Talk:ECW World Heavyweight Championship

Professional wrestling Start‑class Mid‑importance

ECW World Heavyweight Championship is within the scope 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, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.