This nostalgia just seemed to pop up in my mind of the period when Roman Reigns was the WWE WHC, and it was an interesting reign with the two matches he had with Styles, and the one with Rollins, only for them to make the wrong choice(IMHO) by giving Ambrose both the MITB and the title at the eponymous event, eventually leading into the brand/roster split and two separate championships and their distinct histories. (Perhaps Reigns' suspension for having violated the Wellness Policy does factor in, for these decisions). At any rate, I wondered what could have been, had the Reign of Reigns continued as a Solo, Supreme champion; who would have won the WWE WHC by now, and who wouldn't ?(Between the two titles and their champions we have seen so far) What view regarding the World Title should we subscribe to, and what factors go into our belief? Let us first note that so far, the champions for both titles have been:- WWE:- Reigns drops to Rollins, Ambrose cashes in and SDL list of champions are Ambrose, AJ Styles, Cena, Bray Wyatt, Randy Orton, and Jinder Mahal. Universal-Finn Balor, Kevin Owens, Goldberg, Brock Lesnar. I would like to make the argument that with the exception of AJ Styles- NONE of the title wins or reigns were of note or vigour, and could have well been avoided, or as is the case with Lesnar, are sort of contentious in that on the one hand, Lesnar as your champion is as legit and prestigious as it gets, and yet his remaining absent, according to some, detracts from fan interest in the product. Ambrose's reign sucked, and it can be argued that his association with the talented Rollins and Reigns, and the latter's suspension for violating the wellness policy, are reasons why he won the MITB/WWE WHC in the first place. Finn Balor had barely debuted, and got injured. Kevin Owens' win although quite a pleasant event, his reign was sort of disappointing. Goldberg and Lesnar could easily have had their prolonged feud for "the battle for supremacy or dominance" without having to have a main title be exchanged in the process. Bray Wyatt IMO, wasn't ready, and wouldn't be champion had it not been for the roster split into two. Randy Orton should've stayed away from the title, and John Cena's historic 16th title win, would've been far more potent and momentous had it occurred in a better set of conditions, resulting in better feuds, rather than what happened, with him dropping it to Wyatt(who dropped it to Orton). In fact, they managed to ruin the one thing which lent SDL immense vitality- AJ Styles persona, his presence, promos, and reign as WWE champion. And finally, there's the curious case of Jinder Mahal. What can we even say about him, stemming from no malice or hatred but just a simple fact, it's sort of laughable when one considers the contrast between "AJ Styles, the WWE champion" and Jinder Mahal as champion. There's literally no scintillation or excitement about SDL and Jinder as champion, IMO. It's easy to infer that with one main championship, you don't pass titles around or have them dropped just for the sake of it, or hand them to Jinder Mahal. The cream always rises to the top. Proponents of the Roster Split or two championships usually say that they are necessary, what else would people feud for, and deserving candidates wouldn't even get to touch the title if only one major world championship existed. Even I somewhat feel it, but when you look at the evidence of what has transpired, how, despite two titles, the Reign of AJ Styles can be disrupted only to be followed by the most uninspiring and lackluster reigns in the form of Wyatt, Orton and Jinder, and on the Raw side, an absent Lesnar, is having one Supreme title not more desirable? A title so sacrosanct that only Reigns, AJ Styles etc. get to carry it, and when John Cena wins it for the 16th time, it matters, or when Kevin Owens is crowned champion for the first time, it matters, and even if Brock Lesnar wins it, you have scintillating feuds and contenders, and Randy Orton(for pity's sake), Jinder Mahal don't get close to it. For those of you who would say "We have so many people, what would they feud for if there's only one world chamionship", this simple argument may help put things into perspective for you guys:- It's fine that on Raw, the super heavyweights and stars are contending for the world title. But how on earth do you think Baron Corbin is ready, Jinder Mahal could be believable as anything MORE than a US champion(if even believable as THAT), Randy Orton deserved to be in the title picture again, for the 25th time in his career, or Shinsuke Nakamura is ready? So if you exclude all of those SDL contenders, really only AJ Styles is a world championship material, as well as John Cena, and to a lesser extent than Styles, Kevin Owens. These three can easily be mingled into Raw's picture, or rotated. To end, I would like to state that:- In a state where there's only one Supreme championship and champion, feuds are properly placed, deserving candidates win or contend for the title, the cream rises to the top, you don't hurry people into becoming world champion, and there's usually a consistency and constant excitement of the hunt. In a state with two champions, things are diluted, a lot of experimentation occurs, undeserving or not-yet-ready candidates win the MITB and/or championship, and at times the title fluctuates between functioning as a World title to functioning as a midcard or less glorious title, as is happening currently, with Mahal's reign as WWE champion and the AJ Styles-KO feud for the US title. Your thoughts?