WWE Titles discussion

[BestWrestlingOpinions]

This topic has been probably discussed before, but with the recent rumors of Barrett and Sheamus planning to clash in order to unify the titles, I think it's time to open this up again.

Do you agree that it would be best for business for those two titles to be unified? In my opinion, yes, it should have been done a long time ago. There is no point in having those two titles. After all, what does the US champion represent? The champion of USA? That's so stupid considering non-Americans have held the title. And also, why would someone want to go after the US title, when there is the WWEWHC out there? Same can be said about the IC title to some sort, even though I could take the IC title over the US.

Apart from those two titles, people are talking about how they need to bring back this title or that title. Cruiserweight is the one that is most discussed about, with the European one being a close second. The Europian championship seems like a joke to me, exactly the same as the US. It has no meaning. The Europian title will eventually be held by non-Europians, it will never be defended in Europe, so what's the point?
The cruiserweight title could have some meaning, if they actually gave some time to the cruiserweights, but most of them have seemingly become jokes and jobbers. Kofi, Tyson Kidd, Gabriel and so on, people don't really care about them anymore. I guess with the introduction of the Cruiserweight title, they could be brought back to surface, but I'm still uncertain how this would work.

What bugs me most of all is that the titles don't have any real meaning anymore.As mentioned above, the US title is held by non-Americans, the Europian title would suffer the same fate. Back then, the WHC would be held by cruiseweights and so on. The only title with real meaning is the WWEWHC. It's the top prize in the world of pro wresting/sports entertainment, and therefore, winning and going for it actually means something. All the other titles that appear IN THE SAME SHOW are not needed in my opinion. You see a guy like Del Rio competing for the WHC, then 1 year later, he enters the IC title scene (when he beat Big E). What's the point?

The only thing that can be done with the titles, so that the Europian/Cruiserweight can be brought back, is to create divisions and maybe make the brand split again. If only European people could go after the title, maybe it would mean something, especially if they tried to make the title seem important. Same for Cruiserweights. I don't wanna see people who aren't Cruiserweights go for that title, because we know it's gonna happen eventually.

Make any titles you have matter, WWE. Make the people who hold them feel special. Right now, the only reason a champ would feel special is if they hold the title for a long period.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

As has been pointed out time and time again in thread after thread, the Cruiserweight Championship simply serves no real purpose in WWE as the company doesn't group wrestlers into weight divisions. That works in Japan and Mexico, but it's never worked in the United States. In pro wrestling, American fans have generally just wanted to see two guys put into the ring and, from a kayfabe perspective, may the best man win regardless of how much he weighs. If you want American fans to not take a guy seriously, give them the message that he's not able to hang with the guys that are 240 pounds or more.

If WWE were to unify the two mid-card titles and eventually create or reactivate another mid-card championship further on down the line, the easiest choice would simply be a television championship. They could reactivate the WCW Television Championship, rename it the WWE Television Championship just as they did with the US title or simply create a brand new one. Between Raw & SD! on cable television and Main Event & Superstars on the WWE Network, there's a strong enough platform for a television championship. If the two mid-card titles are merged, it's almost a certainty that the IC title will be the one that's kept. The WWE WHC would be the main event strap, the IC title would be the upper mid-card title and a television title could be a title more for the lower mid-card wrestlers.

The catch 22 with any title, however, is that there'll be complaints about it no matter which direction they go with it, who carries it, how it's used, etc.

 

[TheICChampion]

The catch 22 with any title, however, is that there'll be complaints about it no matter which direction they go with it, who carries it, how it's used, etc

Good point. WWE, for years, hasn't done a lot to make their titles seem meaningful. I know the belts are props. But don't rub it in my face. Give me a reason to suspend my disbelief when it comes to the "titles". And another thing, why does Cole always have to mention, time and again, who held the title in the past? All anyone has to do is look it up, it doesn't take too long. I know they're trying to make it seem more prestigious, but how are they trying to make us care about it now? Have superstars clamouring to challenge the champion, even in non-title matches. Show guys arguing over who gets a title shot. Have a #1 contender match/tournament every month or so. Then that #1 contender faces the champion in a non-title match. Have stipulations for those matches, such as "whoever wins gets to choose when/what the match is for the title". And so on.

