Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums

Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/)
-   General WWE (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/)
-   -   Would one World Title really be better for WWE? (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/643812-would-one-world-title-really-better-wwe.html)

wrestling immortal 11-16-2012 01:17 AM

Would one World Title really be better for WWE?
 
ive been reading this forum the last few months, and people have recommended switching back to only one world championship, but if you think about it, would it really be better for the company. Heres my thoughts:

switching back to one title could help them build the mid card a hell of a lot better, then it is now, you have a really crappy midcard roster of wrestlers which are supported with lack of storyline and poor booking. The talent in the mid card is great though, there many future champions in this company.

there would be less imidiate pushing for the world title, over the last 5 years this has been a habit which really has killed many wrestlers in the long term, we had guys like jack swaggers, sheamus and alberto del rio winning the world title in a very short period of time, and other guys like wade barret, tensai etc getting pushed to the moon with no meaning, and in the long term suffered from it, sheamus suffered after his first world title reign, but now is back to the top, jack swagger really plummeted from the top after his reign, alberto delrio no one really cares about him now after this year after losing so many times to sheamus, tensai is now a jobber really.

lets start with the negatives, i really dont believe they can switch to one world title, mainly because of how large the roster is, it is a lot larger then tna, so i dont think they can go back to one title.

the guys deserving pushes such as sheamus, daniel bryan, wade barret etc would barely ever get a push to the world title if you ask me, john cena as the face of the company he would probably get the world title at least once a year. and these guys as said before sheamus, daniel bryan,christian, etc would probably not get too many opportunities to win the world title. I honestly dont think guys like sheamus,miz and christian would be a world champion yet if there was only one title.

i think they would have to cut one of the brands off, if they did this most likely smackdown, because you cant have two brands, with one brand having no world title, and having nothing to show that somebody is on the top if they arent holding a world title.

i would personally say i wouldnt cut it into one world title, because mainly of the john cena reason and also because of the size of the roster.

gothmog 3rd 11-16-2012 01:22 AM

Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?
 
If the brand split continues to be ignored I would probably say that one world title would be better.

Regnes 11-16-2012 01:31 AM

Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?
 
Even when the brand split was in effect, we had a serious problem with all the fucking world title defences during PPVs. One title looks inferior because it's not featured in the main event, while the other one in the main event loses momentum because we already had a world title match earlier in the night, it's lose lose. Don't even get me started on the days when we had three world titles in each PPV.

Anyway, it's common sense that the closer the brands are to each other, the less we need to see multiple world titles. It was just perfect when both brands had their own roster, their own weekly show, and their own fucking PPVs.

TempestH 11-16-2012 02:21 AM

Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?
 
Is it worth having two World Titles when one of them is booked way beneath the other. Sure guys like Sheamus, Daniel Bryan, and Wade Barrett might not get pushed to the World Title if there was only one of them, but is it worth it to acknowledge them as a world champion while not even treating them like a top guy. They may have the world title, but they're still pretty much a midcarder because the WWE Champion will always be seen as more important.

And I don't think they have to worry too much about the Cena factor. John Cena hasn't been champion in over a year, and wasn't even in the title picture until last summer. I'm sure they'll just give the WWE Title to someone else while Cena does other things.

Even WITH a brand split, there should only be one world champion. The top champion should be the best guy in the entire company, not just the best guy on one show.

Having two world championships also reduces the prestige of all the other belts. Upper midcarders should not be chasing a World Title, they should be going after the Intercontinental Title, while the pure midcarders go after a 3rd tier title or compete in the tag division. Having one World Title would make the other belts more valuable again. Look back at when Miz was Intercontinental Champion. He was holding a "midcard belt", but he still carried himself like a top star. All you need to do is get rid of the World Heavyweight Championship, and put the IC belts on a top guy to make it look like a big deal.

MickeyMouse 11-16-2012 02:35 AM

Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?
 
Why this can't work:

The WWE title and IC title have been tarnished too much. If you try to make the IC title prestigious again, this just can't happen, unless you make a whole new title replacing the IC title. For example, if you give the IC title to someone like Randy Orton and make him feud with Sheamus for it, it just can't work. It seems illogical. Why would these top wrestlers fight for a title that's been easily given to fucking Santino Marella in his debut? Would that make their record better? A former intercontinental champion, a title that used to be held by an irrelevant wrestler like Kofi Kingston for 5 fucking times.

