals.

[Todd]

I would have, but remember they unified the two titles and created a new belt. Recognising the WCW linage would've meant pulling it out of the WWE title linage. I can see why they didn't do it.

[Slushy]

I always looked at it as the same title when WWE decided to un-unify the Undisputed Championship. It didn't help when Eric Bischoff and the WWE production crew reminded people of the belt's lineage. It was fail on WWE's part of being too lazy go back to using the Gold Eagle belt for the WWE title.

[BATISTA_CenA]

I hope not , the WCW title died with the actual WCW , Booker T was the last champ & that's it end of story! The "WCW" title was never defended or won or lost in the WWE... ..

[The_Boss]

I hope not , the WCW title died with the actual WCW , Booker T was the last champ & that's it end of story! The "WCW" title was never defended or won or lost in the WWE... ..

A classic case of: (fingers in ears) "Blah, blah, blah - not listening - blah, blah, blah". lol

[Djm]

Why would they recognize it as the WCW Championship?

Because WCW isn't around anymore, and WWE has done a great job of telling everyone that WCW sucked. Why would anyone want a WCW Title now? It's been 11 years, anyway.

[1-2-3 Kid]

wCw version was the only thing that gave WWE's version any credibility it has. By the way, by far best design ever for a championship belt.

[The_Boss]

I would have, but remember they unified the two titles and created a new belt. Recognising the WCW linage would've meant pulling it out of the WWE title linage. I can see why they didn't do it.

But they did pull them apart. They even reused the same angle with the AWA and WCCW titles. Brock Lesner became exclusive to Smackdown and was unable to live up to his commitment to defend on both brands. So Bischoff (GM of RAW) stripped him of the WCW World title (which had been renamed "World Championship" back in November of 2001 - BEFORE the titles were unified) and awarded it to #1 contender Triple H.

So the title linage should begin in 1991 when WCW split with the NWA and named Flair the first WCW World champion, include the months where it was unified with the WWF/E World title (the "Undisputed World title") and continue through the WHC years. In actuality the title has never been dormant.

[The_Boss]

Why would they recognize it as the WCW Championship?

Because WCW isn't around anymore, and WWE has done a great job of telling everyone that WCW sucked. Why would anyone want a WCW Title now? It's been 11 years, anyway.

No one said they should rename it again. Just simply restore the title history of the WCW years.

[Kid Jericho]

But they did pull them apart. They even reused the same angle with the AWA and WCCW titles. Brock Lesner became exclusive to Smackdown and was unable to live up to his commitment to defend on both brands. So Bischoff (GM of RAW) stripped him of the WCW World title (which had been renamed "World Championship" back in November of 2001 - BEFORE the titles were unified) and awarded it to #1 contender Triple H.

So the title linage should begin in 1991 when WCW split with the NWA and named Flair the first WCW World champion, include the months where it was unified with the WWF/E World title (the "Undisputed World title") and continue through the WHC years. In actuality the title has never been dormant.

The DVD and WWE.com differ. WWE.com, and the broadcast at the time, positioned it as a new belt, only saying there wasn't "one undisputed" world champion in the WWE. They never once, to my recollection, ever said "this is the wCw title."

I like the idea of it being a new title.

[BATISTA_CenA]

...The Rock , Kurt Angle......Never WCW Champions.... ..

[merle]

I hope not , the WCW title died with the actual WCW , Booker T was the last champ & that's it end of story! The "WCW" title was never defended or won or lost in the WWE... ..

Yes it was. IT was still recognized as the WCW title during the invasion. Booker lost it to Angle, then regained it, then droped it to Rock who droped it to Jericho who droped it back to rock and then Jericho finally won it back to unify the titles.

Pretty active title in the WWF quite frankly.

[The Main Event]

That would mean they would have to recognize David Arquette as a (technical) champion in the history of WWE.


No. No they should not .

[The_Boss]

That would mean they would have to recognize David Arquette as a (technical) champion in the history of WWE.


No. No they should not .

The already have women holding men's titles, men holding women's titles and non wrestlers holding the WWE World and ECW titles. So... I don't think WWE is free of low points.

[Falcone]

Except they have said it is the one and the same. HHH mentioned that it was the same belt held by Ric Flair during The Reign of Doom, and WWE.com shown the belt's history to go back to WCW, even showing Arquette (and saying it was the low point in the titles history)

[Todd]

Do they?

http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehis...rldheavyweight

[Falcone]

I said Shown. Past tense, Mr. Todd.

[Todd]

Sure. But isn't it now the case that they aren't recognising them as one and the same?

[The_Boss]

Sure. But isn't it now the case that they aren't recognising them as one and the same?

Well. seeing as how they have said many times that the titles are indeed the same, WWE.com looks foolish by trying to deny it at this point.

[Falcone]

Quite so, Todd. Of course, this could be just a minor case of haberdashery on the part of Vincent Kennedy McMahon, as when Hunter Herst Helmsley takes charge, he could very well restore the history, and thus prestige of the belt.

Also, I'm feeling overly posh today.

[Vince Mcmahon]

It's just a case of trying to ignore a part of history in the modern era. This is the same company who once ignored anything prior to January 23, 1984. It's also just like the wwwf/nwa split in the genesis of the title where the company would just ignore the competition.

It's the same title for the reasons stated. If the company really wanted people to think it was a new title there would have been a new design and not the design of the half of the undisputed title HHH was wearing just 5 months earlier. Bischoff even stated he brought the title back as it was in a briefcase (MITB roots lol).