Talk:World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002–2013)/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WWE World Heavyweight Championship 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That makes sense. He lost the match, but wasn't defeated. --Vyran 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hell in a Cell and Triple H

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New evidence on BGB lineage 

message: 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)
replies: text: This would explain Rey Mysterio being number 1 contender. --Web kai2000 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Weight Limit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error: Oldest Champion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page Cleanup and Repititions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  World Title link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First African American champion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vince McMahon said it's the WCW Title 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Linage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merging Pages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My take on this 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Sigh* No, the World Heavyweight Championship is NOT the same as the WCW Championship. YES, there is a similarity in their appeareance, but that does NOT mean they are the same title. WWE didn't pull the WCW championship out of the Undisputed Championship. They created the World Heavyweight Championship, hence why the Undisputed part was dropped; it was now disputed. Technically the WCW championship is still merged with the WWE Championship and is now just called the WWE championship, while only sharing the lineage of the WWE championship. Anakinjmt 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.-- bulletproof 3:16 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIFFERENT Championship 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NAME CHANGE OF THE PAGE 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Proof? Can you provide a video clip, or can someone else back up hearing Michael Cole saying "A great Smackdown Champion"? I know which match you're talking about, however, I don't recall him being called that during the match. And, I've looked through this entire talk page, and I can't find this "statement". If it's a link, please point it out. If someone is just copying and pasting...unless it can be found somewhere online that is a reliable source, we can't put it up, as we have no way of verifying this. Anakinjmt 19:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few vague references hardly qualifies as it being "official". After all, in the past, both Raw and Smackdown announcers have misspoken concerning championships. Jim Ross has mixed up the World and WWE Championships on multiple occassions, for instance. He's referred to Randy Orton as the youngest WWE Champion in history, although he did correct himself a bit later. If the title isn't called the Smackdown World Heavyweight Championship on WWE.com, then it shouldn't be the article's title. Anything else, at least to me, sounds like POV.Odin's Beard 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if that statement there is true, even if the title was referred to as the Smackdown or Raw World Heavyweight Championship at one time, it isn't now. The WWE Championship used to be referred to as the WWWF World Heavyweight Championship 30 years ago. The WWE is known to retcon events and storylines for certain purposes. When Andre defeated Hulk Hogan in early 1988 for the title, despite the fact that Hogan's shoulder was up, he is still recognized as a former WWF Champion. However, despite him "selling" the title to Ted DiBiase, and despite the fact that DiBiase was referred to as the champion during house shows while carrying the title around for a week, he isn't considered a former champion. Doesn't make sense to me really to recognize one and not the other, but that's irrelevant. Whenever a champion is introduced, he isn't introduced on television as the Smakdown World Heavyweight Champion or the Raw WWE Champion. The title histories on WWE.com don't refer to the championships in that fashion. What they call the titles now trumps what they might have called them three and a half years ago. Odin's Beard 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, where exactly was that so-called bit from WWE.com listed? Is it there now? If so, where? If not, can anyone back up your claim? You saying it was there means nothing. You need some sort of corroborating evidence, whether it's an actual link, or someone else that can back up your claim. Anakinjmt 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That statement is fake anyway. I was looking at it now, and it says:(he ultimately choice to defend his title against ally Ric Flair). 
That is grammatically incorrect. It would be "he ultimately chose to defend his title against ally Ric Flair." WWE.com wouldn't make that mistake. Lex94 04:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAME CHANGE - PART #2 

message: I specifically remember this magazine not only having a detailed listing of all their title reigns, but also showing the lineage of all their championships at the time, namely the unifications and whatnot. I believe it'll show the WCW World Title merging with the WWE Title, and the World Heavyweight Title being a brand new title and lineage.
I'm not saying this is the end all answer, but merely one more argument. Mshake3 02:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's accepted that the WCW World Title was Merged with the WWE Title to create the WWE Undisputed Championship. However, if your point is to suggest that the WWE Championship today shares a joint lineage with the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, you're mistaken. Under the title histories section on WWE.com, the WWE doesn't consider the WCW World Title to be part of the lineage of the WWE Championship. Its the same with the World Heavyweight Championship. The WWE recognizes it as its own seperate championship, despite having an almost completely identical design to the WCW World Heavyweight Title. It might have been the intention of the WWE to merge the WCW World title into the lineage of the WWE Championship at one time. However, storylines and angles can and have been retconned at the drop of a had. If a joint lineage between the WCW and WWE Titles was the intention four years ago, its not the WWE's position now. Odin's Beard 15:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, my point was that in the article's diagram, the new World Heavyweight Championship is a new championship and that it did not come from the WCW World Championship. It's merely another argument (and actually legit, no original research here) for the creationist theory list that the article current has. What are you exactly yapping about?Mshake3 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WWE 2003 Preview Magazine

