Talk:Big Gold Belt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit

--I edited the text of this page, seeing as though the belt in question (or the WWE alternative) is actually defended on Smackdown, as opposed to Raw.

Tenspeeder 01:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ric Flair

Not sure if it means much, but Ric Flair said in a episode of WWE Confidential that the belt that WWE has is in fact the original and is not a replica. ^---SilentRAGE! 15:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember that as well. Don't really have the sources to back it up, so I can't put it in the article, but from my understanding, the original Big Gold belt, which has been repaired a few times, is in WWE headquarters in CT.

The one Hogan kept after Bash at the Beach 2000 was the copy made for "Ready to Rumble," which they had gold plated in order to have a spare. This was done after they actually couldn't find the original belt for an hour backstage once, and realized a spare might be a good idea.

Flair also has a copy, but his is slightly different, as its the one from the "real world's title" angle. It is the one that was digitally blurred on TV, but to live audiences looks pretty close. It's on Reggie parks belt site [1]. It can also bee seen in the photograph section of Flair's book.

And there's the current version, used on SmackDown!, which has the WWE logo on it.

If anyone can dig up better, more complete sources than my memory, then I'd love to see this in the article. I'll work on it myself, as well, of course. oknazevad 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I know the original belt had the top portion of the main plate bent slightly forward. I dont know if this was repaired or not, but the belt currently held by Batista is definitely not the original.MFuture 17:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Jarret was champion at the time. That might have been the night they couldn't find it for an hour. It was fixed.

The current is definitely a copy, as the WWE logo is pretty easily seen. oknazevad 06:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just because the WWE logo is on it, doesn't mean that it's a fake. WWE could have had the logo added on to it. ^---SilentRAGE! 05:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• It cant be the original belt. One reason is the original strap was a maroon color it wasnt black. There was more wihte gold it all wasnt yellow gold, and you can look at it and tell like when HBK was World Heavyweight Champion the strap was bigger. Like the leather part around the gold was more thick. Go look at his pic with the belt on WWE.com and look at Batista's or Taker's you will see a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.91.139 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit of 2/24/07

I reworked the paragraph on the belt's use in WWE. The way it was written made it seem like the original belt was modified, while it's actually a new copy of the belt. Just thought it could use a rewrite for clarity and accuracy. oknazevad 06:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The original Big Gold Belt is in the hands of Scott Steiner. When Steiner was champ, he claimed it was stolen, carried around a Figures Inc. replica for a few weeks, until a new belt was made. Hogan's copy is a cast copy with Jeff Jarrett's name on the main plate. At last count, at least 5 cast copies were made. Other cast copies were made for Kevin Nash & Diamond Dallas Page (Page's being # 5). The belt Booker T brought into WWE is not the original like WWE claims, it too is just another cast copy. The current belt is an etched version made by WWE beltmaker Joe "JMAR" Marshall. Hogan claims to have the original, but it's not true. BTW, the original was a gift from Jim Crockett to Ric Flair. MrNWA4Life-4/22/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.8.197.254 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits

MrNWA4Life is exactly correct. Also, 3bulletproof16 please STOP editing belt pages. I understand you are trying to help, but you are constantly updating pages with incorrect information. Many times you are removing valid facts that can be proven, yet you are editing however you feel free, even going as far as editing anonymously or using other names. Please don't edit belt pages unless you can prove the information you are changing, as well as anyone else editing pages. I do not have time to constantly undo your incorrect edits on every belt page, so if you want proof or verification of information, I would be more than happy to point you to valid, credible sources of facts and information about belts. Feel free to contact me on AIM or YIM under PawNtheSandman --PT Sandman 02:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think User:3bulletproof16 needs to read WP:OWN and take some time off. He has used a sockpuppet and ignored sourced contributions to strong-arm his own views into the article. King Of Cable 05:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all read Wikipedia:Verifiability. You have failed to provide a source that states that several casted copies of the belt were created. You have also failed to provide a source that states the belt was crafted by a cowboy belt buckle maker out of Reno, Nevada. Removing a "Needs references" template in order to justify the re-addition of your removed (unsourced) info is pretty pathetic. Then removing warnings claiming they weren't valid even though you did not (and still haven't) provide a source is just being arrogant. And finally, reverting the removal of Original Research while saying you are removing vandalism is plain and simply just being a TROLL. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, feel free to IM me and I will give you source after source after source, meanwhile, you do not provide any sources for your material and just bully articles by sitting at home all day and editing the page as they see fit. You are the perfect example of why Wikipedia has lost any credibility. It isn't about what is correct, it is about who is willing to waste more time sitting around and changing items to their opinion. The beltmaker from Reno Nevada has been verified from Jim Crockett himself as well as numerous books. DDP's cast belt can be seen on DaveMillicanBelts.com, or just ask DDP and he will tell you he has a cast as well. The list of the 5 casts were provided by the WCW Prop Person who was also the person who had the original Big Gold replated (which is why it got that ugly orange tint eventually), and the prop person is also the man who created the WCW Cruiserweight Tag Titles. You continue to prove time after time you know very little about belts. Like I said, feel free to contact me and I will give you credible source after credible source, not only for this article, but for numerous others that you CONSTANTLY incorrectly edit.--PT Sandman 12:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Put as many of your sources as you can in the article. If Bulletproof Boy wants to revert it after that, we'll have a case to take to an admin. King Of Cable 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

