Old School Fool

WWE Logos Thread

Recommended Posts

According to my unreliable mental math, the Big Gold Belt has been a WWF championship longer than it's been the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. WCW as a promotion was just a little blip, historically speaking. Think about that.

Whether or not it's been a WWF title longer depends on whether or not you consider the the JCP and Turner versions of WCW to be separate companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunatley, it bears relatively little resemblance to the original one from the JCP days which was used up until 2000.

how so? it looks like the only difference to me is the WWE logo was added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to my unreliable mental math, the Big Gold Belt has been a WWF championship longer than it's been the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. WCW as a promotion was just a little blip, historically speaking. Think about that.

Whether or not it's been a WWF title longer depends on whether or not you consider the the JCP and Turner versions of WCW to be separate companies.

JCP was a NWA promotion, and the big gold belt was the belt used to symbolize the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. So it all sort of rests on whether you consider the WCW World Heavyweight Championship its own title or a continuation of the NWA title (which goes back to at least 1948, though the "100+ years" claim isn't entirely invalid). Both WCW and WWE consider the NWA, WCW, and World Heavyweight titles to be one in the same (just watch the promos for tonight's TLC ppv), and I'm inclined to agree. JCP became WCW, that much is certain. JCP/WCW controlled the NWA title and its most marketable stars and most prominent tv deal. When the Turner controlled WCW broke away from the NWA the NWA essentially died. They just started referring to the NWA Champ as the WCW Champ.

Then New Japan Pro Wrestling "resurrected" the NWA title, a title that WCW had, for all intents and purposes, kept going under a new name. That "new" NWA title is the one the current NWA uses, but its connection to the old lineage is suspect. I consider the actual NWA title to be the WCW title, which is the title that was just reunified with the WWE Championship tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of a Cleveland Deal type of thing. An expansion belt (the WWE BG in 2002) got the rights to the history of the defunct title, though the lineage was broken.

NWA will tell you that the "new" Domed Globe made in '93 kept the history of the BG. So it comes down to whether you put more stock in the organizations (or franchise names) or actual real lineage (or lack thereof).

CLEVEJACKED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of a Cleveland Deal type of thing. An expansion belt (the WWE BG in 2002) got the rights to the history of the defunct title, though the lineage was broken.

NWA will tell you that the "new" Domed Globe made in '93 kept the history of the BG. So it comes down to whether you put more stock in the organizations (or franchise names) or actual real lineage (or lack thereof).

CLEVEJACKED!

More the opposite

The wwe belt is the real big gold belt, with the original lineage. The current nwa belt has no lineage to the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of a Cleveland Deal type of thing. An expansion belt (the WWE BG in 2002) got the rights to the history of the defunct title, though the lineage was broken.

NWA will tell you that the "new" Domed Globe made in '93 kept the history of the BG. So it comes down to whether you put more stock in the organizations (or franchise names) or actual real lineage (or lack thereof).

CLEVEJACKED!

More the opposite

The wwe belt is the real big gold belt, with the original lineage. The current nwa belt has no lineage to the original.

The up until last night WWE belt (not BG) had all the lineage, since it was born from the undisputed belt which was created by unifying the titles. The current WWE BG was dusted off in 02 and just handed to triple H. Kinda like the 99 Browns, there's no link to the original other than the uniform and what the promoters make up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of a Cleveland Deal type of thing. An expansion belt (the WWE BG in 2002) got the rights to the history of the defunct title, though the lineage was broken.

NWA will tell you that the "new" Domed Globe made in '93 kept the history of the BG. So it comes down to whether you put more stock in the organizations (or franchise names) or actual real lineage (or lack thereof).

CLEVEJACKED!

More the opposite

The wwe belt is the real big gold belt, with the original lineage. The current nwa belt has no lineage to the original.

The up until last night WWE belt (not BG) had all the lineage, since it was born from the undisputed belt which was created by unifying the titles. The current WWE BG was dusted off in 02 and just handed to triple H. Kinda like the 99 Browns, there's no link to the original other than the uniform and what the promoters make up.

Technically didn't the lineage of the BGB WCW Belt end when Jericho unified it with the WWF title at Vengence 2001, and that the World Heavyweight Title is a new title with an old design as when it was awarded to HHH, thats how Wikipedia views it anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of a Cleveland Deal type of thing. An expansion belt (the WWE BG in 2002) got the rights to the history of the defunct title, though the lineage was broken.

