Idea to unify WWE and World Championships

[MWRedskins]

i still like having BOTH titles. sure the shows are more combined now, BUT with two titles it means more main event players which is the key reason i like two titles. with two titles, we can have guys like both Seamus and Punk hold top titles.

 

[tripleddd]

This is my favourite old chestnut of all time! First things first - Unify the WWE and the WHC belt to create wwe undisputed champion. Why ? I beleive the WWE is slowly heading back towards the attitude era although I dont believe it will do all the way.Two champions devalues both titles - it also led to Super Cena Super Edge and Super Orton winning the titles 5 million times and also kept giving us repetative matches Cena vs Orton, Edge vs Orton Cena vs Edge - this made it all very stale. Ive read the comments the WHC title is a stepping stone to the WWE title - thats nonsense the WHC is a top title too.The IC title or the US title should be the stepping stone. Not everybody has to be WWE or WHC title holders there are plenty of excellent wrestlers who only get to be IC champion. Sheamus for instance has now been champion 3 times but can you honestly say you can remember the two previous runs I cant because it wasn't his time - this run gives him more kudos. It also brings in matches like no 1 contenders matches remember them - plenty of storylines and sub plots can be added. One company - one main title. Oddly enough if ECW was still around I would have bought into that - but thats for another day.
How when and whom? Well i think the belt needs to be unified at the Night of Champions - a bit like they done before WWE holder vs no 1 contender & WHC holder vs No 1 contender - the respective winners go on to Unify the belts that night.At the moment Punk,Sheamus , Bryan and Y2J all being invovled - my winner would be Y2J as it was before when he defeated both The Rock and Austin in one night. It would be a fitting reward for Chris. This story could be built up in the predeceeding weeks with a series of tag team matches/ singles matches between these characters.
Doing this also leaves alot of other wrestlers to start building on other title chases and could do the Tag Team titles the world of good by pairing wrestlers up for a short time.
Finally can you imagine Y2J just being crowned undisputed champion and Brock Lesnar or randy Orton then step into the ring F5 or RKO him ???????????

 

[s77]

I disagree with the idea of unification, mainly because it wouldn't give opportunity to most of the superstars to get a major title.

 

[tripleddd]

I disagree with the idea of unification, mainly because it wouldn't give opportunity to most of the superstars to get a major title.

I think that is the point every superstar can not or does not need to have a title - it devalues the titles and the superstars

 

[Davi323]

I have a question. A maths question.

Which is greater - one world champion or two world champions?

Depends on how you look at it. If you treat the belt as a legit championship, signifying the best of the best on the roster, than one championship is clearly better than two. One champion out of a roster of 60 is more important/meaningful than two champions each representing a roster of 30. With one title, each championship run is more meaningful, because there will be less of them to spread around.

However, if you view the championships as TV props, then it makes far more sense to have two, so that you can have a top level title on both shows without stretching out a single title holder. One champion spread out between both shows has to work harder than two champions, one show each. From a logistical standpoint, it's easier to write your storylines for each show when you don't have to worry about rushing the Smackdown angles to play off of Raw. Each show's creative team can plan their own storylines for the title without having to constantly reference what the other show is doing. Because the WWE uses a separate team of writers to plan out each show, it makes more sense to have two titles.

If the WWE were to combine everything and formally terminate the brand extension, then it would make more sense to unify the belts. The NFL doesn't have two Super Bowl champions each year, only one team is given the Stanley Cup, two racers don't win the Sprint championship, etc. Basically, with brand extension in place, you need two titles. Without brand extension, you only need one.

 

[Degenerate88]

With the state of the current product, I would love to see one main champion. When the brand split happened and we got 2 Heavyweight Champions, it made sense. The roster was loaded with main eventers. Look at todays roster. We don't have many main eventers. If we had one main belt, it would help create a strong main event level for the Superstars to perform at. We have already pretty much seen the end of the brand split, so hopefully it's only a matter of time.

 

[Why Always Me]

All right, I'll bite.

Thank you for biting

- It does devalue the WHC somewhat, insofar as it's clearly a step below the WWE title. The WHC is definitely no longer the top prize. But is that a reason to just toss out the title entirely? The WHC is devalued slightly when compared to the WWE title, but it's still a very strong belt and a HELL of a lot stronger than the IC and US belts.

And nowadays, the exact same thing happens, except with the WHC instead of the IC title. So again, what's the difference?

Because a World title should be the top title in a company, not the 2nd top title. The second top title is the upper midcard belt which in this case is the IC title.

I'm in a STRONG minority here, but I have no problem with the WHC match opening Wrestlemania. Why is opening Wrestlemania an insult? Strikes me as one of the most important matches on the card. Now if the WHC was routinely opening PPV's, I'd have a problem. Wrestlemania is different.

As for the Royal Rumble, just because the winner has opened the last two Manias doesn't mean next year's has to. Winning the Royal Rumble will ALWAYS be prestigious.

If you win the Royal Rumble, you should automatically main event Wrestlemania, thats how it used to be, but bringing in 2 World titles started to devalue anything to do with being champion.

Cody Rhodes has not yet held the WHC. Neither did Dolph, really. Both held the IC title for long runs. But again, what does it matter if the WHC or IC titles are used for this 'stepping stone' purpose? Why is the IC the 'right' belt to use as a stepping stone? Couldn't either belt do the job just as well?

See my 2nd point.

My overall point is that the WHC, these days, is an elevated version of the old IC belt. It's the #2, but it's a stronger #2 than the IC when it was #2, if that makes sense. Personally, I think this is great. Why wouldn't you want your #2 to be as strong as possible? People should be clamoring to unify the midcard titles, not the world titles.

If the IC title was treated like it used to be, the #2 would be viewed as very strong.

 

[ultramattman]

Thank you for biting

Because a World title should be the top title in a company, not the 2nd top title. The second top title is the upper midcard belt which in this case is the IC title.

If you win the Royal Rumble, you should automatically main event Wrestlemania, thats how it used to be, but bringing in 2 World titles started to devalue anything to do with being champion.

See my 2nd point.

If the IC title was treated like it used to be, the #2 would be viewed as very strong.

I respect your conviction, but it doesn't seem to come down to much more than 'this belt must be used for THIS and that belt must be used for THAT and that's just the way it's supposed to be'. I can respect that, but I don't really understand it.

The WHC can never be the #1 top prize. So the only options are to eliminate it or to use it the most effective way you can. I'd rather use its value and history to establish it as a strong #2, rather than just toss it away for nothing. Especially at this point, with the IC and US titles already buried to near-irrelevance. You disagree. That's fine.

 

[ultramattman]

Do you not think that the World title in a company should not be the top title? Like the WWF World Title, WCW World Title, TNA World Title, NWA World Title or ECW World Titles were?

Is it that 'World' in the name that does it? You can't have a 'world' title if it's not the top title? I guess I just feel like a name's a name. Doesn't matter what they're called, you're still going to have a #1 belt, a #2 belt, a #3 belt, and so on. Fans will figure out how important a title is by who holds it and who fights for it, not by what it says on the belt.

 

[Rjw2688]

Jericho unifying the titles....I don't think that has ever happened before...oh wait it did. Completely unoriginal idea. I think the brand split may come back again seeing as though there will be a draft soon. After Big Johnny Laryngitis gets fired and there are new GM's in place. I am however not against unifying the titles but it needs to be done right. Unfortunately I don't see it in anything other then another tournament or something cheesy like Rock/Cena II at next years Mania with each holding a title.

The reason why it works with Jericho because if gives you a story line. You can work off the angle that he has done it before. And honestly I think Y2J is underrated and if he does it again he can help his legacy in the business.

