1 WWE World Champion, Or 3?

[Y 2 Jake]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[TheShocka2k]

Originally Posted by Steamboat Ricky

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]

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.

[mtuphill]

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