Wrestlemania XX Main Event

[OpusCroakus1]

Okay, here's my take on the way the Wrestlemania XX main event should be handled....

Some years back, during the time I only knew about the WWF, I kept trying to think up new match concepts, and I thought to myself "Why not have two singles matches matches in the ring at the same time?" Then a few years back, ECW had what they called a "Double Jeopardy" match....

So, at Wrestlemania XX, I say they hold an Undisputed Championship Double Jeopardy Match. (I never liked the idea of two seperate champions). One of the matches being for the Raw "World Heavyweight Championship", and the other being for the Smackdown "WWE Championship".... with the winners contiuning the match to decide an Undisputed Championship.

Now, as for who would be in the match, I still haven't decided.... I don't watch Raw much (I don't have cable), and for Smackdown, I am leaning towards it being Kurt Angle (champ) against Chris Benoit (challenger)...

Well, that's my idea..... I'd really like to hear all thoughts, suggestions, and opinions on it...

Thanks. :)

- Dennis

[Jeremy Christian]

Only problem is that the fans would dig it somewhat. If fans dig, Vince screws it. Or Triple H will beat him to the punch.

[MVP]

What would most likely happen with that is the RAW competetors would probably be booked to go over the SD competetors (i.e. HHH or Goldberg) seeing as Vince wants to make RAW look superior to SD when it actually isn't.

[BasicThuganomics]

Another problem is that the titles aren't gonna be Unified again. So this isn't likely to happen. Plus if there was a Unified title HHH would be holding down wrestlers from BOTH rosters. If the WWE insists on having the two shows remain seperate promotions, then they will keep two seperate champions. As we saw when the roster split first happened, having one champ on both shows when the rest of the rosters are spilt, is just confusing and too hard to try and make up storylines for the champ on both shows. Its better off having a champ on each show, because storylines just don't work out when there is one champ. If the champ is gonna be headlining a RAW only ppv, but is fueding with someone on SD, then it takes focus away from the ppv coming up. Having one Champ would only work if the rosters were reunited, and this isn't gonna happen anytime soon. (sorry to break your heart Heyman, and others who aren't fans of the split)

And Smackdown hasn't been all that great lately MVP. I think RAW is starting to pass up Smackdown. Smackdown still has good matches, but RAW's storylines are WAY better than SD and the matches haven't been that bad lately (besides mark henry)

[sexymanalive]

ok 1 HHH is not holding down the roster the fans are because they don't gave these new superstar a chase for exapale mark henary the dude been in wwe longer then brooker t and look how fair he came now if u ask me i would like to see mark henary brooker t and Ronday mack join togerther and from a team

now on to smackdown samething brocks not holding down the roster mean he put the title on aguesanst Rey jr for crying out loud and he putting it on the line agest harcore holly ( who am glad getting it) at RR

[Fox]

When you talk it makes my head hurt.

[The CyNick]

Having only one champion can still work. In fact it was working in 2002, the last really good PPV number the WWE did was Brock challenging for the Undiputed title against Rock, since the split the PPV numbers have went south (except for Mania and Rumble, but even those numbers haven't been as good as they were).

The whole idea behind having one champion is that you hopefully create one champion that means something, whereas now they pretty much have two titles that mean nothing.

In terms of confusion I dont really buy that theory. All you have to do is keep the champ on one show in months where there is a brand specific PPV. So, for example in February he would be working on SD, then in April for the next RAW only PPV he will be on RAW. Nothing confusing. If anything it helps some storylines drag out longer, because say something starts on SD between the champ and a SD guy, but then he goes over to RAW on a brand specific PPV month, that gives you a month to tell the fans that the guy on SD wants to kick the champs ass. Then when he finally comes back to SD the fued should be pretty hot.

That said I dont think they plan on going back to one champ anytime soon, but I can see how it would be beneficial to the company.

[BasicThuganomics]

Having only one champion can still work. In fact it was working in 2002, the last really good PPV number the WWE did was Brock challenging for the Undiputed title against Rock, since the split the PPV numbers have went south (except for Mania and Rumble, but even those numbers haven't been as good as they were).

The whole idea behind having one champion is that you hopefully create one champion that means something, whereas now they pretty much have two titles that mean nothing.

In terms of confusion I dont really buy that theory. All you have to do is keep the champ on one show in months where there is a brand specific PPV. So, for example in February he would be working on SD, then in April for the next RAW only PPV he will be on RAW. Nothing confusing. If anything it helps some storylines drag out longer, because say something starts on SD between the champ and a SD guy, but then he goes over to RAW on a brand specific PPV month, that gives you a month to tell the fans that the guy on SD wants to kick the champs ass. Then when he finally comes back to SD the fued should be pretty hot.

That said I dont think they plan on going back to one champ anytime soon, but I can see how it would be beneficial to the company.


You said that the last really good PPV number that WWE did was SummerSlam 2002, but that is partly because there hasn't been a PPV since then that has been anywhere near that good. SummerSlam 2002 was obviously going to be an awesome PPV just by looking at the lineup they had. And having only one champ didn't work out in 2002 IMO. The Champ would have a PPV match with someone on one show coming up, and if he's fueding with someone from the other show then this fued isn't taken seriously. Remember when Undertaker fueded with Jeff hardy while he had a Title fued on Smackdown at the same time? Everyone knew that Hardy wouldn't win the title because Undertaker's main fued was with whoever he was fighting on SD at the time (don't remember who, Rock and Angle maybe?)

Having one champ to make the belt seem more credible wouldn't work if the WWE keeps making mistakes like they are making now. Having 2 champs a show can make the belt seem credible if the WWE does a better job of planning out storylines and what not. IMO the problem with belts seeming less credible is because of lousy booking and storytelling, not because there is one belt per show.

If a champ is only appearing on SD during one month, and RAW the next month it won't work out. When the WWE has a PPV with both brands, what then? Having one champ on both shows doesn't work when the WWE is telling us that both shows are two completely different brands that are completely seperate. If the champ is supposed to defend the title on SD one month and only appear on that show during the month, then who's gonna want to watch RAW? Plus CyNick, if a champ is going to fued with one show a month, and not appear on the other show during this time, then it kinda seems pointless to have him be capable of appearing on both shows if he would be just doing one show at a time anyway wouldn't it?

