1 World Title = Best for Business?

diusmr8a504cvk

With the titles being unified with the last 19 months now, I thought about whether or not we were better off with two world titles or one.

In my opinion, having two belts allows for both an "A" (WWE Title) & "B" (WHC Title) world title, with the B title being good for people who aren't really WWE Championship material such as Mark Henry, Kane, Dolph Ziggler etc. Also it's less of a risk for the company to put the B title on a young talent (Cesaro maybe) as an experiment as it's not as big of a deal if it goes wrong.

What I like about having one World title is that it's seems more important as it's the one and only top prize to fight for. The top dog of the company is evident when the championship is won and it's also a big deal when someone wins it as the belt doesn't change hands very often.

I'll throw in a poll, hope this hasn't been done before.

ebbsy

I see PWI does not recognise the TNA belt as a world championship, from the latest issue.

diusmr8a504cvk

ebbsy wrote: »

I see PWI does not recognise the TNA belt as a world championship, from the latest issue.

But this is about the WWE title.....

Mr.Nice Guy

I would be in the one world title camp.

I don't want to see guys who aren't World Championship material holding the World Championship. In the old days you had to be a top star to get the top title and the Intercontinental Title was the 'B' Title. If you present the IC and US belt in a positive light, and they have done a much better job of this in 2015 than in recent years, then you can get those titles over.

Guys like Jack Swagger would not have a prayer of getting the current World Championship and that's the way it ought to be. I don't think giving 'B' stars a World Title has helped them get over. It's not the belt that makes the star, it's the other way around.

I also feel World Title matches are a much bigger deal nowadays than a few years back. For those reasons I hope they keep it as one title.

gimmick

There are already 2 "B" titles there already - The US Title and IC Title.

I always hated the idea of 2 World Champions. It diluted the importance of being the top guy. 2 world champions led to 2 money in the bank matches/case holders which further diluted everything.

It led to some bit of entertainment with the Rumble winner, but it could also be argued that 2 world titles took from the importance of winning the rumble also as there were 3-4 years where the winner "main evented" Mania in a mid card/opening match.

So one world title solves all the above crap.

diusmr8a504cvk

gimmick wrote: »

There are already 2 "B" titles there already - The US Title and IC Title.

I was on about the B World title which is the World Heavyweight Championship :pac:

brianregan09

I think it's so much better now with the one , The Title now is a big deal and isn't watered down by having 2 World Champions

and you have Cena putting the US title up on a pedestal and giving the younger guys chance to take it off him , I hope Owens does it too

The IC title could do with another boost though Ryback feuding with Showmiz has been a failure , where as it'd much better placed on Reigns for his feuds with Wyatt

Bounty Hunter

Also in the 1 is better than 2 camp here and think everything you said a B world title could be used for the IC title could also be used for assuming it's booked correctly.

If someone isn't really WWE championship material as you say then they shouldn't get the title simple as imo. Give em the IC title, book them well with it and then your opinion on if they are worthy of a run with the big one might change.

Ridley

Two were fine when there was functioning brand split but one is better for now.

Merge the US and IC titles.

Rjd2

Tegan Inexpensive Landmark wrote: »

In my opinion, having two belts allows for both an "A" (WWE Title) & "B" (WHC Title) world title, with the B title being good for people who aren't really WWE Championship material such as Mark Henry, Kane, Dolph Ziggler etc.

And for that reason alone I am glad we have only 1 world title belt.:)

SureYWouldntYa

It should be 1 world title, and should always have been while there was no brand split

There will be some serious talent on the roster soon when all the golden nxt wrestlers move up, would be more than enough for another brand split

Chip Whitley

I'm glad there is only one main World Heavyweight Title, it just means more. The US title and Intercontinental title should be used as the 'B' Belts to see if people can make the next step up. They might not have the roster for this but I always thought the US title should just be competed by for US wrestlers and the Intercontinental title competed by for everyone else. Although I did enjoy what Rusev did playing up to the fact he was a hated foreigner with the belt.

I wouldn't be opposed to the return of a Cruiserweight/Lightweight title to give the likes of Tyson Kidd, the Usos, Lucha Dragons, Kofi, Neville, Xavier Woods something to do when they are not in the tag title scene or if a tag team has a member injured like the Usos now.

Itssoeasy

1 top guy 1 world title.

Scavenger XIII

I see nothing wrong with more belts as long as each has a clear role that determines who should fight for it.

With the 3 singles belts right now, they have different perceived values but it's all a bit flakey.

You would expect it to be US < IC < World in order of importance since each vaguely implies you are the best in a greater section of the world. But there's not really any reason to not seek the next one up.

For example, Cena has the US title right now but does it really make any sense for him to settle for that when he's had the top title so many times?

The main title means you are the best singles wrestler, the tag titles mean you are the best tag team. If they had for example trios titles like LU, they would be held by the best trio.

