Talk:List of ECW World Heavyweight Champions

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WWE's page on the history of the ECW title lists Shane Douglas as the first champion. (source). What happened is Douglas won the NWA title and then threw it down and proclaimed himself the ECW (E stood for Eastern at the time). So my question is, if this is the page about former ECW champions, why are several people included before Shane (Appearently NWA champions?) in the list? Romis 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this title also follows the history of the original Eastern Championship Wrestling Heavyweight Championship. The title then became the Eastern Championship Wrestling World Heavyweight Championship when Shane Douglas won the tournament but relinquished the NWA belt. It later became the Extreme Championship Wrestling World Heavyweight Championship after ECW left the NWA and changed its name. This article follows the belt's entire history from the days of the old Eastern Championship Wrestling, whether WWE.com chooses to recognize those champions or not. --

3:16 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, ok. I was under the impression that Shane Douglas was the first Eastern Championship Wrestling World Heavyweight Champion after proclaiming himself such, throwing down the NWA belt. Romis 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- The title RVD was awarded on June 13 2006 is not the same as the WWE Championship. He was awarded the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, the same one with the same lineage as this article. It's clear as day now, please stop removing his name. -- —The preceding

Some people just don't understand that, if you don't know something 100%, then you don't edit it in. SilentRage 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page marks reigns as unrecognized by the WWE even though the WWE website clearly has all the names of the winners after Shane Douglas. This page makes it seem as if they pick and choose who they recognize. Look at wwe.com to see.

--68.193.135.2 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The daggers for reigns after Shane Douglas signify the amount of reigns if one were to include title victories from Eastern-CW; for example, by WWE's policy (recognizing only title reigns from Extreme-CW),
  The Sandman is only a 4-time champion. However, counting his one Eastern title reign, he is a 5-time champion. Therefore: "4^(5)†" means that he is a 4-time champion, or 5-time counting unrecognized reigns. It doesn't mean that his fourth^(fifth)† title victory (over Justin Credible in the TLCC match) is unrecognized. --MarcK 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think the reigns need to be there untouched without the crosses, because WWE doesn't put the reigns in their title histories because those reigns are representative of when the title wasn't claimed to be a world title. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the WWE thinks. I'm getting rid of them. I also think WWE's ECW should get its own page for title reigns.

I disagree on the WWE ECW getting it's own separate page for title reigns, as this is the ECW title, legitimately through WWE's ownership of the titles and the name brand, this isn't like Dale Gagner "restarting" the AWA and saying the heavyweight title of his promotion is the same as the real AWA's. But if we don't give into the WWE's revisionism of the WWF Light Heavyweight Title, why do we have to give into it through the ECW title? TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me use the WWF Light Heavyweight Title page for reference here. You see those little crosses next to each title reign that WWE doesn't put on their web site? Yeah, they're really f'ing annoying, and totally unncessary. Why don't we just put a split in the title history that says, all reigns after x point are recognized by the WWE. Just as the WWF Light Heavyweight Title page has? Because we know the truth behind the WWE's revisionism, we know there were title reigns before Shane Douglas threw down the NWA title, why the hell do we have to make it look like the ECW title had all these "unofficial" title reigns and title changes. It's confusing to the community and anyone who looks up the title's history. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's owned by a different company now. and anyway, it's not even the same name. It used to be the ECW World Heavyweight Championship and now it's just called the ECW Championship. it's like the WWE Heavyweight Title, I'm pretty sure it used to be the WCW Title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.205.223 (talk) 13:45, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