So I gotta say again that as long as WWE keeps the rosters spilt, having two champs would be the best idea IMO.

[The CyNick]

You said that the last really good PPV number that WWE did was SummerSlam 2002, but that is partly because there hasn't been a PPV since then that has been anywhere near that good. SummerSlam 2002 was obviously going to be an awesome PPV just by looking at the lineup they had. And having only one champ didn't work out in 2002 IMO. The Champ would have a PPV match with someone on one show coming up, and if he's fueding with someone from the other show then this fued isn't taken seriously. Remember when Undertaker fueded with Jeff hardy while he had a Title fued on Smackdown at the same time? Everyone knew that Hardy wouldn't win the title because Undertaker's main fued was with whoever he was fighting on SD at the time (don't remember who, Rock and Angle maybe?)

Having one champ to make the belt seem more credible wouldn't work if the WWE keeps making mistakes like they are making now. Having 2 champs a show can make the belt seem credible if the WWE does a better job of planning out storylines and what not. IMO the problem with belts seeming less credible is because of lousy booking and storytelling, not because there is one belt per show.

If a champ is only appearing on SD during one month, and RAW the next month it won't work out. When the WWE has a PPV with both brands, what then? Having one champ on both shows doesn't work when the WWE is telling us that both shows are two completely different brands that are completely seperate. If the champ is supposed to defend the title on SD one month and only appear on that show during the month, then who's gonna want to watch RAW? Plus CyNick, if a champ is going to fued with one show a month, and not appear on the other show during this time, then it kinda seems pointless to have him be capable of appearing on both shows if he would be just doing one show at a time anyway wouldn't it?

So I gotta say again that as long as WWE keeps the rosters spilt, having two champs would be the best idea IMO.

Wrestlemania XIX was a better show than that Summerslam show, and it did a poor number (for a Mania). SS 02 was built around Brock and Rock in an athletic competition for the top prize in the sport, the result was a big buyrate. After this PPV they split the titles, and most of the PPVs have done poor numbers in comparison.

Having one undisputed champ makes that guy more credible than having two separate champions. There's no denying that, thats just simple common sense. Thats why in say football they dont stop the playoffs after the AFC and NFC Championships, they have a Super Bowl to determine the Undisputed Champ.

In terms of booking there are a ton of different things that can be done. The idea I mentioned would be just one of many options. I mean if it was a babyface champion it might be a good idea to let him defend it on both shows, regardless of who has the PPV. That way the guy seems like a hero for defending it so often.

In terms of the champ taking on fueds from both shows, I can see how it would be tough to buy say a guy on RAW beating the champ during the same month when the champ is building up to a SD only PPV fued with someone from SD. However, if the shows are supposed to be completely separate that shouldn't be a problem. What happens on RAW has no impact on what happens on SD, unless there is an injury to the champ for example, which could impact his title defense, or of course a title switch.

But like I said I think the best way is to have the Undisputed Champ switch shows every month. In terms of the big 4 PPVs, the way I would handle that is to say that if a SD guy is the champ then the SD guys get to challenge for the title on the major PPVs. This makes sense since it would be a reward to the show who the champion belongs to. Then for the guys on RAW they would want to work extra hard to win the title on RAW only shows.

In terms of what to do when the champ isn't on one show for a month, well thats where the IC/US titles come into play. When the Undisputed Champ is on the other show, the secondary title becomes the main focus for all the guys on the roster. This would elevate the secondary titles and the people who hold them.

Another benefit is that the Rumble would become even more meaningful especially for the brand who doesn't own the booking rights to the champion. So in my scenario the guys from RAW would be working extra hard to not only get a shot at the champ at Mania, but also because they have no backup option if they lose. The way it works now, say if Kurt Angle were to win the Rumble, the RAW guys dont really care because there will be some deal on RAW to determine who fights for the World title at Mania. With my scenario its all or nothing at the Rumble, which makes the match more meaningful.

[BasicThuganomics]

Wrestlemania XIX was a better show than that Summerslam show, and it did a poor number (for a Mania). SS 02 was built around Brock and Rock in an athletic competition for the top prize in the sport, the result was a big buyrate. After this PPV they split the titles, and most of the PPVs have done poor numbers in comparison.

Having one undisputed champ makes that guy more credible than having two separate champions. There's no denying that, thats just simple common sense. Thats why in say football they dont stop the playoffs after the AFC and NFC Championships, they have a Super Bowl to determine the Undisputed Champ.

In terms of booking there are a ton of different things that can be done. The idea I mentioned would be just one of many options. I mean if it was a babyface champion it might be a good idea to let him defend it on both shows, regardless of who has the PPV. That way the guy seems like a hero for defending it so often.

In terms of the champ taking on fueds from both shows, I can see how it would be tough to buy say a guy on RAW beating the champ during the same month when the champ is building up to a SD only PPV fued with someone from SD. However, if the shows are supposed to be completely separate that shouldn't be a problem. What happens on RAW has no impact on what happens on SD, unless there is an injury to the champ for example, which could impact his title defense, or of course a title switch.

But like I said I think the best way is to have the Undisputed Champ switch shows every month. In terms of the big 4 PPVs, the way I would handle that is to say that if a SD guy is the champ then the SD guys get to challenge for the title on the major PPVs. This makes sense since it would be a reward to the show who the champion belongs to. Then for the guys on RAW they would want to work extra hard to win the title on RAW only shows.

In terms of what to do when the champ isn't on one show for a month, well thats where the IC/US titles come into play. When the Undisputed Champ is on the other show, the secondary title becomes the main focus for all the guys on the roster. This would elevate the secondary titles and the people who hold them.

Another benefit is that the Rumble would become even more meaningful especially for the brand who doesn't own the booking rights to the champion. So in my scenario the guys from RAW would be working extra hard to not only get a shot at the champ at Mania, but also because they have no backup option if they lose. The way it works now, say if Kurt Angle were to win the Rumble, the RAW guys dont really care because there will be some deal on RAW to determine who fights for the World title at Mania. With my scenario its all or nothing at the Rumble, which makes the match more meaningful.

