CM Punk doghouse?

[b0shey]

As we noted, the decision was made to have Punk lose the World title in the opening match at the Hell In A Cell PPV due to him having heat with management due to an incident on the recent European tour.

According to sources, there was apparently an issue on Punk's dress code during the tour. The story goes that at one point Undertaker pulled him aside and explained that he's the World champion and representing the WWE brand and name overseas, so he should dress better. Punk reportedly said something along the lines of "what about John Cena?" which wasn't taken very well.

The incident got back to WWE management and they decided that they weren't thrilled with Punk's actions and response and the decision was made. While it was already likely Punk was dropping the title at the PPV, it was decided that he would lose what would ultimately be a quiet squash match in the very first match on the show.

Punk should learn that you dont badmouth John 'Superman' Cena that will lead to your downfall

[FINisher]

I think that this was an utter mistake from the WWE among the other utter mistakes they have been doing this year. Making CM Punk's titlereign end like this just screwes over the previous titlereigns and his time as the champion. On top of that the HIAC PPV had a completely wrong match order in my point of view and I guess they wanted the match to be the opener to give CM Punk even more of a punishment.

:mad: Idiots.

[BHK1978]

Yeah my friends went to the event last night and one of them said the exact same thing to me Fin. He said the event was a disappointment due to the lackluster matches and the order of the event.

[djthefunkchris]

As we noted, the decision was made to have Punk lose the World title in the opening match at the Hell In A Cell PPV due to him having heat with management due to an incident on the recent European tour.

According to sources, there was apparently an issue on Punk's dress code during the tour. The story goes that at one point Undertaker pulled him aside and explained that he's the World champion and representing the WWE brand and name overseas, so he should dress better. Punk reportedly said something along the lines of "what about John Cena?" which wasn't taken very well.

The incident got back to WWE management and they decided that they weren't thrilled with Punk's actions and response and the decision was made. While it was already likely Punk was dropping the title at the PPV, it was decided that he would lose what would ultimately be a quiet squash match in the very first match on the show.

Punk should learn that you dont badmouth John 'Superman' Cena that will lead to your downfall

The bolded is a completely subjective comment.

From what I understand, Undertaker is the locker room leader of Smackdown, bassically, like a Manager who makes their voice's known to management (It's my way of seeing it anyways). He is protective of them, and thus they respect him, and on and on.

Anyways, this to me sounds like an authority problem. Not unlike your boss asking you to shave, because your beard is looking scruffy, yet you say "Well, what about such and such". IT's not about Such and such, it's about you!

We have no idea what the dress problem was. But Punks re-action, unfortunately, would get under my skin very fast as well (if he were working for me). John Cena is not the problem, you are. If I were talking to Cena, I wouldn't expect him to say "What about CM Punk!" now would I?

[Slim Jim]

And, of course, Cena is on Raw so why would 'Taker be having a word with him? Sure, it's one big company and all but it's kind of unwritten that SD is Taker's show and Raw is HHH [and to an extent HBK].

But yeah, just because someone else is acting out, doesn't mean you can and doesn't mean you should be held unaccountable. He is supposed to represent the company and moreso than anyone else as the champion, and you don't talk back to your superiors. You suck it up, admit you were in the wrong [if you were, as Punk seemingly was here], and move on. It's nothing to do with what Cena's doing, it's A) Punk not following the set rules and B) not respecting THE locker room leader who is trying to help him.


Of course, all that is only relevant, if we assume this story is true. It is the kind of thing that gets written about all over the 'net when things like the Taker/Punk match from HIAC happen.

[RennikKain076]

Who can see another Batista vs Taker feud coming in the very near future? WWE is ran by a bunch of incredible morons.

[alden]

I hate to agree with the big e on this one BUT......punk was the face of the company. You can't walk around while your "on the job" in his normal street cloth. Yes, while you are on tour you are on the job. If you are just at home that is a diffrent subject but if you are ever representing your company you have to live up to the dress code. From what i understand it is not a bad one either......dress pants and casual dress shirt......it is not like you have to wear a suit or anything.

