Talk:Number of World Heavyweight title reigns in professional wrestling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Professional wrestling This article is part of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Number of World Heavyweight title reigns in professional wrestling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

This list of champions needs to be fixed--JB 11:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] GHC, 1PW, & CZW World Titles

OK, seriously, these titles need to be added. There is absoultely no reason why they shouldn't be at this point. Arc

Maybe because none of them are world titles? That's a very good reason. Just because a indy fed says their title is a world title doesn't make it so. And yes, all 3 of those are just indy feds. TJ Spyke 22:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All the GHC titles have been defended outside of Japan, including the heavyweight title in Ring of Honor recently. I wouldn't consider NOAH just an Indy fed. CZW and 1PW I understand, but NOAH has had their championships defended in Japan, England, Mexico and the US. --WarEagleRK 8 December 2006

[edit] official title reigns

Can we just put in official title reigns only please--JB 06:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not been doing edits to wrestling articles of late, but I had to do some edits to correct some revisionist history on this page I created when I saw it. If you look at the history records and add up the titles, Ric Flair held a version of the recognized by Pro Wrestling Illustrated a total of 22 times, not 16 as World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) claims. That is why I reverted that back to the original.
As for Ted DiBiase, he bought the title and did hold it whether WWE says so or not. Larry Zbysko did a similar thing with the NWA National Heavyweight Championship and he is in their title history. I think DiBiase held the title because you have to hold a title to be stripped of it. That is my humble opinion on the matter.
Just keeping "official" title reigns knocks Flair down 6 reigns just because that is what WWE says. WWE does not have the right to do some revisionist history on titles it did not control until the acquisitions in recent years. They do have the right to have a say about DiBiase, but as I said, he had to be stripped of the title and that means he had to hold the title in order to be stripped of it. --phatcat68 21:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
WWE does not claim DiBiase as a former Champion. From everything I have read PWI has never recognized any titles from Japan as World Titles. It should also be noted that they stopped recognizing the NWA title as a World Title after the WCW Title was created, making Flair's 16 reigns correct. (The footnote is also incorect. Flair called himself the 16 time World Champion in WCW.) Further more, they did not recognize the ECW Title as a World Title untill Tazz's first reign when ECW secured a national TV deal. Currently, as stated in recent issues, they only recognize the two Titles from WWE. --67.175.8.60 08:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point however even Ric Flair has never claimed that he was a "22 time" world champion. Going back to his days in WCW, but I can see how technically he is a 22 time champion. As far as Ted Dibiase, he has never been recognized as a World Champion by any organization, and the opinion of whether he was or not is actually irrelevant. When you look at what happened, Andre was actually the one stripped of the title since Dibiase never "officially" held it. I think the case that was made was that the title was simply delcared vacant but Andre was still awarded the victory over Hogan.

What about the Global Honored Crown of PW NOAH?

From the way I understand it PWI considers the New Japan, All Japan, and NOAH Titles to be regional or international titles, but not World Titles. For instance, they call the current NWA title the NWA Heavyweight Title, not calling it a World Title. They call New Japan's Title the International Wrestling Grand Prix Heavyweight title, not giving it World Title status, but not denying it International Title Status (if that means anything). They are very specific in their wording of what titles are what (to them).--Talison 08:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The GHC title has never actually been defended outside of Japan, in fact it's rarely been defended outside of Tokyo if I remember correctly, so no matter PWI's exact system for recognition it could never be a world title. --Kiltman67 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the GHC title has been defended in ROH recently, would that change it's status? --WarEagleRK 26 November 2006

Why isn't Shane Douglas' 3 reigns as ECW World champion being recognized on this page? He is just listed as 1 time NWA champion. Douglas held the ECW title after it gained world title status 3 times.--WarEagleRK 26 November 2006

Granted World Title status on August 27, 1999 by PWI. Championship reigns before this date aren't considered world championships. Secretaria 12:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So PWI is the authority? PWI didn't recognize the WCW international or the NWA title after 1991 as world titles they were just listed as "NWA champion" and "WCW International champion". Those titles weren't recognized world titles at the time. Much like the the WWWF title from 1971-1983, as they were NWA members and PWI didn't just listed them as "WWWF champion" instead of WWWF World champion. This would mean 2 Flair title reigns, Barry Windham, 3 Rick Rude, 2 Sting,& Hase would all lose title reigns.--WarEagleRK 28 November 2006

PWI recently (a few months ago I think) said they had given world title status back to NWA and applied it ot previous champs, they also said they were giving world title status back to wrestlers who held the WWWF title between 1971 and 1983. I'm not sure about WCW International though. TJ Spyke 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, can someone answer why a mostly kayfabe magazine would be the bible on what is determined a world title? And if so, then the WCW International title should lose World title status as would the ROH title. As of earlier this year because they never listed it as a world title and rarely had their world champion ranked in their top 10, and almost never in their top 5.

