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

In regards to the list of Champions rattled off on May 19, Goldberg, Booker T and Scott Steiner WERE among the list. 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.obsessedwithwrestling.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)

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)

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".