[FINisher]

The John Report: What Has Happened to the WWE and World Titles? (http://rajah.com/base/node/17296)

http://rajah.com/base/node/17296

Look at these numbers:

Between November 23, 2008 and October 4, 2009 (Sunday) the WWE Title has changed hands 9 times. Nine times in eleven months.

Between October 26, 2008 and October 4, 2009 (Sunday) the World Heavyweight Title has changed 11 times. Eleven times in nearly twelve months.

Add that all up and you've got twenty different title wins in one year. I don't know why. Is it because of ratings? No. The next edition of Raw sometimes sees a small spike in ratings, but it usually doesn't last. PPV numbers? No. Numbers are down across the board. I'm afraid that the only reason that WWE could give for the number of title wins is that they are bored. There are too many PPVs, there aren't enough top wrestlers and they need to book rematches. As a result, they book title switches as a way to necessitate rematches, which is the opposite of what you should be doing.


There are other issues in WWE. We all think we know what they are. In my opinion, the problems start at the top. It starts with the championship belts. The less value they have, the less value the title matches have. The less value the title matches have, the less star power the wrestlers have. The less star power the wrestlers have, the less money the company can make. It's a pattern that can repeat itself over and over.
You know how they say the best way to correct a problem is to admit you have one? Congrats WWE because I can do it for you. The way you book your titles is a problem. It's up to you to correct it for your sake as a company and for our sake as fans.


A big off-topic but agreed completely and I thought to post this since Taker now beat CM Punk and Orton d. Cena and started yet another titlereign. I seriously have no recollection of the titlereign lineage from 2008 to present day. :confused: :mad:

[Hive]

It's still a dumb move by the WWE to **** up not only their PPV but also all the momentum gained by their latest big hit from the last few PPVs. They could have punished him in so many other fashions.

Speaking of CM Punk and Cena, I think a feud between those two would work so much better than CM Punk vs. Undertaker. Guys like The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels shouldn't be used in the main event picture anymore, but rather in feuds with up and coming upper midcarders aiming to get to the main event scene - in order to elevate those. Their schedules are too light and bodies to worn to be in the main event spotlight prolonged, anyway.

The Undertaker vs. Jack Swagger and Shawn Michaels vs. John Morrison, for instance.

[b0shey]

looking at the world title picture from 2009 between the WWE and World Heavyweight they have switched hans 15 times so far this year and i'm sure this wasn't the last

WWE Championship

1. Royal Rumble - Edge def Jeff Hardy

2. No Way Out - Triple H def Edge, Jeff Hardy, Big Show Undertaker & Klozov

3. Backlash - Legacy (Randy Orton) def Triple H Shane McMahon & Batista

4. Extreme Rules - Batista def Randy Orton

5. Raw 06/14 - Randy Orton def Triple H Big Show & John Cena

6. Breaking Point - John Cena def Randy Orton

7. Hell in A Cell - Randy Orton def John Cena

World Heavyweight Championship

1. No Way Out - Edge def John Cena, Rey Mysterio, Chris Jericho, Kane & Mike Knox

2. Wrestlemania - John Cena def Edge & Big Show

3. Backlash - Edge def John Cena

4. Extreme Rules - Jeff Hardy def Edge

5. Extreme Rules - CM Punk def Jeff Hardy

6. Night of Champions - Jeff Hardy def CM Punk

7. Summerslam - CM Punk def Jeff Hardy

8. Hell in a Cell - Undertaker def CM Punk.

man the world titles doesn't mean anything anymore remember when the wrestlers actually held the title for a while and the main events scene was wider, it has been the same wrestlers for a long time and the fueds go over and over again, it's time for a change damn it.

[Remianen]

The bolded is a completely subjective comment.

From what I understand, Undertaker is the locker room leader of Smackdown, bassically, like a Manager who makes their voice's known to management (It's my way of seeing it anyways). He is protective of them, and thus they respect him, and on and on.

Anyways, this to me sounds like an authority problem. Not unlike your boss asking you to shave, because your beard is looking scruffy, yet you say "Well, what about such and such". IT's not about Such and such, it's about you!

We have no idea what the dress problem was. But Punks re-action, unfortunately, would get under my skin very fast as well (if he were working for me). John Cena is not the problem, you are. If I were talking to Cena, I wouldn't expect him to say "What about CM Punk!" now would I?

And, of course, Cena is on Raw so why would 'Taker be having a word with him? Sure, it's one big company and all but it's kind of unwritten that SD is Taker's show and Raw is HHH [and to an extent HBK].

But yeah, just because someone else is acting out, doesn't mean you can and doesn't mean you should be held unaccountable. He is supposed to represent the company and moreso than anyone else as the champion, and you don't talk back to your superiors. You suck it up, admit you were in the wrong [if you were, as Punk seemingly was here], and move on. It's nothing to do with what Cena's doing, it's A) Punk not following the set rules and B) not respecting THE locker room leader who is trying to help him.


Of course, all that is only relevant, if we assume this story is true. It is the kind of thing that gets written about all over the 'net when things like the Taker/Punk match from HIAC happen.

I hate to agree with the big e on this one BUT......punk was the face of the company. You can't walk around while your "on the job" in his normal street cloth. Yes, while you are on tour you are on the job. If you are just at home that is a diffrent subject but if you are ever representing your company you have to live up to the dress code. From what i understand it is not a bad one either......dress pants and casual dress shirt......it is not like you have to wear a suit or anything.

The above three responses are from people who have obviously worked in a frontline corporate environment.

It doesn't matter whether you think the rule is just or not. Given Taker's stature, you can take 'friendly advice' from him as essentially coming from Vince himself. In fact, it's probably easier coming from Taker because if VINCE has to tell you, you're in deep doo doo. Vince has "locker room leaders" to handle these things so he doesn't have to be bothered with 'em.

It's still a dumb move by the WWE to **** up not only their PPV but also all the momentum gained by their latest big hit from the last few PPVs. They could have punished him in so many other fashions.

Oh yeah? Name one.

Seriously, I'd like to know how you punish someone for not knowing their role. You can't fine him (unless the fine is downright punitive, at which point they'd run to the EEOC). He's champion, you can't sit him on the sidelines (bench him, basically) to cool his heels and "think about what he's done". How exactly do you punish a young worker and get him to look at how other people in his position conduct themselves when they're the face of the company? You take it away from him and let him marinate and ruminate over it, that's how.

He referred to Cena but obviously wasn't paying much attention. Cena does more personal appearances for WWE in a month than most of the rest of those knuckleheads do in a year. Cena's gimmick allows him to dress down because it's part of his character (and much of the swag he wears is merch that draws MORE money to the company). Cena has main evented over a dozen pay per views in his career and by all accounts is the ultimate WWE company man. In other words, Cena is just about untouchable.

Punk made a mistake, he's paying for that mistake. WWE isn't at fault here, it's Punk's bad. He's basically the equivalent of a freshman in high school. You don't get to say 'Oh yeah? What about the seniors?'.

[lazorbeak]

This story sounds bogus. Punk's been in the "doghouse" before and it never stopped him from winning the ECW title, or money in the bank twice, or the world heavyweight title what, three times? Seems like wrestling's most legitimate tabloid fishing for a story to me.

[Tha Black Phenom]

Got a point there, the only real "doghouse" time I recall from him is Hardcore Holly ending his undefeated streak. Other than that.. no idea.

Thing is though, the story would make sense for the weird booking of the PPV - Punk losing to begin with, and the match being the opener.. and not lasting satisfactorily long.

[foolinc]

This story sounds bogus. Punk's been in the "doghouse" before and it never stopped him from winning the ECW title, or money in the bank twice, or the world heavyweight title what, three times? Seems like wrestling's most legitimate tabloid fishing for a story to me.

I agree. Storyline wise Punk losing makes sense. He's facing The Undertaker in the match that was made for him, Hell In The Cell, and just cheated his way to a win in the match previously. That match being the opener is a little weird, but they needed to space the Hell In The Cell matches out and the feud had less history than either Cena/Orton or even Legacy/DX.

And after Taker's whole "I'll beat you so bad you'll have to take drugs" promo, Punk can get he's heat back by saying that he's still Straight Edge.

[Remianen]

This story sounds bogus. Punk's been in the "doghouse" before and it never stopped him from winning the ECW title, or money in the bank twice, or the world heavyweight title what, three times? Seems like wrestling's most legitimate tabloid fishing for a story to me.