If this is the direction you guys are going to, then it's worse for the WWE title. If it's just one world title, 2 or 3 guys would be holding the belt per year, since the WWE is planning on making more long term reigns. The top stars won't benefit from this. They will hardly get the title, they'll be like Roddy Piper. Where as Cena gets it 10 times from hot potato. It just can't happen anymore. The Tag Team division will be thriving again soon, but the titles won't be as prestigious as it originally was anymore, considering all the shit champions its had for the past decade.

xoxoPAiGEaNGELxoxo 11-16-2012 02:49 AM

Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MickeyMouse (Post 12270974)
Why this can't work:

The WWE title and IC title have been tarnished too much. If you try to make the IC title prestigious again, this just can't happen, unless you make a whole new title replacing the IC title. For example, if you give the IC title to someone like Randy Orton and make him feud with Sheamus for it, it just can't work. It seems illogical. Why would these top wrestlers fight for a title that's been easily given to fucking Santino Marella in his debut? Would that make their record better? A former intercontinental champion, a title that used to be held by an irrelevant wrestler like Kofi Kingston for 5 fucking times.

If this is the direction you guys are going to, then it's worse for the WWE title. If it's just one world title, 2 or 3 guys would be holding the belt per year, since the WWE is planning on making more long term reigns. The top stars won't benefit from this. They will hardly get the title, they'll be like Roddy Piper. Where as Cena gets it 10 times from hot potato. It just can't happen anymore. The Tag Team division will be thriving again soon, but the titles won't be as prestigious as it originally was anymore, considering all the shit champions its had for the past decade.

The bold has been pretty common in wrestling for quite sometime. Remember Sting in WCW? He was a 2 time World Champion at that point and afterwards was United States champion, having to win a tournament to get the belt. Or Ric Flair winning the IC Title in 2005? Or Shane Douglas actually feuding over the TV Title after making the ECW Title a World Title?

It can work, as it makes every belt mean something. It just means less when there is too many and you often forget who's even holding the title. With the roster so weak, just have the WWE, Intercontinental and Tag Team titles. Because surely, everybody feuding over the World Title are regarded as secondary wrestlers so just clear room and scrap the WHC. It means less when guys are given random title shots. Thats the problem.

No way in hell should a guy compete in the Royal Rumble, the Elimination Chamber a month later, a random battle royal/beat the clock challenge and possibly, MITB at WM in a span of less than 4 months, for a title shot. Kind of like Daniel Bryan. Holds the WHC for a few months, loses, gets a rematch a few weeks later, loses again and proceeds to spend the next 2 months feuding over the WWE Title. It's like there is no consequence for losing a title because you'll get countless rematches and after losing them, feud over another title. Make the Royal Rumble or MITB mean even more and only use 1 World Title.

WashingtonD 11-16-2012 05:24 AM

Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?
 
Not gonna happen, unless they combine the two touring house shows into one house show. But then that's half their house show revenue gone.

Best thing to do is to re-define both brands distinctly once again.

Blake"Pure"Holyman 11-16-2012 05:41 AM

Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?
 
Del Rio needs to hold both the World and WWE title and lose them to Sheamus at WrestleMania.

Gambit 11-16-2012 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blake"Pure"Holyman (Post 12271168)
Del Rio needs to hold both the World and WWE title and lose them to Sheamus at WrestleMania.

No on so many levels


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com App

Klee 11-16-2012 06:00 AM

Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?
 
They can't keep going the way they are. It's very evident that the company is suffering because of it's current situation. They have relied on using the titles currently in WWE to actually get wrestlers over. They should be putting the titles on the wrestlers that get over. It's currently backwards.

Imo, there should only be one World Title (The WWE Championship). It's hard for me to look past the fact that the company has 2 world champions.

IF they separate the two brands, properly, once again it would be justifiable to keep the two world titles. Now the tag team division is hotting up and the midcard having a title on each brand also makes sensee.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2