Is having one Supreme world title better than two different titles?

[AegonTargaryen]

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?

 

[ShinChan]

But Brand Split? Brand split means two different brands and each brand needs a top champion. It only needed some strong booking to make these two top Champions feel like Champions. Jinder Mahal isn't going to make it feel like the top Championship. So, it kind of depends on the booking of the champion. Getting Dolph Ziggler as a challenger for your title at Summerslam isn't going to do any favours when there is a much bigger match in AJ Styles Vs. John Cena II.

Also, a side note : Bray Wyatt was ready to be a World Champion.

 

[The Perfect Max]

As someone who believes that with a brand split, there should be separate world, women's, tag team etc. titles, I struggle to understand why one world title would make any logical sense. But in the realistic world in which you describe since the brand split, you are 100% right. We have had some really bizzare switches, and I can guarantee that Jinder Mahal would never be the undisputed World Heavyweight Champion. I rejoiced when they merged the titles in late 2013 because the reality is that only one world title was needed where there was no roster split. I'd say that based on the way that WWE has attempted to book it's world champions, maybe they can't cope with two right now.

But, I think if WWE was to revert back to one world title, the brand split would be cheapend even more than it already has been. Whether it is necessary at this point, I'm not sure. But if WWE perhaps actually thought about what they were doing when they have these shakeups or drafts, then it wouldn't necessarily be a problem and already ready world title contenders would be present on the show. After all, during the first brand split, I didn't see it as a problem. On Raw, even though Triple H dominated the World Heavyweight Championship, there always seemed to be multiple contenders and alternative champions. Now SmackDown at times was somewhat of a different story, and when Brock Lesnar vs. Hardcore Holly is your WWE Championship match, you suddenly realise the downside to a split. But most of the time it worked, so I do believe that WWE could make it work again. But instead they rush new and unready guys to the title, and so it cheapens the value of the title. SmackDown is the prime example. We have AJ Styles vs. Kevin Owens and Jinder Mahal vs. Shinsuke Nakamura. I think anybody could understand an irregular fan confusing which title went to which feud.

I think if WWE had retained just the one world champion, and unless it was AJ Styles or maybe Kevin Owens, they would undoubtedly be someone on Raw right now. Braun Strowman and Roman Reigns come to mind immediately. Though I'm glad they are holding off Strowman a little bit longer. Perhaps Samoa Joe could be in that conversation sooner rather than later. Then of course you have Seth Rollins. And then the free agent John Cena. Ultimately though, I think the landscape of WWE would be very different.

 

[HORRORHOLIC]

Having two world champions sucks!! I've always thought it was ridiculous. There should be one championship that everyone in the company has as their ultimate goal. Having two champions make it seem less important

Now as far as the other titles. I'm not the biggest fan of the brand spit to begin with because it limits the matches we see. But if they have to do a brand split they should keep all the woman on one show and all the tag teams on the other, because by having them separated it REALLY limits the variety of matches for them.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

If you're looking at it from a purely ideological perspective, then having one, singular undisputed top championship is superior but you also have to look at how things are in reality. If you're going to have two different brands with its own wrestlers being used exclusively for that brand, then each brand is going to have to have its own top championship otherwise you already send a message that one brand doesn't mean as much from the very start.

One thing that helps this brand split is that the WWE Championship, the original World Championship created in 1963, is currently on SmackDown. Instead of creating a new championship for what was always seen as the B show, and still is to a healthy degree, you have THE top title defended there and that means there's almost no chance that Vince will purposely do something to lessen its value. We may sometimes disagree with some decisions he makes, including who is WWE Champion at times, but Vince has never genuinely tried to do anything to hurt it. In contrast, the World Heavyweight Championship, at least for the final few years of its existence, was booked as and clearly viewed as inferior to the WWE Championship; if anything, the last years it was around, the online community viewed the WHC as the unofficial upper mid-card championship as genuinely seemed to occupy the spot formerly held by the Intercontinental Championship.