OK, SummerSlam 2002 was not just built around the main event of Brock vs. Rock. That was one of the best cards for a PPV that we have seen in a long time. HBK/HHH, Rey vs. Kurt, RVD vs Benoit and so many other great matches that took place that night. Decline in PPV buyrates can also be because of the general decline in viewers that has been happening ever since 2001. WMXIX was a better show though perhaps, but my point is still that there hasn't been very many PPV's recently that are nearly as good as SS2002 was.

Having one champ is going to make the guy holding it more credible than 2 champs, But I am saying that having one champ will not matter if HHH is still holding down guys on both shows, and the title isn't booked properly. WWE is still capable of making two champs be credible if they would stop doing stupid things with whoever is champ. (like having Sparkplugg be the #1 contender for example)

As, for having the champ appear on one show a month. This seems like a really bad idea to me personally. Whatever show the champ is not on is not going to be taken as seriously while there is no Heavyweight Champion. CyNick, you don't actually think that fans will want to watch a show when there is no true champion representing that show do you? I like your idea of highlighting secondary titles while the Champ is away on the other show. But the WWE is more than capable of doing that now, and it still doesn't happen.

I don't think your idea is all that bad. But I think that with two seperate shows, having two champs would be better if the WWE would just do a better job of making the titles seem more valuable.

[The CyNick]

OK, SummerSlam 2002 was not just built around the main event of Brock vs. Rock. That was one of the best cards for a PPV that we have seen in a long time. HBK/HHH, Rey vs. Kurt, RVD vs Benoit and so many other great matches that took place that night. Decline in PPV buyrates can also be because of the general decline in viewers that has been happening ever since 2001. WMXIX was a better show though perhaps, but my point is still that there hasn't been very many PPV's recently that are nearly as good as SS2002 was.

Having one champ is going to make the guy holding it more credible than 2 champs, But I am saying that having one champ will not matter if HHH is still holding down guys on both shows, and the title isn't booked properly. WWE is still capable of making two champs be credible if they would stop doing stupid things with whoever is champ. (like having Sparkplugg be the #1 contender for example)

As, for having the champ appear on one show a month. This seems like a really bad idea to me personally. Whatever show the champ is not on is not going to be taken as seriously while there is no Heavyweight Champion. CyNick, you don't actually think that fans will want to watch a show when there is no true champion representing that show do you? I like your idea of highlighting secondary titles while the Champ is away on the other show. But the WWE is more than capable of doing that now, and it still doesn't happen.

I don't think your idea is all that bad. But I think that with two seperate shows, having two champs would be better if the WWE would just do a better job of making the titles seem more valuable.

What I mean with SS 02 is that the promotion of the PPV was based on Brock and Rock doing those workout vignettes and saying these two guys are fighting for the Undisputed Championship. The fact that they had some really strong matches on that show had nothing to do with how many people ordered the show. And in terms of ratings between then and now, thats not really the point, because the PPVs directly after SS 02 had a big drop and they have been doing about the same numbers since then.

I totally agree that if Hunter were to hold guys down thats going to be a problem, but that irrelevant to this discussion. I mean I could argue having two separate champs is bad because Scott Stiener could hold one title and A-Train could hold the other. That would be bad, but we have to stick to the topic. Again, I agree HHH holding people back is bad, but thats besides the point.

SD last week didn't have Brock on the show, and I thought it was a pretty solid show. Again, the key is to build up the secondary titles to a point where the guys holding them are main eventers on their own. I mean for me, and this is just my opinion the RAW title has no value to me. It wasn't won in any sort of competition and there was no angle to strip Brock of half of the Undisputed title. So to me its about as meaningful as the Million $ title from back in the day. So in my view RAW hasn't had a World Title since the last time Rock was there when he was champ in 2002. But even with that in mind, RAW has still had some good shows since that time. So I dont think a lack of a World Champ for a month is going to hurt a show, so long as the secondary title holders have been built up to a level where they can carry the show. It would be kinda like in ECW where they had RVD as TV champ, but he was more over, and worked more main events than Taz or anyone else who was the World Champion.

[BasicThuganomics]

What I mean with SS 02 is that the promotion of the PPV was based on Brock and Rock doing those workout vignettes and saying these two guys are fighting for the Undisputed Championship. The fact that they had some really strong matches on that show had nothing to do with how many people ordered the show. And in terms of ratings between then and now, thats not really the point, because the PPVs directly after SS 02 had a big drop and they have been doing about the same numbers since then.

I totally agree that if Hunter were to hold guys down thats going to be a problem, but that irrelevant to this discussion. I mean I could argue having two separate champs is bad because Scott Stiener could hold one title and A-Train could hold the other. That would be bad, but we have to stick to the topic. Again, I agree HHH holding people back is bad, but thats besides the point.

SD last week didn't have Brock on the show, and I thought it was a pretty solid show. Again, the key is to build up the secondary titles to a point where the guys holding them are main eventers on their own. I mean for me, and this is just my opinion the RAW title has no value to me. It wasn't won in any sort of competition and there was no angle to strip Brock of half of the Undisputed title. So to me its about as meaningful as the Million $ title from back in the day. So in my view RAW hasn't had a World Title since the last time Rock was there when he was champ in 2002. But even with that in mind, RAW has still had some good shows since that time. So I dont think a lack of a World Champ for a month is going to hurt a show, so long as the secondary title holders have been built up to a level where they can carry the show. It would be kinda like in ECW where they had RVD as TV champ, but he was more over, and worked more main events than Taz or anyone else who was the World Champion.

My point for SS02 was that even with the great build up and anticipation for the Brock/Rock match, the rest of the card was looking great too. Just by looking at the card you knew the PPV was gonna be good. People were looking forward to HBK/HHH just as much as they were the title match. And HBK/HHH was promoted just as heavily as well. And obviously the WWE delivered with a solid PPV. IMO there has been hardly any PPV's that have even stood a chance when stacked against a card like SS02 had.

