Talk:World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002–2013)/Archive 1

Archive 1

title

. I happen to very clearly remember this happening as I had happened to be watching that episode. Thus, the constant inferrals that these men were NOT named is untrue, and should not be stated as such in the article. The impression given by the WWE at this point, at least so far as I could tell, was that the WCW title's history had been partially absorbed into the WWE history, as Kane had never been World Heavyweight Champion in terms of having held this version of the belt. Michaels of course, actually HAD held the title as it currently exists. Goldberg later captured it in september of that year, and as we all know, Scott Steiner got nowhere near the title in his tenure with the company. Nash himself had held the WCW version of this belt, and obviously, so had Booker T and Flair.

In response, I remember watching that episode and specifically remember that Booker T, Goldberg, and Scott Steiner were not listed. Austin listed four names: Chris Jericho, Kane, Shawn Michaels, and Kevin Nash. No one else. Not Steiner, not Booker T, not Goldberg. See, e.g., http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/results/raw/030519.html, http://rajah.com/wwf/raw/135.php. Furthermore, I remember reading reports of that Raw commenting how, through this sketch, that WWE was specifically not recognizing the WCW title as a former world championship. I would like to see a link to any source that says that Austin did include Booker T, Steiner, or Goldberg on that list.

The list of names is not random. In that speech, Austin was listing former WWF/E Champions, essentially saying that only the WWF/E title (or the post-September 2, 2002 World Title) "counted" as a world championship. This is why Kane was listed; he never held "the big gold belt," but he was a former WWF Champion, and hence qualified under Austin's standard. This is also what Michaels, Jericho, Nash, and, yes, Flair as well, all had in common; they won a WWF/E version of a world championship. And this is why Steiner, Booker T, and Goldberg were not. The standard being used wasn't who had won the big gold belt and who had not; it was who had won a title on the WWF/E's watch and who had won it in some other organization; the implication being, the latter didn't matter. (This is the point of the whole "terminology confusion" section, i.e. that the WWE sometimes uses the term "world heavyweight championship" sans capitals to refer to more than just the "World Heavyweight Championship" with capitals.)

This title does have a ligitamate claim to the liniage of the WCW title (even though that titles linage with the NWA can be disputed).

the statment: On the May 19, 2003 edition of RAW, champion Triple H was given the choice to defend his title against any of the former "world heavyweight champions" on Raw's roster: Chris Jericho, Shawn Michaels, Kane, or Kevin Nash (he ultimately choice to defend his title against ally Ric Flair). Notable by their absence in that lineup were any former WCW Champions who had never won the Raw World Heavyweight Championship or the WWE Championship, such as Scott Steiner and Goldberg, implying that the WCW Championship was not recognized as the World Heavyweight Championship. Its nice and all, but if im right i dont think Ric Flair has had won the the RAW title before so why was he in the line up of challengers!?... oh wait ecause hes a 16-time World Heavywieght Champion thats why...

Flair won the WWE Championship twice.Wwb 21:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

you cant say either way... and as for the WWE not having the titles history going back any further... hhmmm lets think, the WWE believes the first light-heavyweight champion was Taka Mitchinoku... and kinda forgets the titles japaneese history.

i just think we should mention that this title does have legitamate claims but these can be disputed... i just dont want more hasstle with people next saying the United States Championship/Cruiserweight Championship cant lay claim to their WCW history. ---- Paulley 16:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment that the World Heavyweight Championship can be considered an extension of the WCW Championship. When Brock Lesnar became a SmackDown-exclusive wrestler, it could be argued that rather than create an entirely new title to give to Triple H, Eric Bischoff simply re-separated the WWE and WCW Championship belts, giving the latter to Triple H, while the former remained with Lesnar.

If you'll recall, a similar situation went on with the United States Championship. At Survivor Series 2001, WCW U.S. Champion Edge defeated WWF Intercontinental Champion Test to unify the belts. Because of the WWF's victory later that night in the main event, WCW "ceased to exist", end result being that the two belts were unified under the Intercontinental Championship.

But since WWE's claiming that the U.S. Championship is the same U.S. Championship that's been around since the WCW and even NWA days, it seems the "official" reasoning is that the U.S. Championship was separated from the Intercontinental Championship. So why couldn't that be the case here? The problem, I guess, is that WWE itself doesn't have a definitive answer to that question. Heck, at WrestleMania XX they talked about the proud tradition of the World Title dating all the way back to 1904, and at the end of the match they were all "Chris Benoit has finally won the World Championship". So they're not even consistent with themselves, grr. ekedolphin July 5, 2005 06:00 (UTC)

I agree. In essence, due to WWE's refusal to take a definite side in the matter, the lineage of the title is more or less a matter of opinion. Jeff Silvers 00:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

WWE has taken a definite side of the matter, albeit a bit quietly. See WWE.com's title histories page. [1] Hateless 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that WWE has been known to muddy the waters with their online title histories. They still claim that Moolah held the Women's title for more than three decades, that Taka Michinoku was the first WWF Light-Heavyweight Champion, and that the WCW Light-Heavyweight and Cruiserweight Championships were the same thing (which is especially odd, considering nothing of the sort was suggested throughout any part of WCW's history; WWE seems to have invented this for whatever reason). In the past, they had also claimed that the WWF Cruiserweight Championship was an extension of the WWF Light-Heavyweight Championship, and for a long time ignored the fact that the Undisputed WWF/E Championship consisted of the WWE and World titles (instead treating it as just a renamed WWF title). Their online title history seems to contradict claims made in other places, and they appear to adjust their view on the lineage so that it fits the given situation. Jeff Silvers 05:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to Jeff Silvers, WWE didn't create the claims of the WCW Light-Heavyweight and Cruiserweight Championships being the same title. Pro Wrestling Illustrated Magazine made those claims BEFORE WWFE purchased WCW.

If you think about it, the World heavyweight championship is a new championship, and the WCW linage is actually rolled into the WWE championship. cuz you know what the difference between the UNDISPUTED wwe championship and the WWE Championship, a name, the WCW, and thus, the NWA lineage is still rolled into the WWE Championship, not the World Championship.

The problem with this logic is that one could just as easily argue that the World Heavyweight Championship, which was part of the Undisputed Championship, was simply separated from the WWF/E Title when Bischoff awarded it to Triple H. Jeff Silvers 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m in total agreement. Unless the WWE finally puts out a definitive answer to all these linage disputes, everything is all opinion. The logic of the “Smackdown” World Title being a “NEW” Title or being apart of the “WCW” World Title both makes sense.--Prince Patrick 19:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Error-- shortest title reign

Um, Kane's one-day title reign was with the WWE Championship, not the World Heavyweight Championship. ekedolphin 03:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

WWE World Heavyweight Championship

I propose that we move World Heavyweight Championship to WWE World Heavyweight Championship and rename all related articles, then create a new World Heavyweight Championship article that is a generic wrestling article, one that describes the various official (read: declared a World Title by PWI) and unofficial World Heavyweight Championships. It can also list all the World Champions. --Kitch 14:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The full, proper name of the championship is "World Heavyweight Championship." The title of the article should not have WWE in it unless its in parentheses, since there is already a separate title referred to as the WWE Heavyweight Championship which does have "World" status (as it was once called the WWF World Heavyweight Championship). A "Pro-wrestling World Championships" page would be fine, as a disambig page for World Heavyweight Championship. Hateless 01:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hell in a Cell and Triple H

During his title reign, he became the first person to defeat Triple H in a Hell in a Cell match in his third title defense at Vengeance.

