Lets Unify the WWE title and WHC title

[deforty]

No offense but that is an awful suggestion and cheesy at best. Wrestling is an individual sport and nothing like the 4 main sports. The whole Raw vs Smackdown thing is bad enough in it's own. They are both still WWE. So a war between WWE and WWE makes absolutely no sense kind of like the seperation of the shows. Especially when you constantly have stars from one show appearing on the other. Just eliminate the whole "brand" thing and simply have WWE. Start taking shots at TNA and have the real Brand war like back in the WWE / WCW days.

None taken, but a Raiders vs Cowboys is not the NFL vs the NFL. A Yankees vs Red Sox is not the MLB vs MLB. Is it not the exact same thing? I mean we have General Managers in all of the sports and I do remember a Penguins/Islanders game that had more fights in it than a boxing card. I know its individual, but you have people that only watch Raw or only watch Smackdown, so this would bring an interest into it in some form for both shows. I hate the current draft and how it is supposed to shake things up, but if the Stars on each brand said we are proud of where we are and make it more of a rivalry I think it would bring in more appeal to both shows, then when TNA(if they can) get to where Vince is actually looking at them more than he does now then attack them. I constantly look back at what made them successful and made them grow and can only think that they could change something and make it a little more interesting than what we have now. It's dull, the exact same thing we have seen for 10 years and maybe a little change looking into the past for inspiration along with a little change might make more people want to watch again. I don't know but it was a thought.

 

[deforty]

if i remember correctly, WCW had Thunder as basically the jobber show, where all the midcarders wrestled and Nitro was for the "big" stars and they never had a brand split.. guess i got a little off topic.. anyway, yes, unify all the belts

Thunder started out that way then it became the Hogan and NWO show. They had everyone going back and forth, that is the exact same thing WWF was doing at the same time. You had Hogan on both shows, you had Rock, Austin, Mankind, UT on both shows. Yes I know they split it up due to the influx of wrestlers, but they have kept the same amount of wrestlers to this day on their roster. If they combined both shows 30-40 wrestlers would be let go in a matter of months. I don't mind the jumping back forth now, but I would like to keep it a minimum. I just don't want to see Cena on both shows consitantly or the Miz or HHH, or whomever, that is what we will get, plus he will fued with edge for a while, then miz, then whomever, but it will be the exact same thing we had before.

 

[VABurghman]

I didn't say anything about replacing people with jobbers. I said add matches with jobbers from local towns. That's the way it used to be leaving the mid-carders to have occassional TV matches and the main eventers for big PPV events. Which BTW would be a good reason to bring back the old NWA TV Title. Combining the rosters and eliminating Smackdown would make Raw stronger. There would be far more match possibilities than there are now. Eliminate 90% of the talking that goes on and add more matches to keep these guys all involved. Seriously, in a 2 hour show there are maybe 6 matches. Maybe. Out of 2 hours, at least an hours worth is talk. Plus, with all of the talent out there, it wouldn't be that hard to take some of that talent and make a true tag team division. We already have Corre holding the titles. Reunite Hart Foundation, we have the Uso's. There is the building blocks. If they were game for it, reunite Edge and Christian. See who else is available to make a good tag team and let it stick for a good while. With all of the talent available with the roster unified, it could be reorganized to breathe life into dead divisions.

 

[The Champ]

Why would WWE want to eliminate their biggest draws from one of their TV shows? Guys like John Cena, Randy Orton, CM Punk, and The Miz are more than enough starpower to get people to tune into Raw weekly. Why would WWE move other big stars like Rey Mysterio and Edge over there, when they're not needed? Why not have those two guys be the babyface cornerstones of SmackDown, similar to the way Cena and Orton are on Raw? That way, you have a "babyface for the kids" (Cena and Mysterio) as well as an "edgier babyface" (Orton and Edge) on each show. If anything, WWE should be putting more effort in to build SmackDown back up to being an equal, or near equal, show to Raw.