NWA will tell you that the "new" Domed Globe made in '93 kept the history of the BG. So it comes down to whether you put more stock in the organizations (or franchise names) or actual real lineage (or lack thereof).

CLEVEJACKED!

More the opposite

The wwe belt is the real big gold belt, with the original lineage. The current nwa belt has no lineage to the original.

The up until last night WWE belt (not BG) had all the lineage, since it was born from the undisputed belt which was created by unifying the titles. The current WWE BG was dusted off in 02 and just handed to triple H. Kinda like the 99 Browns, there's no link to the original other than the uniform and what the promoters make up.

Technically didn't the lineage of the BGB WCW Belt end when Jericho unified it with the WWF title at Vengence 2001, and that the World Heavyweight Title is a new title with an old design as when it was awarded to HHH, thats how Wikipedia views it anyways.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Technically, much like the Ravens are the continuation of the Cleveland Browns, Jericho beat the WCW champion therefore adding himself to the lineage and merging it with the WWF championship, which was represented by the Undisputed belt, which then became the WWF Championship again, which became the Spinner, then the Big Logo, and now inherits the history of Browns 2.0, AKA the "world heavyweight championship", represented by the BS WWE version of the BG.

EDIT

I guess that's not exactly what I'm saying.

Just like the NFL can say that the Ravens are a new team and don't continue the Browns, the fact is that the Browns moved and the Ravens were the Browns. The WWF can say the lineage ended at unification, but the reality is that lineage can't technically end like that, because someone beat someone who beat someone who beat someone etc. that held that title. Had they eliminated the title altogether prior to that match, then sure it ceased to exist. But someone (jericho) won the belt, and regardless of any design change, and what the history books say, the lineage would be in tact.

Granted it's rasslin' so who cares because facts are what the promoters tell you they are, but just saing if you want to get technical, the Big Logo represents the lineage of the NWA, WCW, and WWWF/WWF/WWE, and now, the WHC. The current NWA title would be like an expansion team, as was the WHC.

If you want to be technical. But, as we all (or at least should all) know, wrestling isn't fun when you try to think about it technically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the WHC didn't look like the WCW title and they used a completely different design would we even be talking lineage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Just like if Cleveland Browns 2.0 were named the Cleveland Thunder and had blue uniforms, there'd be no constant debates over whether Jim Brown really holds their rushing records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things make it not as clear cut to me. The first is that they chose to reuse the big gold belt. The original idea for a second world title following the WWF and WCW Championship unification was to unify the European, Hardcore, and Intercontinental belts into a new world championship, but they opted to bring the big gold belt out of retirement anyway. The second thing to note is that it was Eric Bischoff, the guy most people associate with running WCW, who introduced it back in 2002.

Given all of that I think there's a case to be made that the NWA/WCW Championship was unified with the WWF/E Championship by Jericho, but that this Undisputed title was de-unified and the NWA/WCW Championship was re-instated as the World Heavyweight Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things make it not as clear cut to me. The first is that they chose to reuse the big gold belt. The original idea for a second world title following the WWF and WCW Championship unification was to unify the European, Hardcore, and Intercontinental belts into a new world championship, but they opted to bring the big gold belt out of retirement anyway. The second thing to note is that it was Eric Bischoff, the guy most people associate with running WCW, who introduced it back in 2002.

Given all of that I think there's a case to be made that the NWA/WCW Championship was unified with the WWF/E Championship by Jericho, but that this Undisputed title was de-unified and the NWA/WCW Championship was re-instated as the World Heavyweight Championship.

wat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WWE unified the WWE and WCW Championships into the Undisputed title. Then, to go along with the brand split, they made the Undisputed title exclusive to SmackDown as the WWE Championship and brought back the big gold belt (previously used by the NWA/WCW Championship) as the new World Heavyweight Championship for Raw.

I contend that the intent was de-unify the Undisputed Championship by re-introducing the NWA/WCW Championship as the World Heavyweight Championship. Same belt, was unveiled by Eric Bischoff, and was challenged for by Ric Flair the first night it was introduced. It, essentially, spun off the NWA/WCW lineage from the Undisputed Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This graph made things clear, but no less stupid.

WWE_world_title_lineage.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH jesus - the fact that WWWF spun off of NWA really adds to all this fun.

Regardless - if you want to say that they "de-unified" the titles, then the lineage would go as follows:

... all title changes since let's say '48

Jericho (beats Rock to become WCW champion)

... belt unified with WWE championship

.... all WWE undisputed champions

Triple H awarded World (WCW) champion*

... all World champions since

Randy Orton defeats John Cena for World title, unifies with WWE title.

