There Might Be A Single World Title Again

[Blue Demon]

There are said to have been discussions among at least one or two people within WWE creative about the idea of building up to a single world title and champion who would headline every PPV and defend against wrestlers on both brands reports The Wrestling Observer Newsletter. The reason this has been discussed is that back in the time when titles were over with wrestling fans they knew who "the champ" was as there was only one top guy. This doesn't happen now with two separate world champions on two separate brands.

Since the creation of two world titles, one for each television show, many feel the company essentially created two Intercontinental champions instead of two credible world champions. The basis for this is that in the 1980s the Intercontinental title was used to main event house shows and drew well, but on its own wasn't going to sellout major arenas. While some title matches in the brand era have drawn well, most haven't meant a thing when looking at PPV buyrates. The general feeling is that the generation of wrestling fans today no longer see the world title as fans may have 10, 20 or even 30 years ago. Instead they see it as a prop and nothing more.

It should be noted that when this idea was brought up to Vince McMahon he was said to be completely negative on the idea. So it doesn't appear there are any plans to go in this direction anytime soon.


http://www.wrestleview.com/news08/1229895504.shtml

[BigDaddyCool]

I wouldn't mind seeing a top champion, and then making the US and IC titles as the top titles for Raw and Smackdown respectivly. ECW Title would stay ECW of course.

[Volare]

I can see Batista always challenging when the Champ has to face someone from RAW. Him and his 326,458,521 rematch clauses.

[Kane Knight]

As long as there's a roster split, a shared title is dumb.

[BigDaddyCool]

As long as there's a roster split, a shared title is dumb.

Just move everyone to ECW because they have a working roster exchange with both Raw and Smackdown, duh.

[Kane Knight]

Just move everyone to ECW because they have a working roster exchange with both Raw and Smackdown, duh.

Brilliant. Then we can make the ECW title the big belt.

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>Good, I liked how it was when the split first happened with a champion that floats between shows.</font>

[JT]

As long as there's a roster split, a shared title is dumb.

NWA: It worked for them in a similar situation. They had hundreds of "territories" back in the day with their own champions, then the NWA World Championship which was shared between them. I say you have that between 3 brands and it could work out nicely.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't see how having a shared title is dumb. It accomplishes several things. Firstly, it does give you a definitive top guy. Also, I am sick of Triple H being called a "twelve-time WWE Champion" or "twelve-time World Heavyweight Champion" depending on which title he is going for. No, he's a seven-time WWE Champion and five-time World Heavyweight Champion. If the belts were unified, there would be a WWE World Heavyweight Champion, and Triple H can call himself a twelve-time that. It also smooths out the resume of guys like The Undertaker, Chris Jericho, Edge, John Cena and Shawn Michaels -- people who have held both "World Titles."

The only problem it leaves schematically is that you historically have to note the history of the World Heavyweight Championship and WWE Championship being separate, so people can understand that there were two sort of "twin" titles to go between the brands. As it stands, though, the line between the WHT and WWE Title is already blurred, though.

Another positive of it, is that it moves up the priority of all the other singles championships. The ECW Title is no longer the "third belt," but a special sort of niche belt for the ECW brand to wield as its own. It'd technically be the second highest belt in the company, I assume. The Intercontinental Championship and United States Championship would then also gain more status, as when a SmackDown! guy is challenging for the WWE World Title, logically an IC Title match should get high play on RAW.

It would also make for a big PPV event. The crowning of a WWE World Heavyweight Champion would make for an event that your average wrestling fan "can't miss." Yes, it's a one-off payday, but it could work out to be very momentous for the WWE when John Cena wins that title. And yes, you know it's going to be him that does it.

[Mr. Nerfect]

NWA: It worked for them in a similar situation. They had hundreds of "territories" back in the day with their own champions, then the NWA World Championship which was shared between them. I say you have that between 3 brands and it could work out nicely.

JT, don't use history and logic when arguing with KK. That would be dumb.

[BigDaddyCool]

JT, don't use history and logic when arguing with <s>KK</s> Noid. That would be dumb.

[JT]

JT, don't use history and logic when arguing with KK. That would be dumb.

I'm not arguing, I'm merely giving my opinion. If KK disagrees, than that's his thing. I've learned from history though that pure arguements between forum members on these issues are pointless, and try to not go further than 1-2 posts now if it gets negative.

[Mr. Nerfect]

That would be wise, considering you won't likely hear the end of it, even when not applicable. But, if you disagree with KK, he perceives it as arguing with him. Because I've come in and said that, you won't get an earful, but you could have expected some kind of sarcastic comment in your direction.

I'll take the brunt of it now, because I'm good that way.

[DrA]

The WWE has really dug themselves into a shit hole over the years with this mess of a roster split. It will take a long time coming, if ever, before any title in the company has any credibility.

[GD]

Hope they make the World Champion represent all the 3 brands whereas have the Intercontinental, United States and ECW Champions exclusive to their brands.

[BigDaddyCool]

That would be wise, considering you won't likely hear the end of it, even when not applicable. But, if you disagree with KK, he perceives it as arguing with him. Because I've come in and said that, you won't get an earful, but you could have expected some kind of sarcastic comment in your direction.

I'll take the brunt of it now, because I'm good that way.

Yinno, if you quit taking pot shots at KK and just dropped it, he probably wouldn't pick on you as much.

[Afterlife]

I wouldn't mind seeing a top champion, and then making the US and IC titles as the top titles for Raw and Smackdown respectivly. ECW Title would stay ECW of course.

That is an intriguing idea with potential. And I wouldn't spit on the product right away if it happened. But, I tend to lean toward this....

As long as there's a roster split, a shared title is dumb.

And I'll elaborate as to why.

Each brand has it's own audience. A portion will be universal, but many only watch "the good one", whichever that may be in their eyes. With a champion of each brand, as opposed to a champion of the company, the selective audience can enjoy their program without having the other shows thrown in their faces.

The counter argument would involve the Rebound segments, as well as the inability of the creative teams to work with the wrestlers on their rosters and the illegitimate necessity of cross brand promotions. But that would happen, regardless of the top title situation. In fact, most of that happens due to the limited number of of tag titles. This has been going on for years, making the "Draft" the most impotent thing in WWE history and probably the warm-up to try to make the pitch for a floating Champ to Vince, anyway.

I suppose, if they cut down to one Top Title, they should cut to one Tag Title, as well. That would only make sense. Then your floater champs would kind of make sense. Then the Divas "title" goes away and we get a floater Womens champ that we can not watch on every show.

And then, we get to the point where we eliminate the brands entirely, making it one show, three times a week. Then "the good one" is gone, as well as, arguably, 2/3 of the roster.

[Afterlife]

Yinno, if you quit taking pot shots at KK and just dropped it, he probably wouldn't pick on you as much.

Chicken vs. Egg, Round One.

[Stickman]

I wanted this since they made 2 world titles.

[BigDaddyCool]

I'm just saying KK isn't challenging noid in this thread so far. Noid has started taking pot shots, and soon KK might deside to answer the pot shot, then noid will play the "every one is ganging up on me card."

[Afterlife]

I'm just saying KK isn't challenging noid in this thread so far. Noid has started taking pot shots, and soon KK might deside to answer the pot shot, then noid will play the "every one is ganging up on me card."

I'm not arguing against that. But I watch them both do it. The ball isn't entirely in Noid's court.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I'm just saying KK isn't challenging noid in this thread so far. Noid has started taking pot shots, and soon KK might deside to answer the pot shot, then noid will play the "every one is ganging up on me card."

I think you'll find the ratio actually favours KK as the one who takes a pot shot first, most of the time. I've started more and more often, and don't claim innocence, but why should the onus be solely on me to drop things?

Afterlife is spot on with his Chicken vs. Egg comment. Only, the round one thing is probably a few hundred behind on the count...

[Xero]

If they do it, they're still going to need a top title per brand ANYWAY. It also means one brand loses a world title feud for months at a time. There's really no reason to do this as long as the split is intact as there are wrestlers showing up on either brand whenever they like anyway.

And before we get into it, ending the brand split is impossible with the size of the WWE's roster.

[BigDaddyCool]

K, don't come crying to me when he retorts.

[Kane Knight]

NWA: It worked for them in a similar situation. They had hundreds of "territories" back in the day with their own champions, then the NWA World Championship which was shared between them. I say you have that between 3 brands and it could work out nicely.

Yes. Note "back in the day" and "had" in your own statement. We're not talking about the territory days, any more than we're talking about the Attitude Era, the Monday Night Wars, or any other piece of history. It didn't work too well the first time (at least, if you count ratings, buyrates, and fan interest).

In essence, this is only superficially a "similar situation." It's similar in the sense that there's a proposal that would make a multi-brand title and there was once a territorial system in NWA.

Despite Noid's comments, this isn't disregarding your statement or history or logic. Hell, part of history is understanding that if the basic findamentals change, so does the outcome. Applying logic requires one look at the history in question, and how things might have changed since them. In fact, in the spirit of keeping things logical....I'm just going to start ignoring Noid.

So if you want to carry on, feel free. :D

[Mr. Nerfect]

Each brand has it's own audience. A portion will be universal, but many only watch "the good one", whichever that may be in their eyes. With a champion of each brand, as opposed to a champion of the company, the selective audience can enjoy their program without having the other shows thrown in their faces.

The counter argument would involve the Rebound segments, as well as the inability of the creative teams to work with the wrestlers on their rosters and the illegitimate necessity of cross brand promotions. But that would happen, regardless of the top title situation. In fact, most of that happens due to the limited number of of tag titles. This has been going on for years, making the "Draft" the most impotent thing in WWE history and probably the warm-up to try to make the pitch for a floating Champ to Vince, anyway.

I suppose, if they cut down to one Top Title, they should cut to one Tag Title, as well. That would only make sense. Then your floater champs would kind of make sense. Then the Divas "title" goes away and we get a floater Womens champ that we can not watch on every show.

And then, we get to the point where we eliminate the brands entirely, making it one show, three times a week. Then "the good one" is gone, as well as, arguably, 2/3 of the roster.

Would you not agree then that it would do the WWE more good to either shit or get off the pot with the brand extension, and actually make the shows completely different programs with different feels and a less connected feel? Otherwise it does feel like there are two champions between two shows, instead of one champion for one show?

Also, I'd like to throw out there that I can actually see the WWE running a test for this with the Tag Team Titles. John Morrison & The Miz have "officially" taken the belts over to ECW with their latest win, and are still being included in their roles on SmackDown!. How long do you think it will be before we see John Morrison & The Miz bump into Carito & Primo Colon backstage, and we see a match for both sets of titles?

[Destor]

As long as there's a roster split, a shared title is dumb.worst idea in this thread

[Mr. Nerfect]

Yes. Note "back in the day" and "had" in your own statement. We're not talking about the territory days, any more than we're talking about the Attitude Era, the Monday Night Wars, or any other piece of history. It didn't work too well the first time (at least, if you count ratings, buyrates, and fan interest).

In essence, this is only superficially a "similar situation." It's similar in the sense that there's a proposal that would make a multi-brand title and there was once a territorial system in NWA.

Despite Noid's comments, this isn't disregarding your statement or history or logic. Hell, part of history is understanding that if the basic findamentals change, so does the outcome. Applying logic requires one look at the history in question, and how things might have changed since them. In fact, in the spirit of keeping things logical....I'm just going to start ignoring Noid.

So if you want to carry on, feel free. :D

So what makes you the expert in the change the business has taken? I'm honestly not trying to start anything with this, but that does seem like a "straw-man" argument to me. You haven't addressed why having one title between the shows is a stupid idea, and merely said that it's a different era, and that your view over history needs to take into account these "changes." Then you've shoved the ball back into JT's face.

