| W E L C O M E G U E S T S Welcome to 6 Star Wrestling. We are a small community of dedicated wrestling fans. Our forum members range from new to the product to 20+ years of viewer knowledge of the product. We discuss WWE, TNA, ROH, WCW, and various other wrestling companies. Regardless if you have just watched your first wrestling show or if you have been following wrestling your entire life, I guarantee that you'll find someone to have an in-depth and enjoyable conversation with. We also have discussions that are not related to wrestling. We discuss movies, music, news, play games, and do all sorts of fun and interesting things. So even if you are not a wrestling fan, we can guarantee you'll find something to keep your interest while you are here. Feel free to follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook with the links below! Please enjoy, The 6 Star Community Register your free account today! http://6starwrestling.net http://twitter.com/6StarWrestling http://facebook.com/6StarWrestling |
| WWE Title vs. WHC | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 21 2012, 11:50 AM (303 Views) | |
| _DL_ | Jan 21 2012, 11:50 AM Post #1 |
![]()
BURN IT DOOOWWNNNNNNNN!
|
Given the chance, which belt would you want to carry? The WWE Title or the WHC? Regardless of which brand the belts are currently on. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 21 2012, 11:55 AM Post #2 |
|
WWE, easily. The World Heavyweight Championship now is basically what the Intercontinental Championship was in the 80s and 90s.(with the IC and US being the new European). The main headlining feuds for years now have been oriented around the WWE belt, with the WHC taking a back seat most of the time and it's pretty much been that way since John Cena came to Raw. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 21 2012, 04:36 PM Post #3 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
I disagree with this. The WHC is held by legitimate World Champions and even main events PPVs. I can see the argument behind it -- especially since Daniel Bryan is the current WHC and names like Swagger and Khali were Champions in the past, but I don't think it has lost it's true World status. I think the fact that it was carried by names like Edge, Batista, Undertaker, Orton and even Kurt Angle keeps the value of the belt. That said, I do think the WWE Title has more worth than the WHC. However, I think the WHC is the better looking belt. So from a purely cosmetic outlook, I'd rather wear the WHC since I'd want to have a belt that actually looks like a Championship. But from an ego standpoint, I'd rather have the WWE Title since it has more importance. |
![]() |
|
| Kame | Jan 21 2012, 04:42 PM Post #4 |
|
Definitely the WWE Championship for its long line of history alone. Nearly 100 different people have held that title, many of which who are bona fide legends of the business. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 21 2012, 05:31 PM Post #5 |
|
And the Intercontinental Championship was held by Randy Savage, Ricky Steamboat, Bret Hart, Steve Austin, The Rock, Triple H, Ultimate Warrior, etc - with several of the older names at the top of their game.
|
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 22 2012, 01:16 AM Post #6 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
But none of those names were main eventers at the time of holding the IC Belt. They were all mid carders holding a mid carder title. The WHC is a main event title held by main event wrestlers. That's why the comparison is not an accurate one. |
![]() |
|
| _DL_ | Jan 22 2012, 02:01 AM Post #7 |
![]()
BURN IT DOOOWWNNNNNNNN!
|
The easy choice would be to say the WWE title, I mean look at how big of a deal WWE made out of Punk and Rey winning the title even though they were multi-time WH Champions. But I would say the WHC. I would take it as a challenge to bring a bit more prestige to the title. I think the way to do that is by putting on better quality of matches, feuds, promos and a better class of wrestlers. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 22 2012, 03:06 AM Post #8 |
|
After a little more thought, I think I would prefer to hold the WWE Championship over the World Heavyweight Championship if I was to only have one or two reigns - purely for bragging rights and name value reasons. However, holding the WHC would definitely give you a better chance to no end up as some pawn in a John Cena feud or as simple transitional champion in-between guys like Punk or Cena. It could be a great way to grow as a performer and secure your name value so you can have a better shot at being the next Punk or Cena.
