Talk:ECW World Heavyweight Championship/Archive 1

2 seperate championships

I believe this requires three completely seperate articles, as there are 3 completely seperate titles. These should be

• NWA World Heavyweight Championship
• ECW World Heavyweight Championship
• WWE ECW World Heavyweight Championship

The ECW World Heavyweight Championship is still owned by Rhino, who, as part of the legal settlement during the bankrupcy in 2001, was awarded the title of 'ECW World Heavyweight Champion' permanently, thus Rhino is still techinically ECW Champion

As the new brand of WWE called ECW has very little to do with the original ECW, and has a brand new championship, this should be given its own lineage and page on the site, with the 1st champion listed as Rob Van Dam, on 11th June 2006 User:ECWWrestling

I disagree strongly with this. For one, I've never heard anything that says that Rhino was declared the "permanent ECW Champion." Second, WWE owns ECW. Even if the current incarnation is nothing like the original, it is still "officially" ECW. There has been nothing to indicate that the ECW World Heavyweight Championship currently held by The Big Show isn't the same title held by Sandman and Tazz in the past. Yes, it's a different physical belt, and yes, Rhino owns the original, but that doesn't make him the champion. Hulk Hogan still owns the WCW title from the Russo incident at Bash at the Beach 2000, but nobody claims he is the WCW Champion. Furthermore, as the parent company of ECW, WWE has the right to decide whether or not the current title is a continuation of the original, and they have done just that.

As far as the NWA thing goes, I don't understand that one at all. The only connection the ECW Championship has to the NWA Championship is that they were briefly held by the same person. Jeff Silvers 20:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with the guy above me.^ And for User:ECWWrestling, id like to say that just having 'the title BELT' doesnt make one a champion, you all should know that WWe's(affiliated) developmental promotion Ohio Valley Wrestling, its OVW Hardcore Championship was NOT represnted by a BELT at all, rather the championship title was a Trash Can!--T00C00L 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I just realized this a couple a days ago that there is a difference in colouring of the ECW logo, on the original belt and the current belt, and so i put it up on the main page on 13th July 2006. --T00C00L 10:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You--T00C00L 10:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

should't their be something about Rhino begin {being the REAL ECW champion

^what are you talking about, Fool? he isnt even in ECW !!! --T00C00L 07:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why'd you sign your name to somebody else's message, T00C00L? (I removed it) Jeff Silvers 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

oh, thats because that FOOL, wrote begin where he was supposed to write being, :so he was not just making HIMSELF look like a fool, he was makin wikipedia and the whole professional wrestling industry, and professinal wrestling fans look like a fool,so,i corrected HIS spelling IN a BRACKET and signed my name beside That!!!--T00C00L 15:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

should't their be something about Rhino begin the REAL ECW champion

now how does that^ sound like, sounds as if he's trying to say that Rhino is going to be starting a New title which he (Rhino) will call the REAL ECW CHAMPIONSHIP or something like that, but thats NOT true is it !!! --T00C00L 15:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You just can't take the truth that Rhino the real ECW champion user:supermike

just what we needed, another ^idiot!!! --T00C00L 07:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rhino is not the real champion, he was the last champion of the old ECW. He stopped being champion when the original ECW folded in April 2001. Also, sign your posts people. TJ Spyke 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

TNA-loving losers should be banned from this site... Rhyno was the last ECW champ in the original ECW, ok??? Has he defended that title since then? NO... Because ECW went out of business... what gives Rhyno the right to claim to be the real champion anyway??? He's lost tons of matches since 2001 and is a WWE-reject... it's just like Gillberg sitting at home for two years and claiming to still be the WWF Light-Heavyweight Champion (because he still owned that belt.. h-yuck!)... Rhyno should get over the fact that in TNA he will never be as big as he was back in 2001... (TNA overall will never be big if they continue copying everything WWE did back in the 90s) Matt 4/9/06

When did Sabu win the NWA World Heavyweight Title? 9/6/06

well at least TNA is it using Eddie death as a storyline or bring back DX and NWO and Rhino is a NWA champion and is getting a way better push now then in 2001[supermike]

That might be because Guerrero never performed for TNA, and they don't own the copyrights for DX or the nWo. I'm sure if they could use DX or nWo, they would (they're arguably two of the three most important wrestling factions ever, the other being the Horsemen). Jeff Silvers 22:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PWI

Who gives a crap if PWI recognized it as a world title or not?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs)

Wikiproject Pro Wrestling does, I'm sure. And who are you again? ^---SilentRAGE! 13:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the TRASH belt/Rhyno Storyline/Logo Color even notable to the history of the entire title?

The TRASH belt is probably only and custom replica, The Rhino storyline is not really notable to the belt history since it just a storyline. This is just another critism at attacking the legitmice of WWE's ECW Brand. The promotion called ECW is dead,its assets where won by WWE.Its WWE choice if it wants to use for DVDs/Books or storylines. To get to my point, is the TRASH belt/Rhyno storyline be considered canon? Does it really mater what color the logo on the belt is. If not then it doesn't belong in a Genral Encylopedia,maybe an wrestling wiki but not on wikipedia. BionicWilliam 01:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Canon"? Is the purpose of Wikipedia to report "official" wrestling storylines? You can view the reference on the TRASH page if you want to learn how it ended up being the TRASH belt. Robert K S 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But TRASH & the Rhyno Storyline have no connection to the actual history of the belt. The only connection ethier of them to the belt is that they claim to have the real belt and really anybody can claim a replica as the ture belt, if you read TRASH sorce article its says the have the real belt but the TRASH replacing ECW. That means that it a replica/remade not the real deal. Plus there not offical storylines since they have no connection the current belt just some old version/replica of the current belt/strap. WWE owns ECW assets so they can use it how ever they want ECW is there property not TRASH. Also do you really think that some joe shmoe off the street care what happened to the old phyisical belt of a dead promotion (ECW). To make my point clear is the TRASH belt/Rhyno Storyline/Logo Color even notable to the history of the entire title if it not it shouldn't be in this article in a GENERAL Encyclopedia.

BionicWilliam 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The TRASH belt is the original ECW belt, and not a forgery, though I don't know of any way to evidence this besides the citation already given in the TRASH article, which you apparently did read but interpreted misleadingly. (If the TRASH belt ever said "TRASH" in place of "ECW" on the belt, it has not since 2005, when the picture of it was taken at TRASHionals 8 in Pittsburgh by OntarioQuizzer.) Whether the fate of the original belt is relevant to the article is for fans of ECW to decide, and I am not one. Robert K S 05:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First African American to hold title?

This page points out that Bobby Lashley is the First African American to hold the title, But since this title is concidered a continuation of the original ECW title line, Shouldn't Tazz be counted as one as well?

Is it considered a continuation of the original title? I haven't heard that, but that might be because I just didn't catch it. Also, please sign your comments. Anakinjmt 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that List of ECW World Heavyweight Champions begins with Snuka and continues to Lashley, I'd say that Wikipedia's policy is that the current title and the title in the original promotion are one and the same. Removing the bit about Lashley's being the first African-American champ. Jeff Silvers 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I put this discussion into its own section called "First African American to hold title?" so it isn't confused with the above discussion about the title's official name. Jeff Silvers 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that TJ Spyke re-added the bit about Lashley's being the first African-American to hold the title. I almost removed it, but then I realized that Tazz is Italian. Whooooops. A review of List of ECW World Heavyweight Champions reveals that no previous champion had been black. So... yeah. Lashley's the first. Jeff Silvers 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tazz isn't black? Whoa. I figured he was Italian, but I thought he was black too. Wow. Learn something new every day... Anakinjmt 13:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he is, but unless I missed it, his article says nothing about it. He's in the Italian-Americans category, but not African-Americans. Jeff Silvers 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an official consensus should be made...

I think an official consensus should be made concerning the name of this article on whether or not it should be called ECW World Heavyweight Championship or ECW World Championship. --James Maxx 17:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm setting up the standard talk header. Part Deux 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this has now been decided. Hopefully we now move on; Assuming my hopes are justified, well done team. Andrewa 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Andrewa 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

ECW World Heavyweight Championship → ECW World Championship — The name currently used by WWE/ECW for this championship. The name has been used since July. It appears on all on-screen graphics and is overwhelmingly used on WWE/ECW television in favor of other terms. -Jeff Silvers; copied from WP:RM page: Part Deux 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support for the reasons given by myself above (it's the official name used by WWE since July). Jeff Silvers 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed move reversal

From my talk page:

Part of the reason there was no opposition was that it was never mentioned at WP:PW, is there a version of the deletion review for moved pages? The article should be moved back and the members of WP:PW should be told about the move request. TJ Spyke 07:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree that the article should be moved back. A Wikiproject is just another collaboration tool. If other editors decide not to consult the Wikiproject and the Wikiproject members don't notice what is happening, the processes just go ahead without them. In hindsight I should have raised it at the Wikiproject myself, but that's done now.

Yes, there's a review mechanism, which is simply to list a reversal of the move on WP:RM. My suggestion is that you discuss it on the talk page first. Quick relistings often attract a certain amount of opposition unless there's a consensus of several editors established on the talk page first.

You might also consider making better use of the watchlist facility to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Andrewa 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the move should not be reversed, as, regardless of what the belt says (the WWE Undisputed Championship never had the words "Undisputed" on it, but was referred as undisputed), it should stay as ECW World Championship. We should go by how WWE refers to it. I mean, if the page RAW is changed to Raw, based on how it is on WWE.com, this article should follow suit and be referred to what it is currently known as and NOT ECW World Heavyweight Championship. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  My contribs  13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Personally I doubt that any such move request would gather much support. But I was asked what the process is, and that's what the process is. It's probably not perfect, but it seems to do the job. Andrewa 09:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay as ECW World Championship, that's how the WWE refers to it, and I like it better because there really isn't a weight limit as to who can hold it, as with every other world heavyweight title in pro wrestling, and ROH also calls their title simply World Championship because there's no defined weight limit. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the move should be reversed. It was just because of a reference on TV that motivated the move. Just look at the belt: it reads "ECW WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP" and it hasn't been removed the heavyweight label in the new version of the belt. Also, in TNA sometimes they refer to the NWA World Heavyweight Championship as "NWA World Champion-title" or "NWA Heavyweight Champion-title", but that was a reason to move the article? Not for me. Xbox6 02:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The WWE owns the belt, title, rights to it's history, they can call it what they want regardless of what is on the physical belt itself, so if they officially call it ECW World Title or Championship or if they renamed it to Tuesday Night Crapfest World Title, regardless of what is on that belt, that is it's name. TonyFreakinAlmeida 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on here, but the belt clearly says Heavy Weight to me. It is a Heavy Weight belt under heavyweight rules. They have just titled it to avoid mixing it up with the WWE Heavyweight belt. Govvy 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But as James Maxx mentioned above, the words on a title's belt don't necessarily form the actual name of the championship. If that were the case, we'd have to move this to "ECW World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship." And to address Xbox6's comments, this wasn't an isolated reference on television, it's the name which is used in the overwhelming number of instances on WWE television and in other WWE media. Jeff Silvers 03:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, what about that: leave the title of the article as ECW World Championship, but the beginning of the article was Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) World Heavyweight Championship, and a reference to the name change by WWE. I think that'll be a good agreement. Xbox6 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it saying something like "The ECW World Championship (formerly known as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship" blah blah blah. Anakinjmt 04:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, but in this page the title is still refered as World Heavyweight [1] Xbox6 15:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet, here[2] it's called the ECW Championship, and here[3] if you look on the side bar, it says ECW World Title. WWE.com often doesn't agree with itself in certain things. Based, however, on not only what's said and shown on TV, but that two cases of ECW World Championship on WWE.com are used and only one case of ECW World Heavyweight Championship is used on WWE.com, and in the shop area no less, which I doubt gets updated very often on content changing a little bit, I'd say it's fairly safe to keep this page where it is. Anakinjmt 17:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Newer new version of the belt

Has anybody noticed that WWE seems to be using yet another ECW World Championship belt? I'm not just referring to the red ECW logo; this newer belt seems to feature quite a bit of black in the background (but is otherwise identical to the previous one). I believe they started using it sometime after Lashley's reign began. Jeff Silvers 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Its actually the same belt. If you look at an old picture of the original ECW title, you can see that it also had that black background look to it. Its just lighting that gives it that look. The reason that direct images of the belt make it look gold all over is because the light of the flash is heading straight towards the belt. It all has to do with lighting-- bulletproof ^3:16 00:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind... -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternate version of the ECW belt

i have always noted that this article has never mentioned and has never had a picture of one of the designs of the ECW world title, here are some pictures of that particular belt, [4] and [5] and [6], and i really hope that this is mentioned and a picture of the belt is posted on the main page of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.69.4 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

We would probably need to find a better image of the belt, preferably one where the belt is by itself (and, of course, the image would have to be fair use). Jeff Silvers 12:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Or free use. Anakinjmt 18:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Whichever. Jeff Silvers 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a picture of the belt by itself, i will try to find it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.77.150 (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

ECW Champion(s)

Are Shane and Umaga ECW co-champions? Zerorules677 17:13, 09 May 2007 (UTC)

No; Mr. McMahon is the sole ECW World Champion. It just so happens that he won the title in a match that featured Shane and Umaga (and that he's defending the title against Lashley in a similar match at Judgment Day). Jeff Silvers 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to know. Zerorules677 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Shortest Title Reign

I thought it was Tommy Dreamer's title reign that was the shortest. Back when Tazz took it from Mike Awesome, he gave it to Tommy Dreamer, or something to that effect, and then Justin Credible came out and took it from him in less than a few minutes. Shatterzer0 02:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• That is a good point. Does anyone know how long his reign was? I'm assuming a stopwatch would help.... 12.75.235.78

Vandalism

Perhaps someone in the know might want to fix the obvious vandalism in the Statistics section of this page. "Nik Mysterio" holding the title for 799 days and being the youngest champion at 12 years, 146 days? Seriously Problem fixed204.62.140.102 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Title match on ecw

Does anybody know if there will be a match on ecw for the title tonight. Seth103

WWE hasn't announced anything about it. Right now, the preview for tonight's ECW includes speculation about who will "claim" the title. My guess is that they'll have either a tournament or a match at Vengeance, but of course such speculation doesn't belong in the article. Hopefully this will all be cleared up by the end of tonight's ECW. Jeff Silvers 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Make two sperate pages?

Who thinks the Original ECW World Heviweight and the new version the ECW World Title should be seperate?-- Kings bibby win 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. COncensious (sp?) was they should not be--67.52.102.68 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved article back

A user moved this article to ECW World Heavyweight Championship earlier today without discussing it here (and apparently without even bothering to read where we reached a consensus to keep the article without "Heavyweight" in the name). I moved the article back to its proper and accepted namespace. I also removed a note added to the article that the "official" name for the title still includes the word "Heavyweight" (along with a reference supposedly supporting this claim that just linked to a results page for ECW on Sci Fi at Obsessed with Wrestling). Jeff Silvers 01:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Nitro mention

I don't know if this is relevent or not, but like on the Women's Championship page which states that Candice Michelle is the first woman from the Diva Search to win the Women's title, should it be mentioned on this page that Nitro is the first Tough Enough winner/contestant to win a major World title in WWE? Virakhvar321 21:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't actually think Michelle's participation in the Diva Search is notable enough to mention in WWE Women's Championship, and Nitro's participation in Tough Enough probably isn't notable enough for inclusion here, either. It should be fine to mention it in the Candice Michelle and Johnny Nitro articles, though. Jeff Silvers 13:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Is there a reason the top picture is...of such bad quality? What was the reason we stopped using the other one? Anakinjmt 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason the current picture is of such poor quality is because the creator edited it from an image of the kid's foam/plastic toy belt from WWEShop.com. It appears the plates were stretched to fit the dimensions of the other image on the page. Also, the leftmost and rightmost plates were edited from the two plates next to the center. We really need to find a better image of the belt, or at least create a better one. Jeff Silvers 13:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of pictures shouldn't there be one of Johnny whats his name (no offense)with the title belt, there is a pic of everybody else with their belts.stillboy2191 17:49, 7,21,07 (UTC)

Proper Name

It seems to me that the name shortening to "ECW World Championship" is a permanent change, designed to avoid confusion with Smackdown's "World Heavyweight Championship". Subsequently, I believe that this page should be returned to that title, as it was for a short while.

This is not the same as the Rey Mysterio situation. In that case, the word "heavyweight" wasn't used on Smackdown's title because Rey is obviously not a heavyweight. Big Show, on the other hand, is very much a heavyweight. There would be no reason to drop the word based on that. The avoidence of confusion is a far more likely reason.

Which of course, leads to the question of "why not just call it the 'ECW Championship' instead?" If I may speculate, it would be to emphasize the idea that it is a world title, since it would otherwise not have it in its spelled out name (unlike the WWE Championship, where the first W means "World") oknazevad 05:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the name of the article should be called ECW World Championship. They refer to it that way on WWE.com/ECW.com, so it should be referred to as ECW World Championship. I mean, WWE Monday Night RAW is referred to on WWE.com as Raw, and its the same way on Wikipedia, where RAW is Raw. So I agree with oknazevad when he says the page should be moved. TJ Sparks 03:07am, Nov. 23, 2006 (UTC)

It appears this page actually was moved to ECW World Championship at one point, but was then moved back here. Any particular reason? It's pretty obvious WWE has removed the Heavyweight portion of the name. Jeff Silvers 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless somebody objects, I'm going to move this to ECW World Championship pretty soon. In addition, we probably need to change instances of "ECW World Heavyweight Championship" to "ECW World Championship" when referring to the title after RVD's reign. Jeff Silvers 03:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I do object, and for the reasons i've stated before. We didn't move SD's title to "World Championship" just because they called it that while Mysterio was champion. TJ Spyke 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because, as somebody else above said, there was a practical reason for removing the word "Heavyweight" from the title that only applied to Mysterio. Big Show is obviously a heavyweight, so there's no indication that the removal of the word from the title's name was specific to him. Jeff Silvers 05:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't know if it was a permanent name change though. TJ Spyke 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, they've been excluding the "Heavyweight" from the name since about the time Big Show won it back in July, which was five months ago. They've also been referring to Lashley as the ECW World Champion (again, with "Heavyweight" excluded), so this doesn't seem to be exclusive to Big Show. Jeff Silvers 11:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, granted, tonight on ECW, Big Show referred to the championship as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship. But, for the title match, the graphic that comes up that states which title is being defended said ECW World Title. No heavyweight mentioned. And, last week on Smackdown, the graphic for the World Heavyweight Championship said World Heavyweight Championship. Not to mention, WWE.com calls Lashley the ECW World Champion. So, I think this hopefully clears it up on the official name, in which case I move we move this page to ECW World Championship. Anakinjmt 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Since TJ Spyke seems to be the only person who objects, I'm moving this to ECW World Championship. Jeff Silvers 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe not. I forgot you can't move an article to a page for which there is already an article (in this case, ECW World Championship exists as a redirect to ECW World Heavyweight Championship, so I can't move it there). I have requested administrative assistance in moving this article. Jeff Silvers 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, lad. If that was made, why don't we do the same with the World Heavyweight Championship, the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, the IWGP World Heavyweight Championship, etc, etc, etc. I mean, this issue was about dropping the "Heavyweight" from the ECW world title. Look at the belt, it says "ECW World Heavyweight Championship". There is just two exceptions to that rule of the "World Heavyweight Championship" name: the WWE Championship and the ROH World Championship. But because it was said IN THE BELT!!!!!! I think that dropping the "Heavyweight" because it was said on TV (and Tazz refers time-to-time as the ECW Championship, dropping the "World Heavyweight") was totally senseless. I wasn't agree at all with that change.

Vince Mcmahon clearly said he was the "ECW World Heavyweight Champion" tonight on ECW.

They have started to refer to it simply as the ECW Championship recently...Morrison when he was Nitro even was listed as ECW Champion. And WWE.com previews now say both names throughout. SAH-DennyCrane 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He is correct. The championship was renamed as of late July - early August. [7], [8], [9](see July 17 and 24).-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The actual name of the championship

There's a weird problem here, which someone caught. The actual physical belt says on the main plate "ECW World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion", shouldn't that be what we default to when naming the championship for this article?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally we accept the name most commonly used by the championship's parent promotion as being the official name. Otherwise, WCW World Heavyweight Championship would have to be renamed to World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship, and World Tag Team Championship (WWE) would have to be renamed to WWE Tag Team Championship--which would create confusion since there's already an article called WWE Tag Team Championship. Besides, just because the belt says ECW World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion doesn't mean that's the name of the title; the WWF Cruiserweight Championship was briefly represented by the old WCW Cruiserweight Title until a new belt was introduced. Jeff Silvers 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to bring this up again, but someone renamed the page to ECW Championship. From what I can gather on WWE.com, sometimes it's referred to as the ECW World Title sometimes simply ECW title, or ECW championship. For instance, in the title history section for it, on the graphic bar at the top it says ECW Championship. In the roster page, where at the top it shows the champion(s) of the brand, it shows John Morrison with a graphic that calls him ECW Champion, it used to say ECW World Champion, but I guess the WWE is taking a simplistic approach to the title. For one thing, there have been ramblings that the ECW brand is now just an upper developmental territory, and maybe this has to do with a downgrade of the title's world status by the WWE itself(note, I'm not talking about PWI), as the OVW and FCW titles are referred to as Southern Heavyweight championships and now, maybe the ECW title is just simply that, the ECW title. What do you guys think? TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, last night on ECW, Morrison's name bar said ECW Champion and not ECW World Champion as it had in the past. Anyhow, by your logic, the WWE Championship would also have been downgraded in World status after it began to be referred to without the words "World Heavyweight" in its name. The fact is, regardless of what WWE treats ECW as, the ECW Championship is still a World title in their mind. I haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise. Since the Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank winners can still challenge for any World title in WWE, one of which being the ECW Championship, it pretty much shows that the ECW Championship hasn't lost "World" status in their mind. I guess we'll just have to wait until next year's Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank matches to see if the ECW Championship is no longer considered a World title. Very good observation though. -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean it like that for the WWE title, but whatever, treat it as you see it. Yeah you're right, I guess they decided to take World out of it as they already have the World Heavyweight Title, so now there's WWE, ECW and World. I was wrong probably, but it was just my thought as to why they had changed the name but looking at it, it's probably just a reference change and it doesn't mean they think less of the ECW title now. TonyFreakinAlmeida 22:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the your reasoning as to why they changed the ECW title's name on that one. To have a WWE ECW and World champion. Agreed.-- bulletproof ^3:16 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

World Championship status

I was reading on the PWI's List of Wrestling World Heavyweight Title Reigns page about how the ECW Title is currently not being recognised as a World Championship, so should the title of this page be changed to the ECW Championship, or should there just be a mention in the article that the PWI don't recognise it as a World Title? Steveweiser 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the name of the title is ECW World Championship, and let it be made clear that Pro Wrestling Illustrated isn't a gold standard for world championships in professional wrestling. I do not think it is worth mentioning that it doesn't have the world status currently from PWI, as in my opinion it is bordering on the lines of neutrality. PWI has historically only recognized 3 world titles at any given time(except for right now, they're still recognizing NWA world title as one, though the title is vacant). Hence, why they don't recognize all 3 of the WWE's designated world championships as such. What you're saying would mean we'd have to change the name of other articles too, ROH World Championship to ROH Championship, PWG World Championship to PWG Championship, etc. It's the name of the title and that's it. TonyFreakinAlmeida 14:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey,it is still a world championship because Estrada just confirmed a while ago that it is still a world title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.5.194 (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, PWI calls the WWE Championship the "RAW World Title" or something like that (likewise, the World Heavyweight Championship is referred to as the "SmackDown! World Championship"). In any event, it appears somebody has already moved this to ECW Championship without actually discussing it here, so I'm moving it back to the accepted name of ECW World Championship. Jeff Silvers 00:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The page was moved becuase the name of the title was changed to that of ECW Championship as of August according to WWE.com and this past Tuesday on ECW. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than the title history page on WWE.com (which has always said "ECW Championship," i.e., this isn't a recent change reflecting a new name for the title), where has WWE.com verified that the name was changed? Jeff Silvers 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The main page of the title history section on WWE.com use to say "ECW World" when referring to the ECW title. Now, however, the page only says ECW Championship. Another thing is the archives section on the ECW page. All results from July 17 and back refer to the champ and belt as the ECW World Champion/Championship. However, the results from July 24 and this week's refer to the champ and title as the ECW Championship/Champion only. Here's some more evidence. The name bar of the ECW champ from The Big Show's reign up to The Great American Bash said ECW World Champion. Thats also the way the champ was referred through as such. Then, last week on ECW, Morrison's name bar said ECW World Champion too however he began to be referred to as the ECW Champion only throughout the show and so was was his belt (ECW Championship)[10]. Now this past tuesday on ECW, not only was the champ still referred to as the ECW champion but his name bar now also said ECW Champion [11].-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, fair enough. Jeff Silvers 03:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why they changed it though.-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, in the future, how about allowing an actual day of discussion before randomly moving articles? Mshake3 02:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Cheers. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean you moving the page on the 7th, with the first discussion about it being on the 8th? How about in the future you lay off the move button until some discussion actually occurs? Mshake3 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey,it is still a world championship because Estrada just confirmed a while ago that it is still a world title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.28.188 (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So the article was moved as that's the title current name. So in theory, shouldn't the WCW World Heavyweight Championship (and tag team title) aricle be moved to WCW Championship? Mshake3 03:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Woh woh woh woh. First of all I didn't even see your comment. Second, in theory, the WCW should be moved to WCW World Championship because that's the way its referred to on it's history page. However, I do agree with you in that since the title is now retired, it shouldn't be changed at all.-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, even on the WWE.com history page for the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, WWE is pretty inconsistent with the name; sometimes it's "WCW World," sometimes it's "WCW Heavyweight," sometimes it's "WCW World Heavyweight," sometimes it's some version of one of those without the initials, and sometimes it's JUST the initials. It's best to just leave that article's title as is (which was the official name of the belt for the duration of its existence). Jeff Silvers 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To clear all of the controversy up:

WWE changed the name to "ECW Championship" to simplify things. You have the World Heavyweight Championship on Smackdown, so the World part was cut from the ECW belt so people wouldn't get confused. Plus it's easier and quicker just to say "ECW Championship".

WWE though still considers this a World Title (PWI not withstanding) due to the fact that Lashley is pushed as a former World Champion due to his 2 ECW reigns, as well as the fact that the ECW Title is an option for either the Royal Rumble winner or Money in the Bank winner to go after.

Ohgltxg 23:14 August 9, 2007 (UTC)

[12] refers to it as both the ECW Championship and the ECW World Title. As does the text in Morrison's blurb at [13]. VWG

The card rundown for SummerSlam shown tonight on SmackDown! referred to Morrison as the ECW Champion and the graphics referred to the title and and the match as the ECW Championship. This past week on ECW, Morrison's namebar said ECW Champion only [14], as oppose to the way it use to say last month which was ECW World Champion. Note that throughout both shows, Morrison and the title were referred to as the ECW Champion/Championship by ring announcers and commentators as well. The title's name has changed. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

ECW champion change hand today saturday at 8:55 pm

CM PUNK is our new champ I guess they had Morrson lose the title at a house show Supermike 8:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

it wasn;t a house show. it was the ecw tapings for tuesday.

Either way, nothing changes until the WWE confirms it, either online or when ECW airs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE.com have confirmed the switch, with a picture of Punk holding the title. Steveweiser 02:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Name is still ECW Championship

I don't know why the name was changed, but look on ECW Superstars' page, it's still the 'ECW Championship' BBoy 03:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no see this reason --KingMorpheus 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the fact the belt still says "World" on it, I don't think that is valid logic. The WWE no longer refers to it as the ECW "World" Championship: on their TV programs or on their website. It makes no difference what it says on the belt. For example, after the WCW Cruiserweight Title became the WWF Cruiserweight Title, the belt representing the championship still kept the old WCW logo. That doesn't mean it was still a WCW title. They just didn't have time to update the belt yet. They eventually changed that belt, and I expect them to do the same with the ECW Championship belt in the future. And even if the belt design stays the same, I don't think it makes a bit of difference. After all, the World Heavyweight Championship belt effectively says "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" on its front plate. But I don't hear any rallying to add WWE to the championship's name. Bmf 51 05:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. They're still calling it the ECW Championship, so I don't get why this was changed back to ECW World Championship. Baycore 05:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

see CM Punks stats on that page —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMorpheus (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And? What if the current champion's bio said "WWE United States Heavyweight Champion"? Even though the main roster, and title history still calls it just the United States Championship. Punk's bio is the only thing that calls it the ECW World Championship, so that's pretty weak to change the name based on that BBoy 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, change it back, wtf, people..think. TonyFreakinAlmeida 03:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Move protected - can you keep this discussion going, guys, until this is resolved? There have been a lot of moves in quite a short time. Let me or another admin on WP:RPP know when consensus has been reached. Thanks - Alison ☺ 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to only be one person who thinks we should include "World" in the title's name. So, I'd say it's pretty much a consensus that it should be called simply the "ECW Championship".63.3.9.1 06:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's been a clear difference in what the title has been called on television over the past year. At first, they'd call the champ the ECW World Heavyweight Champion, then it became the ECW World Champion, and recently they've simply called the champ the ECW Champion. Even the text that pops up on the screen when the champion is introduced for a match or interview is changed to reflect the current name of the championship.Odin's Beard 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Now if people accepted that reasoning in my Undisputed CHampionship debates. Mshake3 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ECW Championship, just because the webmaster decided to type the name in one new bit doesn't mean that's how the company refers to it when 99% of all other showings call it ECW Championship. ECW Championship is the name. TonyFreakinAlmeida 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

ECW Championship is the name referred by the ring announcer, the commentators and also the champion. It was first changed to "ECW World Championsip" to avoid confusion with Smackdown's World Heavyweight Title. ECW Championship it should be. Hhh210 12:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE and ECW titles separate

On the premiere edition of ECW on Sci Fi, Paul Heyman declared RVD the ECW Champion as he promised to. However, no mention was made of the WWE Championship being renamed the ECW Championship, and while RVD was presented with the ECW belt, he also kept the WWE belt. It appears as if the WWE title won't be renamed the ECW title, and instead, RVD is a dual champion. Therefore, I've removed the disambig about the ECW title now being the WWE title and recreated the "Current champion" section with information regarding RVD's being awarded the title. Jeff Silvers 02:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The original storyline was to re-incarnate the WWE Championship into the new ECW Championship but RVD kept it because "It Spins" so the storyline was changed so that it will go in accordance to RVD's statement Hhh210 12:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Version History of Title Belt

The original title belt was made by Mike Vartanian. It was similar to the Tri-State Wrestling Alliance Heavyweight belt. Instead of Tri-State Wrestling Alliance, the letters and wording was changed to Eastern Championship Wrestling

Version 2 saw the Pennsylvania state outline filled in with the letters "ECW" instead of Eastern Championship Wrestling. The paint scheme of the belt also changed from blue to red. The bottom portion of the belt previously said "We Wrestle, We Brawl, We Do It All". This was now replaced by stars. When Raven won the belt, the paint scheme was changed again to blue states with red accents.

