Should the WWE go back to a WWE Undisputed Championship
 

Since there is no real Brand Separation, should the WWE just unify the WWE and World Heavyweight Championship to one belt?

Short and sweet answer here: Yes.

make no sence to have two champions these days

With no show or brand split and the fact the WHC means very little in comparison I say it's a good idea but bad for business as its nice to have a champion featured on each tour.

All main sports have one Undisputed Champion. The MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, UFC.

WWE should do the same. The WHC will never be the "main" title, so I always see it as a devalued spot when you have that belt. It doesn't mean as much as it should.

Have one Champion and have him tour with both RAW and Smackdown. Back in the day, there was a certain sacrifice a guy had to go through when he was WWF Champion. Yes, you were "the man", but once you were in that spot you had to be committed, disciplined, you had to sacrifice, all in order to get to that spot, to remain there, and have a good run.

1) other sports have an off season

2) risking injuring your world champion by working live events for both tours is not smart.

I want to point out, yet again, that with a single world championship in WWE, you have no Eddie Gurrerro, RVD, CM Punk, Alberto Del Rio, or Daniel Bryan as champion. Having two top Champions creates more opportunities for more guys and leads WWE to take chances on guys they wouldn't otherwise. With no two belt system CM Punk would probably have gone to TNA like 2 years ago.

Given that it has been, this is a pretty silly thing to say.

just have a unification match but don't call it the undisputed championship, just demoralizes the rest of the wrestling product out there and tries to claim like WWE has the ultimate prize in the pro wrestling industry. I don't care either way and don't get me wrong, no wrestler on the indy scene or working for any known 2nd or 3rd or 4th line promotion wouldn't aspire to have a goal of being WWE Champion, they'd be out of their mind if they didn't. I just don't like the name "undisputed champion". Just call it the WWE Champion, plain and simple and enjoy the matches/champions/challengers contesting the title.

Bret Hart would tell you "I never had an off-season! I missed 2 shows in 14 years! I got injured but I kept coming back!"

He'd then also say "And what did it get me? Getting screwed by Vince McMahon in Montreal!"

But still.

Right, but when the WHC was the main Title, who held it, or who was going after it?

Triple H when he was at his peak.

No.

Having two top-tier champions means you can have a good draw for a house show while Raw or Smackdown is on TV.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5-R7J9vQHak" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yes since clearly the WHC is a 2nd tier belt which is what the IC and US are made for there would be a longer group of contenders to make the current holder more legit than he is.

I was gonna say yeah but I never considered the point that the WHC did elevate some guys.

Then again, having one main championship would make the US/IC title legit as the stepping stone to the big one. Right now the second tier championship isn't as sure a track to the top belts. In the past getting that title almost assured a future run as world champ.

But then I remember all of this is fake and drawings crowds is the point so whatever.

Back when there was only the WWF Championship, the company would use the Intercontinental Championship to elevate those who had the potential of being the next ones in line to main event.

Guys like Bret Hart, Randy Savage, HBK, Diesel, Steve Austin, The Rock, Ultimate Warrior, Triple H, among many others won the IC belt before getting up to the WWF Title, the belt was used to elevate these men into main event status.

Hell, there were times where the feud for the Intercontinental Championship was more interesting than whatever was going on with the WWF Title.

The same could be done today without the WHC.

exactly and the us belt could then become the lower mid card title with the ic essentially replacing the whc

And who exactly do you boot out of the main event scene with only one top title?

You don't have to "boot" anyone. Rotate them. That way we won't have the same two guys going at it PPV after PPV.

When HBK was Champion, he'd wrestle Bret Hart one PPV, Diesel the next, British Bulldog the next, Vader the next, so on and so forth.

You seriously don't think that there is a much larger main event pool these days and a much larger crop of mid-card guys who you can just keep rotating the US and IC titles through? This isn't the mid 90s, and the dynamics of booking in the modern day are nothing like they were then.

It can be done. Rotate the opponent the Champion faces each PPV, maybe include a "Fatal Four-Way" here and there, take advantage of the Elimination Chamber and add in some new guys who perhaps haven't had a shot at being in a main event, and there you go.

And use that same philosophy of rotating the opponents a champion faces with the IC Title and US Title. Take each belt and build feuds around each one, rotate guys around each one.

