Wrestling Forum banner

Would one World Title really be better for WWE?

6K views 59 replies 43 participants last post by  Aficionado 
#1 ·
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.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
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.
 
#3 ·
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.
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#5 ·
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.
 
#6 ·
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.
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.
 
#8 ·
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.
 
#10 ·
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.
 
#11 · (Edited)
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?



my friend, titles are good when LITTLE TO NO-ONE holds them, they are suppposed to be on the best and only the best

opputunities?! TITLES DON'T MAKE WRESTLERS CREDIBLE, IT TAKES WRESTLERS TO MAKE WORLD TITLE CREDIBLE

talk to anyone outside of the pro wrestling bubble and they get turned off immediantly because unless it something simple for the sake of quality control like "The Heavyweight title" and the "Super heavyweight title" two world titles dishonor the idea of titles existing to begin with

I DONT CARE THAT ITS BECAUSE WWE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SCHEDULES IT DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT
 
#12 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

The 2 world title format doesn't work when one of them is pretty much the equivalent to what the IC title was back in the day. The roster these days isn't deep enough for two world titles anyway.

Also, throwing world title reigns at midcarders is a horrible way to build them up. Yeah, it works sometimes, but for every Daniel Bryan, there's a Jack Swagger, Del Rio, Ezekiel Jackson, and Khali.
 
#14 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

They originally split the roster and brought in a second world title because they had TOO much talent on their hands. Now that couldn't be further from the truth. They don't have ENOUGH talent. They book SD stars on Raw, there are no clear cut divisions in the card, they don't treat either title with the respect it deserves, the WWE title plays second fiddle to Cena and the WHC plays third fiddle to those 2. I think combining the rosters and the title is a great idea right now. Go back and start from scratch. Get rid of the guys who are taking up space and not doing anything/not ready. Send them back to developmental and call them up when they are ready. One title and one roster means less spots at the top. No more coasting. I also think it will mean the return of guys actually moving up the card, through the divisions to get to the top level again, they way it used to be. If they can book one world title and one roster when they had Rock, Austin, HHH, Taker, Foley, Kane, HBK, Bret, Angle and the list goes on then they can sure as hell do it with what they have now. Then in a few years when they sort their shit out, hopefully they'll be at the stage where they'll be forced to split things again.

Everybody talks about the start of a new era and all that shit. I don't even think it needs to be something that substantial. The entire product is stale as shit right now. It's tired and redundant. If they just gutted the whole thing and started making changes, meaningful changes, I think the difference would be staggering tbh. When Vince first announced the draft it was a HUGE deal. If they had him or even HHH come out and announce this, the merging of the rosters and the unification of the world titles to kick of another new era, I think it would be great and really refreshing.

/rant over lol.
 
#23 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

1 world title won't fix the product. 1 world title won't magically make the writing or the booking better. I have no problem with there being 2 world titles. 1 for each show.


They originally split the roster and brought in a second world title because they had TOO much talent on their hands. Now that couldn't be further from the truth. They don't have ENOUGH talent. They book SD stars on Raw, there are no clear cut divisions in the card, they don't treat either title with the respect it deserves, the WWE title plays second fiddle to Cena and the WHC plays third fiddle to those 2. I think combining the rosters and the title is a great idea right now. Go back and start from scratch. Get rid of the guys who are taking up space and not doing anything/not ready. Send them back to developmental and call them up when they are ready. One title and one roster means less spots at the top. No more coasting. I also think it will mean the return of guys actually moving up the card, through the divisions to get to the top level again, they way it used to be. If they can book one world title and one roster when they had Rock, Austin, HHH, Taker, Foley, Kane, HBK, Bret, Angle and the list goes on then they can sure as hell do it with what they have now. Then in a few years when they sort their shit out, hopefully they'll be at the stage where they'll be forced to split things again.

Everybody talks about the start of a new era and all that shit. I don't even think it needs to be something that substantial. The entire product is stale as shit right now. It's tired and redundant. If they just gutted the whole thing and started making changes, meaningful changes, I think the difference would be staggering tbh. When Vince first announced the draft it was a HUGE deal. If they had him or even HHH come out and announce this, the merging of the rosters and the unification of the world titles to kick of another new era, I think it would be great and really refreshing.

/rant over lol.
I think there's enough talent on the roster. A lot of it is just being misused. Hard for guys to prove themselves when most don't get mic time or character development. Some guys are fighting just to make it on TV. If WWE was using there talent to its full potential I think people would be surprised at the amount of really talent guys being wasted right now.
 