Honestly, I think it's a question of degrees.

If you're a monkey in middle management, you get a slap on the wrist. That's what he was before when he got into trouble (like the make out incident with Maria). Now, we're talking 'top person in the company' on that brand (which is far more highly regarded than ECW, wouldn't you say?). Totally different solar system in comparison. I don't think anyone considers being ECW champ as having the same prestige as WWE or World Heavyweight champ. They're even building Bragging Rights as Smackdown vs Raw (look at the logo! and the promo videos!) so it's apparent that the company doesn't see them that way either.

[lazorbeak]

Got a point there, the only real "doghouse" time I recall from him is Hardcore Holly ending his undefeated streak. Other than that.. no idea.

Thing is though, the story would make sense for the weird booking of the PPV - Punk losing to begin with, and the match being the opener.. and not lasting satisfactorily long.

The fact that it sounds like it could be true has been feeding journalistic sensationalism since forever. Like Foolinc said, the order makes sense without some sort of punishment aspect: Undertaker gets a win back on Punk in a feud that doesn't seem over. You keep it away from the feud blow-off match in DX/Legacy so that one will seem special. No hidden agendas required.

But that doesn't sell subscriptions. Click here to see hot sexy powerful intelligent divas!

[djthefunkchris]

The fact that it sounds like it could be true has been feeding journalistic sensationalism since forever. Like Foolinc said, the order makes sense without some sort of punishment aspect: Undertaker gets a win back on Punk in a feud that doesn't seem over. You keep it away from the feud blow-off match in DX/Legacy so that one will seem special. No hidden agendas required.

But that doesn't sell subscriptions. Click here to see hot sexy powerful intelligent divas! Now that was funny, lol.

[Franchise22]

Undertaker gets a win back on Punk in a feud that doesn't seem over. [/U]!

agreed, WWE comes to my area nov 29th and are advertising punk vs taker for the title in main event.

[b0shey]

Jim Ross has updated his blog at JRsBarBQ.com and here are some highlights:

* Crazy email....CM Punk lost the World's Title because of a "dress code" violation. Please, stop the pain.

guess JR. read the wrestling news :p

[Tha Black Phenom]

The fact that it sounds like it could be true has been feeding journalistic sensationalism since forever. Like Foolinc said, the order makes sense without some sort of punishment aspect: Undertaker gets a win back on Punk in a feud that doesn't seem over. You keep it away from the feud blow-off match in DX/Legacy so that one will seem special. No hidden agendas required.

But that doesn't sell subscriptions. Click here to see hot sexy powerful intelligent divas!

Yeah, you're probably right - I've been skeptical of the story since the beginning but I never could quite put my finger on it. The "dress code" thing sounds flimsy to begin with.


Edit: - lo and behold, here's an update

There is no truth to rumors indicating that CM Punk was stripped of the World Heavyweight Championship due to a "dress code" violation on WWE's European tour. There is no "dress code" in WWE and workers are not told to dress a certain way.

CM Punk has his fair share of detractors backstage which could have gotten the rumors started. WWE management is still high up on CM Punk.

From what I've been told, there have been plans to get the World Heavyweight Championship back on Undertaker since his return, and the decision was finalized on Sunday. Source - PWmania

[Wrestling Century]

looking at the world title picture from 2009 between the WWE and World Heavyweight they have switched hans 15 times so far this year and i'm sure this wasn't the last

WWE Championship

1. Royal Rumble - Edge def Jeff Hardy

2. No Way Out - Triple H def Edge, Jeff Hardy, Big Show Undertaker & Klozov

3. Backlash - Legacy (Randy Orton) def Triple H Shane McMahon & Batista

4. Extreme Rules - Batista def Randy Orton

5. Raw 06/14 - Randy Orton def Triple H Big Show & John Cena

6. Breaking Point - John Cena def Randy Orton

7. Hell in A Cell - Randy Orton def John Cena

World Heavyweight Championship

1. No Way Out - Edge def John Cena, Rey Mysterio, Chris Jericho, Kane & Mike Knox

2. Wrestlemania - John Cena def Edge & Big Show

3. Backlash - Edge def John Cena

4. Extreme Rules - Jeff Hardy def Edge

5. Extreme Rules - CM Punk def Jeff Hardy

6. Night of Champions - Jeff Hardy def CM Punk

7. Summerslam - CM Punk def Jeff Hardy

8. Hell in a Cell - Undertaker def CM Punk.

man the world titles doesn't mean anything anymore remember when the wrestlers actually held the title for a while and the main events scene was wider, it has been the same wrestlers for a long time and the fueds go over and over again, it's time for a change damn it.

