Wrestling Forum banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

· Banned
Joined
·
253 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I think the JBL push of 2004 started this trend. WWE wanted to instantly make him a main eventer so he won the WWE title after being a jobber like two months before. But the last few years I think that method of creating stars has been abused up and comers like Swagger, Punk, and Sheamus, Del Rio(soon) winning mutiple World Titles it seems the top belt have now become an elevating tool like the way IC and US championships were seen, instead of a symbol of the top guy.

How many times have we seen the world (WWE) champion in the PG era overshadowed by the already established stars who seem to get more prominent story-lines and tv time.
It would also explain why the true mid level titles are so useless now since they are even more devalued.

You could also argue random upper-carders winning makes matches more suprising I guess. Sheamus and Punk have also benefited from fast pushes because I think they are really great at the moment.

So what say you? Are World Titles the New Mid Level Titles? what are your views???
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,352 Posts
I have said it a thousand times, the biggest problem with the World Titles is that there are two of them. There should be ONE champion that can be on both shows, that will help elevate the title as well as the wrestler who holds it. And it would also help the midcard titles (IC and US) as well.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,400 Posts
I have said it a thousand times, the biggest problem with the World Titles is that there are two of them. There should be ONE champion that can be on both shows, that will help elevate the title as well as the wrestler who holds it. And it would also help the midcard titles (IC and US) as well.
So just to check, what do you want Punk, Orton, Mysterio, Show, Sheamus, Edge, HHH (when he's around), and Kane to do when Cena-Miz are feuding?

And if you say that they can just face each other, well that'll take up at least 3 matches on the card, leaving no room for mid-carders to be pushed. If you think they should hop back and forth between the IC/US and World title, the issue is still the same. Having two world titles allows for not only main event status wrestlers to face off in big matches, but it allows mid-carders to be pushed, which cannot happen with only one title.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,679 Posts
So just to check, what do you want Punk, Orton, Mysterio, Show, Sheamus, Edge, HHH (when he's around), and Kane to do when Cena-Miz are feuding?
WWE did just fine if not better with one world title in the 90's and early 00's so your point is invalid. Having just one world champion makes them more dominant and you actually consider them a true champion.
 

· Leader of #TeamBAE
Joined
·
1,599 Posts
So just to check, what do you want Punk, Orton, Mysterio, Show, Sheamus, Edge, HHH (when he's around), and Kane to do when Cena-Miz are feuding?

And if you say that they can just face each other, well that'll take up at least 3 matches on the card, leaving no room for mid-carders to be pushed. If you think they should hop back and forth between the IC/US and World title, the issue is still the same. Having two world titles allows for not only main event status wrestlers to face off in big matches, but it allows mid-carders to be pushed, which cannot happen with only one title.
The only way the WWE could ever go back to one World Championship is if when guys like Edge, Mysterio, Triple H, Taker and Show all finally decide to retire, and the WWE don't really replace them. It would give the Main Event that level of exclusiveness (Cena, Orton, Punk, Sheamus, Miz, Del Rio) While having a ton of guys (Morrison, Bryan, Barrett, Ziggler atm) who could go back and fourth. That would be the REAL youth movement.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I have said it a thousand times, the biggest problem with the World Titles is that there are two of them. There should be ONE champion that can be on both shows, that will help elevate the title as well as the wrestler who holds it. And it would also help the midcard titles (IC and US) as well.
100% agreed. I cannot take either "champion" seriously when there is another guy who in kayfabe terms is on equal footing as him. There should be ONE top guy. Since when have we had two Superbowl champs? Or two IBC Heavyweight champs? You don't, and being that this "brand extension" appears to be all but neglected nowadays it would make perfect sense to have one champion.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,352 Posts
So just to check, what do you want Punk, Orton, Mysterio, Show, Sheamus, Edge, HHH (when he's around), and Kane to do when Cena-Miz are feuding?