#15 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

I don't mind having two world titles. There are a lot of talented guys that would never become world champion if we only had one title. Does anybody really think Daniel Bryan would ever have become champion if we only had one title?

I also think the WWE needs to switch shows for the titles, so they show that both titles are equal. Just like in 2008.
 
#17 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

I don't mind having two world titles. There are a lot of talented guys that would never become world champion if we only had one title. Does anybody really think Daniel Bryan would ever have become champion if we only had one title?

I also think the WWE needs to switch shows for the titles, so they show that both titles are equal. Just like in 2008.
daniel bryan would of been champion eventually i bet, like a chris benoit and eddie guerrero way of putting in hard work.
 
#16 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

Get rid of SD! and WHC. Who's with me?
 
#21 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

Yes because if the belt is protected it can help get you people over if done the right way, I mean just look at the stark comparison of the people competing for the 'WWE title' CM Punk, John Cena, The Rock, the WWE's value as a championship is pretty high at the minute IMO, especially the next 6 months, its finally being treated like the 'holy grail' in wrestlng like it should be.

The World Title on the other hand gets embarrassingly overshadowed and really represents the 'the belt we give to guys were high on but their not ready for the big time yet' and it waters down the persons' accomplishments IMO if you label their time with that belt as a 'World Champion' Dolph Ziggler gets called a former 'World Champion' FFS :lol:

I think if their ever was a time to remove the World title it would be when the WWE title is at its most prestigious and I feel that time should have already come, Punk should have beat Sheamus for the World title on PPV with Punk then scrapping the belt.
 
#22 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

They either need to completely get rid of the brand split and just have one world title for both shows
or they need to go back to having the wrestlers stay on their own brands and get rid of the raw supershow bullshit
problem they have if they went back to enforcing the brand split properly is the roster probably isn't strong enough in main event talent
 
#24 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

I don't see anyway this can happen unless Vince is willing to cut down on his House Shows.

You can't have a house show and expect to draw a crowd if the champion is not there or advertised as being there. So, 1 undisputed champion would never get a day off. He'd have to work the Raw and Smackdown House shows, and that would kill the man, and burn him out very quickly.
 
#27 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

I don't see anyway this can happen unless Vince is willing to cut down on his House Shows.

You can't have a house show and expect to draw a crowd if the champion is not there or advertised as being there. So, 1 undisputed champion would never get a day off. He'd have to work the Raw and Smackdown House shows, and that would kill the man, and burn him out very quickly.
If John Cena can main event without even being part of the title picture, it can work. Just put him or some other really popular guy like The Miz or Sheamus, on the house show tour that the WWE Champion isn't on.
 
#26 ·
Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?

I've always seen the WHC as the WWE's trophy from the Monday night wars and don't want to see them get rid of it. I wish they still had a strict brand split and kept Smackdown as strong as Raw. They can keep wrestlers that have feuded too much apart and the draft was always a good way of keeping each brand fresh.
 
#30 ·
I remember in 2009 while Orton/Cena/HHH had a lock on the main event picture on RAW, Hardy/Punk were putting on the feud of the year on SD.

Is having two World Titles bad ? no
Is having one World Title thrown on anyone while strictly appearing in the midcard/lower midcard bad ? yes
 
#32 ·
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.
 
#36 ·
I'm not a fan of the concept of 2 world champions. It diminishs the importance of being world champion and also increases the likelihood of undeserving guys being world champion.

The champions since the brand split and introduction of a second world title automatically for me seem lesser champions than those of the past. Take Randy Orton for example; he is a much lesser champion than guys like Flair, Austin, Hogan, Rock etc because he was never THE champion, he was always one of the champion, even a guy like Foley who held the belt for a reasonably short amount of time compared to Orton is a more legitimate world champion because he was number 1 and not 1 of the 2 top guys.

Eliminating one title would not fix the current product however it is a step I'd like to see taken. Think how much bigget Punks reign would have been if over the last year he had beaten all the guys in both title pictures.
 
#38 ·
Fuck it just let everyone go all Jeff Hardy and come in with their own title. of their face. Everyone can just be the heavyweight champion of me instead...

No1 ever gives a shit about getting the belt anymore to get a title shot you just need to walk to the ring and attack the champion from behind. Hell i could walk out on RAW next monday jump CM Punk during an interview and ill be number one contender for TLC just because
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top