Talk:List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions
|WikiProject Professional wrestling||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
Links from this article with broken #section links :
NWA / IWGP Unification???
On the March 21, 1991 title change you have "Briefly unified with the IWGP Heavyweight Championship". I dunno on that... To me, two separate belts on the same man do NOT a unified title make... I'm open to hear both sides of this argument...Blozier2006 (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Bryce L.
There is no source for this and no mention of the actual circumstances on his own Wikipedia page. Futher, the editor lists it as "unrecognised" - I believe this addition should be removed as it's unverified and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Here. He was subsequently stripped because the referee wasn't "recognized by the NWA", but the reign itself was ackowledged in IWA TV. El Alternativo (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
NWA first dont recognize Ray Gonzalez reing because the referee who make the 3 count was not from NWA or TNA and Ray gonzalez get stripped but at that time IWA was affiliate whit NWA, in 2015 NWA recognize Ray Gonzalez reing and says he was stripped off the title by NWA referee the same night but here are the official reings lists
Is there a WP:RS which contains a list of all the unrecognized NWA Title reigns? Eg. Buddy Landell, Wahoo McDaniel, Bruiser? It would be nice if there was, as it would make the article more complete. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is the Flair/Race Starrcade 83 title change not recognized?
- I see that you guys went and fixed the issue. Thank you. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Pertaining to the Buddy Rogers period in the 60s, since we list Bobo Brazil in September 1962 (greyed and un-numbered) in spite of the NWA not recognizing the exchange, I think we should not merely shove in the right 'notes' column things pertaining to similar events with Bruno Sammartino in August 1962 and Killer Kowalski in November 1961. I'm going to split these as their own columns and grey them (and not number them) as was done with Bobo Brazil. To do otherwise doesn't establish a proper timeline. It's a confusing period and notes on the rightmost column should pertain to the event in question, not jump all over the place with unrelated events.
I'm glad I did this, because there was actually an error in calculating the reign length. The previous version listed the length of the 7th reign (Rogers' first) as 414 days. This used the end date of 18 august 1962 though, the start of Brazil's greyed-out unrecognized win. The actual period of time between the 7th and 8th officially recognized reigns (30 june 1961 with Rogers and 24 january 1963 with Thesz) is 573 days.
Rogers' first reign has 2 lesser options (which we could optionally grey out to recognize that the shorter numbers are not official, and pertain to recognition of the subsequent greyed disputed Reigns) which take into account losses (allegedly for the title, to some) to Kowalski in 61 and Brazil in 62 prior to the Thesz incident in 63.
To avoid confusion, since this row takes up multiple lines due to the explanations anyway, I listed all 3 lengths with notations as to what those different lengths pertain to.
Roger had a row listed for his greyed-out unofficial second reign, as it pertained to Brazil. However, since the Kowalski incident is just as controversial and unofficial as the Brazil incident, it is equally worth a row, and equally leads to a different calculation of a separate reign length.
These two alternate timelines divide up the 573 day official period. With the Kowalski flip, it goes 145+425+3 while with the Brazil flip it goes 414+73+86. It should be noted that the loss and later victory to Brazil occurred during the period after having lost to Kowalski and prior to the later victory over Kowalski. Listing these separately is essential, and they can't be combined in one timeline, because if Kowalski was considered champion then Brazil's reign is nullified due to not defeating the actual champion.
I think we might also potentially address the 2 August 1962 incident with Sammartino, but that adds too much confusion and might wait for a later day until issues pertaining to Rogers>Thesz v. Rogers>Kowalski>Thesz v. Rogers>Brazil>Thesz are well settled in. Based on the data present in the table, the Kowalski/Brazil victories seem more deserving as a row due to actual matches occuring where Rogers felt the need to battle them later to establish himself as champion, something that did not occur with Sammartino for the NWA title.
That's not to say the Sammartino victory didn't leave a sour taste and similar need for ramification, but rather that these issues were solved later, after Rogers' abdication to WWWF, when Bruno challenged him for that title. So in Bruno's case, it probably is just worth the note on the right. I would not be opposed to giving him a grey row too, which would after Kowalski and before Brazil, but the problem in that case is I would not know what to put for reign length. If Bruno refused to accept the title, do we consider it a 0 day reign length, and a 2nd reign of Rogers beginning on that day, dividing it into 2 days which sum to 573? Ranze (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Why does this article even mention that certain NWA World Heavyweight Title reigns are not recognized by WWE? WWE does not control the NWA, is not a member of the NWA, and has no authority whatsoever in regards to NWA titles regardless of what Vince McMahon would like to believe.Kdb1965 (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, when the NWA and WCW filed lawsuits against each other c. 1993/1994, the official verdict of the Court was that the NWA retained the name 'NWA' and the likeness of the Domed Globe Belt, and WCW retained usage of the Big Gold Belt as well as the right to list all Champions from Orville Brown in 1948 onwards as former WCW World heavyweight Champions. Numerous shows show video packages etc. of former WCW Champions, which include Thesz, Rhodes, Funk etc. Guys like Gene Kiniski, Rick Steamboat, Dusty Rhodes, Terry Funk, Harley Race all appeared on WCW television from 1994-2001, and were officially and legally recognized as former WCW World Heavyweight Champions. Ironically WWE(actually the WWF) were the ones who created the problems. During the Monday Night wars, as a way of undermining WCW, Jim Cornette wrote articles for World Wrestling Federation Magazine and RAW Magazine stating how the WCW Championship goes back only to 1991. And WWF television had people like then-NWA Champion Dan Severn appear on WWF television, where the WWF guys talked about the legacy and history of the NWA. But in fact, as expert books published in the 1990's made clear, the NWA of Severn stretches back only to 1994. The NWA World Heavyweight Championship(actually Championships) of 1948-1993 are part of the legacy and lineage of the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. And it was the WWF themselves who pushed the 1994- NWA World heavyweight Championship as being the exact same thing as the 1948-1993 NWA World Heavyweight Championship. Of course in 2001 WWF bought out WCW. Then in 2002 WWF became WWE, and they brought out The World Heavyweight Championship, which they were never clear on whether it was the same thing as the WCW world Heavyweight Championship or not. One week it was, the next week it date only back to 2002. This indecision, as well as TNA using the NWA World heavyweight Championship, having their first show have all the Legends, and their repeatedly telling their fans that the Championship Jarrett, Styles, killings etc. were fighting over was the exact same Championship that Race, Rhodes and Flair had fought over, led to the convoluted mess we have today. Bizarrely as WCW had the rights to the 1948-1993 lineages(though definitely not the name "NWA" or the rights to the Domed Globe image), and WWF/E bought WCW, WWE does have the rights to the 1948-1993 lineages, while the present NWA lineage goes back only to one night in the ECW Arena in 1994... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This might not be the most appropriate place to ask, but is 'House show' really the best term to describe a non-televised event? Would perhaps 'live event' be a better term, instead of using insider lingo? BoosterBronze (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)