Why is it a stupid idea? The ball is still in your court.

[BigDaddyCool]

So what makes you the expert in the change the business has taken? I'm honestly not trying to start anything with this, but that does seem like a "straw-man" argument to me. You haven't addressed why having one title between the shows is a stupid idea, and merely said that it's a different era, and that your view over history needs to take into account these "changes." Then you've shoved the ball back into JT's face.

Why is it a stupid idea? The ball is still in your court.

Yes he did. He said the first time WWE did this, the buy-rate and rating were down. Idiot.

[Jeritron]

As long as there's a roster split, a shared title is dumb.

I think it's better than two or three world titles. I'd be all for this. Pretty pumped at the notion of it happening to be honest.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Yes he did. He said the first time WWE did this, the buy-rate and rating were down. Idiot.

I'll admit, I didn't read all of KK's post. I just saw him talking about history and the NWA, and zoned out. But it's kind of funny that KK is saying that history is not always a good indicator, and then uses certain bits of history that he chooses to pick out as evidence to support his point. And no, that's not me dissing evidence or history. I am still on the side of that, but the differences between then and now should be noted just as well as the differences he pointed out.

First of all, "the last time it was done" was at the very start of the brand split. There had not been three World Champions between three shows. There was one between two. There was also one Women's Champion between both shows and one set of Tag Team Titles between the shows. There was no US Champion, and things were generally out of balance. It is a different lay-up, and it made people question why there was a brand split at all.

Having one World Champion between two different shows, otherwise with their own title hierarchy is actually a lot different. We're almost seven years on from that moment, which is when Jim Cornette, who knows a lot more about the business than any of us here, suggests that angles can be safely re-tried.

My question still stands, but is a little modified: Why is it a stupid idea NOW?

[BigDaddyCool]

Because the last time WWE did it, it killed of rating and ppv buys, that is why.

The harder I think of it, the worse of an idea it is. First off you couldn't have lengthy feuds over a title because thec champion would be bouncing back and forth between brands.

I would propose a test run with someone winning both titles but them being seprate titles, instead of being an undisputed champion. If that works, then maybe unify. But really in the long run, a single champion for 2 brands probably won't work so hot.

[Xero]

The biggest problem here is the feuds. Everything else is secondary. If you do this you can have up to and over four months without the title on a brand, which is completely unacceptable in this day and age. Likewise to shortening feuds to one or two months.

Yes, you can elevate the midcard title, but what's the point when you already have two top-tier titles?

This also kills WrestleMania's main event entirely for one brand.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Because the last time WWE did it, it killed of rating and ppv buys, that is why.

The harder I think of it, the worse of an idea it is. First off you couldn't have lengthy feuds over a title because thec champion would be bouncing back and forth between brands.

I would propose a test run with someone winning both titles but them being seprate titles, instead of being an undisputed champion. If that works, then maybe unify. But really in the long run, a single champion for 2 brands probably won't work so hot.

LOL at you jumping to KK's side.

I still maintain that the last time the WWE did it, you cannot argue that the buyrates went down because there was one champion between two shows. The whole concept of the roster being divided roughly in half confused the crap out of people.

Yes, a practice run first would probably work best, but that's what the WWE could do with John Morrison & The Miz with the Tag Team Titles. I also wouldn't put it past them to do that first. Perhaps with the Money in the Bank winner next year winning both their home brand's title, and then going over to the other one and winning that one.

Sure, one title between two shows means that RAW will miss out one month while SmackDown! gets the next month, but just how well are stories built up in today's landscape? Not very well at all. If you're worried about RAW vs. SmackDown! vs. Champion matches, we've pretty much got Triple Threat Matches happening every PPV main event at the moment, anyway.

[BigDaddyCool]

The biggest problem here is the feuds. Everything else is secondary. If you do this you can have up to and over four months without the title on a brand, which is completely unacceptable in this day and age. Likewise to shortening feuds to one or two months.

Yes, you can elevate the midcard title, but what's the point when you already have two top-tier titles?

This also kills WrestleMania's main event entirely for one brand.

I agree completely.

[Kane Knight]

Yes he did. He said the first time WWE did this, the buy-rate and rating were down.

And that was just one thing mentioned.

I think it's better than two or three world titles. I'd be all for this. Pretty pumped at the notion of it happening to be honest.

I think they actually need to either end the roster split or keep individual titles. I don't think they can viably negatiate it, especially because it's it's WWE, but not exaclusively. Even if there's a secondary title (IC, US) which serves as the main title per brand, it's still a secondary title. I don't see WWE as able to support title control over 2-3 brands, as they really couldn't before.

If you're pumped, fine, but I can't help but think of it as "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[BigDaddyCool]

I still maintain that the last time the WWE did it, you cannot argue that the buyrates went down because there was one champion between two shows. The whole concept of the roster being divided roughly in half confused the crap out of people.

How? It is a fairly simple concept. These guys are now only wrestling on Raw, these guys are only wrestling on smackdown. Fairly simple, how does that confuse you?

Yes, a practice run first would probably work best, but that's what the WWE could do with John Morrison & The Miz with the Tag Team Titles. I also wouldn't put it past them to do that first. Perhaps with the Money in the Bank winner next year winning both their home brand's title, and then going over to the other one and winning that one.

As much as I love Morrison's abs, they aren't what is drawing people in. A single tag team title bounce from show to show would not indicate how well the single world title would work

Sure, one title between two shows means that RAW will miss out one month while SmackDown! gets the next month, but just how well are stories built up in today's landscape? Not very well at all. If you're worried about RAW vs. SmackDown! vs. Champion matches, we've pretty much got Triple Threat Matches happening every PPV main event at the moment, anyway.

That would make it worse because then there is the potional for every title to constanty be lost in triple threats without the champion being pinned, that is retard because then no one will ever beat the champion and we have enough form champions that never lost their title to begin with floating around.

Plus as Xero said, it would leave one brand out high and dry every mania.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The biggest problem here is the feuds. Everything else is secondary. If you do this you can have up to and over four months without the title on a brand, which is completely unacceptable in this day and age. Likewise to shortening feuds to one or two months.

Yes, you can elevate the midcard title, but what's the point when you already have two top-tier titles?

This also kills WrestleMania's main event entirely for one brand.

I think the idea would be to elevate the IC Title and US Title back to the status where they could main event house shows and get a decent draw, and tht they feel that the WWE and World Heavyweight Titles aren't top tier enough.

I've also felt the whole concept of a WrestleMania main event has lost so much meaning over the years. Two titles matches at WrestleMania? It's just not special. The Royal Rumble has suffered, because the idea used to be that one guy would get to go on and main event WrestleMania. Now the Rumble winner doesn't even get to do that some years.

In fact, the Rumble winner hasn't headlined a Mania since 2005. The Rumble winner would be from one brand, and they would get the title shot. Maybe even have the Rumble winner shift between both brands, to really hype the WrestleMania main event?

[BigDaddyCool]

Noid, you are so fucking retarded.

[Mr. Nerfect]

How? It is a fairly simple concept. These guys are now only wrestling on Raw, these guys are only wrestling on smackdown. Fairly simple, how does that confuse you?

It never confused me, but I know for a fact others got confused. You had the Tag Team Titles floating, the Women's Title floating, the Undisputed Title floating and the IC Title pretty much changing brands every time a combination of Rob Van Dam, Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit wrestled.

As much as I love Morrison's abs, they aren't what is drawing people in. A single tag team title bounce from show to show would not indicate how well the single world title would work

Maybe not as far as PPV buys and ratings go, but in testing a crowd reaction, they would work out pretty nicely. If their heat intensifies, the crowd responds to a set of dominant champions.

That would make it worse because then there is the potional for every title to constanty be lost in triple threats without the champion being pinned, that is retard because then no one will ever beat the champion and we have enough form champions that never lost their title to begin with floating around.

I'm not saying Triple Threats should happen, I'm just saying that they already do. We have gotten like three Triple Threats at "WrestleMania main events" since the brand extension.

Plus as Xero said, it would leave one brand out high and dry every mania.

I think it would actually strengthen the one WrestleMania main event. It'll allow it to define the PPV, and give the era a battle to hang its hat on. The Royal Rumble will begin to mean more again, and one title doesn't look watery as fuck by going on in the middle of the show.

[addy2hotty]

My question still stands, but is a little modified: Why is it a stupid idea NOW?

Because they tried it before and to be perfectly honest, it was terrible. It made for breif entertaining viewing when the GM's were arguing over the Champion - but that was mainly because of the two GMs and their storylines at that time. Vickie Guerrero and Steph arguing over the Champion? Nah thanks. One high pitched voiced bitch per show thanks.

Too many top guys/egos now. You really think Dancing Dave or Trips are going to take a backstep and feud over the US title or something instead of the big/spinny belts. Never going to happen.

Enough people round here bang on about how the roster split created stars. Batista, Cena erm....yeah. Those two. One title and many of the youngsters/deserving guys get lost in the shuffle as Cena vs Batista part 8902932 takes place. Where would Orton go? Would be subjected to the overused already '8 man battle royal'/tournament to face John Cena every Monday after the PPV?

Punk, Kennedy, MVP, Christian, Regal - upper midcarders that could step up to main event would have little or no chance of doing so anymore. You want to see promising stars leave or start to phone it in - then this is the way of doing it. I'd imagine that talent morale would drop through the floor at the thought of this. Hell, Christian left because he was told he'd be midcard for life in a two title situation...where would the others go?

Say Batista off Raw is facing Cena for the Undisputed Title at a PPV. What happens on SD during that build up? Cena turns up and beats MVP, Carlito, Jeff Hardy in that three weeks whilst on Raw they build their feud. Batista might 'invade' SD and attack him a couple of times. Not much for SD viewers to buy into that month. Then the next month it happens on Raw. One cross brand title will not work on a brand split. It would make one show a month boring, unless every PPV has a triple threat match as the main event.

This idea only has any way of working (imo) if you had the brands working as one against each other. But then, you are back to the ego problem, the big star problem and you are pretty much getting rid of the brand split.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't get this whole "it didn't work last time" thing. Yeah, it was clunky last time, but who says it'd play out exactly the same? You actually have supporting titles now, and a belt floating between both brands would be far more special.

The egos, you might have a point with, but guys like Jeff Hardy got a crack at the title then. It may drive home the point of ECW being more of a "younger wrestler league," but guys would ultimately get built-up more. Sure, Triple H has an ego, but he's not WWE Champion right now, is he? He's learned to bow-out from time-to-time. And a guy like Mr. Kennedy could get as much mileage out of headlining house shows and main eventing PPVs for one brand as IC Champion as he could being World Heavyweight Champion in a two-man act.

[Kane Knight]

I'll admit, I didn't read all of KK's post. I just saw him talking about history and the NWA, and zoned out.

Back to ignoring after this, I swear. But I'm curious as to why you think ascribing things to me when I clearly said otherwise, then using "I am ignorant" as a defense was a good idea.

Things would go much smoother if you read what I had to say before bitching me out.

Merry Christmas.

[Xero]

The thing is, it's the way the titles being booked that makes them look weak, not the titles themselves. Just combing the titles isn't going to magically make the booking better. In fact, I believe with good booking this problem of the two titles looking weak would disappear.

[BigDaddyCool]

What the fuck does that mean noid? Despite what everyone else claims, I'm not a redneck as I don't do physical labor.

