Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, ROH, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums - View Single Post - Would one World Title really be better for WWE?

View Single Post

Old 11-16-2012, 02:49 AM   #6 (permalink)
Elipses Corter
If I do something, I do it on purpose.---New Jack
 
Elipses Corter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 9,479
Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000Elipses Corter 7501 - 8000
Default Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MickeyMouse View Post
Why this can't work:

The WWE title and IC title have been tarnished too much. If you try to make the IC title prestigious again, this just can't happen, unless you make a whole new title replacing the IC title. For example, if you give the IC title to someone like Randy Orton and make him feud with Sheamus for it, it just can't work. It seems illogical. Why would these top wrestlers fight for a title that's been easily given to fucking Santino Marella in his debut? Would that make their record better? A former intercontinental champion, a title that used to be held by an irrelevant wrestler like Kofi Kingston for 5 fucking times.

If this is the direction you guys are going to, then it's worse for the WWE title. If it's just one world title, 2 or 3 guys would be holding the belt per year, since the WWE is planning on making more long term reigns. The top stars won't benefit from this. They will hardly get the title, they'll be like Roddy Piper. Where as Cena gets it 10 times from hot potato. It just can't happen anymore. The Tag Team division will be thriving again soon, but the titles won't be as prestigious as it originally was anymore, considering all the shit champions its had for the past decade.
The bold has been pretty common in wrestling for quite sometime. Remember Sting in WCW? He was a 2 time World Champion at that point and afterwards was United States champion, having to win a tournament to get the belt. Or Ric Flair winning the IC Title in 2005? Or Shane Douglas actually feuding over the TV Title after making the ECW Title a World Title?

It can work, as it makes every belt mean something. It just means less when there is too many and you often forget who's even holding the title. With the roster so weak, just have the WWE, Intercontinental and Tag Team titles. Because surely, everybody feuding over the World Title are regarded as secondary wrestlers so just clear room and scrap the WHC. It means less when guys are given random title shots. Thats the problem.

No way in hell should a guy compete in the Royal Rumble, the Elimination Chamber a month later, a random battle royal/beat the clock challenge and possibly, MITB at WM in a span of less than 4 months, for a title shot. Kind of like Daniel Bryan. Holds the WHC for a few months, loses, gets a rematch a few weeks later, loses again and proceeds to spend the next 2 months feuding over the WWE Title. It's like there is no consequence for losing a title because you'll get countless rematches and after losing them, feud over another title. Make the Royal Rumble or MITB mean even more and only use 1 World Title.
Elipses Corter is offline   Reply With Quote