To be honest, I think that you are thinking too much like a "smart mark" in this situation. I think that the common fan (mark or whatever you wanna call it) will look at a show without a champion for a whole month, and wonder "WTF?" I don't think most fans will be as interested in a show that is focusing on someone who isn't the #1 guy. House shows and other events that are promoted without a champion aren't going to be as appealing. Now you point out ECW, but surely you can agree that ECW fans are a totally different group than the WWE tries to bring in. IMO most fans will not accept a show without that show's particular champion.

As for Brock not being on Smackdown, I didn't like it. He should've been used to build up the fued with Holly, (preferably by beating the shit out of him) and possibly even to get more heat between him and Benoit (which I hope happens at WMXX) The main event of Smackdown was very weak IMO. While Los Guerreros vs. WGTT is always a good match, we have seen it SOOOO many times that it is not worthy of being the main event. And the ending with Tazz and Cole talking about Kurt and Eddie backstage was just very anticlimatic and boring IMO. The ending didn't have to necessarily be something to do with Brock, but I didn't like the way this week's went down.

But you're right that fans weren't into the two titles at first, and with the way it was "given" to HHH, who can blame them. But it's too late to do anything about that. And whether you think the RAW title has meaning or not, there is still a person on the RAW roster that is their champion only. The wrestlers on RAW have a top spot that they can try to acheive. After a year and a half almost, I think the fact that the title wasn't originally won in a contest of some sort is kinda irrelevent.

I wasn't saying that HHH will ruin the title even if he is the only champ. I am saying that if the WWE can make two world titles credible if they do a better job of booking the champ, and the main eventers who are challenging for each title. I don't think that that statement was irrelevent. If the rosters are to be completely divided, then each show should have their exclusive champ.

You compare WWE to something like NFL, where the different divisions meet at the end for the championship. But being the SuperBowl champs isn't something that a team is going to defend on the next PPV within a months time. SuperBowl is a one time thing. SuperBowl champions are always going to be the defending champs for an entire year, up until the next year's SuperBowl, if they make it that far at least. So comparing the WWE title to NFL SuperBowl champs isn't really possible, because the titles are defended in different ways.

Now maybe if there was some kind of tournament througout the year that led to the main event at WM. Where the winner could be some kind of champ or whatever, and wouldn't have to defend his title or status until the next year. Then that would be something similar to the NFL. Hey, maybe that's not such a bad idea? What do you think? Something different than King of the Ring, where everyone including main eventers and champions could participate.

But anyways, sorry to drag this out so much CyNick, but I just personally disagree with you. As long as the rosters are seperated, having two champs would be the best IMO. Anyways, I'm somewhat enjoying this little "discussion" or whatever you want to call it. I look forward to your response, because it will probably be easier to read than mine is.

[Vastardikai]

Hate to interject myself into this interesting conversation, but I have an example of something from the past to use as an example to back up CyNick:

If memory serves, the NWA World Heavyweight Champion was a travelling Champion. Every region had their own personal Regional Champion and was their Main Eventer. They also built up guys who were deemed as a legitimate challenge to NWA World Heavyweight Champion, and he would face that person. There was prestige in being the World Heavyweight Champion, and the region he came from definitely got a rub from that person being the champion (we're the best region, as the champion is from here, etc etc.).

I think it would be quite possible that WWE could do that with one Champion, and have the US and Intercontinental Championships be the Brand Specific secondary Titles.

[BasicThuganomics]

Hate to interject myself into this interesting conversation, but I have an example of something from the past to use as an example to back up CyNick:

If memory serves, the NWA World Heavyweight Champion was a travelling Champion. Every region had their own personal Regional Champion and was their Main Eventer. They also built up guys who were deemed as a legitimate challenge to NWA World Heavyweight Champion, and he would face that person. There was prestige in being the World Heavyweight Champion, and the region he came from definitely got a rub from that person being the champion (we're the best region, as the champion is from here, etc etc.).

I think it would be quite possible that WWE could do that with one Champion, and have the US and Intercontinental Championships be the Brand Specific secondary Titles.

Well this is a public forum, so if you have something to add, feel free. You give a good example, and I am not arguing the fact that being the Champion of the WWE is more prestigious than just being the champion of RAW or Smackdown. But I personally am just not in favor of having one champion that goes back and forth between two shows. I think that if the rosters are seperated, then they should actually remain seperate . The more I think of it, I really am in favor of my idea to have a champion that is similar to what the SuperBowl champion is for the NFL. Have a tournament or something to set up the main event for Wrestlemania where it might not even be between the two current champions and won't even be for the world title necessarliy. But the winner has bragging rights of being called the best in the WWE for an entire year. I dunno, I haven't actually thought that idea out all the way through, but you get the basic idea?

[The Duck]

I'm a bit indifferent to the idea of merging the titles again. PPVs are sold on main events and the importance of the Championship (in the fans eyes) that's being competed for (along with feuds etc). Having one Champion and one Championship to be shooting for does create this importance, especially when there's two brands and two rosters.

I like the idea of the Champion being assigned to a show if it's their month's PPV. This creates a routine and something that the crowd should be able to understand. It would be interesting to compare the numbers between shows with and without the Champion appearing. Also, should for example John Cena be feuding with Triple H for the strap, but HHH is on Raw for their PPV month - the hype can build for an impending feud between Cena and HHH (especially if Cena is determined to be the #1 contender). Of course, if HHH then drops the strap at the Raw PPV, Cena is left with unfinished business but it creates possibilities for the future.

What having one Champion would do is decrease the sheer quantity of World title matches on WWE TV, which I believe would be a good thing. Do your ratings on the impending hunt/chase for the title and only OCCASSIONALLY for the title matches themselves. If WWE Championship matches take place less frequently there would be an added sense of importance. If the US/IC belts were then used to bridge the gap and ALWAYS given the main event TV slots when they're on the line, then that WWE title match suddenly becomes a huge deal (like in the Hogan-era).

It could also create a real sense of competition for both brands, as when one brand is on it's OFF-month, a number contender must be determined for the following month. Knock Out Tournaments, Round-Robin leagues, Battle Royales etc can all be used occassionally to determine this.