The thing about WWE is that it's damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If you went back to a single World Championship, then you have complaints just as you will if you kept two of them. When JBL said that online fans would complain if they won the lottery, he was right.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Given the fact that we got Jinder Mahal as a champ, Ziggler challenging for a world title, Lesnar doing part-time work, Nakamura and Corbin are maybe the next champions after 5 months on the main roster, Balor became "world" champ after 1 month on the main roster and you have a roster where the only true draws and only true superstars are Lesnar, HHH, Cena and Undertaker and to a lesse extend Roman and Orton and everyone else is just getting there, then yeah, two world titles suck.

I always supported the notion "one company=one world title". You want brand titles? Then fucking make the IC championship and the US Championship into brand titles! They could end up getting more exposure and mean more rather than be viewed as toys and have the same guys feuding over them for 7 months straight.

In the original brand split, they had Austin, Rock, Undertaker, HHH, Hogan, Flair, Nash, Jericho, Angle, Rey Mysterio, Edge, Kane, RVD, Benoit, Guerrero, Big Show. And those guys were viewed as big fucking deals back then. 16 wrestlers you could name world champions and noone would question the decision. 16 wrestlers that could carry a show! That's insane! All bonafied names not only in the wrestling biz but also on the mainstream community. Of course you can create seperate shows!

This brand split should have been different. It should have been used to elevate the midcard championships and seperate the elite. But we're in the "everyone deserves it" era. The midcard era.

Let's review our champions:
Balor, never even realised he was a world champion.
Owens? One feel good moment and then 5 months of boredom. It would feel the same had he not won the belt, which means that his reign didn't really do anything for his name.
Goldberg and Lesnar? Part-timers that didn't really need the belt and just threw RAW out of balance.
Ambrose? Had potential but got lost.
Styles? Maybe they only reign that mattered, but he only feuded with Ambrose during it and somewhat Cena to whom he lost the belt.
Cena? Became champ just for the numbers. Wyatt? Transitional. Orton? Let's not talk about that. Jinder? Give me a break.
Nakamura and Corbin? Midcarders.

Let's face it. Lesnar could still do the thing with Goldberg and have matches with Joe and Strowman without the title. The whole feud between Chris and Owens ended up being for the US title instead. Jinder would have made a fine US champ or IC champ. Wyatt and Orton turns out never really needed the belt. Only Styles benefited from it and only Styles elevated the title.

 

[d_henderson1810]

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?

I'm not looking forward to the future either, with the possibility that "Shitstain" Nakamura (who, once he has removed his enormous mouthguard out of his yap, still can't be understood due to a combination of accent and lisping. But hey, he has a cool opera entrance), or Baron "Borin"" (Look, I have tatts and wear a mean leather jacket, so I am a badass, despite lacking personality and only being pushed for being really tall).

I would want one title. I said in another post, never being the main champion is not meaning that your career is a failure. "Million-Dollar Man", Jake Roberts, Ricky Steamboat, Roddy Piper, Greg Valentine, Rick Rude and Mr Perfect are beloved Legends and worthy HoFers, yet none of them won the main belt. Does that detract from the greatness of their careers?

The champion is the one in my mind, is "The Man", the face that the company is built around. The guy who main events WM, and is either champion or chasing the belt. Styles is that guy, Cena is, Orton is, Seth was, (I didn't mind Ambrose's run, at least he is a better in-ring competitor than Reigns), Owens could be that guy.

However, Brock can't be, because he isn't around enough. The anorexic Finn Balor or "Shitstain" Nakamura definitely aren't. Neither is "Borin" Corbin (hell, Corbin Bernsen would be a more credible champion, and he isn't even a wrestler).

Mahal is just an attempt for Vince to tap into the 1 billion population Indian market. How else do you explain a jobber who lost a pre-WM Battle Royal by being eliminated by an NFL player who wasn't even in the match a month earlier?( Here's an idea. Have Jinder win the Andre Royal, and make it mean something, like the winner gets a No. 1 contendership).

 

[AegonTargaryen]

You have a roster where the only true draws and only true superstars are Lesnar, HHH, Cena and Undertaker and to a lesser extent Roman and Orton and everyone else is just getting there, then yeah, two world titles suck.