KOC, you are the one who is walking a thin line right now. You continue to add unsourced statements, and then removing the warnings from your talk page by saying you have added sources (despite proof that you have not). TJ Spyke 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you are trying to bully-edit this article since your buddy Bulletproof Boy was scared away. Your abuse will not be tolerated, either. King Of Cable 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you have absolutely no clue how Wikipedia works. We know where the two of you come from, believe me we're used to this (i.e. User:Asad Aleem [liked creating articles about his imaginary friends], User:Taracka [troll from a forum that had an obsession with a pink blob of fat, User:Big foot123456789 [a guy Taracka sent from the forum to harass users responsible for getting him blocked], User:Dragon Emperor [another guy sent by Taracka - yes that Taracka guy had some issues], User:Wiki-star [another guy with an obsession for the pink blob of fat, User:Factual80man [made dozens of Sock Puppets to revert every single edit TJ Spyke made], User:Chadbryant [someone even you might be familiar with. I never got involved with him and he was a good editor but he got blocked for being the same troll he was on a wrestling forum, User:Comiclover420 [another dude with a weird obsession... John Cena and Daffy Duck...], User:Doctor33 [and yet another dude with a weird obsession... WWE and Bratz...], User:Jrapidfire [fan boy obsessed with Broly...], User:Verdict [some dude that had a problem with Dave Bautista-Brock Lesnar-and Bobby Lashley, User:Zarbon and User:Wiki-star [two more dudes obsessed with their favorite Dragon Ball Z characters], and the 'o so loveable Mr. Jonathan Barber himself - User:JB196 [yes the man who hates Wikipedia for "stealing his information"]. You two are probably from some crummy message board filled with fan boys and other trolls like these fellas, flaming each other and possibly mad at us for removing your nonsense, vandalism, original research, theories, and speculations. You can hate us all you want but at least have a good reason to do so. See you're mad at us (well mostly me) because your contributions get removed. Ok I get that, but do you even know why it is even getting removed? Wikipedia is not a place for some guy's theories about how things were made, things that don't have a point, opinions that show how you feel about certain things, predictions on how things will turn out, etc. Look it up in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it’s all right there. What we do is NOT remove information and replace it with factual errors. What we do is enforce and uphold Wikipedia's three main governing policies (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), that’s why we need to remove the things that violate these policies. It's not a matter of owning an article when you are un-doing an addition, removal, or change of content made by those who deliberately attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. We assume good faith when we see editors make these changes and we easily correct them and refer them to the proper policy or guideline that can help them contribute better to the this project called Wikipedia without criticizing their edit. I think its funny, King Of Cable, how you tell others to assume good faith when it is actually you who is assuming bad faith. Go ahead and take a look at the list on Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. Right off the bat I can tell numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, and 20 fit you very well. Instead of endlessly reverting for the sake of reverting, why not just take a break? Look, if you did in fact provide a source to your edit about how "Several casted copies of the belt were created in 2000, and given to a handful of past WCW World champions" then why not refer us to your source and correct our mistake instead of continuing to tell us that we can't see for shit and that our warning is bogus? Now PT Sandman, the thing on how "The belt was believed to been crafted by a cowboy belt buckle maker out of Reno, Nevada" just simply cannot be added even with a source. I'm not doubting anything you add in any way, shape, or form, but Wikipedia policy basically states per Wikipedia:No original research that facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have not been published by a reputable publisher cannot be published in Wikipedia. Before you start judging people again, remember that its not me talking here, its Wikipedia policy. Whether the two of you choose to follow these policies while editing here is up to you, but I wouldn't recommend not doing so if you don't want to end up like the people I noted earlier. Oh and PT Sandman just to clarify another thing, your edit to WCW Hardcore Championship [2] had to be reverted for a number of reasons. For one, the image you uploaded of the belt had no copyright status, source, or fair use rationale, which is why an administrator deleted it. For clarification on what those things mean please see Wikipedia:Image use policy. Secondly, the note about J-Mar was also unsourced which, yes, did violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. Now if you say you do have reliable sources for that note then I encourage you to add them to the article. For help on that see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Oh and next time, remember to add whatever reliable source it is you have while making an edit here instead of having to wait until someone asks you for one. I hope this clarified a lot of things for the two of you and who ever else hates us out there. I'd preferred that you would hear this from an administrator instead of myself, but if you still feel that my points are not valid then I could refer you to Lord Deskana. He is well known editor/admin who I respect very much would be more than happy to answer any questions that you may still have. I truly hope this cleared any confusion there may have been and that this wasn't a long read for you. -- bulletproof ^3:16 08:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet you constantly revert edits to wrong information that cannot be proven as well. It is obvious you have nothing better to do then go and change articles as YOU SEE FIT because your articles don't contain factual details nor sources, and in the cases of other articles such as the Wrestlemania 3 attendance, even if people provide sources, you will edit it as YOU see fit. Want to talk about the WCW Hardcore belt? Talk to PRoc who designed the hardcore belt and was improperly credited. Talk to JMar to made it. Use WayBackMachine to view the JMar webpage when he posted the design contest. You want phone numbers and email addresses on these people to, so you can call them and verify it? As for the Big Gold, would you like the name and email address of the WCW prop person who was the person responsible for replating the original, and getting the casts made? DDP's cast can be viewed on the DaveMillicanBelts.com website. Kevin Nash has stated in numerous interviews he owns a copy. View Bash at the Beach 2000, Hogan was given a copy not the real one. Jarrett has a copy and Steiner claims he was given a copy, although like the article CORRECTLY states, there is much debate over who has the real belt, either WWE or Steiner, but through pictures Steiner posted and up close pictures of the belt WWE used right after the WCW buyout, most people tend to believe Steiner has the real one. If the whole debate about Steiner or WWE owning the real belt be left in without citing sources, then why can't the origin of the belt being made in Reno, Nevada not be left without citing a source. I believe at least 2 books mentioned it. I believe one was Ric Flair's autobiography, and the other which I know for sure mentions it is Sex, Lies and Headlocks, also old interviews with Jim Crockett mention the belt buckle maker as well. There are websites, webforums dedicated to belts, as well as the beltmaker's themselves who can provide you with information on any of the belts. You just like the power trip. Like I said, I'm not going to come and revert all the edits daily like you do. I'll just say that people like you 3bulletproof16 and your other fake names, and people like you on other subjects is why Wikipedia has gotten such a backlash and negative reputation.--PT Sandman 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your argument right there is that you keep saying that I remove un-cited information and replace it with information that contradicts your claim and includes sources. The problem is that that's just how Wikipedia works. Its three main governing policies (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) define this very clearly. You are also under the impression that the WrestleMania III attendance dispute was just me having a problem with Meltzer's number. Have you even taken a look at the talk page? Every member from WP:PW, including administrators that are neutral in the argument agree that the attendance number stated by Meltzer requires more reliable sources. That’s not just me talking. I don't want phone numbers, I don't want email addresses. I, along with admins and other users want reliable sources! That’s all Wikipedia asks for. You keep telling me to talk JMar, to talk to PRoc, etc. Now I'm telling you to quit telling me to talk to all these different people and add your sources to the article!!! Don't keep telling us that you have all these wonderful sources and not add any of them while expecting us to believe you. Again take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. And you're wrong; the whole debate about Steiner or WWE owning the real belt isn’t left in without a source. It was removed because it had no source except for a link that takes you nowhere. But your good friend King of Cable decided to revert and leave it there anyways in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. And no it is not because of people like me that Wikipedia has gotten such a backlash and negative reputation. It is because of misinformed people like yourself that misinterpret guidelines and policies, spend all your time hating Wikipedia and plotting revenge on those responsible for removing your work instead of listening to the voice a reason and figuring out why exactly people found an error in your contribution. You can keep thinking that I am an evil power hungry maniac all you want but I can think of a dozen of administrators, including one Jimmy Wales who would beg to differ. If you hate Wikipedia for a number of reasons, have those reasons at least be intelligent. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess we've got Bulletproof Boy making long-winded personal attacks now... King Of Cable 13:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent reply, I might add.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of the belt (Early 1990's WWF "Real World's Champion" angle