Not all Intercontinental champions were midcarders. Triple H, Ultimate Warrior, Randy Savage are three examples of guys who held the Intercontinental Championship while still being amongst the top superstars in the company. As for the WHC being a secondary belt: when the WWE and WHC belts are featured on a PPV, which belt is usually/almost always the belt involved in the main event? And which one is often featured towards the middle of the card? Who held the belts once upon a time no longer matters. The WHC once was treated like a true equal to the WWE belt, but it's been fading in importance and prominence on event cards since moving to SmackDown many years ago. I'm going to take a sample of the last fifteen champions for each championship in descending reverse order. In the following samples, I'll also provide information on where the deciding championship match was defended on the card and which championships were booked at a higher level, i.e. closer to the main event/as the main event (except for television episodes that feature champion changing matches): World Heavyweight Championship WWE Championship And now for a little retrospective on the most important and largest show of the year - WrestleMania: The World Heavyweight Championship has been around since 2003, and in that time has been featured in nine WrestleMania events. Over the years, the WHC has been featured four times in the top three matches of the WrestleMania card. In comparison, the WWE title has been featured nine times in the top three matches of the card at WrestleMania. The WHC hasn't been featured in the top three matches of the card since WrestleMania XXV in 2009. Of the nine appearances of the WHC, it has only been booked higher on the card than the WWE title three times - and not since 2008 at WrestleMania XXIV. --- I think the above speaks for itself. Regardless of whatever importance the World Heavyweight Championship used to have, it's no longer treated as an equal to the WWE Championship - which makes it a secondary championship in importance. Which not only means it's valued lower than the WWE Championship but that it has become the modern day version of the Intercontinental Championship. A secondary championship is exactly what the Intercontinental Championship used to be during the 80s and 90s. That isn't necessarily an insult directed towards the WHC either, since during the 80s and 90s, the IC title was often considered to be very important and prestigious - at times almost as important as the WWE title - but still spending it's life until the brand split as a secondary championship for WWE. Suppose the brands were officially unified again and neither belt was retired, which championship do you think would take prominence at WWE shows? Which championship would be used for people they want to promote but not at the level of the main championship? The championships would fall into line as I have outlined above and as they have been stacked in importance for many years now. Edit: It feels weird to put that much energy into a post about wrestling again.
Edited by Kraul, Jan 22 2012, 03:17 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 22 2012, 10:52 AM Post #9 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
I didn't say that the WHC and WWE Titles were on equal footing. I even said the WWE Title was the more prestigious of the two. To say anything else would be foolish on my part. What I'm saying is that the WHC is not a secondary belt. The WHC is a legitimate World Title. It is a main event level title. At any point it can be swapped out for the WWE Title, and WWE has swapped the belts several times already. WWE does favor the WWE Title, but the WHC is still a top title in the company. That said, I do wish WWE would combine the two belts (and the US and IC belts for that matter). They already have the "Raw Supershows" which feature both Raw and SD! each and every week. And we see Raw guys on SD! most weeks as well. There is no separation of brands and WWE doesn't even pretend like there is anymore. If there is even a draft this year, I'll be shocked. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 22 2012, 11:06 AM Post #10 |
|
If the WWE Championship is the number one belt in the company, the top belt, then that makes the World Heavyweight Championship the number two. They're not equal in terms of value, prestige, or regular position on the card, so that by default means the WHC is the lesser of the two. It's a main event championship, sure, but that's only because SmackDown needs a "big" belt of their own. If you have the WWE and WHC belts on the same show/card, however, the WWE almost always has the focus with the WHC playing the role of lesser belt (with the even lesser belts like the IC or US being practically useless most of the time - like modern day versions of the European Championship). Once upon a time years ago the belts did swap a few times, but that was a different era. There was once a time when the two belts were true equals and could truly be switched back and forth and still be easily viewed as the "big" belt. But those days are gone. WHC feuds usually get put on the back burner in comparison to WWE title oriented feuds and I can't see anybody thinking that both belts are still equal. If you ask somebody who is "the champion", they'll