How important are world titles in wrestling? Should a company always be built around a championship billed as a “world” title or can a case be made for Intercontinental championships or some other wording being more important? On a similar note does being given a world title reign really signify a wrestler as someone important these days? The same can be asked of long title reigns?
These are questions we attempt to answer in today’s
episode of That Wrestling Podcast. Personally I think that the most tenured
title in a promotion, no matter what it’s called or whether it’s a singles, tag
or some sort of gimmick championship, is generally its most important. Having
been in existence the longest it will almost certainly have been held by the
most important people to pass through the company.
 |
| Would another title reign for D-Bry mean anything? |
And long titles reigns? I’ll always be a fan of those.
The rarer championship changes are the more they mean. I think I feel this way
because I started watching wrestling at a time when title changes were an
almost weekly occurrence. The titles didn’t mean a huge amount because they
weren’t presented as particularly meaningful. Over the years I’ve realised how
much titles can mean to a wrestler’s standing form companies where they’re
presented as more than trinkets. And, in fairness to WWE, they’ve improved a
great deal with regards to title change frequency in the last fifteen years.
For more on this subject the obvious thing to do is press
play.
No comments:
Post a Comment