You can't really consider Undertaker and HHH as draws any more, since HHH is virtually absent, and Undertaker practically retired.

So yeah, we're only left with Brock and Cena at the top, and Cena's little brother Orton, if you can even consider him that much of a draw or a star at this point. I'd say Roman Reigns is getting there, followed by Seth Rollins and Joe. Actually, I'd say Reigns and AJ Styles are Vince's best bet after Lesnar and Cena, at this point, and Orton's on the lower rung of the ladder.

I always supported the notion "one company=one world title". You want brand titles? Then fucking make the IC championship and the US Championship into brand titles! They could end up getting more exposure and mean more rather than be viewed as toys and have the same guys feuding over them for 7 months straight.

Totally. Right now, even the way the US and IC titles are booked isn't exactly invigorating, when you consider Styles who should clearly be world champion and/or engaged in scintillating feuds, intrigues, a faction like Club, but is practically being treated like Chris Jericho was, for YEARS. Just a mid-card workhorse.

Meanwhile, the IC title has seen no contenders or fresh feuds in over a year except for Ziggler, followed by Miz and Ambrose. That's three fucking people, for your IC title.

In an ideal world, Baron Corbin and Shinsuke Nakamura(even Finn Balor) would be feuding over, and having ladder matches for the IC title.

In the original brand split, they had Austin, Rock, Undertaker, HHH, Hogan, Flair, Nash, Jericho, Angle, Rey Mysterio, Edge, Kane, RVD, Benoit, Guerrero, Big Show. And those guys were viewed as big fucking deals back then. 16 wrestlers you could name world champions and noone would question the decision. 16 wrestlers that could carry a show! That's insane! All bonafied names not only in the wrestling biz but also on the mainstream community. Of course you can create seperate shows!

Granted, all 16 of them are bona fide stars, you've sort of included a few wrong ones, but they still had others and so it does make them 16.

For instance, Kevin Nash was pretty much obsolete at that point and not a very good performer, Rey had barely debuted and had a legacy only as a cruiserweight, Flair was like 56 yrs old, Austin and Rock were going/gone, and Hogan, well, too old.

They still had Lesnar, Angle, Taker, Edge, Benoit, and Big Show on Smackdown, which is HUGE, and HHH, Shawn Michaels, Kane, Rob Van Dam, Chris Jericho, Booker T(and I could go on) over on Raw. Any one of them could have been champion, and that's not including Goldberg and many others, or Cena, Batista and Orton from OVW.

This brand split should have been different. It should have been used to elevate the midcard championships and seperate the elite. But we're in the "everyone deserves it" era. The midcard era.

Absolutely! Can't agree more.

Balor in the first place is just too tiny, and had just debuted and they rushed to make him champion over Seth or Roman (for fuck's sake!), and now Shinsuke Nakamura is being rushed, and Baron "boring" Corbin doesn't even have the potential of a Sheamus on the mic or in the ring, and owing to his MITB win, he's already all but destined to be the WWE champion. Jesus.

Let's face it. Lesnar could still do the thing with Goldberg and have matches with Joe and Strowman without the title. The whole feud between Chris and Owens ended up being for the US title instead. Jinder would have made a fine US champ or IC champ. Wyatt and Orton turns out never really needed the belt. Only Styles benefited from it and only Styles elevated the title.

This, I firmly believe in.

Styles was so huge and red hot last year, with his feud with Cena , a full-fledged heel, so cocky and amusing, the best performer in the whole world. And they couldn't even sustain that.

It's not Styles' fault he's booked the way he is, but couldn't they see he would be selling a lot more merchandise as the cocky heel champion still, especially united with the Club or something?

But instead he's got to feud for the US title with Kevin Owens, for 6 months while Jinder, Baron Corbin and Shinsuke Nakamura battle for the WWE championship! Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I'm not looking forward to the future either, with the possibility that "Shitstain" Nakamura (who, once he has removed his enormous mouthguard out of his yap, still can't be understood due to a combination of accent and lisping. But hey, he has a cool opera entrance), or Baron "Borin"" (Look, I have tatts and wear a mean leather jacket, so I am a badass, despite lacking personality and only being pushed for being really tall).

