Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums - View Single Post - Would one World Title really be better for WWE?
View Single Post
post #41 of (permalink) Old 11-16-2012, 06:10 PM
Elipses Corter
If I really don't like someone, I call them a Tony Schiavone.---Ron Funches
 
Elipses Corter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 10,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
                     
Re: Would one World Title really be better for WWE?

With the roster as weak as it is, having 1 World Title would be more effective than having 2.

Remember when title matches actually meant something? When HHH/Rock would feud over the belt, they didn't have the option of failing to win 1 and trying for another. The matches meant something, the feud meant something and due to that, the title meant something.

It means shit when a guy today can feud over the WWE Title for 3 months, fail to lose and instantly feud over the WHC for another 3 months, before repeating the cycle again (see Big Show). And in the end, no stars are born from it. You don't have legit contenders anymore and challengers aren't made to look credible. IMO, CM Punk's title reign would be more impressive if he was the sole World Champion, as it cements the idea that he is the man to beat. If this was 10 years ago, an extended title reign would have made Punk an instant star, as everybody would be gunning for him and him only. Now, if you don't beat him, oh well, let's go feud with Sheamus for his belt (see Big Show).

If you want the World Champion to look legit, try having 1 World Title.
Elipses Corter is offline  
 
 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome