Has the WWE done a satisfactory job of making the Universal title seem as the richest prize in the business?
 

As the title suggest, do you believe that the WWE has done a good enough job to make RAW's Universal Championship seem like the most important title in the company?

https://orig00.deviantart.net/e6b4/f...ho-dahyoa8.png

Between Lesnar never defending it and Corbin getting a shot at it, I say there's work to be done.

AJ's title seems the most prestigious to me, but it never gets the card placement it deserves.

It is quite appalling to realize that AJ Styles has never defended his WWE Championship in the main event of any dual-branded PPVs, even with then Universal Champion Brock Lesnar being absent from them.

Nope. I hate how the WWE title has the lineage, was the #1 title held in recent years by John Cena, The Rock and CM Punk... and yet, the draft split takes place, Smackdown goes live and is "no longer being seen as the B show", and then Raw creates a new title and that's automatically the number one title because it's not on the B show.

Well, I don't "hate" it. Not like I sit around stewing in anger over it. Ya'mean.

Wait. That’s one a picture of the Universal Championship in the OP.

This.

And, I don't recognize the "(NBC) Universal Championship".

1st champion was a guy painted like a retard, 2nd was Kevin Owens who is pretty much a laughing stock these days, then we had a dude who's way past his prime and then a dude who drops by when he feels like it.

No, they didn't.

No b/c ppl still hold the WWE Championship higher in prestige. Though Reigns seems to be a bigger draw than Styles and thus main events more.

Title has been booked very strong for a few years now

AJ is the champ. I care more about the NWA title right now than Big Red.

Big Gold Belt is gone and won't be back.

Lesnar holding it made it as legit as it could be. I’d rather the title and champion be treated as a major attraction than have him constantly on TV and losing constant non-title matches.

Also Lesnar is a million times more credible than Styles. With the champion’s credibility goes the title.

Still laugh a little whenever I hear "The Universal Championship"

Oh yeah. The name is ridiculous.

I mean, it makes sense with the 'WWE Universe' motif, but I still haven't quite gotten used to it.

To be fair to the question, WWE has done a lackluster job of making any of their titles seem like a rich prize. They have fallen into the notion that something is prestigious in and of itself by osmosis on top not building anyone up to be "at that level".

Seems like it has already taken a backseat to the Shield. Roman is just a guy in the Shield that has a title. There is no difference between it and the IC title in that it is simply there.

Feel like the NXT Championship has been defended on more continents than the Universal Championship. Doesn't a title need to earn the status of being a world title anymore?

...no...?

Matches for the title are viewed by a global audience. What soil the match takes place doesnt have any effect on that.

Luddites...

Universal Championship clearly presented as the #1 belt, so yes to this question.

since about 2001.

I will say that I like the title with the black strap in the OP of this thread more than the red strap. Seems gimmicky that way.

Going to say no.

I'd argue IC belt might be the most prestigious belt WWE has in terms of booking and reigns in the past couple of years.

Hard for the Universal belt to have any prestige when WWE spent the latter portion of Lesnar's reign trashing him as champ and doing a terrible job trying to coronate Reigns.

The NXT title might mean something, if that counts.

Or the WWEUK title sorta.

So is Curt Hawkins versus Elias

Nah it sucks

Yeah the time they worked for the strap was super cool

Incorrect.

It’s not even close. Come on.

I'm a big AJ Styles fan but Lesnar is way more credible than AJ. Universal Championship is still a farce though.

Yes until Lesnar lost to Reigns.

I refused to acknowledge it as the Universal Title and hated the belt design until Goldberg won it and made it legit. Brock was a great champ (by modern standards). Saved it from a rocky start.

I love AJ Styles, but come on, guys. He's won the SmackDown Title. That's basically like being the IC Champion. It's barely trivia. Also, Jinder won it. And Bray won it. And Ambrose won it. And this is only going back, like, two years.

