Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

  1. #1
    Senior Member sillyrabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    215

    Question Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    In my opinion, the WWE doesn't defend their titles as often as I believe they should be defending them. Too often you'll see the current title holder walking around with his or her championship week after week and no challengers coming forth. This isn't about who should be the title holder of this title or that title. All I'm asking is do you believe that all of the championships are being defended as often as they should.

    I understand that none of these titles are a TV title where you're supposed to defend it every week. However, I would be more excited to watch Raw and see two or three title defenses every other week. No, I'm not saying I would rather see titles changing hand every week. What I'm saying is that you're defending it more often than not. Either you retain it or you lose it and your storyline will dictate the outcome. So I understand the importance of establishing the story-lines every week. But you can't have PPVs where titles got omitted from the card. You make the room... I don't care if it's a pre-show match. Because what this implies to me is that certain titles aren't important enough. I mean, when did it get to that point. Every title should be important. But it has long since gotten to the point where wrestlers don't need a title to get over. I think there in lies the problem and one reason why there needs to be fewer titles in WWE. However, the topic isn't about fewer titles and PPVs because we'll be here all day.


    Quick thoughts...

    For me, I don't want to think about the WWE title because we all know who's apt to hold it or win it back sooner than later.

    I want the World Heavyweight title to simply go away.

    I think that the Intercontinental and the US titles are relevant or can be relevant. See, I wouldn't mind these two titles acting like a TV title.

    I never was a fan of the Diva's title. It's trite. But, what are you going to do? They aren't bringing back the traditional Women's title like the old Intercontinental title. But if they elect to retire or merge certain titles, why won't they do so with the World Heavyweight title? I mean, the brand extension's over.

    As for the tag team titles, what more can I say about them that hasn't already been written about them. They're ugly as hell. Jokes aside, is it me, or did The Shield become stagnant once they'd won the US and tag team titles? What I would've done was to have them win the tag team titles and not the US title and apply the "Freebird Rule." I don't know. Actually, they and Curtis Axel are who prompted me to think about this as a topic.

    Ironically, I'm now interested the WWE title picture.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    I will never, ever understand why people want the WHC to go away when it's doing a perfect job as the upper midcard title (and if the answer is "because it has 'World' in it," it's not a good answer).

    I think there are enough title defenses, although I wouldn't mind seeing more WWE Title or World Title defenses on TV.

    HAYZE

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heyman
    My client, Brock Lesnar, conquered the Streak.
    This will remain in my sig until The Rock gets his WWE World Heavyweight Championship rematch.

  3. #3
    PW Tag Team Champion!! HilaryFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockport, England
    Age
    26
    Posts
    8,508

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Because the WHC is devaluing the whole concept of being a world champion

    ( ?_?) - 97% of PW suddenly think Michael Cole is awesome. If you're part of the 3% that still thinks he is an annoying tool, copy & paste this into your sig.

    Currently Playing: Suikoden 1, Max Payne 1, Beyond Good and Evil, MGS Peace Walker

  4. #4
    Eater of Worlds Vance Landow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Age
    21
    Posts
    1,009

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by HilaryFan View Post
    Because the WHC is devaluing the whole concept of being a world champion

    ...not really. It's WHO is the WHC, not the title itself.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by HilaryFan View Post
    Because the WHC is devaluing the whole concept of being a world champion
    And there is. It's because it has "world" in it. That's the only reason.

    You're all attached to what wrestling has trained you to believe over the years, and that's that "world" titles are top titles, and now you don't like that WWE wants you to believe something different. That's what this is.

    They're all props.

    HAYZE

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heyman
    My client, Brock Lesnar, conquered the Streak.
    This will remain in my sig until The Rock gets his WWE World Heavyweight Championship rematch.

  6. #6
    PW Tag Team Champion!! HilaryFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockport, England
    Age
    26
    Posts
    8,508

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Because World title should mean you are the top. I don't see how that's a bad thing. Being a world champ and being halfway down the card constant,y is a joke

    ( ?_?) - 97% of PW suddenly think Michael Cole is awesome. If you're part of the 3% that still thinks he is an annoying tool, copy & paste this into your sig.

    Currently Playing: Suikoden 1, Max Payne 1, Beyond Good and Evil, MGS Peace Walker

  7. #7

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by HilaryFan View Post
    Because World title should mean you are the top.
    Why?

    The title is defended all over the world. Therefore, it is a "world title."

    Putting aside what it's meant historically, why does it need to mean anything more than that?

    HAYZE

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heyman
    My client, Brock Lesnar, conquered the Streak.
    This will remain in my sig until The Rock gets his WWE World Heavyweight Championship rematch.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Ambrose Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,537

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    WWE/WHC titles should be defended every PPV, and once every month or two months on TV.

    US/IC titles should be defended twice a month. Split it up however you want, 2 times on TV, once on TV and once on PPV, whatever. Just twice a month.

    Tag titles I think could get away with being defended just once a month.

    Diva's title once a month. Alternating between TV and PPV. One month defend it on tv, the next on PPV.

    Also, they should do more to try to make the WHC on par with the WWE title. It's like they aren't even trying to do that.

  9. #9
    Eater of Worlds Vance Landow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Age
    21
    Posts
    1,009

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    The WWE title only means more because it means you are literally the face of the company, on top of being massively talented.

  10. #10
    Eater of Worlds Vance Landow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Age
    21
    Posts
    1,009

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    The WHC doesn't need to be "on par" with the WWE title. The WWE title SHOULD mean you are the absolute best in the company. It SHOULD be the most important thing, because having it means you are vital to the success of the WWE as a whole.

    The WHC just means you're really fucking good.

  11. #11
    is Fan Fic's biggest bust Dazz Hands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5,347

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Most people think the World title should be gone because who holds it. Since it's not held by major stars, but by young stars, it automatically has lost prestige.

    Bender

    PW Accolades

    Spoiler

  12. #12

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dazzler View Post
    Most people think the World title should be gone because who holds it. Since it's not held by major stars, but by young stars, it automatically has lost prestige.
    I don't think anyone would argue that it's lost prestige.

    But by that logic, we should get rid of every title except the WWE Title.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vance Landow View Post
    The WHC doesn't need to be "on par" with the WWE title. The WWE title SHOULD mean you are the absolute best in the company. It SHOULD be the most important thing, because having it means you are vital to the success of the WWE as a whole.

    The WHC just means you're really fucking good.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vance Landow again.

    HAYZE

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heyman
    My client, Brock Lesnar, conquered the Streak.
    This will remain in my sig until The Rock gets his WWE World Heavyweight Championship rematch.

  13. #13
    is Fan Fic's biggest bust Dazz Hands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5,347

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Champ View Post
    I don't think anyone would argue that it's lost prestige.

    But by that logic, we should get rid of every title except the WWE Title.


    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vance Landow again.
    Well I am going by what I have read on youtube comments, so that probably was the flaw of my logic.

    Bender

    PW Accolades

    Spoiler

  14. #14
    PW Tag Team Champion!! HilaryFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockport, England
    Age
    26
    Posts
    8,508

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    If its not going to be treated like the world titles of old, it shouldn't be called a world title, it's that simple.

    And WHC does not mean you are good. Jack Swagger

    ( ?_?) - 97% of PW suddenly think Michael Cole is awesome. If you're part of the 3% that still thinks he is an annoying tool, copy & paste this into your sig.

    Currently Playing: Suikoden 1, Max Payne 1, Beyond Good and Evil, MGS Peace Walker

  15. #15
    Eater of Worlds Vance Landow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Age
    21
    Posts
    1,009

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Champ View Post
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vance Landow again.
    oh you sweetheart you

    EDIT: JACK SWAGGER IS A REAL FUCKING AMERICAN DON'T TALK SHIT ABOUT OUR OLYMPIC HERO

  16. #16

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by HilaryFan View Post
    If its not going to be treated like the world titles of old, it shouldn't be called a world title, it's that simple.
    Again, why?

    There's no good reason. Like I said, you're just attached to what wrestling has taught you (and it's not just you, that goes for most of the people who make this argument).

    HAYZE

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heyman
    My client, Brock Lesnar, conquered the Streak.
    This will remain in my sig until The Rock gets his WWE World Heavyweight Championship rematch.