 

[Kamala316]

If WWE is going to put more emphasis on spicing up shows like Superstars and Main Event, then this is what I'd like to see:

1. WWE World Title (combo of the WWE / World Titles)
2. WWE Intercontinental Title (combo of the IC /US Titles)
3. WWE TV Title (to be defended on TV at least once a week)
4. WWE Tag Team Titles
5. WWE Cruiserweight Title
6. WWE Divas title

The World, IC, Tag Team and Divas Titles are no-brainers. Rather than a Hardcore Title (which could never live up to past expectations), the TV Title would allow WWE to give exposure/ring time to Superstars who are either up and coming, or are returning from injury and need to work off the ring rust. More importantly, Creative would not have to think of a plan (not like they do now - just put Fandango/Layla vs. Santino/Emma on the card again, right?). If it were me, I would love to bring back a time limit for the TV Title match, so that plays a factor in the match. I strongly feel that WWE needs to bring back the Cruiserweight Title on the basis that so many Indy guys/NXT performers don't have the prototypical "bodybuilder" physique. Therefore, let the light heavyweight performers show off their speed/skills, but also have the announcers (I'll believe it when I see/hear it) actually focus on the in-ring work and talk up the devastation on their finishing maneuvers. That way, if a smaller wrestler is in the ring with a 275 pound guy (like Sheamus), and he hits his finisher, it's unbelievable because he weighs 50-75 pounds less. Submission maneuvers can be valuable, too. Thoughts?

 

[Quinn30Colo]

If WWE is going to put more emphasis on spicing up shows like Superstars and Main Event, then this is what I'd like to see:

1. WWE World Title (combo of the WWE / World Titles)
2. WWE Intercontinental Title (combo of the IC /US Titles)
3. WWE TV Title (to be defended on TV at least once a week)
4. WWE Tag Team Titles
5. WWE Cruiserweight Title
6. WWE Divas title

I like everything but the Cruiserweight. I don't think you need it with the TV title. To me you could use the TV title for those cruiser weights for a Low-Card Champion. Also the TV Title can be used when Superstars from the main roster go and fight NXT stars as well.

 

[Radical]

Good point. WWE, for years, hasn't done a lot to make their titles seem meaningful. I know the belts are props. But don't rub it in my face. Give me a reason to suspend my disbelief when it comes to the "titles". And another thing, why does Cole always have to mention, time and again, who held the title in the past? All anyone has to do is look it up, it doesn't take too long. I know they're trying to make it seem more prestigious, but how are they trying to make us care about it now? Have superstars clamouring to challenge the champion, even in non-title matches. Show guys arguing over who gets a title shot. Have a #1 contender match/tournament every month or so. Then that #1 contender faces the champion in a non-title match. Have stipulations for those matches, such as "whoever wins gets to choose when/what the match is for the title". And so on.

Good points you make as well.

One thing I'll say to your question about commentary. Cole (or whoever) mentioning a guy is a former champion often is a good thing. Yes, anybody can go look it up but not many will. Good example is a guy like Jack Swagger. Like it or not, he was the World Champion before. Now, he is used in upper-mid card matches. Kind of a jobber now but he's serving a purpose because anybody who beats him beats a former World Champion. It is more important than beating Zack Ryder who was only a US or Tag Team Champion and better still than beating Damien Sandow who, sadly is a no-time champion. In terms of kayfabe prestige Jack Swagger is more important or impressive to beat because he was World Champion.

Anyway, I agree very much with your thoughts on making the us care about the titles again. I would love to see and HEAR (hello, promos anyone?) multiple Superstars stating their desire to be Champion and fighting for it every chance they get. Too often guys are thrown into a title match or #1 contender match and you never even knew they were interested in the title. You should KNOW who is gunning for what title.

They do a fairly good job in the Tag Team division, well, because it's more obvious. Clearly any team that is a tag team for any length of time the commentators will say these guys want to be tag champs. It is a little harder to do with the singles champs partly because of the 3 singles titles.

