Lets Unify the WWE title and WHC title

[tripleddd]

This thread may have been posted before and if it has I apologise but I think that the wwe needs to unify the WWE title and the WHC title once and for all.We as fans really only need one undisputed champion.
The benefits are quite simple the No 1 contenders spot becomes more competitive. The US and IC titles become more prominent. The undisputed title will have more kudos. We as fans are always left wondering what if aren't we ?

 

[Machianzo]

I'm really begining to wonder what it is with this forum and the love of unifying every title under the sun.

With that off my chest, no. In my personal opinion, having the two belts makes things much more interesting to watch.

As for competition, how? I mean, look at the WWE title fued between Orton and Cena. Now imagine if there'd only been ONE title at that time. Having two titles allows us to simply pay attention to one if we don't like the storyline thats heading on with the other, and I enjoy that privillage. Same reason I'm agianst brand unification too. For the last year or so, I've enjoyed Smackdown's storylines much, much more than Raw's (with the exception of The Miz winning the title).

So, to sum up my thoughts, no, I don't believe the two heavyweight titles should be unified, or any titles for that matter. Having an alternative within the E' seems to me to be a smart to choice to get as many people interested as possible. Especially with TNA in the state it is now.

 

[Heartachetonight926]

No.



Let's not.



The Titles being unified has been rumoured for years, but has never happened, because it doesn't have to happen..........Move on people.

 

[HamSwissman]

I can see why people are against the idea of unifying the titles, but to me, something needs to be done to name a true champion. Right now, it would be like everyone in the NFL stopping to celebrate the AFC and NFC championships and sending everyone home with that. Really? Really?

I always kind of liked the idea of a champion vs. champion match every year at WrestleMania. The winner would get a trophy or something, as well as keeping his title and being known as the "WrestleMania ?? Champion". The loser would vacate his title and a tourney, battle royal or whatever could be held in the coming weeks to name a new champion of that brand. The only flaw I find in this is trying to decide what to do with the Royal Rumble. Oh well. Just a thought.

 

[Chauncy Talon]

I'm really begining to wonder what it is with this forum and the love of unifying every title under the sun.

With that off my chest, no. In my personal opinion, having the two belts makes things much more interesting to watch.

As for competition, how? I mean, look at the WWE title fued between Orton and Cena. Now imagine if there'd only been ONE title at that time. Having two titles allows us to simply pay attention to one if we don't like the storyline thats heading on with the other, and I enjoy that privillage. Same reason I'm agianst brand unification too. For the last year or so, I've enjoyed Smackdown's storylines much, much more than Raw's (with the exception of The Miz winning the title).

So, to sum up my thoughts, no, I don't believe the two heavyweight titles should be unified, or any titles for that matter. Having an alternative within the E' seems to me to be a smart to choice to get as many people interested as possible. Especially with TNA in the state it is now.

I totally agree on that. Why do everybody want the titles to unify in this forum? Unifying the titles will make the Main Eventers become lower then what they are. Remember when we had only 1 title with two brands? Gosh, that was horrible. Cody Rhodes, Dolph Ziggler, Sheamus, John Morrison would not be in the Main Event.

 

[Cenation716]

I'm sorry but unifying the two world titles is a stupid idea. There's 2 brands for a reason & two titles for a reason. If the fans like heels, they usually have a champion to watch just like the other world champ is usually a face. Or maybe you like the wrestling ability of one champion better. Same with brand preference & storlyines with the titles. I think unifying the Womens & Divas titles was stupid, as well as the two tag titles. Now we have SD vs. RAW every week or on PPVs. I'm not a fan of unification.

 

[TheMainMan32]

Having more than one title devalues both. There's honestly no reason for both the WHC and the WWE Title to exist at the same time. It was a stupid idea when they first did it, and it's part of the reason that the titles are passed around like a drunken prom date.