message: The Undertaker has not won the title at Wrestlemania after the Royal Rumble, he has only won the Rumble, Wrestlemania did NOT HAPPEN YET!!!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.116.204 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...no joke. Called vandalism. Anakinjmt 14:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undertaker  Royal Rumble/W.M

message: Sorry to burst Hybrid and Anakinjmt's bubbles but WWE.com just put up a section on the WCW World Heavyweight Title History and the introduction paragraph reads...
*"The World Heavyweight Championship that has recently been carried by such greats as Batista, Chris Benoit and Triple H got its start in WWE back in 2002. But its prestigious lineage can actually be traced back all the way to George Hackenschmidt and 1904. 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. Since that time, top names such as Hulk Hogan, Ron Simmons and Bret Hart carried the championship prior to WCW's demise."
So the WWE DOES acknowledge the link between not only the WWE World Heavyweight Title and the WCW World Heavyweight Title but the link between those two championships and the NWA World Heavyweight Title. See for yourselves :  Pretzolio@yahoo.com 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bubble wasn't burst; I didn't really care. I was just defending the article from OR, but now that it is officially acknowledged this no longer needed. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a cool guy. I'm sure that he just didn't know about this, and it won't be a problem anymore. The Japanese symbols mean cheers according to some random online translator. 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WWE.com  The WHC is still not the same belt as the WCW/NWA WHC. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They may give them separate title histories, but Pretzolio's source states that the current title draws its lineage from the WCW and NWA Titles, 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I never denied that the current World Heavyweight Championship got its "roots" from the original WCW/NWA world title. I'm just saying that these two belts are different from one another in that they are not the same championship. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, they are 2 separate titles, no question. However, this title officially being descended from the NWA/WCW Titles deserves to be in the article. 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I will work on rewriting the article tonight. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I have to go to bed. Tommorow is a busy day for me. Night, 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not sure I totally agree with WWE stating they are related and share a lineage. It seems to me like they are two completely different titles, and I will admit, I'm rather disappointed that WWE chose to acknowledge sharing a lineage between the two titles. But, it is their title, so they can do what they want. Anakinjmt 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE.com Makes New Statement Regarding Lineage History 

message: If you click here: http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/wcwchampionship/
It's official now! WWE.com says the World Heavyweight Championship IS the WCW Title! Let's change the article now, shall we? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.218.81.25 (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WWE seems to want to have it both ways--they want to be able to say they created the World Heavyweight Championship, but they want it to have the prestigious lineage of the WCW (and, depending on which version of history you believe, NWA) Championship. Jeff Silvers 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope you're joking. Anakinjmt 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS IS THE WCW TITLE ACCORDING TO WWE NOW! 

message: The note about Eddie Guerrero being planned to win the title from Batista before he tragically passed on, is OR and has no evidence to support it, so I am removing it.--ProtoWolf 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was some random IP that added the note shortly before you edited it, so it would have been removed eventually. -- Scorpion0422 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured, considering the spelling errors, but I was still adding a reason to my edit, just in case.--ProtoWolf 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eddie Guerrero Note 

message: This belt IS the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, according to the WWE, via one of their own one-shot magazine publications, just recently released. It states that Eric Bischoff resurrected the WCW title and renamed it the World Heavyweight Championship.
In point of fact, I made that information available ON THE PAGE, and it was reverted to a prior appearance. It should not have been, as that information is direct from the WWE's publication. In other words, the controversy is- for now- over. It IS the WCW title.
Warwolf1 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, another case of misinterpreted information... -- bulletproof 3:16 02:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that why the WWE Cruiserweight and WCW Cruiserweight have the same title history? or the WWE US and WCW US have the same title history as well? Good try though.-- bulletproof 3:16 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is official 

message: If you compare Booker Huffman and Mark Calaway's date of births, Booker is older then Mark by 23 days.
So shouldn't he be the oldest champ in the statistic's section? --Miles15 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if Booker was born on the 1st, he was alive when Taker was born, making Booker the oldest champion by 23 days.--ProtoWolf 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither matter. When looking at oldest/youngest champions, the birthdate recorded is the day they win the title. Undertaker won the title after his 42nd birthday. Booker won it before his 42nd. Garistotle 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Champ? 

