Is the TNA Championship considered a World Title?

Riddle101

So on this other wrestling forum I frequent, there was a thread about the TNA Championship. A lot of people don't recognise it as a proper world title. They think that the TNA title is not big enough compared to past World titles likes WWE, WHC, WCW etc. But I'm not sure myself.

In my eyes the TNA title does deseve to be considered a legit world title. I mean it has ties to the NWA Heavyweight Championship because that was the title that was used in TNA before they changed it to the TNA title. Just like when WCW used the NWA Heavyweight title before naming it the WCW title. Also TNA is the second biggest wrestling promotion in North America next to WWE, and is mainstream, and has a pretty big audience, both in America and in the UK, which generates over 1 million viewers everyweek. But apparently people still don't think it's a world title. But what are your thoughts? Is it a world title or are WWE and World Heavyweight Championships the only world titles you can get now.

jmolloy

To the best of my knowledge pro wrestling illustrated recognises it and they never recognised the WWECW as a world title so in that sense it's recognised.

Don't expect WWE to start referring to Christian as a past world champion anytime soon though

jaykhunter

Personally, yes. There are 3 recognised world titles in American wrestling today - WWE title, World title and TNA world title.

If you have a national TV deal (not esoteric cable TV deal) -which is enough in itself -- but TNA also have regular PPVs and an international deal, you can call yourself a major wrestling company and your championship is now truly a world championship.

For me, the day TNA got on Spike TV was the day their championship was truly recognised. That said, even though TNA is a much smaller company (so anything that happens there isn't as big news), the WWE and World titles have been devalued so much that they're on a par with TNA's world belt.

I know WWE's a much bigger company but Cena just wrestled for the WWE Championship at WrestleMania, WITHOUT mentioning that he is wrestling for it -- and the Royal Rumble winner just curtain-jerked mania. The WWE belts couldn't mean any less right now!

So in my eyes, the WWE, World and TNA titles are on the same plane.

IngazZagni

Of course it's a World Title and that's all I have to say about that.

parker kent

I actually personally don't view the WHC as a proper world title. A different argument, but it is basically a title for guys not being considered for the WWE Title as they are on Smackdown and "taking a break" (such as Taker who is not full time or Edge who was the only genuine star on Smackdown week in, week out) or who are being given a push on Smackdown before moving to Raw (Ziggler, Del Rio, Batista etc). Rey would never have won the WWE title for example, but the WHC was a way of giving him the number 2 title. The same way guys like him once won the Intercontinental Title.

When it was first introduced, the brand extension saw a mixture of top guys on both shows and its placement on Raw meant both were considered equal but nowadays it really is second rate.

I'm undecided about the TNA Championship. I'd lean towards no as it is still pretty minor league.

IngazZagni

parker kent wrote: »

I'm undecided about the TNA Championship. I'd lean towards no as it is still pretty minor league.

Minor league in comparison to what? You cant base something like that on how big a rival company may be. TNA is a worldwide company with its show airing around the world. International stars compete on the show. What else does it have to do?

jaykhunter

See this wouldn't be an issue if iMPACT were getting 3's in the ratings. But sure WWE used to be on Spike, and TNA have monthly PPVs and an international TV deal, and add in that WWE championships mean nothing, I dunno how u can't think it's not a world title!!

I guess denying TNA of championship status is akin to saying the WCW title wasn't a world title in 2001 when they were getting awful ratings....

It's like saying TNA aren't an international company until they have a large enough marketing budget!

Charisteas

jaykhunter wrote: »

Personally, yes. There are 3 recognised world titles in American wrestling today - WWE title, World title and TNA world title.

Wouldn't you still consider the NWA World Heavyweight Championship as a legitimate world title? It would be a shame to discount this belt as it has had such a rich history.

jmolloy

Charisteas wrote: »

Wouldn't you still consider the NWA World Heavyweight Championship as a legitimate world title? It would be a shame to discount this belt as it has had such a rich history.

Tne NWA belt stopped mattering when WCW morphed it into the big gold belt. Tna tried to make it matter again now it's just an indy belt on par with other indy belts I'd rate ROH's title over the NWA's

jaykhunter

Charisteas wrote: »

Wouldn't you still consider the NWA World Heavyweight Championship as a legitimate world title? It would be a shame to discount this belt as it has had such a rich history.

This is all my opinion btw lol

No, I wouldn't. It was a world title back in the 80s in the territorial system, and until the mid 90s when WCW dropped the association. Then the NWA became just a regional/indy title, which I'd consider it today. The fact that if I had the cash, I could legitimately rent out the NWA title for my own wrestling company is a stone-cold indicator that the title means nothing.

TNA dropped the NWA association in 2007, and gained international TV deal (Bravo) the same year....so technically it might've been a world title again for a few weeks lol.

In the current climate, to be considered a recognised world title your company needs to have :
- A national (US) TV deal in a large network in a sizeable portion of homes (~100 million)
- Regular PPVs of some kind
- An international TV deal of some kind (on a known network).

By these rules I'd also consider ROH an indy title, not a world title, since they don't have a TV deal and they didn't have a large TV deal, just a niche one with poor penetration (heh, penetration) and no TV PPV deal, and no international TV deal. I'd consider it an indy company that was on TV for a brief period.

Hope that unecessarily long-winded explanation clears it up. agree? disagree?

parker kent

IngazZagni wrote: »

Minor league in comparison to what? You cant base something like that on how big a rival company may be. TNA is a worldwide company with its show airing around the world. International stars compete on the show. What else does it have to do?

It was just a personal opinion really on TNA. To me, the prestige of a World title comes from numerous things such as longevity, reputation of the company etc. I'd put the TNA title on a par with the ECW Title, just one tier below the WWE Title and the Japanese equivalents.

