[chrispepper]

I won't even say it's time to end the brand split, because it has already effectively ended. But the belts need to be merged.

These past couple of weeks we've had the WWE championship no.1 contender flip to smackdown and become the WHC no.1 contender and vice verca for Daniel Bryan as the WHC no.1 contender.

We then had Sheamus (even with injured arm) defeat Daniel Bryan (the new WWE title no.1 contender) completely clean, and then on the following raw, we had the previous no.1 contender for the wwe title defeat Sheamus, effectively clean..

So now I'm left feeling incredibly confused, which title is more important? The wwe championship no.1 contender appears to be weaker than the whc champion and the no.1 contender, and yet CM Punk is clearly being booked stronger than all of them.

It completely de-values the prestige of both titles, and I'm completely confused as to who the 'top guy' is supposed to be.. So here's what the WWE HAVE to do...

1) Merge Both Titles
2) Establish a hierachy - Make the WWE Championship feel like the most important thing on the show, book it so that it's the WWE champion vs everybody else.
3) No more non-title feuds as the main event, the WWE championship should be the most important thing on the show NOT John Cena.
4) Roster cuts - if Raw and smackdown is going to merge to become one roster, there has to be roster cuts, its a shame but it has to happen. This will also strengthen the mid-card as some of the main event guys will have to move down to compensate for the increase in established stars.

This could even lead to an invasion style storyline - maybe Raw vs smackdown? As guys 'compete for roster spots' - this will also allow for new stars to be created from the feud.

Basically the wwe has 2 options.
1) Merge the titles - make it one roster.
2) Re-establish the rivalry between raw and smackdown, raw guys appear on raw, smackdown guys appear on smackdown, the end.

But what I know for certain is that we can't continue flipping between brands, challenging for different titles from different brands.It just doesn't make any sense.

Yes it feels like fantasy booking, but at this point its completely necessary. We need One Main Title.. One Mid Card title - possibly a return for the hardcore or the cruiserweight title. Then the Tag titles and the divas division.

Thoughts?

 

[Brian Styles]

Yes!!

 

[A-C-P]

When your in an era like the WWE is in now where they need to create new stars I would say getting rid of a world title and cutting the roster would be 2 mistakes if they were to happen.

If anything I would say make the rosters seem more seperate again and get as many guys as you can some useful TV time and see if any new guys can get over.

 

[Colin Delaney]

"Not John CENA". Isn't Lesnar in your avatar?

 

[Until May]

I could not disagree more.

having two main event titles makes it so there are two top guys, and two titles to fight for. It also gives more of a chance for guys to become main eventer's and well known guys, so it does not get stale using the same guys over and over.

do NOT merge the titles

 

[Kratosx23]

You'd regret this decision within 2 months.

 

[chrispepper]

I could not disagree more.

having two main event titles makes it so there are two top guys, and two titles to fight for. It also gives more of a chance for guys to become main eventer's and well known guys, so it does not get stale using the same guys over and over.

do NOT merge the titles

Fair point, but the way superstars are just flipping between smackdown and raw, it is practically one massive roster already - just competing for 2 main titles.. Which one are we supposed to feel is more important?

I'm also FOR making them feel more seperate, and re-establishing the raw/smackdown rivalry but that just doesn't seem likely with the way the wwe is heading.

 

[TheSupremeForce]

If anything, I'd rather see the WWE balance the rosters and put the actual split back into place. The shows were better when they weren't trying to force a handful of Smackdown guys onto both shows every week.

 

[Jinn DMZ]

You'd regret this decision within 2 months.

How so?

 

[chrispepper]

If anything, I'd rather see the WWE balance the rosters and put the actual split back into place. The shows were better when they weren't trying to force a handful of Smackdown guys onto both shows every week.

Absoloutely agree, if they were to do this, I'd be completely fine aswell.

Basically the wwe has 2 options.
1) Merge the titles - make it one roster.
2) Re-establish the rivalry between raw and smackdown, raw guys appear on raw, smackdown guys appear on smackdown, the end.

But what I know for certain is that we can't continue flipping between brands, challenging for different titles from different brands.It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[TheBrain]

I could not disagree more.

having two main event titles makes it so there are two top guys, and two titles to fight for. It also gives more of a chance for guys to become main eventer's and well known guys, so it does not get stale using the same guys over and over.

do NOT merge the titles

The only guys that are really fresh to the main event picture recently are Daniel Bryan and Alberto Del Rio. So I disagree with 2 belts creating more opportunities.

 

[TempestH]

Keep the brand split and merge the titles. Let the WWE Champion be the top draw for both brands.

Try to build guys up as stars without using the belts as crutches.

 

[chrispepper]

That would work.. bring back brand-specific ppvs then have the wwe champion defend on smackdown for one ppv then raw for the next... allows for a proper build for every feud (should get atleast 6 weeks), so we should get better feuds because of it.