It seems like to me that WWE themselves don't even care about their world titles. Their Main Event at HIAC was DX vs Legacy. Heck, the US title match was after both of the world championship matches! They don't have enough main eventers for two brands (not nearly enough for three, but ECW is treated like a joke). They really should just end the brand split! I am sick and tired of it :mad:!

[Wrestling Century]

Yeah, you're probably right - I've been skeptical of the story since the beginning but I never could quite put my finger on it. The "dress code" thing sounds flimsy to begin with.


Edit: - lo and behold, here's an update

There is no truth to rumors indicating that CM Punk was stripped of the World Heavyweight Championship due to a "dress code" violation on WWE's European tour. There is no "dress code" in WWE and workers are not told to dress a certain way.

CM Punk has his fair share of detractors backstage which could have gotten the rumors started. WWE management is still high up on CM Punk.

From what I've been told, there have been plans to get the World Heavyweight Championship back on Undertaker since his return, and the decision was finalized on Sunday. Source - PWmania

Wait, if every thing everybody is saying is true (excluding the dress code thing, WWE's wrestlers have never dressed up all fancy), then CM Punk kind of sounds like a punk :D! (Okay bad pun) But really, it seems that his character on screen is pretty similar off screen, which makes me upset, because he is one of my favorite wrestlers! :eek:

[Self]

It seems like to me that WWE themselves don't even care about their world titles. Their Main Event at HIAC was DX vs Legacy. Heck, the US title match was after both of the world championship matches! They don't have enough main eventers for two brands (not nearly enough for three, but ECW is treated like a joke). They really should just end the brand split! I am sick and tired of it :mad:!

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on the brand split.

[UkWrestleFan]

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on the brand split.

Yep, and I disagree with his comments about ECW being treat like a joke.

Wrestling Century, do you meant it's treat like a joke when compated to the original ECW? Some clarification would be great because personally I think that ECW is doing a good job.

[djthefunkchris]

It seems like to me that WWE themselves don't even care about their world titles. Their Main Event at HIAC was DX vs Legacy. Heck, the US title match was after both of the world championship matches! They don't have enough main eventers for two brands (not nearly enough for three, but ECW is treated like a joke). They really should just end the brand split! I am sick and tired of it :mad:!

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on the brand split.
/nod. They have more then enough. It's how they book/get them all on that is kind of screwy right now. Nothing really runs away... there is only a brief amount of build-up, just spread out... Meaning, they could probably pull in the same amount of buildup with half the shows, but spread it out... You can have an angle from both sides, and a match every show, but they don't.. You will see that in three shows, lol.
Yep, and I disagree with his comments about ECW being treat like a joke.

Wrestling Century, do you meant it's treat like a joke when compated to the original ECW? Some clarification would be great because personally I think that ECW is doing a good job.

ECW to me is the best product they have right now. To call it a joke... I believe even Nevermore was impressed, and he's probably the biggest old school ECW fan on the boards here.

[Wrestling Century]

Yep, and I disagree with his comments about ECW being treat like a joke.

Wrestling Century, do you meant it's treat like a joke when compated to the original ECW? Some clarification would be great because personally I think that ECW is doing a good job.

I think that ECW is the best WWE brand right now. I was just saying that WWE treats it like a joke. They hardly ever put ECW matches on PPV. Also, I guess it was pretty drastic to say that I wanted the brand split to end. I just wish that WWE would do it better.

[djthefunkchris]

I think that ECW is the best WWE brand right now. I was just saying that WWE treats it like a joke. They hardly ever put ECW matches on PPV. Also, I guess it was pretty drastic to say that I wanted the brand split to end. I just wish that WWE would do it better.