Version 3 was a new design during the Extreme era also made by Mike Vartanian. This version was introduced in 1996. It featured the barbed wire ECW logo in red predominately displayed on the main plate.

Version 4 debuted with Shane Douglas in mid 1998. This was the first ECW belt designed by J-Mar Jody Marshall. This is the same style as currently used.

The original version featured purple and orange paint but was not liked and never used. The belt was repainted to the more notable blue globe, orange letters, red blood, purple ECW lettering and black banners. This version also featured wrestlers in the act of a "frogsplash" on each side of the globe on the main plate. Throughout the course of it's use, the belt has featured numerous small changes in the paint scheme and artwork.

First holder of the belt, Shane Douglas had a custom yellow backing on the belt, with the words "FRANCHISE" airbrushed in black paint. This version featured barbed wire baseball bats on top of a skull on both sides of the main plate.

When Taz won the title, a new belt was used. This belt had the same paint scheme as the previous but the skulls with barbed wire baseball bats were removed and replaced with "TAZ" on each side of the globe on the main plate. This belt also had orange snakeskin textured backing. The is the only version of the ECW Heavyweight belt that included a Logo Plate, a 6th plate on the right side of the belt. The logo plate was an orange oval that has "TAZ" in the middle. This belt served as the master belt for which the original set of Figures Inc. Toy Company replicas were based from without the logo plate.

Taz had the paint scheme of this belt changed to orange and black. This version was also reproduced in replica form by Figures Inc. Toy Company without the logo plate.

When Taz lost the belt at Anarchy Rulz 1999, he came to the ring with a new belt with the same artwork and paint scheme as the version Shane Douglas held, only with a black leather backing. This belt was used until the end of ECW in 2001.

In 2006 when the belt was reintroduced on WWE television, ECW Champion Rob Van Dam used a Figures Inc. Toy Company replica belt for several weeks while Jody Marshall worked on creating a new belt. Once the new belt was finished, it featured the same artwork with a slight exception. The skulls were removed from the sides of the globe and only the barbed wire baseball bats remained. Later in the year, the belt was repainted with red logos and all the etched spots were painted black. They are currently on the second version of this specific belt.

--BeltFanDan (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

name

why did they named it the ECW Championship with out the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.251.16 (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is so that it wouldn’t be confused with the World Heavyweight Championship on the SmackDown! brand. Another reason could be so that it would reflect the WWE Championship's name. This way it they would each be recognized in the company as the WWE, ECW, and World championships.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that it's an attempt to not confuse anyone. While I can't prove it, I'm wondering if might have anything to do with the fact that Pro Wrestling Illustrated doesn't recognize the ECW Championship as a "World" title. If you'll notice, the NWA World Championship was once again given "World" title status, at least in the eyes of PWI, in June of 2002. During that time, the WWE had merged the WWE and WCW Championships to form the WWE "Undisputed" Championship and, for a time, it was the only singles World title recognized by PWI. However, the WWE dropped the "Undisputed" hitch from the WWE Championship right around the time the NWA Championship's "World" status was onc again recognized by the WWE. Now, I'm a guy that doesn't really care what PWI prints. I don't know what process they go through to pick what's a world title and what isn't, nor do I know what makes them the "gold standard" and all that crap. And, while I don't think it can be proven one way or another that PWI's opinion of a world title has anything to do with the names of any WWE titles changing, it's kinda interesting.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Help, need picture....

Hey, I'm the one who put in the picture of Kane on the page, but I need a good picture with him holding the championship. Help?SimonKSK (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if there isn't a free use one (i.e. non-copyrighted) already on Wikipedia, we'll just have to wait for one to be uploaded. Although they might never happen. A fair use image would most likely be deleted because a free-use one can be obtained. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, who deleted it?!?SimonKSK (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no point in having that image up if it's not of him with the title. –LAX 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a free one with him and the championship, how do I upload it from my desktop?SimonKSK (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Read this and upload it here. –LAX 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The links are gone...

I can't get them back!!!SimonKSK (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

old belt again?

http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/superstars/chavoguerrero/photos/6277222/ It seems to me, that during Chavo's reign the went back to use the old belt design, the one without all the black that they used from Lashley's reign through Punk's. Herotastic (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the 4th and 5th images on the site. Chavo's belt still has the black outline around it. It's the same belt. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That was when he'd just won it. Look at some of the other pictures or even some of Kane's. It's not the same belt. Herotastic (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

World Title Status/Loss of Significance

well is it still a world championship title? As WWE has somewhat put it along the sides, and recently, Wikipedia pages aren't recognizing it as a World Title, noting that Kane, Rob Van Dam, and CM Punk are 1-time World champions, or The Big Show, noting that he is just a 4-time champion, not even recognizing the ECW Title. though, I think it should be noted that sometime during Chavo Guerrero's reign it was still considered as such, till mid-January 2008, then they would totally bury the title in the Royal Rumble of 2008 (of which the champion, Chavo, competed in). In conclusion, I think, people that held the title from 1992 - January 2008 should be recognized as World Champions and people who held it afterward won't be recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.105.130 (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Change of title

I put the fact that in the ECW re-incarnation, the class-A title was know as the ECW Championship, deleting the World Heavyweight. So, I asked if the title of this article should be changed to ECW Championship. I put a link to WWE.com who confirms that. So, it should be done, or not?

• But they're still introducing him as the "ECW World Heavyweight Champion" (on ECW at least; he's simply called "the champion" when on RAW), and it's been called that ever since One Night Stand. I have yet to hear it called the "ECW Championship" except on that title history page, and that could very well be a simple mistake. MarcK 10:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that the original ECW and the WWE brand have different pages, why not for the title? Also, I beleive it was brought up that the "world heavyweight" has been dropped from the title to avoid any possible confusion with Smackdown's top belt...I'll try to find a source on that. Tromboneguy0186 07:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

They're still calling him the ECW World Heavyweight Champion. His profile page says that. The page you linked to (the history on WWE.com) says ECW Championship, but the page that links to that page describes the title as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship.

And about the new and old versions of the titles being separate... I don't know. Other than the fact that RVD hasn't been added to the title history at ECW.com (which could be blamed on mere page neglect, which WWE has been prone to in the past), there's absolutely nothing to indicate this is a new title. Jeff Silvers 06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Tonight, ECW.com reads "Big Show pinned Rob Van Dam to become the new ECW World Heavyweight Champion." So, I guess that's that. Tromboneguy0186 03:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody add a clearer version of the ECW Current Platinum design belt? This looks crap!

Its the best free image we have Adster95 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

More WWE revisionism

WWE has changed the ECW World Heavyweight Championship history on ECW.com so that any champions who held the title prior to Douglas' throwing down the NWA World belt are no longer recognized. This is in contrast to the previous version of the page, which acknowledged all champions starting with Snuka's first reign in 1992. Jeff Silvers 01:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason is probably because before that it was the NWA: ECW Championship, and the NWA is technically their competition. TJ Spyke 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That hasn't stopped them from recognizing holders of the NWA United States Championship in their WWE United States Championship history. Jeff Silvers 08:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

they could also being only reconizing the championship of extreme championship wrestling and not eastern championship wrestling Ranul 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ranul could be right, they didn't change their name to "Extreme Championship Wrestling" until the Shane Douglas incident. TJ Spyke 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably due to the lawsuit between Tod Gordon and the WWE concerning the tape library of the old NWA Eastern Championship Wrestling.Wwb 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. A year later... Anyway, the reason is becuase the ECW Championship was not a World title prior to Douglas throwing down the NWA World Heavyweight Championship.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Big Daddy V

Why don't we just say he's the champion because he's never been beaten on ECW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.201.122 (talk) 18:02, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

...What? Jeff Silvers 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...Our survey sayss...BZZT! Lemon Demon (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WWE ECW Championship

On the July 22nd episode of ECW, the new belt design has the WWE logo on the top and sides, and reads World Wrestling Entertainment at the top. This means that the belt is the WWE ECW Championship. And I think it should be moved there. wwesocks^sign 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The World Heavyweight Championship belt reads "WWE World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion". The WWE Championship belt reads "WWE CHAMP". Both Tag Team belts in each brand read "WWE Tag Team Champions" yet one is referred to as the World Tag Team Championship and the other, the WWE Tag Team Championship. The fact is that a physical belt is not a Championship, it's only a physical representation of one and the official name of the title is unaffected by what actually reads on the belt.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like how they went from calling it the "ECW World Heavyweight Championship" to the "ECW World Championship" to just the "ECW Champpionship". Or how the old IC title belt used to say "WWF Intercontinental Heavyweight Wrestling Champion". TJ Spyke 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Colour

Is the new belt silver or "black and white gold" as it said on this article? It sure looks like silver and I don't think you could have black gold. Or am I mistaken? wwesocks^sign 04:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looked silver to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks silver, but it could be white and black gold, Black gold (Jewelery). Whether it is silver or not you can bet they'll say its a type of gold 'cause saying something like 'Matt hardy will be going for the silver at Summerslam' doesn't have the nice ring to it that gold has. Bm2 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually think heard Matt Striker mentioning the ECW Title being Platinum, during the main event Match (Matt Hardy & Finlay vs Mark Henry & Mike Knox). --Gtadood (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea its official Striker said it again this week and I quote "17 pounds of pure platinum". During Hardy vs Knox match.Adster95 (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Quit adding copyrighted photos

Wikipedia can't have copyrighted photos, okay? SuperSilver901 (talk) 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Current belt

Shouldn't there be a picture of the current belt on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.168.205 (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a Free-use image to use, or else it would be on the page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Could a worse pic of Swagger have been used?

I mean seriously, lol! TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty awesome. Tony2Times (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesomely horrible. Haha. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this be referred to as a "World" championship in openings

It is not recognized by PWI and it would appear not to be an officially sanctioned world title, eligible for defense internationally and meeting all criteria of a "world" championship, unlike the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships. The ECW Title did meet the criteria for a world title for a short period while active in the original ECW, but it would seem that it is no longer a world title, so Wikipedia is likely offering false information. The title's name has now officially been changed to the "ECW Championship" - no longer is it the ECW World Championship. Perhaps the clue is in the title, so to speak. The title may indeed be referred to as a "world" title on TV from time to time, but if so, the ECW Championship would surely be a kayfabe or storyline world championship. Shane McMahon may have been WCW owner on TV, but Vince owned it in real life. The ECW Championship does not appear to be an official world title, in real life. Wikipedia does not deal in kayfabe, so it seems logical to alter the opening sentence to "The Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) Championship is a professional wrestling championship in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)," rather than "The Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) Championship is a professional wrestling world championship in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)". Could be please acquire some consensus on this as it was raised above and completely ignored. I think the opening should be altered, so there's one vote in favour of alteration. Born of Champions (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

PWI means nothing on here. We don't go by their opinion on a world title. WWE believes the ECW Championship is a world championship so that makes it a world championship.--WillC 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A promotion calling their title a world title doesn't make it so. Many indy feds call their title a world title (like Pro Wrestling Guerrilla and Combat Zone Wrestling). To the original editor, who cares if the titles name is just "ECW Championship"? WWE's top title is just "WWE Championship". TJ Spyke 19:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter, there is no such thing as a world title in wrestling anyway. There is no higher power that gives a title that status. If a company wants to call their title a world title then it is because there is no one to say it isn't. Like the World Series, who are you to say it isn't a world championship because a team from China is not involved.--WillC 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a determining factor. The ECW Title is not defended internationally at present. Therefore it does not meet the criteria of being a "world" title, and as such is not recognized by wrestling's most respected commentator, PWI. WWE can call it "world", yes. But I can call the belt I'm wearing now a wrestling world championship - it's obviously not. The ECW Championship may be a kayfabe world championship, but it's not REALLY a world championship. Born of Champions (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

" The ECW Title is not defended internationally at present." BULLSHIT. Please do some research. In a search that took me maybe 3 minutes, I found several times this year alone that the ECW Championship has bee defended outside of the United States. Some house shows where it was defended: January 9 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (Hardy/Swagger), February 6 in Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada (Swagger/Finlay), February 7 in Victoria, British Colombia, Canada (Swagger/Finlay). TJ Spyke 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, what I perhaps should have said was overseas. Only defended in the American continent. Born of Champions (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because a magazine is respected doesn't mean it is right. What gives PWI the authority to call a title "world"? This has been discussed before, what makes a title world? If it is called a world title by the company which has the title and if it is defended world wide. The ECW title is called a world title and defended world wide. The TNA World Title was given world status before it was even defended anywhere by PWI. The ECW Title was given world status in the late 90s but the company never defended the title in Japan or, as far as I know, Europe. PWI's definition is contradicting. The ROH Title has been defended world wide more than the TNA title and has yet to gain status. The NWA Title has been defended world wide more than any wrestling title, and doesn't have world status under PWI's ideology. So to go by PWI's criteria, then all major titles today are world titles. WWE, World (WWE), TNA, ROH, ECW, and NWA. The TNA Title gained world status before even being defended mainly since they had a TV and PPV deal, just like all other companies, including the NWA since they have territories in mostly all countries, and some have TV deals in those countries. Plus the NWA was once on PPV, with WCW, WWF, and TNA. PWI means nothing on here since they have no power. Just printing their own ideas. The company gives world status. If CZW want to call their belt world then they can. PWI can't say anything about it.--WillC 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The term World Heavyweight Championship is just a term to refer to the top-tier titles of a promotion, so every promotion has the right to express their titles as such. The term has no significant meaning that makes other titles less superior to this.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Basing information on opinion, such as your opinion on how WWE "treats" the ECW Championship constitutes original research, and seeing as you brought up WWE's stance on the status of belt, take at look at Matt Hardy's bio page on WWE.com and scroll down to the very bottom. The page reads - "In 2008, Hardy was drafted to ECW as part of the WWE Draft. A few months later, at Unforgiven, Hardy satisfied his career-long hunger for a World Title when he won the ECW Championship Scramble Match against Mark Henry, Finlay, Chavo Guerrero and The Miz." - thus, affirming WWE's recognition of the ECW Championship as a world title.

2) A championship's name doesn't necessarily reflect the "status" of the title. The WWF/WWE Championship hasn't been referred to with the word "world" in its name for over a decade. The same was for the WCW Championship while in the WWF. Did these change of names mean anything? No, plain and simple.

3) (KAYFABE World title) Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Professional wrestling is scripted. All accomplishments - King of the Ring, King of the Mountain, Royal Rumble, World title, Tag Team title, Women's title, etc. - are determined by a script. Therefore any and every accomplishment is a "kayfabe" accomplishment. Sorry to burst your bubble. Now for argument's sake, let's say its not "kayfabe". Read on...

4) Pro Wrestling Illustrated is a magazine with its own set of views. It is not however a nor the definitive authority in world title recognition. There is no entity with any authority to grant or discharge world status to titles other than the owning promotions of said titles. Even so, If you were to follow PWI then you would only recognize SmackDown's World Heavyweight Championship and the TNA World Heavyweight Championship as world titles. Since the latest issue, only those two are referred to as world titles, leaving the WWE Championship behind. On that note, a reply to this... "The ECW Title did meet the criteria for a world title for a short period while active in the original ECW" ... and what criteria is that? Too bad you won't be able to answer that. Unfortunately, no such criteria exists. ...But please prove me wrong. Find a source somewhere that meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources that says otherwise.