I think that's partly why WWE treats most titles other than the WWE title like crap because they can't understand why anyone would want to be US champion or even IC champion if they could be WWE champion.

So, fine, WWE probably should unify the IC and US titles. By that I mean, IC takes over and the US title is dropped. Indeed, only 2 singles titles would make them both more prestigious.

The OP had some good points, though. Part of the problem in Pro Wrestling or at least WWE is that they have no weight classes so it is hard for the titles to 'make sense'. Only the WWE WHC title, the tag title and the Diva's titles make sense. IF the WWE brought back the Hardcore title it would create a more distinct 'division' and make sense. Problem is they won't bring it back because it's not PG enough. They won't bring back the Cruiserweight title for many reasons (Hornswoggle being the last champion and currently a 5'8" guy is the WWE World Heavyweight Champion while the IC Champion is about 6'5" and the US Champion has more muscle then both of the other champions). So weight class-based titles are completely gone.

I don't really like the TV title either because look how bad it is in TNA. It wouldn't be much better in WWE. There is too much pressure on a TV title if it is supposed to be defended every week. I think it also would take away from the WWE Champion because imagine a TV Champion who has defended their title successfully for let's say 3 months or more (that's about 12 title matches) and the WWE Champion has defended their title for 3 months BUT only 3 times total. The TV Champion would look actually way better than the WWE Champion because they had to fight through more adversity to keep their title.

So I think in this day and age the best title set-up for WWE is the following:

WWE World Heavyweight Champion
Intercontinental Champion
WWE Tag Team Champions
Diva's Champion

What I think would help then with two singles champions is that 'unofficially' but very obviously whoever is the IC Champion should be the main attraction of SmackDown. They should be in the main event fairly often and should be the focal point of the show and have everybody be aware THEY are the big shot Champion. The WWEWH Champion doesn't need to make many appearances on SmackDown because if someone is the IC champion and they aren't able to bring people to the show and entertain the audience on a nightly basis then: THEY SHOULDN'T BE CHAMPION. Think of the great past IC Champions, even with little promotion, guys like Steve Austin, The Rock, Road Dogg, Rob Van Dam, Chris Jericho, MVP and Jeff Hardy were IC Champions most people LOVED. Those guys could have ended SmackDown on a nightly basis and people would be entertained.

So, have the IC Champion be the 'unofficial' but very obvious focal point of SmackDown while the WWE World Heavyweight Champion is the focal point of Raw and you'll have better prestige and logic behind the titles.

Then, monthly #1 contender tournaments and battle royals can occur where almost all the Superstars can be involved and no one should question their participation because being IC or WWE champion would be a big deal.

And have two MITB ladder matches next PPV where one briefcase is for the WWE title and one is for the IC title. Have two Elimination Chamber matches, one for WWE title and one for IC title. Then you'll have prestige and reason to believe the titles actually mean something.

And THEN bring back the King of the Ring Tournament/PPV and make it an annual (or bi-annual) thing so that they can push some Superstars to win the KOTR, get their title shot but maybe lose but STILL be in the record books as a KOTR winner which is also very prestigious.

 

[Dagger Dias]

This topic has been probably discussed before, but with the recent rumors of Barrett and Sheamus planning to clash in order to unify the titles, I think it's time to open this up again.

Do you agree that it would be best for business for those two titles to be unified?

I really do not want to see the midcard belts get unified. The roster is still large enough to justify having two midcard belts. The Intercontinental Championship should be for the upper midcard, while the US Championship can be the lower tier belt. If they did unify the belts it would clog up the title scene for the remaining belt (likely the Intercontinental Championship) upon the WWE retiring the other belt. I could see why the tag team, divas, and even the world titles needed to be unified. They made sense at the time. That's not the case with the midcard belts. Having a world title tier, an upper midcard title tier, and a true midcard title tier makes sense. Thus, the belts should not be unified at all and I have no top choice for who unifies them. It would be best for business to keep the titles the way they are with two midcard titles.

After all, what does the US champion represent? The champion of USA? That's so stupid considering non-Americans have held the title. And also, why would someone want to go after the US title, when there is the WWEWHC out there? Same can be said about the IC title to some sort, even though I could take the IC title over the US.