/nod. I can get behind this whole post 100%.

[Tha Black Phenom]

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on the brand split.

Yeah, that's a boat past sailing. I think I wanted the split to end, but in like.. 2005. Now is way too far to go back, I guess. At least when they announced the re-branding of ECW in 06, I was like "bummer, no f'ing hope now". Haha.

Back to Punk though, should the story be indeed fake, I'm hoping Taker and Punk continue their program(even though I'm sorely against the fact Cena/Orton in HIAC wasn't a feud ender) instead of... Batista -shudders-

[Wrestling Century]

Yeah, that's a boat past sailing. I think I wanted the split to end, but in like.. 2005. Now is way too far to go back, I guess. At least when they announced the re-branding of ECW in 06, I was like "bummer, no f'ing hope now". Haha.

Back to Punk though, should the story be indeed fake, I'm hoping Taker and Punk continue their program(even though I'm sorely against the fact Cena/Orton in HIAC wasn't a feud ender) instead of... Batista -shudders-

Hey, at least the John Cena and Randy Orton fued will end at Bragging Rights, in an Iron Man match. Does anybody think this will be good? I'm hoping that it will be good, but after they destroyed the HIAC match, they might destroy the Iron Man match :eek:!

[Moe Hunter]

There is no "dress code" in WWE and workers are not told to dress a certain way.
When did that end? Because there certainly used to be one. Everyone was to wear slacks and a dress shirt when "on duty".

CM Punk has his fair share of detractors backstage which could have gotten the rumors started. WWE management is still high up on CM Punk.
OR, the idiot dirt sheet writers who have been running "Punk in the doghouse" stories since he first came to WWE, are just keeping up their usual BS.

From what I've been told, there have been plans to get the World Heavyweight Championship back on Undertaker since his return, and the decision was finalized on Sunday. Source - PWmania
Anyone who couldn't see Undertaker winning at HiaC from a pure booking standpoint needs their head checked. Punk could have saved Vince's grandkids from a burning building and they would still move the title to Taker.

[Astil]

Anyone who couldn't see Undertaker winning at HiaC from a pure booking standpoint needs their head checked. Punk could have saved Vince's grandkids from a burning building and they would still move the title to Taker.

True but only so he could be drafted to ECW to team with Hurricane as the Super Punks! Indy darlings by day. Super heros by night!

[foolinc]

I think that ECW is the best WWE brand right now. I was just saying that WWE treats it like a joke. They hardly ever put ECW matches on PPV. Also, I guess it was pretty drastic to say that I wanted the brand split to end. I just wish that WWE would do it better.

I disagree. WWE treats ECW exactly how it should be treated. If WWE put on more ECW match on PPV then the quality of the product on the TV shows would go down. The charm of ECW is that almost everything important happens on ECW. And if it wasn't then I'm guess less people would watch the product and the young prospects that WWE puts on that show wouldn't get as much exposure as they should.

[Tha Black Phenom]

When did that end? Because there certainly used to be one. Everyone was to wear slacks and a dress shirt when "on duty".


Anyone who couldn't see Undertaker winning at HiaC from a pure booking standpoint needs their head checked. Punk could have saved Vince's grandkids from a burning building and they would still move the title to Taker.

probably ended around the transition to pg image? to cander that much more to the kids and whatnot.. i know using pg as reason for many of today's changes in the WWE isn't wise, but who knows. /shrug

as for the latter, i don't think a punk win was out of the question, it's just a matter of whether they'd want to take a huge step with him or not. way i see it, if nobody can beat Taker at mania, they could at least get the claim of destroying him in a HIAC... see what i mean?

but then again.. there's the timing. taker came back not long ago, so maybe a two/three week absence would do fine)

[James Casey]

Certainly in the Make A Wish video on Raw the other night, most of the workers were in casual/gimmick-relevant clothing. There's probably a dress code of a sort - you have to look appropriate on company business, so no-one goes around dressed like Brooklyn Brawler, but even so, it does seem the old dress code has fallen by the wayside.

I had this discussion about titles over on EWB, and I'd note that it's not so much that any individual title has changed hands significantly more than would have been the case ten years ago, to pick an obvious example. Go look at the average title reign length for Austin, Hart and most importantly of all Rock - three months, four months and six weeks if memory serves.