5) World status is ultimately granted to a championship by the company or organization that owns it. Read over some of the boxing articles and the various organizations such as the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation and World Boxing Organization. Those in control of the WBC, IBF and WBO were simply of the mind that if the WBA had "world" champions, then so could they and that's exactly how it went. It's the exact same in professional wrestling. Just as various wrestling companies have done, those boxing organizations simply bestowed world status to titles under their control. The status can't be stripped away by any magazine or publication. No other governing body can come along and tell them "no, you can't call your title a world championship". There is no universal decision which grants world status to any championship, no matter which sport it is. How often have the winners of the World Series been called world champions? But are they really world champions? They didn't beat every other team from every other country that plays baseball, so how are they world champions? It's all ultimately about the stance of the organization, plain and simple. WWE has theirs, TNA, the NWA, the WBA, MLB and so on and so forth.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Never defended overseas. Only American continent. Born of Champions (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong AGAIN. November 11, 2008 ECW on Sci Fi in Manchester, England, United Kingdom saw Matt Hardy defend the title against Finlay (that took about 30 seconds to find). TJ Spyke 01:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The ECW Championship was defended in Europe and Asia just last year...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Defended but never to yield a new champion. Born of Champions (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is pathetic. You are really stretching it aren't you? First you say it was never defended outside the US, you were proven wrong. Then you decided to say it was never defended outside of North America (which is not required), you were proven wrong. Now you are trying to say it has to change hands internationally (also not required). The WWE Championship has never "officially" changed hands outside of North American either (WWE doesn't recognize Antonio Inoki's win). TJ Spyke 01:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to see the answer, I ask how did the title meet PWI's criteria in the late 90s? The title wasn't defended world wide then. Making it true a world title considered by PWI isn't really a title defended world wide. A contradiction in their ideology.--WillC 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For a brief period following an ECW Championship match in Japan. Born of Champions (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh so now its not enough for a title to be defended in other continents, It has to change hands there too? Then the TNA title and SmackDown's World Heavyweight Championship are not World titles. Please, you are running out of arguments. You are ridiculous.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They have if you trace the lineage. Oh, and you might want to read WP:CIVILITY. Watch your tone. Born of Champions (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Trace the linage for me. When have any of those titles officially changed hands overseas? Oh and you might want to read WP:RS and WP:MADEUP. Don't waste our time.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

bulletproof is right. The WHC (aka the title on SmackDown) was created in 2002 and does NOT share the lineage of any other title. The TNA title was created in 2007 and does NOT share the lineage of any other title. They were the successors of other titles, but don't share the lineage's of those titles. TJ Spyke 01:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ECW Championship not recognized by PWI. Born of Champions (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither is the WWE Championship anymore. And how is that tracing the linage like I asked you to? Are you trying to avoid the hard questions on me?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PWI doesn't mean anything on here. They have no power.--WillC 01:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright lets see here:

• Is the ECW Title reconigzed by the WWE to be a world championship?
  • Yes.
• Has the ECW Title been defended outside the US?
  • Yes, multiple times.
• Has the ECW Title changed hands outside of the US?
  • No.--WillC 01:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of all of those which is needed the most, the company saying it is and being defended around the world. There is nothing to say it isn't a world title now.--WillC 01:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The ECW Championship is not a world championship. Not recognized by PWI, the all-knowing, all-seeing eye of wrestling. Born of Champions (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So then the WWE Championship is not a world championship. Not recognized by PWI, the all-knowing, all-seeing eye of wrestling.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

John, we are obviously dealing with a troll here. He can't just deal with it that PWI and he/she is wrong. We've shown this person the title has been defended around the world, WWE believe it is a world title, and the PWI are nothing more than a bunch of nerds thinking they hold the power to wrestling's fate. Lets not continue to feed him. Because if we look at the situations, the NWA Title gained world status once TNA began PPVs. PWI don't believe the ROH Title is a world title when they are in a better situation than TNA was in 2002 when the NWA was still a world title. And obviously the ECW Title is in a way better stance than TNA and ROH.--WillC 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

True. Yet even so, those of PWI have never thought of themselves as an authority and I've seen nothing to make me think they believe they hold the power to wrestling's fate. It was the reader that took the content and misinterpreted it as authoritative.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and retract my statement about PWI being power hungry. However, you must think they are a bit full of themseleves to only state certain titles are world championships.--WillC 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK folks, I'm glad we've reached a consensus - thanks for your input. I'll now alter the intro. Born of Champions (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

...and afterwards you will be WP:BLOCKED for disruption. Cheers!^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PWI. Born of Champions (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, three against one. If you continue to alter the lead so it reflects it isn't a world title, I will be forced to invole an admin.--WillC 02:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the sickening bias here on Wikipedia. The should be a factual article, but people are still hell-bent on presenting their own opinions as fact, despite the official, inarguable PWI listings staring them in the face. Typical. Born of Champions (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This ia a perfect example of the sad ignorance of Trolls. They should have better things to do instead of wasting everyone's time. Typical. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, answer these questions straight forward, don't jump around them. Give a factually accurate answer complete with proof and not stuff you make up. Who gave PWI the power to state which title is a world title? Where did they get this power? Who gave titles world status before PWI? What is world status? What is the criteria of a world title?--WillC 02:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PWI's recongintion of a world title is irrelevant to the promotion's recgonization. Are ECW Champions in WWE recongiszed by PWI as world title holders? No. Are they by WWE? Yes. And the WWE Championship is still a world title in PWI last time I checked. Seriously, this ridiculous. And what's this "all seeing eye" crap? PWI is not Sauron! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When was the last time you checked? Since the 2008 year end review issue PWI no longer uses Raw World/SmackDown World to differentiate the WWE and WHC. Additionally, the only titles that are referred to as world titles in the issue are the TNA and WHC. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Right seriously guys the ECW Championship is a world title, as wwe classify it as one, its been defended internationally (and in Northern Ireland =) lol) and pwi is not the all knowing whatever that guy up their said! They are a magazine! Other magazines say it is! So magazines are unrealliable in this case!Adster95 18:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

World Title Status

The PWI,Prestige, and arguments aside. The physical Belt in question doesn't even say "World Champion." There is no real debate if the title itself isnt even referred to that way anymore. It has pained me to see the slow de-evolution of the entire ECW product but that doesn't mean we should cling on to what we want on a site designed to report the facts.

FTWBruce (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but not having the word "World" on it doesn't mean shit. This issue has been settled already and proof has been provided; the ECW Championship is a world title. End of story. I would also like to point out that the WWE Championship belt says "WWE Champ" on the front and "WWE Champion" on the side, nowhere does the word "World" appear. TJ Spyke 00:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The people who own the copyright give things meaning. When Tommy Dreamer comes on TV he is introduced as "ECW Champion." Does he deserve to be called a world champion? absolutely. Does this title have the prestige to be a world championship? Absolutely. But when push comes to shove the owners of the copyright made a conscience choice to exclude "World" from the name. I think the only World Championships in wrestling are the ROH,WWE,NWA,WHC, and TNA. FTWBruce (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that even WWE considers the ECW Championship to be a world title right?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Prestige has nothing to do with it. Wrestling is fake. The championships are props. A championship is a world championship if it is defended world wide and considered one by the promotion. That is it. The ECW Title passes both.--WillC 02:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about you but I'm just wondering if the thing he's questioning here is if its a Top Tier title. Afkatk (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This section is utterly pointless. The WWE Championship doesn't even say "world". The WWE clearly considers the ECW Championship a world title, referring to it as such on TV and in articles. Take this one, published only several weeks ago when Christian became champion: http://www.wwe.com/shows/backlash/matches/9826616/results/. So Brucey, The WWE considers the ECW Championship to be a world title, and it has been defended worldwide. You do the math. 81.170.75.166 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WWE does NOT consider ECW to be a world title, it is somewhere between the US/IC titles and the world titles. This conversation between former ECW champions CM Punk and Matt Hardy on June 15 Raw gives all the proof I need:

He says luckily for him most of the WWE Universe agrees with him, but a very vocal minority agrees doesn't like it. Matt Hardy interrupts to tell him not to regret anything he did, and if he had the chance he'd do the same thing. Punk buries him saying that would be hard considering he's never won MITB, and never been a World Champion once let alone twice. He tells Matt they're not friends and not to come in here and empathize with him. Site: seen on WWE Raw and in review on 411mania.

WWE itself declares ECW to be a non-World title, and so does PWI. And for everyone who says a World title is a title defended on multiple continents, remember, the IC title is defended on other continents but no one puts it on par with the main titles. Amend it to say that the ECW belt is the main title of the company and internationally defended, but not a world title. (Seantherebel (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)seantherebelSeantherebel (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)) 23:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the ****ing section, it has been shown that WWE DOES consider it a world title. CM Punk was slamming Matt Hardy, so at most that just means CM Punk (the character) doesn't consider it a world title. PWI doesn't even consider the WWE Championship to be a world title, so their opinion goes out the window, and WWE considers it a world title. Care to try again? THE ECW CHAMPIONSHIP IS A WORLD TITLE. END OF STORY. Geez, ECW-haters are pretty thick-headed. TJ Spyke 14:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember that people frequently use the term "world champion" to refer to the person who holds the World Heavyweight Championship, which was probably what CM Punk was referring to. I don't see any kind of solid cite from Seantherebel anyway. He obviously hasn't read the article which has been linked twice above, where the ECW Championship is clearly referred to as a world title by WWE: http://www.wwe.com/shows/backlash/matches/9826616/results/.

READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING FURTHER GARBAGE ABOUT WWE NOT RECOGNIZING THE ECW CHAMPIONSHIP AS A WORLD TITLE. 79.79.220.29 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A Definitive Response

Consider this a response to the asinine statements regarding the ECW Championship and World Status.

1) Basing information on opinion, such as an opinion on how WWE "treats" the ECW Championship constitutes original research, and seeing as how many bring up WWE's stance on the status of belt, let this be made clear... The ECW Championship is a world championship acknowledged by every current professional wrestling promotion (as even noted by TNA... Yes TNA). Yes, WWE considers it a world championship.

take at look at Matt Hardy's bio page on WWE.com and scroll down to the very bottom.

The page reads - "Apart from his sibling, Matt has achieved success in solo ranks as well, including United States, Hardcore, European and Cruiserweight Championship reigns. The greatest achievement, however, came in 2008 when Matt triumphed in a Championship Scramble Match to capture the ECW Title; his first taste of World Championship gold." - thus, affirming WWE's recognition of the ECW Championship as a world title.

Also note this results page from WWE Backlash 09 after Christian won the ECW Championship.

The page reads - "Christian’s first World Title comes after a journey that expands well beyond his two months in the Land of the Extreme." - Christian Cage's accomplishments in TNA aside, this AGAIN confirms that the WWE considers the championship to be a world title.

So the argument about how WWE doesn't consider the championship to be a World Title is not valid. As far as the "Not recognized by WWE" argument is concerned, WWE does indeed recognize the ECW Championship to be a world title.

2) As for the "name" of the championship or the "words" etched on the physical belt having any effect on the status of the title... A championship's name doesn't necessarily reflect the "status" of the title. The WWE Championship hasn't been referred to with the word "World" in its name since the early 1990s and the physical belt hasn't had the word "World" etched on its design since the winged-eagle belt, last used by Steve Austin the night he won the title at WrestleMania XIV. If you look at the article of the WWE Championship, you can see that the title has gone through multiple name changes throughout its history, with its name getting shorter each time.

The ECW Championship when it was recommissioned for the ECW brand in 2006 was referred to as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, and as time passed, the name continued to change, getting shorter each time. It began to be called the ECW World Championship and finally simply just the ECW Championship for short.

If you remember when the WCW World Heavyweight Championship was used in the WWF, it was only referred to simply as the WCW Championship. See a pattern? Did these change of names mean anything? No, plain and simple.

So even the naming of a championship doesn't necessarily reflect the status of a title.

3) Now about Chavo's participation in the 2008 Royal Rumble match while ECW Champion... It was noted by the commentators that Chavo won the ECW title 5 days prior to the Rumble, which by then Chavo had already drawn his number for the match. It was also noted that Chavo's entry allowed for him to potentially become a dual World champion or prevent anyone from challenging him for his title at 'Mania provided that he win the Rumble match.

So the ECW Champion's participation at the Rumble did nothing to the title's status as it was a prior engagement that forced Chavo's entry.

4) Now on Pro Wrestling Illustrated... PWI is a magazine with its own set of views. It is not however a nor the definitive authority in world title recognition. There is no entity with any authority to grant or discharge world status to titles other than the owning promotions of said titles. Even so, If you were to follow PWI then you would only recognize SmackDown's World Heavyweight Championship and the TNA World Heavyweight Championship as world titles. Since the latest issue, only those two are referred to as world titles, leaving the WWE Championship behind. How ridiculous and asinine is that?

In fact, what is more ridiculous is to think that a magazine has any authority over a subject. "FIGHT! MAGAZINE" is an MMA magazine similar to PWI with its own views and opinions, and yet even that doesn't have any authority to regulate the sport or any organization like UFC.

5) World status is ultimately granted to a championship by the company or organization that owns it. Read over some of the boxing articles and the various organizations such as the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation and World Boxing Organization. Those in control of the WBC, IBF and WBO were simply of the mind that if the WBA had "world" champions, then so could they and that's exactly how it went. It's the exact same in professional wrestling. Just as various wrestling companies have done, those boxing organizations simply bestowed world status to titles under their control. The status can't be stripped away by any magazine or publication. No other governing body can come along and tell them "no, you can't call your title a world championship". There is no universal decision which grants world status to any championship, no matter which sport it is. How often have the winners of the World Series been called world champions? But are they really world champions? They didn't beat every other team from every other country that plays baseball, so how are they world champions? It's all ultimately about the stance of the organization, plain and simple. WWE has theirs, TNA, the NWA, the WBA, MLB and so on and so forth.

So in conclusion, the ECW Championship has been and still is a World title.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with all of your points, couldn't have said it better myself.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I enjoy stating this argument, I'll mention one thing, like it was said above that status can't be stripped away by any magazine or publication. To show how dumb it is to believe PWI can, it is like saying to a cop that you can't arrest me because I say so. PWI are really saying to WWE that your championship is not a world championship because we say so, though PWI has no power. PWI is the retard talking to the cop. That is all.--WillC 04:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the ECW Championship has been defended otwith the United States, and indeed all over the world. 88.110.70.19 (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Whoever you are:

I appreciate your comments and feedback and your own giving of opinions, and had you just stuck with the Hardy bio argument (point 1), I might have taken your comment as a valid point and moved on, but since you went all douchebag on me and felt the desire to add in other remarks, you have given me something to argue on behalf of PWI and against the ECW international title (yes, I used int'l instead of world intentionally.)

1 (refutes point 2). I am aware of the title names not needing "world" in them to be considered World titles. The WWE title has not been called the WWE world title at any time in recent memory, and this had nothing to do with my argument.

2 (refutes 3). In reference to Chavo's participation in the Rumble, I rewatched the Rumble match, and at no time was that explanation ever mentioned. As for the MITB match, I had Morrison's title reign off by two months. My bad on that one.