There's potential in it but I don't think WWE would treat it in that way. I don't mind there being two Champions, but as a mark the Championship just don't seem as important and special as they used to.

[The CyNick]

Just want to point out that there are a lot of good points being brought up, its rare you see a decent discussion on here anymore.

BTW, just so its clear, the Summerslam build was mainly around Brock and Rock, yeah they did throw in some HBK-HHH promos, but the vast majority of the spots were the training pieces.

Anyway, I didn't want to bring up the NWA title thing because I didn't know how many people followed NWA back in the day, but thats basically how I think the title should be booked. RAW and SD would have their IC and US champs who would main event, but then when the Undisputed Champ comes in, its a big deal.

The main problem I have with the two world titles is when they have them both on the major PPVs. Wrestling shows should build to a climax, and when you have one world title match, and then another, its hard to get excited and feel the same level of importance for just the one title.

And then the other thing is that you run out of main event matches very quickly. Especially with say Hunter, who has pretty much ran through the entire RAW roster. I mean with Mania coming up, I cant think of a plausible opponent for him on RAW, that we haven't see a million times, or for poilitical reasons wont happen. At least with one champion you create a lot more fresh matches with the champion going between shows.

Personally I felt that Mania would be a good time to at least try to see how the Unified title thing would work. Let one champion go between both shows, and do that for a few months, and then see what happens business wise. If you see some problems, then they could always do an angle to split the titles, which at least would create some controversy.

[Fryza]

ok 1 HHH is not holding down the roster the fans are because they don't gave these new superstar a chase for exapale mark henary the dude been in wwe longer then brooker t and look how fair he came now if u ask me i would like to see mark henary brooker t and Ronday mack join togerther and from a team

Wow. The fans really can't do jack SQUAT about the wrestling. Notice how Holly has little crowd heat and is now a main eventer, when Ultimo Dragon or Rey Mysterio get huge pops but are squashed in matches, or pushed off the cards? Hunter does use his backstage power to get ahead. This causes smaller wrestlers to get pushed down so he gets more air time. Plain and simple.

As for the whole Mark Henry deal, just because someone has been there forever, doesn't make them good in-ring workers. How long has Herny BEEN pro? I wouldn't be surprised if Booker has been working longer than Mark to begin with. That, and Mark isn't that grand on the mic, and even worse in the ring. That stable is basically just Nation of Doomination v2.0

now on to smackdown samething brocks not holding down the roster mean he put the title on aguesanst Rey jr for crying out loud and he putting it on the line agest harcore holly ( who am glad getting it) at RR

And you believe what you type? Rey got it so they could feed him to Lesnar and make Lesnar more destructive, and push Holly/Lesnar, which be the way, Holly is just getting fed to Lesnar, as more the likely Lesnar will be facing Angle or Benoit at WrestleMania. I really don't think just Brock is taking up air time, but SmackDown! needs less hosses...

[OpusCroakus1]

The more I think of it, I really am in favor of my idea to have a champion that is similar to what the SuperBowl champion is for the NFL. Have a tournament or something to set up the main event for Wrestlemania where it might not even be between the two current champions and won't even be for the world title necessarliy. But the winner has bragging rights of being called the best in the WWE for an entire year. I dunno, I haven't actually thought that idea out all the way through, but you get the basic idea?

Well, there was something like this.... the "King of the Ring" tournament.

[OpusCroakus1]

I want to thank everyone who's posted their ideas and opinions here.... we've got a pretty good conversation going. :)

Well, I very much agree with the opinion that a "Raw Champion" and a "Smackdown Champion" is NOT a good thing.... it was a nice novelty for a while, including having a Wrestlemania where both titles were seperatly contested..... but I think it would be a BIG mistake to have that happen at Wrestlemania XX again. At the biggest show of the year (the "decade" WM) there should be ONE Champion.

I also like the idea of the "Brand" championships being the IC and the US.... both are very prestigious, and having them be the ultimate "brand" prize would make sence....

I also have been of the opinion that the "Contendership Rankings" should be made more important, and that the race to be "Number One Contender" should be emphisized..... And having one WWE Champion going from show to show would help that.....

So, I still say.... Main Event at Wrestlemania XX - Double Jeopardy Match... Match 1 for the "World Heveyweight Champ." / Match 2 for the "WWE Championship"... both matches going on at the same time in the same ring, anybody can attack anybody else, but they can only acheve victory by defeating the person they're matched up against, and when both matches have reached a decision, the match would contune between the two winners untill one was left.... to be crowned the Undisputed Champ.

Of course, this could have a Bichoff/Raw vs Heyman/SD buildup.... etc...

I really think this is the best possible setup... especially for the "biggest Wrestlemania of them all"...

[BasicThuganomics]

Well, there was something like this.... the "King of the Ring" tournament.


If you read my earlier post you would have noticed that I said something different than the King of the Ring Tournament. Plus the King of the Ring never meant you were the best, more of an up and comer to look out for in the future. This would be a title that people who suck like Mable, and Billy Gunn wouldn't be able to win.

I want to thank everyone who's posted their ideas and opinions here.... we've got a pretty good conversation going.

Well, I very much agree with the opinion that a "Raw Champion" and a "Smackdown Champion" is NOT a good thing.... it was a nice novelty for a while, including having a Wrestlemania where both titles were seperatly contested..... but I think it would be a BIG mistake to have that happen at Wrestlemania XX again. At the biggest show of the year (the "decade" WM) there should be ONE Champion.

I also like the idea of the "Brand" championships being the IC and the US.... both are very prestigious, and having them be the ultimate "brand" prize would make sence....

I also have been of the opinion that the "Contendership Rankings" should be made more important, and that the race to be "Number One Contender" should be emphisized..... And having one WWE Champion going from show to show would help that.....

So, I still say.... Main Event at Wrestlemania XX - Double Jeopardy Match... Match 1 for the "World Heveyweight Champ." / Match 2 for the "WWE Championship"... both matches going on at the same time in the same ring, anybody can attack anybody else, but they can only acheve victory by defeating the person they're matched up against, and when both matches have reached a decision, the match would contune between the two winners untill one was left.... to be crowned the Undisputed Champ.