Does this purposefully not include the Armageddon 6-man match (which Kurt Angle won) or is this just a mistake? --Vyran 12:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's more of the fact Triple H was never the one taking the pin in the deciding fall. At Armageddon 2000, Angle pinned Rock so while HHH lost, he technically wasn't involved in the finish. --Oakster 21:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. He lost the match, but wasn't defeated. --Vyran 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

New evidence on BGB lineage

When Batista dropped the title on SmackDown on January 13, 2006, we ran down a brief list of previous World Heavyweight Champions. Three of them (Harley Race, Ric Flair and Dusty Rhodes) never held this belt in WWE. Most importantly, Dusty has never had ANY titles in WWE. I believe this is a definitive connection between the WCW and WWE World Heavyweight Championships, and could be evidence for a possible merger of the two wiki pages once and for all. Comments? --Kitch 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe most evidence points towards the World Heavyweight Championship sharing its lineage with the WCW Championship. That said, there is sufficient controversy over the matter that it is probably best to keep the pages separate. The "WCW lineage" camp probably isn't going to budge, and neither is the "new lineage" camp. Merging the articles will create unnecessary conflict. Besides, because WWE refuses to take a consistant stance on the issue, it's really a matter of opinion, anyway. I say we leave the articles separate; the section on this page about the lineage controversy is enough to allow readers to make up their own mind about the title's history. Jeff Silvers 22:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Last night's Smackdown also had a pre-show segment recapping last week's WHC-related events, and when Teddy Long made a reference to "the heritage of this title" (or something to that effect) they showed a picture of the old "Big Gold Belt", without the WWE logo. I think that's more evidence that WWE's WHC retains the WCW lineage. 68.47.234.131 01:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The title does NOT share its lineage with the WCW belt. It doesn't matter that Batista mentioned Harley Race and Dusty Rhodes - 1) he wasn't necessarily referring to HIS "World Heavyweight Championship" (he just said he followed some great wrestlers), and 2) he doesn't have to be right anyway. WWE officially acknowledges that the belt was born when it was awarded to Triple H. Why are people continuing to insist it's the same belt (and same lineage) when they outright said they made a new one? Bssc81 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Just look at WWE's World Title lineage page. If WWE themselves say that it was born when it was presented to Triple H, then that's the way it is. End of story. http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight/ SilentRage 11:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, they say different things at different times. Their title history seems to suggest it is a new belt, but statements made by WWE Superstars, officials, and others seemingly contridict these claims, as have other portions of WWE.com at various times. WWE wants to claim different lineages when it suits them. Jeff Silvers 07:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the main reason for the dispute is because the lineage for the “WCW” Title and the “World Heavyweight” Title don’t overlap each other and fit chronologically. That’s why I think it’s the same. Believe what you want to believe. Booker T is the 6 time WCW / World Heavyweight Champion!!--Prince Patrick 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Weight Limit

is there anyway that it can be proven that the world heavyweight title doesn't not really have a weight limit.

A heavyweight division in wrestling is an "open" division - it theoretically has no lower or upper weight limit. - Chadbryant 20:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This would explain Rey Mysterio being number 1 contender. --Web kai2000 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that Chris Benoit, a cruiserweight by WWE weight standards (he weighs in at exactly the weight limit, 220 lbs), has held the title. Jeff Silvers 17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Benoit actually weighed at 229 lbs during his reign and weighs now at 234 lbs, so he is not really a CW by WWE standards.--Wwb 01:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no real reason why the title would have a weight limit. Take the Big Show and Yokozuna for example, while they never held this particular title, the Big Show was the WCW World Heavyweight Champion and WWE Champion weighing between 4 and 500 pounds while Yokozuna is the heaviest wrestler in WWE history to hold the WWE Championship at over 600 pounds. Rey Mysterio weighed only about 165 pounds while he held the title. While Mysterio held the title, the term "heavyweight" kind of lost all meaning, if it ever really held any meaning to begin with. I'm thinking that it did, at least at one time, because Mysterio is roughly 60 pounds lighter than the, previously, lightest wrestler in WWE history to hold a world heavyweight title, which was Shawn Michaels. Odin's Beard 02:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, a heavyweight division in wrestling is an "open" division - it theoretically has no lower or upper weight limit. - Chadbryant 03:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with weight limits is you get some fat greasy guy wearing a mask and riding a tricycle in an attempt to impress some bored fans at an indy event in, oh, let's say Utah, and yet he weighs so much that the only laugh he gets is the fact that he bothered to do it in the first place. But that sort of thing doesn't happen in real life. Nope. Ever. Never ever ever. Ever. - Krusty (who doesn't know anyone who has ever done that sort of pathetic behavior) --Krusty Surfer Dude 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Error: Oldest Champion

Batista is not 66 years old. According to several site bios, he is around his early 40's. This needs to be corrected once the linage of the title is resolved.

Who said Batista was 66?! lol Basbalfrk 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Cleanup and Repititions

What is the point of having all these extra bullets, such as Batista being the first person of euro descent or Mysterio being the first masked wrestler, cluttering up the page?

Also why keep adding on with information that is already in the article? (i.e. Saying Mysterio is the shortest champ twice in the record grid and mentioning the mask fact when it is already a bullet else where)68.1.158.176 02:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

World HEAVYWEIGHT Champion

Has anyone else noticed the WWE now call Rey Mysterio the World Champion as opposed to the World HEAVYWEIGHT Champion? --sonicKAI 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah they've been doing that since around the time they announced ECW was returning. I think it's for simplicity's sake because they re-activated the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, how confusing for fans would that be to have two World Heavyweight Championships being on the line at say Wrestlemania? We'll only know if it's because they think people won't buy Rey as World Heavywight Champion when the title changes hands to say Batista. Night Bringer 23:25, 26th June 2006 (GMT +10)

I think a more likely answer is that people felt it was odd that a cruiserweight is holding a heavyweight title (even though the "heavyweight" division in wrestling is typically considered open to all weight groups). Jeff Silvers 07:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possible. But to me it seems more likely to be about the re-activation of the ECW title, just to avoid confusion at the big 4 WWE PPVs. But regardless we'll see one way or another when, or shortly after, the title changes hands. Night Bringer 01:12, 7th of July 2006 (GMT +10)

World Title link

Shouldn't there be a link for the article about the general World Heavyweight Championship at the top, next to the link for the WWE Title?--Wwb 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Title Lineage - Unforgiven 2002

I know this is a dead end topic. But does anyone remember the Opening video of Unforgiven 2002? For people who does know, I think its safe to say WWE's initial intention for the WHC, is to have its lineage dating back to its NWA days.

First African American champion

isn't the rock the first african american champion even though he is half samoan so he should hold the title and booker t could be the first full african american to hold it or second one to hold it.

The Rock never held any WWE reconignized form of this belt. BionicWilliam 04:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

World Championship

The title seems to now be called simply: World Championship, without Heavyweright in the title

Vince McMahon said it's the WCW Title

To put an end to this subject,I will state that on the 10/30/06 edition of RAW, Vince McMahon referred to King Booker as the "WCW World Heavy - well, he was - the World Heavyweight Champion." I think that firmly proves that King Booker's title is the same title held by Sting, Ron Simmons, etc.

I am in total agreement. He also could have just slipped, because it's the same Big Gold Belt (with the logo of course, for all you fellow fans who don't agree).--Prince Patrick 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree but if you look at wwe.com's title history for the World Heavyweight Championship it starts at Triple H's first reign so it can be considered a different title. Jayorz12 04:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Across the board, WWE tends to delineate title reigns for the US, Cruiserweight, and WCW titles based on what company the win took place in. Eddie Guerrero was (and still is) listed on the WWE website as both a former "WCW United States Champion" and "WWE United States Champion" separately. By the same token, Rey Misterio's Cruiserweight Title reigns are listed separately depending on if they were in WWE or WCW. I think WWE's policy of recognizing titles is intended to minimize confusion among newer fans who would wonder when Eddie Guerrero had the time to win the Cruiserweight Title twice (and other similar questions). Slickster 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are all great explanations. We all know it’s the same belt, regardless of how the WWE portrays the “history”. We all know where it came from and who held it. Chronologically, to combined the lineage from WCW on all their titles to Smackdown's titles makes sense. If the WWE doesn’t want us to recognize the fact that the Smackdown titles aren’t from WCW, they could have just simply made new ones. In the case of the Smackdown World Title, they could have just designed a new belt for it. It’s so clear. --Prince Patrick 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree, this isn't the WCW title. It may LOOK like it, but it isn't the WCW title NOR is it the big gold. The big gold looks very different, check the Reggie Parks site for its piccy. I agree with the latter part of what Prince Patrick wrote, the WWE doesn't recognise it as the WCW title, if they did it would be represented as the WCW title. Maybe Vinnie Mac slipped up?--Captain Capatilism 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

On this same night, Dusty Rhodes I believe also credited Flair as a 6-time World's Heavyweight Champion, a reference to his 6 recognized WCW World title reigns. In my opinion, the title is related to the NWA and WCW world championships, hence the use of the World Heavyweight Championship term which was used with the NWA title and continued on with the WCW title, it is also a term that the WWE dropped off of their original world championship. The WWE even said it dated back to 1904 back in 2002, in reference to the Hackenschmidt world championship that the NWA claimed lineage to. The new title is a mixture of both NWA and WCW titles, they choose to recognize any reign from either championship whenever they feel it is necessary as a World Heavyweight Championship reign. Every title in the WWE at the moment has a history behind it, the Raw WWE Championship being the original world championship of the company. The ECW World Championship of course going back to the old Extreme Championship Wrestling promotion. I believe that yes, while the World Heavyweight Championship is a completely new title, they felt it was necessary for it have a historic background itself, and that was to build it on the history of the NWA world and WCW world titles in order for it to seem more prestigious. The title's history is of course subject to change at any given time, for instance, do you think that the WWE would recognize the many poorly booked title changes towards the end (Vince Russo, David Arquette, titles being "awarded" by commissioners, etc.) of the WCW title's history as World title reigns, definitely not. I believe the WWE's claim to any NWA title reign as one of their own world title reigns is legitimate as WCW had won use of the NWA lineage back in the early 90's by court decision, and as of 5 years ago, they own WCW. --TonyFreakinAlmeida 15:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Linage

The uses of the title are varied,not the belt.it is obviously the WCW championship belt,but has been used to portray different titles(e.g. they have different histories).

Exactly. --Prince Patrick 15:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging Pages

They are virtually the same title design and do not over-run into one and another - therefore I am proposing this. Davnel03 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Gold Belt lists all the championships that have used that design. Most of them did not over-run (not that I found it revelent). I'd say that the belt has a different lineage and therefore deserves it's own article, but that's still an ongoing debate. Mshake3 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with shake. Despite having the same design they're two completely seperate championships with their own individual legacy. They should be seperate. Normy132 09:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose There is too much confusion over whether or not the World Heavyweight Championship shares its lineage with WCW World Heavyweight Championship. WWE.com's title history shows it does not, but things said on TV hint that it does. Besides, the WCW article is already plenty long, as is this article, and I don't feel we need to merge the two together to make one article which will then be very long. Anakinjmt 15:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE!: WWE does not recognize the World Heavyweight Championship as the former Championship of WCW. Proof of this is in the World Heavyweight Championship section at WWE.com (http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight/) it only lists the Champions since Triple H was given the Championship back in 2002. The Championships are looked at as seperate. RYANonWIKIPEDIA.

Oppose - I do not believe the pages should be merged. There is already too much confusion over its lineage as it is. The length of each,as said, is already quite long and merging both is not a wise move. Simply put until WWE states that the WCW and WWE World Heavyweight Championship are the same and share the same history, they should remain seperate.--Captain Capatilism 21:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - I also strongly oppose a merger of pages, while the title does have a disputed lineage towards the WCW(and NWA) world titles, it is not the exact same title, and with good reason, and as stated above, there's already a Big Gold Belt page showing what championships have been represented by this plate. --TonyFreakinAlmeida 15:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My take on this

Whether or not this title does have lineage to the WCW Championship, it's a moot point. Sometimes WWE will recognize a connection, sometimes they won't. So therefore, I agree to keep the two articles separate. John 15:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote that JBL has actually been a World Heavyweight Champion? The match with Rey Mysterio was ordered to CONTINUE! Since at the beginning of the match the champ was Rey and at the end of the match the champ was still Rey, then the title simply NEVER changed hands. It's that simple.

DIFFERENT Championship

The championship may look like the WCW Championship but it is not. If the WWE made a different plate for the title that instead of saying "WCW" that says "WWE" then it it is a completely different title. It is like Rhino owning the ECW Championship even though Lashley has it. The same can be said about Hogan holding the WCW Championship till this day. This title, aside from overall visual design, is completely DIFFERENT title. It started with Triple H on Raw and ended on Raw with Triple H, but is continued on SmackDown! with Batista.--AD Double J 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, a promotion can do whatever it wants to with championshps under it's control, including not recognizing certain reigns if they choose to. It can be confusing, even unpopular with some fans. However, that's irrelevant. The WCW World Title and the WWE "World" Title are considered two different titles with two different lineages, despite their virtually identical design. They own the titles, so they can interpret them and anything to do with them in order to suit their view of things. It's called retconning and it's done in other forms of entertainment. It's seen extremely often in comic books with writers tweaking and changing characters to suit particular situations and/or storylines. Odin's Beard 02:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of what you say does make sence however the would heavyweight championship IS INDEED THE SAME AS THE WCW TITLE but by wwe buying out wcw thay have full ownership their former superstars as well as their championships.which goes back to that retconning process you were taking about before. Also wwe recognizing the title to of started in wwe was shorty after wcw was bought out their for the title is well was origenally from wcw.

• Sigh* No, the World Heavyweight Championship is NOT the same as the WCW Championship. YES, there is a similarity in their appeareance, but that does NOT mean they are the same title. WWE didn't pull the WCW championship out of the Undisputed Championship. They created the World Heavyweight Championship, hence why the Undisputed part was dropped; it was now disputed. Technically the WCW championship is still merged with the WWE Championship and is now just called the WWE championship, while only sharing the lineage of the WWE championship. Anakinjmt 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct.-- bulletproof ^3:16 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK but what you have to remember is when all of that took place which was after the purchase of wcw. Also remember the GM of raw during that time frame Eric Bisoff who was also a VIP in wcw however i will admit i dont remember what role he played in wcw but that is not what's important right now. so since the purchase of wcw wwe has the right to the fomer wcw superstars and championships. The ONLY reason that there was an undisputed championship was beacuse there was only one main title while there were 2 brands until the NEW(to wwe)championship came into play.wcw title= would heavyweight championship.

NAME CHANGE OF THE PAGE

How about "WWE SmackDown! World Heavyweight Championship"? Yes, I know, the title has been defended on Raw too, but we can add this info to the article. Don't you all agree with this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.218.89.240 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Uh...no. It's not referred to that way on TV or WWE.com or in WWE magazines. So...yeah...no. Anakinjmt 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as well. In a nutshell, all these articles are for is to provide information that's both detailed an accurate. The WWE refers to it as the World Heavyweight Championship so that's what it has to be called.Odin's Beard 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NAME CHANGE - PART #2

Well, I get your point. This is exactly what I used to think a couple of months ago, but now I see things differently. First of all, Every professional wrestling promotion name their top-championship with the promotion's name or initials followed most of the times by "World Heavyweight Championship". WWE doesn't refer to the title as the "SmackDown Championship" so as to add drama to the main-event matches. The WWE and ECW titles were named so from the beginning and have so much history behind them, that they do not need drama to their name in order to be considered 2 of the greatest prizes in the history of combat sports. When you say "WWE Championship" or "ECW Championship" everybody knows that the matches made over these titles are just about 4-star matches every time. But what reaction would get a title named "SmackDown Championship" by the crowd, as Smackdown is a new wrestling promotion created in 2002? So if you create a title and you refer to it as the "World Championship", the fans will believe that this pretty big and that this is somehow the "professional wrestling world title". And if it is defended for a couple of years on Raw (the dominant wrestling brand in the universe, the flagship of the WWE and the show which used to have the WWE Championship as it's top-title for years), then you get it on SmackDown and call it "sports-entertainment's richest prize". This is how you make a title big and the WWE Board of Directors know that first. This is why this whole thing is going on. This can't be the world's championship as it's not even WWE's top-tier title. If you get one man to represent World Wrestling Entertainment as it's champion, that surely is the WWE Champion. Not because the name says so, but because he is the champion of the flagship program of the WWE and because this title is the most historic of them all. So as it's nothing more than the championship of SmackDown, why call it the "Heavyweight Title of the WORLD"? Furthermore, I've read articles calling the World Heavyweight Champion "the Smackdown champion" or the "Smackdown Heavyweight Champion", and if you remember, when King Booker (then champion) appeared on ECW he was refered to as "SmackDown's World Heavyweight Champion", in order to avoid confusion with the ECW World Heavyweight Champion. After you have read all this and spent so much time on analysis over the World Heavyweight Championship, you would assume that we should change the name page. If you still do not agree with me, just let me know (my answer will not be so long next time......) Thank you for your time. Akis "The Prophecy", from Athens-Greece.

