Quote:
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan
I'll go into more details tomorrow but first thought any time this comes up... ONE CHAMPION.
They should have just had the champion go back and forth between brands. Having two world champions only served to water down the idea of being "world champion". You can never be Hogan... or Austin... or Rock... or Sammartino... because you'll always just be half a world champion. It was stupid and unnecessary. That, coupled with the beginning of the post-competition "resting on our laurels" booking era, led to winning a title not getting anyone over anymore.
|
Totally agree with the idea of one champion.
I understood the idea of the brand extension, and in theory there was logic to it (ability to hold off big matches, create two different booking styles, give more guys TV time, dont over expose top talent, etc). In reality, the WWE has been successful because Vince is the one making the final call on everything. So all things WWE will have his stamp of approval on it, and will be a reflection of what he wants to see in sports entertainment.
But I was shocked at the time that he went for the dual champion concept. I liked the idea of the champ going between brands. It would have allowed the champ to create programs on both shows at the same time, and then allow some time for programs to cool off. Say HHH was champ. Smackdown has him in May, then he's off to RAW for June. If he has a program simmering on SD and has a match on the May PPV with someone, then he's over on RAW in June, you dont blow off feuds so quickly and drag them out.
The other thing is it would have forced WWE to keep the US and IC titles strong, because every other month, those titles would have needed to headline house shows. Then you probably would have still needed other titles for the mid card guys (ie European, TV, Cruiserweight titles, etc). I would have also done the same thing with the tag team champions, where they go between shows.