Learning to break kayfabe
Join Date: Jun 2012
Re: Would one World Title really be better for WWE?
I don't think there is any argument against merging the titles. The brand split is dead and the WWE roster is basically the same size as the TNA roster was about a year ago before Pritchard's purges. Of course, the size of the roster shouldn't determine how many World Titles you have anyway. The only way it makes sense to have multiple "World Champions" in the same company is if you have a brand split and are 100% committed to that split (WWE in 2003). Even then, its probably better for the quality of the product and the prestige of the World Title(s) to have a single World Champion as WWE did for the first 6 months or so of the split. When WWE went to 2 titles, they had the deepest roster they ever had and even then they quickly ran out of fresh matches. Brock Lesnar, Undertaker, Kurt Angle and Big Show basically feuded with each other for the title on Smackdown for a year. Chris Benoit was also a credible challenger, but after that nobody else was at World Title level on the Smackdown roster (Eddie won the title fresh off a midcard feud with Chavo in early 2004 when they abruptly and nonsensically moved Benoit to Raw). On Raw, Triple H spent 2003 feuding with ex-WCW wrestlers that weren't worthy challengers in bad matches and then went back to feuding with Shawn Michaels just as he did in late 2002. Since Jericho wasn't turning face, WWE ran out of fresh title matches on Raw as well.
The only companies that have had 2 World Titles were WCW between the NWA Title Tournament (the 1992 G-1 Climax) and Hogan arriving and WWE for the last 10 years (and also during the Invasion). WCW scrapped the 2 title idea in 2 years. Its taken WWE over a decade and they still haven't figured out what it took WCW 2 years to figure out.