P.S.: The article can be named "WWE SmackDown! World Heavyweight Championship", but it still can start like this: "The World Heavyweight Championship is the top championship of the Smackdown brand of WWE (.......... - bla, bla, bla - ........)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.218.89.240 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

First, I have NEVER heard it referred to as the Smackdown! World Heavyweight Championship on TV or on WWE.com. I've heard "Smackdown's World Heavyweight CHAMPION", but that's in reference to the show that the title belongs to, not the actual name of the title. I've also heard "RAW's WWE Champion". Should we call the WWE Championship the RAW WWE Championship? And, ultimately, it doesn't matter if it should "seem" right. WWE simply calls it the World Heavyweight Championship, no "Smackdown!" in front of it. WWE.com says World Heavyweight Champion, it's called on TV the World Heavyweight Champion, its name is World Heavyweight Champion. We add (WWE) to differentiate it from the other titles called World Heavyweight Championship. Any articles that call it "Smackdown! World Heavyweight Championship" should be fixed and have the Smackdown! part taken out, as that is not what it is called. It's up to WWE to decide what to call it, and that is what it is called here. Anakinjmt 17:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway.............. But I am 100% sure and positive to have heard Michael Cole on Friday Night Smackdown refering to Batista with the exact phrase : "A GREAT SMACKDOWN CHAMPION". If I remember well, this was during a main-event tag-team match between Batista & John Cena VS. King Booker & The Big Show.

Also if you read the fifth paragraph of this discussion page, you'll see an official WWE statement copied here calling this title the "Raw World Heavyweight Championship". That is the official "contract-paper" name. So now that this Raw World Title has come to SD!, it is obviously OFFICIALLY(!!!!!!!!!!!) renamed to the "SmackDown World Heavyweight Championship".

I ain't sayin' that we need to change the name page, as you have convinced me not to since this is how it is refered to on TV, but this goes to prove that I am right about the name of the title in official WWE contracts.

Akis "The Prophecy", from Athens-Greece.

Proof? Can you provide a video clip, or can someone else back up hearing Michael Cole saying "A great Smackdown Champion"? I know which match you're talking about, however, I don't recall him being called that during the match. And, I've looked through this entire talk page, and I can't find this "statement". If it's a link, please point it out. If someone is just copying and pasting...unless it can be found somewhere online that is a reliable source, we can't put it up, as we have no way of verifying this. Anakinjmt 19:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A few vague references hardly qualifies as it being "official". After all, in the past, both Raw and Smackdown announcers have misspoken concerning championships. Jim Ross has mixed up the World and WWE Championships on multiple occassions, for instance. He's referred to Randy Orton as the youngest WWE Champion in history, although he did correct himself a bit later. If the title isn't called the Smackdown World Heavyweight Championship on WWE.com, then it shouldn't be the article's title. Anything else, at least to me, sounds like POV.Odin's Beard 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

On the May 19, 2003 edition of RAW, champion Triple H was given the choice to defend his title against any of the former "world heavyweight champions" on Raw's roster: Chris Jericho, Shawn Michaels, Kane, or Kevin Nash (he ultimately choice to defend his title against ally Ric Flair). Notable by their absence in that lineup were any former WCW Champions who had never won the Raw World Heavyweight Championship or the WWE Championship, such as Scott Steiner and Goldberg, implying that the WCW Championship was not recognized as the World Heavyweight Championship.

This was on WWE.com in 2002 after the match between HHH and Ric Flair. Notice that it says: "the Raw World Heavyweight Championship".

I also got something for you. Well, what you'll see is not official by the WWE as what I gave you above, but why not check it out?

http://www.wrestling-titles.com/wwf/wwe-world-h.html

Even if that statement there is true, even if the title was referred to as the Smackdown or Raw World Heavyweight Championship at one time, it isn't now. The WWE Championship used to be referred to as the WWWF World Heavyweight Championship 30 years ago. The WWE is known to retcon events and storylines for certain purposes. When Andre defeated Hulk Hogan in early 1988 for the title, despite the fact that Hogan's shoulder was up, he is still recognized as a former WWF Champion. However, despite him "selling" the title to Ted DiBiase, and despite the fact that DiBiase was referred to as the champion during house shows while carrying the title around for a week, he isn't considered a former champion. Doesn't make sense to me really to recognize one and not the other, but that's irrelevant. Whenever a champion is introduced, he isn't introduced on television as the Smakdown World Heavyweight Champion or the Raw WWE Champion. The title histories on WWE.com don't refer to the championships in that fashion. What they call the titles now trumps what they might have called them three and a half years ago. Odin's Beard 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides, where exactly was that so-called bit from WWE.com listed? Is it there now? If so, where? If not, can anyone back up your claim? You saying it was there means nothing. You need some sort of corroborating evidence, whether it's an actual link, or someone else that can back up your claim. Anakinjmt 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, we 've dragged this too long. Let's just leave the article as is and forget it! How about this?

I have to admit that you kinda convinced me!

That statement is fake anyway. I was looking at it now, and it says:(he ultimately choice to defend his title against ally Ric Flair).

That is grammatically incorrect. It would be "he ultimately chose to defend his title against ally Ric Flair." WWE.com wouldn't make that mistake. Lex94 04:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE 2003 Preview Magazine

I specifically remember this magazine not only having a detailed listing of all their title reigns, but also showing the lineage of all their championships at the time, namely the unifications and whatnot. I believe it'll show the WCW World Title merging with the WWE Title, and the World Heavyweight Title being a brand new title and lineage.

I'm not saying this is the end all answer, but merely one more argument. Mshake3 02:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's accepted that the WCW World Title was Merged with the WWE Title to create the WWE Undisputed Championship. However, if your point is to suggest that the WWE Championship today shares a joint lineage with the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, you're mistaken. Under the title histories section on WWE.com, the WWE doesn't consider the WCW World Title to be part of the lineage of the WWE Championship. Its the same with the World Heavyweight Championship. The WWE recognizes it as its own seperate championship, despite having an almost completely identical design to the WCW World Heavyweight Title. It might have been the intention of the WWE to merge the WCW World title into the lineage of the WWE Championship at one time. However, storylines and angles can and have been retconned at the drop of a had. If a joint lineage between the WCW and WWE Titles was the intention four years ago, its not the WWE's position now. Odin's Beard 15:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my point was that in the article's diagram, the new World Heavyweight Championship is a new championship and that it did not come from the WCW World Championship. It's merely another argument (and actually legit, no original research here) for the creationist theory list that the article current has. What are you exactly yapping about?Mshake3 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Undertaker Royal Rumble/W.M

The Undertaker has not won the title at Wrestlemania after the Royal Rumble, he has only won the Rumble, Wrestlemania did NOT HAPPEN YET!!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.116.204 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Uh...no joke. Called vandalism. Anakinjmt 14:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

PROOF

TO PUT AN END TO THE DISPUTE ONCE AND FOR ALL TO WHATHER OR NOT THE WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP HAS ANY TIES TO THE WCW TITLE YOU WILL FIND THAT IT DOES UNDER THE HISTORY SECTION OF WHC OF THE ARTICLE.

YOU DON'T NEED TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS, IT'S CONSIDERED YELLING! ALSO SIGN COMMENTS! And, no, it does not. WWE states it does not. End of story. Anakinjmt 14:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

first of all i'm trying to make a point so sorry if YOU considered it yelling. BUT READ CAREFULLY. it's in the article section. Dont mean to be rude but it's the area before the discussion.if you read what i've read than you will see that it states eric bisoff saying" that he wanted the legecy of the belt to continue" so once again please read carefully if you didn't see it. Now deal with it.