 

[-Halo-]

When your in an era like the WWE is in now where they need to create new stars I would say getting rid of a world title and cutting the roster would be 2 mistakes if they were to happen.

If anything I would say make the rosters seem more seperate again and get as many guys as you can some useful TV time and see if any new guys can get over.

Yet again another wise answer from you A-C-P

 

[Camoron]

The WWE is too big to merge the titles and end the roster split. There are too many main eventers to have just one title. Hell, they have two and the majority of their main event talent winds up filling the spot that would otherwise be filled with midcarders because you can only have so many of them chasing the world titles, which is why the midcard sucks and guys get hotshotted into the world title picture before they're ready.

 

[TripleG]

Absolutely. Being a World Champion means so much less because getting one is twice as easy. And you don't have a number one absolute best. You have 1A & 1B. The comparison I've made like a 100 times is that it would be like if the NFL got rid of the Super Bowl and just had an AFC and NFC Champion. Who the hell would want that? I want to know who the undisputed best is!

And like I said, its so easy to get a shot at any of the two titles now. You lost the Royal Rumble? That's OK, you can just go for the other title. it doesn't matter because brand lines don't mean anything either (and the brand extension was the whole justification for having two titles in the first place!) so if you lose one, you can just go for the other without so much as a second glance. Heck they just did that with DB and Jericho. They lost two straight PPV title matches so they just switched them.

One World Title is going to take precedence over the other so you have a case where one just becomes a glorified midcard title anyway. But even the more focused on title is devalued by the fact that you have another guy running around claiming to be World Champion with absolutely no hint of resolving that controversy.

And because there are two World Titles, it has opened the door for so many shitty & rushed title reigns that didn't mean anything. Money in the Bank has contributed to this as well. Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger, Sheamus, and even Punk's first reign. Guys rack up World Titles like they are candy to the point that a friend of mine said "You know, I don't even feel like they are taking the guy seriously until he's had about 5 or 6".

Yes, less guys will get the title, but that's the way it should be. Not everybody can be World Champion. If everyone did, then nobody is special. There were guys in my childhood that made fantastic careers for themselves without holding a World Title or a belt at all. Jake Roberts, Tito Santana, Curt Hennig, Rick Rude, Roddy Piper (though he should have), Ted DiBiase (ditto), Hacksaw Jim Duggan (hey, he got mad over and never got a belt in WWE), Jimmy Snuka, Greg Valentine, and fuck it, I could sit here all day. If the belt is harder to win then it means a lot more. If its tossed around like candy to everybody the WWE deems worthy then it doesn't matter. Can't we go back to the days where Midcard status, Comedy Character, & Tag Team spots weren't viewed as filler & anchors but rather something that could be glorified and could flourish in its own right?

Have you ever tried explaining to people who the WWE Champion is? Their first question is ALWAYS "wait how can there be two champions?".

The WWE Title is hindered by the fact that there is a second World Title and the World Heavyweight Title is a glorified midcard championship that they are trying to tell me is a main event title. Its a lie. If they got rid of the WHC and gave that kind of promotion to the IC Title, I'd be OK with it.

 

[Camoron]

Absolutely. Being a World Champion means so much less because getting one is twice as easy. And you don't have a number one absolute best. You have 1A & 1B. The comparison I've made like a 100 times is that it would be like if the NFL got rid of the Super Bowl and just had an AFC and NFC Champion. Who the hell would want that? I want to know who the undisputed best is!

Interesting, that gives me an idea. Why don't they add a King of the Ring element to, I dunno, Bragging Rights or Night of Champions or whatever (do they even still hold these PPVs?), and make an annual match between the WWE and WH champions at this PPV to determine the annual (Whatever) Champion? It wouldn't be a belt or anything, just a title like the King of the Ring. 2012 WWE (Whatever they call it) Winner, something like that, a title you keep even when you lose the belt purely for bragging rights to work into your gimmick so finally we can add legitimacy to some of these guys that are claiming to be the best in the world.

 

[wrestlingfanuk786]

It worked in the attitude era and every era before that. I don't see why some expert armchair fans are getting upset at the idea, I my self have been crying out loud for this to happen. It would also make the I.C title more important at the same time, as it would become the 2nd best title in the company, effectively what the WHC has become.

 

[Camoron]

It worked in the attitude era and every era before that. I don't see why some expert armchair fans are getting upset at the idea, I my self have been crying out loud for this to happen. It would also make the I.C title more important at the same time, as it would become the 2nd best title in the company, effectively what the WHC has become.

They only had one TV show at the start of the attitude era, and it was an hour long.

Now they have like four of them and a much bigger roster to support them all.

 

[Mr.Cricket]

Fuck no. If they did merge it then only top guys will be winning it(Orton, Cena, Punk etc). Then guys like Barrett and Kofi won't ever get a chance of winning it.