tell you the WWE Champion - not the World Heavyweight Champion. Basically, I don't really understand how you can see the belts as being equal but unequal at the same time. That's just not possible. Either they have the same level of respect and value, or one is higher up (making it the main belt; #1) and the other is beneath it (making it the secondary; #2). As for the draft, the only possible reason I could see for them continuing like they do is for house shows and to justify their number of championships - which they love to toss around. If the brands merged and the belts were reduced by half, then WWE would be forced to either have some house shows without featuring the champions or have their champions work even more. Which, honestly, I think if somebody is going to be a champion they should have to work more to prove their worth. If it's too much for them, then go find another career. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 22 2012, 11:22 AM Post #11 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
I don't think I've made my point very clear, so please allow me to re-explain myself: I do agree that the WWE Title is the top belt and I do agree that the World Title is a notch down. WWE favors the belt that is on Raw and the WWE Title has been on Raw for several years now. It is clearly the top belt in the company. I do think WWE can switch the belts around again and the World Title could be the top belt again, as long as it is on Raw. I don't think they'll do that again, but it could possibly happen. Also, while WWE does favor the WWE Title, holding the World Title is a legitimate World Title accolade. It's why Edge can boast about being a 10 time World Champion or why Orton can brag about being a however-many-time World Champion. Both men held both the WWE and World Titles, but they still get the same credit. So the World Title is a legitimate World Title. That's how they can be equal but unequal at the same time. It's just WWE will always favor the belt that's on Raw. Now, that's not even my main argument here. My argument is that the World Title isn't the same as the IC Title used to be. When I think of the glory days of the IC Title, I think about WWE grooming future World Champions. You can look down the list of IC Champions and see future World Champions: Ultimate Warrior, Macho Man Randy Savage, Bret Hart, HBK, Stone Cold, Triple H, The Rock, Randy Orton, Edge. The IC Title was a way for WWE to both test a guy and prepare a guy for the next step up. The World Title, however, does not hold this same type of benchmarking. WWE doesn't put the World Title on someone as a test to see if they are good enough to be WWE Champion. WWE puts the World Title on someone that they already have faith in and already see as a World Champion. That is the difference to me. And, yes, I say that knowing that Daniel Bryan is the current World Champion. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 22 2012, 11:43 AM Post #12 |
|
Don't they? CM Punk is a perfect example. He was a multiple time WHC but they never really gave him the main event ball, just kind of tested him. When he proved to be a possible worthy main event on a larger scale, they moved him to Raw and had him involved and eventually win the WWE title multiple times. Christian was WHC but does anybody honestly think they would give him the WWE title without testing him? His two runs with the WHC were a test to see how he would work at a higher level with a larger belt. Whether or not he passed, we will see in time. Daniel Bryan has been somebody they seem to be kind of iffy on. Some times getting behind and then other times not, so they give him the WHC - which was involved in a clearly main event feud of Big Show vs Mark Henry ( ) - to see how he performs with some spotlight on him. If he winds up doing very well, I'm sure they'll move him to Raw and have him in the WWE title scene.It's a secondary title. It being a "world" belt doesn't affect this. There's a reason why most of the true main eventers revolve around the WWE title while the guys who would be more likely to work the midcard/upper midcard on a unified brand usually pursue the WHC and that's usually because WWE doesn't seem to think they are at the level of John Cena or CM Punk. Some of the guys have WWE's faith behind them as potential WWE title challengers and pursue the WHC, but that's mostly because it's the top belt on SmackDown and they have nothing else to go after unless they move one level up and get into something with the primary belt - the WWE title. Was the ECW World Heavyweight Championship not a second or third string belt when it was around in WWE? After Rob Van Dam lost it, it quickly devalued and became a kind of test to see if people were ready to move up - like the fake ECW was in general. Yet for quite some time it was still a "world" belt (eventually losing the 'world' name, although I don't know if that took away it's official status). |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 22 2012, 12:01 PM Post #13 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