Also, if PWI has gone back and recognized those mid-90's NWA champions as world champions, then the ECW title as of August 27, 1994 that grew out of Shane Douglas winning the NWA title probably should be recognized here as a world title. Raven defended it in Japan as early as 1996 and it was recognized and refered to as being a World title. Still I'm not sure where PWI is the bible.--WarEagleRK 8 December 2006

No, PWI said they were giving world title status back to those NWA champions, but not to the ECW Title (so only champions August 1999 and later count). PWI is considered the authority when it comes to this matter. And lord knows we can't just use any title that is called a world title since almost every indy fed calls their belt a world title. TJ Spyke 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
"Pro Wrestling Illustrated has historically granted world title status to the following promotions: WWWF/WWF/WWE, NWA, ECW (now defunct), AWA (now defunct, and not to be confused with post-1991 versions of the AWA), and WCW (now defunct). PWI currently differentiates between a WWE Raw World Champion and a WWE Smackdown World Champion. It does not recognize the current incarnations of the ECW or AWA titles as world titles." Is this proven? Because this has been said too many times over wikipedia, specially in this discussion page. We need to settle this quickly.Secretaria 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Can some one fix the table I tried to and had to revert it--JB 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flair's reigns

As far as I know Flair only had 6 reigns as WCW champ so I changed it, I want there to conclusive proof that Flair held it 8 times before it is changed back. I don't want dispute over this at all.

Wrestling Information Archive's title history, Wikipedia's Title History, and Flair's own Wiki Article all have him listed as an 8-time WCW champion. Clint 17:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogan

How does he have no WCW reigns, but 6 WCW international reigns? billz015

Could the word Wrestling apear in the title please? DJ Clayworth 18:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hogan is a former IWGP champion. I edited this in before, but someone edited it out.

Indeed, but that championship was won in 1983, four years before being recognized as world championship. Therefore Hogan isn't recognized as IGWP "World Champion". I won't edit it out but the criteria for this page should be discussed. Secretaria 09:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Hogan won the first IWGP "championship" in 1981. I have updated the article to reflect this information. Eric42 16:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the AWA actually recognize Hogan as a former champion? According to their official webpage they do not. http://www.awastars.com/title.htm

Actually, even on the page you linked to, he is listed twice, so the answer to your question is Yes, they do. (btw, four ~ can be used to "sign" your name.) Eric42 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think if someone had a phantom title change or a Dusty finish it would make them the champion. Like the Flair/Midnight Rider or the Flair/Veneno changes. The official NWA webpage doesn't recognize these title changes as official either. These people aren't former champions. http://www.nwawrestling.com/information/history/world/heavyweight.htm

WarEagleRK Aug 20, 2006.

[edit] World title status

The ECW World Title does not include Eastern Championship Wrestling Heavyweight Title reigns, because at its time it did not hold world status, only territorial status, this largely effects the Sandman who won one title in the Eastern, and 5 In the Extreme, thats 6 title reigns in the same organization yet only 5 are recognizable as having world status, although confusing it is fair.

If this is the case, then why are Low Ki and Xavier on the list? They held the ROH title before it attained world title status. Tromboneguy0186 18:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said for Inoki as he held the IWGP title before it became a world title. We need someone who can clarify what happens to previous holders when a title becomes a world title. With the ECW title you could perhaps argue that the Eastern and Extreme titles were different but the same cannot be said for the ROH or IWGP. --Kiltman67 17:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Only people who have won the title while it held World Title status are considered world champions. That also means some former WWWF/WWF/WWE Champions aren't consider former world champions because WWWF didn't have world title status from 1973-1981(they were stripped of world title status when they re-joined the NWA). As for Japans titles, i'm not sure whether PWI considers them World Titles since I can't find any mention of which title are world titles on their website. TJ Spyke 23:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree... there needs to be an identifiable standard set when it comes to how/when a belt is considered a World Heavyweight Title and how it retroactively affects previous holders... as in the cases mentioned, ROH, NJPW-IWGP, and WWWF/WWF/WWE all have champions listed who held the belt when it wasn't a "World Title", but ECW's champions of the sort aren't listed for a reason that isn't consistent with the examples given. Personally, I think it would be easier to just state that when a title earns World Title Status, all holders (including previous holders) are credited with World Title reigns, even if the title didn't have such status at the time. Its not as solid a method as going through and clearing out all champs who held the belt during non World Title Status periods, but its a lot simpler and devoid of controversy. I would also argue that Eastern Championship Wrestling and Extreme Championship Wrestling are the same company. All that changed was the name and the NWA affiliation. In addition, when former Eastern owner Todd Gordon filed a lawsuit against the WWE for using Eastern material with the Extreme footage on WWE 24/7 (claiming that they were separate entities and that he-- Gordon-- was sole owner of Eastern), the judge threw the suit out... Clint 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