... all WWE champions until they eff things all up again.

*here's the problem - this would imply that the undisputed WWE champion was "stripped" of the WCW part of the title, which was then awarded to HHH. True it was Bischoff, true it was some representation of the old BGB, but it was introduced as a new title. There was no match where just the World part of the unified title was defended. There was no "strip" of the World part of the title. There was no mention (that I recall - that's around the time I tuned all this stuff out) that it was the same title.

I really really think that the Cleveland deal applies here - and if you're of the opinion that the Ravens are the old Browns, and the current Browns are an expansion team, then you really can't defend an argument that the World title was a continuation of the WCW championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could I forget this? The NWA is littered with splinters - even post WCW. Man to be a fly on the wall in the NWA "war room" when that happened, considering only two people knew that it was happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I don't consider that to be "the" NWA Championship. The NWA all but shut down when WCW broke away from the NWA in 1991 and just started calling the NWA Champ the WCW Champ. That's what Douglas was referring to when he said "an organization that died, RIP, two years ago."

The NWA of old essentially became WCW, and the new NWA that started up after that was just a pale imitation.

It's also worth noting that the ECW Championship was never splintered from anything. It was a regional championship that was elevated to world status when ECW struck out on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I really just wanted an excuse to post an ECW video. I wasn't in to wrestling when that happened (other than at least kind of following the "Tristates Wrestling Alliance", which was the forebearer to ECW) until starting to go to ECW events in '94. I still stand by my point that (here comes a copy paste job) if you're of the opinion that the Ravens are the old Browns, and the current Browns are an expansion team, then you really can't defend an argument that the World title was a continuation of the WCW championship.

I think you could make more of a case that the Sharks are continuing the Barons legacy than the WWE WHC is continuing the WCW WHC timeline.

Of course again - it's all just wrestling, so who the hell knows what means anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really really think that the Cleveland deal applies here - and if you're of the opinion that the Ravens are the old Browns, and the current Browns are an expansion team, then you really can't defend an argument that the World title was a continuation of the WCW championship.

Here's where I see a difference. Regardless of what the NFL tries to tell us it's pretty silly to pretend that the Ravens aren't the original Browns. There's a continuation of players, personnel, and ownership. It's also worth noting that the "Cleveland deal" was an absurd creation that flew in the face of how franchise relocation had worked since the advent of professional sports.

With the World Heavyweight Championship? Well at the end of the day promoters have always had final say over what they do with their titles. Take the ECW Championship. It went from being a regional championship to a world championship. How? Paul Heyman and Tod Gordon just sort of said "it's a world championship now."

So while "the NFL says so" is laughable when it comes to the Browns and Ravens "WWE says so" actually works regarding the World Heavyweight Championship being a continuation of the NWA/WCW Championship. They made the decision to simply de-unify the WCW Championship from the Undisputed title.

And there is precedent for it. The Intercontinental Championship was unified with the US Championship in 2001, only for them to simply de-unify the US Championship by re-instating it in 2003 without the Intercontinental Champion having to "lose" the US Championship portion of his title.

Finally, despite pro sports being a business first and foremost they still involve legitimate athletic competition so it's important for all the right records and accolades to end up in the proper places.

Pro wrestling, on the other hand, is all about entertainment. Championships have always been props to tell stories. So if the World Heavyweight Championship being a continuation of the NWA/WCW Championship makes for a better unification story then that becomes reality within the fictional world of WWE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that was my point from earlier - it's "wrestling", not "sports". Histories / legacies / etc are whatever the promoters say they are. At the end of the day none of it matters because titles get stripped for no reason, new titles get created out of nowhere and merged with others, etc. Much like you have to suspend belief and dumb yourself down to watch the "sport", you can't really look at the title histories as technically as I am here, because you'll drive yourself nuts and it'll take away from your enjoyment. So if it makes people feel good to say the current BGB represents everything that any iteration of the BGB did, then hey - have fun. Technically, there's no right or wrong / winner or loser in a worked sport.

But if you want to play the "continuation of players... " card, then you have to say that a title's lineage refers to a continuation of defenses (or explicitly definable exceptions, such as strips due to injury, or when it's "held in abeyance" (wtf?)). HHH was just awarded a new title, with a new name, without any mention of any split or unmerge or strip or anything. It just happened to be wearing the same uniform that Bernie Kozar did. I mean it was a similarly shaped belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.