message: I'm not inclined to read pages upon pages of argument so I'll ask. Wasn't Lou Thesz younger than Orton when he won the title? Killswitch Engage 05:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...Orton is the youngest World Heavyweight Champion in WWE history.  In the history of the WWE's World Heavyweight Championship on SmackDown that is, he is also the youngest crowned World Champion in WWE history if you go by all 3 of their current world titles, and the champions that they themselves have booked.  This title does not share the lineage of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship.  The WWE though links this title to the WCW title, which is also linked to the NWA title.  TonyFreakinAlmeida 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Orton the Youngest Champ

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Batista being billed around 318lbs. at the time he won the title, making him the heaviest champion in the history of the title? TonyFreakinAlmeida 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, pretty much. Khali is billed at 420 lbs. He probably doesn't exactly weigh what the WWE lists him as. Its a common thing for promotions to list wrestlers heavier than what they actually are sometimes. Batista might look somewhat bulkier because, even though he weighs less, his weight is packed onto a much shorter frame. Given Khali's height and the muscular bulk that he has at his height, I'd say he is legitimately somewhere around 400 lbs.Odin's Beard 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heaviest Champion

message: Some jackass wrote that Matt Hardy is the current Champion, but it has been changed back to Khali michaelc2007 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt Hardy

message: I was wondering if it's worth mentioning that it has changed hands at every Wrestlemania since its creation in 2002. I wont put it on the main page but I think its still kind of something that people might find interesting, I did anyways. Stillboy2191 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its trivia that really doesn't matter. If anyone wants to find out when the championship has been defended they can go to List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) which is already linked in the article. -- bulletproof 3:16 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: The relationship between this title and the WCW World Title has been hotly debated on this talk page. I have always said that it’s the WWE's opinion that matters, but they seem to have two different opinions at once. So, in an attempt to get some sort of confirmation, I e-mailed wwe.com about a week ago, using their online form. I later read that they very rarely respond to fan e-mails, and I was surprised to get a response today. Since I sent my question to them using an online form and not my e-mail, I don’t have the original copy of my question. Anyhow, here is their response: 
Dear [My Name],
That is an interesting question. The World Heavyweight Championship currently held by the Great Khali on Smackdown! is the same championship as the original WCW Title, though, as you noted, it has been identified as a new title on WWE television on several occasions. However, in those cases, we are referring to the title’s 2002 rechristening in the WWE. The reason the championship’s lineage is divided on our website’s title history page is the same reason relocated sports teams often keep separate statistics and records for players who have played for the franchise in its current city (borrowing your Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers analogy). The World Heavyweight Championship has a long and storied history, dating back to 1904. We are merely trying to keep our web content relevant for our current fan base.
Thank you for your question, 
WWE.com Staff
Take this for what its worth. This isn’t exactly from Vince McMahon’s mouth, but they wouldn’t have this guy answering questions if he didn’t know what he was talking about. Also, it seems that the WWE believes the NWA Title “became” the WCW Title in 1991 (from the comment about its history dating to 1904), which I don’t believe they have a right to say. However, that doesn’t change what is said about the WCW Title, as they have every right to lay claim to that title’s lineage. I’m not saying we should immediately combine the WCW Title and World Heavyweight Title pages, but it’s something worth considering in the future.Bmf 51 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as how the WCW United States Championship was rechristened into the WWE United States Championship? Just as how the WCW Cruiserweight Championship was rechristened into the WWF Cruiserweight Championship back in 2001? ...Right... -- bulletproof 3:16 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Maybe the WCW United States and Cruiserweight Titles are more "relevant for their current fan base". I don't think we're supposed to decide what information goes into this article based on how consistent the WWE is with their title histories. We should be deciding it based on fact. And, if the WWE says something about the WCW Title (which they legally own) and the World Heavyweight Title (which they legally own) is true, and we can't take it as fact, then who in the hell should we be getting our information from? If someone else has a better source for information about property legally owned by World Wrestling Entertainment, I'd sure like to know... Bmf 51 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you still have the e-mail response?-- bulletproof 3:16 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I still have it. Would you like me to foward it to you? Bmf 51 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I would. Post your E-mail name here and I'll send you an E-mail with my name to foward it. -- bulletproof 3:16 19:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer not to post my e-mail address here. I'm a stickler for anonymity. As you can see, I even edited my name out of the e-mail response posted above. If you want to read it, you will have to post your e-mail name here, and I will forward it at my convenience. Bmf 51 20:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem though. I'd prefer not to post my e-mail here either. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, then hopefully another Wikipedia user will be willing to post their e-mail here. Then, I will forward it to him/her and, if you would still like to read it, you can get it from him/her. Until then, we will just have to consider it an unconfirmed source. Bmf 51 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.-- bulletproof 3:16 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WCW/World Heavyweight Title: I think this is confirmation. 