@enormous mouthguard.

I don't get the push or appeal for either Corbin or Big Cass on Raw. They're so bland, generic, fresh off the boat, not very convincing on the Mic, and what not.

I used to feel Sheamus was just a midcarder, albeit decent grappler, but I've seen him deliver this ferocious expression as a tough Irishman, which can be seen often, such as with Seth Rollins in the recent backstage segment, and he does have that aspect of a Spartan or Viking. Plus fantastic in the ring.
But these two don't have any of that, and you're right, they're being overpushed for being tall.

The champion is the one in my mind, is "The Man", the face that the company is built around. The guy who main events WM, and is either champion or chasing the belt. Styles is that guy, Cena is, Orton is, Seth was, (I didn't mind Ambrose's run, at least he is a better in-ring competitor than Reigns), Owens could be that guy.

I agree, Seth used to be that guy, now Joe and Seth are kind of at the same level and getting there, Ambrose is just Ambrose, and Roman Reigns and AJ Styles, IMO, should be champions in their respective brands, period. Untouchable champions.

However, Brock can't be, because he isn't around enough. The anorexic Finn Balor or "Shitstain" Nakamura definitely aren't. Neither is "Borin" Corbin (hell, Corbin Bernsen would be a more credible champion, and he isn't even a wrestler).

Finn Balor is just too small for me to take him seriously as a World champion EVER, no matter how many kicks he does, especially considering he's even more yawn-inducing on the mic than Jack Swagger or Mark Henry (interestingly, the French have the adjective petit for "small" and in English we usually use the word "petite" to describe certain really small, tiny little women, whom I don't really like. Weird you could also use "petite" to describe Balor, right?)

I also never understood how anyone besides children could take his "demon king" persona seriously. May be I just haven't seen it much, but I'd assume you need size, presence and conviction to play the deranged Mankind like Mick Foley did, and Undertaker like Mark Callaway did. I just refuse to buy a very tiny person pretending to be a Demon. (Oh, and then there's Kane as well. Imagine X-pac being given the role of "Kane" instead!)

Mahal is just an attempt for Vince to tap into the 1 billion population Indian market. How else do you explain a jobber who lost a pre-WM Battle Royal by being eliminated by an NFL player who wasn't even in the match a month earlier?( Here's an idea. Have Jinder win the Andre Royal, and make it mean something, like the winner gets a No. 1 contendership).

I was sort of hopeful a few months ago and anticipated Mahal's win, but now I can safely say- Jinder Mahal as WWE champion is as abominable as it gets. He wouldn't even be a good US champion because Rusev and KO are far better at playing the foreign heel and being champions, besides also being much better in the ring.

Please hinder Jinder!

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I rejoiced when they merged the titles in late 2013 because the reality is that only one world title was needed where there was no roster split. I'd say that based on the way that WWE has attempted to book it's world champions, maybe they can't cope with two right now.

I rejoiced too! Albeit not until late 2015 as I had stopped watching before that, and I finally connected with Reigns, and it was all good, even with HHH and Sheamus feuding with him, and it got so much better when Reigns and Styles tore the house down, and Seth returned. It was all so good.

But, I think if WWE was to revert back to one world title, the brand split would be cheapend even more than it already has been. Whether it is necessary at this point, I'm not sure. But if WWE perhaps actually thought about what they were doing when they have these shakeups or drafts, then it wouldn't necessarily be a problem and already ready world title contenders would be present on the show. After all, during the first brand split, I didn't see it as a problem.

They certainly won't revert back to it anytime soon, unless something drastic happens.

It seems obvious the draft/roster split this time around wasn't that thought-out beforehand, but rushed, and they had far less talent and major players than last time around.

It's obvious they don't have that many people on a roster to contend for two men's main titles, and so if you involve Styles and KO even in a lengthy feud for the US title, and you rush a bland recently debuted Corbin, Nakamura, and the godforsaken Jinder Mahal into the WWE title picture, the whole structure will collapse, sooner or later.