Also, don't you see the brand split is the only protecting the lower midcard right now. If they got rid of the brand split, the shows would start looking like the current ppvs, which isn't a good thing. Every show would be dominated by Taker, Edge, HHH, Orton, Cena, Batista, Jericho, HBK, Kane, Bigshow, and maybe Khali. Guys like MVP, Kennedy, the Hardies, CM Punk, and Miz and Morrison might find there way on occasionally. The rest of the roster would probably be cleared out.

[BigDaddyCool]

If your goal is to save the lower card or make the US and IC titles look relvent, the key is to book exciting fueds and matches with the undercard featuring the US and IC titles, not combining championship and joining brands. The problem is neglagance and bad booking, not too many titles.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Back to ignoring after this, I swear. But I'm curious as to why you think ascribing things to me when I clearly said otherwise, then using "I am ignorant" as a defense was a good idea.

Things would go much smoother if you read what I had to say before bitching me out.

Merry Christmas.

I didn't bitch you out, bitch. Maybe you should have read the bit about me not bitching you out. Again...KK...bitch.

[Mr. Nerfect]

If your goal is to save the lower card or make the US and IC titles look relvent, the key is to book exciting fueds and matches with the undercard featuring the US and IC titles, not combining championship and joining brands. The problem is neglagance and bad booking, not too many titles.

Booking better could put the WWE through another boom period and find that star with potential and turn them into a cash generating giant. Great booking would be fantastic, but the thing with the US and IC Titles is that the WWE isn't booking them properly, and they're probably not about to unless given a reason.

What the fuck does that mean noid? Despite what everyone else claims, I'm not a redneck as I don't do physical labor.

Also, don't you see the brand split is the only protecting the lower midcard right now. If they got rid of the brand split, the shows would start looking like the current ppvs, which isn't a good thing. Every show would be dominated by Taker, Edge, HHH, Orton, Cena, Batista, Jericho, HBK, Kane, Bigshow, and maybe Khali. Guys like MVP, Kennedy, the Hardies, CM Punk, and Miz and Morrison might find there way on occasionally. The rest of the roster would probably be cleared out.

Did I say something about ending the brand split? Where did I say that?

The thing is, it's the way the titles being booked that makes them look weak, not the titles themselves. Just combing the titles isn't going to magically make the booking better. In fact, I believe with good booking this problem of the two titles looking weak would disappear.

True, but again, is the WWE really going to do this? The World Heavyweight Championship has changed hands how many times in how many months? Unifying the World Titles would at least freshen the product up, have one guy stand tall for at least one moment, and would probably have the WWE go "fuck, we better do it right this time."

Well, you'd hope so, anyway.

[BigDaddyCool]

Booking better could put the WWE through another boom period and find that star with potential and turn them into a cash generating giant. Great booking would be fantastic, but the thing with the US and IC Titles is that the WWE isn't booking them properly, and they're probably not about to unless given a reason.

Getting unifying the mainevent titles doesn't elevate the lower midcard.

Did I say something about ending the brand split? Where did I say that?

Didn't say you did. But the only way to unify the world titles without leaving a brand out of ppvs and making it pointless to watch for a month or longer is by ending the brand split. I was arguing why the brand split is needed. These points are all connected.

[Kane Knight]

I'd also like to say a lot of the argument seems to assume a fair and equitable split. I doubt that's ever going to be the case with a single shared title. Imagine Triple H or John Cena holding the title for a protracted period. It's easy if you try.

It's also going to lead to the same four challengers across multiple brands. This is most probable. I know if you slap on rose-colored glasses, it's easy to disregard that the roster split was supposed to fix the main event scene, and it really didn't. It's easy to pretend they won't push the same guys on both brands, but they've done that on and off during the roster split, and there's ample reason to believe they will do it again if they have a single big belt.

There's no real reasoning that dictates it'll be any more fair than the usual round of WWE booking, save for wishful thinking.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Getting unifying the mainevent titles doesn't elevate the lower midcard.

Didn't say you did. But the only way to unify the world titles without leaving a brand out of ppvs and making it pointless to watch for a month or longer is by ending the brand split. I was arguing why the brand split is needed. These points are all connected.

Unifying the titles would logically create a vacuum that would need to be filled by elevating the IC Title/US Title, which shouldn't be counted as the "lower card."

I completely disagree on the point about the brand split ending.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I'd also like to say a lot of the argument seems to assume a fair and equitable split. I doubt that's ever going to be the case with a single shared title. Imagine Triple H or John Cena holding the title for a protracted period. It's easy if you try.

It's also going to lead to the same four challengers across multiple brands. This is most probable. I know if you slap on rose-colored glasses, it's easy to disregard that the roster split was supposed to fix the main event scene, and it really didn't. It's easy to pretend they won't push the same guys on both brands, but they've done that on and off during the roster split, and there's ample reason to believe they will do it again if they have a single big belt.

There's no real reasoning that dictates it'll be any more fair than the usual round of WWE booking, save for wishful thinking.

Of course John Cena or Triple H would hold the belt for elongated periods of time. That goes on now. You switch over to the other show and it's happening there, too. The thing is, you still have ECW and the WWE is creating enough stars in guys like Jeff Hardy to warrant shifting things up and putting the title on him.

And then there's the full pressure of the champion having to carry the shows. If ratings go down because Cena or Triple H are boring as champion, then the WWE would be forced to make some changes.

It may not happen right away, but I think things would become slightly more diplomatic over time, out of necessity. But I'm just playing devil's advocate. It's only guess work you can do in this situation.

[addy2hotty]

Unifying the titles would logically create a vacuum that would need to be filled by elevating the IC Title/US Title, which shouldn't be counted as the "lower card."


I just had to look up who was US Champ, I couldn't remember if it was still Shelton Benjamin. Simple fact is, the damage is done to those titles. The vast majority of fans don't give a shit about them anymore. When was the last time Regal defended the IC title ffs? He sits around at ringside doing nothing every week? The characters involved with certainly the IC scene (I dont know about SD) are so poorly booked, and given 20 minutes a week to build that scene. If they had any sense, they'd give the IC title to Cody Rhodes TONIGHT, so at least it got seen on screen for a larger amount of time on Raw.

It's all a fabulous idea, elevating the midcard titles - but to what? Can you honestly see the likes of Trips and the rest feuding over it? Orton vs Batista at Wrestlemania for the IC title? Never. Going. To. Happen.

[El Fangel]

I would be content if they went back to Lesnars WWE Title

[BigDaddyCool]

Of course John Cena or Triple H would hold the belt for elongated periods of time. That goes on now. You switch over to the other show and it's happening there, too. The thing is, you still have ECW and the WWE is creating enough stars in guys like Jeff Hardy to warrant shifting things up and putting the title on him.

And then there's the full pressure of the champion having to carry the shows. If ratings go down because Cena or Triple H are boring as champion, then the WWE would be forced to make some changes.

It may not happen right away, but I think things would become slightly more diplomatic over time, out of necessity. But I'm just playing devil's advocate. It's only guess work you can do in this situation.

Cena and Batista are boring champions, but WWE hasn't made changes. HHH is not champion, he hasn't been champion for 2 months, and we have had 2 champions since then.

Also, why would it become dilpomatic as long as Vince is in charge? Where are you coming up with these notions? Certainly not on past events.

[BigDaddyCool]

Also, depsite how you (noid) feel about the IC/US title, they are lower card titles.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Cena and Batista are boring champions, but WWE hasn't made changes. HHH is not champion, he hasn't been champion for 2 months, and we have had 2 champions since then.

Also, why would it become dilpomatic as long as Vince is in charge? Where are you coming up with these notions? Certainly not on past events.

I don't see what your top paragraph has to do with anything, really. Cena and Batista are champions all the time. Triple H hasn't been champion for two whole months? Really? How long was he champion before then?

Also, I explained why it could conceivably become more diplomatic. The WWE is in crunch time, and if they put all their eggs in one basket, and it doesn't work, it's time to get a new basket. There is shared responsibility in the current WWE landscape, so Triple H failing as champion means we could see it just two months later.

And my point is that the US Title and IC Title shouldn't be lower card titles. Not that they aren't. Although, I would definitely argue that William Regal, CM Punk and Shelton Benjamin are not lower card wrestlers.

[BigDaddyCool]

But they are.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I just had to look up who was US Champ, I couldn't remember if it was still Shelton Benjamin. Simple fact is, the damage is done to those titles. The vast majority of fans don't give a shit about them anymore. When was the last time Regal defended the IC title ffs? He sits around at ringside doing nothing every week? The characters involved with certainly the IC scene (I dont know about SD) are so poorly booked, and given 20 minutes a week to build that scene. If they had any sense, they'd give the IC title to Cody Rhodes TONIGHT, so at least it got seen on screen for a larger amount of time on Raw.

It's all a fabulous idea, elevating the midcard titles - but to what? Can you honestly see the likes of Trips and the rest feuding over it? Orton vs Batista at Wrestlemania for the IC title? Never. Going. To. Happen.

If it's never going to happen, then it won't happen, and it renders this whole conversation moot. Would it be so bad if it did happen? Also, Regal has been sick, which is why he hasn't been wrestling.

And if the damage has been done to the US and IC Titles, then couldn't one make a case for the damage already being done to all the other titles?

[Mr. Nerfect]

But they are.

Well, they're not. But taking what you said as if it were fact, and that they presently are, then why is that a good thing?

[Lux]

Excuse me while I branch off topic for a second..

Noid, although I have watched BDC and KK rip into with a smile why are you seriously jumping on every and I mean EVERY post they make in this thread? Do you want them to rip you a new asshole? Do you cum in your pants when you go to your User CP and see they have just replied to a post you made?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Excuse me while I branch off topic for a second..

Noid, although I have watched BDC and KK rip into with a smile why are you seriously jumping on every and I mean EVERY post they make in this thread? Do you want them to rip you a new asshole? Do you cum in your pants when you go to your User CP and see they have just replied to a post you made?

I'm discussing the topic with them? This is the most civil they have been, and it's quite refreshing to actually discuss wrestling with them.

[BigDaddyCool]

Well, they're not. But taking what you said as if it were fact, and that they presently are, then why is that a good thing?

The US and IC titles are lower card titles, titles for the lower card to feud over, thus giving the lower card something to do, and a stepping stone for them to rise up the roster. By making them uppercard titles, they are moot. There are already 2 uppercard/mainevent titles.

A single world title would not make the undercard more relevant, in fact it would push the undercard off the back burn and into the trash.

The undercard and the undercard titles are like tire on a car, and currently the tire is flat. You are trying to repaint the car, put in a new engine, and upgrade the stereo by unify the mainevent title. None of that addresses the problem of the flat fucking tire.

Paying attetion to the undercard, booking matches with rising stars and veterans that aren't going anywhere is the key, not ignoring it an fucking up the mainevent.

[El Fangel]

I want to put my 2 cents in here.

The way I see the WWE set up at the moment, In terms of titles

World Heavyweight - Looks the best and has the most history since there were two titles put into service/

WWE - Because the thing looks like a joke.
---
Intercontinental/ECW - I put them even, because uppercard/upper mid-card guys are fighting over them.

US - Not as much prestige as the above titles, never seemed to have it.

World Tag Team/WWE Tag Team - About the same really

Womans - Has not been very exciting since Trish left.

Cruiserweight - Meh

Divas - ...

[BigDaddyCool]

US - Not as much prestige as the above titles, never seemed to have it.

The US title looked best when MVP and some unnamed Canadian where fighting over it and MVP's following program with Matt Hardy. During the program both MVP and Hardy kept getting injured and that is when the US title started to decline because the whole program got put on hold and lost heat. Then they put the strap on Hardy and he didn't have any memorably matches with it, and it found its way to Shelton "I still work here" Benjamin. I'm not saying Shelton isn't a good work or anything, I'm just saying he isn't exciting and seems content with being a midcarder for life.