message: *The current trivia section is crap about all of them getting injured, etc. I'm going to delete it. Virakhvar321 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section

message: Five year anniversary article, pretty much says that the WWE considers the World Heavyweight Title to be a direct descendent and or one and the same with the WCW and NWA world titles of the past, they even call it a reincarnation of the WCW title. . TonyFreakinAlmeida 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Finally confirmation to this huge debate.  Now, does the TNA World Heavyweight Title trace lineage to the NWA World Heavyweight Title like the WWE/WCW World Heavyweight Title does? MC511 03:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One picture also shows Flair holding both the Big Gold Belt and what was the newer design of the WCW title belt after winning the International/World Unification match. TonyFreakinAlmeida 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the WWE's standpoint is actually legitimate. I could see how they could interpret the World Heavyweight Championship as a descendent of the WCW World heavyweight Championship, but I don't see how they could consider those titles to be descended from the NWA World heavyweight Championship. It's not the same situation as with the WWE United States Championship which contains the lineage of the WCW United States Heavyweight Championship, which was originally the NWA United States Heavyweight Championship prior to WCW purchasing and renaming the title. Those are all titles that are the property of the WWE, hence they can interpret them as they want. However, I can't see how they can legitimately claim these titles are descended from a title that they don't own. Could it be possible that they're simply referring to the design of the championships rather than their actual lieages? Both the NWA and WCW have used the exact same design for their world titles at one point, with the only difference in any of the designs being logo changes. I find it incredibly odd that the WWE would list the WCW World Heavyweight Championship and the World Hevayweight Championship as seperate championships on the title history page if they consider them to be the same championship.Odin's Beard 00:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Different regions? I don't understand what you're talking about. No region owned the WCW World Heavyweight Championship nor did any regional NWA promotion own the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. The NWA World Heavyweight Championship is owned by the National Wrestling Alliance, which isn't a promotion but is a governing body. And yes, I already know why they did what they did with the United States Championship, that was obvious from the get go. My point was though, if the WWE considers the World Heavyweight Championship and the WCW World Championship to be the same title, then why haven't their lineages been merged after all this time? In the title history section for the WCW Championship, the WWE states "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. But its prestigious lineage can actually be traced back all the way to George Hackenschmidt and 1904. 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. Since that time, top names such as Hulk Hogan, Ron Simmons and Bret Hart carried the championship prior to WCW's demise." It's not accurate because no matter what they might claim, neither the WCW or World Championships have anything to do with the lineage of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. I fail to see how they can lay claim to any degree to the lineage of a championship that they don't own. Odin's Beard 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the WWE's linking of their World Title to the NWA Title is inaccurate, this doesn't make what this article says about the link between the WCW Title and the World Heavyweight Title any less significant. And, though I don't think anything said in this article (or any article) is enough to reason combining the Wikipedia's WCW and World Heavyweight Title pages (afterall, the WWE doesn't combine the two title's history on its own website), I do think it warrants a change in the "Lineage and Terminology" section of this article (which, I believe somebody has already done). I also think it warrants adding something to Wikipedia's WCW World Title article, stating that the World Heavyweight Championship is the successor of that title (again, somebody has already done this).63.3.9.129 19:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article from WWE.com