However, there are now two World titles which are changing hands almost monthly. Cena had his lengthy reign a couple of years back, and since then the belts have been bouncing around a lot. Even allowing for Edge and Batista's injuries, there's a lot of nonsensical switches in there (specifically, Batista winning the belt when it was clear he was injured. Also Batista winning the belt from Jericho and losing it back a week later) and some short-term reigns that just seem to be there to stasck the figures.

Something that doesn't help for me is the WWE habit of lumping the titles together. "Orton is a six-time World champion..." No, he's not. He's held the WWE title and the World title. They're separate belts, and should be treated as such.

The top titles in a company really shouldn't change hands more than two or three times a year. The odd quick switch can make waves (cf. Edge's first win) but that should be an isolated incident. Switching titles for the sake of switching them (Orton-Cena-Orton, Orton-Batista-Orton, Punk-Hardy-Punk) annoys the hell out of me.

As the brands are all on the same PPVs nowadays, I'd like to see a 'soft' rule that the World and WWE belts can't be on the line at the same show, for a start - both belts switched hands on Sunday, and that dilutes the importance of both switches, never mind that they were the umpteenth switch of the year for both. Obviously at the bigger PPVs you want all stops pulled out, but it just really gets out of hand at times.

[Slim Jim]

This could be a completely nonsensical point but I'm going to make it anyway... could the hotshoting of the titles be because of the shift to the PG audience? Kids have such a short attention span that it wouldn't surprise me at all if the 'E were trying to avoid them becoming bored with the champions, and rather than trying to book an interesting long reign, they are taking the easy route by having the belt change hands every couple of months or less.

Also, with Cena's year+ reign and JBL's reign, there were quite a few people complaining about the length of time they had the belt and it could be that rather than fixing that problem by making the long reigns more interesting, they have just started doing short reigns.

And of course there is the resume building title wins, which I am sure Batista's last couple have been. They just want to be able to bill him as a five-time world champion or whatever it is he's at now, and again it goes over big with his younger fans when he wins the belt but I think they have realised he isn't reliable enough to run with the belt for any great length of time.

[foolinc]

This could be a completely nonsensical point but I'm going to make it anyway... could the hotshoting of the titles be because of the shift to the PG audience? Kids have such a short attention span that it wouldn't surprise me at all if the 'E were trying to avoid them becoming bored with the champions, and rather than trying to book an interesting long reign, they are taking the easy route by having the belt change hands every couple of months or less.

Also, with Cena's year+ reign and JBL's reign, there were quite a few people complaining about the length of time they had the belt and it could be that rather than fixing that problem by making the long reigns more interesting, they have just started doing short reigns.

And of course there is the resume building title wins, which I am sure Batista's last couple have been. They just want to be able to bill him as a five-time world champion or whatever it is he's at now, and again it goes over big with his younger fans when he wins the belt but I think they have realised he isn't reliable enough to run with the belt for any great length of time.

This might be the case as the hot shotting of titles happened during the Attitude Era as well. The more and more I watch the Attitude Era shows, the more I hate them.

[Tha Black Phenom]

I'll be frank, I was one who pulled for short reigns during Cena's year long reign, but obviously I meant in moderation... never like this. For a while I didn't mind, such as Batista's 8-day reign, because.. well that allowed for unpredictability. Jericho got a second World title under his belt, everyone was happy(although that reign itself was short). There has to be a limit somehow, not sure this is about the kids because say.. the same way they have a short attention span, you could easily say at one point if this becomes a long-term thing, they might forget some champions down the line? I'm already starting to forget a few reigns myself, it's crazy. It almost slipped my mind Edge was a World champion after Mania 25.


Something that doesn't help for me is the WWE habit of lumping the titles together. "Orton is a six-time World champion..." No, he's not. He's held the WWE title and the World title. They're separate belts, and should be treated as such.

Indeed, but in that case I guess they couldn't claim Triple H's illustrious 13-time World title wins. I guess since the split, they decided to roll with that as well. Bah.

[Slim Jim]

They might forget about them while the focus is off that person but when they need them again, WWE can now hype Edge as a nine-time world champion, and have those nine wins for his highlight reel, making him look far more impressive than he should do. And that isn't a knock on Edge, I'm a fan of the guy, but come on... nine world titles? In three years? He isn't THAT good.

[PoisonedSuperman]

Ric Flair's record wouldn't count either then, well maybe it would but it would be less then 20 whatever times.

I love the short reigns, I don't mind if the title changes hands every month, I don't see the big deal. Everyone says it makes the title less prestigous but just calling in the world title makes it known that is the most prestigous title in the company. Since the WWE is the only big dog around, no one is going to dispute that some other companies champion is more prestigious.

[Tha Black Phenom]

Ric Flair's record wouldn't count either then, well maybe it would but it would be less then 20 whatever times.

I love the short reigns, I don't mind if the title changes hands every month, I don't see the big deal. Everyone says it makes the title less prestigous but just calling in the world title makes it known that is the most prestigous title in the company. Since the WWE is the only big dog around, no one is going to dispute that some other companies champion is more prestigious.

True, but I think a company can lower their titles' prestige by themselves. There hasn't always gotta be another one to compare to at the other end of it - say, not sure if back in the Monday Night Wars there were so many comparisons around the WWF and WCW World titles. Maybe a little, but..

And yeah, well.. it hugely depends on how far they take this, because if they do, at which point Cena and Orton become nine-time World champions, maybe it won't look so special..? I originally even billed Edge to rival Triple H and Flair's title reigns, but if everyone's getting quick counts on their spreadsheets well... who knows where that'll lead.

foolinc was right about this happening with titles in the Attitude Era as well, but luckily that was a short wave. I expect (and hope) for it to be the same now.

[Franchise22]

if you counted all world title reigns id say jerry lawler has them all beat by a ton....

[James Casey]

I don't mind them referring to them as World champions so much - that wasn't clear.

It's stuff like Orton calling himself a six-time WWE champion when he's not - if the wrestlers can't get the names of the titles right, why should we care about them?

[Self]

As I understand it, when they used to switch titles, the following RAW would get a boost in the ratings. I don't think that works any more, but it probably adds to the pile of reasons.

That and they keep changing their mind about stuff.

Also, with Cena's year+ reign and JBL's reign, there were quite a few people complaining about the length of time they had the belt and it could be that rather than fixing that problem by making the long reigns more interesting, they have just started doing short reigns.

Well let's be fair, JBL and Cena aren't the most popular guys for Internet Fans (where I expect most of the complaints came from). If they'd given long reigns to Edge or Jericho or Mysterio or Guerrero or some other dude lots of folks really liked and I bet the tune would change.

I like 6 months as a title reign length. Cut it shorter if things don't work out. Make it longer if things are going great.

[lazorbeak]

The "title prestige" argument gets brought up a lot on EWB and my .02 has always been that a title is only as prestigious as the man (or woman) holding it and those chasing it. When Rock and Mankind traded wins, nobody said "oh, that title isn't worth **** any more." It was compelling television because both men were competing at such a high level that one of them might get an advantage any given night.

After Wrestlemania 2000, Benoit and Jericho traded the Intercontinental title for months, with neither getting a reign nearly as long as Kofi Kingston's last run with the gold. When did the title seem to have more "prestige?"

I like 6 months as a title reign length. Cut it shorter if things don't work out. Make it longer if things are going great.

Six months? That is a LOOOOONG TIME when you've got at least six pay per views to fill.

I've made it known elsewhere how I dislike the idea of booking six months in advance: in the real world, and, to a lesser extent, in Adam's games, six months gives you a lot of times for things to go wrong. Matches should be built from month to month, and title reigns are there to serve the story, not the other way around.

For instance, smarks single out Batista's one day reign, but it was important in making Batista look strong: he had been on the shelf for months following Orton's punt, and if Orton wins their big re-match, injuring Batista in the process, it makes Batista look like he isn't even in Orton's league. So WWE has to accelerate their timetable to put the gold back on Orton.

[Hyde Hill]

I agree Lazor with the fact that it is not so much about what they are doing short/long reigns but how and to a lesser extent why they are doing it. The flawed execution in the how part makes it irritating atm.