Dear Noid, you just lost all credibility with that daft post of yours. While I agree that having Lesnar hold the Universal Championship for so long gave it "credibility", AJ Styles' WWE Championship is still the most important championship in the history of the business. Dean Ambrose won it while it was still the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, went on defeat both Seth Rollins and Roman Reigns, before taking the strap to Smackdown Live. Get your facts straight, jack.

Wrestling isn't real, Dave.

Jinder Mahal actually sucks.

He has a good theme song, though. There's gotta be something to be said for that.

This may or may not be true, but I'm sure I'd end up associating it with torture.

I dunno man. It's a pretty sweet jam.

Dear Noid, I am not Punjabi but I can appreciate how dope his theme song is.

I can't believe you (of all people) are saying this.


I don't think anyone would argue against that. Also, it randomly reminded me of meeting someone from Gama Singh's extended family in Stanford. He had some naughty things to share about our beloved Canadian wrestler.

Also, I feel compelled to put this out in the world. Jinder isn't proficient when it comes to speaking Hindi.

I'm not so sure Duke Droese was a trash man either.

Hey now! Can't compare a man's fictitious profession with his ability to butcher a language on a weekly basis. Now that's a level of kissing up to the boss man that not everyone is ready to do.

He's fluent in Punjabi.

I get you were making a point about how it's more prestigious than the NXT title, but who sees it doesn't much impact the presentation. A global audience does see it, but they also see Bayley versus Alicia Fox. It has nothing to do with actual presentation of the title, but is more a reflection on the success of the company as a whole despite the fact that their belts mean very little.

Categorically false. Its the most coveted title on Earth. That isnt kayfabe.

They butchered the lineage and credibility. Just like the NWA title didn’t get to keep its prestige in the 90s/00s just based on its lineage, neither does that one. They could swap world titles randomly tomorrow and the credibility would switch from the Universal to the World. The title headlining the shows and being held by the star of the company is the most important one. And Styles, regardless of how you feel about him as a performer, isn’t anywhere near Lesnar’s or even Reigns’ league as far as credibility or star power. If there wasn’t two world titles, Styles would be fighting for the IC while Lesnar and Reigns headline for the world title.

Which is a damning indictment on the wrestling world because we're constantly reminded about how little value it has.

Who's reminding you of that? It is presented as the biggest prize in the business.

unsuccessfully

Can you name a title that is a bigger deal?

PERSONALLY I get more out of the rare IWGP heavyweight championship match I watch than WWE's universal championship.

I get WWE rules the roost, but the presentation artistically is much better.

ARTISTIC COMBAT IS SERIOUS BUSINESS is what you are trying to say?

The more they treat it like a prize fight, the better.

The UFC LightHeavyweight Title?

The CHW Interstate title

Lol, I don't think wrestling is real? I just wish it was a work.

Yeah, I know this. Reason #43 why putting the belt on him because they think all Indian people are marks is extremely short-sighted and frankly a little racist.

Bingo. The WWE Title (and the World Heavyweight Title back when it was on SmackDown) is the equivalent of what the IC Title used to be. When your World Champion is working one venue, the IC Champion could work another. The WWE Champion just headlines the B-shows. That might switch when WWE goes to FOX. It doesn't really make sense to have the title named for NBC Universal on SmackDown, but they don't really hammer that point in on TV (to my knowledge), so it's possible they'll switch the belt to SmackDown though. Remember when everyone kept the blinged out belt even when Cena was nowhere near it? Triple H even took it to SmackDown in 2008 even though Cena was on Raw.

I'm guessing they'll keep the WHC on Smackdown when it moves to Fox and it will then become the most important title again. Because they'll move the biggest stars onto Smackdown and that will be the title the Lesnars/Reigns' fight for while Styles either gets pushed down to the undercard or heads over to Raw and fights for the now secondary Universal title. The actual names and physical look of the titles are that arbitrary. It's silly. But having two world titles period is silly.

Oh, that's my guess too, although I've got this weird feeling that Styles and Reigns are going to stay where they are. Anyway, that's besides the point. You're spot on. The main program will probably be over the WWE Title whereas the Universal Title becomes secondary. I was just saying I can see them switching the belts even though the Universal Title should logically stay on Raw.