ECW is the same company, all they did was change their name(like when WWF became WWE, it's still the same company). TJ Spyke 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This month's PWI (August 2006 cover date) gives World Title Status back to the NWA Heavyweight and Tag Team Titles. In Stu Saks editorial he discusses the history of PWI's granting World Title Status. Once again they state the only Titles ever granted status are the W/WWF/E, NWA pre 91 and now, AWA, and ECW. As I have read in many other issues as well as PWI Almanacs and special publications they do not (nor have they ever)recognize the IWGP Heavyweight, Triple Crown, GHC, or any other Japanese Titles as World Titles.--Talison 23:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Actually it apparently is effecting Shane Douglas as well. Shane was ECW champion 2 times after the change from Eastern to Extreme and was the ECW champion during the change over, but none of those are listed. WarEagleRK Aug. 20, 2006

[edit] Change of name?

I don't think the name of this article is proper. The word "Heavyweight" should be added in, because I don't see any Cruiserweight titles listed here. Also, "according to PWI" should probably be added at the end aswell. SilentRage 07:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree regarding the Heavyweight name... it's only fair considering there are no other World Titles being listed here... I'm not so sure regarding the "PWI" addition to the title, especially considering that its an independent standard. Without such standard, any promotion who claims to have a World Title would have a World Title, and we'd have to acknowledge them and clutter this page with indy wrestlers who've held a meaningless belt many times... Clint 03:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh yeah... adding "according to PWI" in the title would do just what you said. It would help make this article less clutered and prevent people from adding non-PWI approved "world titles". SilentRage 05:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
People need to read the article before editing it. If they read the article, they'll be more than aware that the standard is set by PWI, and therefore they should not include any non-PWI approved titles. You don't have to identify an official source in the title for this, but it is necessary in the explanation. I maintain that its fine as is... Clint 05:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CZW, WWA, & PWG World Titles?

On the page listed "World Heavyweight Championship", it list Combat Zone Wrestling, World Wrestling Allstars, & Pro Wrestling Guerrilla as World titles. If this is true shouldn't why are they not recognized by PWI?

The WWA World Heavyweight Title is recognized as a World Title... CZW and PWG are only listed on the World Heavyweight Championship page because they have belts they claim to be World Heavyweight Championships. Due to the fact that they are independent promotions that don't have worldwide scope (their belts aren't defended internationally, overseas, etc.), they don't qualify for World Title Status as per PWI... Clint 03:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, don't know about the CZW title but the PWG Heavyweight title has been defended in Europe at least twice. --Kiltman67 03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm wrong then... but PWI apparently still doesn't acknowledge them as World Titles. If they do, someone needs to change the article and cite the source... Clint 06:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please justfy Flair's reigns on this page

If we are going to "stretch the truth about Flair's title reigns, then you need to adjust the numbers for the other wrestlers as well. You have Flair listed as a 13 time NWA champ - it could be listed as 14. The 4 that are very questionable are the matches with Colon, Jovica, Veneno and the Midnight Rider match. This page is obviously only recognizing 3 of those matches - but which 3? Colon is listed as a 1 time champ but neither Jovica or Veneno are listed here, and Dusty is only given credit for 3 titles (his "official" number).

I'd advise signing your posts... anyway, I don't see any "stretching of the truth". Flair's reigns are listed according to each individual promotion's official title history. So what if WWE ignores that Flair won the belt in NWA 5 more times than they care to acknowledge? It still happened. If you want more detailed explanations, go to his article and read up. This is just a list of numbers, as the title says. Clint 06:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


According to the official NWA webpage Flair is a 10 time NWA champion, and the Midnight Rider, Colon & Veneno aren't former champions. http://www.nwawrestling.com/information/history/world/heavyweight.htm

WarEagleRK

[edit] Sandman

On the table, it says that Sandman is only a one time champion when it should be four, according to that note at the bottom. Speaking of that note, Sandman has only won the ECW title 5 times, not 6. I would change it myself, but all of that code looks like jibberish to me and I don't want to screw anything up. So somebody should fix that. SilentRage 05:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I fixed it myself. I guess that I didn't screw anything up after all. :D SilentRage 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The code is a pattern of columns. Its hard to get when looking at the whole picture, but if you look at the title row and the first two rows it starts to make sense... Clint 06:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FWA