They would want to go after the US or Intercontinental Championship because it is for those not quite at the world title tier (or former World Champions needing something else to do). Put yourself in the wrestlers' shoes within kayfabe. Would you want to challenge for the World Heavyweight Championship when you aren't ready for it yet? The wrestlers should seek a midcard belt first and having two of those is best for business as the roster is large enough to justify having more than one.

They do not need to add any more. The European and Cruiserweight Championships constantly get posts on how they need to be brought back. Why? There is absolutely nothing that either one of these belts would bring to the table that the US Championship cannot be used for. The US Championship is still active and has been around for a while, whereas the European and Cruiserweight titles have both been gone for many years. The US Championship is already being used for guys further down the card, the cruiserweights can challenge for it as well. There's no point in adding more belts. The current title structure works just fine.

The only title with real meaning is the WWEWHC. It's the top prize in the world of pro wresting/sports entertainment, and therefore, winning and going for it actually means something. All the other titles that appear IN THE SAME SHOW are not needed in my opinion. You see a guy like Del Rio competing for the WHC, then 1 year later, he enters the IC title scene (when he beat Big E). What's the point?

How can you say that the other titles are not needed? If they only have the World Heavyweight Championship.... Where does that leave the dozens of wrestlers who are not challenging for the belt? They can't put on battle royals for the belt constantly. Midcard belts are needed for the wrestlers who may not be ready for the World Heavyweight Championship or for former World Champions needing something else to do. The Tag Team Championships are needed. The division may be in need of work, but it is a tradition to have a tag team division so why take that away? The girls need a division and a belt to fight for too, so the Divas Championship stays. An argument can be made for every single currently active belt to stay so I am going to have to disagree with your idea to remove any belt.

Make any titles you have matter, WWE. Make the people who hold them feel special. Right now, the only reason a champ would feel special is if they hold the title for a long period.

This I agree on. They need to make the belts matter. The Intercontinental Championship is now the #2 belt, so why does it not receive the treatment that the big gold belt did before the world title unification? It should be pushed as an important and prestigious belt. The tournament that Barrett won helped, now Barrett needs to have a strong reign full of good retentions. The US Championship also needs more title matches. Sheamus could do some good for the belt, if booked properly. The Tag Team Championships could use a lot of work, for starters take the belts off The Usos. Make more teams out of wrestlers currently not doing anything relevant, they can be enhancement for the teams getting pushes if anything. The Divas Championship is doing fine at least. The current champion and the last two before her have given that division the best time it has seen since Lita and Trish left. If the DIVAS title can improve, so can the tag team and midcard belts. One can only hope.

 

[Robert Roode Fan]

I really do not want to see the midcard belts get unified. The roster is still large enough to justify having two midcard belts. The Intercontinental Championship should be for the upper midcard, while the US Championship can be the lower tier belt. If they did unify the belts it would clog up the title scene for the remaining belt (likely the Intercontinental Championship) upon the WWE retiring the other belt. I could see why the tag team, divas, and even the world titles needed to be unified. They made sense at the time. That's not the case with the midcard belts. Having a world title tier, an upper midcard title tier, and a true midcard title tier makes sense. Thus, the belts should not be unified at all and I have no top choice for who unifies them. It would be best for business to keep the titles the way they are with two midcard titles.

I actually agree with everything you said but one thing daggar and that is the us title-European title argument that you present, it is good, but I have to disagree with it. The reason being is that while there are good wrestlers like a Tyson Kidd and a Even Bounre who are worthy of being on tv and doing something I do not think those two are ic or us title materiel. YES I know the standers have been lowered, but damn it all I watched back when those belts meant something. I remember watching GOLDBERG as us champion, he was a great us champion, hell even the miz who while was not great was probably one the better us champions in wwe history. Then I see Eddie, and chirs beniot and even maybe the best us champion in wwe's history john cena. The us title to me means people who are least at a Wade Barret level, it was on a good level for way to long to be seen as a European title level belt. So I would actually bring in the European title to put on guys like Borne and Kidd, guys who are worthy of doing something but not guys who are not mid card material. I know I have unrealistic high standers for who should be ic champion and world champion and us champion, but when you grew up the in attitude era and ruthless aggression when those belts mean something, the us to me deserves better, I would rather retire it because low card guys are not worthy of holding the us belt. I agree overall and I agree wtih you that all belts should mean something good post.