[Lux]

I'm discussing the topic with them? This is the most civil they have been, and it's quite refreshing to actually discuss wrestling with them.

Kane Knight... BDC... please stop this cease fire now. He is using words like "civil" and "refreshing" :mad:

[BigDaddyCool]

What, I've been cussing him out and calling him an idiot at every turn.

[Kane Knight]

Nazis.

This thread and discussion are officially over now, right?

You're welcome, Lux. :D

[Afterlife]

Would you not agree then that it would do the WWE more good to either shit or get off the pot with the brand extension, and actually make the shows completely different programs with different feels and a less connected feel? Otherwise it does feel like there are two champions between two shows, instead of one champion for one show?

Also, I'd like to throw out there that I can actually see the WWE running a test for this with the Tag Team Titles. John Morrison & The Miz have "officially" taken the belts over to ECW with their latest win, and are still being included in their roles on SmackDown!. How long do you think it will be before we see John Morrison & The Miz bump into Carito & Primo Colon backstage, and we see a match for both sets of titles?

I've said that many times, and consistently. When they started constaly having guys from other shows do "guest spots", the facade of brands became limp at best. It destroys the scenario, and then things like cross brand matches at ppvs, which should be huge, end up being absolutely nothing special. I've also stated the draft should only be done every 3-5 years.

The Tag Titles situation further blurs that messy line. It suggests that anyone from ECW can just go wherever he wants for a tag title shot, because ECW isn't "real". Same with the US title being on ECW with Benjamin for so long. It shows that you don't need to belong to a roster to be eligible for the rosters prize. It makes no sense, and looks really haphazard.

[.44 Magdalene]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY HITLER!!!!!

[.44 Magdalene]

Someone please summarize this entire thread for me, I don't feel like reading. D:

[Lux]

What, I've been cussing him out and calling him an idiot at every turn.Yes but put a little more emotion into it, he thinks you guys care enough about him to not be "as" cruel as you have been.

Nazis.

This thread and discussion are officially over now, right?

You're welcome, Lux. :D

:cool:

[BigDaddyCool]

Someone please summarize this entire thread for me, I don't feel like reading. D:

Noid wants to unify titles despite a lot of reasons not to.

[Afterlife]

Noid says there are pros to unify titles despite a lot of reasons not to.

Let's at least try to be accurate.

[BigDaddyCool]

Never.

OK, mostly the proponents of the title unification states the lower titles will become more relevant and it would freshen up story lines.

The people against unification are stating it didn't really work the first time around. It will completely bury the undercard. One brand will be screwed out of ppv matches every month. Story lines and fueds will be rediculous. And the only way to have 1 title is have 1 brand.

[.44 Magdalene]

What's this "it would freshen up storylines" and "lower titles will become relevant" bullshit coming off of? Logic? Past experience? Or did we just make it up?

Because really, it smells like bullshit to me. Unifying the titles wouldn't be enough incentive for WWE to do any of that, to be honest.

[BigDaddyCool]

What's this "it would freshen up storylines" and "lower titles will become relevant" bullshit coming off of? Logic? Past experience? Or did we just make it up?

Because really, it smells like bullshit to me. Unifying the titles wouldn't be enough incentive for WWE to do any of that, to be honest.

That is part of the argument against it. From as far as I can tell, it is mostly wishful thinking, and most of it is coming from noid. Most of the other people for the unifaction haven't put any real arguments to why they want to unify the titles.

[Jeritron]

I think they actually need to either end the roster split or keep individual titles. I don't think they can viably negatiate it, especially because it's it's WWE, but not exaclusively. Even if there's a secondary title (IC, US) which serves as the main title per brand, it's still a secondary title. I don't see WWE as able to support title control over 2-3 brands, as they really couldn't before.

If you're pumped, fine, but I can't help but think of it as "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."



It's really no different from how things worked in 2002, until HHH was handed the World belt.
I think it could work nicely. It'd be a return to titles meaning something. It'd not only make the WWE title mean more as the lone top belt, but it'd in turn help the IC and US championships.
They should do the same with the Tag Team titles too.

I don't see how it's a bad thing at all. It's better than the current state of things, and although it's not as good as one singular brand/promotion, it is a step in the right direction. It seems to be happening slowly.
First, it was the sharing of talent and rosters more generously from brand to brand.
Then the PPVs being merged.
Now, the titles.
It's only a matter of time before it all ends up under one tent again, if these steps continue.

Even if 2 brands having access to one world title is a bit of a clusterfuck, it's LESS of a clusterfuck than 3 world champions running around at PPVs and supershows.
If they're going to have tri-brand ppvs, which they have to do to business and talent depth, there needs to be one world title and less shared importance on the card.

If the champion is going to be on all the shows, so will his compettitors. There'll be interweaving fueds.
Main events will be far better. The pool of challengers will increase, and matchups will be less repetitive.
I think it's a great idea on all counts.

[BigDaddyCool]

How are there 3 world champions running around? ECW isn't a world championship. It is higher than the midcard titles, but not a mainevent title.

Unless I am mistaken, they had brand specific ppv when there was only one world title. Vince already said he doesn't like those and they were losing money.

[Jeritron]

The title situation and the distribution of power and prestige regarding belt holders and status is a big mess, no matter what discourses we all take.
Some of us might mock the ECW title, and others might defend it. Some may prefer the Raw belt to the Smackdown belt, or the WWE belt to the Big Gold belt.
Everyone has an opinion on the current setup with titles, but the bottom line is it's confusing and controversial at the very least. I think no matter how you slice it, it's flawed as it is.

I say, simplify, and restore meaning to THE world chamiponship. Whether it's defended on one universal brand, or two coexisting brands is really just another can of worms. Making some progress with this problem is better than none at all.

[St. Jimmy]

If they do it, they're still going to need a top title per brand ANYWAY. It also means one brand loses a world title feud for months at a time. There's really no reason to do this as long as the split is intact as there are wrestlers showing up on either brand whenever they like anyway.

And before we get into it, ending the brand split is impossible with the size of the WWE's roster.

You'd have the IC title on RAW, the US Title on SmackDown, and I guess bring back the TV title for ECW?

[BigDaddyCool]

I fail to understand how the current title situation is confusing? Cena is the WHC, Jeff Harvey is the WWE Champion, Matt is the ECW champion, which is less in status to the WHC and WWE champion. Regal is IC, Shelton is US, Beth is Women's, Miz and Morrison have the Raw Tag titles, The Colons have the Smackdown Tag Titles, and some dumb hooker Undertaker is fucking has a big metal butterfly. How is that confusing?

[James Steele]

Just about the unified champion "killing ratings and buyrates", what have the ratings and buyrates been doing since WWE had two champions? GOING DOWN! I figured KK would know this since he hates wrestling, doesn't watch wrestling, but keeps track of the real ratings that he can't provide a source for.

[Jeritron]

With all the group fueds, and triple threats they book around the world titles as it is, it wouldn't be hard to consistently involve both brands in the world title hunt.

There'd also be no shame in one of the shows taking short breaks from direct world title fueding. Often times, the shows focus on non-title fueds as it is.
It's not like main event fueds over the past few years have been over the world title exclusively.
Look at this past summerslam, Edge-Taker and Cena-Batista took priority over all three world titles. It's not rare.

[Jeritron]

I fail to understand how the current title situation is confusing? Cena is the WHC, Jeff Harvey is the WWE Champion, Matt is the ECW champion, which is less in status to the WHC and WWE champion. Regal is IC, Shelton is US, Beth is Women's, Miz and Morrison have the Raw Tag titles, The Colons have the Smackdown Tag Titles, and some dumb hooker Undertaker is fucking has a big metal butterfly. How is that confusing?

It's not confusing to me or you, but it can be to the casual fans and new fans.
Also, it creates discrepency over who "the champion" is, and what the championship means. It's too much.
It's just a mess to have three world champions. It's an oxymoron. The goal of being a champion is to be the top dog, not part of the top 3 dogs.
It's flawed.

Do you realize how many times I've watched Wrestlemania or Raw with people who say "so wait, who's the champion?" and when I explain it, find it completely absurd?

That's not the reason I'm arguing for simplified world title status, but rather just an example. It's problems go much deeper than that.

[BigDaddyCool]

You don't give the "casual fan" enough credit. It is less confusing than how Noriaga is interm heavywieght champ and Brock is real heavyweight champ in UFC.

[Jeritron]

It's also ridiculous to call one title WWE championship, as if the other show wasn't part of the WWE.
In addition, the other is called the world championship, as if the other title wasn't world status.
The only world title that has a logical name is the ECW world championship, believe it or not.

If it's WWE, there should be one WWE champion. As it is, there's a Raw Champion, and a Smackdown champion. The WWE champion is a false title.
Unless they want to call Smackdown or Raw by a different name, like WCW or some other promotion operate outside of WWE, the WWE Title should speak for the whole company.

[Jeritron]

You don't give the "casual fan" enough credit. It is less confusing than how Noriaga is interm heavywieght champ and Brock is real heavyweight champ in UFC.

Those are weight classes and deal with a real sport, as far as we know.
That system is derived from boxing to begin with, as well.

Wrestling is different. Unless they want to set up weight classes and function like a legitimate ring fighting sport, it's a terrible comparison.

[IC Champion]

I think one title would be a good thing.

[BigDaddyCool]

Those are weight classes and deal with a real sport, as far as we know.
That system is derived from boxing to begin with, as well.

Wrestling is different. Unless they want to set up weight classes and function like a legitimate ring fighting sport, it's a terrible comparison.

No, they are the same wieght class.

[Jeritron]

Oh, well then UFC has a problem too. Just because UFC has that problem, doesn't absolve WWE. That's what you call an appeal to an innapropriate authority BDC. It's a completely irrelevant argument.
If UFC jumped off a bridge, should WWE too?

[James Steele]

Jeritron, BDC is talking about the whole mess in the UFC with the Heavyweight title. When Couture walked out, they crowned an interim champion until Couture returned to fight. Couture lost the "real" title to Lesnar who will now face the winner of Mir and some other guy for the "interim" championship. The winner of Lesnar vs Interim Champion will be the undisputed Heavyweight champion. It is hard to understand how there can be 2 heavyweight champions when one is the "real world title" and the other is just a "part time title".

[Jeritron]

Sounds like HBM and Razor Ramon. Enjoy that controversy, but it really doesn't have relevance here. It's also an isolated incident, correct? If so, that's not a case of analagous title systems, but a temporary problem in one.

I see what you're getting at by citing that, but them having title confusion doesn't clarify any problems in this debate. It's really another issue altogether.

[James Steele]

They do it quite a bit in every division any time Dana White gets his panties in a bunch and wants to act like he is Zeus of MMA

[Jeritron]

So is that stuff a work or not? I don't follow it, but some of my friends who do are becoming increasingly suspicious that it's at least semi-worked

[Kane Knight]

What's this "it would freshen up storylines" and "lower titles will become relevant" bullshit coming off of? Logic? Past experience? Or did we just make it up?

Because really, it smells like bullshit to me. Unifying the titles wouldn't be enough incentive for WWE to do any of that, to be honest.

Indeed.

[.44 Magdalene]

I've speculated that it is, but it really just depends on who you ask.

[Lux]

If its on TV there is a 50% chance it can be a work.