Of course, this could have a Bichoff/Raw vs Heyman/SD buildup.... etc...

I really think this is the best possible setup... especially for the "biggest Wrestlemania of them all"....

You have your opinion and I've said all that I can think of on the topic of one or two titles. I like your idea about making the race for the #1 contendership more important. It is a good idea, whether there are one or two titles. But your "double Jeopardy" main event sounds really bad IMO. I don't want to see a 4way cluster**** for the main event followed by a Interbrand match that isn't going to have a good build up besides the idea of RAW vs Smackdown. I think the main event of Wrestlemania is something that should be between two superstars who have legitimate heat between each other fighting for the championship. Not just two champions who happen to end up facing each other out of nowhere without any build up between them whatsoever. Even if the titles were United, then I don't think it's a good idea to do it at WMXX. WWE already has a good fued going between Brock and Benoit that could deliver a 5star classic if given the chance as the main event for WMXX. If you've seen my posts, you realize I want to see this match for the main event. I just don't think the WWE would be able to build up a reason why the titles need to be Unified and to have time to build up a good fued for the main event. Brock vs Goldberg is another obvious choice. But the match will not be that good I think. Lesnar can carry Goldberg to a good match I'm sure, but the main event of WMXX needs to be AWESOME, not just good.

But yeah this whole discussion basically comes down to personal preference. Whether or not you think having one champion with two seperate rosters is good or not. I of course have stated that seperate rosters should equal seperate champs IMO.

[The CyNick]

Its looking like the main event could be Benoit vs Hunter

[blake639raw]

Its looking like the main event could be Benoit vs Hunter Where have you heard this? Details?

[The CyNick]

Where have you heard this? Details?

Its putting information from a few sources (mainly the Observer) and adding 2 and 2 to make 4.

Basically, the two matches that consistantly have been rumoured and continue to be, is Kane vs Taker and Brock vs Goldberg.

Another rumour started some time last week or the week before that the WWE was thinking of having the RR winner be from Smackdown, but then challenge the RAW Champ (Hunter) instead of the SD champ. This was confirmed as being a discussed plan in the Observer this week. Furthermore, the Observer is also saying the working plan is still to have Brock vs Goldberg and it would be for the SD title.

Also, after watching SD a couple of weeks ago it looked like they were setting up Benoit to recreate Ric Flair's achievements by going a full hour to win the Royal Rumble in order to make him a superstar.

So it stands to reason with the WWE wanting to do Brock-Goldberg, that they would have Benoit win and then challenge for the RAW title. Also consider that the winner of the Rumble gets the last match at Mania. So it also stands to reason that the WWE would want Benoit capturing his first "WWE" title as the last match at Wrestlemania. This would be a better choice in terms of match quality (and since its likley Brock as a heel will go over in this match) over Brock-Goldberg and more importantly from a political standpoint you know Hunter will want to be in the top spot at the biggest show in WWE history. This scenario would please Hunter, which is obviously very important.

None of this is confirmed 100%, but all the pieces seem to fit. You add that to the fact that they have decided to hold off the Orton turn on Hunter to go with the Rock n Sock tag match, and it makes even more sense.

Another piece of news from the Observer was that apparently all the top matches for Mania were laid out over a month ago, and all the angles are being set up so that those matches will have as much steam as possible going into the show. So, thats good news.

[BasicThuganomics]

Its putting information from a few sources (mainly the Observer) and adding 2 and 2 to make 4.

Basically, the two matches that consistantly have been rumoured and continue to be, is Kane vs Taker and Brock vs Goldberg.

Another rumour started some time last week or the week before that the WWE was thinking of having the RR winner be from Smackdown, but then challenge the RAW Champ (Hunter) instead of the SD champ. This was confirmed as being a discussed plan in the Observer this week. Furthermore, the Observer is also saying the working plan is still to have Brock vs Goldberg and it would be for the SD title.

Also, after watching SD a couple of weeks ago it looked like they were setting up Benoit to recreate Ric Flair's achievements by going a full hour to win the Royal Rumble in order to make him a superstar.

So it stands to reason with the WWE wanting to do Brock-Goldberg, that they would have Benoit win and then challenge for the RAW title. Also consider that the winner of the Rumble gets the last match at Mania. So it also stands to reason that the WWE would want Benoit capturing his first "WWE" title as the last match at Wrestlemania. This would be a better choice in terms of match quality (and since its likley Brock as a heel will go over in this match) over Brock-Goldberg and more importantly from a political standpoint you know Hunter will want to be in the top spot at the biggest show in WWE history. This scenario would please Hunter, which is obviously very important.

None of this is confirmed 100%, but all the pieces seem to fit. You add that to the fact that they have decided to hold off the Orton turn on Hunter to go with the Rock n Sock tag match, and it makes even more sense.

Another piece of news from the Observer was that apparently all the top matches for Mania were laid out over a month ago, and all the angles are being set up so that those matches will have as much steam as possible going into the show. So, thats good news.

You know you're usually right about alot of things, and if you're right about this, then I will be very impressed. So u think there will be a trade or what? Eric wants Goldberg away from Hunter really bad and is willing to trade for Benoit who Heyman doesn't like at all would seem like a likely scenerio if there is going to be a trade. Royal Rumble should be a VERY interesting show if what you're saying is correct...

[Innovator]

if it leads Benoit to the title then it's all good

[BasicThuganomics]

if it leads Benoit to the title then it's all good

:y:

[BasicThuganomics]

I hope HHH stays injury free until WMXX. If he's in good shape, and in the main event against Benoit, it could be a pretty good match. Lately whenever HHH hasn't had any injuries bothering him he's been pretty good in the ring I think. I thought he wasn't too bad in the Triple Threat match, and the match with HBK was VERY good. Benoit is of course going to put on the performance of a lifetime in what will be the biggest match of his career. CyNick, I hope you're right about Benoit/HHH. Now I am excited about the Royal Rumble and WMXX.

