Quote:
Originally Posted by Schlomey
So the question is, with this short list is it an awful idea to eliminate one main title to create more of a buzz around the other?
Does doing so create less opportunities for those who want to move up?
|
I feel that if the WHC is written properly and on an equal level to the WWE Championship, then it works very well with developing main eventers. This idea worked for a while, but now it is so obvious that the WHC is way below the WWE Championship.
The "two champions" idea peaked in around 2008 when Orton, Cena, and HHH were battling over the WWE Championship, and Taker and Edge were going for the WHC at the same time. They were high profile feuds that made the belts mean something. Now, the writing team just slaps the WHC on someone because they realize that they can afford to make a mistake by giving the belt to someone that isn't ready, since it isn't their "top belt." This mindset really crushed the credibility of the WHC.
Guys like Swagger, Punk (his first run), Bryan, and now Del Rio were no where near ready for a Championship run, but they figured "fuck it, we have the WWE Championship to draw money," and so they did it anyway. If they properly built all of those wrestlers first, and then put the title on them, they would have been main eventers, instead of floundering back down the card after losing the WHC.
More main eventers would be set and ready if they treated both belts the same, instead of treating the WHC as the "experiment" title to see if the guy is worth it.