3 (refutes 4). This PWI remark is just as ignorant. If you look at the first image again in tag teams, the mag. calls one tag title the WWE tag title, but it does not = a non-world title, rather, they now use the title names. The titles used to be identified as Raw and SD world titles, but because the belts kept alternating, the magazine changed the policy to recognizing the belts as to stop constantly changing champions mid-reign and tacking on more title reigns for wrestlers simply because they now defended on a different show.

Now, as to your magazines dont sanction titles theory, are you kidding me? Boxing fans worldwide recognize the Ring Magazine title as the only legitimate sanctioning body, because it does not judge based on promoter or WBA, IBF, etc. rankings. PWI tries to do the same for wrestling, except they sanction world titles as "True" world titles instead of trying to determine a champion from kayfabe. PWI-haters are always trying to kill their credibility, but as it stands they are the only sanctioning body for belts, and they do deserve some respect.

4 (refutes 5). Yes, companies for sports all over call their titles World championships, and that is fine. But in wrestling, the number of world titles is so outrageous that some titles need to be given a level below. Look at it this way, if the Celtics won an NBA title and Olympiacos won the Euroleague title, both are talked of as world titles, but the NBA is the only one taken seriously, because of the level of exposure and competition. I feel that although a title can be recognized as a world title, wrestlers like Blue Demon Jr., while good, cannot just flaunt the NWA belt and claim himself to be on par with the Ric Flair's who held the belt when competition was fiercer.

The bottom line is ECW can flaunt its belt all it wants, but PWI doesn't put it on par with the other 2 WWE belts, and the wrestlers of WWE as well as management on some level dont either. I can go into more detail later when I have time, but until then please look at the June 15 Raw and Wrestlemania 25. Notice that Superstars got formal intros before the WWE and WH title bouts but not the ECW on raw, and at WM, ECW didnt even have a title match, which if it was a world title, would be a first in the history of a WM PPV.

If you still feel a formula is needed to determine a true world wrestling title, I've begun work on one, and if you're curious, I'll post it. Until then, please examine the shows and the mannerisms toward ECW and its belt, and try to see how the show is essentially a AAA to raw and smackdown's AL and NL (baseball reference). (Seantherebel (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)seantherebelSeantherebel (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

So a whole lotta words that basically is nothing but original research and personal opinions. You did not present anything that would show that the ECW Championship is not a world title (as for the baseball anthology, you are wrong. The 3 world titles in WWE are like MLB while something like the ROH Championship is Triple-A). TJ Spyke 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done seantherebel - you posted your OPINION. Congratulations. The points in a "definitive response" remain utterly unchallenged. 88.110.70.19 (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole conversation is moot, the title is a world title and that is the end of it. None of the responses do anything to refute that. His first "point" is not an actual point and only a remark, this [15] cleary refutes the second point as it mentions the ECW Championship as one of the three titles Cena could challenge for. Ring magazine is recognized as a leading authority by boxing promotions, no wrestling organization does the same with PWI. Point 4 is also just his opinion. Just end this stupid debate and accept the fact that the ECW Championship is a world title. TJ Spyke 16:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who watched Smackdown, hows this:

Todd Grisham, who once announced for ECW, said after a 2 count kickout in the Hardy-Morrison WH title match, that Morrison, a former ECW champion was "that close to climbing the ultimate mountain [winning a world title] for the first time in his career." This has to at least open a debate that this belt is not a world title; at the very minimum it allows for a separate article entirely to be created for the title's status. And if anyone wants to comment on this, please do not give an ignorant comment saying that the quote doesn't necessarily hearken to winning a world title unless you saw the match, heard the line, and actually have a legitimate take on it. (Seantherebel (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)seantherebelSeantherebel (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

The announcers also call Triple H a 14 time WWE Champion, Jericho a 5 time WWE Champion. I will have to watch it again, but I believe Grisham was talking specifically about the World Heavyweight Championship and not world titles in general. TJ Spyke 02:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who watched Smackdown. hows this:

Paul Wight, who is better known as the Big Show, said after Cryme Tyme had won the number one contenders match for the WWE Unified Tag Team Championship "...and I am the only man in history to have ever held the ECW, WCW, and WWE world heavyweight championships..." Notice how I didn't need to add any personal notes on what I thought the quote implied using brackets. Just clear and direct. Big Show pretty much told you everything. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was reading an article on WWE.com that stated Christian is a two-time ECw Champion and the reigns were "arguably his highest achievements." Obviously, a singles world title > a tag world title in WWE's hierarchy, so it should not be arguable. Moreover, every ECW champion I read about is called a ""-time ECW champion and not a ""-time World Champion.

Frankly, I know this will only draw more rude banter that violates talk page guidelines, so instead of debating the point further, I think I have found a way to settle this issue:

From the looks of the way WWE is booking the SD brand, it seems that John Morrison will be seeing a title shot soon. If this is the case, when he is competing, and especially on the day he finally wins the belt, the status can be determined through the commentary.

If comments like "Morrison has finally reached the top of the heap" or "Morrison is finally a world champion" or "greatest career achievement" are used, then ECW's title is not of world title status in WWE's view or PWI's and therefore, not a world championship.

If, however, phrases like "Morrison has been a world champ before in ECW" or "[potential] 2-time world champion" are mentioned, then WWE does hold the belt at world title status.

I am offering this as a way to settle the matter without having to wait for a Royal Rumble winner to cash in on an ECW title shot or for ECW to headline a PPV as the main event. If you have more specifics, please let me hear them. (Seantherebel (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)seantherebelSeantherebel (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

WWE has already called the ECW Championship a world title many times, including when Christian won it earlier this year. This issues has been discussed a decided already, why does this feel familiar? Proof has been given that this IS a world title, but opponents won't give up. This is like those morons who keep claiming Obama is not a US citizen despite the fact the fact that there has not been a single shred of evidence hat says he isn't. TJ Spyke 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

AMEN on both notes. Damn TJ, I had no idea we actually had something in common. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

PWI

It seems you can't call a title a world title among certain circles if it's not acknowledged by PWI, which seems to be like the gospel for a lot of wrestling fans. Is there a reason why PWI don't recognize the ECW Championship? It appears that wrestlers with an ECW Championship reign are having World Championship reign(s) knocked off (ie. Big Show was recently downgraded to a four-time World's Champion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerryjones44 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

PWI means nothing. They are just printing their own opinion. They don't give world status to any title. A title is a world title if the promotion that owns the title calls it a world title.--WillC 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally what declares a title as a World Title is that it is regularly defended in different countries around the world, or more importantly have a huge recognition as a top title for a promotion, with WWE they had the WWE title which was their promotion's top title, then with the brand split they reintroduced the World Title, which was the top prize for RAW, and with the amount of talent going after it was a prestigious title (after all it is the old NWA/WCW title, even if WWE try their hardest to deny it).

Now the ECW title on the other hand, WWE tried their hardest to push it as another World Title when it was reintroduced as the old ECW title was a world title, much like the WCW/current world heavyweight title, but as the ECW brand hasn't gained the popularity that WWE thought it would, its not that prestigious, and is classed down below the intercontinental title, and level with the united states title. 82.45.10.86 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"after all it is the old NWA/WCW title, even if WWE try their hardest to deny it". Um, no it is NOT the same title. People who say it is are 100% wrong. It uses the same physical belt design that those 2 titles each used at one point (both titles also had other belt designs), but the World Heavyweight Championship does NOT share any lineage with any other title. The title was created in 2002 and the first champion Triple H, period. TJ Spyke 14:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So going by 82.45.10.86's points, this isn't really a world title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerryjones44 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

He didn't make any point. TJ Spyke 17

53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, he claims that the WHC's lineage includes the NWA/WCW titles, and WWE.com only supports this statement: "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." And his point about the ECW Championship's standing has been echoed by many wrestling fans, and has not been acknowledged by PWI, which for years has been a sound reference point for any wrestling fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerryjones44 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The lineage is to show belt design and authority. The Big Gold belt image goes all the way back to early wrestling. The World Heavyweight Championship pays respect to all world titles, future, past, and represent. So it signifies with the NWA, WCW, and the first Undisputed World Heavyweight Championship held by George Hackenschmidt, it does not gain the old history. WWE have stated this many times. As for PWI, they are an authority to wrestling fans, but in reality have no authority. I could start a website and give status to certain titles. After about a year get a big following like PWI, does that make my website the be all end all in wrestling. They don't even give world status right. Any title no matter what title, heavyweight, cruiserweight, X division, women's, tag, light-heavyweight, etc can be a world championship. This is an encyclopedia so you have to think "how did PWI get its authority?" and many more questions. In the end result you look and see what the company says. They state the ECW, WWE, and WHC are all world championships. And if you went by PWI then only the WHC and TNA World Heavyweight Championships are world championships. They state on their site by name the WWE Championship is no longer a world title. They call it the WWE Heavyweight Championship. The WHC is the WWE World Championship, while the TNA is the TNA World Championship. If they were correct they would call the ROH World Championship a world title, after all it has been defended in England, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.--WillC 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There can be no doubt about the fact that the ECW Championship is not a world title and as such is not recognized by PWI. It should NOT be described as a world title under any circumstances. This article is currently presenting false information to readers. But after all, over zealous editors will always warp articles into what they want their obsessive interest to be perceived by the world as, rather than what it actually is in reality. John F Grant (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it not a world title? How did PWI get their power? What made a title world before PWI? Answer these questions, because you are the one giving false informatioon when PWI have no power to begin with. No body can give them the ability to call a title they do not own a world title or not and that be the end of it.--WillC 23:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not prestigious enough, and therefore not recognized by the great PWI. The US title is defended abroad, but it's still not a world title. John F Grant (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The list of champions has nothing to do with it. The ECW Title was once considered a world title by PWI so then that argument fails. The US TItle is technically a world championship having been defended around the world. The ECW has as well. PWI means nothing on here, and you avoided the questions.--WillC 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

1) The title has only been defended abroad under the WWE banner. It does not yet have the prestigious lineage required to become a world title. 2) PWI get their power because they have the top critics and unique insider information due to their standing, and are thus viewed as the "bible" of wrestling. 3) International defenses and prestigious lineage. It is now easier to establish these prestigious titles, thanks to the great PWI. Hopefully this article will soon be corrected. John F Grant (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You want to talk about prestige, the title has been won by such greats as Raven, Terry Funk, Shane Douglas, Sabu, The Sandman, Rhino, Taz, Tommy Dreamer, etc. It is still defended world wide, what makes a world title. If you say it has to be in the original promotion then you are going against PWI who said the NWA Title was a world title in TNA and in WCW, when they both broke away from the NWA and kept the NWA Title for a while longer. Matter of fact TNA broke away from them in 2004 and held the title till 2007, but PWI still believed the NWA Title was a world title. Then gave world status to the TNA Title before it was defended anywhere, and wasn't defended outside the US until 8 months after it was created. They don't have top critics, name one? Some dude who lives in his mom's basement. The ECW Title has both. Big stars who have held other world titles and are widely known. Been defended around the world. PWI still have no power. I'll start a site and magazine stating my opinion, give it about one year and all the sheep will follow it. PWI were not given the power by any higher power in wrestling, just the fans, but that doesn't mean they are the be all end all in wrestling. Explain to me how did a world title exist before PWI? How about the first World Title that Georg Hackenschmidt held long before it existed? If we went by them then there would be two world titles today. The World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) and the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. PWI now consider them to be the only world titles today. If we are going to go by them, then that means we must remove the world status from all other titles besides those two.--WillC 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that this has anything to do with anything but... do you happen to be a member of a forum? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Is there anyway that we could find or use another Picture of the belt as the one thats in place now is hard to see detail on the belt. All that i can make out on the belt is the words ECW.--Dcheagle (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

World title status

This isn't what you think. Of course, the title has been defended outwith the United States. But PWI aside - is there any evidence that the WWE even considers the ECW Championship a world title anymore? Specifically, are there instances of the belt being referred to as a world title since "world" was droppped from its name? Or former ECW Champions being referred to in subsequent years as former world champions, or having ECW title reigns combined with WHC or WWE title reigns to make the individual an x-time world champion? I seriously doubt that even WWE are promoting this belt as a world championship anymore - rather a second-tier title to stand alongside the Intercontinental and United States Championships. But I could be wrong. 89.168.171.187 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

When Matt Hardy won the title last September wwe.com wrote that he had finally achieved his dream of winning a world title [16]. TJ Spyke 16:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides that, there are numerous other references to it being a world title on WWE.com. As recently as Christian winning the title, actually. http://www.wwe.com/shows/backlash/matches/9826616/results/ Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

But it's not recognized by PWI. And that's the gold standard we follow here at Wikipedia. "World" removed from opening line - do not vandalise. EdgarBacon (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

PWI means nothing and it was agreed multiple times to not go by PWI. They have no power. They are just a magazine, that even says there is only two world titles. The TNA Title, which Mick Foley holds, and the World Heavyweight Championship, which Edge holds. If you want to go by that, then it shows your stupidity.--WillC 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not the gold standard on Wikipedia. Consensus at WP:PW was to NOT use PWI for such things. Removing "world" from this article is vandalism, not the other way around. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If we can count the ECW Championship as a World Title then so can we the WWE Intercontinental Title after all that has World in it's name and if we can't class that as a World Title we Can't class the WWe Title as 1 either 82.21.192.131 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For the past 3 years i've been reading wikipedia PWIs desition as stuck and been respected but now you throw it out the window in that case i name the WBW Heavyweight Championship a World Title now i may add my name to the List of World Championship, btw WBW is my wrestling Promotion 82.21.192.131 (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We should respect PWI because if we don't then any promotion can call a world title and then Ric Flair who worked his entire carrea on being a 16 world champion wouldn't be a accoplisment. A world championship is surpose to be the biggest accoplismnet a pro wrestler can achieve if we just let anyone declear a world title then it will be chaos, i just want thing plain and simple and a world title to only be awarded by PWI or some high wrestling athourioty A world title in wrestling =s a grammy in acting and we just don't go making new grammy awards every 2 seconds it has to be decided by an high athouruoty figue 82.21.192.131 (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, because of Wikipedia's Notability policy the subjects like your WBW or any other so called organization that you argue should be added because they call their titles world championship will not be added to Wikipedia. Please see the General notability guideline which lists notability criteria. Since those argued subjects fail to meet all, they cannot be added. As you can see, the point you are trying to prove by saying that "if we don't use PWI as a standard then any small fed can claim to have a world tile on Wikipedia" was never valid and failed from the start. Wikipedia's policies prevent such things from happening. I suggest you return with a better argument next time. We have all bases covered. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The name is irrelevant to it's status. There is NO central or governing authority for pro wrestling. It's all kayfabe anyway. We did used to go by PWI. But ultimately, we realized that PWI is nothing but a magazine and it's declaration of world title status is nothing but the opinion of a handful of editors. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did PWIs opionion last for 3 years but now is irelevent, thats what this is mainly about 82.21.192.131 (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because members of WP:PW didn't give the issue all that much thought, I'd think. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Gavyn that is precisely the reason. It was just there. No one ever paid much attention to it.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

please read this and this will prove the point i'm making about world titles need somesort or higher authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Hardy#Jeff_leaving_the_wwe.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.192.131 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a reply to your concerns... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I think the photo of the title should be changed the current is a joke for a photo I can't even read the CW of it we could use one with a wrestler holding it like the IC Championship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sii,_Christian_campeón_de_ECW.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanRaj 10 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

World Title Status and/or the "complementing the Raw and SD titles" clause

One more evidence piece for you to examine: Breaking Point was supposed to be a PPV with the stipulation that the main events would be submission matches. The only submission-style matches were the WH title, the WWE title and the DX match. Since the WWE gave main event status to Raw's M.E., SD's M.E. and a specialty main event in the DX match's case, but not the ECW title, which was technically the M.E. of ECW, I can only assume that it is because WWE currently sees ECW as below Raw and SD and consequently, the main title of ECW as below those of Raw and SD. Therefore, I feel a distinction should be made between the WWE/WH titles and the ECW title. (Seantherebel (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)seantherebelSeantherebel (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

WWE had the IC Championship as the main event of SummerSlam 1992. What's you point? At No Way Out, the WWE Championship match was the first match of the night. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum and I don't feel like getting into it again when consensus has been made. TJ Spyke 22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Seantherebel I got you one better. This will prove you wrong entirely and end this once in for all. SummerSlam 2009, before the ECW Championship match got underway, clear as day Matt Striker said "This is one of three world heavyweight championship matches to take place here at SummerSlam tonight". The ECW Championship is a world title. Get over it and move on.--WillC 04:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that quote from SummerSlam was, "This is the first of three World's Championship matches here at SummerSlam as Captain Charisma electrifies the Staples Center here at SummerSlam."