The original NWA bylaws required a deposit not on the title belt, but as a bond to ensure the champion would meet his appearance obligations.

Ric Flair, as a result of his $25,000 deposit, may have believed that he owned the belt, but it likely remained the property of JCP/WCW at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.251.93 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The $25,000 deposit covered the original Domed Globe. Flair never got his actual deposit back from the NWA, and he still has the original Domed Globe to this day. The original Big Gold was a gift from Jim Crockett to Flair. Both Nelson Royal and George South confirmed this. Flair essentially sold the belt to WCW for what the cost of his NWA deposit was plus interest in late 1991. MrNWA4Life 06:40 17 March 2009

Redirected

No discussion required for recent redirect. The "Big Gold Belt" is merely a nickname among fans. WWE, who OWN the belt, refers to it as the "World Heavyweight Championship". Now don't jump the gun, people... yes, this is the name of the championship title, but THE BELT ITSELF is also known as such. The WWE recently released "The History of the World Heavyweight Championship" (with the "Big Gold Belt" used as the sole cover image), which traces its NWA, WCW and WWE history. This is cemented by WWE.com: "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... 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."[3]

Big Gold Belt redirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KorjokManno (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT redirect in order to alter a page name. See WP:MOVE. Additionally, for a case such as this, a discussion IS in fact required involving WP:PW. You are free to state your case at WT:PW. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"...is merely a nickname" - I beg to differ. It is notable enough outside of the WWE fanbase. Plus, it's always a good idea to DISCUSS a proposed move first before actually moving it. ArcAngel (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This Article is not very accurate

The name "Big Gold Belt" is a nickname given to the original version that Ric Flair wore as the NWA champion. It refers to the actual physical belt, not every copy of similar style all the way up to current times. I think everything that talks about versions of the belt that aren't the original should not be in the article. Like everything past 1994 and the International heavyweight championship should be removed because beyond that point the original physical belt was not used, copies were. All that stuff during the "Monday night wars" where Hogan and the NWO spray painted the belt was a copy and not the original. And any WWF/WWE belts of similar design are copies as well no matter what they say. The belt Flair gave to HHH was a copy as well. They all want to try to make it seem like the current belt used in WWE has some connection to the original but it has none. The Original Big Gold Belt that Ric Flair used as NWA champ was not used past 1994 and the last title it represented was International Heavyweight Title after the NWA and WCW parted ways. Beyond '94 it's all copies and the name "Big Gold Belt" only refers to the original and not every copy for the rest of time. That being said the first picture in this article is incorrect since that is not the original belt (the original didn't have black leathering)Also the original Big Gold Belt had no name plate. Ric Flair's name was etched into the main plate of the actual belt. There was no bolt on name plate as there is in the picture. DingoateMyBabyyy 13:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)