They would want to go after the US or Intercontinental Championship because it is for those not quite at the world title tier (or former World Champions needing something else to do). Put yourself in the wrestlers' shoes within kayfabe. Would you want to challenge for the World Heavyweight Championship when you aren't ready for it yet? The wrestlers should seek a midcard belt first and having two of those is best for business as the roster is large enough to justify having more than one.

They do not need to add any more. The European and Cruiserweight Championships constantly get posts on how they need to be brought back. Why? There is absolutely nothing that either one of these belts would bring to the table that the US Championship cannot be used for. The US Championship is still active and has been around for a while, whereas the European and Cruiserweight titles have both been gone for many years. The US Championship is already being used for guys further down the card, the cruiserweights can challenge for it as well. There's no point in adding more belts. The current title structure works just fine.




How can you say that the other titles are not needed? If they only have the World Heavyweight Championship.... Where does that leave the dozens of wrestlers who are not challenging for the belt? They can't put on battle royals for the belt constantly. Midcard belts are needed for the wrestlers who may not be ready for the World Heavyweight Championship or for former World Champions needing something else to do. The Tag Team Championships are needed. The division may be in need of work, but it is a tradition to have a tag team division so why take that away? The girls need a division and a belt to fight for too, so the Divas Championship stays. An argument can be made for every single currently active belt to stay so I am going to have to disagree with your idea to remove any belt.





This I agree on. They need to make the belts matter. The Intercontinental Championship is now the #2 belt, so why does it not receive the treatment that the big gold belt did before the world title unification? It should be pushed as an important and prestigious belt. The tournament that Barrett won helped, now Barrett needs to have a strong reign full of good retentions. The US Championship also needs more title matches. Sheamus could do some good for the belt, if booked properly. The Tag Team Championships could use a lot of work, for starters take the belts off The Usos. Make more teams out of wrestlers currently not doing anything relevant, they can be enhancement for the teams getting pushes if anything. The Divas Championship is doing fine at least. The current champion and the last two before her have given that division the best time it has seen since Lita and Trish left. If the DIVAS title can improve, so can the tag team and midcard belts. One can only hope.

I actually agree with everything you said but one thing daggar and that is the us title-European title argument that you present, it is good, but I have to disagree with it. The reason being is that while there are good wrestlers like a Tyson Kidd and a Even Bounre who are worthy of being on tv and doing something I do not think those two are ic or us title materiel. YES I know the standers have been lowered, but damn it all I watched back when those belts meant something. I remember watching GOLDBERG as us champion, he was a great us champion, hell even the miz who while was not great was probably one the better us champions in wwe history. Then I see Eddie, and chirs beniot and even maybe the best us champion in wwe's history john cena. The us title to me means people who are least at a Wade Barret level, it was on a good level for way to long to be seen as a European title level belt. So I would actually bring in the European title to put on guys like Borne and Kidd, guys who are worthy of doing something but not guys who are not mid card material. I know I have unrealistic high standers for who should be ic champion and world champion and us champion, but when you grew up the in attitude era and ruthless aggression when those belts mean something, the us to me deserves better, I would rather retire it because low card guys are not worthy of holding the us belt. I agree overall and I agree wtih you that all belts should mean something good post.

 

[Planet_Velvet]

The only time a multiutde of titles made sense was when the brand extension was going. The attempt to create two seperate brands gotmuddled real quick with all of those supershows RAW and SmackDown did. But unifying the titles makessense. Neither the I-C or U.S. title have the relevance they had in decades past. While part of this can be attributed to there not being a champion of the World for longer than a year lately, tthose belts just don't mean what they used too. They should with all of the new talent, but they just don't.

 

[Jessi10x]

I like the titles now, building their credibility is what matters to me now!

What I am confused about, as far as the WWE WHC, is if they're not going to seperate them again, why hasn't there been one unified title created? Are they waiting for the WWE Network logo to make a move to the full time logo? I personally like the two belts designs, and will always want to see that WHC belt, but it just seems confusing to me.