[c4g2]

Its putting information from a few sources (mainly the Observer) and adding 2 and 2 to make 4.

Basically, the two matches that consistantly have been rumoured and continue to be, is Kane vs Taker and Brock vs Goldberg.

Another rumour started some time last week or the week before that the WWE was thinking of having the RR winner be from Smackdown, but then challenge the RAW Champ (Hunter) instead of the SD champ. This was confirmed as being a discussed plan in the Observer this week. Furthermore, the Observer is also saying the working plan is still to have Brock vs Goldberg and it would be for the SD title.

Also, after watching SD a couple of weeks ago it looked like they were setting up Benoit to recreate Ric Flair's achievements by going a full hour to win the Royal Rumble in order to make him a superstar.

So it stands to reason with the WWE wanting to do Brock-Goldberg, that they would have Benoit win and then challenge for the RAW title. Also consider that the winner of the Rumble gets the last match at Mania. So it also stands to reason that the WWE would want Benoit capturing his first "WWE" title as the last match at Wrestlemania. This would be a better choice in terms of match quality (and since its likley Brock as a heel will go over in this match) over Brock-Goldberg and more importantly from a political standpoint you know Hunter will want to be in the top spot at the biggest show in WWE history. This scenario would please Hunter, which is obviously very important.

None of this is confirmed 100%, but all the pieces seem to fit. You add that to the fact that they have decided to hold off the Orton turn on Hunter to go with the Rock n Sock tag match, and it makes even more sense.

Another piece of news from the Observer was that apparently all the top matches for Mania were laid out over a month ago, and all the angles are being set up so that those matches will have as much steam as possible going into the show. So, thats good news.

That is the most solid believable prediction about Wrestlemania that I've heard. :y:

[The CyNick]

I hope HHH stays injury free until WMXX. If he's in good shape, and in the main event against Benoit, it could be a pretty good match. Lately whenever HHH hasn't had any injuries bothering him he's been pretty good in the ring I think. I thought he wasn't too bad in the Triple Threat match, and the match with HBK was VERY good. Benoit is of course going to put on the performance of a lifetime in what will be the biggest match of his career. CyNick, I hope you're right about Benoit/HHH. Now I am excited about the Royal Rumble and WMXX.

Should know forsure in a week or so, I'm sure it'll leak whether or not they are giving the spot to Benoit. I hope its true too, I know Hunter and Benoit had a really strong match on a PPV back in 2000 (I think). Of course that was a few years ago, and HUnter was a better worker, but if he can do what he did on Monday it should be a helluva match.

[BasicThuganomics]

Should know forsure in a week or so, I'm sure it'll leak whether or not they are giving the spot to Benoit. I hope its true too, I know Hunter and Benoit had a really strong match on a PPV back in 2000 (I think). Of course that was a few years ago, and HUnter was a better worker, but if he can do what he did on Monday it should be a helluva match.


Yeah, that was during HHH's semi face turn right before he was revealed as the guy who planned for Rikishi to run Austin over. HHH was awesome back then and so was Benoit. I think Benoit has improved since then, and HHH has been doing pretty good as well since the Triple Threat. I just hope HHH doesn't weasle out of losing to Benoit at the last minute or something. Isn't HHH gonna be doing movies this year? So hopefully he will lose the title to Benoit in order to take time off for movies.

[Mikey]

if it leads Benoit to the title then it's all good

:y:

[The CyNick]

Yeah, that was during HHH's semi face turn right before he was revealed as the guy who planned for Rikishi to run Austin over. HHH was awesome back then and so was Benoit. I think Benoit has improved since then, and HHH has been doing pretty good as well since the Triple Threat. I just hope HHH doesn't weasle out of losing to Benoit at the last minute or something. Isn't HHH gonna be doing movies this year? So hopefully he will lose the title to Benoit in order to take time off for movies.

Yeah he's going to gone in "Late Spring"

It would make a lot of sense for him to lose to Benoit at Mania and then again at the April RAW PPV to really put over Benoit.

Then HHH could take some time off to do his next movie. In the meantime Randy would take over Evolution, and that would plant the seeds for next years Mania program with Hunter and Orton. HHH would come back after a couple of months, and things would start to go downhill in Evolution.

I think Hunter will be willing to do the JOB at Mania, so long as he's in the top spot. I dont think he's that big of a mark (yet) where he has to win every match he's on. I think just getting that spot is more important to him, and in a lot of ways its a good political move, because he knows he's going to be gone for a little while, and he knows they need to make new stars.

Now will he do the JOB the right way to make Benoit a star, thats something I wouldn't bet a lot of money on.

[Corkscrewed]

Wow, that was a lot of reading, but a lot of good points, do I'll try to delve into a few.

First of all,
the fans are because they don't gave these new superstar a chase for exapale mark henary
Why would I want to chase Mark Henry?

Anyway...

Brand Splits and One or Two Champs
Personally, I favor the brands being kept separate for a lot longer, maybe a couple more years, before I try to unite them again. Having a unified title essentially undoes the actions of the past couple of years. Granted, we haven't really had believable separate brands, but I think it still could happen. Even if they didn't try to make them look separate, time itself will make people more accustomed to RAW being RAW and SD! being SD!, without any mixing.

In short, I believe it is still too soon to unify the titles.

Benoit vs HHH?
If it gets Benoit the title, that's cool, but he won't be winning the WWE Title. He'll be winning the World Title, which would (as far as I know) be a title that he's held before. Furthermore, I really doubt Benoit, out of all people, would finally get a legitimate rub over Triple H. More likely (and yes, this is the pessimistic side of me speaking) he'll challenge, lose, then become a Chris Jericho or something like that.

On Long Term Booking
If these rumors are true, then this is quite welcome. I remember Wrestlemania 15 seemed to have a lot of steam heading into the PPV. It was literally the culmination of a lot of angles, as it should be. Some of the WM's since then have been a bit weaker in that category, with angles being only one or two months old at the most.