IMO there should be one top tittle. And the champion should in most cases be able to hold that tittle. I think it is stupid when a bunch of guys win the top tittle 10 or more times. The championship should be something that is HARD to get that you really earn. While I love the likes of Ziggler, he doesn't need to be a WWE champion to go down as a great wrestler. The IC tittle could be much more relevant and he could be a great IC champ. Same for Rhodes. And maybe one day years down the road, if one of them wins the top tittle don't you think that moment would be so much more sweeter. Top tittle change should be a rare occurrence and someone dethroning a champion would make for a big moment and can make a superstar. Things such as money in the bank also devaluates the top tittle. Use that for mid card tittles. One tittle would help bring legitimacy (PEOPLE POWER HAHA) back to the Royal Rumble. And its not like their is more MAIN EVENT superstars now then their was back then.

 

[awesomeone420]

i disagree with the unification of both the titles...i think wwe should go bak to the way it was when the brand extension was put in effect in the first place...there is an immence amount of talent in wwe..enough to completely split the brands and run raw and smackdown as if theyre two different companys...this would bring prestige back to the world championship and set the stage for future mainevents at wrestlemania...such as a sheamus vs cena sd vs raw match where u would have the oppurtunity to see superstars face off that havent mainevented three or four ppvs the year before ...it gives wwe the oppurtunity to have a wider audience, bigger oppurtunities for the talent to grow and noone is overshadowed..

 

[tripleddd]

i disagree with the unification of both the titles...i think wwe should go bak to the way it was when the brand extension was put in effect in the first place...there is an immence amount of talent in wwe..enough to completely split the brands and run raw and smackdown as if theyre two different companys...this would bring prestige back to the world championship and set the stage for future mainevents at wrestlemania...such as a sheamus vs cena sd vs raw match where u would have the oppurtunity to see superstars face off that havent mainevented three or four ppvs the year before ...it gives wwe the oppurtunity to have a wider audience, bigger oppurtunities for the talent to grow and noone is overshadowed..

I totally and utterly disagree the reason for the split was because there were quite simply too many superstars after wwe acquired ECW & WCW.- so i understood the need for two main belts but the exclusive brand ppvs were weak and were no better than your average episode of RAW or SMACKDOWN.As people have left or retired and the genuine contenders for the main titles have dwindled 7/8 stars who could hold the title and the fact that wrestlers appear in both shows there is no need for the two main titles. If the WHC is a stepping stone to the WWE title it devalues the former - its not needed the stepping stone was always the IC title.But I do have to say when WWE bought back ECW that title had kudos and they should of kept that show and should of run it seperately - that was going to work all the young talent would have gone to ECW and yes ECW titles could have wrestled at certain PPVs .

 

[Dyscord]

I dunno. I think having two top belts in the company right now isn't a bad thing, especially considering the roster size. What they need to work on is giving the titles equal prestige and building up the midcard. I remember fondly the days where the storylines involving the midcard belts were just as strong as the main event storylines. Holding the IC belt meant something. It was considered a step below the world title.

Another thing they should do, and maybe I'll get some flak for this, is to ease up on the Heel vs Face battles. Not saying get rid of them entirely, but as mentioned in another thread, there's no reason why we can't have...say...Swagger vs Ziggler for a belt without one of them turning. Strictly going heel vs face kind of limits things. Especially in the main event picture.

 

[Ithil]

As long as they treat Cena as the centre of the show, no World title will have any importance or meaning. Cena has headline every PPV since the Royal Rumble, despite not holding any title.

Punk is the WWE champion, but does he close every show, or get the biggest stories? Nope

All Cena, all the time. He holds the "Cena Championship", their real world title.

The two world titles are more like mid-card title as it is, and let's not talk about their ACTUAL mid-card titles.

 

[Rjw2688]

As long as they treat Cena as the centre of the show, no World title will have any importance or meaning. Cena has headline every PPV since the Royal Rumble, despite not holding any title.

Punk is the WWE champion, but does he close every show, or get the biggest stories? Nope

All Cena, all the time. He holds the "Cena Championship", their real world title.

The two world titles are more like mid-card title as it is, and let's not talk about their ACTUAL mid-card titles.

The thing that is sad about this statement is that it is basically 100 correct. I do think Punk should main even since he has "top" belt... Although Sheamus- Bryan should of been the main event at Mania based on the royal rumble