Therefore, you can make it so each match (the one for the WWE Title, the one for the IC Title and the one for the US Title) is a main event, in a sense.

You have a larger roster, but you also have 5 hours a week now between the 2 main shows (Raw and Smackdown), as opposed to just 2 back in the day (just RAW). Use them for all this, instead of showing replays.

Off topic slightly but I would love to see an ic champ also win the world championship ala warrior over hogan. It would be fresh and also create a buzz for the ic belt.

Say Ziggler beats Barrett then cashes in MITB.....just one scenerio

Actually, that'd put the spotlight back on the IC Title, in a way.

They could have a battle royal to determine the new IC Champion. So I guess it's not a bad idea.

No. It'd be a terrible business move. Having two champs allows the WWE to run multiple house shows at the same time in different areas and have a champ headline the cards.

Hmmm. No punk, bryan or Eddie as champ? I change my mind. One title to rule them all!

Nope. For all of the previously mentioned reasons by posters who said no.

The whole "two world titles, mid-card titles etc" debate has been going on and on since time began.

Get over it people.

The title doesn't make the champion, the champion makes the title.

Or some such bollocks.

I think you're overstating the importance of the minor titles. The fact that being selective allows WWE to state that the "IC Title is a stepping stone to the World Title, as it has for HHH, The Rock, Steve Austin, etc, etc" is great for hyperbole when you need to make people care about a match.

Conversely, if someone pointed out that Ken Shamrock, The Godfather, D'Lo Brown, John Morrison, William Regal, Umaga, Shelton Benjamin, Carlito Test Lance Storm, Billy Gunn, Chyna, Val Venis, Rikishi, Goldust, Road Dogg, Owen Hart, Ahmed Johnson, Marc Mero, Razor Ramon, Dean Douglas, Marty Jannetty, British Bulldog, Roddy Piper, The Mountie, Mr Perfect, Texas Tornado, Rick Rude, Honky Tonk Man, among many others, had won the IC Title and done little else afterwards, it kinda puts a dent in the prestige of the title.

Meanwhile, the likes of Brock, Sheamus, Del Rio, Batista, Khali, Big Show, JBL, Undertaker, Mankind, Sid, Yokozuna, all held the title before/without becoming IC Champ.

It's all a matter of booking. Everything.

You get bumped to Main Event Status with the right booking. If you have the right look/attitude/"it factor"/etc.

Likewise, the IC/US belts don't become any more important if you take the WHC out of the equation just because you take the WHC out of the equation.

The mid-card belts are as important as they are booked to be. But, if it's all in the booking (hint: it is), they can easily book the WHC title to be important/as important as the WWE Title and negate the "need" to get rid of it.

The correct answer is yes.

Nope.

Most likely all that would happen is the WWE still only focuses on the main event and just the same few guys while the IC/US division doesn't get the boost in focus or gets flooded with too much talent.

At least with two main belts, the WWE's focus on the main event usually meant Smackdown did a better job rotating guys in the title scene or experimenting with new guys to see who would be future stars. RAW had less people rotating but it didn't lead to a better US title division.

They need to get rid of the WHC. They need to put Cesaro in some serious feuds, and continue trying to push the IC title. The tag division is a little goofy, but improving. I agree that there are too many talents not to have a solid handful of belts, but I don't think it belongs at the top of the organization. Let the real main eventers main event, because they're going to anyway. The WWE title belongs around these guys.

Light Heavyweight deserves another look. They have the roster for it.

I think you could really raise the prestige of the WHC by having Punk continue his reign of terror until Brock Lesnar stops him. Then Lesnar leaves. And everyone starts gunning for the WHC until Lesnar comes back at Mania.

Random Bret thought, didn't Bret spend alot of his time in WCW injured? Didn't have a knee injury, then a groin injury within his first year-ish with WCW? It was every time he began to be pushed to the main event, he suffered an injury, of course culminating with the match at Starrcade 99?

I almost felt this way when I was writing RVD's name.

1. True, but wrestling already has roughly the same physical demand as it would.

2. I wouldn't expect them to work all the shows or anything.

Throwing the "back in the day" argument back in, wresn't there WCW and WWE PPVs headed by the US and IC titles? Couldn't they do that for house shows?