[James Steele]

It is becoming what boxing has become. The championship matches and big main events aren't about finding out who is the best fighter at a certain weight class, instead it is about who can draw more money. Brock Lesnar got a title fight after only 3 fights with a 2-1 record (1-1 in UFC). While I understand business, for a company whose whole marketing angle is that they are the only legit combat sport in the world, it seems a little questionable. Especially considering the reason Couture left was because he wanted to fight one of the best fighters in the world (no dispute about that), but Dana White wouldn't do it because he wouldn't draw flies on shit in the US.

[Jeritron]

What's this "it would freshen up storylines" and "lower titles will become relevant" bullshit coming off of? Logic? Past experience? Or did we just make it up?

Because really, it smells like bullshit to me. Unifying the titles wouldn't be enough incentive for WWE to do any of that, to be honest.

How would it not? If there's one world title, there are more contenders and thus less repetition in the matchups. They'd have to make a strong effort.
It's speculation, but it's based in logic.

Also, with less titles the IC and US titles would account for more. There'd be less room in the main event for as many talents to be used at once.

There is past experience to base this of off. Did you watch wrestling in 2002, or in any of the years prior to that?

[.44 Magdalene]

How would it not? If there's one world title, there are more contenders and thus less repetition in the matchups. They'd have to make a strong effort.
It's speculation, but it's based in logic.

Also, with less titles the IC and US titles would be used more often, and less wrestlers would be pushed into the world divisions.

There is past experience to base this of off. Did you watch wrestling in 2002, or in any of the years prior to that?

If there's one world title, your contenders consist of former contenders for both old titles--in other words, instead of HHH, Taker, Edge, etc going for one title and John Cena, Batista, JBL etc going for the other, all of those guys would go for one. There's less repetition in a very vague sense, I guess, since now we could watch John Cena and HHH go at it oh wait.

In fact, they could make less effort because they now have an excuse for just throwing random guys together. You can have Batista and Taker fight over the title. Brand split? Reasoning? Psh, Taker wants his shot. There's no real reason to think this would drive home the plot development.

Less wrestlers getting pushed to the world division doesn't really mean more credibility for the midcard belts. They're going to be defended once every so often (like usual), and once per PPV (like usual). It'll hurt the credibility of a show overall to not have the main belt up for grabs, but an IC title doesn't automatically become a main event belt just because the real main event belt is on the other brand

[Jeritron]

I don't disagree that the IC or US title could still be treated like shit, but with the bar being raised for entry into the next level, more credible guys would pay their dues in the IC division.
The IC title would mean a shitload more to the fans and kayfabe if CM Punk, Jericho, and Jeff Hardy were fueding for it in the second main event.
I'm glad to see them winning titles this year, but it is a product of more lenient awarding of world titles.

Instead of being used as a blatant stepping stone, it'd become more of a holding place. This is a good thing, in my eyes. The best the IC title has looked in recent years is when Jericho and Jeff Hardy were holding it, and that didn't last long because it's simple to put them on a brand and push them to one of the titles. That would take longer to happen in a tighter title picture.
It's similar to how HHH and The Rock were being groomed for the World Title picture, but had to linger and become more and more popular in the IC division. This wasn't by choice, but because there just wasn't room for them in the main event. They had to wait until injuries or openings called for their promotion.
Things were less forced, calculated, and systematic in a more condensed title/division system of the past.

Laziness could occur in the main event, yes, but there'd be more cred on the belt in a literal sense. It'd be THE belt. People may care more about the champ when he's THE champ, and this trickles down in their fueds and matchups.

[Kane Knight]

How would it not? If there's one world title, there are more contenders and thus less repetition in the matchups. They'd have to make a strong effort.
It's speculation, but it's based in logic.

The same argument was presented for the roster split. It was "based on logic" then, too. And yet, here we are, arguing the opposite as logical.

[Jeritron]

Perhaps I just have more faith in the dynamics of such a system. I feel as though with an environment like this, theres more of a chance for things to progress like they used to.

[Jeritron]

The same argument was presented for the roster split. It was "based on logic" then, too. And yet, here we are, arguing the opposite as logical.

Well, the roster split worked in 2003, in my opinion. The problem is that now they're in limbo. The ppvs are merged, and half of the rosters are merged, so why not the titles?
They really have to committ one way or another, and I feel at this point committing to one title is the better step.
There's really no chance of them going back to strict roster splits and lone-brand PPVs. So, I feel as though they should go with this title merger, rather than sit on the fence like they're doing now.

The brand/title/ppv system circa 2003 may be > the proposed change. The brand/title system circa 2000 may be > the proposed change as well.
But, the brand/title/ppv system right now is far worse than how it would be if this proposed change is adopted, IMO.

[BigDaddyCool]

I merely brought up the UFC thing as that is truly confusing while they have clearly different titles in WWE, and if you just stop and think, it makes sense.

[Jeritron]

I have to admit, I was all for the PPV merging last year. I basically saw it as a step in this direction and felt similarly about it.

[BigDaddyCool]

I believe they need to brands to become more seprate or more unified. If they were one show, then the lower card would be killed off. If it was more seperate, then would need better writer, and costs would go up.

[Jeritron]

I suppose I'm more optimistic of the title/division/show system dictating the booking, rather than vice versa.

[Kane Knight]

The reason they moved towards a more unified roster is that the roster split really didn't work, financially speaking or as far as the GP seems concerned.

[BigDaddyCool]

I'm more realistic that Vince is just going to push the people he likes despite how the crowd feels. He might toss Jericho or the Hardies a title, but not make them look good.

[Jeritron]

Yes, but see my IC title division argument. A stricter system might breed stronger stars that Vince will feel more strongly about over time. Scoff, but it's possible.
The past supports this, although it's a shotty example due to the presence of compettition. That's not a factor now, so who knows.
The current system hasn't been conducive to the same type of build up for stars. Since there are two titles, the IC title becomes a throwaway accessory and they win one of the world titles far too soon.

[BigDaddyCool]

I believe the whole one title or 2 titles argument is mostly moot. It is like trying to deside if we should paint a piece of shit green or red. Either way it is still a piece of shit. The booking and direction needs to change, not just the number of titles. Booking the lower titles like the US, IC, Women, and Tag Team titles can happen indepedently of any change in the mainevent titles.

[Kane Knight]

Yes, but see my IC title division argument. A stricter system might breed stronger stars that Vince will feel more strongly about over time. Scoff, but it's possible.

A stricter system might breed stronger stars, assuming it ever happens. That's an uphill assumption.

[Jeritron]

On a fundamental level though, do you feel the WWE title would mean more than it does now?

[Kane Knight]

I believe the whole one title or 2 titles argument is mostly moot. It is like trying to deside if we should paint a piece of shit green or red. Either way it is still a piece of shit. The booking and direction needs to change, not just the number of titles. Booking the lower titles like the US, IC, Women, and Tag Team titles can happen indepedently of any change in the mainevent titles.

Exactly.

[Jeritron]

Yes, booking does need to change. I'm not claiming this is going to singlehandedly save things. I just feel as though it's going to improve them.
I never proclaimed it as the knight in shining armor, just an improvement that I would prefer.
It feels as though booking as usual, in this new title system, will yield a better promotion than the very same approach to booking in a world of three world champions and overpopulated belts.

The arguments are being characterized as extremes here now.

[BigDaddyCool]

Yes, booking does need to change. I'm not claiming this is going to singlehandedly save things. I just feel as though it's going to improve them.
I never proclaimed it as the knight in shining armor, just an improvement that I would prefer.
It feels as though booking as usual, in this new title system, will yield a better promotion than the very same approach to booking in a world of three world champions and overpopulated belts.

It would be a short term change the back to business as usual. Unless they actually held off on maineventers and started pushing the lower card while doing so. I doubt they would cause they haven't in the past.

[Destor]

Blaming having only one title for the dropping rating is stupid. ratings were up in the 80s...one title. Late 90s? One title. What kind of stupid fucking argument is that? One title didn't drop any ratings or buyrates. It's was happening at the tale end of te boom when a lot of major stars roles were changing and/or leaving. The buisness was beginging to take a slump as a whole.

Some of you are dumb.

[Jeritron]

I want one belt.

[Destor]

good. I read the first page and had to say that.

[Xero]

I want good booking. I don't care if they have one belt or ten thousand. Good booking changes ratings, good booking brings prestige to all titles and good booking makes me want to watch the product.

[Champion of Europa]

Does Noid only bitch about KK? I've only seen like 12 of his posts, and they're all crying about KK.

[The Optimist]

What's this "it would freshen up storylines" and "lower titles will become relevant" bullshit coming off of? Logic? Past experience? Or did we just make it up?

Because really, it smells like bullshit to me. Unifying the titles wouldn't be enough incentive for WWE to do any of that, to be honest.
You can't smell through a computer.

[Kane Knight]

Yes, booking does need to change. I'm not claiming this is going to singlehandedly save things. I just feel as though it's going to improve them.

Except we have no practical reason to agree. In reality, what matters is the talent they tap and the booking. With the single belt, there is every reason to think it would be a lateral move at best. At best. More realistically, it probably just makes the title scene even more set in stone, does nothing for the IC or US titles, and leaves a bigger divide between the under/midcard and the ME scene.

[Blue Demon]

Stop being such a Smark :roll:

[BigDaddyCool]

Blaming having only one title for the dropping rating is stupid. ratings were up in the 80s...one title. Late 90s? One title. What kind of stupid fucking argument is that? One title didn't drop any ratings or buyrates. It's was happening at the tale end of te boom when a lot of major stars roles were changing and/or leaving. The buisness was beginging to take a slump as a whole.

Some of you are dumb.

Did they have a roster split back then? That is a big change. Plus they also had Hulk Hogan who held the title for years.

[Kane Knight]

Hmmm...Destor provides a dishonest comparison that defies logic (When a more logical path was available), and then attempts to draw conclusions form a distortion of the argument in question.

Surprise.

[Jeritron]

Please

[Kane Knight]

Honestly, there is probably a pretty good apples to apples comparison. Territory days? Hulkamania era? Neither of these need apply. Actually, one needs only look at how we got from the former to the latter to see why the latter's a particularly bad example.

The problem isn't so much a single title as where particularly we're coming from to get to a single title, and the effect it will have on the current promotion and the current programming. Trying things that were done in the past may work now, but they generally don't because things have changed. Kind of like their current marketing strategy once made them huge and mainstream in the Hulkamania period, including cartoons, vitamins, and movie deals. Funny how it doesn't work now, though.

Well, except movie deals, but those are primarily in-house. And given the Condemned was only their third movie and "condemned" them to Direct-to-DVD status for the time being, I wouldn't be putting that one on my list of success stories from old promotional ideas.

With five hours of major programming, with numerous stars and a lot of talent, this is a recent development that is historically fairly unique. NWA wasn't a bunch of brands all owned by one person, it was a confederation. Hulk Hogan didn't unify two or three brands under the same banner who use the same corporate stationary. WWE programming is still all WWE programming, which means fewer logistical issues but more internal issues. Divided brands with one title means Cena, Trips, or Bats with the belt hurts even more. It clogs the title scene that much more, and is less likely to lead to Bats and Edge fighting over the midcard straps than it is to lead to TNA-esque clusterfucks. If there isn't a top championship on one brand, or if there is a de facto top championship that's a midcard belt, it could easily turn people off whichever brand doesn't have the big title, especially if it's been a couple of months. WWE can't even ajudicate fairly when they're running two programs with two separate titles, as was evidence by their willingness to harm one show for another.

The belt is a prop, but it's a prop that keeps things exciting in a way that fighting for contenderships can't be by default. It's a fake title, but it carries with it fake prestige and fake glory, and it may be only one of the story points in wrestling, it's kind of a big one.

[The Franchise]

How will this not lead to anyone not named Triple H, John Cena or Batista being lucky to even participate in a title match?

