Title Prestige?

I've always wondered, what makes a title more prestigeous, or important? Is one person holding the title for months and months beneficial to the title? Its showing a strong champion, but it also makes the title look bad because no one is able to beat that person. Or on the other hand, a title with week reigns where the title constantly swaps. This shows that the title is so important that everyone is at the level able to beat others...Or does it make the title look shit because anyone can win it?

Long reigns increase the presitige because it shows the best has the Title. I think when anyone can win it it loses prestige, because its no longer the best holding the title, its someone as good as the next guy, which doesnt necessarily make you good.

What about the Hardcore Title anyone Can Win that belt And Hornswoggle won the cruserweight belt.And back in the day the women's title was defended by winning bikini contests and bra and Panties matches yet people claim the divas title is a joke when it's a fresh start for the divas.

but it can also be seen to elevate the title as well- a long reign can also indicate no competition (see Trish Stratus in 2005), whereas a short reign can show strong competition in the division, showing that everyone could be the best, therefore the title is important as its difficult to hold onto it

But when Trish stratus was the women's Champ in 2005 she was injured half that year and was out for months she only defended it against Christy Hemme and Victoria.So that really doesn't make her a strong champion.

I believe it is a combination of the length of the reign as well as how interested fans are in the stories behind the championship itself.

The problem with short reigns is that it can make the holder look weak. Like Big Show, this giant dominating force, holds Intercontinental Title for 4 weeks and loses it to someone half his size. In my opinion, that lowers the prestige of the title.

The Champion makes the title. We're talking about the title itself, when its the champions who determine the prestige. If the champion does badly, it relfects bady on the title, especially in a long reign, because it makes it seem like everyone is performing badly.

Thats why the World title is nothing. In 2004, I would easily say that the World Heavyweight Title was more important than the WWE title because we had Triple H holding it while he fued with the likes of Shawn Michaels, Goldberg, etc. The title even got elimination chamber matches for numerous years.

But now, the likes of Ziggler, Swagger and Khali have held it. Ziggler and Swagger deserve it, but the build up was shit. Edge has had too many reigns and hasn't done much for the title to bring it back to where it was in 2004.

I agree. Swagger's reign came out of nowhere. I mean, in the space of 3 weeks he went from jobber effectively to winning Money in the Bank and then World Heavyweight Champion. Made it seem like a jobber could win the title.

Ziggler's case was similar, although he was actually competing for the World Heavyweight Championship. But he didn't win it, and within a couple of hours of bring awarded the title, he lost it. That did nothing for Ziggler or the World Title, just Edge.

In Khali's case, it was very random, and whilst it did elevate Kane for a while, all it really did was allow Batista to get back into the title picture he had been forced out of because of the stipulation in his match with Edge. So that stip lasted about two weeks if I remember correctly, and allowed Batista to feature in every title match, bar Edge's cash in, that year.

None of those scenarios helped the title. But as you said, When Triple H was defending against Goldberg, Shawn Michaels and, dare I say it, Chris Benoit, the title defintely was a lot more prestigeous.

I wish they'd get rid of the US and World title. Last night it really irritated me watching a build-up promo for the WWE championship followed by a MITB qualifier for the World title. How stupid?!

There really isn't a need for two titles any longer.