For one, don't post a reply immediately after other peoples. Hit enter and make a new space for the reply. As for Bischoff's statement, he's talking about the legacy of the Big Gold Belt, in ALL incarnations. He wanted the legacy of a big gold belt to continue, since it had been around for so long. WCW was just the last before the WHC to be a big gold belt. And, again, WWE states the WHC is different from the WCW championship. The WCW championship is technically still merged with the WWE championship and is just called the WWE championship, much like how the Intercontinental Championship is called the IC title even though merged with it is the European and the Hardcore championship. Anakinjmt 23:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

wow! congrats I must admit you've convined me although i did not see where wwe states that it's a new title. but what you claim seems vary loical. once again didn't mean to be rude before.

Eh, you weren't rude. Yeah, basically it's all been talked about before. It's just a confusing mess that I think most people just tend to ignore, because it does give one a headache. Anakinjmt 03:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, overlooking past discussions, and WWE does serve ties between the World Heavyweight Championship and WCW Championship.

The World Heavyweight Championship that has recently been carried by such greats as Batista and Triple H got its start in WWE back in 2002. But its prestigious lineage can actually be traced back all the way to George Hackenschmidt and 1904. For years, it was known as the NWA Championship; then when WCW pulled out of the NWA in the early 1990s, Ric Flair was recognized as the first-ever WCW Champion. Since that time, top names such as Hulk Hogan, Ron Simmons and Bret Hart carried the championship prior to WCW's demise. [2]

END TO THE CONTROVERSY ONCE AND FOR ALL

The World Heavyweight Championship of SmackDown has no connection to the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. The lineages of the titles may seem to fit, but WWE officially claims that the title is CREATED IN 2002!!!!! And the original Big Gold Belt wrote: "World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion". Since this title is named World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship, then there would be no use to add a WWE logo on top, since the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" is the WWE Championship defended on Raw. They added the WWE logo to avoid controversy over the matter and make it known that this is a SEPARATE title! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.218.23.15 (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC). yo if your the same person that convinced me before then you shoudn't of put that their beacuse that's debatable. Beacuse of what wwe states which is that the title started in 02 which of course is true but that's when it started in WWE beacuse brock choose to be a smackdown exclusive champion. Not only that but since the purchise of wcw by wwe (as stated before) it has the right to there former superstars and championships which means that thay can re-create to what it sees fit. i think that's were all the confusion comes in.[mike]

• Sorry bud, doesn't work for me. If the WWE had not replaced BOTH title belts with a new undisputed design, there would be no controversey and the WCW link clearer. Bischoff simply split up the two titles that made up the undisputed title. It just makes sense. The debate goes on... Pretzolio@yahoo.com 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you completely ignore WWE's statement of it being a new title is unbelievable. As stated before, the WCW championship is technically still merged with the WWE championship. Bischoff didn't pull out a title to make it disputed; he simply created a new title which made it disputed. Separating the titles isn't the only way to go from undisputed champion to disputed; making a new one will do the exact same thing. Why EXACTLY can you not just accept WWE's statement? Anakinjmt 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that i dont know how to properly insert a link so i'll just give directions.First go back to where you see the pictcher of the title than scole almost all the down to where it'll say External links than click on the Title histories title history page. and you should get your anwcer. the united states and the cruiserweight titles continue the lineage of the ones run at wcw and that's official at wwe.com. since wwe thinks that the us and cruiserweight titles take on the legacy, while the world title doesn't, then that's it! i don't think that there's anyone else which can decide about the title's lineage except wwe (who has got the rights of wcw by the way...). since wwe says it's a new title, then it's just a new title! what more proof do you people need?!

WWE.com is mainly a kayfabe website that changes things when it sees fit. There are many errors on the site.

• The Light Heavyweight Title has no holders listed prior to Taka Michinoku, yet we all know it had been around for well over a decade before this.
• Also they create a link between the WCW Light heavyweight Title and the WCW Cruiserweight Title even though no connection between these titles has even been proposed anywhere outside that website.
• Moolah very clearly did not hold the Women's Title uninterupted from the 50's until the 80's.
• Antonio Inoki is no where listed on the site, even though almost every fan who's ever looked up any wrestling history knows Inoki beat Backlund for the belt in the late 70s.
• Even the claim that Flair is a 16-Time world champion is clearly bogus. His televised World Title victories alone put him at 18 reigns and he has at least 20 unargueable reigns. But WWE says 16, so it is 16?!!! No way, it doesn't work that way.

Besides WWE.com says Bischoff BROUGHT the title to RAW, implying that it existed before hand. The long addition of the WCW histories (and even NWA histories) would likely just confuse younger fans. Names like Vince Russo and David Arquette don't help matters. The World Heavyweight Championship (without the WCW attached) existed in the WWE prior to the Undisputed Title anyway as Jericho and the Rock fought over "The World Title" after WCW was dissolved at the Survivor Series that year. The WWE.com web programmer just doesn't know their wrestling history, it is not like Vince himself was filling in the lists. Really is it so hard to believe that Y2J, HHH, Hogan, Taker, Rock & Brock all held BOTH the WWF/E and World/WCW Titles that year while being Undisputed champions? I mean Jericho and even HHH for a time held both physical title belts to represent this. I mean really, unlike the crazy and ridiculous pasted together lineage of TNA's NWA World Title, this NWA/WCW/WWF/WWE World Title lineage is UNBROKEN and clear. Pretzolio@yahoo.com 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that Jericho and HHH held the WCW BELT, because they did. And, I will agree that HHH, Hogan, Taker, Rock, and Brock all held the WCW BELT symbolically through the new championship belt. However, to say that Bischoff brought the World Heavyweight Championship from the unified title belt is wrong. First, brought could mean he brought the name and the belt design to RAW. That doesn't mean he brought the championship the belt represents. It simply means he brought the design, which was well known, and the title of World Heavyweight Championship, which is a generic name for any world championship. And, again, WWE doesn't consider it a continuation. It's different from the Women's Championship or the Light Heavyweight Championship in that this title didn't even exist at all until WWE created it, and they've recognized it from the get-go. WWE created a new title, similar yes in design to the WCW championship, but not the same. WWE owns the title; they can choose to recognize reigns how they want, but the way they do makes perfect sense. The fact is, the WWE WHC is NOT the same as the WCW championship, not according to WWE, PWI, or common sense. Anakinjmt 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All of this goes back to when the WWE introduced it as one of the most prestigious titles in wrestling, even when Triple H was still in the championship's first reign, they started spouting off the crap that it dated back to 1904, sound familiar? The NWA title. Know what other promotion claimed the NWA title's lineage? WCW, the fact of the matter is though, there is a connection, but are these three titles one and the same? Nope, the SmackDown WHC is the successor to these titles, the WWE has slipped up so many times with this title, even the boss himself has called it the WCW title, and Batista regarded Dusty Rhodes as former World Heavyweight Champion though he didn't hold the original WWE world title, but did hold the NWA belt, they recognize who they want to as former World Heavyweight Champions. I don't think this thing may ever be cleared up until the WWE releases a History DVD for this title, which IMO will definitely have footage of title matches from JCP, NWA and WCW to connect these. TonyFreakinAlmeida 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just state again: any mention of the title existing before it was introduced on RAW in 2002 is one of two things: a goof, or an allusion to a Big Gold Belt, which I believe HAS been around since 1904. There's been some version of a Big Gold Belt somewhere. That is what Eric Bischoff most likeley referred to when he wanted "the legacy of the belt to continue", a Big Gold Belt. Anakinjmt 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We need some transcripts of these Raw/Smackdowns. Too much paraphrasing. For example, I just looked up a show report for the Smackdown when Batista vacated the title [3], and the report says "It was his pride, privilege, and pleasure to follow the greats like Ric Flair, Harley Race, Triple H, and Dusty Rhodes." Again, not an exact quote, but based on how I'm reading it, it sounds like he's refering to champions in general.

And another thought. How could Bischoff split up the Undisputed Championship? It was owned by Smackdown. He had no power.Mshake3 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

remember brock lesnar was the undisputed champ then but choose to become a smackdown excluive champion so bisoff being the last vip in the storyline interduced the title. if you click on the Title histories title history page just click here: http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight/

what does it say?! period!

*sigh* Brought doesn't necessarily mean it existed beforehand. Besides, care to read further then just the first sentence? Notice where the lineage starts? Triple H, 2002. All I have to say. Anakinjmt 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

that's just when the title started in wwe. so click on http://www.titlehistories.com/WWE_World_Heavyweight_Title.htm and you should find the anwcer.

