1 or 2 World Championships?

[The Crock]

This is about as simple as questions come, should there be one or two World Championships in an organization? The WWE has shown that two can work, while most other companies have just one. If you have a brand split it might favor you to have two, but really in any organization, if big enough, you can have it either way.

I believe that having one World Championship is far better for an organization. It brings more prestige to the belt, makes it more of a challenge to obtain. Some time ago, when having two World Belts was unheard of, and having one was the standard in professional wrestling, it seemed that the belt was much more of an honor. Being a 1 or 2 time champion meant a lot more then than it does today, because today if you have the option of going after two World Championships it is much easier to attain. If you look at it that way, Ric Flair being a 16-Time World Champion is much more significant than Triple H will ever be when he surpasses him. When you have one World Championship it makes the product much more interesting. Less title changes will result, and you will see some nicely developed feuds, storylines, and angles. One World Championship is undoubtedly the way to go.

Thoughts?

 

[TelkEvolon]

2 only works because Smackdown & Raw are two separate things.

So they have to have a top thing in each brand.


I think pretty much everywhere else should have like 4: Main, Mid, Tag and something else.

 

[klunderbunker]

It needs to be one for a few reason.

First of all it strengthens your world title. When you have guys like Edge and Cena having more world title reigns than Hogan had in WWF, that says a lot. Edge loses the world title in the opening match of a show. No worries as he just goes out and wins the other one later in the night. You don't have these 3 week reigns because you have people holding titles for longer stretches which helps the title's credibility.

Second it strengthens the midcard. Look at a guy like Swagger. he puts on good matches, his promos are getting better, he's a force in the company, he has a legit wrestling background and he's young. That being said, there's no way he was ready to be a world champion. Swagger is a guy that needed WAY more seasoning in the midcard but was thrown into the main event anyway. Instead of him being a bad world champion, make him the IC or US Champion and THEN let him go for the world title. He has more credibility and you know earlier if he would make a decent challenger for the title or not.

Finally, it makes things seem FAR more epic. Think about it like this: "The following contest is for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship!" Do you prefer that, or this: "That was a great match for the world title. And now here's another great match for the WWE TItle!" It makes the matches seem less special. Instead of having guys that aren't at that level yet be thrown in the deep end early, have them get their seasoning and let the big guys be the big guys. It would work much better and make more interesting competition.

Definitely one title.

 

[Lying Retarded Crybaby Troll Bitch]

I would love to have 1 belt for 1 company... But the fact of the matter is if the shows used the same unified belt, you have to unify the roster. They already have problems with younger guys being held back (to a point) by the vets, so mixing the roster that way would make an already-bad problem worse.

 

[ABMorales787]

Isn't this one of the reasons why boxing fell from grace? Multiple World Titles? Having more than one World title is always gonna be bad for it's business. Especially if it's in the same organization. It doesn't matter if you win the WBA Heavyweight Boxing Championship because you got about 3 other guys who hold the same exact position. The same thing applies in pro wrestling. Hell, it's actually worse, because in pro wrestling, championships aren't of equal status and different weight classes like Boxing an MMA. In pro wrestling, it all epitomizes on the World Heavyweight Championship. Who is designated as the best. But in WWE, you have 2 bests. That's a bit of a problem. The NWA World Heavyweight Championship was THE belt back in it's heyday. But as companies splitted and more World titles appeared... well you know what happened to that once legendary belt.

You can't be the best if there are other bests out there.

 

[a0161613]

WWE has gone downhill massively since the brand split. Since the rosters were locked so strictly and the programming was restricted to indivdual talents, the programming quickly became stale. So as good as SD was with Brock, Benoit, Rey & Angle, HHH was suffocating Raw.

The programme has its highlights but its also the reason why Cena vs Orton got stale after almos a year solid of that feud. Repeat that for Edge/Taker and HHH/Orton and that's one of the reason why multiple titles to cover multiple brands is a bad idea.

 

[Miko]

WWE's 2 World Titles used to work, when the brands really were seperate and had their own PPV's, except the big four obviously. They had the talent to sustain it though, what with all the WCW guys who'd already come in, followed by even more WCW guys like Goldberg and Steiner all piled on top of WWE's current crop the only option was to split the brands, it was either split the brands or people who were on the rise will get hopelessly buried or forgotten about. It was effectively two companies, made all the more interesting by drafts and the like.

