Talk:WCW World Heavyweight Championship

This page seems like a huge mess. Named the WCW World Heavyweight Title, yet people have added information and bits about the ECW, USWA, and others... they don't belong here, do they? This is suppose to be about the WCW World Heavyweight Title. If someone wants to mix them all together, which seems like a bad idea to me, this page should be redirected to something like Wrestling World Titles or something like that. Eric42 19:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Now that I look at the page again, I've noticed that it may have started off as a page about NWA or has been changed to reflect the lienage of the NWA Title Histories. I just hope that whoever realizes that the WCW World Heavyweight Title and the NWA Title are two completely seperate titles. I suggest reading this message board thread for more information about the titles. Eric42 19:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, almost two years later, that this article is terribly short for such a great title (back before Bischoff/Nash/Russo.) I will attempt to make it better, but I don't know a lot about the title to expand it. Come on, someone help make this article better! Doesn't the WCW title deserve better? Eric42 01:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Error/Contradiction

This article contradicts itself. The top paragraph claims the phyical WCW World Heavyweight Championship belt is still in use today by the WWE as the World Heavyweight Title (which is false; the WWE is using a similar-looking but different belt), while the final paragraph states that the WWE's current World Heavyweight Championship is a completely different title with a different belt.

Wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.35.126 (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sport vs. scripted entertainment

Why is this and other wrestling articles written as though dealing with a skill-based sport and not the scripted entertainment it is?

Because it takes away from the effect the entertainment has on the fans, or even observers, when one says, "Hulk Hogan jobbed to Ultimate Warrior cleanly," as opposed to "Hogan and Warrior gave it their all, but the Warrior truimphed." It's like a soap opera - you know Susan Lucci didn't get married 150,000 times, Erica Kane did. 64.241.230.3 15:39, 26 May 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)

Opinions Here...

I feel that this page should be merged with WWE's World Heavyweight Championship page on wikipedia due to WWE's statement yesterday of the WCW title being a continuation of the World Heavyweight Championship. Big Boss 0 15:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be for it as long as the history of the title reigns and all that are not merged together as well. TonyFreakinAlmeida 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the reigns can be merged as long as there is some kind of separation or indication of the Title’s name changes. For example, there should be a break between the Rock’s last "WCW" reign and Jericho’s “Undisputed" reign and a break between Lesner’s reign and Triple H’s first reign.--Prince Patrick 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though the WCW title was unified with the WWE title to create the Undisputed title, that doesn't make Lesnar's reign as Undisputed champion a WCW title reign, because it isn't one, it's a WWE title reign. If we're going to do this, it will have to be by WWE standards and what the WWE recognizes, we'd merge the pages, and keep the title reigns in separate pages. TonyFreakinAlmeida 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought, because of the “Undisputed” name, that all of the “Undisputed” Champions (from Jericho to Brock) were all considered “WCW” Champions and then the linage would continue to Triple H when the titles were “split”. I’m putting quotes around the word SPLIT for those of you who STILL believe that the belt Mr. Batista is holding is an “ALL NEW, ALL DIFFERENT” title from the WCW Title.--Prince Patrick 19:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you have to look at it this way, the WWF belt and WCW belt represented the Undisputed title for about 4 months or so before the new belt was introduced. All Japan Pro Wrestling unified 3 titles to create their Triple Crown Championship, which is a single title, represented by 3 belts. WWE did the same thing pretty much with the Undisputed championship in the beginning. In my opinion, if the WWE says that the World Heavyweight Championship's lineage is connected to NWA and WCW titles, then the Undisputed title was "split" by Eric Bischoff. TonyFreakinAlmeida 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Undisputed Title holders (Y2J, HHH, Hogan, Taker, Rock & Lesnar) held BOTH titles. Jericho and HHH (at wrestlemania) held both physical title belts and just because BOTH belts were replaced by a singular different physical title belt, that doesn't mean that the Undisputed Title only represented the WWE Title. If only one title was to be represented then it should logically have been the World Title; it was the World(WCW) champ Jericho that defeated WWE Champ Austin to unify the titles, so wouldn't it make more sense then that the WWE Title would be the one disapearing and absorbed into the World title and not the other way around? I mean that would be as if when I-C champ RVD defeated Tommy Dreamer to unify the I-C and Hardcore Titles, the Hardcore Title continued on instead of the I-C Title. I know WWE.com doesn't officially go along with this (yet) but it does make sense.Pretzolio@yahoo.com 19:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this isn't about your opinion or what you think makes sense, this is about what the WWE recognizes, and they do not recognize any of the Undisputed title reigns as WCW title reigns, because the WCW title was merged into the WWE title to create the Undisputed title. Why would the WWE throw away their own original championship in favor of another promotion's? That doesn't make sense, there have been other cases where the holder of the title that was discontinued after a unification held the title he had won, because it is simply how it's done. Another case, the WCW International World title was unified into the WCW World Championship, but guess which belt they kept as the WCW world title? The big gold, that at the time represented the International title. But once again, this is Wikipedia, and we have to go by what the WWE recognizes and not our personal opinions, and you also have to recognize that there is a difference between the term "title" and "belt" in professional wrestling.TonyFreakinAlmeida 20:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretzolio makes sense as far as what title should be used, but I think they recognized the WWE Title, as oppose to the World Title at the time of making it one physical belt, simply because that’s the company’s name. In the case of the IC title merging with the US, Hardcore and European Titles, I agree with you totally, but in the case of the World Titles, it’s just in the WWE best interest that the highest ranking, “most prestigious” title, would be there own. I think that may be the reason why they switched Cena and Bastita during that one draft and took their respective titles with them. They could have just easily given Batista the “Undisputed” version of the WWE Title when he went to Smackdown and call Cena’s spinning belt the World Heavyweight Championship. I feel the WWE had to put the WWE Title on their “flagship” program. The WWE is just as indecisive and probably can’t come to an agreement, just as much as we all can’t come to an agreement here on Wikipedia.--Prince Patrick 20:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, I know what you mean with the brand switching of titles as all the original WWE titles are on Raw and the either new, or WCW(or NWA in the case of the World and US Championships)-era championships are on SmackDown, but if you look at it this way, if you're still going by belts, they kept the WCW belt active as representing the Undisputed title along with the WWF belt, and also I believe the tournament in 2001 to unify the titles was being referred to as the Undisputed WWF Championship, or WWF undisputed etc etc. I'm just saying that if you were in their situation, you'd keep your original championship in the spotlight too. The WCW title lost a lot of credibility in WCW's last couple of years with the many vacancies and titles drops and of course David Arquette and Vince Russo winning the title, the WWE wouldn't want to use a title with such an embarassing history as one of their own, this is also why I believe they didn't directly connect this title to their current World Heavyweight Championship. TonyFreakinAlmeida 21:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You’re right. When it comes down to it, it’s whatever the WWE says it is, regardless of opinion, and in the case of all of these title disputes (lineage, unification, Triple Crown, Grand Slam, etc.), logic. I agree to disagree on opinions. At least we agree on what's logical. Oh well!!--Prince Patrick 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be merged with the WWE World Heavyweight Title unless WWE combines their title histories. As it stands on their site, they still have separate title history pages for the two belts, therefore they should be recognised as 2 separate titles. Lynx Raven Raide 11:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I think this page is still wrong, listing WCW Champions as Jericho and The Rock etc. They werent wrestling IN WCW, ON WCW TV, werent CONTRACTED BY WCW, and the belt was owned by the WWE. As far as I am concerned, and I know Im not alone, the last WCW Champ was Booker T. That was booked by WCW, on WCW TV, by WCW Contracted Wrestlers wrestling on tv in a WCW Sanctioned match. All other matches thereafter March 26th 2001, are not Official WCW Matches, so they cant be WCW World Heavyweight Champs. PLUS, adding to the fact, the article even says the WCW World Title was simply referred to as the "WCW Championship" which ISNT the WCW World Heavyweight Chapionship. Even the WWE werent recognising it by its TRUE title, so why is everyone else? User:he6rt6gr6m 01:35, 31 January 2008 (GMT)

