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

Old 11-24-2012, 06:28 PM   #53 (permalink)
Defei
Acknowledged by SCOTT STEINER
 
Defei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,468
Defei 251 - 500Defei 251 - 500Defei 251 - 500Defei 251 - 500Defei 251 - 500
Default Re: Would one World Title really be better for WWE?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripleG View Post
Yes.

The label of being a World Champion has been heavily diminished over the last few years, largely because they are much easier to get now. How can you say becoming a World Champion is that big of a deal when there is another guy in the company claiming to be World Champion? It is really weird and nonsensical, and the silliness is only enhanced by the fact that the whole reasoning for have two World Champs (the brand split) is pretty much abandoned now. It is like having an AFC Champion & NFC Champion but no Super Bowl (yes I have made that analogy dozens of times before, but I am sticking with it). I don't want a 1A and a 1B. I want an unquestioned Number One Best in the company.

Having two World Titles also makes it twice as easy to get one. When I was a kid, if you didn't win the Royal Rumble, that was that. Better luck next Wrestlemania. Nowadays, if you lose the Royal Rumble, ITS OK! You can still get a title shot in an Elimination Chamber match the next month or you can just win a Battle Royal on TV and go for the other World Title at Wrestlemania. It really doesn't matter and takes a sense of value to big victories to get to the World Title out of the equation. When one door closes, one immediately opens up. Heck look at DB this year. He loses at Wrestlemania in 18 seconds, then he loses to Sheamus again a month later. OK, so he is out of the World Title picture. But wait! He beat Jerry Lawler in 2 minutes so now he's Number one contender for the other WWE Title! It is that easy! And when guys like a complete unknown in Sheamus (back in 09) and Jack Swagger wind up winning World Titles, it really takes away what it means to be one and takes away the idea that it is a hard mantle to reach.

And lets say right now CM Punk is clearly number one and whoever the World Title holder happens to be is Number 2. Fair enough as it is certainly the case at the moment. However, why would anybody want to go for the red headed stepchild World Title when they could go for the real big boy belt? And why doesn't the WWE Champion care at all that there is another guy running around claiming to be World Champion? They don't even seem to care. I remember when Ric Flair came into the WWF in 1991 with the WCW Title and he basically told Hogan that he was the REAL World Champion and he wanted to prove it. Having two World Champions in one company was a controversy that needed to be settled, and it eventually was at Royal Rumble 92. Now it is just like everyone is totally cool spreading the wealth and sharing the spotlight instead of achieving something grand that nobody else can have.

And with the World Title being such a secondary belt, you are creating a bunch of World Champions that ARE NOT main eventers. If I have anyone tell me that Mark Henry is a main eventer after being "World Champion" I am going to scream. The guy held the unimportant belt. That's it. Sames goes for guys like Swagger, Ziggler, & Daniel Bryan who were all World Champions and yet strangely found themselves in midcard & even opening match situations constantly. So yes, we have a World Title, which is supposed to be the ultimate achievement for a wrestler, being reduced to just being a midcard title. It is so backwards. Here's my question. Why can't they do that with the IC or US Title (we only need one of those too by the way). If they elevated the IC Title up to the midcard status of the World Title and then got rid of the World Title so that the WWE Title can stand as the undisputed ultimate prize, then we'd be much better off as far as championships go and things would make a lot more sense.

The ONLY defense I have heard for having Two World Titles is with House Shows. Having two World Titles allows them to split the groups up and tour different areas. Well, they did that when I was a kid. The best example was in the Hogan/Warrior days where they had the Hogan crew & the Warrior crew. They didn't need two World Titles to achieve that. They just created big stars to carry the load. And at this point, I imagine the WWE brand will bring in those devoted fans regardless, and more casuals would be more attracted to the guys they typically see as the biggest like the Punks & the Cenas rather than the far less interesting Sheamus & Big Shows on the other side of the coin.
QFT.
__________________

Defei is offline   Reply With Quote