And if you say that they can just face each other, well that'll take up at least 3 matches on the card, leaving no room for mid-carders to be pushed. If you think they should hop back and forth between the IC/US and World title, the issue is still the same. Having two world titles allows for not only main event status wrestlers to face off in big matches, but it allows mid-carders to be pushed, which cannot happen with only one title.
Not every feud needs to involve the World title, that is just lazy booking IMO. WWE can make great non-title feuds when they want to (HBK vs Jericho from 2008 for example), but they tend to take the easy way out. Also, guys who are clearly "main event" stars like Orton, Triple H, and Edge would not hop back and forth between the IC/US and World title scenes, but guys who are not "there yet" like Swagger, Sheamus, and even Miz. Along with guys who are upper-midcarders at best like Show, and Mysterio, and Punk would do that.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,723 Posts
This is actually a pretty thought provoking post. Most would probably disagree, but in a way, it's true due to the recent youth movement, with guys like Sheamus and The Miz winning world titles and Cena/Taker getting by on sheer star power. The IC and US belts seem almost like meaningless jobber props at this point.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,724 Posts
Yes they are.

when one title, the top contender is an announcer that is older than Ric Flair. And the other one, someone gets awarded it because their opponent used a finisher (didn't get pinned or submit) and then lost it the same night.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,400 Posts
Not every feud needs to involve the World title, that is just lazy booking IMO. WWE can make great non-title feuds when they want to (HBK vs Jericho from 2008 for example), but they tend to take the easy way out. Also, guys who are clearly "main event" stars like Orton, Triple H, and Edge would not hop back and forth between the IC/US and World title, but guys who are not "there yet" like Swagger, Sheamus, and even Miz. Along with guys who are upper-midcarders at best like Show, and Mysterio, and Punk would do that.
That's funny, because I distinctly remember HBK vs Jericho ending in a WHC match. I agree that not every feud needs the World title involved, and WWE has shown so now anyways. Orton vs Punk is only involved in the WWE title at all because of the Rumble and Elimination Chamber. Cena faced Barrett at HIAC 2010 in a match that in no way whatsoever was a world title match, and nobody would make the argument that Cena's not a main event wrestler. Rey vs Punk at no point had either wrestler holding a title, and Edge vs Orton at Over The Limit wasn't associated with the title at all.

If you're going to have a good number of wrestlers move back and forth between the IC/US and World title, that's Swagger, Sheamus, Miz, Mysterio, Punk, Morrison, Del Rio (unfortunately he's even involved in a main event discussion) just to name a few. Now, in a division involving 7 wrestlers, where is the opportunity for a Daniel Bryan or a Kofi Kingston? There just is not enough time, especially on ppv, for the number of wrestlers that would be considered in any "main event" and one world title. Brief glance, and unless most of the matches on ppv are tag matches or triple threats, you've got 4-5 matches before you even factor in a Women's match. Not to mention the fact that in order for a wrestler to actually be elevated, they have to break into a division that's already too large. It's not lazy booking to have two world titles, it allows wwe to actually build new stars.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,352 Posts
That's funny, because I distinctly remember HBK vs Jericho ending in a WHC match. I agree that not every feud needs the World title involved, and WWE has shown so now anyways. Orton vs Punk is only involved in the WWE title at all because of the Rumble and Elimination Chamber. Cena faced Barrett at HIAC 2010 in a match that in no way whatsoever was a world title match, and nobody would make the argument that Cena's not a main event wrestler. Rey vs Punk at no point had either wrestler holding a title, and Edge vs Orton at Over The Limit wasn't associated with the title at all.

If you're going to have a good number of wrestlers move back and forth between the IC/US and World title, that's Swagger, Sheamus, Miz, Mysterio, Punk, Morrison, Del Rio (unfortunately he's even involved in a main event discussion) just to name a few. Now, in a division involving 7 wrestlers, where is the opportunity for a Daniel Bryan or a Kofi Kingston? There just is not enough time, especially on ppv, for the number of wrestlers that would be considered in any "main event" and one world title. Brief glance, and unless most of the matches on ppv are tag matches or triple threats, you've got 4-5 matches before you even factor in a Women's match. Not to mention the fact that in order for a wrestler to actually be elevated, they have to break into a division that's already too large. It's not lazy booking to have two world titles, it allows wwe to actually build new stars.