For me to consider the TNA Title legitimate, I have to be sure it will exist in another 5 years. The WWF and WCW Titles had the power of history behind them. TNA doesn't and is still gaining the prestige. The fact it is booked like a €3 belt from Pennies probably doesn't help it either with me. But again I'm just giving my opinion as there can't actually be such a thing as a legitimate world title in wrestling given the lack of a controlling body.

jaykhunter

It doesn't help TNA's cause that they're booking the title into the ground since HogOff came in. We used to have longer reigns in general, but it's been car-crash booking with the title.

2008 : 2 title changes
2009 : 3 title changes
but now we've 4 title changes in the last 7 months (Hardy, Anderson, Hardy, Sting).
I think the changes are magnified because since HogOff have come in, RVD, Hardy and Anderson are all 'new' 1st time champions.

(Hardy was previously an NWA champion which I don't count since they were still an indy company imo)

It's like if since October 2010 on RAW we got Miz, Morrison, Barrett and Miz again becoming champion. Ludicrous!!

Charisteas

jaykhunter wrote: »

This is all my opinion btw lol

No, I wouldn't. It was a world title back in the 80s in the territorial system, and until the mid 90s when WCW dropped the association. Then the NWA became just a regional/indy title, which I'd consider it today. The fact that if I had the cash, I could legitimately rent out the NWA title for my own wrestling company is a stone-cold indicator that the title means nothing.

TNA dropped the NWA association in 2007, and gained international TV deal (Bravo) the same year....so technically it might've been a world title again for a few weeks lol.

In the current climate, to be considered a recognised world title your company needs to have :
- A national (US) TV deal in a large network in a sizeable portion of homes (~100 million)
- Regular PPVs of some kind
- An international TV deal of some kind (on a known network).

By these rules I'd also consider ROH an indy title, not a world title, since they don't have a TV deal and they didn't have a large TV deal, just a niche one with poor penetration (heh, penetration) and no TV PPV deal, and no international TV deal. I'd consider it an indy company that was on TV for a brief period.

Hope that unecessarily long-winded explanation clears it up. agree? disagree?

Yeah agreed, the NWA belt is no longer considered a major world championship title anymore, but I wouldn't forget about it completely as in the future is may come into prominence once again.

Don't ask me how! Maybe if the current champion (at the moment Colt Cabana) joined TNA, he would bring his title with him. Or if TNA suddenly attracted better ratings and more money, decided to do two shows a week, they could use the NWA belt on their 'B' show.

jaykhunter wrote: »

This is all my opinion btw lol

Your opinion is worth it's weight in gold brother

GTR63

I find it odd that they acknowledged flair being a 16 Time World Heavyweight Champion a lot of those were the NWA Heavyweight Championship yet Christian wins the same title yet its not even said.Fairly inconsistant by wwe who seem to believe their view on History no matter how innacurate their views may be.

Machismo Fan

jaykhunter wrote: »

It doesn't help TNA's cause that they're booking the title into the ground since HogOff came in. We used to have longer reigns in general, but it's been car-crash booking with the title.

2008 : 2 title changes
2009 : 3 title changes
but now we've 4 title changes in the last 7 months (Hardy, Anderson, Hardy, Sting).
I think the changes are magnified because since HogOff have come in, RVD, Hardy and Anderson are all 'new' 1st time champions.

(Hardy was previously an NWA champion which I don't count since they were still an indy company imo)

It's like if since October 2010 on RAW we got Miz, Morrison, Barrett and Miz again becoming champion. Ludicrous!!

It was fine up until RVD lost the title and then the Hardy turmoil threw the belt into a permanent state of uncertainty rather than just throwing it around for the hell of it. I'd imagine whoever beats Sting for the title (and I'd put my money on Anderson) is in line for a relatively long run. And in fairness Hardy, Anderson and RVD winning the TNA title for the first time is a little different from Miz, Morrison and Barrett winning it. And Hardy never won the NWA title by the way.

Charisteas

Why did TNA decide to ditch the NWA Championship belt and start using their own anyway? Surely by continuing to use the NWA championship with it's rich history and background would carry more prestige than their own 'new' world title?

jaykhunter

Ah cool. I assumed Hardy won the NWA belt as bloody Rhyno, Pretty Ricky and Shamrock held it....

Charisteas wrote: »

Why did TNA decide to ditch the NWA Championship belt and start using their own anyway? Surely by continuing to use the NWA championship with it's rich history and background would carry more prestige than their own 'new' world title?

TNA felt they had established their name/brand enough that they wanted to become their own entity, and stop paying royalties to the NWA. The same thing happened with WCW in the 90s. It's great for a wrestling company starting out, adding some kind of legitimacy to their business, but if things go well, they'll soon become bigger than what the NWA brand can offer them.

It's this kind of thing that makes me have no respect for the NWA. They're basically just a vintage car rental service, but for wrestling belts. They rent out their title to anyone that has the cash. How desperate must the NWA've been to let WWF absolutely shít on the NWA titles in the Attitude Era with Cornette, Windam, Jarrett, Ricky Morton and Mr Belding...

Machismo Fan

jaykhunter wrote: »

Ah cool. I assumed Hardy won the NWA belt as bloody Rhyno, Pretty Ricky and Shamrock held it....

In fairness, at the time all of them deserved to be champ.

gimmick

GTR63 wrote: »

I find it odd that they acknowledged flair being a 16 Time World Heavyweight Champion a lot of those were the NWA Heavyweight Championship yet Christian wins the same title yet its not even said.Fairly inconsistant by wwe who seem to believe their view on History no matter how innacurate their views may be.

Wel, the difference here is WWF swallowed up the territory system rather than compete with it. Times have a changed. WWE will never mention another US promotion. Id be surprised if they ever even mentioned any other promotion full stop.