I suppose there needs to be some kind of stepping stone towards the main title but seems weird to me to have a belt that means you are kindof alright but not that great. :pac:

A cruiserweight title would involve some blurred lines but I think it would work well enough as something for smaller guys to fight for. So if the likes of Neville held it he would be seen as the best in that role and you wouldn't ever see him defending it from say Brock (mad shooting star attempts aside).

Stereomaniac

Just the one.

IncognitoMan

The IC title should be shown a lot more respect. It should be held by the next guy like reigns not in a triple threat between big show, ryback and miz. Also when it does have a decent champ like BNB don't job him out every week on raw

I'd bring in a TV title or make the US title a mandatory title defense every week on raw as we've seen with cena. Usually the highlight match of the week every week.

Apart from that I think the belts are ok as is

LeeJM

No company needs two world titles. "World Champion" means that person is the best in the world. Period.

duuuaaaane

"with the B title being good for people who aren't really WWE Championship material"

Then why cater a World Championship to them if they aren't World Champion material?

Razor Ramon and Roddy Piper are two names I think of who never got a World Title. They were far better than World Heavyweight Championship level.

diusmr8a504cvk

I'm talking about in the past when the WHC was held by people not good enough for the WWE title such as Mark Henry.

Rjd2

Tegan Inexpensive Landmark wrote: »

I'm talking about in the past when the WHC was held by people not good enough for the WWE title such as Mark Henry.

To be fair, Henry's reign was one of the best of the last few years, would have had no issue with him as a solo champion if he was to rediscover that spark.

Moneymaker

With two brands I think it's fine.

And it was fine when their roster was deep enough. Guys like Angle, Brock, Eddie, Cena, Batista, Edge and Undertaker are obviously champion material.

It's when the roster got thinner and guys like Swagger became champion it got watered down.

For a long time both titles were held in equal standing.

As it is now it's not necessary.

RedemptionZ

Two seperate brands makes it necessary, currently though no need for two world champions.

The intercontinental championship should be given more attention. The IC champ should be seen as a real contender and someone who is capable of beating anyone on the roster on his day. Back in the day guys like Angle, Jericho and Benoit were IC champs and while there was obviously more depth back then, the title was seen as a genuine achievement, whereas now it's more not knowing what to do with someone so just giving them the belt without much actual feuding or storylines.

A Rogue Hobo

I'm all for one world title. The two titles messed up a lot of things including taking away from the royal rumble match every year. Also playing armchair booker I'd merge the IC/US together too and treat the IC belt as important as the World Heavyweight Championship when it existed (sorta like how the U.S belt is being treated now) and have the WWE champion headline one house show loop and the IC champ headline the other. More belts existing detracts from the value of basically any one on one match because it's hard not to have one champ lose to another or have one guy lose and lose and then suddenly win a belt. Just my opinion!

Endaaaagh

Just 1 world title, merge the IC and US belts. If they are adamant they need a 3rd title bring back the cruiserweight title

gimmick

Tegan Inexpensive Landmark wrote: »

I'm talking about in the past when the WHC was held by people not good enough for the WWE title such as Mark Henry.

And you asked should it be 2 again. Which people are saying no to!

Ridley

IncognitoMan wrote: »

The IC title should be shown a lot more respect. It should be held by the next guy like reigns not in a triple threat between big show, ryback and miz.

Yeah, former WWE Champions like Big Show and Miz shouldn't lower themselves to IC level. :P

Imnotthehulk

The only time that two world titles was a good time was the Invasion angle, and when the two brands were being kept separate.

I do think that Mark Henry was a fine World Heavyweight Champion. WWE did a great job of positioning him as a main event monster. If it hadn't been for injuries keeping him off our screens and spoiling his momentum, I wouldn't have been surprised to see a couple more reigns as champ. (His faux retirement speech in 2013 showed just how untapped his mic skills over the years).

Henry has been a very good, underrated servant to the WWE.

gerrybbadd

I prefer 1 title.

2 titles were fine when Raw and Smackdown were truly separate entities, like in the past. But when they started to phase out the Brand Separation with Super Smackdowns etc, having 2 titles watered down the prestige of being a World Champ.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The split happened because of the brand extension, remember the initial plan back in 2001 was to run WCW as a separate company and keep on their world title. The 'big gold belt', the lineage of the classic NWA WHC belt had ended with Flair in 1993, the NWA title of today is a complete joke.

When those plans fell through, they split the Raw and SD into two rosters. The original plan after Brock took the WWE Undisputed title to SD was to have the Intercontinental championship as the lead belt for Raw. Ric Flair apparently was one of the vocal opponents against this, B title headlining the A show. So eventually the idea swang back to reintroducing the WCW World Heavyweight Tile and renaming it the WWE WHC.

All in though like others have said it's better to have one top guy in a promotion, multiple world titles devalues the importance.

DM_7

One title is best. As when Brock was champion or as can happen in Japan I think it might even be good if the title was defended even less. Title matches would be more important. A title shot more prestigious.

It wouldn't be that hard make up a for a small reduction in World title matches. Cena v Owens could main event PPV, if the IC title was on Wyatt or Reigns that feud could easily main event a B PPV.

Instead of gimmick PPVs that don't fit feuds they could have tournaments like King of the Ring. MITB could main event it's own PPV etc. NXT title could be defended on more live specials/PPVs.

Overall it could be good if more time was spent focusing on people battling to get the title shot.

764dak

There were so many wrestlers because of the Brand Extension that there were even tag team belts for each brand. The tag team division for each brand was even a lot more competitive than it is now.

Funnily enough, the WHC, IC and Women's titles were for Raw and the WWE, US and Cruiserweight were for Smackdown.

Angron

I'm cool with one world title, I wouldn't really like to see the US and IC titles merged though. If they did merge them, the IC title's lineage should be the one carried on, but WWE doesn't have the best track record for that (women's and tag titles had the wrong one carried over imo).

LeeJM

Angron wrote: »

I'm cool with one world title, I wouldn't really like to see the US and IC titles merged though. If they did merge them, the IC title's lineage should be the one carried on, but WWE doesn't have the best track record for that (women's and tag titles had the wrong one carried over imo).

Did they not carry the WWE tag title lineage dating back to the 70's, 80's and 90's?

Angron

LeeJM wrote: »

Did they not carry the WWE tag title lineage dating back to the 70's, 80's and 90's?

Nope, the official lineage now is from the titles started on Smackdown with Benoit and Angle.

LeeJM

Angron wrote: »

Nope, the official lineage now is from the titles started on Smackdown with Benoit and Angle.

F*ckin hell!! Thats such Vince revisionist bollox

briany

gimmick wrote: »

There are already 2 "B" titles there already - The US Title and IC Title.

The idea of two 'B' titles for a unified roster makes no sense. There should only be one B title, and no C title. If the A title is the best, and the B title is the best of the rest, then a second B title serves no purpose and needs to be done away with. It just looks like medals for everyone on sports day. It should only be WHC and IC for regular singles competition. Now, if you want titles for different divisions like the LHC or HC belts that would be different.

Furthermore, two B belts serve to undermine one another because if you had only one, the only identity the belt really needs is that it is for the next in line to the throne, and that gives it value. The audience places importance on it. When you have two B belts, they can't both be for the next in line, so what else do they stand for? What is an IC champion exactly? A man who wrestles all his matches against opponents from different continents? What is a US champion? A man who is the champion of the US? Surely the World Champion is also champion of the US, therefore rendering the US title redundant. It's ridiculous.

chopperbyrne

I think it should be like this:

World Title - Defended at the big four/five PPVs only.

IC Title - Defended at all PPVs and occasionally on TV.

Tag Titles - Defended at all PPVs and occasionally on TV.

TV Title - Defended on TV weekly.

Women's Title - Defended at all PPVs and occasionally on TV.

764dak

briany wrote: »

The idea of two 'B' titles for a unified roster makes no sense. There should only be one B title, and no C title. If the A title is the best, and the B title is the best of the rest, then a second B title serves no purpose and needs to be done away with. It just looks like medals for everyone on sports day. It should only be WHC and IC for regular singles competition. Now, if you want titles for different divisions like the LHC or HC belts that would be different.

Furthermore, two B belts serve to undermine one another because if you had only one, the only identity the belt really needs is that it is for the next in line to the throne, and that gives it value. The audience places importance on it. When you have two B belts, they can't both be for the next in line, so what else do they stand for? What is an IC champion exactly? A man who wrestles all his matches against opponents from different continents? What is a US champion? A man who is the champion of the US? Surely the World Champion is also champion of the US, therefore rendering the US title redundant. It's ridiculous.

Brand Extension was the only time there was one B belt (for each brand). Before the Brand Extension there were the IC and European titles as B belts and WCW had the US and TV titles.

How is a B belt champion the best of the rest? I can't even remember the last time somebody like the Undertaker or Shawn Michaels even challenged for it in the 2000's. A lot of the time they weren't even world title contention. They always seemed to have some random feuds.

Itssoeasy

As the IC and U.S. titles have been mentioned in this thread. It's probably a random thought but I'd love for the WWE to call the IC title the intercontenental HEAVYWEIGHT championship as that is what is on the title itself.

Itssoeasy

chopperbyrne wrote: »

I think it should be like this:

World Title - Defended at the big four/five PPVs only.

IC Title - Defended at all PPVs and occasionally on TV.

Tag Titles - Defended at all PPVs and occasionally on TV.

TV Title - Defended on TV weekly.

Women's Title - Defended at all PPVs and occasionally on TV.

Actually having a TV title similar to the nwa one as the nwa world champion was like lesnar in that he wasn't on TV every week but there was a focal point is a great idea.