1 WWE World Champion, Or 3? [Archive]

Y 2 Jake

08-28-2007, 01:02 PM

The new guy Steamboat Ricky gave me this idea.

Are you happy with the current World Title situation ie WWE Champion, World Champion & ECW World Champion?

Or would you prefer one world title for the whole company?

Personally I think the three champs are a good idea. I dont agree with those champs, but that's not the issue. One champion WOULD make the title more important. But three World titles gives more wrestlers more oppertunities. If there was one title for the entire company, would the likes of Lashley, Morrison, Khali, RVD, Rey Mysterio and even Cena have gotten oppertunities? Sure some of them dont deserve to be world champs. But some of them do, and they wouldn't have become champs if it wasn't for those titles. They ultimatley dont mean much. But in the recods books it will say that they were World champs in the biggest wrestling company in the world. And if the brand split ever ends the likes of Morrison and Khali will be much more accepted if they push for a single World Title.

Steamboat Ricky

08-28-2007, 01:06 PM

It depends on if you want a good storyline or not. If you want a bunch of guys that can say they have been world champ, then go for the three titles. I think it just waters down the product. Back in the day, you knew that Austin was the man. But who is the man nowadays? Cena, Khali, Morrison? Does it matter who is the man?

Maybe it doesn't matter who THE man is, but that's the way it always has been in contemporary pro-wrestling. Maybe it just needs time to sink in.

The same goes with boxing. Nobody knows who the Heavyweight champ is because there are so many belts. Look what has happened to boxing. It's nothing. I just think it would be more interesting if there was one guy at the top.

natecook59

08-28-2007, 02:58 PM

I'm completely torn on this issue. On one hand, would people like Edge, Booker T, Benoit, Guerrero, Mysterio, RVD have gotten the opportunity if there was only 1 championship? Some might have but others probably wouldn't have. But on the other hand I also think that having multiple World championships diminishes the meaning. Back in the day you knew who the "Man" was. It made it such a bigger accomplishment when people like Foley finally won the big one, because there was only one.

I don't have an answer to this, I'm completely torn but it's a good topic for discussion.

TheShocka2k

08-28-2007, 04:29 PM

I think with the surplus of talent they have, they need three world championships, one for each brand. However, they could have a three-way match against each other, like they did with Cena vs. Booker T vs. Lashley last year, and crowed the "Undisputed Heavyweight Champion" that way. The problem with that is it brings credibility down for the other two champions that lose. Like the person said above, it's hard to have a right or wrong answer for this. You have to take into account that there are a lot of great talents in the company right now and they deserve their chance to be on top or at least challenge for the top spot.

Esteban Ochocinco

08-28-2007, 04:33 PM

IF the brand extension were actually an exclusive product, then obviously the three brand titles are worth having. However, the WWE is so weak right now by essentially having a Brand Extension in name only, and mix and matching champs as quick fixes. The Tri Branded pay per views have completely devalued the World Heavyweight and ECW belts. Constantly those belts have been put in the midcard of pay per views over the last year, and have played second fiddle to the Reign of John Cena and the WWE title.

I'm almost for just killing the brand extension altogether. The Tri-Brand pay per views have been pure hell the last 5 months.

jefferson411

08-28-2007, 08:21 PM

I understand that it waters it down but it seems absolutely necessary for as long as there is brand extension. How could you have SD! or ECW not having a top tier championship, it just wouldn't work. Now back in the day when there was only one brand, if there had been 3 different titles it wouldn't make sense but it has to be done now. However I don't feel like the WH title or ECW title mean anything, personally. It is unfortunate that I feel like that, but I am sure a lot of fans feel that way, and that is just how WWE has made it become. RAW is the flagship, so WWE title is the most important.

Whoever alluded to boxing is absolutely right though. When you have too many world champions it devalues all of them.

Steamboat Ricky

08-28-2007, 09:05 PM

TheShocka2k

08-28-2007, 09:16 PM

That's the whole point. There needs to be ONLY ONE brand. I know it's unrealistic because what Vince cares about more than anything is money. The more brands he has, the more merchandise he can sell, the larger the TV deal, the larger ad sales, etc. But with that comes a watered down product that is centered around making money and not about making a sweet product.

I don't know how good one brand would be when everyone comes back. People like Edge, HBK,, Lashley and the Undertaker are all main event performers. Yeah, one brand would be great now because of injuries but it really won't be great for young performers like the Hardys, Edge, Lashley, Kennedy, CM Punk. The one brand would be overrun with people like Trips, HBK, Orton, Mysterio, Taker, Batista and so on. Also, how about other championships besides the WWE, World Heavyweight and ECW title? The US and IC title are basically the same thing as it SHOULD establish young guys to get into that main event spot. Also the Cruiserweight and Woman's championship would barely get anytime on one brand and you can count tag team wrestling in the grave compared to what they are at right now. I understand that the product might suck right now but that doesn't mean combining them would be better now or in the future.

Jonny B

08-29-2007, 03:23 AM

mtuphill

08-29-2007, 09:51 AM

watchingandwaiting

08-29-2007, 10:31 AM

I'm on the side of having 3 belts.. Granted the talent pool is diluted, but if the talent on Raw and Smackdown were equally balanced instead of having Raw so stacked, both main event pictures would benefit. ECW could have a better main event picture if some of the younger midcard guys like Kenny Dykstra were sent to ECW to compete for that belt.

That said, I just had an idea for a "one-belt" system that might (in the short term) provide some entertainment. If anyone cares, let me know what you think. In addition to the main championship belts being merged, the IC, US and the (new) ECW belt all become TV championships only.. These belts are defended every week on the respective shows. At the monthly PPV, whoever is holding these each of these belts has a triple threat match. The winner of the Triple Threat then becomes the number 1 contender for the Main belt until the end of the next PPV...but the belt is defended under the old Hardcore "24/7" rule, so a title match can take place any time during that month. In the meantime, the two losers of the Triple Threat match retain their belts and continue to defend them weekly. The belt that the new number 1 contender held goes back up for grabs however that show's GM wants to do it (Battle Royal, One Night Tournament, etc etc). Like I said, I don't know how viable this is as a long-term solution (I tend to this not really, esp. since it kind of puts all PPVs on an equal footing and eliminates the concept of the Rumble Winner main eventing Mania and kind of renders MITB obsolete) but it still could be a fun short term experiment. Thoughts?

Lee

08-29-2007, 11:00 AM

If my memory serves me correctly initially Initially, the WWE Undisputed Championship and WWE Women's Championship were available to both brands, with the other belts staying on their brands. This I think is a good idea, but looking back it didn't work.

I like Jonny's idea with the undisputed champion and then brand champions as well, this would give more mid-carders title shots and yet you can still have the lengthy reigns of undisputed champions.

Uncle Sam

08-29-2007, 11:16 AM

I think that perhaps it would be a good idea to unify the WWE and WHC Titles into an undisputed title, but leave ECW out of the equation or, alternatively, eliminate it using the equation. The three brands definitely water down the product to a great degree, and right now the roster is spread very thinly yet unevenly around all the belts. I think that unifying not only the titles, but the brands is in order. Unifying the titles and keeping the brands seperate would mess things up too much.

NYSandman

08-29-2007, 01:29 PM

Well, let us define World Champ. You have World, Heavyweight, IC, ECW World. Now, lets break it down. I assume IC mean the champ of this continent. I could be wrong. Heavyweight champ is the guy who is top of the heavyweight devision, meaning guys of a certain size. World Champ is just that, the wrestling champ of the entire planet. I think you could keep all the belts, but make one the defining title. The holder of that belt can wrestle on any brand, and anyone can challenge for it, no matter what size. Heavyweight should be the next one down, and should be restricted to guys who weigh over a certain amount. Cruiserweights would NOT be eligible to compete for this title. Anyone could hold the IC belt. Make the World title THE title, the one that defines you as the best wrestler on the planet today and work down from there. It is good to have more than one big title, as it creates rivalries, but you still need to have that one crown that makes you the absolute best.

Theo Williams

08-29-2007, 01:40 PM

As long as RAW, SmackDown and ECW exist as seperate entities, they all need their own world title. If there was an Undisputed Champion it would be constantly being defended against RAW wrestlers, leaving the other two brands even further behind. However, the draft has turned into something of a joke with all these interpromotional matches, so maybe it's time the merge all the brands and unify the titles.

Capt. Charisma

08-29-2007, 05:39 PM

You see I would be for the whole one Title only thing, but really only if the WWE Operated in a similar way to how the NWA does (or used to). The problem the WWE have with having one belt is that when the Champion is say on Smackdown feuding with someone there is no top belt on either RAW or ECW, and knowing the WWE they would just keep the belt and Champion on RAW all the time anyway. The way the NWA did it would make far more sense, having Brand Heavyweight Champions (for instance the WWE: RAW Heavyweight Champion) and having one Undisputed World Championship. That way all the brands would have a title worth going for even if the World title was not on their brand. They could work it so only one of the Heavyweight Champions can get a title shot at the Undisputed Champion... this way they would have to make more Heavyweight Title Changes (and fucking TV change anyone?) to give the Undisputed Champion more opponents. This gives us one prestigious belt that can have a Champion for a long period of time and gives us three belts that can change hands a little more often.

That idea is the best i have heard so far, the WWE needs an undisputed champion who is above the others and always in the main event, it would probably mean scrapping the us and intercontinal titles but they have no value nowadays anyway. I would take a slightly different take on it though. I might add here is that in order to qualify for a undisputed title shot, you must hold 1 of the brand championships, with title shots rotating through the 3 brands every month. Obviously when someone becomes undisputed champion they would have to vacate their brand title in order for this to work. But it would allow a fresh main title feud every month, and give more prestiage to the brand titles because you have to keep it to get your title shot. Anyway thats just me trying to be creative.

Oasys

08-29-2007, 06:18 PM

TheShocka2k

08-29-2007, 08:26 PM

The brand extension needs to end. I know what you all are thinking.. Too much talent, they will never hold the WWE title.
Your right. People such as Morrison, Punk, Booker etc. would more than likely not get a WWE title run. They would, however, hold the IC title. I remember when that belt actually meant something. It was held by the best in the business. Mr. Perfect, Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Stone Cold, Triple H, Shawn Michales, The Rock, Edge, Chris Jericho, Christian, Kurt Angle.. The IC would get more than 10 minutes at a pay per view. The fans actually cared who held it.
There are plenty of titles for all of the talent. The WWE needs to get rid of some of these other wrestlers that are taking up space on the roster. If that happens, there will be no shortage on titles or talent.

What you said is true. However, you have to think of people like Edge who has held the IC title so many times that it wouldn't be fair for him to hold it again. That is, it would be unfair to hold him down because of a surplus of talent and not give him the nod for main event status. This also would mean that wrestlers like The Hardys and MVP would be held down again. One brand would mean only five titles in the company. People like Cena, Orton, Taker, Trips, HBK, Batista would challenge for the WWE/World title. Edge, Kennedy, Carlito, Punk, Morrison would challenge for the IC. The Hardys would more than likely become a tag team again and challenge for the Tag titles. Rey Mysterio would more than likely be Cruiserweight champion. And various women would challenge for the Womens championship. That means people like MVP and Burke would never get an opportunity until the top guys step down. Yeah, people like Khali, Big Daddy V, Snitky would all be gone because they are basically fillers but it would still hurt the better performers and future superstars as well.

ACTAFOOL

08-30-2007, 12:21 PM

actually i wouldnt mind seeing so many great wrestlers going after the IC title, it would mean much more than the WHC and ECW champ IMO, cuz nowadays i look at the WHC and ECW champ and it doesnt even seem like much honestly, i think if they had 1 brand, and get rid of WHC and ecw champ, the other wrestlers would have a more meaningful run as IC champ =/... and its not like trips, undertaker, batista, HBK, cena, orton, and the likes would dominate the title scene forever, they would be times where a mid carder IC champ gets his shot

nobody ever imagined some1 like foley would be WWE champ back in the attitude era, plus if a IC champ actually gets the WWE title he will really be over, it seems like WHC and ECW champs are mid card leve on raw anyways O.o

i say keep only 5 belts, but each belt would mean a lot more than the belts today anyways, and like i said b4 the main eventers of today wouldnt dominate the scene forever, there will be times when they need fresh main event feuds, and the ppl who deserve them, like MVP, punk, burke, carlito, kennedy, booker, edge (who IMO is already a main eventer after beating cena) and the likes would get their shots eventually, just because it would be harder to happen, doesnt mean it wouldnt

and the crusierwieght belt could be important again, so what if rey is cruiser champ? there are many talented wrestlers on WWE that can compete for it, but WWE doesnt make it seem like its a big deal but they could...

scrap the 3 belts and make it one, WHC and ECW champ are just as big as IC and US title anyway...

and there wouldnt be so much talent because 50% of the guys in WWE today can go and not be missed at all.....

BrooklynBuc

08-30-2007, 01:49 PM

As much as I love the design of the World Heavyweight Title, I'm in favor of one ultimate Undisputed Champion. It'd be like when the Brand Extension first started. I say unify all three belts in a triple threat match and establish the Undisputed Title. Plus, establish the Women's champion as Undisputed as well to appear on all three brands. Move all of the Tag Teams onto RAW, then you would have the Intercontinental and Tag Team Titles on RAW, the United States and Cruiserweight Titles on Smackdown, and re-establish the TV title for ECW. (there are no tag teams worth it in ECW anyway). That would make a mid-card\upper tier titles on each show, then have special matches for each 2-hour show, and the Extreme rules for ECW. You would increase the women's division to all three shows so that all of the divas would get a chance.

Just my two cents...

dingle

08-30-2007, 02:24 PM

ECW is just another way of saying developmental territory nowadays. the world heavyweight title matches are generally buried in the middle of the card on first-tier pay per views. to me, the WWE title is the only one that truly matters. that being said, I would like for them to do away with the brand extension, and cut it down to one roster of around 20 or so wrestlers. there's just too much dead weight right now on WWE programming.

tbp82

08-30-2007, 02:33 PM

The one WWE world champion doesn't work unless you unify the rosters. This doesn't work because I personally would get sick of watching John Cena wrestle three times a week. People hear talk about the orginal plan for the Undipusted Title but in all honesty that doesn't work because you need a main title on all your shows. Personally I think the best situation for WWE would be to change Raw, Smackdown, and ECW to WWE Raw, ECW, and WCW Friday Night. Cut out all interpromotinal storylines except for Vince. Have Raw and WCW get brand specific pay per views with the WCW pay per views having WCW names and ECW having one night stand only.

stockstickity

08-30-2007, 02:47 PM

The brand extension needs to end. It is killing WWE slowly. Imagine an Undisputed WWE World Heavyweight Championship, that would be prestigious. Think about it there only are about 5 contenders on each brand, and this would give credability and unpredictability to Number 1 contenders matchs. It would also strengthen up the tag division,(which must unite) as the low carders would need to become tag-teams to get TV time. I miss the days were pay-per-views would have 2 or 3 tag matchs on them and maybe even a 6 man tag. It would also elevate the mid-card to as it would be more competitive and wrestlers would need to work harder and longer to get a chance at these belts. Here is my system:
WWE World Heavyweight Title (Cena, HHH, HBK, Batista, Undertaker, Edge, Booker, Randy orton)
IC
US
ECW Title (becomes like the hardcore)
World Tag-Team Titles

I see the US as a built for the lower top tier guys (like even have HBK or HHH winning it now and again to elevate it slightly), and higher midcards and the IC for the real midcarders

JRG66

08-30-2007, 03:03 PM

I love tbp82's idea of changing Smackdown! to WCW as long as Eric Bischoff is the GM but I think ECW should have a few more PPV's than just 1NS. Give them about 3 PPVs per year like November to Remember, Hardcore Heaven, and 1NS, for example. Unfortunately, the likeliness of Vince actually taking out Smackdown! is probably very slim since "Smackdown! is doing great with 2 gargantuant retards like Batista and Khali holding the Heavyweight Title and changing hands every PPV."(air quote)

kieran_devlin

09-02-2007, 05:29 PM

A brand for each title not the other way about seriously the title is the brand.
Some guy wouldnt be champs but i think having guys seperate to one brand is a good idea. It means specific wrestlers on a brand for example cruisers could only be on Smackdown and Women only on RAW.

All three belts should be equal even the ECW championship.
The title should make the brand not the opposite.

I hate the idea of a single Brand i like seeing my favourite stars on their brand having one brand means more travelling and needing to keep rivalrys going on every show, this means that a John Cena feud would have to be on tv 3 times a week!

SinisterX3

09-02-2007, 06:22 PM

I remember when Razor Ramon held the incontinental title and i was shocked how jeff jarrett beat him. Now there's so many damn belts i cant keep track.

E C Dub

09-02-2007, 07:38 PM

End the "tri-brand" bs..

If i had a choice i would have 1 belt.. I would also eliminate the US title and really push the cruiserweight and Intercontinental..
In addition i'd make the ECW belt an actual hardcore belt..

With less singles belt this can also create a better tag division.. With less guys going for singles titles they can create some tag teams.. I miss a good tag matches

jpfizzle

09-02-2007, 08:17 PM

i have always always said defend the world title on all 3 brands, they used too when the brand extension started, in actual fact i would have the world title defended on raw and smackdown, this will give like 15 guys a shot at it instead of just 3 or 4, i would keep ecw as a seperate show with a seperate world title defended under hardcore rules, i dont see the point as bringing back ecw and having it as a baby brother show to raw and smackdown, the roster and storylines give it enough credibility to carry itself.

so in conclusion have two world titles, one for smackdown and raw and one for ecw defended under ecw rules

Mad Metal

09-02-2007, 08:22 PM

innerstanman

09-03-2007, 05:27 PM

how about 2? that seemed to work out pretty well, but there only two good way of going about it - A. get rid of the ECW title & brand, & keep Raw & SmackDown Brands or B. get unite the Raw & Smackdown titles & Brands, & keep ECW. & i think option A is the way to go.

mochalman

09-03-2007, 05:31 PM

Personally I believe there should only be one title. Even though the WWE championship always got the better treatment than the World title and the ECW title, it's actually suppose to be in the same level as the other two main titles.

With the USA Network pushing for RAW to got to 3 hours, my idea would be to end the draft, release some extra/uneeded talent, combine the titles as the Undisputed championship and break the draft. It would probably deliver better ratings for RAW to have all of the main superstars on their show and it gives enough TV time for them as well.

Even though I strongly doubt this will happen, I personally think it's a great idea.

Thoughts?

i think that would work perfectly. someone will say "well what about the new talent not being pushed?" well thats why raw would be 3 hours and minus half the story lines they have, just have matches for 3 hours or if there is a good feud do that. this can lead to new stables that wont over run the whole show

kennyg9

09-03-2007, 11:39 PM

In my opinion i feel like a merging of Raw and Smackdown is neccessary. The pay-per-views are in my eyes not worth watching for the most part because its alot of the same thing. I think you keep ECW a seperate brand with a Championship and use ECW how it is being used now as kind of a stepping stool to Smackdown and RAW. Merge RaW and Smackdown together and have the WWE Title, IC, 1 Tag Team Title, Womens. I am on the fence about a U.S. Title seeing as it is alot like the IC Title. Doing this would give you a variety of different matches on pay-per-view as well as feuds.

JGallops77

09-05-2007, 01:59 AM

I think the best thing for the WWE to do, would be to unify the WWE and World Championships, and keep ECW as a completely separate thing. Send a few more guys over to ECW, some younger talent that could be the future of the company, and make ECW more of a training grounds.

Have the WWE Champion, which it would be after merging the titles, defend against both shows, with each show alternating months for PPV main events for the title. Have higher profile US/IC title matches, throwing guys like Rey Mysterio, Ken Kennedy, King Booker, etc into the mix for those titles if not the WWE Championship. Or, just unify the brands once again, and make the two brands be WWE and ECW, not RAW, Smackdown, and ECW. You'd have better fueds, and with younger talent on ECW, getting pushes as ECW Champion, ECW Tag Champion, or ECW Television Champion, it'd make for better product as a whole.

They could get USA or Sci-Fi to give an extra hour for ECW, giving it two hours. With RAW and Smackdown, the main brand would still be having enough time to push its main stars. Have smackdown have less big matches and storylines going on, while RAW is the main profile show, just like it was when it all first started.

Right now, Smackdown is hurting badly with the injuries, and RAW is going to be hurting with injuries and suspensions. A combination of these two would make for more high profile fueds, for titles or not.

AnthonyMango/NoFate007

11-27-2007, 07:04 PM

I think its good that there's more than one championship, however, I think that the brand extension and the IDEA of some of the championships prevents us from getting the best product. Though it'd be a reasonable idea to have 3 primary titles on two brands (a main event, a midcard, and a tag team), as well as one "master title" that is defended on both brands, it sort of cheapens the top title on Raw and Smackdown.

What I would do is simply combine ECW and Smackdown officially - they practically are in every way but name anyway - and have just the two brands. Everything is the exact same way it is right now, where you have a main event title, a midcard title, and a tag team title. The Women's Division should be on either show randomly, and to take the place of the missing ECW Championship & Cruiserweight Championship, and to balance out the "inter-brand women's defense" thing, POSSIBLY have the Hardcore title back, but it would have to be a serious championship and not the 24/7 "pathetic humor-fest" with a ridiculous turnover rate of changes.

midgensa

11-28-2007, 01:30 AM

I guess I am in the minority along with Jake ... but I like multiple World Titles.
Back in wrestlings "hey day" - that would be the money-making days with WCW, WWF and ECW all gaining popularity - we had three legitimate world championships. I mean at one point in 1998 the three world champs were Stone Cold, Goldberg and Shane Douglas (in a 15-month run) and in Jan. of 1999 our champs were The Rock, Hollywood Hogan and Taz. So ... having three legitimate World Champs at a time is possible ... the problem is with TNA we are forced to believe in FOUR world Champs.
None-the-less ... I don't see a logical way to end it unless they merge SD! and ECW's world title picture. I know people don't always love the champs, but I think having three titles is not a problem when they do it correctly. I was happy with Edge, Cena and Morrison as champs. I am not happy when it is all faces (Batista, Cena and CM Punk for a short period there).
No need for an Undisputed Champ right now ... thought I would like more inter-World Title matches like the King Booker v. Cena v. Big Show match (it was Big Show right?)

FireAtWill

11-28-2007, 04:27 PM

Im not looking @ story lines or anything like that. I think there should be 2 championships, Raw & Smackdown. With the tallent shifting back from ECW to smackdown, I dont really think that ECW needs a "world champion."
I think the Smackdown! & ECW championship needs to be unified. Kind of like how the WCW & WWE championships were back in the day. I like ECW just fine but Im not considering them to be a major competitor like Raw or Smackdown! Now if both shows were to combine each other, that would be great to bring back the TV title or some other defunct champipnship.

noone911

11-28-2007, 04:52 PM

Back in wrestlings "hey day" - that would be the money-making days with WCW, WWF and ECW all gaining popularity - we had three legitimate world championships. I mean at one point in 1998 the three world champs were Stone Cold, Goldberg and Shane Douglas (in a 15-month run) and in Jan. of 1999 our champs were The Rock, Hollywood Hogan and Taz. So ... having three legitimate World Champs at a time is possible ... the problem is with TNA we are forced to believe in FOUR world Champs.

Nice point, but those were separate guys on separate companies who weren't able to or get the opportunity to face each other. In WWE you have guys that show up on all 3 "brands" cross over back and forth with which ones they compete on, as well wrestle on the same PPVs. So when there are 3 separate companies that don't interact with each other ever it's plausible.

Also, I don't really understand your reference to TNA and 4 world champions. There's a championship and an x division champiship (then tag and womens) that's all.