Now, an angle doesn't have to drag on continuously for several months to be good, but an angle can last several months without having direct feuds. Look at the Chris Benoit scenario. If he ends up facing Brock, and the feud ends at WM, you can say that it lasted a good half a year. Benoit made Brock tap at Survivor Series and has been in a program with Brock since then, at least indirectly. You look at Paul screwing Benoit, etc..., and it's all to avoid a Brock/Benoit match. So when you finally get one, you have a lot of history to it and it's a lot more intriguing seeing it all play out.

This is the sort of booking I want to see from the WWE: angles that are thought out and planned and are taken at excellent pacing.

[BasicThuganomics]

Hey Cork, HHH is going to be gone doing movies for a while this year, so there is a good chance that Benoit actually DOES win the title from Hunter. I also think that if the Benoit/HHH match happens as the main event(last match) that we won't see a controversial ending. I don't think the WWE wants the biggest show ever to end on a bad note by Benoit not winning the title cleanly.

[Nowhere Man]

Benoit vs HHH?
If it gets Benoit the title, that's cool, but he won't be winning the WWE Title. He'll be winning the World Title, which would (as far as I know) be a title that he's held before.

Technically, Benoit never officially held the WCW Title. He won it from Sid at Sin '00 just before he jumped ship, but the next night they reversed the decision.

Anyways, I really really REALLY don't want to see Benoit vs Triple H. First off, I'd hate to sound like a typical overly-cynical internet smark, but HHH would never put over Benoit at Mania. Think about it: it's the single biggest wrestling event ever (or so they hope), and you're wrestling the main event of the show. Would you want to be remembered as the guy who lost on the biggest stage of them all? Of course not. HHH wouldn't put over Booker T last year, so there's no way in hell he's going to put over Benoit this year.

Secondly, Benoit fits much better over on SD than he ever would on Raw. True, you could have more of Benoit vs Jericho or Benoit vs RVD, but really, that's about it. And knowing the way Raw is booked, they'd just job him out to Mark Henry and Randy Orton in their futile attempt to get them over. On SD, he's got Angle, Brock, Eddie, Rey, a returning Edge, and Cena to have potential feuds with, which would all lead to awesome matches. With Angle out, SD really needs a guy to fill his shoes. Brock so far hasn't really been able to do it, but maybe the fans would get behind Benoit like they did with Bret in the 90's.

[BasicThuganomics]

Look HHH has won the title at the last two Wrestlemania's, and he's going to be gone filming movies for awhile this year. So the chances of Benoit winning are pretty good. No offense, but you are sounding like nothing but an overly cynical internet smark right now. RAW still has good talent with Booker T, HBK, Christian, Randy Orton (who isn't being fed main eventers just yet, mostly mid carders) Batista (I like him at least, and isn't being pushed straight to main events either), and alot of the newer tag teams are looking pretty good. People complain that RAW needs better straight up Wrestling like Smackdown has, well Benoit would be a great help in this department. Along with the good storylines that RAW has been producing lately, I think Benoit could help RAW be an even better show.

[Innovator]

My 2 cents:
-Trips of all people shouldn't complain about putting someone over in the main event. At wm 16 Foley, Show, and Rock all put him over, then at wm 18 Jericho put him over. 2/3 ain't bad
-Benoit would fit perfectly into feuding with Evolution. In WCW Benoit was part of the Horsemen with Flair. His first WWF/E match was against HHH.
-Benoit winning the title is alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll good

[Kane Knight]

I like the the original idea, but I'm not sure I want to see a Unified title.

However, if they did do it, I wouldn't mind seeing a 4-Way match for the title. You take the two champs and the #1 contender from each show in either a fatal 4-Way or a Battle Royal match.

[BasicThuganomics]

Hey CyNick, do you think that WWE would put Goldberg vs. Brock or HHH vs. Benoit in the actual main event of WM? Benoit/HHH would obvioulsy be a better match, but it seems that Goldberg/Lesnar would be the bigger draw. What do you think?

[FourFifty]

Regardless of the fact that there is simply no chance in hell of this match going down, I guess I'll put my two cents in this fantasy match.

SmackDown- Some Godforsaken piece of trash hoss with a moveset smaller than X-Pac's VS a midcarder who will never win but is getting a big push because quite frankly the f</b>ucking writers have no idea who they pushed 3 weeks ago.

Raw- Any random main event face (HBK, Goldberg, 'Taker if he comes back on Raw or Austin if he goes back to wrestling part time *if Triple H can do it...*) who can have a title shot after he makes fun on Ric Flair's saggy chest to do the job to, I mean VS Triple H.

[The CyNick]

Hey CyNick, do you think that WWE would put Goldberg vs. Brock or HHH vs. Benoit in the actual main event of WM? Benoit/HHH would obvioulsy be a better match, but it seems that Goldberg/Lesnar would be the bigger draw. What do you think?

Good question

If you look at last years show, Vince and Hogan had the vast (vast) majority of the promotion leading up to the show (which probably explains the poor buyrate). However, they gave Kurt and Brock the top spot on the actual show. So, my guess is that now having two titles, winning the Rumble means you secure the last match on the show (as Brock did last year). So, with that in mind, I would say HHH vs Benoit will be the last match on the show. However, I think matches like Taker-Kane and Brock-Goldberg will get the lion share of the promotion leading up to the show.

Also, I think going on last might be important to HHH, which is why I think he might be willing to put over Benoit is a decent manner. Plus, like you mentioned Benoit-HHH will likely be a pretty dman good match, so thats a better way to finish the "biggest PPV in WWE history".

[BasicThuganomics]

Regardless of the fact that there is simply no chance in hell of this match going down, I guess I'll put my two cents in this fantasy match.

SmackDown- Some Godforsaken piece of trash hoss with a moveset smaller than X-Pac's VS a midcarder who will never win but is getting a big push because quite frankly the f</b>ucking writers have no idea who they pushed 3 weeks ago.

Raw- Any random main event face (HBK, Goldberg, 'Taker if he comes back on Raw or Austin if he goes back to wrestling part time *if Triple H can do it...*) who can have a title shot after he makes fun on Ric Flair's saggy chest to do the job to, I mean VS Triple H.

STFU dumbass, and reply when you know what you're talking about actually.