It's still stupid that we give into the revisionism, even for Terry Funk's page we take the WWE's words as the official word. There's a difference between revisionism and what actually happened. The WWE doesn't recognize the Light Heavyweight Title reigns before Taka won it in their promotion, but yet we note that with just a simple split in the title history, here, we totally give into it and mark all these different reigns as somewhat unofficial just because the WWE doesn't reocgnize them anymore. Yes, they actually used to recognize them, this is stupid. TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why you're using the LHW page as a benchmark for this one. If anything I think that page should conform to this one. All the dagger means is that WWE doesn't currently recognize any of the reigns, that's it. There's even a note in the lede about it so no one gets confused. --MarcK 09:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a title that also suffered through much revisionism by the WWE. The fact is, we know there was a history before the WWE says there was and we don't give into the revisionism as much there as it is here. TonyFreakinAlmeida 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the original ECW and the ECW Brand title reigns should be separated a bit more within the article.Killhammer (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. We went through this all before. It's best that we just keep it this way. Everything is noted. There was actually a time when someone edited the page to say all the Pre-Extreme title reigns were unofficial just because the WWE said they were. Page is fine the way it is. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he highlighted and emboldened in the List of top combined reigns section?

Because he's the current champion. The current champ is always highlighted and bolded. TJ Spyke 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late response here, sorry. Thanks for the answer. That makes sense. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a footnote, similar to what we place in discographies to explain what the emdashes represent in the tables. What is obvious to some may not be obvious to others.

vecia 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Where is this vandalism? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's probablt referring to the YouTube stuff. Pigs Might Fly, this was not specific to these articles. Somebody vandalized the template itself, so all articles that use the template were affected. Its been fixed. TJ Spyke 00:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

should it not say its been vacant for so many days instead of 0 days? 89.168.135.48 (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the column is for how many days a person held the title. How many days it was vacant doesn't really matter much. TJ Spyke 16:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SHould Terry Funk get a third Title Reign listing prior to the ORiginal Deativation of the Title due to Paul Heymen declaring Him ECW Champion For life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not an official title reign.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mabey not but there are many riegns where they are not considered official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truco, who says it is not an official reign? It is should be noting at the very least.--WillC 05:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says its not an official title reign? Extreme Championship Wrestling says so, oh wait, that's right, World Wrestling Entertainment owns that now, and they say he has only two official reigns. Its not worth mentioning because its just trivial information, if by all means you can find a source for it then place it in the main article, not this list.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I checked, we were held entirely by facts, not by WWE's opinion. The fact is, that Funk was credited as a lifetime champion, so defacto he should be listed as a lifetime champion. Not apart of the history, but listed as such.--WillC 19:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's BS, a "lifetime champion"? If by all means, like I stated again, you can find the source that states it, add it to the main article and a line in the intro to this one, but not into the table itself.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable and pretty much what I was meaning. I'll do it when I update the entire article.--WillC 20:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's even worth mentioning at all as it's not an actual reign but just an honorary thing (like when a company names someone honorary chairman). It's not an actual reign. It should only be mentioned in Funk's article, MAYBE a brief 1 line mention in the

ECW Championship

article, but not this one as an honorary title doesn't belong in a list of champions. 04:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

error on entry 41 says sept 4 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.118 (talk • contribs)

Fixed, thanks. A editor added that when he decided to change the page to his template. TJ Spyke 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this too our attention. It was my mistake as I copy and pasted to keep the format continuous, I must've forgot to delete that note.--WillC 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the WWE is changing their Tuesday show on Syfy from ECW to WWE NXT, will the ECW Championship remain the ECW Championship or be retiled NXT Championship? If the title renaming is taking place, should this be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibsonj338 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see, we don't know what they are doing. Could be a renaming or could be an entirely new thing. Possibly there could be no championship involved.--WillC 20:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 12, 2009? That was a Monday, ECW was taped before SmackDown, not Raw. Or was that some special occasion I don't remember?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list contains numerous unreferenced names, and the Combined reigns section is completely unsourced. If someone competent could fix these issues that would be appreciated; a featured list review would be necessary otherwise. UnqstnableTruth, Wrestlinglover, you are both very competent about the subject, so perhaps your help would be very valuable. Wretchskull (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to put that on 10 separate lines on the table? Can't somebody make a foot note for this? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]