[Xero]

How will this not lead to anyone not named Triple H, John Cena or Batista being lucky to even participate in a title match?

Stop thinking logically and start thinking Hulk Hogan 4 year runs. Evidentially, that's where some people in this thread think the title should be going.

[The Franchise]

Except we have no practical reason to agree. In reality, what matters is the talent they tap and the booking. With the single belt, there is every reason to think it would be a lateral move at best. At best. More realistically, it probably just makes the title scene even more set in stone, does nothing for the IC or US titles, and leaves a bigger divide between the under/midcard and the ME scene.

This is my biggest worry. Even if there was only one World title, I think that the IC and US titles would improve only minimally. Guys like Jericho, Punk, Jeff would end up being challengers for this title and it would just seem like they are too good for that division.

The one title worked in the Attitude Era because the bookers were ridiculously better and far more intelligent, plus people seem to forget that the attitude era was only five years long at the most (97-2002), in which Austin, Rock, HHH etc were all fresh in the main-event scene following the Bret and HBK era -- whereas today we have the same guys from four years ago constantly in the main-event of two brands like Batista and Cena, and then of course we have Triple H.

[Destor]

Hmmm...Destor provides a dishonest comparison that defies logic (When a more logical path was available), and then attempts to draw conclusions form a distortion of the argument in question.

Surprise.
Please

[Kane Knight]

Stop thinking logically and start thinking Hulk Hogan 4 year runs.

You could have stopped at "Stop thinking logically."

[Blue Demon]

Thinking Logically and Booking Committee don't seem to go together much these days.

[Kane Knight]

Thinking Logically and Booking Committee don't seem to go together much these days.

Yeah, but this is about the fans and logic right now.

[Blue Demon]

Well, the ass fans there as well.

[XL]

In theory I like the idea of a single champion as I personally still don't buy the likes of Edge, Hardy, anyone else shifted to Main Event status during the brand split era to be on the same level as the likes of HHH, HBK, Undertaker, etc.

I've never seen the WHC to be on par with the WWE Title regardless of who is champ or who it has been booked.


In practice however it just isn't logistically possible given the current setup. As has been said already we either have the championship fued on one show (say Raw) which takes away from the other shows. More so, at the end of the month when that fued is "done" the champ then moves to the other show(s) leaving the contender behind. So we either have championship programmes that last a month at a time and that - if continued - have to have a month gap inbetween whilst the SD Number One Contender gets his shot before being picked up again. I guess that means fewer "none finishes" though so that could be viewed as a positive.

The alternative is to have the Raw Number One Contender follow the champ from show to show to continue the fued but that renders the brand split completely pointless.

Can't see how they could do it without ending the split - and of course ending the split causes the next set of problems with an over populated Main Event scene and an overinflated roster in general.

[James Steele]

How about you have the other main eventers on the brand get in a feud that people care about. God forbid...

[Kane Knight]

Clearly, the problem is that we haven't considered it, not that we don't believe it likely given the booking over the past several years.

I mean, let's be realistic. It sounds great through rose coloured glasses, but it's basically an argument of "if WWE does everything the exact opposite of what they've been doing for years, this will work."

Which would be awesome. It also would make the merging of titles completely superfluous, as they've be able to actually book exciting feuds for the existing belts and main eventers on the show as-is. Either way, it's a major hand-wave.

[DrA]

Let's say that they do combine the titles. What happens to the World Heavyweight Championship? They spent five years trying to build credibility with this belt, all for the sake of it being a filler belt for whichever brand it was on at the time.

A single belt, with the way things are in the WWE today, wouldn't work. It may for six months tops like when they tried it in 2002. But eventually the title matches will become contrived, based entirely on regulation and whichever pay per view they are having in that particular two week span. There would be no way for any natural title feud to develop under those circumstances. Well maybe there would, but it would be wedged between these awkward required title defenses each month.

That being said, I hate the brand split, or at least the extent to which they have let it go. It reflects the disorganized mess the company has turned into these last four years. But, if you are going to have fifteen brands or however many there are now, you've got to have some sort of championship hierarchy that is consistent with the different shows. I don't know, the WWE is a huge mess anyway. They can do whatever they want for all I care.

[Legend Killer]

Honestly, I think they were keeping it around so Cena could hold it, now that he has they can unify the belts.

[XL]

How about you have the other main eventers on the brand get in a feud that people care about. God forbid...
Once again that's a great idea - in theory.

Let's look at using the current split/champions etc.

First step is to unite the titles in a Cena v Hardy match, let's say CENA WINS.

Now we have Cena floating between Raw and SD. He goes back to Raw for the first month/title defense. This happens against JBL.

In the meantime we need to book Main Event level fueds for Jericho, HBK, Orton, etc on Raw and HHH, Taker, Hardy, Edge on SD. SD will no doubt fued their guys over the shot that Smackdown is due in 2 PPVs time so that's pretty easy. But what do you do on Raw? How many long running fueds have we had over the last 2 years that haven't been about winning the title or becoming No 1 Contender? HBK v Jericho is pretty much the only one that stands out.

So we get to the PPV, CENA WINS and heads off to SD to face Hardy again (for arguments sake). What does JBL do when he returns to Raw? Oh, that's right it's Raw's turn to work out who is gonna be their Number One Contender for their next shot.

Seems like we'll just have an endless line of Number One Contender fueds and one month long fueds over the title. Just seems like a booking nightmare to me. We already know that they struggle to book decent fueds/angles when they are seperate, surely it can't get any better if they have to constantly interweave them!?

[Fox]

If this is true, and if Cena wins it, Fox riots.

[The Mackem]

Boxing has multiple world titles for different bodies, don't they? Don't see why wrestling can't do the same. Maybe they should have unification bouts at times but still have the possibility for the indivdual titles to be defended, I dunno.

[DaVe]

I thought a common criticism of boxing was that it has too many world titles...

And I like the idea; it is a shame I always see Vince in these stories, doing the same thing in each.

[St. Jimmy]

1 Good Looking Belt and Good Booking. Kthx?

[Heyman]

Hunter Heyman Hindu's Solution:

1) Push Kane Knight off a cliff. :y:

2) Keep the brand split....COMMIT to it. However - do NOT have a draft every 13-16 months. Instead - make a COMMITMENT to a "solidified" roster split. If a guy is on Smackdown, he's on fucking Smackdown. Period. No showing up on the "other" show, no being draft to another show half-a-year later.

3) Have a lottery draft every 4 years...maybe 3.

4) Eliminate ECW (or the "3rd" show). The presence of a 3rd brand does nothing but hurt the depth of the other two brands. Eliminate ECW and disperse the talent to RAW and Smackdown. Or hell - have ECW take over Smackdown and just call the show 'ECW'.

5) Create a real rivalry between the two (now DISTINCT) brands. Have Shane manage one of the shows and have Stephanie manage the other. We should see a real "cold war" between the brands (i.e. planned backstage attacks every now and then). This "heated rivalry" between the brands can then play over on certain PPV's.

6) Have the winner of the 30-man Royal Rumble become World Champion of his respective brand. Let's face it. The 30-man Royal Rumble IS the main-event at the Royal Rumble. People could careless about the "world title" match. Hence - make the 30-man Royal Rumble worth something. The winner not only wins the world title of his respective brand, but he also is a "lock" for the final main-event match at Wrestlemania. Furthermore - he becomes the automatic 'special guest referee' at the other brand's main-event PPV match for the world title in February.

7) At Wrestlemania, the two world champions of each brand face one another. No title is up for line, but the winner gets a huge trophy and a (fictitious) $1,000,000.

8) Now that RAW and Smackdown are COMPLETELY DISTINCT (as I established earlier...due to the lottery draft now being held every 4 years, combined with the fact that wrestlers can't just "show up" on another show and wrestle in matches, etc.), add "fire" to the interbrand PPV's.

King Of The Ring: At King of The Ring, the winner of RAW's "tournament" (held on RAW) vs. the winner of Smackdown's "tournament" (held on Smackdown) face each other at KOTR....to determine the one TRUE king of the Ring of the WWE. Not only does this add to the RAW/SD competition (and bragging rights), but it also gives that ONE person the distinction of being "the next big thing."

Survivor Series: Main-event match. The best 5 wrestlers from RAW vs. The best 5 wrestlers from Smackdown. Not just any 5....THE best 5. The winner of this match gets some kind of reward (i.e. the next up-coming talent from the minors or something).

Anyway - those are some solutions that I have.

[Heyman]

I would also combined the U.S and IC title (which then becomes specific to one brand), while also bringing back the Hardcore title 24/7 in-tact.

RAW titles:

-World title
-Tag Titles
-IC title

Smackdown titles:
-WWE Title
-Tag Titles
-Hardcore title

Titles are like currency. The more there are, the less value they have.

[Legend Killer]

Hunter Heyman Hindu's Solution:

1) Push Kane Knight off a cliff. :y:

2) Keep the brand split....COMMIT to it. However - do NOT have a draft every 13-16 months. Instead - make a COMMITMENT to a "solidified" roster split. If a guy is on Smackdown, he's on fucking Smackdown. Period. No showing up on the "other" show, no being draft to another show half-a-year later.

3) Have a lottery draft every 4 years...maybe 3.

4) Eliminate ECW (or the "3rd" show). The presence of a 3rd brand does nothing but hurt the depth of the other two brands. Eliminate ECW and disperse the talent to RAW and Smackdown. Or hell - have ECW take over Smackdown and just call the show 'ECW'.

5) Create a real rivalry between the two (now DISTINCT) brands. Have Shane manage one of the shows and have Stephanie manage the other. We should see a real "cold war" between the brands (i.e. planned backstage attacks every now and then). This "heated rivalry" between the brands can then play over on certain PPV's.

6) Have the winner of the 30-man Royal Rumble become World Champion of his respective brand. Let's face it. The 30-man Royal Rumble IS the main-event at the Royal Rumble. People could careless about the "world title" match. Hence - make the 30-man Royal Rumble worth something. The winner not only wins the world title of his respective brand, but he also is a "lock" for the final main-event match at Wrestlemania. Furthermore - he becomes the automatic 'special guest referee' at the other brand's main-event PPV match for the world title in February.

7) At Wrestlemania, the two world champions of each brand face one another. No title is up for line, but the winner gets a huge trophy and a (fictitious) $1,000,000.

8) Now that RAW and Smackdown are COMPLETELY DISTINCT (as I established earlier...due to the lottery draft now being held every 4 years, combined with the fact that wrestlers can't just "show up" on another show and wrestle in matches, etc.), add "fire" to the interbrand PPV's.

King Of The Ring: At King of The Ring, the winner of RAW's "tournament" (held on RAW) vs. the winner of Smackdown's "tournament" (held on Smackdown) face each other at KOTR....to determine the one TRUE king of the Ring of the WWE. Not only does this add to the RAW/SD competition (and bragging rights), but it also gives that ONE person the distinction of being "the next big thing."

Survivor Series: Main-event match. The best 5 wrestlers from RAW vs. The best 5 wrestlers from Smackdown. Not just any 5....THE best 5. The winner of this match gets some kind of reward (i.e. the next up-coming talent from the minors or something).

Anyway - those are some solutions that I have.

Wow, my head hurts now.

[James Steele]

Please don't bring back the Hardcore title. Put the WWE and IC titles on RAW and the WHC and US titles on SD!

[Kane Knight]

Mmmm...Desperation.

[James Steele]

What are you on about KK?