Now also at Breaking Point during the ECW Championship match... another Striker quote... "Josh, to illustrate the global impact of this contest, if William Regal wins the ECW Championship, he'll become the 9th non-U.S. born superstar to capture a World Title in the last 15 years. The WWE has certainly gone global and who better to wear the crown than William Regal." ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't remember the exact quote so I tried my best. You get the point either way.--WillC 05:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

-- You do realize that sometimes what the commentators say is all talk for show, right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.255.41 (talk • contribs)

Yes but the ECW title is still stated as a World Championship. And this is stated not just by the commentators but by WWE itself.--Dcheagle (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that Vince McMahon is always on the other end of their headsets and often feeds them lines as well. Now considering that these quotes are from two separate events... well what does that tell you?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing that separates WWE.com from on-air personalities like Todd Grisham, who has buried the ECW brand and their respective "world" title this year and CM Punk, who claimed that Matt Hardy never was a world champion (though he maybe referring to the shortened moniker of the specific World Heavyweight Championship), is the fact that WWE.com is a published article run by the company and therefore is a more viable source of information. I do not even recognize the ECW Championship as a world title, but it is only my opinion and WWE.com's sources prove otherwise so we just gotta stick with it.

Oh and if someone wants to try and use the PWI Debate against the status of the ECW Championship again, they have to think otherwise, because as far as I know, even PWI recognizes the ECW Championship as a world title now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.61.200 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But Seantherebel is correct. The ECW Championship is simply not a world title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Former user 7 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. The fact is that the title IS a world title, end of story. There is no disputing that. Some people like you and Sean may not think it is, but it IS a world title and you are wrong. TJ Spyke 21:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The "PWI argument" may be boring to proponents for the ECW Championship as a world title, but it's one that's never been tackled. PWI has for many years been the soundest reference point for any wrestling fan and the gold standard in wrestling journalism. They do not recognize the ECW Championship as a world title, therefore it should not be referred to as such. Former user 7 (talk • contribs

) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You have no proof of that. Under your logic, we also would not count the WWE Championship as a world title either. There is nothing to say the ECW Championship is a world title. You know what, i'm done. This issue has been discussed over and over and over and over. PWI's opinion has been part of that. You and anybody else who is a non-believer can say and think what you want. The ECW Championship is a world title and the article will continue to reflect that. TJ Spyke 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that it HAS been tackled, multiple times. PWI's view is simply the opinion of it's handful of editors. They have no authority over WWE, any other promotion, or wrestling at all. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"PWI has for many years been the soundest reference point for any wrestling fan and the gold standard in wrestling journalism." Sure, it's a bunch of writers, but nobody has yet argued against this infallible point. PWI, of legendary status among wrestling fans, does not recognize the ECW Championship. Add the this the fact that there is confusion between WWE's own employees as to whether it is a world title, and the fact that the vast majority of wrestling fans do not regard it as a world title, and you have a belt which is simply not of world title status. I've not seen anything convincing to counter my argument, despite being outnumbered by hollow arguments, so I've removed the word "world" from the opening. Former user 7 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on this is very clear; I've reverted your edit. This has been discussed to death (check the archives of this talk page for just a fraction of the discussions). Consensus is that PWI's opinion is irrelevant and it's the opinion of each promotion as to what is or isn't a world title. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoroughly unconvincing response. Could someone please address the points I raised in my previous post. Former user 7 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling fans opinions do not matter. We are here to be accurate. What power does PWI have? What is their criteria to determine a "world title"? The fact "world titles" do not exist is another story. Because the physical belt is just a prop. The words "world heavyweight championship" is nothing more than a term, used by wrestling companies to promote their product. Fans buy in that they mean something, when they truly mean very very little. They just symbolize a wrestler has drawing power so the company gives him the title belt so that fans will pay to see him win it and defend it. The only way to determine what a world title is, is by the owning company. They decide whether to promote a title as world title or not. PWI can't decide if a title is world.--WillC 03:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Former user 7, lay out each and every single one of your concerns and I will personally address them.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously still using PWI to argue against the status of the ECW Championship? Again, even PWI recognizes ECW as a world title now, and they have been since the beginning of summer. What else? Here is the exact transcript of Matt Striker in the WWE Breaking Point:

"If William Regal wins the ECW Championship, he will become the 9th non US-Born superstar to capture a world title in the last 15 years."

And then, here are sources that state that the ECW Championship is a world title.

http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions/history/2008/exclusives/tangledtitles http://www.wwe.com/shows/unforgiven/matches/7938432/results/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.61.200 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there are a few examples of the ECW Championship being referred to as a world title within WWE. But there are also examples of it being buried and deemed not a world title as discussed here and in archived discussions. Then there's the general doubt as to whether it's regarded a world title by WWE simply because of its lack of hype, low ranking on PPV cards and the overall feel that it holds nowhere near the prestige of the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships and is more akin to the IC and US Championships.

121.1.61.200 claims that PWI recognizes the ECW Championship. Last time I checked PWI, it correctly dismissed any notion of the ECW Championship being a world title. However, if a genuine cite can be provided, I'd be willing to think twice, as I'm sure would the other editors who correctly hold the belief that the ECW Championship is not a world title. As far as I'm concerned, it's not recognized by PWI (for years the golden standard), there's confusion within WWE as to whether it's a world title, and it's generally regarded by wrestling fans as being of similar prestige to the IC and US titles - probably why "world heavyweight" was swiftly removed from its name when the title was revived. The article, at the moment, is offering false information, being rigged by long-standing wrestling fans to warp the perception of newcomers to their way of thinking. Something tells me that a PWI cite recognizing the ECW Championship as a world title will never materialise. Former user 7 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly not see what is wrong with your argument? "But there are also examples of it being buried and deemed not a world title as discussed here and in archived discussions. Then there's the general doubt as to whether it's regarded a world title by WWE simply because of its lack of hype, low ranking on PPV cards and the overall feel that it holds nowhere near the prestige of the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships and is more akin to the IC and US Championships." There is not a single concrete piece of fact in your argument. All of that was simply your personal opinion. "Low ranking on PPV cards?" Tell me, which match opened the most recent WWE pay-per-view event? (the World Heavyweight Championship) Which match closed that very same event and where on the card was the WWE Championship and what matches followed it? (not the WWE Championship as it was in the middle of the show and followed by Drew McIntyre and R-Truth and the United States Championship) Tell me, which were the last three matches on the two pay-per-view events before the most recent? (Breaking Point - ECW, WWE, World Heavyweight Championship and SummmerSlam ECW, WWE, World Heavyweight Championship [two events in which the ECW Championship was referred to as a world title multiple times]) Now that, right with all the cited links, is the concrete evidence.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read PWI in years, but I know they at least used to recognize it as a world title (they first considered it a world title after ECW on TNN made its debut). WWE has always said it's a world title, Punk's comment came as he was starting to make his heel turn and was trying to put down Matt Hardy. WWE itself constantly refers to it as a world title. "generally regarded by wrestling fans as being of similar prestige to the IC and US titles", besides the fact that you have no source for that and it's a PEACOCK term, I have not seen that. The only people who think that (from my experience) are the same people who don't like the current version of ECW and just want to put it down and anything associated with it. You say "world heavyweight" was "swiftly removed"? Uh, no. While the title was re-named to "ECW World Championship" for about a month, it was not re-named to "ECW Championship" for about another 13 months. I would also like to point to "WWE Championship". The article is factually correct, it's only a fringe minority who don't consider it a world title. This is like Republicans trying to claim people don't want health care reform despite every non-partisan poll showing that the majority DO want it. TJ Spyke 15:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, I've never understood the "prestige" argument. It's a pro wrestling title. It's scripted. It's all kayfabe. There's no real "prestige" involved, only a company deciding to give a title to a top guy to get ratings. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As Gavyn Sykes just addressed, what is this "prestige" of which you speak? See the thing about this entire debate is that 100% of those who argue against the ECW Championship being a world title are the self-proclaimed internet "smart-fans." "Smart-fan" because by definition you know what professional wrestling is and you know it's sports entertainment and its quite obvious that you do. It's like any one of your favorite shows that you love to watch on television because there's always a neverending slew of stories to enjoy. That's what professional wrestling is and that's why I love it. However, there comes a time when even the "smart-fans" are sucked into it so much that they "mark out," seriously believing in what they see, and that's always encouraged, I encourage it. That's the whole point of the business. It's the magic of the art. Now more often than not we actually believe in it so much that even after we finish watching it, we honest to God believe at least a part of what we saw was in fact real, so much in fact that even the smartest of the smart fans believe it as well without realizing it. That's just the way the brain works. If we are conditioned to seriously believe that something is real, then we will just simply believe that it is real. Never has this been more evident than when it comes to the argument of world titles in professional wrestling.

See the "smart-fans" (and don't take it as a derogatory word - we're all "smart-fans" here by definition and that's just what it is) that continue to bring these opposing arguments up, 85% of them cite what you have cited here today. "But there are also examples of it being buried and deemed not a world title as discussed here and in archived discussions. Then there's the general doubt as to whether it's regarded a world title by WWE simply because of its lack of hype, low ranking on PPV cards and the overall feel that it holds nowhere near the prestige of the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships and is more akin to the IC and US Championships." The thing however is that their entire argument is built on the belief that a championship in professional wrestling is a very legitimate meaningful accomplishment that signifies the champion's dominance over all other opponents, just like how it is portrayed in front of the cameras and in this story. It's funny, some have even attempted to differentiate what they called "legit" world titles in wrestling from what they called "kayfabe" world titles in wrestling. "Oh the ECW title may be a world title but only in kayfabe unlike the other two titles that are legit"... What the hell is a "kayfabe" world title and did you just say there are actual "legit" titles? ...Just an example of some of the ridiculous things previously brought up by the opposition in this discussion. It's just silly. Now I'm not saying that a professional wrestling championship isn't a legitimate meaningful accomplishment.

The reality of it is that a championship in professional wrestling really is a meaningful accomplishment but for a different reason. What it signifies isn't your dominance over all other opponents, but rather the promoter entrusting you really with the success of the promotion, believing in your talent and your abilities so much that it is you he chose out of the pool of great talent to take charge and the challenge and lead them all forward. After all the hours of hard work you've put into every single day you've made it to where you are now relied on to lead your peers and that's an accomplishment in and of itself. That's what a championship is and that is why it's meaningful. Everything that comes after that is superficial, and it's unfortunate that it is the superficial that the 85% build their argument on... but at least the other 15% are the ones that argue the less superficial and more direct aspects of a championship. For instance "WWE doesn't call it a world title". Now that is an argument that isn't based on the superficial (like an opinion on how it's "treated" in storylines) but rather on a more direct thing. Even though that argument is incorrect and has been proven so by WWE itself time and time again, its nice to hear a somewhat educated (or not) argument like that as opposed to the smart-fan's "prestige" or "kayfabe world title" arguments. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not checking in, but I've had prior committments with college and my job. With that preface, I have recently found a couple more points. If you look at the last PPV, Hell in a Cell, you will notice that ECW is not in the PPV card at all. While they were able to find a kayfabe response as to why the title is not on the line, ECW's not getting a single match, let alone a main event, is a signal that the WWE is not holding the brand, and consequently the belt, to a level anywhere near Raw and SD's belts.

Another point comes from the Bragging Rights PPV this month. While ECW may get a match on this card, it seems that the card will be predominately a Raw vs. SmackDown card. Since I do not see an 'ECW vs' card anywhere on the calendar, I am again left to assume that WWE does not hold the brand as World-class, and therefore, the belt cannot be world class.

Again, as in an earlier argument I made since deleted, I am not taking away ECW's right to be called a world title as it is still the top belt in the brand, but I do feel that how it is seen internally, by the wrestlers who compete for it, and by the fans, has a bearing on whether it should be held as an equal to the WWE and WH titles. It is less about ECW and more about the WWE and WH titles, as they are held in many regards as WWE's greatest career singles achievements.

The best example of this would be indy titles like the CZW World title. It shows that the promoter has faith in you to get the belt, but if they give you that belt nine times, should that champion be given more title reigns than the Undertaker, who has won 7 titles in the WWE? The entry can say ECW is a world title, but it seems that giving it the term of "complementing" the WWE and WH titles unjustly gives the winners of that belt an equal status with those who win consistently on the brands WWE holds in higher regard.

