The argument for One Undisputed World Championship... - Wrestling Forum: WWE, AEW, New Japan, Indy Wrestling, Women of Wrestling Forums

 12Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-16-2017, 06:32 PM Thread Starter
Moron
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: @ Stamford HQ
Posts: 6,709
Points: 22,800
                     
The argument for One Undisputed World Championship...

I was thinking out this scenario the other day and it seemed perfect. I have been less and less attracted to the whole wrestling scene knowing that their are two top champions for both shows under the same World Wrestling promotion. No matter how you break it down it just doesn't make sense. There can only be one "top guy" in any one promotion, the WWE. It would be history in this New Era.

Has a WWE Champion ever won the Royal Rumble? I think AJ Styles should make history. It was the PPV he debuted in originally. Why not keep the momentum going? Retain the WWE title at the Royal Rumble and then enter the match later that night. AJ Styles is the best wrestler in the world and so the main event at WM would be ideal for him. Not only that, but two titles are united and there is only one champion for all of the WWE. As for who he should face from the Raw Brand at WM? That's a whole other topic, but I do feel AJ Styles should win the Royal Rumble and then announce live on SD that he will challenge the Raw Universal Champion and unify both brands top titles and leave only one "Undisputed World Heavyweight Championship".
blackholeson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-16-2017, 06:39 PM
Learning to break kayfabe
 
ChaoticMessiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: England
Favourite(s): Johnny Mundo, Alexa Bliss, Randy Orton, Bray Wyatt
Posts: 189
Points: 533
                     
Re: The argument for One Undisputed World Championship...

My argument against one undisputed champion is simple.

Would you like to have less potential main event candidates to challenge for/win the main title in WWE? If yes, have an Undisputed title again. If not, keep things as they are.

The problem with having such a large roster and only one major title is that you wind up with the same 3 guys hovering around the title for so long that people who genuinely deserve that push end up stuck in the midcard until either one of the main eventers leaves or they do. The World title currently has Styles, Cena, Ambrose, Miz, Corbin, Ziggler, Orton, Bray in contention for it at any point in time if creative choose to push them in that direction while if you include the Raw roster too, the title would be stuck between Cena, Reigns, Rollins and possibly Styles and/or Owens with the former trio getting the most opportunities.


"When it comes to my past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"
ChaoticMessiah is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-16-2017, 06:42 PM
 
domotime2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,450
Points: 15,400
                     
Re: The argument for One Undisputed World Championship...

Uhhh it's a pretty obvious argument...there's a reason we JUST UNIFIED THE BELTS THREE YEARS AGO! Having that one true top prize, that one true top guy, it makes it all the more sweeter when the guy you like or want gets there. Daniel Bryan winning the ONE TRUE BELT was one of the greatest moments ever. It would not have been the same if it were just the world belt, or the universal belt, or whatever.

It's legit the #1 reason why my signature remains as "the brand split sucks"

the brand split sucks
domotime2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-16-2017, 06:50 PM
Moron
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: New Zealand
Favourite(s): Alexa Bliss, Bruan Strowman, Bray Wyatt
Posts: 10,724
Points: 45,085
                     
Re: The argument for One Undisputed World Championship...

Wasen't this happening before the brand split? I mean the only reason the brand split happened was to increase SD's revenue and viewership. And it worked. But I Don't really like the idea of two champions. Never have. Their should be one title, and one man. I mean to be the man, you got to beat the man. OR two men, or three. I mean I agree. When Daniel Bryan won. He truley won. He diddn't just win one of the titles. He wont all of the titles. He was the Undisputed Champion. Can you say Owens or Styles are Undisputed? Nope. This Brand Split was good, delevered its purpose. But I Think its time to unify the belts. Not that I See that happening any time soon.
domotime2, 307858 and Stupid_Smark like this.

Last edited by 3ku1; 01-16-2017 at 06:52 PM.
3ku1 is offline  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-16-2017, 06:55 PM Thread Starter
Moron
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: @ Stamford HQ
Posts: 6,709
Points: 22,800
                     
Re: The argument for One Undisputed World Championship...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaoticMessiah View Post
My argument against one undisputed champion is simple.

Would you like to have less potential main event candidates to challenge for/win the main title in WWE? If yes, have an Undisputed title again. If not, keep things as they are.

The problem with having such a large roster and only one major title is that you wind up with the same 3 guys hovering around the title for so long that people who genuinely deserve that push end up stuck in the midcard until either one of the main eventers leaves or they do. The World title currently has Styles, Cena, Ambrose, Miz, Corbin, Ziggler, Orton, Bray in contention for it at any point in time if creative choose to push them in that direction while if you include the Raw roster too, the title would be stuck between Cena, Reigns, Rollins and possibly Styles and/or Owens with the former trio getting the most opportunities.
That's the point. Ziggler doesn't belong at the top of either show's card. I would even argue Ambrose and Corbin as well. Ambrose still needs a heel turn. Miz is no longer top of the card material. The main event should never be this random and unqualified. These talents you have named are far overrated. The main event stars should consists of Styles, Cena, Orton, Rollins, Reigns, Owens, Balor, Samoa Joe, Nakamura, Lesnar and maybe Wyatt. That's plenty. A dozen stars is actually large for just one title. Those other stars you named are just main event jobbers. They are there for those 12 I named to defeat at PPV's. The mid card is supposed to be much larger than the main event card.
blackholeson is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-16-2017, 07:12 PM
 
Rookie of the Year's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,061
Points: 15,812
                     
Re: The argument for One Undisputed World Championship...

I like the structure of the brand split in general, but there should be one world champ that travels between brands. That way, to be the world champ, you have to be the best/toughest on the roster, doing the most shows. And yeah, it might mean less chances at a world title, but that's a good thing. Just about everyone on the roster who is worth a damn is a former world champ, so it doesn't mean much.

My ideal world champ schedule:

Monday: Works Raw
Tuesday: Works SD
Wednesday: Raw brand house show
Thursday: Smackdown house show
Sundays monthly: PPV, whether single brand or dual. Champ defends on Raw PPVs and SD PPVs, so they have two feuds running simultaneously.

It's a bit of a throwback to the old school travelling world champions that used to go between territories, main eventing and defending the belt everywhere. Also, you wouldn't have to put the world champ on every house show- less wrestlers in the WWE title pool means the IC/US title scene can be built up as an attraction for each brand in its own right.

Rookie of the Year is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-16-2017, 07:16 PM
Moron
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,811
Points: 15,661
                     
Re: The argument for One Undisputed World Championship...

I agree. I don't know why the IWC insists on giving Owens/Balor aka the B-players participation trophies.

IC title>>>>the title mutilated by Stephanie's period.
307858 is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-16-2017, 07:24 PM Thread Starter
Moron
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: @ Stamford HQ
Posts: 6,709
Points: 22,800
                     
Re: The argument for One Undisputed World Championship...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookie of the Year View Post
I like the structure of the brand split in general, but there should be one world champ that travels between brands. That way, to be the world champ, you have to be the best/toughest on the roster, doing the most shows. And yeah, it might mean less chances at a world title, but that's a good thing. Just about everyone on the roster who is worth a damn is a former world champ, so it doesn't mean much.

My ideal world champ schedule:

Monday: Works Raw
Tuesday: Works SD
Wednesday: Raw brand house show
Thursday: Smackdown house show
Sundays monthly: PPV, whether single brand or dual. Champ defends on Raw PPVs and SD PPVs, so they have two feuds running simultaneously.

It's a bit of a throwback to the old school travelling world champions that used to go between territories, main eventing and defending the belt everywhere. Also, you wouldn't have to put the world champ on every house show- less wrestlers in the WWE title pool means the IC/US title scene can be built up as an attraction for each brand in its own right.
I was thinking that the Undisputed Champion would be on both shows. However, you can't have two title defenses going on at once. I think it's fair to say that if the Undisputed Champion is in a title match feud the next "star" from the opposite brand will have to wait and prove their worth in the mean time. Feuds may take some time and I ultimately think it should be up to the Champion to decide which brand's stars he will face.The choice as to which brand's stars he would face makes a ton of sense and brings a new dynamic to the table. That way he can be on both shows and not worry about having two feuds going on at the same time. Perhaps on one show the Undisputed Champion is in a non title feud with the Intercontinental Champion?
blackholeson is offline  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-16-2017, 07:44 PM
 
Rookie of the Year's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,061
Points: 15,812
                     
Re: The argument for One Undisputed World Championship...

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackholeson View Post
I was thinking that the Undisputed Champion would be on both shows. However, you can't have two title defenses going on at once. I think it's fair to say that if the Undisputed Champion is in a title match feud the next "star" from the opposite brand will have to wait and prove their worth in the mean time. Feuds may take some time and I ultimately think it should be up to the Champion to decide which brand's stars he will face.The choice as to which brand's stars he would face makes a ton of sense and brings a new dynamic to the table. That way he can be on both shows and not worry about having two feuds going on at the same time. Perhaps on one show the Undisputed Champion is in a non title feud with the Intercontinental Champion?
Yeah I get that having two feuds might seem a bit clunky, but on the other side of that, how would you explain the IC champ getting wins over the undisputed champ? Like, "yeah, you pinned the champ on Smackdown clean, but it's Raw's turn." Would defeat the purpose of having the world champ on two shows, really, and make one look like the B show, at least for the month. Alternatively, the world champ always wins, which would be crap as well.

Rookie of the Year is offline  
post #10 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-16-2017, 07:48 PM
 
Kingpin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London
Posts: 11,800
Points: 4,012
                     
Re: The argument for One Undisputed World Championship...

I agree that there should only be one WWE Champion, but it's too soon to unify the titles.
Kingpin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome