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.

 

[Shocky]

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]

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

 

[watchingandwaiting]

I'm on the side of having 3 belts.. Granted the talent pool is diluted, but if the talent on Raw and Smackdown were equally balanced instead of having Raw so stacked, both main event pictures would benefit. ECW could have a better main event picture if some of the younger midcard guys like Kenny Dykstra were sent to ECW to compete for that belt.

That said, I just had an idea for a "one-belt" system that might (in the short term) provide some entertainment. If anyone cares, let me know what you think. In addition to the main championship belts being merged, the IC, US and the (new) ECW belt all become TV championships only.. These belts are defended every week on the respective shows. At the monthly PPV, whoever is holding these each of these belts has a triple threat match. The winner of the Triple Threat then becomes the number 1 contender for the Main belt until the end of the next PPV...but the belt is defended under the old Hardcore "24/7" rule, so a title match can take place any time during that month. In the meantime, the two losers of the Triple Threat match retain their belts and continue to defend them weekly. The belt that the new number 1 contender held goes back up for grabs however that show's GM wants to do it (Battle Royal, One Night Tournament, etc etc). Like I said, I don't know how viable this is as a long-term solution (I tend to this not really, esp. since it kind of puts all PPVs on an equal footing and eliminates the concept of the Rumble Winner main eventing Mania and kind of renders MITB obsolete) but it still could be a fun short term experiment. Thoughts?

 

[Lee]

If my memory serves me correctly initially Initially, the WWE Undisputed Championship and WWE Women's Championship were available to both brands, with the other belts staying on their brands. This I think is a good idea, but looking back it didn't work.

I like Jonny's idea with the undisputed champion and then brand champions as well, this would give more mid-carders title shots and yet you can still have the lengthy reigns of undisputed champions.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I think that perhaps it would be a good idea to unify the WWE and WHC Titles into an undisputed title, but leave ECW out of the equation or, alternatively, eliminate it using the equation. The three brands definitely water down the product to a great degree, and right now the roster is spread very thinly yet unevenly around all the belts. I think that unifying not only the titles, but the brands is in order. Unifying the titles and keeping the brands seperate would mess things up too much.

 

[NYSandman]

Well, let us define World Champ. You have World, Heavyweight, IC, ECW World. Now, lets break it down. I assume IC mean the champ of this continent. I could be wrong. Heavyweight champ is the guy who is top of the heavyweight devision, meaning guys of a certain size. World Champ is just that, the wrestling champ of the entire planet. I think you could keep all the belts, but make one the defining title. The holder of that belt can wrestle on any brand, and anyone can challenge for it, no matter what size. Heavyweight should be the next one down, and should be restricted to guys who weigh over a certain amount. Cruiserweights would NOT be eligible to compete for this title. Anyone could hold the IC belt. Make the World title THE title, the one that defines you as the best wrestler on the planet today and work down from there. It is good to have more than one big title, as it creates rivalries, but you still need to have that one crown that makes you the absolute best.

 

[Theo Williams]

As long as RAW, SmackDown and ECW exist as seperate entities, they all need their own world title. If there was an Undisputed Champion it would be constantly being defended against RAW wrestlers, leaving the other two brands even further behind. However, the draft has turned into something of a joke with all these interpromotional matches, so maybe it's time the merge all the brands and unify the titles.

 

[Capt. Charisma]

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.

That idea is the best i have heard so far, the WWE needs an undisputed champion who is above the others and always in the main event, it would probably mean scrapping the us and intercontinal titles but they have no value nowadays anyway. I would take a slightly different take on it though. I might add here is that in order to qualify for a undisputed title shot, you must hold 1 of the brand championships, with title shots rotating through the 3 brands every month. Obviously when someone becomes undisputed champion they would have to vacate their brand title in order for this to work. But it would allow a fresh main title feud every month, and give more prestiage to the brand titles because you have to keep it to get your title shot. Anyway thats just me trying to be creative.

 

[Oasys]

The brand extension needs to end. I know what you all are thinking.. Too much talent, they will never hold the WWE title.
Your right. People such as Morrison, Punk, Booker etc. would more than likely not get a WWE title run. They would, however, hold the IC title. I remember when that belt actually meant something. It was held by the best in the business. Mr. Perfect, Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Stone Cold, Triple H, Shawn Michales, The Rock, Edge, Chris Jericho, Christian, Kurt Angle.. The IC would get more than 10 minutes at a pay per view. The fans actually cared who held it.
There are plenty of titles for all of the talent. The WWE needs to get rid of some of these other wrestlers that are taking up space on the roster. If that happens, there will be no shortage on titles or talent.

 

[TheShocka2k]

The brand extension needs to end. I know what you all are thinking.. Too much talent, they will never hold the WWE title.
Your right. People such as Morrison, Punk, Booker etc. would more than likely not get a WWE title run. They would, however, hold the IC title. I remember when that belt actually meant something. It was held by the best in the business. Mr. Perfect, Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Stone Cold, Triple H, Shawn Michales, The Rock, Edge, Chris Jericho, Christian, Kurt Angle.. The IC would get more than 10 minutes at a pay per view. The fans actually cared who held it.
There are plenty of titles for all of the talent. The WWE needs to get rid of some of these other wrestlers that are taking up space on the roster. If that happens, there will be no shortage on titles or talent.

What you said is true. However, you have to think of people like Edge who has held the IC title so many times that it wouldn't be fair for him to hold it again. That is, it would be unfair to hold him down because of a surplus of talent and not give him the nod for main event status. This also would mean that wrestlers like The Hardys and MVP would be held down again. One brand would mean only five titles in the company. People like Cena, Orton, Taker, Trips, HBK, Batista would challenge for the WWE/World title. Edge, Kennedy, Carlito, Punk, Morrison would challenge for the IC. The Hardys would more than likely become a tag team again and challenge for the Tag titles. Rey Mysterio would more than likely be Cruiserweight champion. And various women would challenge for the Womens championship. That means people like MVP and Burke would never get an opportunity until the top guys step down. Yeah, people like Khali, Big Daddy V, Snitky would all be gone because they are basically fillers but it would still hurt the better performers and future superstars as well.

 

[ACTAFOOL]

actually i wouldnt mind seeing so many great wrestlers going after the IC title, it would mean much more than the WHC and ECW champ IMO, cuz nowadays i look at the WHC and ECW champ and it doesnt even seem like much honestly, i think if they had 1 brand, and get rid of WHC and ecw champ, the other wrestlers would have a more meaningful run as IC champ =/... and its not like trips, undertaker, batista, HBK, cena, orton, and the likes would dominate the title scene forever, they would be times where a mid carder IC champ gets his shot

nobody ever imagined some1 like foley would be WWE champ back in the attitude era, plus if a IC champ actually gets the WWE title he will really be over, it seems like WHC and ECW champs are mid card leve on raw anyways

i say keep only 5 belts, but each belt would mean a lot more than the belts today anyways, and like i said b4 the main eventers of today wouldnt dominate the scene forever, there will be times when they need fresh main event feuds, and the ppl who deserve them, like MVP, punk, burke, carlito, kennedy, booker, edge (who IMO is already a main eventer after beating cena) and the likes would get their shots eventually, just because it would be harder to happen, doesnt mean it wouldnt

and the crusierwieght belt could be important again, so what if rey is cruiser champ? there are many talented wrestlers on WWE that can compete for it, but WWE doesnt make it seem like its a big deal but they could...

scrap the 3 belts and make it one, WHC and ECW champ are just as big as IC and US title anyway...

and there wouldnt be so much talent because 50% of the guys in WWE today can go and not be missed at all.....

 

[BrooklynBuc]

As much as I love the design of the World Heavyweight Title, I'm in favor of one ultimate Undisputed Champion. It'd be like when the Brand Extension first started. I say unify all three belts in a triple threat match and establish the Undisputed Title. Plus, establish the Women's champion as Undisputed as well to appear on all three brands. Move all of the Tag Teams onto RAW, then you would have the Intercontinental and Tag Team Titles on RAW, the United States and Cruiserweight Titles on Smackdown, and re-establish the TV title for ECW. (there are no tag teams worth it in ECW anyway). That would make a mid-card\upper tier titles on each show, then have special matches for each 2-hour show, and the Extreme rules for ECW. You would increase the women's division to all three shows so that all of the divas would get a chance.

Just my two cents...

 

[dingle]

ECW is just another way of saying developmental territory nowadays. the world heavyweight title matches are generally buried in the middle of the card on first-tier pay per views. to me, the WWE title is the only one that truly matters. that being said, I would like for them to do away with the brand extension, and cut it down to one roster of around 20 or so wrestlers. there's just too much dead weight right now on WWE programming.

 

[tbp82]

The one WWE world champion doesn't work unless you unify the rosters. This doesn't work because I personally would get sick of watching John Cena wrestle three times a week. People hear talk about the orginal plan for the Undipusted Title but in all honesty that doesn't work because you need a main title on all your shows. Personally I think the best situation for WWE would be to change Raw, Smackdown, and ECW to WWE Raw, ECW, and WCW Friday Night. Cut out all interpromotinal storylines except for Vince. Have Raw and WCW get brand specific pay per views with the WCW pay per views having WCW names and ECW having one night stand only.

 

[stockstickity]

The brand extension needs to end. It is killing WWE slowly. Imagine an Undisputed WWE World Heavyweight Championship, that would be prestigious. Think about it there only are about 5 contenders on each brand, and this would give credability and unpredictability to Number 1 contenders matchs. It would also strengthen up the tag division,(which must unite) as the low carders would need to become tag-teams to get TV time. I miss the days were pay-per-views would have 2 or 3 tag matchs on them and maybe even a 6 man tag. It would also elevate the mid-card to as it would be more competitive and wrestlers would need to work harder and longer to get a chance at these belts. Here is my system:
WWE World Heavyweight Title (Cena, HHH, HBK, Batista, Undertaker, Edge, Booker, Randy orton)
IC
US
ECW Title (becomes like the hardcore)
World Tag-Team Titles

I see the US as a built for the lower top tier guys (like even have HBK or HHH winning it now and again to elevate it slightly), and higher midcards and the IC for the real midcarders

 

[JRG66]

I love tbp82's idea of changing Smackdown! to WCW as long as Eric Bischoff is the GM but I think ECW should have a few more PPV's than just 1NS. Give them about 3 PPVs per year like November to Remember, Hardcore Heaven, and 1NS, for example. Unfortunately, the likeliness of Vince actually taking out Smackdown! is probably very slim since "Smackdown! is doing great with 2 gargantuant ******s like Batista and Khali holding the Heavyweight Title and changing hands every PPV."(air quote)

 

[kieran_devlin]

A brand for each title not the other way about seriously the title is the brand.
Some guy wouldnt be champs but i think having guys seperate to one brand is a good idea. It means specific wrestlers on a brand for example cruisers could only be on Smackdown and Women only on RAW.

All three belts should be equal even the ECW championship.
The title should make the brand not the opposite.

I hate the idea of a single Brand i like seeing my favourite stars on their brand having one brand means more travelling and needing to keep rivalrys going on every show, this means that a John Cena feud would have to be on tv 3 times a week!