Having two World Champions is crap. How does it make any sense?

The richest prize is probably going to be $5 off at Grill Masters Club, code FESTIVEFEAST, ends 12/31

<a href="https://www.shareasale.com/m-pr.cfm?merchantID=68697&userID=1849683&productID=668657588" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="http://grillmastersclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Products-Hero-GM-4.png" border="0"><br/>Grill Masters Club Boz</a><br>from: <b>Grill Masters Club</b>

Nothing can legitimize it


Well...maybe Braun

and he could just call it THIS WAIST

WWE Championship is already on Smackdown so I don't see a switch coming. Raw is staying on USA so they can keep the Universal Championship with NBC Universal. I don't think Fox or many other people for that mattet would think the title was named for NBC Universal though.

Haha, nah. Braun is not as good as everyone thinks he is. Still a pretty shitty worker and is mostly over with a fan-base that embraces the "other."

I don't think they'll switch them, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that I don't think this company really has any rules, and despite being named (allegedly) for NBC Universal, it wouldn't shock me if they switch the belts because they want the belt they've built up to be the centerpiece for Smackers when they go to FOX. They could just keep it red, because why not, or get new belt designs for the change, and "Universal" would just be the name, because what's in a name, right?

I think the only reason they brought the belt in in the first place was because they stomped the World Heavyweight Title into the ground (like the WWE Title) and it had only been unified in 2013. Oh, and they were doing the "New Era" stuff, so it was a new title for the new era.

The simplest outcome is that when SmackDown goes to FOX they just change their emphasis to make it the main belt on PPVs now. But I just wouldn't put anything past this company, and wouldn't bet on them doing the simplest thing. Hell, I wouldn't put it past them to move the specifically named SmackDown belts to Raw and vice versa, and either just switch their names (the blue belts become red and vice versa), or even just keep them with the names to be "quirky" and for cross-promotion or some shit.

Most curious about who they build around on SmackDown. A lot of people instantly assumed Roman Reigns would go to SmackDown, but for some reason I feel like he'll stay put on Raw and be the "flagship" guy. They won't change that marketing. They'll just have focus on SmackDown and Raw will be the "flagship." But that dynamic is going to be genuinely interesting, because they've never really been in the spot where SmackDown has been so critical. It was originally on UPN, but this is FOX -- it opens them up to new audiences and new expectations.

Will they keep the brand split? Will they end it so they can have Ronda, Roman, Cena, Triple H, Undertaker, etc. on both shows? Will they just forget the brand split for their stars? Or do they double-down where they make them even more insular, kind of like the start of the last brand split, where there was almost this level of competition and exclusivity.

More so than the actual specifics, I'm fascinated by how they will handle it. Like, how does Vince divide his time?

I think they'll just have a random group that do both shows... business as usual.

Yeah, most likely. Why would they change anything?

Assuming they keep the brand split, Meltzer and others have speculated Ronda being the best candidate to get moved over to Smackdown. Main assumption is WWE will want a huge mainstream star for Smackdown both to please FOX and to capitalize on Smackdown having a stronger market presence there than on USA Network.

Also FOX supposedly wants to keep Smackdown as a wrestling focused show, like its been for both Brand Split eras, to help make it more marketable to their sports viewers.

I dunno. Don't really care about it, tbh. I got bored of Lesnar a while back, so his legitimacy didn't really add anything to the belt for me.

Im just one guy though.

If they had to choose one, I think they'd go SmackDown, but they don't have to choose one. She'll probably end up slumming around on both. I mean, they probably name-dropped her in USA meetings too.

They can try and make SmackDown as "legit" as they want, but Ronda's star power has been dropping since heading to WWE, from what I've read, not growing. I mean, I like her and think she's done a fantastic job in everything I've seen her in, but Joe Average probably thinks she just went to play fake wrestler after failing at real fighting.