 

[drummerboy144]

I totally agree on that. Why do everybody want the titles to unify in this forum? Unifying the titles will make the Main Eventers become lower then what they are. Remember when we had only 1 title with two brands? Gosh, that was horrible. Cody Rhodes, Dolph Ziggler, Sheamus, John Morrison would not be in the Main Event.

maybe they shouldnt be in the main event just yet then! remember in 1992 when hbk became a singles competitor and it took him 4 years to actually become champion, he slowly develop into a main eventer and he earned his spot as THE man but of course now a days you dont have that and the main reasons is because there are two championships and there are too many ppvs (wich allows us to see the same matches over and over). So a dude comes to wwe in two months and is champion??!! thats because they need desperately main eventers and they dont have time, and the talents dont completely live up to their potential. botton line is they should be one champion and at least 7 ppvs only a year to resolve some of the issues in wrestling, of course there are more problems in wrestling for it to be good again(attitude fan boys that cant move on) but wwe would never do that cause they would be losing money since everything vince does people buy into it! so maybe one day we will have 4 world champions but people will like that because it gives people like primo and zach ryder the opportunity to be main eventers esh!!

 

[Takerfan]

No!
That would make the product REALLY BAD.
There are just too many main event players in the wwe right now.

Think about this for a second, if HHH stays around for a little while, what would the tv seen look like if he wants to be champion again. HHH headlining each and every ppv for the next year or so. No thanks.

P.S. I have nothing against HHH, I just used his name as an example.

 

[UnBEARaBULLfan]

Every week there is a thread about this and turning Cena heel which there has been two of today its rediculous. No the titles dont need to be United, with the brand split and the amount of wrestlers in the WWE there's enough titles to go around and I feel they're necessary and provide their own values to the programing.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Having more than one title devalues both. There's honestly no reason for both the WHC and the WWE Title to exist at the same time. It was a stupid idea when they first did it, and it's part of the reason that the titles are passed around like a drunken prom date.

Once could argue that it's because we have two world titles the belts aren't changing hands as often. If you look at the Undisputed Title back in 2002 you notice that 6 different champions in a span of 8 months. Ever since the split we had longer term champions.

 

[SullivanSmith]

I actually think they do need to unify them, although I don't think they need to do it urgently. It just feels weird to me to have two World champions in one company. I would suggest keeping both the IC and US titles and perhaps put a little more importance in those titles than they have now.

But if they never combine the titles, I'm not going to be upset.

 

[CaptainZaltan]

It's pro wrestling; it's not real. Comparisons to the NFL, UFC, or any actual sport are meaningless. The rules and logic that apply to pro wrestling championships are fictitious, just like the rules that dictate what happens in a comic book or a film. The logic of the world can be violated, and it can ruin the product. But it doesn't need to be real world logic. If it were, the Intercontinental title would be the first to go, as it has no identifiable purpose in a real sporting competition. In the world of the WWE, having two championships makes sense because the two WWE brands are supposed to be competing with each other; they have tried to steal each others talent, their general managers have often been at odds and in competition with each other, etc.

In terms of the real world value of having two titles , it offers variety. One world title would likely just pass between Cena, HHH, Orton, the Undertaker, etc. It would be dull; hell, it WAS dull. Having two champions also allows both brands to create equally important plots internal to their own rosters. And if you're also suggesting that the brand extension should end, I disagree. As with the titles, having two brands just offers variety. It allows the WWE to showcase and push more talent, and theoretically it should allow for a lighter travel schedule for the WWE's performers. It also cuts back on the over-saturation of certain wrestlers without preventing the WWE from making money from more programming. Sure, the split hasn't always been used as effectively as it could be, and the lines between brands aren't always clear, but overall the split is a good thing. At the very least, if you don't like something stupid that's being implemented on one show (say, a celebrity guest host or something), or if you don't like the roster or the title picture on one show, you can just watch the other brand. At best, the split allows the WWE to satisfy different groups of fans, such as by using Smackdown as the 'wrestling' show and RAW as the 'entertainment' show, as it's done in the past. Or by gearing one show more to an adult audience, and the other more to the PG fans.

 

[HamSwissman]

It would be an easy "yes" from me if the roster split was ended, but that doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon. I've already presented my idea of having the champions face at Mania, so I'll give another idea a try. Why not unify the titles and have the Undisputed Championship defended solely on Raw, acknowledging that Raw is the #1 show and the Undisputed Champion is the #1 champion at the same time. Elevate the U.S. Title or the IC Title to the main belt on Smackdown, and treat it like the IC title used to be treated, like the stepping stone to the main title scene. Less title belts make the guys wearing the ones that are there look stronger, and makes it easier to build stars. Throwing one of about 20 belts on a guy right now doesn't do much. Ask poor Sheamus.