Even Orton seems to have lost much of his appeal, and at this point, including him in the WWE title picture lends little gravitas, and you can't count Rusev either.

I think if WWE had retained just the one world champion, and unless it was AJ Styles or maybe Kevin Owens, they would undoubtedly be someone on Raw right now. Braun Strowman and Roman Reigns come to mind immediately. Though I'm glad they are holding off Strowman a little bit longer. Perhaps Samoa Joe could be in that conversation sooner rather than later. Then of course you have Seth Rollins. And then the free agent John Cena. Ultimately though, I think the landscape of WWE would be very different.

Agreed. We would've perhaps had a strong set of contenders in the title hunt in Roman Reigns, AJ Styles, Rollins, Kevin Owens, Samoa Joe, to a lesser extent, part-timers Cena and Lesnar, and still as future possibilities- Strowman, Ambrose, Wyatt, or Rusev.

 

[Radical]

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?

Interesting points. But let's take a look at them from a WWE historical perspective.

When WWE only had one supreme world champion and was at its peak? It was the Attitude Era with the likes of The Rock, Stone Cold, Mankind, Triple H, Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Kane at the forefront. Yes, you could say the cream rose to the top and it made for very heated and interesting pursuits for the World Title.

There was so much interest that they broke into two shows: Raw and SmackDown and still had enough content to fill both shows without needing two World Champs.

But, let's not forget that, while the TOP of the card and the World Title scene was intensely interesting, the mid-card titles often had times where they were not given really much attention OR treated basically as a joke.

There were times where the European Champ would have a 5 minute match and get less time for a story than the Women get today. A time where the Hardcore title was switching hands nightly or weekly. A time where a frumpy stooge named Gerald Briscoe was the HARDCORE Champion. And where Stephanie McMahon was Women's Champ for a long period of time, often nights where she didn't have a match or hardly any Women wrestlers in the company to base a feud off of.

What, I think, was a big part of driving the interest during the Attitude Era was big heel factions that tormented others on the roster and created great tension and great babyfaces to emerge. Also, it gave some talent who were not always wrestling every night a chance to be on the show part of a faction in some way and then it didn't seem so random, like it often does today, if they are thrown in a match because they at least have a relation to a team or goal.


Now, look at a time when WWE had two separate brands and separate World Titles. Probably the best time for WWE was pretty shortly after the initial brand split around 2003 until 2007 or so. During that time there was still some top star talent in the company so both brands had star power.


However, before WWE had NXT the way it is now and the Performance Centre there was no particular pressure or obvious progression of talent moving along to the point where they pretty much have to be moved up to a main roster or released because they can't be 'developing' forever. Before NXT, you didn't know if anyone was coming up or in so if you did have one roster and one top title and a bunch of talent on the main roster being unused you could just 'solve' it by quickly signing new talent and debuting them.


So, I would say yes, ideally it would be good if the WWE Creative team could handle ONE roster, two shows, with ONE top title, maybe two mid-card titles and ONE tag team title and ONE Women's title.

But, let's face it. They have not been able to do that. Maybe down the road they will try again.


In the current situation they are in with NXT talent that keeps developing and being ready to move up and current main roster talent that actually have some star power being heavily used and everyone else being wasted, I think the best case scenario is WWE finds a way to make the most of out of each show and their titles.

Just think of each show as two mini-companies. Yes, we all know they are under the same umbrella but for the sake of making sense of it, look at it like Raw is like WWE (the "Stephanie owned" company) and SmackDown is like WCW (the "Shane owned" company) and they are separate rosters so separate titles makes sense.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I remember during 2002-2003, (the first brand extension), they had one champion, who went across both shows, and defended his title at both brands PPVs.

But if you do it, it has to be someone who is great on the mike, and sell tickets. Back then, Hulk Hogan, Triple H, "Bad Ass" Undertaker and the Rock, carried the sole WWE World Title, and appeared on both shows, and carried them. It opened up a range of opponents, and sometimes the champ would have a contender on both brands at the same time. But they seperated the titles when Brock took the WWE Title to "Smackdown" with him.