On the 25/10/2002 in London England Christopher Daniels defeated Jody Fleisch & Doug Williams in a three-way match to become the first FWA British Heavyweight Champion who wasn't British. Then on 22/03/2003 at the Murphy Recreation Center in Philadelphia, PA Doug Williams defeated Christopher Daniels for the title. This match took place overseas so should the FWA British Heavyweight Championship be the FWA World Heavyweight Championship and given world title status

Sion

All you had to do was read the first paragraph on this article to answer your question. ONLY World Titles regognised by PWI are listed here. SilentRage 05:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

your right but i see what sion is saying, if the FWA Title was won overseas then it has the right to be a world title just like the ROH or WWA World Title. Chris

While that may technically be true it's easier if we just stick to the PWI recongnized titles simply due to the numerous titles that have been defended overseas of their promotion, it would be impossible to keep track of all of them.--Trick man01 11:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If I started a promotion with 6 of my friends, won the title, then drove 20 miles to Canada and defended the belt, would I be a World Champion on this page? Tino 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWWF, WWA, ECW, Noah Reigns

A few quick comments (and I love this page, I am just trying to make it more complete). All ECW champions should probably be considerd world champions retroactively, and if you listen to current TV or check WWE.com you can see that all people who held the ECW title at one time or another are given credit as World Champ (Sandman - 5, Sabu - 2, Funk - 2, by the way, if you don't agree with this, Funk should still be a 2 time champ on this page) Let's face it, the way many people will remember history will be by what is WWE's history, which is more powerful than PWI. I know that means we have to consider Johnny Hot Body a world champ, but oh well.

Also don't forget there was a period in the late 70's - to early 80's when PWI revoked WWF world title status, they had rejoined the NWA, but who cares for the sake of this page.

I also think if at all possible we should include the WWA Los Angeles on this page. On a worldwide basis you can make a good argument that the the WWA title was the 2nd most important belt during the late 50's early 60's. Only the NWA title carried more weight. If we are not going to count champions before the NWA, than we should still count champions from the start of the NWA. I am shocked there is no WWA LA title info on WIkipedia.

Also, PWI or no PWI, not including Noah's world title is BS. In recent years, especially during the Kobashi reign, this title was as prestigious as any in Japan.

I would love to hear others comments on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.88.18.99 (talk • contribs) .

While prestigious the title was never defended outside of Japan which is a requirement for consideration as a world title --Kiltman67 02:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's being defended in New York City this Saturday. Does that make a difference? Tromboneguy0186 07:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Technically PWI never gave ROH world title status either. TJ Spyke 19:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I know it's a bitch to prove a negative, but what evidence is there of that? Tromboneguy0186 11:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is getting a bit out of hand. We need proof!

I have noticed that alot of people on here aren't sure what is considered a true WH title and which exact champions are infact WH champs. Alot of confusion is going on! So what we NEED for this article to continue being edited properly, is documented PROOF on the guidelines of what PWI considers to be a World Heavyweight Champion/Championship. Please also remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~), so that we know who we are talking to. SilentRage 05:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For now though, only the people who have won the titles stated on this page(and during the periods listed) should be included. This means leaving Sandman at 1 since he only won the ECW Title once while it was a world title. TJ Spyke 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not concrete, but I sent this e-mail to London Publishing(the company prints PWI, like Ziff Davis and EGM):

  • I have a quick question, when a wrestling title gets World Title status does that apply to previous winners of the title as well? For example, since the ECW Title didn't get world title status until 1999 does that make The Sandman a 1 time or 5 time World Champion? What about the WWE Title which from 1971-1983 lost world title status?

I got this response from editor-in-chief Stu Saks: "That's an excellent question!
I confess that we are not terribly consistent on this. With ECW, we did not grant any retroactive world title status to champions prior to 1999. However, we are doing so with NWA champions who held the title during their tenure with TNA, but not before.
The WWE/F title was stripped of world title status only briefly during the mid-1980s. We have publicly stated that that was a mistake on our part.
Stu Saks."

So it would appear that WWWF/WWF Champions during 1971-1983 do have world title status, but at the moment only ECW Champion from 1999 and afterwards have world title status. TJ Spyke 01:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn... couldn't they have done something simpler and just granted such status to all champions (retroactive and future) for a World Title? And how does this affect the winners of the ROH Title? According to how it affects the AWA, NWA, and WWF champions, its definitely going to force us to edit that as well... Clint 06:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: I just realized that this qualifies as "original research" or something like that. While I find it credible if you'll show me the email (I'll go out on a limb and trust you), I don't think it classifies as anything by Wikipedia's standards... Clint 06:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PWI World Title Recognition

I saw it pointed out above, but think it needs to be restated:

While this article claims to be a list of "World" Championships recognized by PWI, PWI has only ever officially recognized five championships as World Championships (this also applies to recognized World Tag Team Championships):

  • WWF/WWE World Championship (the version currently on Raw)
  • NWA World Championship
  • AWA World Championship
  • WCW World Championship
  • ECW World Championship

The current "World" titles of Raw and SmackDown are not "officially" recognized as World Championships, but instead merely as the WWE Raw Championship and WWE SmackDown Championship respectively. It seems PWI's criteria for such recognition is: a) the title must have, at some point, been defended outside the US, and b) the organization must have a national television show. This affects every title on the list except the WCW World Title. The WWE Title from 1971-1983, as well as the WWE Titles since the Raw and SmackDown split, the NWA Title from the beginning of WCW in 1991 until the beginning of TNA in 2002, the pre-1999 ECW Title, and the AWA Title after 1992. Any other title included in the article was never "officially" recognized as a World Title by PWI. - Michael.douglas.dean 10:16 7 Jul 06

In that case, the IWGP Heavyweight Title IS a World Title, since it's been defended on foreign soil on more than one occasion and NJPW has a national show. Negating this would be rather dubious. --Voievod 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds nice and all, but how about you site your source. SilentRage 14:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ditto on the citation please (even though I think you're right on this). I'd have to argue on the RAW Championship not being a World Title since it carries the lineage of both the WCW and WWF championships that were previously declared World Titles. As for the revived ECW Championship, by that explanation it shouldn't currently be considered a World Title since RVD/Show haven't defended the belt overseas while Rhino sits with the original belt in a red bag on TNA television. Either way, with AWA having supposedly lost its status, that means the NWA belt is the sole remaining world title? I find that hard to believe, though incredible news for TNA. Clint 06:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, again from the August 2006 issue, they state bothe WWE Titles are World Titles and tat they are currently calling them (for clarity) the WWE Raw World Title and WWE Smackdown World Title while pointing out their liniage. --Talison 20:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Further reading on my part through my old PWI issues and I found this. In the PWI 20th Anniversary Special (Winter 1999) there were the results of a readers poll. Question 44 was "Who was the greatest wrestler never to hold a World Title?" The Reader's Pick was Rick Rude. The magazine then states that they think Rude would disagree with this since he held the World Class Title and the WCW international Title, but since PWI didn't recognize either of them as World Titles they maintained his eligibilty for the question and said that there was no shame in him being "The Best of the Rest."--Talison 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, I don't know if my opinion counts, but I just wanted to say that, personally, I think the whole PWI thing just needs to be dropped. Let's add all of the ECW champions (at least, all of the Extreme champions, not Eastern since I agree that it was purely regional at that point) and other titles that are called World Heavyweight (if they have been defended outside the US at least). I think this will help this page and make it look so much better. Most people won't care anything about the PWI deal and may even be confused. Eric42 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically a decision has to be made as to wether to use PWI as a standard or not. Many use PWI since it is a stndard and then not every Indie promotion can claim they have a World Title. It's a valid arguement. Others might simply not care what PWI thinks. Also a valid arguement. But this article at current does not reflect PWI's Title recognitions while claiming to. It more reflects major companies that have claimed World Title Status for themselves. --Talison 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The very reason why I think it should just be dropped and all World Heavyweight Titles should be added. From reading other comments here, I got the idea that there's more info than PWI has ever mentioned anyway. Eric42 22:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with all of this, is that if we drop the PWI recognision, then anybody can add any world title from any company. The list would be huge. But I have a compromise, what if we list only the titles that PWI lists, but we don't go by when they consider them champions? So ECW would be a World Title, but all ECW champions would be world champions. ---SilentRAGE! 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding in any title that claims world title status would not be a good idea, there are dozens of indy feds that call their main title a world title. PWI is accepted as the leading authority by both fans and those in the wrestling industry itself, that is why we use them. Also, PWI has since said that WWWF Champions from 1971-1983 have been given World title status, but only wrestlers who won the ECW Title after August 1999(including Taz) are considered World Title reigns. TJ Spyke 00:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
However, PWI should not be the single difinitive source of information. They were wrong their latest Almanac (2006 edition) in which they say Hulk Hogan was the first IWGP Title champion, when instead, he was just the winner of the first IWGP tournament, before there was a title. Eric42 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider this a mistake. They also list the other tournament winners from before it was a standard Championship Title. Some people consider this part of the history of the title (the title having existed in two different forms) and some don't. PWI abviosly does. --Talison 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the issue in front of me, but PWI listed all the titles they consider to have World Title status and ROH wasn't there. I haven't read it in a few months though, so they may have changed that. I think part of the reason is that it's hard to justify giving world title status to a promotion that doesn't even have a TV deal. TJ Spyke 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOAH's GHC and 1PW Titles?