 

[dkphoenix2k10]

I think unifying the titles is the final step in a brand unification. The problem with both concepts are that there are simply too many viable superstars to warrant such a move. Unifying the Divas championship and the Tag Team Championships made sense because there are not enough high caliber Divas or active Tag Teams to warrant titles on both brands. Unifying the two heavyweight championships would put a strain on the upper mid-carders who could normally be pushed for a heavyweight run because the field would be too saturated from the current big names WWE has (Cena, Orton, Show, Kane, Taker, HHH, Mysterio, Morrison, Del Rio, etc)...

 

[HamSwissman]

It's pro wrestling; it's not real. Comparisons to the NFL, UFC, or any actual sport are meaningless. The rules and logic that apply to pro wrestling championships are fictitious, just like the rules that dictate what happens in a comic book or a film. The logic of the world can be violated, and it can ruin the product. But it doesn't need to be real world logic. If it were, the Intercontinental title would be the first to go, as it has no identifiable purpose in a real sporting competition. In the world of the WWE, having two championships makes sense because the two WWE brands are supposed to be competing with each other; they have tried to steal each others talent, their general managers have often been at odds and in competition with each other, etc.

In terms of the real world value of having two titles , it offers variety. One world title would likely just pass between Cena, HHH, Orton, the Undertaker, etc. It would be dull; hell, it WAS dull. Having two champions also allows both brands to create equally important plots internal to their own rosters. And if you're also suggesting that the brand extension should end, I disagree. As with the titles, having two brands just offers variety. It allows the WWE to showcase and push more talent, and theoretically it should allow for a lighter travel schedule for the WWE's performers. It also cuts back on the over-saturation of certain wrestlers without preventing the WWE from making money from more programming. Sure, the split hasn't always been used as effectively as it could be, and the lines between brands aren't always clear, but overall the split is a good thing. At the very least, if you don't like something stupid that's being implemented on one show (say, a celebrity guest host or something), or if you don't like the roster or the title picture on one show, you can just watch the other brand. At best, the split allows the WWE to satisfy different groups of fans, such as by using Smackdown as the 'wrestling' show and RAW as the 'entertainment' show, as it's done in the past. Or by gearing one show more to an adult audience, and the other more to the PG fans.

CaptainZaltan, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on most of what you've posted. By using the "it isn't real" logic, one could argue that the title belts are useless all together. I think we could agree that this isn't the case.

As for the roster split, I can live with it. However, I feel it has ran it's course, and personally would like to see it put to an end. At one point the WWE roster was so flooded with main-event talent that they nearly had to do this, especially since they screwed up the WCW invasion angle. Now, sorry to say, the roster isn't nearly as stacked, and the majority of each show is taken up by wrestlers who aren't ready to be where they are. Simply placing guys in the main event scene of a show does not automatically make them a main-eventer. Trying to build too many guys up at once usually means that all of them suffer. However, if the roster was combined again, it would actually mean something for someone like Sheamus to hold the Undisputed Championship. His reigns as WWE Champ are all but a distant memory now, and so is his push. A shame, as I feel he could be one of the top babyfaces in the company.

 

[TheMainMan32]

Wrestling also isn't like any other form of media in which they try to sell you on the fact that it's real (hence the term "marks"). Also, while wrestling is ficticious, it still requires the WWE to build believable characters. The Championship is really nothing more than a status symbol. If said status symbol isn't very important, than it does nothing to help build up the character. Having two titles devalues both. The Miz isn't the best in the World, or the WWE. He's the best on his own show. Kinda lowers his worth huh?

 

[Calderownz]

I personally enjoy the split in the two major championships. It allows for more interesting story lines.

Think of it this way....

One of the biggest problems you hear about with/for PPV is that the mid-card area is weaker in comparison to the main event level matches. Well, this helps quite those complaints.

When one championship is getting the biggest build -- generally, the Raw championship -- the other championship manages to still matter and can lead into that match. So, you're guaranteed two meaningful matches on each major show without having to dig into much of a creative bag. People simply care about the championships.

Then, you have less of a mid-card section to fill out and all the matches seem a little more intriguing. On top of that, you can have two, number one contendership matches, and you're essentially looking at 4 meaningful matches right on the spot. Naturally.

Doesn't always have to be that way. It just makes more sense to keep those championships separate. Especially with two different brands a roster that needs that to stay in place in order to prosper.

 

[ChiefAlot]

the two belts are great. if you did not read WWE CHAMP & WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMP. they are different belts. to bring them into 1 is crazy. we have 2 shows, raw smackdown. That shows where each champ is at. Now I know guys go from smackdown to raw like everyother day (& I wish they wouldnt) but thats what brings the viewers. It gives more high stakes matches at ppv's and reg matches. IMO the WHC is the best belt to have. NUFF SAID.

 

[Klown_Karnage]

Personally, I'd be against the unification of the two main event titles. The primary reason being the fact that the WWE has two main shows, thus one main event title for each. Even when ECW was around, it had its own version of these titles.

The main problem with unifying the two, in my opinion, is that it would diminish the importance of one show at a time. Whatever show had the main event title at the time would be the important show. The other would be the less important show. I doubt very much that Vinnie Mac would want either show to become a "lesser" show. It'd mean a drop in ratings, mostlike. I know a few short periods have occurred where one show had both main event titles, but this is rare and doesn't last long. More often than not, you'll have one main event title per show.

 

[UrbanDynasty]

The main point in question is how they are going to approach the unification and the months afterward.
If WWE does it at the wrong time, they will lose a ton of fans and take a revenue blow
On the other hand if it is done well, at the right time, given to someone who is ready and will make the biggest impact with it (ie. chris jericho style).
what i would LIKE but not want to see is someone like J-Mo Winning WWE title against the miz, and somehow make his way into the whc title match via general manager. And yes, this involves a Morrison heel turn by bribing or blackmailing teddy long but it would be a good angle but something that has been done.
What i would want to see is someone like Miz (yes i said it) Hold the title and be tied to the anonymous gm and get into a match with edge / del rio at say Summerslam and win and unify the titles and come out next week and have a very badass title that resembles the old pre-cena undisputed wwe title. But thats just me. I wouldn't like to see it at wm either imo.

 

[conici]

Lets unify every title in WWE simple answer is no WWE needs 2 titles to keep things interseting lets say imagine if the only title fued was cena/orton or any cena fued to be honest things whould get very stale I enjoy watching the 2 title fueds between the 2 brands it keeps thing fresh to a certain point

 

[GrandSword]

I would prefer one Champion.

At the moment the WHC was given to Edge because Kane wasn't working out. The fact that there was no one else good enough to give it to speaks volumes. It means the belt really is inconsepquential and there is a champion for champion's sake. Not becasue the brand needs one.

The titles need to be unified and then if a wrestler is named Champion then it would mean something, unlike Edge's 11 reighns, Swagger's porly booked reign etc. Miz appears on both shows anyway at the moment. Why not have the champion appear on both shows just like it did at the beginning. It may prove a challenge for the creative team but they need to pull their socks up anyway.

The one champion will bring legitamacy back to whoever is the Champion and can only be a good thing. The champ would be the best in WWE not just on Raw or SD, but overall, and all guys shoul be trying to get him. That way a more even spread of the roster could occur instead of Raw having all the talent and SD being a joke...

 

[daleo1992]

i think they should unify the belts because: it makes the belt more important. it makes all the young wreslters work their ASSES OFF to try to be the best they can be and reach the main event. it makes creative work harder to make sure they make main eventers who will stick. two titles doesnt work anymore because the two secondary titles aren't woth fighting for. For example, say there were two championships when shawn michaels was coming up, what if instead of shawn michaels busting his ass off working his way up the card and creative being, well, creative, they were did a half assed job and just put shawn michaels on smackdown! and had him win the title on a random episode after wrestlemania, would he be the legend he is today? i dont think so. What if there was only one world championship and therefore the ic and us titles would be more important, do you think there would be a failed world champ like say jack swagger? No becasue he would have been tested as a champion with a run with a prestigious ic belt. They would see that he isnt quite ready for the big belt yet and he would work harder to improve, instead of having a meaningless world title reign, and devaluing that title. I know this is a lot bunched up but i hope you kind of get the picture.

 

[ITALIAN NYC]

I would say unify them. Not only would it make the title much more important, it would also make the IC title extremely important again. Main event level guys fighting for the IC title like back in the old days. Also the US title will have much more appeal. I think it would make things better. I also believe they should cut the roster a little bit also