title turmoil

[BadNews]

As a result of the 'Jericho and the IC title' thread, there are a few things I'd like to discuss. What I'm talkin about are titles of disputed status in general and held up titles in particular.
Obviously different sources treat the same subject in different ways. For example, in case of a champion winning the rematch, Wrestling Title Histories notes the dates of the matches but treats it as one continuous reign, while The Great Hisa treats it as a new title win (and new reign) altogether.
This leads to the assumption that the latter considers the holding up to be equal to a vacancy of the championship, while the former does not.
As the aphorism goes 'Those who fill their heads too much with the ideas of others will not have room for their own'. So I'd like not to hang on to the concepts of others in these terms too strongly and discuss this topic I consider quite interesting.

[edgehead1984]

I've seen them done both ways as well, but first what does the term held-up mean, and what does it differ from the term vacated??? The discussion, IMO should start there.

[Hisaharu Tanabe]

This thread might help:
<a href='http://wrestlingclassics.com/cgi-bin/.ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003224' target='_blank'>http://wrestlingclassics.com/cgi-bin/.ubbc...ic;f=8;t=003224</a>

[BadNews]

this sorta crushes the thread. but it's nice to see how someone has exactly the same views i have.

[phil]

Here is something to thinkabout. when a title his held up there is no champion correct? From the time of the title being held up to the time of the dispute being settled there is no champion. Therefore whether the former champion wins said rematch or if the challenger wins the rematch that is a new reign. Just my two cents.

Phil

[Dan Poutsma]

In my view, there's definitely a difference between a title being "held-up" and a title being "vacant". However, it's ultimately up to the promotion/booker to decide whether or not they wanna consider a match for a "held-up" title as constituting a whole new reign for the previous champion should he win, or as a continuation of the same reign. So unfortunately, it varies on a case by case basis depending on what the mood is and which way the wind is blowing. When Flair beat Steamboat on WCW Saturday Night in 1994 to settle the dispute over their initial WCW title match at Spring Stampede, they originally recognized it as a new reign for him and billed him as a 12 time world champion (Flair had previously given the belt to Commissioner Nick Bockwinkle and ceased being announced as champion after that point, indicating that he was no longer the titleholder), but then they decided to rescind it almost immediately and went back to calling him an 11 time champion again.

[The Crowbar King]

Why did they do that with the Flair-Steamboat changes in '94? It never really made sense. I've never really been able to get a good answer to this question... And I hate the fact that there is no consistency in title changes. Jeff Jarrett gets two reigns as Intercontinental champ after the title was "held-up" in a match with Bob Holly. Same with Goldust. But there are also several examples of a wrestler not being given credit for two seperate reigns, with Flair in '94 being the coming to mind.