Yes. When Edge was active, the World Title was Edge's belt. They put the belt on someone else for a few months as a break, but it was always Edge's belt. When Undertaker shows up, it's Undertaker's belt. They'll put the belt on someone else for a few months, but it's his belt. When Batista was on SD!, that was Batista's belt. Now, the World Title is Orton's belt. They took the belt off him for a few months (maybe longer now that's he's hurt), but that is Randy Orton's belt. It'll be back around Orton's waist sooner than later. As far as WWE testing the waters with the World Title with Punk, Christian, and Bryan...WWE does the same thing with the WWE Title on Raw. Let us not forget that Alberto Del Rio was WWE Champion not once but twice in 2011. Do you consider him to be a bona fide World Champion on the level of Orton, Cena, or Punk? Nope. When Sheamus first entered on Raw, he was given the WWE Title twice. But he's currently the very definition of a directionless mid carder. Who was the first person to take the WWE Title off Cene? Edge got his first WWE Title with that victory. Jeff Hardy's first World Title reign was the WWE Title as well. So WWE does test the waters with both titles. To only cite the World Title testees is kind of ignoring half the argument, isn't it? |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 22 2012, 12:22 PM Post #14 |
|
Edge and Jeff Hardy were already proven main eventers when they gained their chance. And with Sheamus and Alberto it was pretty clear WWE was very much behind them in their pushes, it just didn't work out like they expected/hoped. Meanwhile, guys like Christian and Daniel Bryan are examples of guys WWE has never really had full faith in or attempted to push without hesitation like a guy like Sheamus or Alberto. They're testing Bryan, while they thought they had a bona fide instant star in Alberto. There is a difference between testing the waters with somebody and giving them a belt because you think they'll be the next big thing. Guys that are usually given the WHC are people that WWE clearly don't believe can be the face of the company. Guys like Henry, Show, Punk back before he overcame that, etc were all given runs with the "safe" belt, the secondary belt that is only the "big" main event belt of a single show, because WWE doesn't think they're up to the level of the WWE title. If they were, then they would be on Raw since they're always eager to get a fresh face in the main event on their main show if they think that person can do it or is worth the shot. And guys like Randy Orton or Edge always have the WHC not because it's a main event #1 belt on par with the WWE, but because they were on a show that doesn't have the WWE title because they were wedged out of the main event of Raw for the time. So of course they usually held the WHC because it's the top belt on SmackDown. It doesn't make it any less of a secondary belt in WWE overall. If the WHC didn't exist and the US or IC belt was by default the top championship on SmackDown, then that's the belt those guys would be wrestling for. It's not a matter of "well, the WHC is very important" it's a matter of "well, the WHC is the best we've got on SmackDown". Once in awhile they'll try and pretend that the WHC means more, but it never lasts. WWE does the same thing with the supposed brand split and it's other championships from time to time, but they never last either. Besides, all of this is pointless simply because just by basic logic alone two championships can not be equal but unequal, even if the lesser of the two gets a bit of a red carpet treatment once in awhile. The WWE title always gets that treatment. The WHC does when it's convenient. The WWE title is the top prize, it is #1, it is the primary belt of the entire company and it is treated as such. Regardless of who holds it, that alone is all that's needed to make the WHC a secondary belt. It's not equal with the WWE title, it's the next best thing/next step down. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 22 2012, 12:30 PM Post #15 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
Now you're just splitting hairs. Testing a new guy is testing a new guy. Any time they put the top title on a guy for the first time, it's always that person's testing period.
Again, that's not my argument at all. I don't think you are actually countering my argument. I think you are trying to counter what you think is my argument. My argument is simply that the WHC is NOT the same as the old IC Title for the fact that the World Title IS a legitimate World Title. There is no arguing against it. If you hold the World Title, you are considered a World Champion. Should Daniel Bryan go to Raw and win the WWE Title, he'll be a 2 Time World Champion. Where as when HBK dropped the IC Title and won the WWE Title, he was just a 1 time World Champion. The World Title is a notch below the WWE Title, but it is a legitimate World Title. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 22 2012, 12:47 PM Post #16 |
|
And I don't think you understand my point that just because a belt is considered a "world" title doesn't mean it can't be a step up to a more important "world" title, which would make that first belt a secondary belt. Do you honestly consider the reigns of the ECW World Heavyweight champions in WWE to be on the same level as that of the WWE title or the WHC? It was a real "world" title from July 2006 until August 2007, after all, maybe even it's entire life if WWE still considered it so even after taking "world" out of the name.