If I'm not mistaken, they both were successfully defended overseas recently and no one has added them to the World Title page. But you have the WWA up there??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.32.158 (talk • contribs).

WWA was in many countries(including the United States, Australia, United Kingdom, and New Zealand) and was also on PPV. I don't think PWI ever declared the ROH Championship a world title either, but i'm not a regular reader of PWI so I don't know for sure. TJ Spyke 19:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Did WWA had a TV deal? If not, it probably should not be considered a World Title. The same would go for ROH. For consistency and to narrow down the article, the only championships that should be considered world titles should be the ones that were sucessfully defended overseas and regularly on TV.Secretaria 20:00 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if WWA had a TV deal or not, but they did do PPV's in several countries and were available to everybody (unlike ROH, which requires you to buy DVDs to watch them). I don't think PWI ever callde ROH's title a world title either. TJ Spyke 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been said a dozen times in this disscussion page that the ROH title isn't considered a world title by PWI. We have to start considering deleting it from this page or else we'll have to add the GHC and 1PW titles for consistency. Secretaria 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AJPW World Title Status

I don't think the AJPW Championship was ever defended outside Japan, so I don't think it should have world title status. Secretaria 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're correct in that the Triple Crown was never defended outside Japan but the three titles that compose it were which I'd assume was used as the basis for it's world title status. --Kiltman67 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
But since the three titles you talk about aren't world titles should we mantain its status? Secretaria 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously PWI recognise it as a world title which seemingly should be enough to keep it in the article, I was merely suggesting how it qualified in their eyes. --Kiltman67 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
So you can confirm the title is recognized by PWI? There seems to be some doubts about that fact in this disscussion page. I've never read it, but that's true then problem solved. Secretaria 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Column

How about a column for the number of types of titles. Like, Ric Flair would get 4. I want to add this in, but I want some consensus from you guys first. ---SilentRAGE! 15:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the board is too big as it is and, right now, is not that hard to see that flair, for example, has 4 different world title reigns. Secretaria 19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ROH and WCW International Titles

I may sound repetitive, but I don't think we have a final answer on the status of these titles. I've personally never read pwi magazine, but it has been claimed by this discussion page that neither of this titles are, as of now, recognized as world titles. Is this right and can someone confirm this? If they're not, should we delete them or add the much discussed GHC and PW1 titles who have a similar status as the ROH championship? Also, since wwe now owns wcw and doesn't consider the wcw international title to be a world title, maybe we should delete it. Tell me what you think? Secretaria Edited: 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anything will happen, but I e-mailed PWI asking them if they ever declared them world titles, and asking them to state in their magazine or website all the titles they consider to have world title status. TJ Spyke 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I finally found proof that wwe recognizes the wcw international championship as a world title. It seems they just don't recognize Flair as one of the champions. His first reign is disputed (see the topic below) and his second reign only lasted a second. Here it is:

Secretaria 07:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WWE ignores 6 of Flair's title reigns. They also ignore Bob Backlund losing the WWF Championship to Antonio Inoki. TJ Spyke 07:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I know, I just thought that the reason they didn't recognized his wcw international reigns as world championships was because wwe didn't considered the championship to be a world title. Secretaria 11:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WCW International Championship reigns

I know this isn't the right place to discuss this, but I figured I would get a faster answer on this discussion page. The list of WCW International World Heavyweight champions page says that wcw left the nwa on the same day rick rude beat flair for the nwa champioship. From what I understand this means that rude was the first wcw international world champion, meaning that flair was not the first champion. Can someone reply and answer this? Should Flair be a two time or one time wcw international champion? I have some sources to back me up:

Also should Rude's third reign be recognised?

You can reply on the wcw international championship discussion page. Secretaria 07:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabu

Shouldnt Sabu be on here? Won the ECW title twice and the NWA title once? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.147.147 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

He is, he is a 1 time world champion since his ECW title reigns were before it got world title status. TJ Spyke 00:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I did my research via numerous forums and was told that it due to him winning it and it being a world title its two world title reigns so I changed it feel free 2 change it back thought User:pastie252
Whoever told you that is wrong (finding "info" on forums is usually not a good idea). PWI does not consider ECW title reigns prior to August 1999 as world title reigns. Sabu won the ECW title before it was considered a world title. TJ Spyke 06:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies

Page has serious inconsistencies. I don't read PWI, so for these world title reigns, I go here, but even here it seems twisted. It says in the description that the current incarnations of ECW and AWA world titles are not considered world titles by PWI, yet they're on the table of active titles with world status list. I of course don't follow the magazine to know what's recognized and what is not, there's got to be some information out there to clear this up. TonyFreakinAlmeida 04:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Setting the record

OK. Here's what we have so far in this debate.

  • Any promotion can easily claim that their top title is a World Title. To avoid the excessive inclusion of vanity titles, we have to have a certain definition of what is a true World title. Being the best known independent magazine that respects kayfabe, the recognition of Pro Wrestling Illustrated was chosen (the reasons why more general dirtsheet mags like Wrestling Observer are not used is unknown at this time, and may be a source for debate). However, we have seemed to deviate somewhat by including non-American promotions (It's really apparent that PWI focuses on American wrestling) such as the titles of top-tier promotions of Japan and Mexico, as well as including those from leading independent circuit promotions. Some have advocated that we should strictly go by PWI guidelines (which would effectively put six or seven titles in this list), while others say that we should really go by this latter method as it is more true to what is considered the leading promotions, supporting the view that the top titles of leading promotions should appropriately get World Title status. Others say that international defense should be the only requirement to World Title status.
    • Proponents of the "pure PWI" approach claim that it is the only way in which such a list is verifiable, as it is solely based on a secondary source. However, it lacks comprehensiveness.
    • Proponents of the "leading promotions" approach claim that it is a product of the consensus process. However, it lacks verifiability, as no other authority at the present time can conclusively show that these promotions are in fact leading promotions.
    • Proponents of the "international defense" approach claim that only through this means does the "world" part have any true meaning. However, this leads to smaller promotions claiming World Title status, not all of which can be independently verified.
  • Any promotion with a World Title and a top tag team title has the tag team title also granted World Title status. There have been no promotions under the above criteria which places more value on their top tag team titles than their top heavyweight titles, so we assume that this is a necessary and sufficient condition.
  • As for the reigns considered to be World Title status, those of the "strictly PWI" camp prefer "strictly PWI" recognition of reigns - that is, it's only considered a World Title reign if they won the title during the period in which PWI recognizes the title as a World Title, in accordance to PWI's own title histories. Others prefer official title recognition based on reigns recognized by their home promotions, regardless of whether PWI considered the title a World Title or not, just so long as it has been recognized as such in the past.
    • Proponents for PWI histories use it for consistency with how PWI computes title reigns. Critics say that it is not independently verifiable, especially when PWI title history and promotion title history conflict.
    • Proponents for official title histories prefer a more historical approach - how a title can gain world title status, and properly honoring all champions past and present that make it happen. However, critics can claim "revisionist history" in official title histories, which boils down to a verifiability debate (which is more verifiable - kayfabe or an "what really happened from a kayfabe perspective" - where neither the promotion nor the independent authority can truly be accurate).
  • The general consensus is that the top titles of WWE (all three brands), WCW, TNA (ie. the NWA championship), and AWA will be included regardless of whatever consensus is come up. As a bit of semantic difference, PWI uses Raw and SmackDown! world titles purely to disambiguate between the WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship (and their respective tag title counterparts). The fact that two titles have changed shows does not weaken the claim of Batista and John Cena to their World Titles, who held the titles in the interim that both were on Raw, nor does it strengthen the claim of Orlando Jordan, who held the WWE United States Championship (what was effectively the top remaining belt on SmackDown!) at the time. This also does not imply that Batista and Cena held two separate reigns during which the belts changed shows - one for their tenure on Raw and one for their tenure on SmackDown!.

Points up for discussion folks. A cleanup is inevitable. kelvSYC 07:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of the PWI recognition. But simply put we need to choose something. If the article is to be left in it's current form than saying that we are using PWI's recognition is false. The article contradicts itself right now and that's not good from any point of view. --Talison 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well for one thing, I believe this page should only be for PWI-Recognized world titles, and as some have brought up on this page, a couple of these titles aren't PWI-recognized world titles, and IMO, the page has to also be renamed, and also since you can't really publish total opinion on this web site without people bringing the rules into play, it should remain a page that's official to one source, I'm a big fan of the international defense claim, so that would mean even if titles that have claimed such status may not even have PWI's oh so "prestigious" status, because to me from a lot of what I've read, PWI isn't really the "unbiased" judge that many claim them to be, I have my own definition for world titles in the professional wrestling industry that I may post on my user page, but seriously this page needs some work done to make it a little more legitimate as it is very contradictory. TonyFreakinAlmeida 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

PWI is considered the most trustworthy, and are a reliable source. I also don't think that just being defended internationally makes a title a world title. I live about 2 hours from the Canadian border, so would any of the local feds get world title status from crossing the border and defending their main belt? I will check PWI, maybe e-mail them, and see for sure what they consider world titles. Then I will maybe bring this up at WP:PW. TJ Spyke 06:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean but that's not where I'm getting it, just a simple crossing from US to Canada or vice versa for a title defense I wouldn't consider a world title, more a North American or Continental title, because you're basically just going from one part of the continent to another. ROH however has had their title defended across both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, in a way they've hit 3 major points of the globe with the title, and also defended in Canada, Austria, Switzerland and Mexico during Aries' reign, and they are on the Fight Network in Europe so some friends have told me. PWI is basically all about the promotions who have the TV deals either nationally(several in Japan) or Globally/Internationally(WWE/TNA off the top of my head), and many of those are the ones who have world status, and that is where I'm getting at with the claim that PWI being the most trustworthy, PWI's status isn't really the most important thing to professional wrestling promotions these days, because now it really doesn't matter if the promotion can just claim these status themselves and not have to worry about what someone else thinks, but there are promotions who have genuinely made the effort of having their titles "defended" around the world, and that's where I think some are getting dissed. TonyFreakinAlmeida 03:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


"PWI is considered a legitimate, unbiased, and independent authority on who really has a World Title and who does not."

PWI was never unbiased. They rigged their voting for their awards every year to allow for people they were on good terms with to get the majority of the awards. Even their voting was kayfabe. They made up their own articles and interviews a lot of the time. When Vince McMahon started not allowing them access to their shows in the mid 80's, suddenly their big awards almost always went to NWA guys because they made up the voting. PWI was covered with bias. PWI is an artifact in wrestling these days. It started dying with the birth of the internet and the rise of the sheets and it's not coming back. If in 1985 you had said we should use this as the bible, I would agree. However in 2007 it's just not valid.

The GHC title deserves recognition. It's the title of the largest company in Japan this decade, it has been defended outside of Japan and draws the largest crowds of any company in Japan. It also has the most visibility of any title in Japan across the world. It's far more of a "World title" today than the Triple Crown or the IWGP title ever were in their entire existance.

Also, I disagree with ECW getting recognition only as of August 99. ECW had exposure on regional cable as early as 1994 in the US reaching most of the country by 1996. The title was defended in Japan as early as 1996 and it's "world title" status started from the lineage of the NWA title 5 years to the day that PWI gives it credit for being a World title. If status isn't given back to 1994 when it was established or 1996 when it was an international title, it should at least start in 1997 when it went nationwide on PPV. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with PWI being the bible as it pertains to this discussion. Kayfabe died years ago as did that magazine's rep of being the #1 source for wrestling. WarEagleRK 03:02, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claims about PWI are BS and unsourced. The GHC title is not even close to being a world title since it is rarely ever defended outside of Tokyo and not even close to the legitimacy of the IWGP or Triple Crown titles. The ECW Title was not a world title until August 1999. We use PWI because they are respected and independant. We will not drop them, since then everything would be OR. We can't include every title that just because a promotion calls it a world title (half of the indy belts call themselves world titles), and just being defended outside of the country isn't good enough either for reasons already discussed. PWI is what we use, and we will not drop them just because you don't like them (and because the entire article and others would be in danger of being deleted as OR). TJ Spyke 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raven

Why aren't Raven's 2 ECW World Titles recognised and only his NWA? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.240.104.109 (talk • contribs).

Do people not bother to check the notes section first? ECW title reigns before August 1999 are not considered world title reigns. TJ Spyke 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to be uncivil, but I seriously don't get how so many people miss this in the article. Jeff Silvers 18:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Jericho?

Listed as 3-time world champ including the WWE title (undisputed reign) and 2 WCW reigns? I'm not an expert but I think that's completely fabricated as far as WCW goes. STFmaryville 01:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? He won the WCW Title on October 26, 2001. Then he won again on December 6, 2001. That same night, he defeated Steve Austin to win the WWE Title (and unify the two titles). That means he is a 3 time world champion. TJ Spyke 01:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had forgotten the WCW title being defended in the WWF that year. It is ridiculously confusing trying to remember the difference between the WCW belt in WWF and the newer WWE World belt. STFmaryville 23:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Just remember that the current World Heavyweight Championship (on SD) technically has nothing to do with the WCW Title other than having similiar designs, they don't share the same title history. TJ Spyke 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/u/m/Talk%7ENumber_of_World_Heavyweight_title_reigns_in_professional_wrestling_1577.html"