Will there be a singular WWE WHC belt in the near future featuring the new WWE Network Logo?

 

[FlairFan2003]

The idea of two "World Champs" and the split roster is simple...WWE (at the time having just purchased WCW and already acquired several unemployed talents from recently defunct ECW) wanted to keep as many wrestlers on payroll as possible, ensuring no rival wrestling promotions would start up and challenge them with well known talent already established and popular with the audience. To make that financially viable WWE needed to run two separate brands, getting the most use out of the talent storyline wise, and having two separate touring companies.

Personally, unless Smackdown is so unpopular it cant be saved I don't see why WWE would want to end this. Maybe now that most of the marketable talent from back then is either retired or been so damaged due to poor performance they have little marketability (Jeff Hardy) WWE feels it can do away with the brand extension and two world titles.

As for why would anyone want a secondary title....well that depends on how well (or poorly) WWE gives storylines to those titles. In the 80s and 90s IC & US Title runs were big business, some of the biggest matches and most memorable feuds of all time revolved around those belts (Tully Blanchard vs Magnum TA, Piper-Hart, Bulldog-Hart, HBK-Hall, Lex Luger-Kolloff, Savage-Steamboat). Those belts were portrayed as prestigious stepping stones to the main event and World Title picture. Even if you didn't win the World Title those belts put you at the top of the card and enabled you to challenge for the top title. See Randy Savage as IC champ challenging World Champ Hulk Hogan in 1986 (and IC Champ Ultimate Warrior beating Hogan in 1990), see Magnum TA as US champ challenging Ric Flair in 1986, the IC Title was the stepping stone to main event status (and eventual World Titles) for both Hart & HBK, just as the US Title was for Flair circa 1980. Too often today those titles are put on unknown wrestlers, mid carders and newbies, and then they are not given quality storylines to enhance and build their character. Granted, neither Hart or HBK jumped directly from IC Champ to World Champ but both got plenty of TV time and some excellent feuds as IC Champ, elevating them from tag wrestlers who weren't serious main eventers into serious main eventers. Flair was already a big deal in the late 70s but his greatest success at that time was a tag team wrestler with Black Jack Mulligan, putting him In the singles scene near the top of the card feuding over the US Title with Piper was a huge step towards eventually making him World Champ for almost the next decade straight. Savage likewise didn't go directly to the World Title but his IC Title feuds vs Tito Santana and Steamboat (as well as his main events vs Hogan circa 86) established him as a top star in the company, a guy worthy of being champ, which eventually he became, just like HBK & Hart.

If you eliminate those (or similar) titles then it is that much harder for new guys to get the credibility with the audience to be considered worthy main eventers. The problem is how WWE is (or isn't) writing for the title holders, they are not (and haven't for a long time) used the titles properly. If done correctly they serve a valuable purpose.

 

[BestWrestlingOpinions]

How can you say that the other titles are not needed? If they only have the World Heavyweight Championship.... Where does that leave the dozens of wrestlers who are not challenging for the belt? They can't put on battle royals for the belt constantly. Midcard belts are needed for the wrestlers who may not be ready for the World Heavyweight Championship or for former World Champions needing something else to do. The Tag Team Championships are needed. The division may be in need of work, but it is a tradition to have a tag team division so why take that away? The girls need a division and a belt to fight for too, so the Divas Championship stays. An argument can be made for every single currently active belt to stay so I am going to have to disagree with your idea to remove any belt.

I meant the men's single titles, which are the IC and US ones. As long as there is the WWEWHC on the same show (RAW), the other two titles will be overshadowed. They would be better off appearing on Smackdown, if it becomes relevant again. They would be the focal point, making them mean something, at least for Smackdown.

Obviously, I didn't mean that they dont' need the tag or Divas titles.

 

[BestWrestlingOpinions]

I actually agree with everything you said but one thing daggar and that is the us title-European title argument that you present, it is good, but I have to disagree with it. The reason being is that while there are good wrestlers like a Tyson Kidd and a Even Bounre who are worthy of being on tv and doing something I do not think those two are ic or us title materiel. YES I know the standers have been lowered, but damn it all I watched back when those belts meant something. I remember watching GOLDBERG as us champion, he was a great us champion, hell even the miz who while was not great was probably one the better us champions in wwe history. Then I see Eddie, and chirs beniot and even maybe the best us champion in wwe's history john cena. The us title to me means people who are least at a Wade Barret level, it was on a good level for way to long to be seen as a European title level belt. So I would actually bring in the European title to put on guys like Borne and Kidd, guys who are worthy of doing something but not guys who are not mid card material. I know I have unrealistic high standers for who should be ic champion and world champion and us champion, but when you grew up the in attitude era and ruthless aggression when those belts mean something, the us to me deserves better, I would rather retire it because low card guys are not worthy of holding the us belt. I agree overall and I agree wtih you that all belts should mean something good post.

Hmm, I think you got something wrong here. If someone is not even mid-card material, then they shouldn't be on tv. A great champion can always be created given the proper booking. Having the US and IC titles are more than enough at the moment, we don't need ANOTHER one of those. You might think of the US belt as something special and that's fine, but compared to the WWEWHC and IC titles, it is nothing, at least to me. After all, the titles have all been torn so much over the years that they don't mean what they used to. They are like brand new titles. It's not like you have ONE title that has been around since 1950 and you carry it until now. All titles have been changed. The best example? The WHC. It was in WCW prior to that. It has changed so many times, that it doesn't make sense comparing it to its previous versions, therefore you shouldn't be thinking what it was in the past.

It's like think of any other sport. I, as Europian, am thinking of the Champions League. It has changed over the course of the past 30 years and I can't compare winning the title back in the old structure to today's. Also, there is a lower-level "Europa's League", where the lower level teams, or the ones who failed to proceed to the Champions League go. Basically, you have the WWEWHC as Champions League and Europa's League as IC. The US is something used in pro wrestling to get guys over. We don't need more than that.

 

[Judah's Lion]

whole lot of good responses and discussion thus far. this is a fairly common topic on the forums here and for good reason.

if the company were in my hands, i'd have the following belts:
Undisputed World Title, X-Division Title, Television Title, Hardcore Title, Knockouts Title and Tag Team Titles.

i'll explain my reasoning for each in just a few seconds, but first onto Jackhammer's point. weight divisions just don't make sense for American audiences. at least not in wrestling. so, avoid weight references, such as world heavyweight championship and cruiserweight championship. it's just hard to justify some big guys that have held the light heavyweight belts and some little guys that held the heavyweight belts. but without that distinction, the confusion clears up pretty easily.

Undisputed World Title would obviously be the big belt that everyone hopes to win and defend one day. this is self-explanatory.

X-Division Title would be my version of the IC/US Title Belts. it's the upper mid-card belt that HBK and Bret Hart would call "the workhorse belt". this is for the guys that are almost on main event status long-term but can be called upon to always steal the show and deliver a great match between the ropes. i just really like the name that TNA gave this kind of title, so i stole it for this discussion.

Television Title would be my version of the Cruiserweight Title. this gives guys like Fandango, Santino, Ryder, Kidd, Bourne, etc, something to do and something to fight for. i named it the Television Title not just because it's a belt that has to be defended on TV, since all the belts should be in my opinion, but i always thought of the WCW Cruiserweight Division as "must see TV". but it's certainly not limited to lightweight guys. but if you need a reason to have a feud on tv with some lightweight guys involved, here's a belt to make that feud more passionate.

Hardcore Title is not just my excuse for blood and guts. don't get me wrong because i do love a good hard-hitting brawl. point of fact, i just finished watching ECW Blood Sport; Most Violent Matches, and was reasonably entertained by a bunch of what i saw. but on the special features of said DVD, Joey Styles gave an interview and plainly stated that he is NOT A FAN of what many would typically call "hardcore wrestling". he doesn't like the excessive blood, barbed wire, steel chair shots, etc. when he thinks of hardcore wrestling, he thinks of guys like Chris Benoit, Dean Malenko, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Jericho, Rey Mysterio, etc, in matches that don't have 10 minute time limits. instead, if they want to wrestle for 30, give them 30. let them tell an intense story and don't limit the in-ring action. so that'd be my Hardcore Title idea. just let guys go. and if they bring in an occasional weapon, if they occasionally have a decision occur outside the squared circle or one man occasional wears a crimson mask, so be it. but plainly, just let them go!

Tag Team and Knockouts Titles are also self-explanatory.

all of this discussion, though personally enjoyable, is really redundant. looking at all the responses on this and many other similar threads and there seems to be a very common trend: give us belts that matter, champions and challengers that care to have the titles, regular matches that mean something, and so on. if any company makes me care enough about any given title, i'll watch it.

not a super original thread, but still awesome. i could talk about this all day. thanks, OP.

 

[TempestH]

I really do not want to see the midcard belts get unified. The roster is still large enough to justify having two midcard belts. The Intercontinental Championship should be for the upper midcard, while the US Championship can be the lower tier belt. If they did unify the belts it would clog up the title scene for the remaining belt (likely the Intercontinental Championship) upon the WWE retiring the other belt. I could see why the tag team, divas, and even the world titles needed to be unified. They made sense at the time. That's not the case with the midcard belts. Having a world title tier, an upper midcard title tier, and a true midcard title tier makes sense. Thus, the belts should not be unified at all and I have no top choice for who unifies them. It would be best for business to keep the titles the way they are with two midcard titles.

I do agree with the sense that two midcard belts are needed, and that we do need a World Title tier, and upper midcard tier, and a midcard tier. However, that midcard title should NOT be the United States Championship.

The U.S. Title is a relic of WCW and should be retired along with other past WCW championships. Also the U.S. Title is traditionally an upper midcard title equal to the Intercontinental Championship. If WWE kept it around to be the lower tier belt, it would just come off as WWE waving their victory over WCW in everyone's faces. People would complain about how WWE is "disrespecting the legacy of the US Title".

Plus the U.S. Title has been written into a corner. The previous U.S. Champion Dean Ambrose, was pushed so hard as a main event level act that the "true midcard" guys who would ideally be fighting for that title, were not seen as viable contenders. The only way they were able to get the title away from Ambrose was for him to lose it to Sheamus, a former WWE/World Champion. While Sheamus' generally dominant booking guarantees that the title may be booked strongly, the problem lies in the fact that he will probably have no credible challengers aside from other former World Champions such as The Miz, Dolph Ziggler, Alberto Del Rio, Mark Henry, Christian, RVD, etc. The "true midcard" will never get their chance to hold the U.S. belt because the title will be constantly stuck in a loop of upper midcard and main event talents. It's best to get rid of it and start over with a title that the midcarders can realistically win.

 

[Radical]

Plus the U.S. Title has been written into a corner. The previous U.S. Champion Dean Ambrose, was pushed so hard as a main event level act that the "true midcard" guys who would ideally be fighting for that title, were not seen as viable contenders. The only way they were able to get the title away from Ambrose was for him to lose it to Sheamus, a former WWE/World Champion. While Sheamus' generally dominant booking guarantees that the title may be booked strongly, the problem lies in the fact that he will probably have no credible challengers aside from other former World Champions such as The Miz, Dolph Ziggler, Alberto Del Rio, Mark Henry, Christian, RVD, etc. The "true midcard" will never get their chance to hold the U.S. belt because the title will be constantly stuck in a loop of upper midcard and main event talents. It's best to get rid of it and start over with a title that the midcarders can realistically win.

Or, here is a novel idea... how about Sheamus actually LOSES a damn match to an up-and-comer who wins the US title from him and allow Sheamus to do a rare case of PUTTING SOMEONE OVER.

It's the US title after all, he could loses to someone like Damian Sandow, Tyson Kidd, Titus O'Neil, Ryback or Brodus Clay. Guys who haven't won a singles title in the WWE yet who could get built up over the next month or so and beat Sheamus and get a great first singles title win in dominant fashion to start a hopefully strong title run.

Sheamus' character can handle losing a US title match to an up-and-comer. Sheamus can go back to feuding for the WWE World Title or move up and feud for the IC title. It will all work out ... if Sheamus is finally used to help someone get over.