No, it's not. If I'm booking and let's say I think Zack Ryder can be a good WWE champion and representation of WWE and I'm totally behind him and give him the belt, that isn't necessarily any more of a test than giving John Cena the belt again. All of my faith is behind Zack Ryder. If I honestly think he's the guy that's going to be the next big star in WWE, possibly the guy to replace Cena, that isn't a test of "can he do it?" but rather a statement of "I believe he can do it". Now maybe he'll fail or maybe he'll succeed, but that doesn't mean it was a test. Now if at the same time I think that maybe Dolph Ziggler has the potential to be a main event guy but I'm not completely convinced, giving him a run with a championship would be a test to see if he has what it takes. An opportunity to convince me and the audience that he's worthy. They can be and often are separate things entirely, especially in WWE. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 22 2012, 12:54 PM Post #17 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
The reasons behind the testing does not change the fact that they are still testing him. Testing someone with the World Title is no different than testing someone with the WWE Title. Just like Orton holding the World Title is in no way any less prestigious than when he hold the WWE Title. It's a parallel. To say otherwise would be silly.
There can only be one top belt in any given company. And in WWE, whichever belt is on Raw is the top belt. The WWE Title is on Raw and thus it is the top belt. If WWE does hold a draft this year and if they do switch the belts around, then the World Title would be on Raw and the World Title would be the top belt of the company. When they change the titles, they don't have to rebuild the World Title or diminish the WWE Title to make people think "oh, that's the top belt now". The mere fact that it's on Raw is what makes the difference because everyone knows Raw is WWE's main show. Therefore, it isn't a matter of which belt is or is not, but a matter of which belt is on Raw. They are the same, one is just favored more than the other. The point being is that the World Title is NOT a secondary belt. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 22 2012, 01:14 PM Post #18 |
|
The same could be said for any belt really. If WWE decided to move the WWE belt away from Raw and have the U.S. belt be the title everybody in the main event is going after, then it would elevate that belt to top status. What the name of the belt is doesn't mean anything, who is going after it and why is what is important. And yes, the WWE could switch the belts and the WHC could become the primary championship again but then that would mean as a result the WWE would take on the role of secondary unless they were treated equally at the same time. It's kind of like Highlander in WWE right now in that there can be only one when it comes to which belt is the focus, which belt is the main belt. And just as a simple result of making one belt above all the rest in terms of importance, that makes the next belt down secondary. That's just how a hierarchy works. And when somebody becomes too valuable to waste on a secondary belt on a secondary show like SmackDown, they move that person to Raw to go after the primary belt. It's that simple.
But putting all of your faith behind someone and believing they will excel is not the same thing as putting a belt on someone you think might have a chance but needs to prove themselves. The differences between the push into the title scene with Sheamus or Alberto compared to Christian or Daniel Bryan is gigantic. Sheamus and Alberto were pushed to the moon with rockets strapped to their back. They go the Brock Lesnar treatment. It was obvious WWE fully believed that if anybody new could do it, it was these guys and that they didn't need to wait. It didn't work out like they wanted but that doesn't mean it was a test, it just means they were wrong about them. Meanwhile they spent Christian's entire singles career in WWE occasionally pushing him forward before pulling the rug out and they were doing the same with Bryan. Eventually they decided to give each a chance at holding a top level belt, but were obviously hesitant and curious about whether they would be able to do well. Those were tests. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 22 2012, 01:23 PM Post #19 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
The reasons behind pushing someone is different, yes, but the act of putting the belt onto someone to test them is exactly the same. And, actually, your examples turned out to be great examples of just how irrelevant the reasons actually are. WWE had high hopes for Del Rio and Sheamus and both bombed. WWE were hesitant with Christian, yet his feud with Orton for the WHC produced some of the best matches of the entire year and is considered the feud of the year. And while it is too soon to really judge Daniel Bryan's WHC run, he is off to a really great start as he slowly turns heel. As for the Title hierarchy, I think we are saying the same thing just in different ways. Both of us agree that the WWE Title is THE belt of WWE and we both agree that it is the top belt because it is on Raw. The World Title is a step down, but not a leap. It's still a World Title reign and holding either belt is the same status for the company. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 22 2012, 01:28 PM Post #20 |