The title for the most part didn't play that big of a role in the HBK/Jericho feud, in fact the only reason it was in there was because Punk blew as a champion which reinforces my point about guys not being ready. Yes, the WWE has proving they can do feuds with out the World title, which again reinforces my point that there is no reason for two world titles. Also on the issue of too many wrestlers, that is what the brand split was originally created for, you can split the rosters and distribute the talent evenly but the WWE hasn't done that for some time now and Raw has clearly had the more dominate roster the past few years. And on the issue of pay-per-views this is where you can start the brand-exclusive pay-per views again, it could work if the WWE distributes the talent evenly between Raw and Smackdown.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,400 Posts
The title for the most part didn't play that big of a role in the HBK/Jericho feud, in fact the only reason it was in there was because Punk blew as a champion which reinforces my point about guys not being ready. Yes, the WWE has proving they can do feuds with out the World title, which again reinforces my point that there is no reason for two world titles. Also on the issue of too many wrestlers, that is what the brand split was originally created for, you can split the rosters and distribute the talent evenly but the WWE hasn't done that for some time now and Raw has clearly had the more dominate roster the past few years. And on the issue of pay-per-views this is where you can start the brand-exclusive pay-per views again, it could work if the WWE distributes the talent evenly between Raw and Smackdown.
So you want brand exclusive ppv's, too? So, assuming that the WWE title will appear on each ppv, it means that "well, the Smackdown roster is inferior to that of Raw, so their champion, Cena (WWE Champ) will face Orton (Raw) in the main event of the Smackdown ppv. Our Major champ Edge (IC Champ) is facing Kofi Kingston". If the WWE title doesn't appear on a ppv, what incentive is there to buy it? The argument that it would provide great matches and well developed feuds, do you really want to watch Batista and Undertaker build to their chair match at TLC 2009 for 8 weeks (they had 3 painful weeks), and just to pick out a ppv from the "brand-exclusive" era, Bad Blood 2004 had Eugene vs Jonathon Coachman, Christian vs Tomko, and Benoit had to pull double duty. Doesn't sound like the greatest matches to me.

It's not a case of too many wrestlers. It's a case of one show is considered entirely mid-card, and main event scene slightly too large to build new main eventers. It seems like your issue is just with the name of the titles, but at least it's better than Boxing, UFC, or any other ppv-dominated athletic entertainment activity.

Edit: And Punk was not a bad champ at all. He was just handled horribly. Can you actually name a feud that he had?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,352 Posts
So you want brand exclusive ppv's, too? So, assuming that the WWE title will appear on each ppv, it means that "well, the Smackdown roster is inferior to that of Raw, so their champion, Cena (WWE Champ) will face Orton (Raw) in the main event of the Smackdown ppv. Our Major champ Edge (IC Champ) is facing Kofi Kingston". If the WWE title doesn't appear on a ppv, what incentive is there to buy it? The argument that it would provide great matches and well developed feuds, do you really want to watch Batista and Undertaker build to their chair match at TLC 2009 for 8 weeks (they had 3 painful weeks), and just to pick out a ppv from the "brand-exclusive" era, Bad Blood 2004 had Eugene vs Jonathon Coachman, Christian vs Tomko, and Benoit had to pull double duty. Doesn't sound like the greatest matches to me.

It's not a case of too many wrestlers. It's a case of one show is considered entirely mid-card, and main event scene slightly too large to build new main eventers. It seems like your issue is just with the name of the titles, but at least it's better than Boxing, UFC, or any other ppv-dominated athletic entertainment activity.

Edit: And Punk was not a bad champ at all. He was just handled horribly. Can you actually name a feud that he had?
You are clearly missing the point...