What I suggest is that the phrase "complementing the World titles of Raw and SmackDown" should be removed, and a distinction should be made in Wikipedia separating world titles from World Championships. (Seantherebel (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)seantherebelSeantherebel (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Read my above comment. The distinction you are trying to make between "world titles and world championships" is ridiculous. Somehow you can make your points about Hell in a Cell and Bragging Rights but not even mention the last two pay-per-view events before Hell in a Cell? Tell me, which match opened the most recent WWE pay-per-view event Hell in a Cell? (ANSWER: the World Heavyweight Championship) Which match closed that very same event? (ANSWER: not even a title match) Where on the card was the WWE Championship and what matches followed it? (ANSWER: the WWE Championship as it was in the middle of the show and was followed by Drew McIntyre and R-Truth and the United States Championship) Tell me, what were the last three matches on the two pay-per-view events before Hell in a Cell? (ANSWER: at both SummerSlam and Breaking Point - ECW Championship match, follwed by the WWE Championship match, followed by the World Heavyweight Championship match). That's right, two pay-per-view events in which the ECW Championship was even referred to as a world title multiple times. Now where were these facts mentioned in your argument?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of your arguments are OR. Not being on the HIAC card, not being part of Team Raw vs. Team SmackDown, etc. You even admit that you are just assuming. Your next argument, how do you know how wrestlers or fans feel? You don't, you are just assuming. Your last example, that is not relevant. Ric Flair won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship 10 times, Harly Race won it 8 times and Jeff Jarrett 6 times. Triple H has won the WWE Championship 8 times, The Rock won it 7 times. Hulk Hogan won the WCW World Heavyweight Championship 5 times, etc. Some basic stats: 6 wrestlers have held the WWE Championship 5 times or more, 3 with the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, 2 with the World Heavyweight Championship, 5 with the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. All of those are undisputed as world titles and all have had multiple people hold the title on many occasions. By contrast, since bringing the ECW Championship back in 2006; only 2 wrestlers have won it more than once (Bobby Lashley and Christian). TJ Spyke 19:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your points are fair mostly, but you seem to miss the point on the last one. The point I am making with the indy world titles is that they declare themselves to be world titles, but at no time have I seen, on this site or any others, that title reigns from CZW or PWG or CMLL are warranted to the point that the wrestlers are considered world champions. People on the indy circuit win the top titles of their company all the time, but I never see their names listed among world champions of WWE, WCW, NWA, TNA, etc. That leads me to assume that thers is a distinction already and you are merely arguing that this title should automatically be placed on the more prestigious side of the debate simply because the belt is defended on a cable channel and is a leading belt in a WWE brand. Frankly, so is FCW, but I have yet to hear anyone make an argument on that belt's behalf. So enlighten me here as to what distinction, or lack there-of, is keeping the ECW title on equal status with the WWE and WH titles but is also keeping the lineages of EVERY independent, Mexican, and Japanese belt off of the title count in the list of wrestling world champions articles? (Seantherebel (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)seantherebelSeantherebel (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

Well the shear fact we don't have the manpower to get all that info in one list is one. I feel all wrestling world title lists should be deleted and world heavyweight championship (pro wrestling) be re-written entirely. WWE have promoted the ECW Title as a world title. Prestige doesn't exist. It is a fan idea that is used by promotions as a promoting tool. The belts are nothing more than props. The titles exist in name only. The promotion's billing as a world title is all we use. If they say it is a world title, then it is a world title. FCW nor WWE have ever promoted their titles as world titles.--WillC 18:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

SeantheRebel, I cannot blame you for thinking that way about the status of the ECW Championship, but as far as "complementing the Raw and Smackdown counterparts" of the title, then-reigning ECW Champion Matt Hardy did participate in a champion of champions match in the MyNetworkTV debut and was treated as an equal to the World Champion and the WWE Champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.61.200 (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn Straight^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppetry case

Of all users involved in this continuous debate, the following have shown a similar editing pattern:

• Contributions history of Born of Champions
• Contributions history of John F Grant
• Contributions history of EdgarBacon
• Contributions history of FTWBruce
• Contributions history of Gerryjones44
• Contributions history of Former user 7
• Contributions history of Seantherebel

Now of these listed I bring User:Born of Champions, User:EdgarBacon, and User:Former user 7 to your attention.

Their contribution histories show edits to the same articles including edits to Gary Oldman and Queen (band).

Now note these two specific edits [17] [18]

Call for checkuser. Agree?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like all these users are the same person. Checkuser is a must.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you started the Sock puppetry case or are you just posting this here?--Dcheagle (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just waiting on input from more users.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok I would go ahead and start the case the edit history's for all the accounts are so close that there no denying that there not socks.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I agree. All those users with edits that are identical. Something is suspicious, file a report. TJ Spyke 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EdgarBacon) Through some more research I found more socks involved including:

• Herbert O'Breen
• Jeffrey Huntley
• 89.168.172.85
• 88.110.70.19

...all with edits to the same articles including, Gary Oldman, Queen (band) (including frontman Freddie Mercury), Oasis (band), and English personalities.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

DONE. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WWE bias

This article as far too WWE heavy. This was an ECW belt, after all, and the bulk of the article should be about it's original run since that was when it was actually a World title, and because of the fact that the original run was longer and more successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.205.114 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not meant to seem biased. It just hasn't been expanded yet. It will be soon though. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Future of ECW Championship

Anyone know the future of this title? Will it cease to exist upon the closure of the ECW brand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.34.130 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has been announced. For future reference, this is not a messagboard. This talkpage is for discussing ways to improve the article. TJ Spyke 23:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I asked... 88.109.34.130 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Name

I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that the ECW Championship was most notable in WWE. It got exposure to more people than it ever did in ECW and got more coverage. So I think it definitely should have stayed as ECW Championship, I think it should be moved back and 3bulletproof16 (who unilaterally moved it without discussing it anywhere) should have to make a formal move request. TJ Spyke 15:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that the ECW Championship was most notable in WWE." Are you high? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.235.93 (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion doesn't always have to proceed a move. You are forgetting it was also known as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship in WWE, plus was referred to off and on as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship. The burden of proof is to you TJ to show ECW Championship is the common name.--WillC 20:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

2 months was how long it was called "ECW World Heavyweight Championship" in WWE, then it became "ECW World Championship" for about 10 months. The title retired as the ECW Championship, the burden of proof is on someone claiming something else is the common name. I could have just moved it back without discussion (like bullet did). If it's not moved back by the end of the day by someone else, then I will make a move request. TJ Spyke 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet, it was in the original promotion where it was known as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship for 7 years and then was promoted in Rise and Fall so the previous name is known more. It was in WWE for two years under that name, while a total of 7 as the other.--WillC 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The title became much more notable and seen by more people while in WWE than it ever did in ECW. If a actor were to star in a local TV show for 10 years and then starred in a worldwide TV show for 2 years that is seen by millions of people more, which would be more notable in their career? I know that's not the same thing, but my point is that even in 2 years the title became more notable than it ever had in ECW (and that Rise and Fall DVD was released 19 months before the ECW brand and title were brought back). TJ Spyke 23:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Take it to WT:PW let the project decided. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of ECW's name and status, I will give one more new piece of info into the ECW complementing the WWE/WH title debate while the brand's death is fresh and before the point becomes moot: During the Elimination Chamber PPV live chat, Corey Clayton, a moderator of the site as well as a writer, editor, and statkeeper within the WWE, gave statistics during the course of the chat. When he came to the SmackDown Chamber, he said: "77 total titles amongst the 6 men in this match.... 16 World Titles too." (source: http://fans.wwe.com/go/chat/live) After looking at the recognized reigns and lineages of the titles WWE uses as World Titles in their count, I found the 16 reigns: Undertaker: 7 total (4 WWE, 3 WH) Chris Jericho: 5 total (2 WCW, 1 undisputed, 2 WH) Rey Mysterio: 1 total (WH) CM Punk: 3 total (All WH) The ECW championship is not mentioned once, even though Punk and Morrison each have an ECW title reign. He did not miss any other title reigns, as Punk's ROH reigns and R-Truth's NWA reigns are known to not be recognized. It wasn't that he didn't note retired belts, because he used the WCW reigns. Lastly, he could not have missed the title, as the brand's finish and title were mentioned repeatedly in the broadcast, at one point even having the last ECW Champion on the chat. So once more, I implore you to change the clause in the introduction about ECW's brand belt being recognized as a World title. It was the major belt of the promotion, and it complements the main belts the way the US and IC titles do, but it is not given equal footing to the two main belts. I understand that world titles are defined as the main belt of a promotion, but the promotion in question is no longer Extreme Championship Wrestling: It is WWE. If WWE, the company who owns the belt, doesn't recognize it as World; PWI, who is the only major publication who sanctions belts, doesn't sanction it; most Internet Wrestling sites do not recognize it; and since we do not have a running tally of World title reigns for everyone who has ever been at the top of a promotion regardless of its size, then the belt either needs to be distinguished that WWE did not consider it (or the brand) on par with Raw or SD, or it needs to be changed to say "main" title of ECW and not "World" title, to avoid the issue. (Seantherebel (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)seantherebelSeantherebel (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Till the day WWE comes out and says the ECW Title is not a World Title out right (which has not been done)The ECW Title will be listed as a world title.--Steam Iron 07:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about with the WWE bias. Stop making this a WWE article.151.203.5.23 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, it's a WWE title, so be default it is a WWE article. TJ Spyke 15:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This article states that the MITB Winner Jack Swagger, who is also a former ECW Champion, has the opportunity to become a First-Time World Champion:

Now the two-time collegiate All-American has a golden opportunity to become a first-time World Champion. But with a guaranteed World Title Match at any time of his choosing, when will Swagger decide to cash in his Money in the Bank? And which World Title holder will be forced to square off against the boundless ambition of the brand new Mr. Money in the Bank?

http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/matches/13586684/results/

And also, someone keeps erasing my post on this discussion. Why is that? I put a straightforward argument and an article to back that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.244.84 (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the cancellation of ECW no more references to anything ECW-related have been made on WWE programming, In case you havent noticed. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

They did acknowledge Christian as a former ECW Champion recently on WWE.com and Raw, but as far as his segment with Edge is concerned, he NEVER WAS A WORLD CHAMPION. Doesn't that say that while the now defunct ECW Title is an accomplishment, it is not a World Title?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.246.158 (talk • contribs)

He wasn't noted as such on Raw. As stated before, references to ECW aren't made anymore on programming. Its retconing and it's something Wikipedia doesn't do for the purpose of historical accuracy. As for the statement Edge made, that would suggest the TNA titles aren't world titles either.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Christian was never TNA World Champion, he was NWA World Champion. But anyway WWE doesn't control either the TNA or NWA World Championships. WWE does however control the ECW Championship, especially the one from 2006-2010. Thus what WWE says about NWA's and TNA's Championships is irrelevant. However what WWE says about the ECW Championship is the final word.

If we're being really pedantic, WWE DID call the ECW Championship a "World" Championship from when Rob Van Dam was awarded the first (revived) Championship up until shortly after Mark Henry won the Championship. The original belt(Gold) said "World" on it. After Henry won it, it was replaced with a new belt(Silver) that DIDN'T say "world" on it, and Henry(and all Champions afterwards) were only ever referred to as "ECW Champion". Likewise the three-way between Cena, Booker and Big Show was between the "three World Champions" was (long) BEFORE Henry's win. Afterwards(after the switch of belt that is) WWE talked about the TWO World Champions. So everyone from RVD to Henry was called a "World Champion" FRom Matt Hardy to Christian it's just "ECW Champion".

Of course there's also the factor that Chavo Guerrero the ECW "World" Champion was in the 2008 Royal Rumble as wone of the guys hoping wo win a shot at one of the World Champions at that year's WrestleMania! Spoke shook (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The same arguments you've noted such as the name engraved on the belt and post new belt design champions as well as Guerrero's entry in the Rumble have long been clarified in this article's talk page archives. You might want to zip through them first. Enjoy the good read. Also don't be running around reverting edits out of spite. Trolling will result in your user account being blocked from editing.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 10:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

However at SummerSlam in 2009, the title was called a world title. And on SmackDown's move to MyNetworkTV, they had the three "world champions" fight, those being Matt Hardy, Chris Jericho, and Triple H. Title has been clearly established as a world title.--WillC 10:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To WillC's comment, WWE seemed to flipflop over whether the ECW Championship was a World Championship or not. For much of the "Tiffany Era" it was considered to NOT be a World Championship. In the beginning when RVD and big Show were Champions, it was clearly regarded by WWE as a World Title, but there were instances later when they would say of say John Morrison that he had never held a World Title, or that CM Punk's win over Edge(after cashing in MITB) was Punk's first World Title. This is a tricky one, as people could find reliable sources from throughout the period 2006-2010 both to prove that the ECW Championship was AND wasn't a "World" Championship. Spoke shook (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Having surfed around wikipedia, I see that regardless of whether a Championship is widely regarded as being a "World" Championship or not, the wikipedia stance appears to be that if the promotion itself declares their Championship to be a "World" Championship, then wikipedia names the articles as such. This of course has the result that obviously indie promotions such as CZW and ROH have their Championship articles listed as "World" Championships. The problem with ECW, is that, as various people have illustrated, for long stretches WWE did NOT consider their version of the ECW Championship to be a "World" Championship. It was not referred to such at the end (February 2010). It may have had periods where WWE called it a "World" Championship. But as noted above, Christian was said to have never held a "World" Championship(along with the obvious knock on TNA), and WWE do not consider Ezekiel Jackson to have ever held a "World" Championship either. This is clearly not a cut-and-dry case. While both Paul Heyman's ECW and Vince Mcmahon's ECW(in the beginning) called it a "World" Championship, the fact that at the end(February 2010) it was NOT called such should be indicated. Spoke shook (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you obviously didn't bother to read the archives I'll make it easy for you. Just a few notes you could have saved me the trouble with...

• Guerrero's reign "With the victory, Cena earns a World Championship opportunity against the titleholder of his choice at WrestleMania XXIV on Sunday, March 30, in Orlando, Florida... but which champion will he choose to face? Will he go after the WWE Championship – currently held by Randy Orton – and look to regain the title he never lost in the ring from a man who never beat him for it? Or will Cena look to conquer a different mountain and challenge an old foe, World Heavyweight Champion Edge, or a new kingpin, ECW Champion Chavo Guerrero, for a title he has never worn?"
• Kane's reign "Then there’s the state of the ECW Championship held by Kane, who was also drafted over to Raw on Monday. Although ECW gained the services of United States Champion Matt Hardy, the Land of the Extreme is now left with no World Champion of their own, and only a one-in-three chance to win it back at Night of Champions... On Sunday, the Big Red Machine will defend the title in a Triple Threat Match against Big Show and Mark Henry. While the World's Largest Athlete remains on SmackDown, the World's Strongest Man was pulled to ECW in Wednesday's Supplemental Draft, and is that brand's chance to bring the title back to the Land of the Extreme. But, if Triple H, Edge and Big Show have an extremely good Night of Champions, SmackDown General Manager Vickie Guerrero could conceivably find her brand the home of all three World Championships, with both Raw and ECW left out in the cold."
• Morrison's reign (Fast Forward to 3:30) "These accolades are only fitting of a true champion, and I have an accolade that very few people in sports entertainment can claim. I am a World Champion. I am the new face of ECW. I am the ECW World Heavyweight Champion."
• Henry's reign (Fast Forward to 0:25) ''There is a lot of talent in the ECW locker room, but I am a twelve-year veteran. This is my first World Heavyweight Title and I'll tell you one thing, it's going take a more powerful man than I am to take this title out of my hands."
• Hardy's reign "The greatest achievement, however, came in 2008 when Matt triumphed in a Championship Scramble Match to capture the ECW Title; his first taste of World Championship gold."
• Hardy's reign continued "After the contest was unscrambled and the winner was clear, Matt Hardy stood victorious as the new ECW Champion in the opening Scramble Match at Unforgiven... After a passion-driven, career-long hunt to possess a World Title, the deliverer of the Twist of Fate has found himself atop the mountain in the Land of the Extreme."
• Christian's reign "Christian’s first World Title comes after a journey that expands well beyond his two months in the Land of the Extreme. "
• Christian's reign continued (Fast Forward to 0:55) "This is the first of three World's Championship matches here at SummerSlam as Captain Charisma electrifies the Staples Center here at SummerSlam."
• Christian's reign continued (Fast Forward to 2:15) "Josh, to illustrate the global impact of this contest, if William Regal wins the ECW Championship he'll become the ninth non-US born superstar to capture a World Title in the last 15 years. The WWE has certainly gone global and who better to wear the crown than William Regal"

Once again, in case you haven't heard it again; since ECW on Syfy's finale, references pertaining to ECW are no longer made in programming. However, that is retconning - something Wikipedia doesn't allow. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that wikipedia does not consider sites like youtube and myvideo as reliable sources. Likewise, why exactly should your links be considered reliable, whereas when other people post links to wwe.com that speak against the ECW Championship having "World" Championship status, it is unacceptable? As things stand right now, ECW is NOT recognized as a World Title. Has anyone ever referred to Ezekiel as being a World Champion? No. Are former ECW Champions called "World Champions"? No. Then there is the other issue above, which you completely ignored, which is this....