|
That's the thing though, I don't believe WWE putting the belt on and a huge push behind a guy like Sheamus or Alberto was a test. It was a move made with full faith that they would be the next big stars. I don't think those who made the decisions had any doubt in their mind that these guys would be stars. If they did, they would have had a much slower ascent to the top rather than getting rocketed right into the main event. I don't think either was a case of "well, let's see if he can do it" but more of a case of "he can do it!". And if so, that's not a test. That's a gamble and a risky one at that, but not a test. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 22 2012, 01:30 PM Post #21 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
Call it a test, call it a risky gamble, the results are exactly the same. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 22 2012, 01:39 PM Post #22 |
|
See, I don't think so. A test would imply that you're not completely sold on somebody and that you aren't completely sure how well they'll do, whether you have faith in them or want them to or not. While a situation with Sheamus was more of an exercising of your (WWE) belief that they have what it takes and that you don't feel the need to test them because...well, if anybody has it then they have what it takes. You don't need to see how well they'll do because you honestly believe they'll knock it out of the park. They just happened to be wrong. But they've been right before with a guy like Lesnar, who wasn't really ever tested either. He went from being built up as a threat over a short period of time to being thrust deep into the main event scene against the biggest WWE superstar since Steve Austin - The Rock - for the absolute top championship at the second biggest show of the year. That wasn't a test. That was full on belief that he would succeed. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 22 2012, 01:48 PM Post #23 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
I think you are getting too hung up on the reasons behind the move and not looking at the actual move itself. Take away the thought behind it for a second, take away the reason itself. Just say WWE decided that something was going to happen. They cannot actually guarantee that is going to happen. They have to do something to get results that show the audience agrees with them. So for whatever the reason is that WWE has, they ultimately go "Here is your opportunity, bring me the results we expect". If that person gets those results, then WWE runs with them. We saw WWE do it with Lesnar and Cena. If WWE doesn't get those results, they pull back. We've seen it with countless names ranging from big names like Del Rio to smaller names like Drew McIntyre. Doesn't matter the reason behind them, it's still a test of the superstar. I think what you are explaining is more in line with what WWE did with Randy Orton. WWE tried to give Orton a Lesnar type push where they pushed him very hard very fast. He was in Evolution. He was one of the longest reigning IC Champions in years. He feuded with legends (namely Foley). He was even the youngest World Champion ever (which I think they only did to erase Lesnar's name off that accolade, but still). However, Orton did not get those immediate results that WWE wanted. Some fans did accept Orton, but not the large numbers WWE probably wanted. So they scaled him back and repushed him up again. And it eventually paid off since Orton is now one of the most popular wrestlers in all of wrestling. Spoiler: click to toggle
|
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 22 2012, 01:57 PM Post #24 |
|
But see, I think what the world saw with Sheamus and Alberto was modern day versions of what happened with Orton - but within a much smaller time scale. They expected them to be instant successes and easy main eventers but it didn't work out for them. The only difference between them and Orton was that for them it all happened much, much faster - but such in the nature of the WWE compared to WWE back in 2004. As for the off-topic, I think what you're noticing is both his youth (people usually tend to be a little softer in the face when they're younger after all - even as an adult) and comparing his body from then (which was still amazingly fit) to six years later filled with a lot of intense work outs and nutritional maintenance, no doubt. He wasn't out of shape, he's just in much, much better shape now. Which if I had been working out and eating right for half a decade, I would sure hope my body kept improving or else I'm doing something very wrong.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · WWE · Next Topic » |





) - to see how he performs with some spotlight on him. If he winds up doing very well, I'm sure they'll move him to Raw and have him in the WWE title scene.
7:18 PM Jul 11