Nin

11-28-2007, 09:24 PM

To be honest i didnt like it when there were 2 champions. I like it even less now there are 3. It waters down the end product because the talent is more spread out and you have to fill the gaps with crap like Khali. If you took the best 20 of the WWE and stuck them on one show it'd be well worth watching but as usual, Vince is more concerned about money than the product.
Personally i'd merge Smackdown and Raw, keeping the secondary belts (IC, US, Cruiser) and leave ECW entirely seperate. I think you need 1 clear champion or it devalues them all. Also (and i've been meaning to say this for ages) i'm sick to death of the 3-ppv thing they have going on the title. It used to be that the challenger got 1 shot, lost and then someone else came in. Usually someone who had been impressive on the previous PPV or had won a No1 contenders match (i miss them). It kept things fresh and gave a sense of something solid. What i dont want to see is the same match at 3 sucessive PPV's, it's incredibly boring.

tap-out

11-28-2007, 11:00 PM

Back in the day, you knew that Austin was the man. But who is the man nowadays? Cena, Khali, Morrison? Does it matter who is the man?

The same goes with boxing. Nobody knows who the Heavyweight champ is because there are so many belts. Look what has happened to boxing. It's nothing. I just think it would be more interesting if there was one guy at the top.

Great point. i don't know if i could have said it better. The storylines to becoming world champ are so bland because they have three of them to write for. All of the attention back in the day was for the champ, one and only. Now you have 3 and take all of that exposure away.

I would love to see the three titles become one and add back the euro and hc titles so you could have more titles that way.

midgensa

11-29-2007, 01:44 AM

Nice point, but those were separate guys on separate companies who weren't able to or get the opportunity to face each other. In WWE you have guys that show up on all 3 "brands" cross over back and forth with which ones they compete on, as well wrestle on the same PPVs. So when there are 3 separate companies that don't interact with each other ever it's plausible.

Also, I don't really understand your reference to TNA and 4 world champions. There's a championship and an x division champiship (then tag and womens) that's all.

Sorry if it seemed muddled ... I was saying that we now have FOUR world champs ... WWE, WHC, ECW and TNA ... I was not saying that TNA had four world championship.

sexy_boy

11-29-2007, 06:37 AM

firstly i agree with Nin's point about the same 3 matches at 3 successive ppvs!!! It is boring and just screws up wat was a good rivalry!! the only one tht has worked and has spread over tiem is taker batsista and thts because they have changed the match types!!best rivalry of the year in my opinuon!! Anyways i wouldnt mind seeing just the two titles!! I think ECW shud be seperate make it a bigger brand and use the younger members to keep ratings and make it worth watching!! ECW now sucks because half the matches arent even extream rules, its called EXTREAM championship wrestling!! I think have a wwe champion and a world champion on raw and smackdown, mix up the big main eventers coz atm raw has the majority of the big ones (HBK, HHH, CENA, ORTON, LASHLEY ETC) Smackdown has (BATSITA,EDGE,TAKER myb REY) mixed it up a bit myb then smcakdown and raw wud actually compete in ratings!! as for the us and IC titles agen i think they are minor atm, make them big importent matches highly underrated matches!! i like jeff as the champ but its finding sum1 who works really well with him and makin a good story out of it!! The US title is the same!! Same with the roster though the mid carders are mainly on raw!! (KENNEDY, UMAGA, JEFF,CARLITO) sd (MATT HARDY, REY, MVP, FINLAY, KANE) The women title shud be on all 3 and cruiserwieght shud be smackdown ONLY!! I dont totally object to 1 title but its risky!! if they did go ahead with one champ they cud make a good mania out of it!! have a triple threat match the winner being undisputed champ!! bring back lots of number one contender matches!! pros and cons on both sides but i personally wud like to see two shows and ecw seperate!!!

ABS

11-29-2007, 04:50 PM

As long as the Brand Extention goes , the Titles IS A MUST. It makes the Brand look like a whole company by it-self , it brigns SO MUCH VALUE To the brand and just makes you know it's SEPERATED from the other show. Now people might say have the title defeneded in all 3 brand with one champion...so you want to have Taker , Batista , Edge , Cena , Micheals ,Trips appearing on the oppsite brands ? Then Whats the point of the Brand - Extention. If you'r goign to have the Big Super-starts appearign on both shows and making it look like on. It just kills the Idea of BRand-Extenion

Now if the Brand-Extention ended , thats a whole diffrent stroy. I would LOVE to see A HUGE FUED that will go on for a very long time then at the end do the same as Vengence 2002 were JEricho was the first Undisputed Champ.

damienwhite

11-29-2007, 06:38 PM

I gotta be going with just the 1 belt. I mean i felt it was pushing it having 2 heavyweight titles but now its even worst with a ECW one aswell which by the way is just like a intercontenail/usa title kinda belt to me.
I have to admit i feel that when someone wins the titles now, it does not feel as a big deal as it used to. I mean if you honest about it how many of the guys on raw say are good enough to carry the belt now?........... Answer? Not a lot

With all this interbrand change e,t,c .. i feel that 1 main heavyweight blet would be fantastic

I dont think the problem here is with titles man, its booking, the wwe does not have a proper booking committe, i remember when the brand extension started and raw was entertainment whilst smackdown was the wrestling show, now with ecw the brands lack depth, (ecw is the far more watchable show btw), the whole issue is that if your gonna have three belts then bring in more credible wrestlers and make all three brands seperate stop cross branding as its hurting all three brands as both ecw and smackdown are playing second fiddle to raw

three titles no cross branding thats my answer

Gozfather

11-29-2007, 07:09 PM

I'm on my last nerve with the WWE! The bookers seem to be an absolute joke at this present moment in time. Three titles?? What a joke! The passion and joy in watching the likes of Rey Mysterio, Batista, Undertaker, etc win the title has dissappeared. Firstly, the ECW title. Who cares? No disrespect to CM Punk but that title is well past second rate. It is hard to believe that that belt holds any credibility. I suggest you get rid of ECW all together. Pump up some true legendary stories with RAW and Smackdown and down the road, if need be, create a brand new 3rd brand that WWE can truly say they have created from scratch like the latter two. I would like to see some low key wrestlers step up to the plate and challenge for the World/WWE titles such as Jeff and Matt Hardy. Bring in some comic relief as well as what Bobby "The Brain" Heenan and Jimmy Hart used to be. A main event for Wrestlemania one day, when or if all three brands amalgamate, would be a title unification of all 3.

DX_Guy

12-01-2007, 06:34 PM

I think they should unify WWE & World championships together and make it the undisputed championship and just have ECW separate with its ECW championship and bring back the ECW tag & television titles. because ECW is second rate and no-one cares about like if they had a ECW champ match on pretty much no1 would watch it but if its WWE champ match then everyone watches

mabuza

12-03-2007, 01:01 AM

What has ruined pro-boxing is the fact that they have so many world champs& that could end up affecting WWE as well.I'd rather see ECW absorbed into RAW& SD! I dont think all 3 should be unified unless they intend on giving some wrestlers 4 months off every year to avoid congestion.If Batista,Taker,Edge,Mysterio& Khali where also appearing on RAW,a guy like Jeff Hardy wouldnt get a push like his getting right now.The original Brand extension dynamic was pretty good,the whole SD! vs. RAW thing.The whole post-Royal Rumble jump& draft lotteries where pure sports-entertainment gold.I would rather have the two major world titles remain& have ECW being the new "OVW" i.e developmental territory with the show only being aired online.

IC25

12-03-2007, 09:05 AM

mabuza, you are on the right track with your arguement about boxing. But remember, not only do they have the WBC, WBA, WBO, The Ring, etc with their own titles, each weight class has to have a title as well. WWE doesnt have that issue, and the only reason the Cruiserweight Title was started was to showcase faster international wrestling styles and have the push of talents like Psicosis and Jushin Liger make rational sense.

Here's what I think will work. Like the early 00's, one undisputed champion who wrestles on BOTH shows. Since that person is the #1 in the company, yes they will work a little more. But to remedy that you take the WHC off of house shows. The WHC works Raw, ECW, and Smackdown (since the latter two are on the same day, it's only two days) and all pay-per-views. That way, the WHC could have 2 or even 3 feuds at once, and there is no question who "The Man" is.

Intercontinental Title stays on Raw. US Title stays on Smackdown. Hardcore Title re-emerges on ECW. Tag Team Titles on Raw. Cruiserweight Title on ECW. Women's Title on Smackdown. That's all.

Derf

12-03-2007, 10:07 AM

I don't know what to think on this topic. There are so many +'s and so many -'s on this topic. I'll start with the Positives.

POSITIVES
- Each of the three shows has a head for the show, a main go get him guy for everyone.
- Like Jake said, it gives the mid carders a chance to win main event gold cause the line up is three times shorter with three times the gold.
- It means more exiting storylines to go by, or at least the potential for an exiting storyline, that is.

NEGATIVES
- The Tri Branded PPVs have made the ECW title look almost like the IC or US title in the way it's being defended. It's often been the first match on a card, and thats a shame.
- The lack of PPV Match changes. Look at Judgement Day and One Night STand. BOTH PPVs had the same people fighting over all three titles, resulting in pretty much the same PV over again, only ONS was a gimmick PPV.
- It makes it harder to tell who "The Man" is. Look at Cyber Sunday 06. Booker T was the Champ of Champs, yet he lost his title to Batista less than a month later. Does that make Batista the man? Who knows, cause Cena and Big Show are both better than he is! No one knew!

In closing, I'm gonna agree with half the people here. If the WWE can learn to keep each shows superstars exclusive to the show, then three titles is good. But right now, two ECW guys hold Smackdown gold. If their doing an "official" merger, I don't think Batista and CM Punk should both be champs. Espesially with Punk on Smackdown every week now. Smackdown don't need two championships. So keep em seperate, don't get rid of any until all three shows are united again. And don't do it at Wrestlemania. It'll overshadow the event.

kieran_devlin

12-03-2007, 04:34 PM

I like having 2 World titles WWE and World Heavyweight the WWE title is slightly higher than WHC but on the whole it should be just as impressive and an achievements to win the WHC. It gives the company 2 guys to focus on imagine how many guys would want the title and having so many contenders for 1 title.

As for the ECW title well i once thought it could be world status but now nah its been miss used to the point that it cant be made world title status, think about it having big stars win it now would actually decrease them. The ECW title should be a high title but not world status.

I think having three titles is too much really its stretching an already thinned roster to much but luckily the ECW title is becoming just a high mid card title.

JadeShocker

12-03-2007, 08:25 PM

I almost did a post on this a week ago..

I have very strong feelings on this point. I remember a time when Hulk Hogan vs Sgt Slaughter for the title was freaking awesome, and kids all over the country sat down in front of their television, and watched them fight for the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. Now, in the same week we can see the following matches!:

On Smackdown, Batista vs The Undertaker vs Edge.. For the World Title...

On Raw we see Chris Jericho vs Randy Orton... For the World Title...

And on ECW we see hm hm... CM Punk vs Either Big Daddy V or Mark Henry...

Good god. When I first REALLY started getting into wrestling we had on one show, Shawn Michaels vs Steve Austin for the WWE Championship.. On the other, Hulk Hogan vs Sting.

The word World Title has lost all meaning. Eddie Guerrero is rolling in his grave right now. In a World where Mr Perfect, and Owen Hart NEVER held a Major World Championship.. The Miz is considered a top contender? I have never been more ashamed of being a wrestling fan. I love the business, and hope to see it recover from this godforsaken slump. But if WWE continues on the path it's been traveling lately.. I simply will not be able to watch it anymore.

Please god.. Give Vince the strength to pull it all back together so I can finally get excited about watching Raw again. Thank you Lord.. Amen.

Riddler Phoenix

12-04-2007, 11:38 AM

It should be one brand with one world title. Get rid of Ecw and have just RAW and Smackdown. Then you'd only have to deal with the major storylines twice a week. And don't put every rivalry on both shows. Have the biggest rivalries on both shows, and then let other wrestlers appear on one show per week. Maybe that sounds confusing. But it would work. For example, have Jericho and Orton feud every show, and have edge and taker feud every show. But then others like MVP and Mysterio appear on one show per week, but alternate which show, Raw and Smackdown. I think that would make the World Title be more important, as there's only one and it's constantly emphasized. Also, it would give time to the wrestlers who deserve by having them each appear once a week on whichever show.

Another thing to make this work would be to not give people titles over and over again. People like Batista and Cena have held World Titles at least 3 times in the past 2 years. I think that they should give more people oppurtunites at the title and have longer title reigns instead of multiple title reigns. It would give more wrestlers oppurtunities. Instead of giving Batista the title over and over again, have him lose it and have other people like MVP or Jeff Hardy or Kennedy challenge as well.

RAW Is Jericho

12-05-2007, 06:42 PM

I would say only have 2 major championship belts, 1 for Raw (WWE champion) and 1 for ECW/Smackdown! (World Heavyweight Champion) seeing as ECW and Smackdown! travel together and how ECW and Smackdown! are using both of the rosters on both of the shows.

King Paul The Awesome

12-14-2007, 05:02 AM

This is how I would do it

I think it should be done in two stages, first of all unify the ECW title and the World Heavyweight Title, and merge Smackdown and ECW together.

Then Raw should announce that they have negotiated a deal with the USA network to make Raw 2 and a half hours long, and then Raw basically brags that it is better than Smackdown, as it is the flagship show, it's now longer (size matters) and it's live.

Smackdown responds by going back to Thursdays, going live, and then announcing that the USA network has also signed it to a two and a half hour slot. They also change the set-up, bring back the stage and have a new look.

The two brands then start going head to head, at one of the PPV's there is an 8 man tag team match, Raw's team of the WWE Champion, Intercontinental Champion and Tag Champions vs. Smackdown's team of the World Heavyweight Champion, United States Champion and Tag Champions.

Then the King Of The Ring is brought back, 16 stars from Raw and 16 Stars from Smackdown.

The rivalry between Raw and Smackdown goes back and forth, rating begin (hopefully) to push past 4.0 for both shows, hitting the 4.5 mark. Raw and Smackdown now begin to sell out again each week and and the next PPV, the two main events are for the WWE and World title respectively.

As the main event finished, the World Champion is celebrating in the ring, when the WWE Champion comes to the ring and makes the challenge for Summerslam, title vs. title to crown one true WWE title.

The belt to be used should be the one from the attitude era that the likes of Triple H, The Rock and Mankind won, just modified slighty so the name badge can be added, just like they did with the I.C. title.

On Raw the Tag chams from both shows make the same challenge, as do the IC and US champions.

Then Vince announces the split will end, titles will be unified and everyone is happy.

Heat and Velocity are to be used more, no re-caps of Raw and Smackdown, just an hour of wrestling with Tag Title matches, IC title matches and perhaps even a main event superstar appearing.

Thoughts?

Steamboat Ricky

12-14-2007, 05:48 AM

IC25

12-14-2007, 08:44 AM

B) No one will ever buy into the brands feuding with each other. It's the same company run by Vince. They tried that thing with the Invasion angle. It didn't work.

I agree with you in the context of "the way things are." I've climbed onto the old soap box a few times about how that "spirit of competition" could work with the right figureheads in place.

For one, WWE has driven the "wrestler vs authority figure" into the damn ground. For a time it was all three shows trying to be the next Austin vs McMahon. The horse they are beating isn't dead - it's not even a horse anymore. It's glue. McMahon vs Cena, Michaels, and HHH on RAW, Estrada vs Punk on ECW, and Undertaker and Batista vs Vicky Guerrero on Smackdown. Enough already.

When the competition did work, it was Eric Bischoff vs Stephanie McMahon. Eric supported the RAW roster and Stephanie the Smackdown roster. Fans could really buy the rivalry between the two. I feel that could be recaptured, but only if the figureheads allowed for a rivalry to be born. Raw is run by Eric Bichoff, Smackdown is run by JBL, and ECW is run by either Paul Heyman or Mick Foley. If Vince refuses to rehire Bichoff, then ask Steve Austin.

Steamboat Ricky

12-14-2007, 01:26 PM

I agree with you in the context of "the way things are." I've climbed onto the old soap box a few times about how that "spirit of competition" could work with the right figureheads in place.