I would like to see this again, but the only guys I could see pulling off this role is Cena, Orton, A.J. Styles, and Kevin Owens. Also, Jericho, when he is there. Brock could as well, but only if he does every PPV.

This would make the title more relevant, and keep it out of the hands of less deserving "flavours of the month" and allow for a more legitimate champion and company figurehead.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

No the two different brands need two different world titles.

It wouldn't make any sense for Jinder to also show up on Raw or for Lesnar to also show up on Smackdown.

All wrestlers should only appear on one brand.

 

[d_henderson1810]

No the two different brands need two different world titles.

It wouldn't make any sense for Jinder to also show up on Raw or for Lesnar to also show up on Smackdown.

All wrestlers should only appear on one brand.

By having one champion across both the brands, you wouldn't get Jinder or Brock as champion.

You would get only guys who can carry the show, and enhance the show and the title. People like Balor and Nakamura can't, so they would get built naturally, until they are ready.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Personally I would have only one world champion, Which is suposed to represent the best in the world, Two world champions doesn't make sense and contradict each other.
Have the one shared world title only defended on big shows to make the defenses mean more and promote the US and Intercontinental titles into the top titles for each show, All titles would then mean more and people may actually start to care about those titles again.
Currently I can barely name many recent US and Intercontintal title reign histories but back in the 80s and 90s I could name them all.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

They tried this during the first brand split and it was a nightmare to deal with because everytime a champion was losing the title, the would go to whatever brand the new champ was on and it was confusing. That's why it last 5 months before they decided to change it.

I think they would ran into the same problem if they would do this again. I think if you want to make the brand split important, you need to limit the number of roster change and keep it with a world champion per brand,

 

[Snugglebites]

The Universal title is superior. Are we really supposed to believe that the WWE and Universal titles are equal to each other? Just look at who's holding them.

 

[Radical]

Simple put, with two brands with separate rosters you need to have all separate titles, including the top title (WWE or Universal).

It is confusing chaos if rosters are supposed to be separated by brand but then somehow the WWE Champ is supposed to be on both shows and his opponents are supposed to be from both shows. It creates a mess.

You either go with ONE roster that can appear on both shows and then have one World title, one or two mid-card titles, one tag title and one women's title OR separate rosters per brand and their own titles.

People don't get all bent out of shape because NXT has their own top title, tag titles and women's title. That's largely because they have their own roster so it makes sense for them to have their own titles.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Having two world titles is fine when you have a deep roster that can fill both brands and you put the title on credible people.

The best example of this was around 2002 to early 2004. RAW had Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Goldberg, and Chris Benoit as their Champion while Smackdown! had Kurt Amgle, Brock Lesnar, and Eddie Guerrero as Champions.

Problem is when the roster is so thin, like now, or when you put the title on someone in one brand who isn't a credible Champion or built up well as a Champion. The Great Khali, CM Punk (his first run), Jack Swagger, Alberto Del Rio, JBL, Bray Wyatt and Jinder Mahal.

Then you have problems.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Having only one World Championship is stupid when you have two brands. I've stated this before and my opinion has not changed. Radical is 100% correct. Raw and Smackdown need to be presented as separate entities in order for the brand split to make sense. No one is above the brand lines except for legends. Those who say that Raw should have the women, Smackdown should have the tag teams, and that there should only be one World Champion, have no idea what they are talking about. The WWE is a business. They will make more money if the fans have more options for shows to attend.

If a fan wants to see the World Champion in action but he's current working angles with Raw opponents, he won't show up on Smackdown that cycle. What if that same fan has a Smackdown event coming up in his town but not a Raw one? He's not as likely to go if his World Champion who he wanted to see is not there. Now take that same scenario with the title structure of today. He may not have a Universal Champion at the Smackdown event in his town, but that fan may get to see the World Heavyweight Champion. WWE knows exactly what it's going. It may not appeal to some groups of fans but it does appeal to their main demographics. One World Champion only works if there is one roster as opposed to two main brands.