Since WWE's talent levels have got to a degree where it used to be, probably even weaker in fact, the 2 World Titles doesnt work really. Especially when the brand split doesnt really exist anymore.

Any company should probably only have 1 World Title, being the pinnacle that everybody is aiming for, it's just the scenario above was cause for exception.

 

[MrHashasheen]

1 belt, one company. Unless a merger is going on, ala WCW/UWF, ECW/WCW/WWF, there shouldn't be more than one main event championship active. WCW preceded WWE with this, when they had the International World Heavyweight Championship created when Ric Flair went to the WWF. Ric came back with the belt, they made the unification happen.

WWE at this point does not need a pair of world championships, but a pair of mid-card titles would do finely. Or if they made one an upper-mid card title and the other a mid-card title, ala Television/US with WCW or European/Intercontinental with WWF, it would enhance the titles a lot more and not have the weak title reigns common over the past couple of years.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

When the brand extention was in its infacy and talent was exclusive to their respective show, then 2 titles worked ok.

Now they dont.

Plus, having 2 world titles within one company takes away the prestige of being the champion. You are never THE BEST in the company as there is always one other person who is of the same status as yourself. Reaching the top and becoming champion should indicate you have reached the pinnicle of the WWE, but with 2 championships there are 2x the opportunities to do so.

When a world title match is in the midcard at WM and a womens title match comes after it, then something is seriously wrong. You need one belt, simple as.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

To be honest a talent has better chances of getting a push if there are two belts. But with that being said, we would have the absolute creme de la creme holding the title if there was but one, which is always best.

Now if you can look at this from a backstage pull side of things, it's best to have 2 belts, as one belt will be occupied by someone who has the 'source' and one belt will be put on a superstar who has risen up by growin' crowd reaction and value(also to appease the dissidents in the locker room)

But from a pure talent standpoint it is amazing when a superstar rises through the ranks and wins THE only Heavyweight championship. The same reason why I hope Punk is the first unified champion. Makes the achievement that much more grand.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Well on the surface of it one title belt seems to be the answer to the OP's question. But I do not think that you can give a whole lot of guys pushes that way. Also it leads to the accumulation of a lot of people into the midcard. The guys who would have normally been main eventers in case there were two title belts would be pushed back to the midcard in case there is only one title belt. Hence it would also push back people who would have normally been midcarders.

The rosters these days are much bigger than they used to be in the olden days and in order to accomodate such a huge roster two championship belts are surely needed. That being said there should be a strict roster split within the company which does not allow a superstar from one brand to appear on the other brand unless a draft is effected.

However if we are talking about prestige then surely having two title belts does dilute the prestige of both the belts. But then again having one title belt in a company as big as WWE is not a practical solution in this day and age.

 

[coltster4life]

The only reason I like the 2 World titles is because of the history behind each belt. With the World Heavyweight Championship, in some small way you keep the legacy alive. That title is trademark to NWA/WCW. Anyone who knows anything about wrestling knows what the big gold belt represents. True it's important history is not within the WWE. But back when NWA went global and had A world champion for all the territories, it was the most presitigious title. It truly represented the best wrestler in the world. Back when WWF was a mere territory, the holder of the World Heavyweight Championship still was regarded as Ric Flair stated, the real world champion. The title history goes back twice as far as the WWE Championship and Vince Sr. himself even voted on it. Now that WWE is the big dog and has gobbled up every territory and bought WCW which gobbled up the rest, should WWE see that, that belt stays in existence? Obviously WWE can't do away with their WWE Championship since it is their most prestigious belt. But unifying them again makes no sense.... They don't truly represent the same thing. Also yes the less complicated reason for not unifying them is because their are two seperate shows. Both titles represent being the very best on ur roster, whether it be (WWE Championship, the best in the WWE) which is the number 1 promotion in the world, or (WHC, the best in the world....WORLD heavyweight champion)... Both rosters of both brands need to have a reason why they're fighting.... Not having 2 world champions on both rosters would lessen one of their brands which the WWE claims they don't want to do.