For one, WWE has driven the "wrestler vs authority figure" into the damn ground. For a time it was all three shows trying to be the next Austin vs McMahon. The horse they are beating isn't dead - it's not even a horse anymore. It's glue. McMahon vs Cena, Michaels, and HHH on RAW, Estrada vs Punk on ECW, and Undertaker and Batista vs Vicky Guerrero on Smackdown. Enough already.

When the competition did work, it was Eric Bischoff vs Stephanie McMahon. Eric supported the RAW roster and Stephanie the Smackdown roster. Fans could really buy the rivalry between the two. I feel that could be recaptured, but only if the figureheads allowed for a rivalry to be born. Raw is run by Eric Bichoff, Smackdown is run by JBL, and ECW is run by either Paul Heyman or Mick Foley. If Vince refuses to rehire Bichoff, then ask Steve Austin.

Nah, man. WWE needs something new. It needs something fresh. It evolved from the 80s superhero era into something new. The attitude era was so successful because it was revolutionary and it was something that the industry was not doing and/or hadn't seen before (except maybe ECW). It's time to turn over the industry again.

To be honest, I think it has to do with the name of the company. "WWE" is just awkward to say. I hate it, in fact. It doesn't sound like a wrestling organization, and I think that it could be serving as a detriment to the business. I think it is intelligent to explore the field of sports-entertainment, but I think it is necessary for the Federation to stay true to its wrestling roots.

I'd rather them go back to WWWF or simply "The Federation." Lose the "E" please.

It's time to revamp. Go in a new direction if the current storylines don't work out.

MR.SCOTT

12-14-2007, 01:59 PM

Nah, man. WWE needs something new. It needs something fresh. It evolved from the 80s superhero era into something new. The attitude era was so successful because it was revolutionary and it was something that the industry was not doing and/or hadn't seen before (except maybe ECW). It's time to turn over the industry again.

To be honest, I think it has to do with the name of the company. "WWE" is just awkward to say. I hate it, in fact. It doesn't sound like a wrestling organization, and I think that it could be serving as a detriment to the business. I think it is intelligent to explore the field of sports-entertainment, but I think it is necessary for the Federation to stay true to its wrestling roots.

I'd rather them go back to WWWF or simply "The Federation." Lose the "E" please.

It's time to revamp. Go in a new direction if the current storylines don't work out.

The company has been in the process of reaping the rewards of its past dues, the company has evolved soo much that you cannot call it a wrestling organisation, wrestling only brings 70% of the wwe's revenue this year, the rest was braught in via music film and other sources of entertainment, the wwe has and always will be an entertainment company, it has a strong fan base until the someone or something comes up as a major competitor then the wwe will never make any refreshing changes and thats the truth, and as for the three belts, simple fact ecw is something interesting to watch i love ecw, i think the deal with ecw and smackdwon is a pile of crap, i would love to see the brand evolve into a stand alone company not the waterd down wwe product that it is now!
and as for people saying that tna is gonna be competition to the wwe i laugh at you, tna hardcore enthusiasts said that angle would bring in better ratings, im still waiting that to happen, they said that cage would bring in more fans, im still waiting for that to happen, they said that cornette and russo would usher a new era for tna (again still waiting) the fact is if the wwe aint broke they wont fix it they will stay with the current model as a business they have still remaind profitable and that is because they have always remaind constant

SergioGel

01-03-2008, 08:24 PM

I am desperately waiting the day when the tri-brand ends and we move back to one WWE with two shows. but more importantly until they do away with all these titles. There needs to be just 1 WWE champion and give the belt alot more credibility. Plus it would promote much better feuds with meaning surrounding the title. Orton-HBK, Cena-Orton, Edge-Taker-Batista, for month after month gets redundant. Plus it would open up spots for mid-card wrestlers to have ligit matches. Does anyone really care about the US title or the ECW title, as they are just ways to glorify mid-card wrestlers. Less belts to me = ligitamacy and that is something storylines and the WWE need at the moment

greer44644

01-03-2008, 11:29 PM

Amazing Shawn

01-04-2008, 12:43 AM

With there only being a couple undisputed champions in the wwe i think its time they unify all three titles back under the wwe title and end the brand extinsion it would make each title have a special meaning. and it could possibly pull the wwe out of there slump. lets face it since the exsintion the wwe is in a big slump so i say unify all three titles under one like they did with the wwe and WHC back in 2001. but what about the other tiles like the IC and US plus the tag titles what would become of them ?

People keep saying to end the brand extension. That is the worst thing you could do this would only cause more problems from the WWE.

Many talented wrestlers would be let go due to the fact that they would have absolutely no room for them. HHH, Undertaker, HBK, Batista, Edge, Jericho, Cena would be the only guys to get any attention. Talented wrestlers like MVP and Matt Hardy and Shelton Benjamin would be fired because they aren't going to serve any purpose.

There would be no new talent challenging for the title. We would see continuous feuds for the title and the company would have no superstar to rely on to carry the company or to be a huge superstar. We would be seeing Undertaker/HBK, Cena/Edge, HHH/Jericho over and over an pretty soon they will run out of things to do. The title would be the focus point and the other titles would be completely useless even more so then today.

johncenalover23

01-04-2008, 02:25 AM

I think they should get rid of ecw roster and put it on raw or smackdown because its not working and they should focus on the 2 highest titles and put both mid card and the top wrestlers together. I want to see stars like carlito or jimmy wang yang win titles because they have so much opportunity and they could carry the title very well and I would love to see the feuds. So they should banish all the titles and keep the 2 world titles and the womens championship cuz the divas division is improving and now they actually wrestle and they wouldn't be anything if there wasn't a title for them.

SergioGel

01-04-2008, 02:09 PM

The idea that uniting the brands and titles would mean no room for anyone else is rediculous. Since when does every feud have to be over a title? Guys like the Hardy Brothers were around when the same roster competed on Raw/Smackdown, and they will certainly be around if that was the case now. In fact, it would make for good shows as we wouldnt be seeing Hacksaw Jim Dugan come out for a three second squash match. As for having no superstar to carry the company, the company is trying to solve its problems by building the next hogan, instead they should be building complete shows and getting interest and ratings back up

bowlinbing

01-04-2008, 05:15 PM

AH, I didn't read every single post, but If I may say that there is a good reason why the 'Top Dog' argument doesn't carry the water the proponents think that it does. Even when the WWE only had 1 World/Heavyweight championship belt. There were numerous 'Top Dogs' in pro-wrestling. Sure, fans 'knew' Autin was the 'Top Dog' but what about Goldberg? The difference between that era of multiple 'Top Dogs' and now is that one company controls all the belts... good or bad? who knows, but I know I would've loved to see and honestly booked Austin-Goldberg match in the late 90s-early 2000s. You can see that now, in 'Champion of Champions' matches, and other inter-brand work in the WWE. Just saying

mike2307

02-03-2008, 01:52 AM

I didnt read all the posts, by i think its time to goto 1 world champion, and then have each brand have its on exclusive championship. Obvi the IC and US championships are already in place, but they don't mean anywhere near what they once did. I think you have one world champion and obvi thats gonna be coveted, way more then now with the three. And then you have the brand championship, which will make those titles so much more signifigant be a great way for WWE to push new stars cause after being the top guy on their brand they can go for a chance to be the companys top guy

Slyfox696

02-04-2008, 02:50 PM

You see I would be for the whole one Title only thing, but really only if the WWE Operated in a similar way to how the NWA does (or used to). The problem the WWE have with having one belt is that when the Champion is say on Smackdown feuding with someone there is no top belt on either RAW or ECW, and knowing the WWE they would just keep the belt and Champion on RAW all the time anyway. The way the NWA did it would make far more sense, having Brand Heavyweight Champions (for instance the WWE: RAW Heavyweight Champion) and having one Undisputed World Championship. That way all the brands would have a title worth going for even if the World title was not on their brand. They could work it so only one of the Heavyweight Champions can get a title shot at the Undisputed Champion... this way they would have to make more Heavyweight Title Changes (and fucking TV change anyone?) to give the Undisputed Champion more opponents. This gives us one prestigious belt that can have a Champion for a long period of time and gives us three belts that can change hands a little more often.
That's a great idea, and I really like that one. It could make for some very interesting possibilities. Imagine having Orton feud with Hardy and then leave for Smackdown for another Undertaker feud. Meanwhile Cena and Triple H battle it out on Raw for the Raw championship.

If this were to happen, they would have to drop the Intercontinental and United States Championships I believe. Otherwise, each PPV would have 6 singles title matches, which devalues a title match.

Also, if they were to just kill the ECW brand, that would help as well, even in your scenario. It would limit the option for the Undisputed champion to cross to different brands, but it would bolster the rosters of the Smackdown and Raw shows.

Testicular Claw

02-04-2008, 04:48 PM

I think there are far too many titles at the moment. Is there anybody that isn't brand new that hasn't won a title yet? I don't think the belts mean very much. There isn't enough star power to justify the amount of belts we have now IMO. I really think there should only be one belt at the moment. Maybe if they dropped the unite states championship and the intercontinental title and ecw it would work. To me though there can only be one real world champion in a company.

Grubbs0621

02-05-2008, 02:33 AM

A few things need to change.

For one, go back to one brand.

Unify ECW/WWE/WHT Championships in a fatal 3 way.

Unify the Tag Titles.

Bring back the hardcore title, people love it.

Intercontinental and TV title get defended on TV and change hands sometimes. the World belt only at PPV with a rare exception.

Basically the late 90s belt system.

WWE Championship = WWF World Heavyweight Championship
Intercon. = Intercon.
European = US Title.
Hardcore = Hardcore
Tag = Tag

For now, I say leave out the cruiser belt since WWE doesn't seem to know how to utilize their cruiserweight wrestlers, but keep an open mind to it if they can get fast paced, exciting matches out of it.

However, we all know how much money decides things, and we won't be going to 1 brand anytime soon despite the fact it is really badly needly.

Davi323

02-11-2008, 01:13 PM

I think they need to merge rosters entirely. Go back to a single brand, have both RAW and Smackdown become 3 hours to give everyone their TV time, merge the WWE and World belts into one, call it the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, using the big gold belt as the title, thus getting rid of the lame spinner belt...I don't mind so much having two different Tag belts, I liked it when WCW had US tag and World tag titles. There should be a IC title equivalent for tag teams, that you want to increase exposure for, but not give them the biggest belt. I would also eliminate the US title, as with a merged roster, it would be redundant. Plus, by eliminating two singles titles, (by merging WWE/World, and getting rid of US title) it makes the titles that remain more valuable.

so, in a nutshell:
-merge all 3 rosters.
-lengthen RAW and Smackdown.
-combine WWE and World Heavyweight belts. One champion, not two or three.
-rechristen one of the sets of Tag titles as US or IC Tag titles, becoming the Tag equivalent of a midcard championship.
-Keep the IC title, get rid of US title. US title is just a leftover belt from WCW anyway, and wouldn't be needed with a merged roster.

dancing monkey

02-12-2008, 06:13 PM

I have been thinking that one championship belt is all that has been needed for quite some time. I am sick and tired of watching Cena/Orton/Hardy/Orton/Cena and then there is Taker/Bastita/Edge/Taker/Batista I think you get where I'm going with that. The WWE has been weakened for the long time now with the brand split I agree that the shows should merge and one title be up for grabs. With the stable of wrestlers they have one show would feature all good matches instead of one good match and 3-4 meh matches. If they merge that would open up the door for new and better storylines and would give a new life to wrestlers that right now are looking a bit tired. I think they should keep the one tag team belt and the IC belt also. There could be multi-layered competitions happening at the same time and wrestlers that previously haven't received a push might get one.

HBK-aholic

02-13-2008, 11:31 AM

I think for the points I'm going to make, and for my opinions on this I need to say I think the WWE needs to go back to just one brand. I have always disagreed with the brand split, and I think for 1 company; the WWE, to have 3 brands and 3 championships is pretty stupid. Especially when the superstars from different brands rarely interact with each other. One brand means more feuds, more opportunities, more matches, more experience. Just in general the idea is so much better.

In my opinion there should only be one brand, and one world title, named the WWE championship. This would mean it would be a lot more prestigious and we would know he was on top of the company. Also to get the WWE championship it would be harder, which means we would have a champion that deserves it, not just because there was no one else for the positions.

The other titles should be gone, but the WWE should make more titles for other to aim at. Like the Intercontinental, almost like stepping stones to the Championship itself, and wrestlers would prove during these reigns and matches that they were suitable for the Championship, and it would stop a lot of people complaining about the champion, which is something we have a lot of trouble with now. The other titles wouldn't necessarily mean that that wrestler was then going to win the Championship nect, as that would just be predictable and have a lot of comaplaints. But the wrestlers could use this to try and show McMahon and the fans they deserve to be on top.

This also works for a lot of mid-carders who we know aren't going to get a huge push to be a main eventer. However these championships could be something certain wrestlers aim for. It wouldn't be as prestigous as the others but it makes things more competitive and gives some more feuds and interesting matches.
more opportunity for mayeb not 'main eventers'

sammy j

02-14-2008, 11:00 AM

all brands merging together would be great, but let's work with what's in place at the moment.

wwe/WHC/ecw title: keep as is, we don't need a "unified" champ, everyone knows the wwe championship is a lot more prestigious than the ecw title, but ecw needs a belt for the show.

IC/US champs: basically.... give them some worth, have people chase them. one could say the US championship is more prestigious than the IC at the moment. why? compare the IC/US title pictures: matt hardy has basically said "i want the US championship" and is actively chasing it, everyone can tell it'd mean something if he won it. this implies that the championship means something, it has worth, and its an honour to be US champ. MVP is also always reminding us he's the champ, that its a prestigious title to have.

the IC's recent history? a guy from the crowd wins it, umaga squashes marella to get the title back, hardy wins it in a match with no build up or chasing of the title involved, and now that he's the champ he's shown not to care, that it means nothing and he'd much much rather have the wwe championship. if the champ himself puts no value on the title, why should the fans? if hardy's a main eventer now, he should drop the title (whoever wins it will be put over a long way due to hardy's push), and then someone should actually chase the damn thing, tell us they want it and that it means something.

tag team titles: there should be one tag title, simply because there arent enough teams for two sets of titles. plus if the tag teams altered between brands the crappier teams could be gotten rid of and we'd have a quality tag match on each show even if the champs weren't involved.

same goes with the cruiser title, there are more than enough cruiserweights who could chase the title and put on exciting high flying matches on all brands.

tohasbo

02-14-2008, 02:15 PM

The problem with having 1 overall champion is that there would be a massive problem with that champion being on the road ALL THE TIME. It would wear that champion out. Friends of mine and myself included all came to a realization it wouldn't be a smart thing to do.

bnn52

02-14-2008, 02:43 PM

Everyone in here has had great ideas, but the problem with one World Champion and getting rid of the other two, I dont know if 1, all of the fans would like it. Alot of fans enjoy title matches almost every week on tv, not me but I am talking about all of the kids who watch every week, who's parents buy every payperview and every toy and tshirt.

I am all for getting rid of ECW completely. Having a live draft of all the ECW superstars to either Raw or Smackdown. That would eliminate one main title. Then each show would have their respective main title, with one multi brand champion who can only be challenged at a pay per view. The US and IC titles need to stay because of their history, but like stated earlier, make them change hands more often between upper mid carders. And please unify the tag titles, I remember back in the old days when they actually meant something and there were great tag team matches. I also like the option of bringing back the Hardcore Title, but that would crowd the scene even more with title belts.

doris008

02-14-2008, 03:47 PM

I agree,

They dont have enough title matches so therefore one person holds them to long.
for example the only time MVP defended his was against in one match against kane months ago and is going on one year with holding the title.

back in the day champions used to have to defend their titles in 30 days or be stripped. now you only see the wwe and world championships defended. the intercontirntial and tag teams once in a while. same with the womens championship. but the latter only like every other pay per view.

RoyalSkull

02-15-2008, 11:36 PM

It's almost like the World Heavyweight title is a midcard belt and the ECW title is a cruiserweight belt. I mean don't get me wrong, Edge and Rey Mysterio are two great athletes, but it would make such a better midcard feud, not the focus of it's brand.
And look at the "ECW Championship". It's on a third rate show and is a third rate belt, which is exactly what the cruiserweight title has always been treated as.
It's impossible to put the same amount of focus on all three belts so of course one is going to come out looking better than the others. But it doesn't hurt to try either. I mean does anyone honestly care who has the WHC? Undertaker and Batista are the only credible face champions on Smackdown, and Edge is basically the only credible heel. Aside from these three guys, all we get is filler feuds with the likes of Mark Henry, Khali, and BDV.
I'm drunk.

peterf

02-16-2008, 09:11 AM

I think the title situation in the wwe is getting out of hand i do agree that the people hold the title for too long and i also agree that they should get rid of ECW and draft them to raw and smackdown, it seems that raw has too many good wrestlers some of them should to smackdown people like chris jericho because for me he hasnt done much on raw so i think that he should go to smackdown and be in the title picture also i think that only edge is playing the big heel there needs to be someone else on smackdown.

Davi323

02-16-2008, 10:19 AM

Y 2 Jake

02-16-2008, 10:24 AM

there is just no way that I can see his belt meaning so much more than Edge's.

I'll give you a few reasons.

#1 Orton's belt has been around for a lot longer. It's the one held by Hogan, Flair, Savage, Austin, The Rock etc.

#2 Cena's year long title reign made that belt mean more in a year than it had in the previous 10.

#3 The WHC has been plagued by injuries and bad booking. Batista gave it up, Rey won it but was portrayed as a jobber. Taker wins it, but has to lose a quick match to Edge. Edge has to give it up. #1 Khali wins it #2 In a battle royal.

#4 Orton has gone over everybody since he won that title.

#5 Edge is feuding with Rey Mysterio. Rey would be a Raw mid carder.

RoyalSkull

02-16-2008, 01:02 PM

Royalskull, how is the World Heavyweight belt considered midcard? Are Edge, Rey Misterio, Batista and the Undertaker suddenly midcarders? Sorry, I just don't see it. There is simply no way you could convince me that Randy Orton is any more of a champion than Edge is. He isn't any less of a champion either, but, there is just no way that I can see his belt meaning so much more than Edge's.

His belt means more than Edge's because WWE tends to put more focus on it and "protect" it more, if you know what I'm saying. And I didn't mean the WHC is a midcard title, I'm just saying I'd rather see Edge and Mysterio feuding over something other than the brands top belt. That's not anyones fault though, Smackdown just doesn't have the same star power that Raw does.

Davi323

02-16-2008, 08:34 PM

Well, but, turn it around...what if instead of Edge and Rey Misterio, it was Edge and the Undertaker? Taker has been pursuing that belt for the past year...and the Undertaker doesn't chase anything that isn't worth chasing.

And Y2 Jake, lets be real... Even if it isn't officially the NWA World Heavyweight belt anymore, and misses all that Nature Boy history...it still has 5 of Triple H's 11 reigns, along with title reigns by HBK, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, Edge, Batista, Rey Misterio, and was Orton's first Heavyweight level title. I think even if Smackdown doesn't get the same level of promotion RAW does, that belt is still at the same level as the WWE title is, even without counting its history prior to being rechristened in the WWE. If we count its rich history with the NWA and WCW prior to the WWE, there is no contest in its equality.

carbondioxide830

02-18-2008, 01:36 AM

i say get rid of the brand extension and ecw on sci-fi. give raw 3 hours every monday on usa and keep sd as a 2 hour show on w/e network. have one world title, unify the tag titles, the us & ic, and crown a new cruiserweight division. when there's one champion, it means that guy is truly number one. now days, alot of guys are getting titles that don't deserve it. bobby lashley, sure he was great at the time, but when i look back, does he measure up to the likes of austin, rock, hhh, hogan, hbk, and even cena? not in my opinion. john cena, like it or not, is the hottest thing in wwe; has been for the past few years. make him the sole champion could only take him to that next level like it did for guys like austin and rock. right now, who ever the wwe champion is has to share the spot with 2 other guys. THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE NUMBER ONE!

mr zbow

02-18-2008, 03:52 AM

everybody is saying how we should get rid of the brand extension. How back in the day everybody truly knew who the man was (for example Austin). But the whole reason they have the brand extension is because of the invasion storyline in 2001. If there hadn't been a brand extension guys like RVD, Rey Mysterio, Chris Benoit, Eddie and Chavo Guererro, Booker T etc. would have been left jobless. The whole reason WWE did the whole brand extension thing was so they could use all the WCW and ECW talent the had and thats also why they need to have the 3 championships. But i dont think they needed to add ECW as currently most (if not all) of the ECW main eventers are upper-lower midcarders.

michaelj817

02-21-2008, 07:56 PM

Like it or not, the brand extension is here to stay and will continue with each brand having their own champion. The format will eventually change, and already has with the removal of single brand ppv's. I personally don't like it, and never did, but I think WWE fans are stuck with it until WWE legitimately starts losing money by the truckload on any particular brand, and their network cancels them. As things look, this is a ways off, and as long as Vince is making money on any of them, he isn't going to change that formula, regardless of logic or a watered down product.

There is an over saturation of talent, as well as older talent and main eventers not retiring or working elsewhere as there are only so many spots and money to go around in TNA. This began when ECW and WCW closed their doors, and all of the sudden there were 100+ high quality wrestlers w/nowhere to work. This in turn has lead to an unbalanced card, and underdeveloped under card wrestlers. While in years past, ample time could be devoted to a tag team division, midcard/IC title, and low card guys to develop into stars of the future and learn how to draw, those same spots are now taken up by an abundance of main event talent with nowhere else to go.

At this point, each brand having its own champ is a necessity that WWE cannot live without. There is too much talent out there for 2 or even 4 hours of tv wrestling per week, and it is nothing new for promoters to invent or in these cases revive titles to make the product seem more exciting and important. A prime example of this is the invention of the IC title in the late 70's, b/c up until then there were only so many spots to go around for WWWF championship contenders.

Make no mistake though; while there may not be a single top title, there will always be a single top champion and that is whoever is headlining Raw. Better in quality from time to time or not, Smackdown is and always will be the "B" show, and top stock will always be put into the Raw champ and top Raw contenders. Raw is the flagship, and whoever rules the Raw world, regardless of whether he is the WWE, World Heavyweight, or ECW Champion, is the top champion in WWE's eyes. If you need any proof of this, ask yourself when the last time was that HHH wrestled for the top title on Smackdown, and how long did he stay on the brand?

now days, alot of guys are getting titles that don't deserve it. bobby lashley, sure he was great at the time, but when i look back, does he measure up to the likes of austin, rock, hhh, hogan, hbk, and even cena? not in my opinion. john cena, like it or not, is the hottest thing in wwe; has been for the past few years. make him the sole champion could only take him to that next level like it did for guys like austin and rock.

Firstly, becoming sole champion did not take Austin or Rock to the next level. When Austin became champ, he was already the hottest thing wrestling had ever seen, and Rock was well on his way to joining him when he beat Mankind at Survivor Series '98. If giving them the title did anything, it said to the fans that WWF trusted that these were the men who should carry the mantle and be the face of the company itself. This is exactly what they are doing with Cena, and to a slightly lesser extent Orton and Edge. Secondly, it is unfair to compare any of the top guys(Orton, Edge, Batista, Cena) to the group listed above, if only b/c of when they wrestled. For anyone that was there and lived through the boom "Attitude Era", consider yourselves very lucky. Whether you are a fan of the style of booking used in that era or not, the quality of the talent in that era is something we might never see again. Austin, Rock, Foley, Taker, HBK, HHH, are some of the best EVER. Their merits hold up against any other generation of professional wrestlers and that is a testament to all of them as well as the exposure they received when they were in their prime.

This is not to take anything away from the stars of today, but time will tell, and if we are talking about Edge, Orton, Batista, and Cena in 10 years the way we talk about said Attitude era stars today, then that comparison will be a fair one. The fact is that the guys that are on top today are there, and whether we all want to be nostalgic about yesteryear or not, they are the best out there right now and nothing shy of Vince McMahon's mighty right hand is going to change that.