If I really don't like someone, I call them a Tony Schiavone.---Ron Funches
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Washington D.C.
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.