[thedamndest]

If you combine the titles, you need to unify the rosters. If you leave multiple World titles, you need to leave the rosters completely separate and probably get rid of ECW. It's ambiguous right now what exactly ECW is supposed to do. It sure isn't building any new stars. With the talent exchange, the superstars can show up wherever they want, and the title is basically worthless; I'd rather see Matt feud over the WWE or World title than wank around with the ECW title each week until he drops it to the next guy, but okay. But that is really more of a digression on how ECW title matches waste all of our time at PPVs. If you made the exact same match and had the guys feuding over the US or IC belt, we'd all be better off.

[thedamndest]

I just reread that, and I left a few holes, but I stand by the general concept.

[FourFifty]

I just want to see ECW killed, split the talent between SmackDown, Raw, and FCW. From there keep the brands seprate, which includes single brand ppvs. Have 4 dual brand PPVs, 4 Raw, 4 SmackDown.

Jan- Rumble
Feb- SmackDown
Mar- Raw
April- Mania
May- SmackDown
June- Raw
July- SmackDown
Aug- Summer Slam
Sept- Raw
Oct- SmackDown
Nov- Survivor Series
Dec-Raw

Keep the WHC and the WWE titles seprate. Kill the Diva's title, put eye candy only divas on SmackDown, kill off one set of tag team champions, whcih can be defended at any PPV, bring back the Hardcore title w/24-7 rules, resign Braden Walker, and there, it's fixed.

[Lux]

Mar-Mania :roll:
April- Raw

even if it went into April the last two years, March is always Mania.

[The Optimist]

Lol. A full twelve Wrestlemanias have occured in early April.

[Lux]

Sorry I post in casual... you know.. the place people actually care about.

[Lux]

Point being there is no PPV in March that warrents him to label it a Raw month.

[thedamndest]

They should axe the Divas title, at which point there is NO REASON to have the Divas on SD wrestle except for maybe the occasional inter-gender match involving females managers/valets, and definitely use those sparingly. I am pretty sure the point of the Divas title is to draw women, and that they figure the better the can glorify the women wrestlers with a title the better the chances of diversifying the audience. The fact is, they only have enough talent to fill one show's worth of good women's wrestling, and even that is pretty much the same four or five women.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The US and IC titles are lower card titles, titles for the lower card to feud over, thus giving the lower card something to do, and a stepping stone for them to rise up the roster. By making them uppercard titles, they are moot. There are already 2 uppercard/mainevent titles.

A single world title would not make the undercard more relevant, in fact it would push the undercard off the back burn and into the trash.

The undercard and the undercard titles are like tire on a car, and currently the tire is flat. You are trying to repaint the car, put in a new engine, and upgrade the stereo by unify the mainevent title. None of that addresses the problem of the flat fucking tire.

Paying attetion to the undercard, booking matches with rising stars and veterans that aren't going anywhere is the key, not ignoring it an fucking up the mainevent.

William Regal is closer to being an upper mid-carder than a lower card wrestler. If you're referring to the undercard being everything but the main event, then fine, but considering that Regal won the King of the Ring this year, and CM Punk held two World Titles at some point in 2008, calling them "lower carders" is dismissing them a bit. Shelton Benjamin main evented PPVs this year, and has always been someone the WWE has flirted with pushing.

The car analogy is pretty horrible, but I'll address it anyway. OK, you repaint the car, put in a new engine, upgrade the stereo, and you still have a flat tire. True. But then all you have to fix up is a flat tire. The next time you save up, you can address that problem, and get something road worthy.

We both agree that the car needs a new tire. Let's drop that argument. All I am saying is that I think the order the WWE could fix things up could very well start from the top and work down. You're just saying it needs to be the other way.

[Mr. Nerfect]

What's this "it would freshen up storylines" and "lower titles will become relevant" bullshit coming off of? Logic? Past experience? Or did we just make it up?

Because really, it smells like bullshit to me. Unifying the titles wouldn't be enough incentive for WWE to do any of that, to be honest.

It's a counter-point to whole issue of "THEN ONE BRAND WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING!!1"

Logically, if one brand had a program with the World Champion going for a month, the other brand would book heavily around the programs in other positions on their card. For example, booking a really strong US Title or WWE Tag Team Title match, as well as a #1 Contender's bout.

You can't argue that the main event scene would be more restricted with only one World Title in one breath, and then convinably argue that talent wouldn't then flood the IC Title scene, for example.

That's completely ignoring the fact that you'd still have the "technically a World Title" in the ECW Championship left, which means a few more main eventers might go there, and lend it some credibility and depth.

I fail to understand how the current title situation is confusing? Cena is the WHC, Jeff Harvey is the WWE Champion, Matt is the ECW champion, which is less in status to the WHC and WWE champion. Regal is IC, Shelton is US, Beth is Women's, Miz and Morrison have the Raw Tag titles, The Colons have the Smackdown Tag Titles, and some dumb hooker Undertaker is fucking has a big metal butterfly. How is that confusing?

It's not so much confusing anyone but the WWE, and the history they present. Triple H is a twelve-time WWE Champion when chasing the WWE Title, and a twelve-time World Heavyweight Champion when chasing the World Heavyweight Title. He is neither, but it's easier for the lazy WWE to present it as such.

Granted, I switch off when he is on television, but I'm fairly certain no one in the WWE made a big deal out of John Cena winning the big gold belt for the first-time ever at Survivor Series. It's like they just counted it as one more onto his blinged out WWE Title wins.

You and Afterlife are correct when you say they either need to polarise the brands a lot more, or just unify them. Right now, however, the concern those backstage are showing for how the titles look seems legitimate, to me.

How will this not lead to anyone not named Triple H, John Cena or Batista being lucky to even participate in a title match?

When the fans revolt, begin to tune out, ratings drop and PPV buys go down. Yes, it is a sadist point of view from the outside, but with one World Title between RAW and SmackDown!, it puts so much more importance on the programs, which means that when we do get a dud champion, they are slightly more exposed as such.

The WWE can tolerate John Cena getting booed, because on SmackDown!, Jeff Hardy is getting cheered. When John Cena is on both RAW and SmackDown! getting booed, things would logically get a little more tense. Eventually the WWE will go to the fresh moves that increase ratings (for example, putting the
Title on Edge or Jeff Hardy), and then find they go back down when Triple H takes the title off them. Then they might go up again when Jericho gets the belt. Completely hypotheticals, of course, and while it won't be a quick process, eventually the WWE would need to bank behind someone who can actually make them money.

Clearly, the problem is that we haven't considered it, not that we don't believe it likely given the booking over the past several years.

I mean, let's be realistic. It sounds great through rose coloured glasses, but it's basically an argument of "if WWE does everything the exact opposite of what they've been doing for years, this will work."

Which would be awesome. It also would make the merging of titles completely superfluous, as they've be able to actually book exciting feuds for the existing belts and main eventers on the show as-is. Either way, it's a major hand-wave.

I get what you're saying, but c'mon. One of the biggest "anti-unifying" arguments out there is "better booking would make two titles work." The difference between saying that you want good booking after the titles have been unified and good booking now, is that one would come after a major change potentially making the WWE more vulnerable if they don't get into gear; and the other just randomly comes about for no good reason at all.

Being realistic, of course the WWE is going to have trouble with booking. That's probably a huge part of the reason Vince is not going for the idea, and why it won't happen. His babies will be exposed as paper-thin non-draws, and he might actually have to start booking properly. Right now Vince McMahon has a clutch and an excuse not to.

[Fox]

I remember when Undertaker was the Undisputed World Champion and he wrestled on both Smackdown and RAW. I thought that it was a great working system, and was very disappointed when Brock took the belt to SD for good and they introduced the big gold belt.

I think it could certainly work again. The main thing is that there could no longer be a "RAW writing staff" and a "Smackdown writing staff." For the gimmick of having just the one main World Champion, both shows would need to be written together to make it a cohesive WEEK for the champion and the shows - not one storyline for him on RAW and another unrelated storyline for him on Smackdown.

It is a great idea though because having two world champions just isn't working. In my opnion, the last time the two belts looked legit equal was at WrestleMania 20.

[Kane Knight]

We both agree that the car needs a new tire. Let's drop that argument. All I am saying is that I think the order the WWE could fix things up could very well start from the top and work down. You're just saying it needs to be the other way.

And your way, they're driving without a tire.

working on other issues first is great, if your car is in the garage. If it's on the road, the first thing you need is for it to be street worthy. If work on the body but ignore the flat tire or fail to maintain the brakes, it might as well be a fancy paperweight.

WWE needs to institute changes from the foundation up before it starts dressing things up on the outside.

[Legend Killer]

I remember when Undertaker was the Undisputed World Champion and he wrestled on both Smackdown and RAW. I thought that it was a great working system, and was very disappointed when Brock took the belt to SD for good and they introduced the big gold belt.

I think it could certainly work again. The main thing is that there could no longer be a "RAW writing staff" and a "Smackdown writing staff." For the gimmick of having just the one main World Champion, both shows would need to be written together to make it a cohesive WEEK for the champion and the shows - not one storyline for him on RAW and another unrelated storyline for him on Smackdown.

It is a great idea though because having two world champions just isn't working. In my opnion, the last time the two belts looked legit equal was at WrestleMania 20.

LOL, Big Gold Belt

Let me clarify, so John Cena winning the WWE Championship at WM 21 wasn't on the same caliber as Batista winning the World Heavyweight Championship, go back and watch that Royal Rumble beforehand, they were both legit and equal that year. However, whatever title Cena holds tends to be the greater of the two.

[Fox]

LOL, Big Gold Belt

Let me clarify, so John Cena winning the WWE Championship at WM 21 wasn't on the same caliber as Batista winning the World Heavyweight Championship, go back and watch that Royal Rumble beforehand, they were both legit and equal that year. However, whatever title Cena holds tends to be the greater of the two.

JBL's title reign was shit, which dimmed Cena's victory in their epic 7-minute battle for the WWE championship.

Batista's win was nice, but his victory was nowhere near the caliber of the Chris Benoit victory the year before, for numerous reasons. in my opinion, the title belts have both fallen in legitimate value since then, and not due to the people wearing them, but due to the way they are treated by the people writing the shows.

[XL]

I think it could certainly work again. The main thing is that there could no longer be a "RAW writing staff" and a "Smackdown writing staff." For the gimmick of having just the one main World Champion, both shows would need to be written together to make it a cohesive WEEK for the champion and the shows - not one storyline for him on RAW and another unrelated storyline for him on Smackdown.
Just out of interest, what would the champion do on SD if he's fueding with a Raw guy?

The parametres we're trying to establish are that we keep seperate shows - in fact we make them more seperate - but have one champ working on both.

Let's say Raw gets the first shot at the belt, thus every week on Raw the Number One Contender and the Champ interact, then, come Friday, the champ ships off to SD, but what does he do there? We can't build him a seperate fued there - it'll get too confusing. So surely he/the company are just going through the motions by having the champ appear on Friday's show.

[Mr. Nerfect]

LOL, Big Gold Belt

Let me clarify, so John Cena winning the WWE Championship at WM 21 wasn't on the same caliber as Batista winning the World Heavyweight Championship, go back and watch that Royal Rumble beforehand, they were both legit and equal that year. However, whatever title Cena holds tends to be the greater of the two.

John Cena was no doubt over at this period in time (I remember already being sick of him, but people were so keen to see his reign end), but there is no doubt in my mind that Batista was the bigger of the two. He was a phenomenon at this point in time.

I think the WWE made a huge mistake by taking the United States Title off Cena heading into his match agaisnt JBL. The US Champion stepping up to face the WWE Champion could have made a good story that would have made sense going on earlier in the show. But I digress.

Just out of interest, what would the champion do on SD if he's fueding with a Raw guy?

The parametres we're trying to establish are that we keep seperate shows - in fact we make them more seperate - but have one champ working on both.

Let's say Raw gets the first shot at the belt, thus every week on Raw the Number One Contender and the Champ interact, then, come Friday, the champ ships off to SD, but what does he do there? We can't build him a seperate fued there - it'll get too confusing. So surely he/the company are just going through the motions by having the champ appear on Friday's show.

He could actually defend the belt on RAW. With SmackDown! guys staying on SmackDown!, and RAW guys staying on RAW, while John Cena is feuding with Randy Orton on RAW, he could be defending the belt in big TV matches on SmackDown!, while RAW would be more for the angle side of things.

It would all really depend on the circumstances of the feud, though.

[Mr. Nerfect]

And your way, they're driving without a tire.

working on other issues first is great, if your car is in the garage. If it's on the road, the first thing you need is for it to be street worthy. If work on the body but ignore the flat tire or fail to maintain the brakes, it might as well be a fancy paperweight.

WWE needs to institute changes from the foundation up before it starts dressing things up on the outside.

You're the one always going on about being realistic. Come on now, do you really see the WWE suddenly saying "let's work on our foundations!"

Assuming that a change like this did force planning out of the WWE (which it would), then they can get it street worthy while it is in the garage. I see no real reason it could not work. The whole "ratings dropped last time" thing is complete bullshit. The titles have never been unified for the purposes of having a "Super Champion" between the brands. Last time, as I said earlier, they went in with one champion, had belts floating around everywhere, so it wasn't even special. They were also getting used to the brand split as a whole concept.

Face it -- the WWE needs something to trigger a catharsis. It's not going to happen automatically. Like the art of acting, wrestling seems to be at its best when it's reacting to something. The Attitude era was pretty much a response to what was going on in WCW at the time. You know when the WWE has been most interesting in recent years? When the WWE's plans go astray, and John Cena or someone gets injured, so they have to think about pushing someone like CM Punk.

That need to react is not going to be caused by TNA or ROH. It may as well come from the WWE itself, but that means they might actually have to take a risk, or something. Yeah, the WWE can be stupid, but even they are going to think things through. "OK, so we unify the WWE and World Heavyweight Championship...then what?" "Well, we need to make these divisions stronger." "I see, yes, that does make sense. "What is this sense you are talking about? We should try it more often."

If you think the WWE are going to go into this blind -- even taking into consideration that they are the WWE -- I think you are kidding yourself.

[XL]

Surely by defending the belt week in, week out on SD against random contenders takes away from being the official Number One Contender on Raw? How can you put someone over with a win in a N.O.C. match if 4 days later they're handing out shots to random guys at will.

Granted it would lead to an interesting angle if say 'Cena' were to lose the belt on SD costing 'Orton' his N.O.C. slot. But it hardly seems worth the hassle and confusion for one throwaway angle.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Surely by defending the belt week in, week out on SD against random contenders takes away from being the official Number One Contender on Raw? How can you put someone over with a win in a N.O.C. match if 4 days later they're handing out shots to random guys at will.

Granted it would lead to an interesting angle if say 'Cena' were to lose the belt on SD costing 'Orton' his N.O.C. slot. But it hardly seems worth the hassle and confusion for one throwaway angle.

Personally, if I were locked in for a PPV title shot, I don't think I'd care what happened to "Cena." The match on RAW wouldn't be for a "#1 Contender's" position, but rather "Winner Gets a Title Shot at Backlash" type thing (for example).

But that wouldn't be every month. You could occasionally have the WWE World Champion just do a month of "filler" main events on SmackDown!, teaming with the faces against the heels, to help hype their matches for the PPV.

I agree that brand exclusive PPVs became a bit watery, but with a stronger Champion to carry them, the ECW brand there to help out each month, and more and more focus on things like the IC/US and World/WWE Tag Titles, they could do the whole "brand alternation" things with PPVs, so that while the Champion is busy on RAW one month, the guys on SmackDown! can build to their shit two months in advance.

[XL]

Don't get me wrong I'm not against the brand exclusive PPVs and would much prefer they move towards stronger and more rigid brand identities in general. I even think that brand exclusive PPVs could work better than they did last time round - providing they maintained strong builds for the whole card.

However, I just can't see how one champ for both shows can work logistically unless you have the challenger follow the champ across the brands - which further negates the seperate and more rigid brand identities that we're striving for.

Sadly I don't think its an even remotely workable scenario.

[Kane Knight]

You're the one always going on about being realistic. Come on now, do you really see the WWE suddenly saying "let's work on our foundations!"

I said "What they need," not "what they are likely to do."

[Mr. Nerfect]

I said "What they need," not "what they are likely to do."

You make the same mistake with me all the time. I will say this, though: What they need to do applies to the situation. Having one World Title changes the situation, and what they need to do will change.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Don't get me wrong I'm not against the brand exclusive PPVs and would much prefer they move towards stronger and more rigid brand identities in general. I even think that brand exclusive PPVs could work better than they did last time round - providing they maintained strong builds for the whole card.

However, I just can't see how one champ for both shows can work logistically unless you have the challenger follow the champ across the brands - which further negates the seperate and more rigid brand identities that we're striving for.

Sadly I don't think its an even remotely workable scenario.

The WWE recently blurred their brand lines to the point where John Cena was often working SmackDown! matches for the hell of it. It'd pretty much be like that, I assume. You can have the guy float over to SmackDown! and work a match with MVP, or someone, do an interview the next week, do a main event tag the next.

[Kane Knight]

You make the same mistake with me all the time. I will say this, though: What they need to do applies to the situation. Having one World Title changes the situation, and what they need to do will change.

I don't; you have a tendency to infer things which I don't say.

Superficial changes are superficial. They don't really generate the kind of changes WWE needs. Your previous line of reasoning falls apart because WWE will address the superficial and then treat it as though the product is fixed. IE, repairing the stereo, but not repairing the engine. Which brings us back to ground zero, as does this current line of reasoning.

In all likelihood, this change is being considered because it's something they can do superficially to appease the fans.

[Destor]

I don't; you have a tendency to infer things which I don't say.Get over yourself.

[James Steele]

KK, how can you type these things without laughing at the sheer stupidity of the statements?

[XL]

The WWE recently blurred their brand lines to the point where John Cena was often working SmackDown! matches for the hell of it. It'd pretty much be like that, I assume. You can have the guy float over to SmackDown! and work a match with MVP, or someone, do an interview the next week, do a main event tag the next.
Likening something they are doing now (with a world champ on each show) to something they would have to do in a new scenario with a new set of "rules" is surely pointless, no?

Especially given that your referencing the blurring of brand lines that many would want made more defined than they currently stand.

Unless someone can plot out a convincing and cohesive schedule of shows for a 4 month span of Raw, SD and PPVs where we have one champ for 2 brands I'm never gonna buy it. Noid?

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't; you have a tendency to infer things which I don't say.

Superficial changes are superficial. They don't really generate the kind of changes WWE needs. Your previous line of reasoning falls apart because WWE will address the superficial and then treat it as though the product is fixed. IE, repairing the stereo, but not repairing the engine. Which brings us back to ground zero, as does this current line of reasoning.

In all likelihood, this change is being considered because it's something they can do superficially to appease the fans.

There have been dozens of times I have said "this is what I think they should do, but this is what I think they will do," and you have gone off about how it's not going to happen, blah blah. If I take your responses to that out of context, maybe you should word them better? Where I come from "that's unrealistic" means "that's unrealistic."

I actually think you are right about this being considered because it is a superficial change...to a degree. If you read the original post, many backstage are unhappy with how the WWE have treated the IC Title, US Title, World Heavyweight Title and WWE Title, and they want some kind of changes. They won't come superficially.

But that's ultimately why the idea won't be passed. Vince McMahon doesn't have to make any changes to his product, because John Cena, Rey Mysterio, Batista, DX and The Hardys are selling enough t-shirts to keep the company afloat, apparently. Why would he put actual effort into his programming when he can just put it in autopilot?

So this whole discussion really becomes moot on the basis that nothing is going to change, anyway. Why even discuss the hypotheticals?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Likening something they are doing now (with a world champ on each show) to something they would have to do in a new scenario with a new set of "rules" is surely pointless, no?

Especially given that your referencing the blurring of brand lines that many would want made more defined than they currently stand.

Unless someone can plot out a convincing and cohesive schedule of shows for a 4 month span of Raw, SD and PPVs where we have one champ for 2 brands I'm never gonna buy it. Noid?

Not really, because Cena floating between RAW, a brand he was involved in imminent storylines on, and SmackDown!, where he was just there for appearances sake, would pretty much be the basic principle of a floating World Champion between the brands.

Also, the whole concept of a floating champion complete disintegrates the notion of completely separate brands. The champion is going to need to float if he is going to be on both RAW and SmackDown!. But here is a potentially schedule for a month of RAW and SmackDown!'s dual-brand booking:

Week One:
RAW is getting the WWE Title shot at Backlash, so they have a Battle Royal in the main event. Meanwhile, John Cena squashes a wrestler not in the BR in a mid-card match. Shawn Michaels wins the Battle Royal.

SmackDown! sees the WWE Champion, John Cena and ECW Champion, Matt Hardy team up to face heels Edge and Umaga. Matt Hardy is pinned by Umaga, setting up an ECW Title Match between the two for Backlash.

Week Two:
John Cena and his opponent at Backlash, Shawn Michaels, team up to face Randy Orton & Cody Rhodes. The faces pick up the win when the Backlash challenger gets the win.

On SmackDown!, Edge says that with his victory over both the WWE and ECW Champion last week, he should be next in line for a WWE Title shot. Vickie Guerrero puts him in a #1 Contender's Match against Triple H at the PPV.

Week Three:
Shawn Michaels defeats a random heel like JBL, while John Cena does the same with someone like Kane.

Shelton Benjamin, who is the United States Champion, announces that he will be defending the US Title against Jeff Hardy, who has never held the belt. John Cena teams with Jeff Hardy to face Shelton and his tag team partner, MVP. The heels actually get the win when Edge costs Cena the match, which allows the US Champion to pin the WWE Champion, raising the stakes of his match.

Week Four:
The champions and challengers for the World Titles at Backlash are swapping around opponents for RAW. John Cena is facing Umaga and Matt Hardy is facing Shawn Michaels. Cena beats Umaga with some help from Matt Hardy, and Matt Hardy defeats Shawn Michaels via disqualification when Umaga attacks him.

SmackDown! sees Matt Hardy and Jeff Hardy team up to face Umaga and Shelton Benjamin. The US Champion and Samoan Bulldozer win when Shelton pins Matt after some heel shenanigans. Cena commentates a main event tag team match pitting Edge & Big Show against Triple H & The Undertaker.

Backlash:
Edge defeats Triple H to become SmackDown!'s next challenger for the WWE Title, Matt Hardy defeats Umaga to retain the US Title, Jeff Hardy beats Shelton Benjamin to win the US Title, John Cena beats Shawn Michaels to retain the WWE Title.

That was just off the cuff with little to no thought put into it, but it's there for you to review.

[Sting Fan]

Off topic really but reading this thread it strikes me that probably the lst time I tuned in week in week out to watch what was happening with the World Title was when Taker was doing his Biker gimmick and took the belt off of Hogan.

In that reign we had the whole Dreamer bullying thing (disgusting but I always hoped Dreamer would fight back) we had Taker vs. Jeff Hardy Ladder match, and we had Taker losing in what I am pretty sure was a damn fine three way match.

As much as I have enjoyed reigns since (Benoit, Eddie and Angle spring to mind) I think that was probably the last reign where the Main event title was the selling point to me.