Many promotions call titles of theirs "World" Titles, such as CZW, ROH, XPW. There's probably some indie down the block from everyone here who run one show a month in front of 20 people, but call their title a "World" Title. Does that make it so? However, wikipedia's articles on those titles cales them "World" Title, because the promotions that control those titles call them that. Since WWE do NOT consider the ECW Title(which they have complete control of) to be a World Title, wikipedia should not refer to it as such. Nobody is disputing your point that WWE USED TO call it a "World" title, but they do not NOW. It was also NOT called a "World" Title in its final days, and that's how it went out as just the "ECW Championship". BY the same way that we can call an indie like CZW the CZW "World" Title, because that is what CZW calls it, we must look at what WWE(who have complete control of the ECW Title and legacy) call it. As various people noted above, and in the archives, WWE calls it simply the "ECW Championship". The most recent link/source refers to it NOT being a "World" Title. Thus the article name should not have the word "World" in it. However, the article should and must state, that WWE USED TO call it a "World" Title. Spoke shook (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The inconsistency on the part of WWE regarding the ECW Title should at least be mentioned in this thread. Or at the very least add in a line that pertains to the recent retconning of the WWE by its status, like something to this effect:

" While the ECW Championship was for the most part a recognized World Heavyweight Championship, it's deactivation have lead the WWE to nullify the reigns of its former titleholders. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.246.158 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoke shook, you do know your argument could also be applied to the WWE Championship, since it is no longer called the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. It is called name shortening. They have absolutely no reason to refer to the ECW Championship today, since ECW was deactivated two months ago. Jackson isn't even on TV. There is no qualifications for World Championships. WWE called the title a world title while it was active and don't even speak of it today. This subjected has been discussed enough. Just let it go already, it has been proven WWE view it as a world title. You've shown nothing that suggests otherwise than plain heresy. Even bulletproof showed some links, though two were to youtube, the point was the WWE broadcast. If those statements needed sourcing, we just use cite video to source the DVD release or cite episode to cite the broadcast. You've said the samething as countless other editors.--WillC 04:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you saw Summerslam 2009, the ECW title was referred to as a World Championship. Matt Striker mentioned it was the "first of three world championships being defended." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.235.224 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for and against the ECW Championship's World title status post-2010 decommissioning

You know how some former WWF Championships like Stan Stasiak held the title during the time that the title was demoted to 'regional status' and thus are not recognized as former World Champions, why not we do the same for all ECW Champions after Big Show or maybe Lashley? It's clear that the WWE counts Big Show's reign as ECW Champion by mentioning that he's a 5-time former World Champion.

• "Khali helped Big Show regain momentum, and the five-time World Champion stunned the Indian colossus with a chokeslam to earn the pinfall victory."

http://www.wwe.com/shows/backlash/history/2008/matches/6842782/results/

• "And even more for someone like the Big Show, perhaps given the opportunity to win a sixth World Championship."

-Michael Cole on the Big Show

And then much later into the match after incapacitating Christian and Matt Hardy:

"The strength of the Five-Time World Champion." -Michael Cole on the Big Show

But since then all other ECW Champions have had questionable bookings on their part, for one; they're booked like midcarders, and then more often than not the reference that would indicate the ECW Championship as a world title is very brief and trivial and there's Kane who is now the only person to become the WWE, World, and ECW Champion and he's only recognized as a two-time World Champion, and before you use the retconning reason, here's what Matt Hardy had to say during the Peep Show segment with Christian before the MITB.

• "It's funny our careers have paralleled each other in many ways, we've won numerous tag team championships, intercontintental championships, united states championships, you and I; we were both great ECW CHAMPIONS, but there's one thing that we've persevered to obtain for over a decade, one thing that has elluded each and everyone of us and that's a World Title."

- Matt Hardy on the Peep Show, Smackdown: July 2, 2010

It's clear that they haven't retconned it as they are still recognized as being former ECW Champions but not former World Champions. So my point, all ECW Champions up to the Big Show's or possibly Lashley's reign are considered former World Champions while reigns from Morrison and beyond aren't, just like how former WWF Champions from the brief regional days are to be differentiated from WWF Champions before and after it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.9 (talk • contribs)

Good argument, except for how you conclude that reigns have not been retconned. If the few examples below regarding the reigns you prominently used in your argument, Christian's, Kane's and Matt Hardy's in particular, ahem... If the examples below show that clearly they were referred to as World Champions during the title's active time and now (as you agree) they no longer are, then that is clear indication that continuity has indeed been messed with. That's what retroactive continuity is. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 15:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WWE definitely referred to the ECW title as a world title post-Big Show, highlighted by the links provided below by 3bulletproof16. Here's the question: has WWE ever published an article, or had an announcer definitively state on WWE programming that the ECW Championship was NOT a world title? If not, it seems only right to continue referring to it a world title. We could possibly mention the doubts regarding its world title status in the article. Anyone with a taste for what's going on in the Internet Wrestling Community knows that it's a big talking point... let's not shy away from it. Jplarkin (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that's basically what it is. The IWC constitutes a forum, and per WP:RS forums are not reliable source. Added that to the fact that what this entire issue has been about is the opinion of the IWC. At very best, this issue could be classified as trivial, which is also something Wikipedia frowns upon. When there is reliable evidence, from WWE.com and programming itself, to indicate that the ECW title was referred to as a World title during its time as an active championship, and none since it was deactivated to specifically note that it is no longer a considered a World title, well there's not much that can be done here other than to come up with our own conclusions. The only thing that would even make the issue notable is if a reliable third-party source posted an article, not giving its own opinion on the matter but simply mentioning the various sides of this issue or the fact that there even is an issue. Finally, one last thing I'd like to note from the Peep Show segment with Christian and Matt Hardy on the July 2, 2010 edition of SmackDown pre-Money in the Bank PPV... According to the actual footage, which can be found on Youtube, Matt Hardy's correct quote ends as follows, "...one thing that has eluded each and every one of us and that's the World Title." This actually seemingly makes reference to a specific championship (the World Heavyweight Championship on SmackDown) as opposed to a world title in general.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I must've heard it wrong. But here's another situation: On the April 30, 2010 edition of Smackdown, Edge bragged to Christian that he's been a World Champion nine times(taking into account his reigns as WWE and World Championship reigns), and Christian admitted himself that he has never been a World Champion. And then on the Sept. 17, 2010 edition of Smackdown, during Christian's match against CM Punk, Matt Striker brought up the fact that Christian has yet to become the World Champion. Again, it could also refer to the specific World Heavyweight Championship but I doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.11 (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In both cases they were on the brand that the WHC resides with. So they were referring to the WHC. In most if not all cases that is what they refer to.--WillC 03:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay, I see your point. Christian, and Hardy's reigns were referred to as World Championships but in a trivial manner, unlike Kane who actually has a whole article based on it(The Tangled Titles article). I guess you're right about the retcon, but shouldn't it at least be brought up on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.8 (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

How were Christian and Hardy's reigns referred to in a trivial manner? Aside from the video references, articles on WWE.com clearly mention their reigns as world championships in aritcles of their own. Check the examples below again and see the Matt Hardy biography link and the Christian's Backlash results link in particular. Now the entire issue about the retconning is trivial in and of itself. As I noted above in my previous reply, the only thing that would even make the issue notable is if a reliable third-party source posted an article, not giving its own opinion on the matter but simply mentioning the various sides of this issue or the fact that there even is an issue. This type of thing isn't by any means a rare occurrence in "the business" anyways. WWE still considers all WWWF Heavyweight Champions as world champions. Thus, more evidence of retconning...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 09:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Was this considered a world championship in WWE?

I remember when undertaker was going to choose his opponent for Wrestlemania Matt Hardy was a candidate because he had the title, However now i notice it is not mentioned, like how John Morrison is not called a former champion or when Edge asked Christian if he won a world title Christian said he hasnt (even though he had the NWA and ECW). I just wanted to know and maybe contribute to the article? thanks.--67.148.62.18 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well as stated in the above section. Since the ECW on Syfy's finale, WWE no longer makes references to anything pertaining to ECW. As for the last known status of the title before it's deactivation (as noted in the archive section of this talk page) articles as recent as Christian reign from WWE.com note the ECW title as being a world title. You can find the archives @ Talk:ECW World Heavyweight Championship/Archive 1. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a summary of a few notes found in the archive...

• Nitro/Morrison's reign "A modified swinging hangman’s noose neckbreaker off the middle rope stunned Punk – and all of the Land of the Extreme – and Nitro had his first singles world title."
• Guerrero's reign "With the victory, Cena earns a World Championship opportunity against the titleholder of his choice at WrestleMania XXIV on Sunday, March 30, in Orlando, Florida... but which champion will he choose to face? Will he go after the WWE Championship – currently held by Randy Orton – and look to regain the title he never lost in the ring from a man who never beat him for it? Or will Cena look to conquer a different mountain and challenge an old foe, World Heavyweight Champion Edge, or a new kingpin, ECW Champion Chavo Guerrero, for a title he has never worn?"
• Kane's reign "Then there’s the state of the ECW Championship held by Kane, who was also drafted over to Raw on Monday. Although ECW gained the services of United States Champion Matt Hardy, the Land of the Extreme is now left with no World Champion of their own, and only a one-in-three chance to win it back at Night of Champions... On Sunday, the Big Red Machine will defend the title in a Triple Threat Match against Big Show and Mark Henry. While the World's Largest Athlete remains on SmackDown, the World's Strongest Man was pulled to ECW in Wednesday's Supplemental Draft, and is that brand's chance to bring the title back to the Land of the Extreme. But, if Triple H, Edge and Big Show have an extremely good Night of Champions, SmackDown General Manager Vickie Guerrero could conceivably find her brand the home of all three World Championships, with both Raw and ECW left out in the cold."
• Morrison's reign (Fast Forward to 3:30) "These accolades are only fitting of a true champion, and I have an accolade that very few people in sports entertainment can claim. I am a World Champion. I am the new face of ECW. I am the ECW World Heavyweight Champion."
• Henry's reign (Fast Forward to 0:25) ''There is a lot of talent in the ECW locker room, but I am a twelve-year veteran. This is my first World Heavyweight Title and I'll tell you one thing, it's going take a more powerful man than I am to take this title out of my hands."
• Hardy's reign "The greatest achievement, however, came in 2008 when Matt triumphed in a Championship Scramble Match to capture the ECW Title; his first taste of World Championship gold."
• Hardy's reign continued "After the contest was unscrambled and the winner was clear, Matt Hardy stood victorious as the new ECW Champion in the opening Scramble Match at Unforgiven... After a passion-driven, career-long hunt to possess a World Title, the deliverer of the Twist of Fate has found himself atop the mountain in the Land of the Extreme."
• Christian's reign "Christian’s first World Title comes after a journey that expands well beyond his two months in the Land of the Extreme. "
• Christian's reign continued (Fast Forward to 0:55) "This is the first of three World's Championship matches here at SummerSlam as Captain Charisma electrifies the Staples Center here at SummerSlam."
• Christian's reign continued (Fast Forward to 2:15) "Josh, to illustrate the global impact of this contest, if William Regal wins the ECW Championship he'll become the ninth non-US born superstar to capture a World Title in the last 15 years. The WWE has certainly gone global and who better to wear the crown than William Regal"

Once again, WWE recognized the ECW title to be a world heavyweight championship throughout its existence until the discontinuation of the brand, which resulted in all references pertaining to ECW being removed from WWE programming soon thereafter. However as noted above, this is called retconing and it is something Wikipedia policy prohibits in this scenario for the purpose of historical accuracy.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the WWE has fully retconned the World Title status of the ECW Championship yet, they're very selective when it comes to referring who they mention as a World Champion(via ECW Title) and who isn't. For example; Christian and Matt Hardy are not recognized as World Champions, and then there's Kane who was simply referred to as having won his 2nd World Championship after a decade during the MITB PPV. But in the same PPV, Michael Cole himself has stated that:

"And even more for someone like the Big Show, perhaps given the opportunity to win a sixth World Championship."

And then much later into the match after incapacitating Christian and Matt Hardy:

"The strength of the Five-Time World Champion."

Obviously recognizing The Big Show's reign as ECW Champion as a World Championship accomplishment by stating that he is currently a 5-time Former World Champion(1-time ECW, 2-Time WWE, 2-Time WCW), while completely ignoring Kane, Christian, and Matt Hardy's reigns as ECW Champions.

WWE's failure to recognize

We have to face the music now, as Wikipedia has to be as reliable and accurate as possible. Sure, there are past articles and television programming where WWE recognizes the title, but there are recent examples where ECW Championship reigns are not recognized (wrestlers' ECW Championship reigns being deducted from the overall world title figure given, former ECW Champions not being recognized as world champions at all). I'm not suggesting that we alter the opening sentence in any way, as it was at one time recognized by WWE as a world title. But to close the lede, I propose something like: "although there are past examples of WWE recognizing the ECW Championship as a world title, it has, in recent years, failed to recognize many wrestlers' reigns." The retconning argument doesn't really stand up, because WWE isn't changing storylines: it's simply withdrawing recognition of the ECW Championship as a world title. Let's now go about correcting the article. Jplarkin (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A week has elapsed. Should there be no further contribution to this discussion by 18 November, I will assume that nobody takes issue with the above, and will go about correcting the article. Jplarkin (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason no one has commented is because someone already argued what you argued a few months ago and we came to the conclusion that unless WWE outright states that the ECW title wasn't a world championship, there is simply overwhelming evidence to support the ECW title is a world title. Finally, retconning doesn't only apply to "storylines." Retconning is defined as the deliberate change in previously established facts. We've already supplied the sources from WWE themselves of all "questionable" ECW reigns clearly referring to the title as a world championship. Also take in consideration that most arguments brought here usually involve the misinterpreted use of term "world heavyweight champion" in "sources" when they were actually referring to the World Heavyweight Championship instead. There currently simply aren't any valid reliable sources to support the ECW title not being a world championship other than of course opinion. Once again, unless WWE outright states that the ECW title wasn't a world championship, we're practically chillin'.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

3bulletproof16, does this fill the requirement for WWE stating the ECW title was not a world championship? http://www.wwe.com/superstars/smackdown/christian/christian-retrospective. Note that in the second section, they state they caught up with Christian "Less than 24 hours after capturing his first World Title." Now although they are referring to the World Heavyweight Championship, WWE chose those specific words: world title. Also, towards the end of the article, WWE states that Christian "...finally elevated himself to the next level – a level his friend Edge was accustomed to being." If the ECW championship was regarded by WWE as a world title, why would they say Christian was not at the same "level" as Edge until after winning the World Heavyweight Championship? HidyHoTim (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, because...

A) WWE nor the source you provided have explicitly said the title was not a world title

B) the term "World Title" in the manner and context in which it is used within the WWE.com article you provided is ambiguous as it can also be interpreted as refering to the World Heavyweight Championship in particular (see World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)#Historical lineage) - in other words this was his first reign with the World Heavyweight Championship

and C) this WWE.com article on the results from Backlash 2009 states the following... The self-proclaimed new face of ECW has had a shadow following him named Christian since Captain Charisma returned to WWE. At Backlash, Jack Swagger’s worst fear was realized when the returning Superstar pinned him to become new ECW Champion in front of a sold-out Dunkin Donuts Center packed with "Peeps." Christian’s first World Title comes after a journey that expands well beyond his two months in the Land of the Extreme. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 10:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Deactivated WCW Championship Counting As A World Champion In The WWE

When Booker T came back to the WWE they were calling him a 6 time world champion because he held the WCW championship 5 times so I want to know why they recongnize him as a world champion when the WCW championship was deactivated. Then what is the point of being ECW champion then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyTheGamer (talk • contribs) 06:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WWE amalgamates the history of the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) with the history of the Big Gold Belt that represents it. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)