*sigh* they are NOT WWE, WWE owns the title and they say it is separate! Why can people not accept the fact that WWE created a new belt? ONLY if WWE says it does it count, as it is their title! Also, note how WWE says the WWE US championship shares the lineage with the WCW US championship and the WWE Cruiserweight title shares the lineage with the WCW Cruiserweight championship. If the WHC shared the lineage with the WCW championship, they would have included them. Anakinjmt 03:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So your saying that wwe DID INDEED create a NEW TITLE but where i think your getting that info from is at the wwe.com website. with all due respect but of coruse thay'd make seem to be different titles beacuse like i've said before it started in wwe in 02 and given to HHH by Eric bisoff being the last WCW VIP while being the GM of raw. Being that brock choose to be an excluive smackdown champion. However i will agree with you about the US and cruiserweight/lightweight championships. It would make it a lot more clear if you cheaked the link above and no I wont shut up about it until you do.Trust me it's there.

*sigh* It does NOT MATTER WHAT that link says, as they are NOT WWE! They are NOT a reliable source for background on a title, that resides squarely with WWE! And, they own the title! Seeing how they own the title, they have the right to say what they want about it, yes, but they did in fact create a new title! The only reason your so-called "source" says it's formerly known as the WCW championship is purely because of the DESIGN of the belt, which has been around LONG before WCW. There has been a Big Gold Belt for a long time, but that doesn't mean they share the same lineage, just the same design. Brock chose to be a Smackdown exclusive champion, correct. So, Bischoff creates a new title and gives it to Triple H and calls it the World Heavyweight Championship, and Lesnar is no longer called the Undisputed Champion, but simply the WWE champion. Now, only two things would result in Undisputed being dropped: titles are separated, or a new title at the same level is introduced. WWE did the latter; again, the WCW championship is technically still merged with the WWE championship, JUST LIKE the European Championship is merged with the Intercontinental Championship. It doesn't help matters that after the Invasion storyline finished, the WCW championship held by the Rock was simply called the World title; but the World title held by the Rock before the titles were merged by Jericho is a different title from the one awarded to Triple H and currently worn by Batista. Now, HOPEFULLY, that will quite things, as that should be MORE than enough proof that the WHC and the WCW championship are two SEPARATE titles; similar in design, but not the same title or sharing lineage. Anakinjmt 05:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The World Heavyweight Championship is a N-E-W title according to WWE.com, then anyone who has a different opinion should change it! It may "seem" like the WCW Championship but it is defended in a different promotion and WWE says it's new, so it's new! That's so simple!

We need some transcripts of these Raw/Smackdowns. Too much paraphrasing. For example, I just looked up a show report for the Smackdown when Batista vacated the title [2], and the report says "It was his pride, privilege, and pleasure to follow the greats like Ric Flair, Harley Race, Triple H, and Dusty Rhodes." Again, not an exact quote, but based on how I'm reading it, it sounds like he's refering to champions in general. Yes, but all of those champions are those that have held variations of Big Gold/NWA/WCW title, can't be discounted, I know it's stupid that this debate still goes on this long but I think people just want to latch onto the possibility that this belt has more prestige then just being the other world title of the WWE and think that it goes back as far as it was once credited. I do not think there were any slipups when talking of the title's history back in '02, since pretty much everything on commentary and promo's are scripted. TonyFreakinAlmeida 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not making an attempt to end the controversy entirely, to prove that these are (not) two separate titles, or anything else. Since this is the talk page for the article, I will make a statement regarding this article. The WWE does not acknowledge the WHC as being a continuation of the WCW Title. That means that anything that says the WHC is a continuation of the WCW Title is Original Research, and cannot affect the article under any circumstances. This article will reflect what the WWE says about the title that it owns, as that is the Wikipedia way. If it isn't official, it won't be in the article. Now, unless anyone can dispute what I have just said with Wikipedia policy, this conversation cannot continue on this talk page, as this is not a chat room/forum. This is for discussing ways to improve the article, an as I previously mentioned this conversation cannot affect it in any way. Please move on. Thank you all for your cooperation. 声援 -- The Hybrid 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Before we move on i will agree on basicly everthing you've just said starting with the title itself my point being that the wcw title died with wcw. but just reborn thats all it is to it. if there's still some cofusion than hopefully this analogy will clear things up since rhino is now in TNA he could say that he was never in ECW or WWE(to serperate from the wwes ecw) but thats simply just untrue. We all know that rhino is no rookie. seeing as I've basicly agreed upon what you've menchiend before it would be only logical to move on.[mike]

Except it's not reborn. And, your illustration with Rhino is different, because we KNOW for a fact he was in ECW and WWE. We can't say the same about the WHC, and like Hybrid said, it would be considered original research because it's not straight from WWE's mouth, so to say. And, Hybrid, the way I see it, people want to add something like "There is substantial evidence to suggest that the WHC is in fact the WCW title revived" or something to that effect, and so this is to show why we can't say that. Anakinjmt 18:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To say that is OR, as I have previously stated, and cannot happen. Now, will people please stop replying to me? Replying with statements that try to prove your point, whether or not you mean them to, provokes the other side, and forces this conversation to continue on this talk page. If you people want to take this to someone else's talk page, more power to ya, but Wikipedia policy forbids adding this to the article for better or for worse. Unless anyone has a policy other than WP:IAR, as without a consensus backing it up that rule will almost never hold any weight, to dispute me with, then I hereby declare this dispute ended. Please move along silently. Thank you, 声援 -- The Hybrid 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WWE.com Makes New Statement Regarding Lineage History

Sorry to burst Hybrid and Anakinjmt's bubbles but WWE.com just put up a section on the WCW World Heavyweight Title History and the introduction paragraph reads...

• "The World Heavyweight Championship that has recently been carried by such greats as Batista, Chris Benoit and Triple H got its start in WWE back in 2002. But its prestigious lineage can actually be traced back all the way to George Hackenschmidt and 1904. For years, it was known as the NWA Championship; then when WCW pulled out of the NWA in the early 1990s, Ric Flair was recognized as the first-ever WCW Champion. Since that time, top names such as Hulk Hogan, Ron Simmons and Bret Hart carried the championship prior to WCW's demise."

So the WWE DOES acknowledge the link between not only the WWE World Heavyweight Title and the WCW World Heavyweight Title but the link between those two championships and the NWA World Heavyweight Title. See for yourselves : [4] Pretzolio@yahoo.com 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My bubble wasn't burst; I didn't really care. I was just defending the article from OR, but now that it is officially acknowledged this no longer needed. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Cheers Hybrid, glad your being fair on this issue. Others should follow your example. Just to note this edit about the 'WCW Title history on WWE.com' IS NOT Original Research, and is officially acknowledged by WWE.com, so hopefully User:3bulletproof16 will read the actual talk pages and my citation before unjustly deleting this fully warranted information.Pretzolio@yahoo.com 04:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a cool guy. I'm sure that he just didn't know about this, and it won't be a problem anymore. The Japanese symbols mean cheers according to some random online translator. 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

According to WWE.com [5] The WHC is still not the same belt as the WCW/NWA WHC. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They may give them separate title histories, but Pretzolio's source states that the current title draws its lineage from the WCW and NWA Titles, 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

True, I never denied that the current World Heavyweight Championship got its "roots" from the original WCW/NWA world title. I'm just saying that these two belts are different from one another in that they are not the same championship. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, they are 2 separate titles, no question. However, this title officially being descended from the NWA/WCW Titles deserves to be in the article. 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I will work on rewriting the article tonight. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I have to go to bed. Tommorow is a busy day for me. Night, 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Still not sure I totally agree with WWE stating they are related and share a lineage. It seems to me like they are two completely different titles, and I will admit, I'm rather disappointed that WWE chose to acknowledge sharing a lineage between the two titles. But, it is their title, so they can do what they want. Anakinjmt 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They didn't want to name the World Heavyweight Championship the WCW Championship when they brought it back. So they are the same title but they just have different names. Big Boss 0 15:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was the first person to post the link to the wcw heavyweight championship title history. I didnt post it to start the arguments u guys have been having. I posted it and said that they both serve ties. The World Heavyweight Championship was the WCW Championship, and I repeat WAS. Now, it is not the WCW Championship, it is the World Championship. If it is the WCW Championship, any WCW Champion prior to the purchase of WCW would be elegible for the triple crown. Another point was that Eric Bischoff seperated the WWE Undisputed Championship in two, which is not the case. Lesnar took the Undisputed Championship to Smackdown, and Bischoff RENAMED it the WWE Championship. Bischoff then GAVE (not created) the World Heavyweight Championship to Triple H. Where did he get the title from? Well, he was the WCW owner, so he could have renamed the WCW Championship, or he could have created a new title, using an already prestigious belt. In this way, they can have a completely new title with already massive ammounts of prestige and legendary history. Lex94 07:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS THE WCW TITLE ACCORDING TO WWE NOW!

If you click here: http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/wcwchampionship/ It's official now! WWE.com says the World Heavyweight Championship IS the WCW Title! Let's change the article now, shall we? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.218.81.25 (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

The WCW World Heavyweight Championship still stops with lineage stops with Chris Jericho, according to that page. The only thing they acknowledged was that the titles are related. Since WWE keeps the linage of SmackDown's World Heavyweight Championship and the WCW World Heavyweight Championship apart on their website, the same should be followed here.

WWE seems to want to have it both ways--they want to be able to say they created the World Heavyweight Championship, but they want it to have the prestigious lineage of the WCW (and, depending on which version of history you believe, NWA) Championship. Jeff Silvers 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They HAVE decided that the titles ARE the same, but the only reason there are two pages on WWE.com is to separate the title periods when it was property of WCW (a DIFFERENT brand of wrestling) and WWE.

WWE says that they are the same belt so I am going to agree with them. The World Heavyweight Championship is a continuation of the WCW Championship. The only difference is that they re-named it. Big Boss 0 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally! Can't get any more official then this. End of story. TonyFreakinAlmeida 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If the WCW and World Heavyweight Championship are considered the same championship, then the lineage of the WCW World Championship wouldn't stop with Chris Jericho winning it the night it was unified with the WWE Title to create the WWE Undisputed Championship. The design of the title is almost identical, with the exception of the WWE Logo. Also, by looking on the link provided, you can look to the right you can see the individual listing for each title. Underneath the WWE Championship is listed "heavyweight". Why would they have seperate pages for them if they're the same championship? They wouldn't. Look at the WWE United States Championship history as an example. Its comprised of both the NWA and WCW United States Heavyweight Championship histories. Their lineages have been merged to give the WWE United States Championship a more prestigious and historical connection to the wrestling industry. For instance, look at the WWE Undisputed Championship. The idea was, originally, to combine the WCW and WWE Titles. Whether or not the WCW World Title was ever merged with the WWE Championship lineage is open for debate. Even if it was, it isn't anymore and how they choose to interpret things in the here and now is the official interpretation. I know it doesn't make sense. Some of it is downright idiotic, in my view. The WWE's retconning of some of this stuff has been horrendous, almost as if it were made up in five minutes. Idiotic or not, its how the WWE chooses to interpret things.Odin's Beard 15:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Now all WWE has to do is switch the names of both Tag Team Titles and say that the Smackdown Tag Titles share lineage of the WCW Tag Team Titles.--Prince Patrick 17:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're joking. Anakinjmt 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not?? It could give more prestige to the Smackdown Tag belts and make it seem as old as the rest of the titles in the WWE. Besides, the WWE changes their mind about everything anyway. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did this as well.--Prince Patrick 18:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WWE changes their mind, but having WCW/Smackdown Tag Titles is ridiculous. At least the continuing title lineages for the World and Cruiserweight titles are easy to follow; The Smackdown Tag Titles have no connection to the WCW tag titles whatsoever no matter what weird logic or reasoning one might use. WWE isn't that bad; But NWA & TNA on the other hand have to claim some pretty warped lineages full of vacancies and inactivity in order to claim the current TNA titles link to the 80s NWA Titles.Pretzolio@yahoo.com 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn’t agree with you more. That NWA Title on TNA has lineage connected to WWE, WCW, and ECW with vacancies at the point where each of those respective companies “broke away” from the NWA. However, WWE could change the “story” and say that Stephanie split the “Undisputed” (WWE and WCW) Tag Team Titles that the Dudley’s unified at the Survivor Series 2001, the same way the WWE and World Titles were split when Brock decided to stay on Smackdown, or the same way as the IC and US Titles were split when Austin reactivated the IC Title on Raw and Stephanie reactivated the US Title on Smackdown. It’s just a thought, now that the WCW Title is considered the Smackdown World Title.--Prince Patrick 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The current NWA is a shell of it's former self and probably don't care about the lineage that much, and they don't even have control of the world title as they licensed it to TNA a couple years ago for a deal over 10 years, and if you read up various articles on wikipedia you'd find that in certain instances it's pointed to that the new NWA wanted to start a new title history with the tournament for the world title in '94 in ECW and their tag titles, and the goodwill agreements that the old NWA made with WCW that I would believe still hold up today for WCW to use the NWA title lineage as their own, as long as WWE doesn't mess with anything, they're fine, and the new NWA(which is basically just a club that promotions can sign up through) would probably be fine with it too. TonyFreakinAlmeida 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The man who wrote that the SmackDown Tag Team Championship should be considered the WCW World Tag Team Championship is so right!!!!......

Eddie Guerrero Note

The note about Eddie Guerrero being planned to win the title from Batista before he tragically passed on, is OR and has no evidence to support it, so I am removing it.--ProtoWolf 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was some random IP that added the note shortly before you edited it, so it would have been removed eventually. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I figured, considering the spelling errors, but I was still adding a reason to my edit, just in case.--ProtoWolf 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is official

This belt IS the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, according to the WWE, via one of their own one-shot magazine publications, just recently released. It states that Eric Bischoff resurrected the WCW title and renamed it the World Heavyweight Championship.

In point of fact, I made that information available ON THE PAGE, and it was reverted to a prior appearance. It should not have been, as that information is direct from the WWE's publication. In other words, the controversy is- for now- over. It IS the WCW title.

Warwolf1 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, another case of misinterpreted information... [6]-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the WCW Championship! [7] Lex94 04:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the WCW Championship. If it was, the WCW Championship's history would be incorporated into the World Heavyweight Championship's lineage just as the NWA and WCW United States Championshp histories are incorporated into the WWE United States Championship. Instead, it has it's own history and lineage listed seperately.Odin's Beard 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

no it wouldn't beacuse of 2 reasons. The WCW championship and the World Heavy Championship are major championships that's how the 1st reason defurs from the NWA/WCW US title historys. 2nd reason is their totaly different titles beacuse their both from entirly different promotions meaning that the World Heavyweight Championship represents reigens from only WWE. But is still the same championship.

Is that why the WWE Cruiserweight and WCW Cruiserweight have the same title history? or the WWE US and WCW US have the same title history as well? Good try though.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oldest Champ?

If you compare Booker Huffman and Mark Calaway's date of births, Booker is older then Mark by 23 days.

So shouldn't he be the oldest champ in the statistic's section? --Miles15 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Read again Taker was born on March 24, Booker was born on March 1st, so its Taker thats older by 23 days not Booker. BionicWilliam 23:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, if Booker was born on the 1st, he was alive when Taker was born, making Booker the oldest champion by 23 days.--ProtoWolf 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither matter. When looking at oldest/youngest champions, the birthdate recorded is the day they win the title. Undertaker won the title after his 42nd birthday. Booker won it before his 42nd. Garistotle 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Orton the Youngest Champ

I'm not inclined to read pages upon pages of argument so I'll ask. Wasn't Lou Thesz younger than Orton when he won the title? Killswitch Engage 05:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh...Orton is the youngest World Heavyweight Champion in WWE history. In the history of the WWE's World Heavyweight Championship on SmackDown that is, he is also the youngest crowned World Champion in WWE history if you go by all 3 of their current world titles, and the champions that they themselves have booked. This title does not share the lineage of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. The WWE though links this title to the WCW title, which is also linked to the NWA title. TonyFreakinAlmeida 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Heaviest Champion

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Batista being billed around 318lbs. at the time he won the title, making him the heaviest champion in the history of the title? TonyFreakinAlmeida 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Now Khali is the champion and he is way heavier than Batista. J@ro_Link 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Khali is billed at 420 lbs. He probably doesn't exactly weigh what the WWE lists him as. Its a common thing for promotions to list wrestlers heavier than what they actually are sometimes. Batista might look somewhat bulkier because, even though he weighs less, his weight is packed onto a much shorter frame. Given Khali's height and the muscular bulk that he has at his height, I'd say he is legitimately somewhere around 400 lbs.Odin's Beard 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt Hardy

Some jackass wrote that Matt Hardy is the current Champion, but it has been changed back to Khali michaelc2007 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I was wondering if it's worth mentioning that it has changed hands at every Wrestlemania since its creation in 2002. I wont put it on the main page but I think its still kind of something that people might find interesting, I did anyways. Stillboy2191 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Its trivia that really doesn't matter. If anyone wants to find out when the championship has been defended they can go to List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) which is already linked in the article. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The title did not change hands at WrestleMania XIX - the first WrestleMania the title was defended. Triple H (c) defeated Booker T. And yes, that fact is very interesting. Diego 14:08 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.60.42 (talk)

WCW/World Heavyweight Title: I think this is confirmation.

The relationship between this title and the WCW World Title has been hotly debated on this talk page. I have always said that it’s the WWE's opinion that matters, but they seem to have two different opinions at once. So, in an attempt to get some sort of confirmation, I e-mailed wwe.com about a week ago, using their online form. I later read that they very rarely respond to fan e-mails, and I was surprised to get a response today. Since I sent my question to them using an online form and not my e-mail, I don’t have the original copy of my question. Anyhow, here is their response:

Dear [My Name],

That is an interesting question. The World Heavyweight Championship currently held by the Great Khali on Smackdown! is the same championship as the original WCW Title, though, as you noted, it has been identified as a new title on WWE television on several occasions. However, in those cases, we are referring to the title’s 2002 rechristening in the WWE. The reason the championship’s lineage is divided on our website’s title history page is the same reason relocated sports teams often keep separate statistics and records for players who have played for the franchise in its current city (borrowing your Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers analogy). The World Heavyweight Championship has a long and storied history, dating back to 1904. We are merely trying to keep our web content relevant for our current fan base.

Thank you for your question,

WWE.com Staff

Take this for what its worth. This isn’t exactly from Vince McMahon’s mouth, but they wouldn’t have this guy answering questions if he didn’t know what he was talking about. Also, it seems that the WWE believes the NWA Title “became” the WCW Title in 1991 (from the comment about its history dating to 1904), which I don’t believe they have a right to say. However, that doesn’t change what is said about the WCW Title, as they have every right to lay claim to that title’s lineage. I’m not saying we should immediately combine the WCW Title and World Heavyweight Title pages, but it’s something worth considering in the future.Bmf 51 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as how the WCW United States Championship was rechristened into the WWE United States Championship? Just as how the WCW Cruiserweight Championship was rechristened into the WWF Cruiserweight Championship back in 2001? ...Right... -- bulletproof ^3:16 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe the WCW United States and Cruiserweight Titles are more "relevant for their current fan base". I don't think we're supposed to decide what information goes into this article based on how consistent the WWE is with their title histories. We should be deciding it based on fact. And, if the WWE says something about the WCW Title (which they legally own) and the World Heavyweight Title (which they legally own) is true, and we can't take it as fact, then who in the hell should we be getting our information from? If someone else has a better source for information about property legally owned by World Wrestling Entertainment, I'd sure like to know... Bmf 51 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you still have the e-mail response?-- bulletproof ^3:16 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I still have it. Would you like me to foward it to you? Bmf 51 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would. Post your E-mail name here and I'll send you an E-mail with my name to foward it. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to post my e-mail address here. I'm a stickler for anonymity. As you can see, I even edited my name out of the e-mail response posted above. If you want to read it, you will have to post your e-mail name here, and I will forward it at my convenience. Bmf 51 20:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem though. I'd prefer not to post my e-mail here either. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then hopefully another Wikipedia user will be willing to post their e-mail here. Then, I will forward it to him/her and, if you would still like to read it, you can get it from him/her. Until then, we will just have to consider it an unconfirmed source. Bmf 51 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.-- bulletproof ^3:16 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

• The current trivia section is crap about all of them getting injured, etc. I'm going to delete it. Virakhvar321 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New Article from WWE.com

Five year anniversary article, pretty much says that the WWE considers the World Heavyweight Title to be a direct descendent and or one and the same with the WCW and NWA world titles of the past, they even call it a reincarnation of the WCW title. [8]. TonyFreakinAlmeida 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally confirmation to this huge debate. Now, does the TNA World Heavyweight Title trace lineage to the NWA World Heavyweight Title like the WWE/WCW World Heavyweight Title does? MC511 03:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link: http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/articles/4971594/worldtitleturnsfive . Interestingly, the of the 54 photos in the gallery accompaning the article, 40 (or about 74%) are from WCW (including a few from the Invasion), and one is of a former NWA Champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.9.1 (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One picture also shows Flair holding both the Big Gold Belt and what was the newer design of the WCW title belt after winning the International/World Unification match. TonyFreakinAlmeida 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the WWE's standpoint is actually legitimate. I could see how they could interpret the World Heavyweight Championship as a descendent of the WCW World heavyweight Championship, but I don't see how they could consider those titles to be descended from the NWA World heavyweight Championship. It's not the same situation as with the WWE United States Championship which contains the lineage of the WCW United States Heavyweight Championship, which was originally the NWA United States Heavyweight Championship prior to WCW purchasing and renaming the title. Those are all titles that are the property of the WWE, hence they can interpret them as they want. However, I can't see how they can legitimately claim these titles are descended from a title that they don't own. Could it be possible that they're simply referring to the design of the championships rather than their actual lieages? Both the NWA and WCW have used the exact same design for their world titles at one point, with the only difference in any of the designs being logo changes. I find it incredibly odd that the WWE would list the WCW World Heavyweight Championship and the World Hevayweight Championship as seperate championships on the title history page if they consider them to be the same championship.Odin's Beard 00:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While yes it's odd that WWE considers the WCW championship and the World Heavyweight Championship under different regions yet being the same championship. But the reason is beacuse the regions are representing the different promotions that owned the belt at the time. Oh and for the united states championship you've menchened. That is a seconedtier title so the reason the current United States championship is combined with WCW's lineage is for it to have more prestige. Though in my opinion is not needed beacuse it all ready has a long history.mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.89.73 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Different regions? I don't understand what you're talking about. No region owned the WCW World Heavyweight Championship nor did any regional NWA promotion own the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. The NWA World Heavyweight Championship is owned by the National Wrestling Alliance, which isn't a promotion but is a governing body. And yes, I already know why they did what they did with the United States Championship, that was obvious from the get go. My point was though, if the WWE considers the World Heavyweight Championship and the WCW World Championship to be the same title, then why haven't their lineages been merged after all this time? In the title history section for the WCW Championship, the WWE states "The World Heavyweight Championship that has recently been carried by such greats as Batista and Triple H got its start in WWE back in 2002. But its prestigious lineage can actually be traced back all the way to George Hackenschmidt and 1904. For years, it was known as the NWA Championship; then when WCW pulled out of the NWA in the early 1990s, Ric Flair was recognized as the first-ever WCW Champion. Since that time, top names such as Hulk Hogan, Ron Simmons and Bret Hart carried the championship prior to WCW's demise." It's not accurate because no matter what they might claim, neither the WCW or World Championships have anything to do with the lineage of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. I fail to see how they can lay claim to any degree to the lineage of a championship that they don't own. Odin's Beard 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While the WWE's linking of their World Title to the NWA Title is inaccurate, this doesn't make what this article says about the link between the WCW Title and the World Heavyweight Title any less significant. And, though I don't think anything said in this article (or any article) is enough to reason combining the Wikipedia's WCW and World Heavyweight Title pages (afterall, the WWE doesn't combine the two title's history on its own website), I do think it warrants a change in the "Lineage and Terminology" section of this article (which, I believe somebody has already done). I also think it warrants adding something to Wikipedia's WCW World Title article, stating that the World Heavyweight Championship is the successor of that title (again, somebody has already done this).63.3.9.129 19:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)