There Might Be A Single World Title Again
 

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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....

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.

I wanted this since they made 2 world titles.

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...

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.

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

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?

worst idea in this thread

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.

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'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?

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.

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.

And that was just one thing mentioned.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.