When a company owns a title, they have the right to do whatever they want with it. They can unify it, they can deactivate it, or they can continue to use it for as long they want. When the WWF bought WCW they instantly became the owners of the title. Regardless of what you wish to believe, The Rock and Jericho ARE former WCW World Heavyweight Champions. I'm afraid this debate is pointless, as the sources have contradicted every word you've said. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1991 post-Flair belt

According to various sources (including Wikipedia's article on The Great American Bash), after Flair jumped to the WWF with the Big Gold Belt, WCW used Dusty Rhode's Florida Heavyweight Championship belt to represent the title, replated (poorly) to remove the references to Florida. It would be beneficial to this article to find an image of this belt--either the replated version or the pre-replated version. Obviously the replated version would be more helpful, though I don't imagine any pictures of decent quality exist (if somebody has a tape of The Great American Bash 1991, maybe they could provide a vidcap?). As a last resort, an image of the Florida Heavyweight Championship belt without the new plating would suffice. Jeff Silvers 07:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that the belt is mentioned in this article, too. Hmm. Jeff Silvers 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly there used to be a picture of the belt here, and I remember it just had a square plate over the main one that said WCW World Heavyweight Championship, don't know where that picture went though. TonyFreakinAlmeida 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does everyone say that Flair was paid the $25,000 by WCW and gave the title back? THIS NEVER HAPPEN!! HE STILL HAS THE BELT! NO MONEY WAS PAID TO HIM!! In the WWE DVD: Nature Boy Ric Flair - The Definitive Collection which was released in 2008. Flair said he was never NEVER paid the money plus intrest. Thus he ketp the title belt. Also the actual belt was given to Triple H by Ric Flair as a gift. Which they also talk about in the DVD. WCW however did try to sue so WWF stop showing it and did a fuzzy over the title. After Flair won the 1993 Royal Rumble. The Angle with the real world's champion was dropped. WCW did however make a new WCW Big Gold title.

The World Title(WWE)

Is this the same thing as the WCW World Heavyweight Championship? If so, the statistics need adjusting, and perhpas some sort of merger may be preferable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.136.217 (talk • contribs)

The World Heavyweight Championship currently defended on SmackDown! is not the same title as the WCW or NWA Championships. So no.-- bulletproof ^3:16 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Free photograph of the other WCW World Title belt?

This article would really benefit from a (free) image of the other WCW World Heavyweight Championship belt (the one featuring the six stars on the middle plate). If anybody owns a replica of that belt and can take a photograph for the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Jeff Silvers 13:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive.Bmf 51 05:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Major errors

After Flair no-showed several shows in 1991, WCW stripped him of the World Title. However, the NWA 9such as they were) continued to recognise Flair, so WCW made Luger-Windham for the WCW World Title. That is the creation of the separate belt right there. The diea that Flair was a double-world champion in early 1991 is fiction. 41.245.190.156 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

True beginning and true first WCW World Heavyweight Champion.

Sting in 1990

This link:

http://members.chello.at/dietmar.kienboeck/title.htm

shows the true beginnings of the WCW World Heavyweight Title. It was written contemporaneously, unlike the current so-called "reliable" sources which were written much more recently and espouse WWE revisionist history. Bring Back The F (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)