Each brand would have their own number one contender if their was one champion, for example Cena could face Orton for the strap at the Raw's pay-per-view Extreme Rules, and who ever wins would face Smackdown number one contender Edge at Smackdown's pay-per-view Over the Limit. The World Champion would always be on a pay-per-view, that wouldn't be an issue at all. And what are you talking about "one show would have all the mid-card, and main event scene would be to large to build new main eventers." By splitting the talent EVENLY, you would prevent this from happening.
 

· Shitting On The Bastards Below
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
100% agreed. I cannot take either "champion" seriously when there is another guy who in kayfabe terms is on equal footing as him. There should be ONE top guy. Since when have we had two Superbowl champs? Or two IBC Heavyweight champs? You don't, and being that this "brand extension" appears to be all but neglected nowadays it would make perfect sense to have one champion.
There are four major world title belts in boxing
 

· Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
There should be just 1 world champion obviously and they should make competing for the #1 contender a big deal too. I don't expect to see it happen though, as I imagine title matches and title changes are a big part of what sells PPVs. It's got to be easier for the writers to fall back on that than trying to create interesting storylines in the short time span between PPVs. They need to cut the PPVs back to 4 or 6 a year so they have time to develop meaningful storylines that are worth paying to see culminate. How does WWE expect fans to pay to see a Miz/Orton match when the same match just happened 3 weeks ago and will probably happen again next month.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,352 Posts
There should be just 1 world champion obviously and they should make competing for the #1 contender a big deal too. I don't expect to see it happen though, as I imagine title matches and title changes are a big part of what sells PPVs. It's got to be easier for the writers to fall back on that than trying to create interesting storylines in the short time span between PPVs. They need to cut the PPVs back to 4 or 6 a year so they have time to develop meaningful storylines that are worth paying to see culminate. How does WWE expect fans to pay to see a Miz/Orton match when the same match just happened 3 weeks ago and will probably happen again next month.
They would lose too much money by having 4-6 a year, they have the right number at 12 right now. They just need to evening up the roster and let Raw have 4 exclusive shows to themselves, and Smackdown have 4 exclusive shows to themselves, and the big four( Summerslam, Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Survivor series) would be the Joint pay-per views.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,515 Posts
The problem isnt that there are two world titles. with a roster this big, both are needed. the problem is that they treat their own world titles like they are a joke. Having somebody be "given" the title only to lose it to the former champion like 10 minutes later (I am, of course, referring to the Ziggler/Edge debacle on smackdown). How many times have we seen 10 minute title reigns in the past couple years?

WWE doesnt even respect their own championships anymore.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,400 Posts
You are clearly missing the point...

Each brand would have their own number one contender if their was one champion, for example Cena could face Orton for the strap at the Raw's pay-per-view Extreme Rules, and who ever wins would face Smackdown number one contender Edge at Smackdown's pay-per-view Over the Limit. The World Champion would always be on a pay-per-view, that wouldn't be an issue at all. And what are you talking about "one show would have all the mid-card, and main event scene would be to large to build new main eventers." By splitting the talent EVENLY, you would prevent this from happening.
So, if I get your concept, Cena and Edge would be involved in a brutal rivalry over the WWE title, which includes a cage match at Extreme Rules that Edge wins. John Morrison and The Miz would face off on Smackdown to determine the number one contender for Edge's title at Over the Limit? Where does that leave Cena, since he's in a feud with Edge? where does that leave Edge's feud with Cena? not every feud can keep momentum after taking a month off, and if they're still expected to feud, how much do you think a fan is going to care about the feud if a promo consists of "I hate you, and if you retain at Smackdown's ppv and I win my #1 contender match on Raw in 3 weeks, I'm going to beat you in 7 weeks at the next Raw ppv".

I say that one show is the mid-card and that it'd be impossible to break into the main event scene because it would be that way. If Orton is WWE champ and he's on Raw, where does that leave Smackdown? Oh, they may have a #1 contender for the WWE championship, but don't know who will be champion by the time their #1 contender gets a shot. Clearly, then, the top dog on Smackdown is inferior to even the #2 person on Raw. If the US title is to be the main championship of Smackdown, what mid-card title is there for Smackdown? If there is one, what's different than when JBL ran Smackdown?
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
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