  17. #17
    is Fan Fic's biggest bust Dazz Hands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5,347

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    The problem with the World title is card placement and storylines. For too long the World title has opened the show or has been middle of the pack. It needs to be placed in the last three matches of the card. World title match, big match, WWE title match. That should be how a PPV ends (put it in any order you want). I don't think the problem is with who holds it, it's how the person hold it is being booked. Look at Del Rio vs Christian. Del Rio lost countless matches, and the feud had little to no story. It was just Christian won a contender match, so lets have a match every week until the PPV. The match was already going to be good at Summerslam, but there wasn't really a story leading up to it.

    Interest = Good story + Good Match, not just good match or just good story.

    Bender

    PW Accolades

    Spoiler

  18. #18

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dazzler View Post
    The problem with the World title is card placement and storylines. For too long the World title has opened the show or has been middle of the pack. It needs to be placed in the last three matches of the card. World title match, big match, WWE title match. That should be how a PPV ends (put it in any order you want). I don't think the problem is with who holds it, it's how the person hold it is being booked. Look at Del Rio vs Christian. Del Rio lost countless matches, and the feud had little to no story. It was just Christian won a contender match, so lets have a match every week until the PPV. The match was already going to be good at Summerslam, but there wasn't really a story leading up to it.

    Interest = Good story + Good Match, not just good match or just good story.
    Yeah, the story leading up to that match was nonexistent, which was part of why I knew Christian had very little chance.

    HAYZE

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heyman
    My client, Brock Lesnar, conquered the Streak.
    This will remain in my sig until The Rock gets his WWE World Heavyweight Championship rematch.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Vince Mcmahon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,709

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    To answer the OP I think the titles should be defended more and made a bigger deal, but the the WHC and WWE Title defenses are fine. Maybe a title defense 2 or 3 Times on tv though for the year though.

    As for the WHC title and it's limbo of importance concern for some might have to do with the lack of consistency on what the title is suppose to be in the hierarchy since basically the brand split ended.

    If the Rumble winner can decide which champ to go for in the Mania main event shouldn't that automatically make the title SUPPOSE to be seen as equal as the WWE Title?

    There's continuity problems including title reign counts. It's messing with the lore.
    Last edited by Vince Mcmahon; 08-20-2013 at 02:49 PM.
    Who is the boss? Who made wrestling? Who is sports entertainment?

    WRESTLEMANIA 4 LIFE~~

  20. #20

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince Mcmahon View Post
    To answer the OP I think the titles should be defended more and made a bigger deal, but the the WHC and WWE Title defenses are fine. Maybe a title defense 2 or 3 Times on tv though for the year though.

    As for the WHC title and it's limbo of importance concern for some might have to do with the lack of consistency on what the title is suppose to be in the hierarchy since basically the brand split ended.

    If the Rumble winner can decide which champ to go for in the Mania main event shouldn't that automatically make the title SUPPOSE to be seen as equal as the WWE Title?

    There's continuity problems including title reign counts. It's messing with the lore.
    See, that's an understandable concern. It is somewhat inconsistent, but here's the problem.

    If the Rumble winner can only face the WWE Champion, the Rumble becomes a million times more predictable.

    Let's just take the last four years, and who challenged for the WWE Title at Mania in each of those years, as an example:

    2013: Cena
    2012: Jericho
    2011: Cena
    2010: Cena

    So then if we include 2008, Cena has four Rumble wins by now.

    HAYZE

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heyman
    My client, Brock Lesnar, conquered the Streak.
    This will remain in my sig until The Rock gets his WWE World Heavyweight Championship rematch.

  21. #21
    Senior Member Vince Mcmahon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,709

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Champ View Post
    See, that's an understandable concern. It is somewhat inconsistent, but here's the problem.

    If the Rumble winner can only face the WWE Champion, the Rumble becomes a million times more predictable.

    Let's just take the last four years, and who challenged for the WWE Title at Mania in each of those years, as an example:

    2013: Cena
    2012: Jericho
    2011: Cena
    2010: Cena

    So then if we include 2008, Cena has four Rumble wins by now.
    It does make the Rumble less predictable. It shouldn't be a problem just make the title seem more important like when Goldberg, HBK, Batista, Taker, Cena, and HHH wore it.

    Its been done before and can again with just keeping the titles on separate show title defenses. It doesn't need to be a hard split, but a distinction can be made.

    I think that's the bigger issue like how people started ripping apart the IC title when people like Godfather got vanity reigns tarnishing the prestige.

    The argument that it's a prop never made sense to me as it obviously is, BUT it is a VITAL tool in keeping the whole kayfabe of everything.

    The only reason it got to this point is that guaranteed contracts destroyed the true essence of why someone got the belt in the first place as the money maker.

    The true legends all knew how important it was to be taken as champion with great runs. It strengthens your bargaining power at contract time.
    Last edited by Vince Mcmahon; 08-21-2013 at 01:54 AM.
    Who is the boss? Who made wrestling? Who is sports entertainment?

    WRESTLEMANIA 4 LIFE~~

  22. #22
    Senior Member Ambrose Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,537

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vance Landow View Post
    The WHC doesn't need to be "on par" with the WWE title. The WWE title SHOULD mean you are the absolute best in the company. It SHOULD be the most important thing, because having it means you are vital to the success of the WWE as a whole.

    The WHC just means you're really fucking good.
    Of course the WWE title will always mean more, but they should up the importance of the WHC. I didn't mean on par as in equally as important as the WWE title, but closer than it is now.

    They could start by giving the WHC good feuds and storylines.

  23. #23
    Senior Member sillyrabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    215

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    For me, it has nothing to do with the current or past holder of the World Heavyweight title. I don't understand why that was introduced into the discussion. Simply, I believe in championship tiers. A poster explained that the WWE title holder represents the face of the company. Okay. So why is the World Heavyweight title necessary? I argue that it's an unnecessary championship and it has run its course. Especially, now that the WWE has moved away from the brand extension.

    In my opinion, the WWE could elevate the US title. This was my train of thought when I'd alluded to possibly merging the World Heavyweight title with another title. Although the WWE has a history of merging titles, I don't entirely like that idea. However, the US title should be right behind the WWE title, if not the Intercontinental title. See, this is my point, so many titles in one company has diluted the overall importance of winning them. The perception of the Intercontinental title isn't what it once was. I mean, did anyone notice the fail from Axel on this past Raw when he'd thought that Heyman was walking behind him to the ring and realized that he wasn't? Basically, Axel reached backward to hand the Intercontinental title to Heyman. However, Axel was unaware that Heyman wanted to keep his distance from Punk so he'd remain near the top of the ramp or close to the stage. Of course, Axel never turned around until after a few seconds and threw the title down on the floor and proceeded to the ring. I thought that this was funny and disrespectful of the title at the same time. But you can't fault him for this attitude since wrestlers have been mistreating their titles for years.

    In an ideal wrestling world, there would only exist the WWE title, the Intercontinental title, the tag team titles and the Women's title. Perhaps, the Intercontinental title division can involves talent from AJPW. If not, doesn't that defeat the point of naming it the Intercontinental title?

    Although I spoke about elevating the US title, I still view it as unnecessary to have around much like the World Heavyweight title. Because having more titles don't always mean that a lot more members of the roster will get an opportunity to appear on TV. Especially, if the WWE title match or a match of headliners are given plus minutes.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    Quote Originally Posted by sillyrabbit View Post
    For me, it has nothing to do with the current or past holder of the World Heavyweight title. I don't understand why that was introduced into the discussion. Simply, I believe in championship tiers. A poster explained that the WWE title holder represents the face of the company. Okay. So why is the World Heavyweight title necessary? I argue that it's an unnecessary championship and it has run its course. Especially, now that the WWE has moved away from the brand extension.
    Because it IS a lower tier than the WWE Title. It's now the upper midcard title.

    HAYZE

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heyman
    My client, Brock Lesnar, conquered the Streak.
    This will remain in my sig until The Rock gets his WWE World Heavyweight Championship rematch.

  25. #25
    Absolutely Perfect Karadax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    148

    Default Re: Does the WWE defend their titles as often as you would like?

    I'd settle for the IC title being defended once a month on Raw / Smackdown. I still consider it the working mans title, if there is such a phrase.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •