Asking SCOTT STEINER for Wrestling Advice
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Commander's Room
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Re: Would one World Title really be better for WWE?
Title belts provide structure and hierarchy within a company.
2000 is often regarded as the WWE's best year. A big reason for that was because the roster was well organised and the fans had a general idea of where wrestlers fit within the company.
WWF Championship- Austin, Rock, Angle, Triple H etc.
Intercontinental- Jericho, Benoit, Rikishi, Eddie, Val Venis etc.
European Title- Al snow, Perry Saturn, Regal etc.
Tag Titles- Hardy Boyz, Edge and Christian, Too Cool etc.
Hardcore Title- Steve Blackman, Crash Holly, Hardcore Holly etc.
Light Heavyweight- Malenko, Scotty too Hotty, Essa Rios.
Pretty much every wrestler fit into one of these divisions nicely which gave everyone direction. It also helped the fans to understand their place in the company. Now of course some wrestlers moved across more than one division, but it was natural and not chaotic e.g. Angle moving from European-Intercontinental-WWf.
Having title belts with the same prestige like the WHW/WWE, US/IC pretty much destroys this. There are effectively two levels in the company and everyone is piled into one or the other. It's chaos. Then you have those who don't fit into either division and compete on the undercard. Hence, the current undercard of directionless talent because there are no Hardcore/European/Light Heavyweight type belts for them to aim for. Which means many stagnate and don't progress.
The belt situation is a huge problem. WWE may not value them but they're crucial for structural reasons alone.