 

[xcoN]

This is what I don't get about when people make this suggestion. If the champions are jumping from show to show, it would actually make for less feuds, not more. For example, let's say John Cena is the world champion and he's feuding with Triple H, a Raw superstar. Where does SmackDown go from there? What's happening on SD during that entire feud? Does it get cut short and only last a month so a SmackDown guy can get a shot? What purpose do the main event superstars of each show have, when the title is the focus of the other show? They're fighting over nothing. Having two world titles gives the biggest superstars on each show a distinct purpose, which they can build other storylines around in the process. But the foundation is always there, and thus, people are far less likely to get lost in the shuffle.

The same goes for the midcard titles, perhaps even more so for those actually. The midcard guys struggle to get time as it is. So we want to unify those titles and have them get even less time? Should we just stick half the current midcard guys on Superstars? Because that's what would happen. Again, if John Morrison is the Intercontinental Champion and he's feuding with Kofi Kingston on Raw, what happens to Daniel Bryan and Sheamus? They would just fall into oblivion. In fact, there would be even less room for guys like Sheamus and Wade Barrett to get themselves back into the main event picture, since the belt might not even be on their show at a particular time. It doesn't work. The current system is much better and allows for more time and exposure for everyone.

No. 1 contendership could happen. You don't HAVE to have people feuding for a title. Bryan and sheamus could feud to help build someone up so later on they could go onto getting a title shot. It doesn't mean just because they aren't feuding for a title they get pushed away. As for 1 WHC/WWE champion (i'd rather have WHC since the WWE title has no credibility) its the same thing. 2 titles means the same people on the same shows will get the title shots and the feuds. Getting it down to one belt would mean more, I dunno how people see it as less feuds. Example: Del Rio is WHC he can go to raw or S.D. and feud with cena, orton, sheamus, punk, ziggler, edge, rey, taker, HHH, and maybe some new stars as opposed to just staying on S.D. and feuding with 2 people. Doesn't mean the rest get buried, they just feud with others until they get a title shot. Building up someone is most important and not rushing people into title shots. Morrisons title shot failed horribly not just because hes not a good wrestler but he was rushed and got one chance and lost. No build up at all for that.

 

[Rinstone]

the belts will not be unified until the business drops to points so low we are talking about many other things like, will WWE survive?
Breaking off Smackdown to a second brand is just that, a 2nd source of income. If you have one show, one belt, one tour you have one income source.
With Smackdown having it's own tour you need a headliner to sell those tickets. A champion is that headliner.
2 belts equals better business.
Be careeful what you wish for. The live tour is where the WWE makes a large part of it's money. if they drop to one tour and one belt that means the business is down and we do not want that.

 

[Daniel]

There are arguments for and against and I've still not made my mind up about title unification. There are things I am adamant about. The midcard titles should not be unified. There should not be a TV Title. In fact, no more titles should be added.

However, the deal with the world championships are a little more complicated. On the one hand, having two means someone can come, surprise everyone and win a world championship without having to bear the weight of being the "#1 guy" (a la Sheamus or Swagger). WWE is a big company. Two shows, two rosters - it makes sense to have two top prizes.

But the argument for unification is one of logic. Is it logical to have two world champions? Absolutely not. But that's the only strong argument I can see.

Oh boy. This hasn't been suggested before.

Sarcasm aside, the inconsistencies are clear as day. 2 World titles open up doors to such mistakes as Jack Swagger and Dolph Ziggler as World Champions. No real issue with having two midcard belts as it fits the size of the roster (combined or brand split). I get that there are two brands, much to my discontent about it. But it just seems absurd to have a World Championship kick off the show and another one end it.

Yeah, because giving young guys an opportunity to get into the main event is absolutely ridiculous, right?

 

[VABurghman]

None taken, but a Raiders vs Cowboys is not the NFL vs the NFL. A Yankees vs Red Sox is not the MLB vs MLB. Is it not the exact same thing?

No. It's not the same. It's actually apples to oranges in comparison. WWE vs WCW would have been the same when they had the Monday Night Wars. WWE vs TNA is where the battle should be and would make sense. Seperate ownership both vying for fan support.

Raw / Smack down both have the same owner. WWE / Vince McMahon. Yes, each has a "General Manager". But ultimately, everything is decided at WWE Headquarters / writers. The don't truly work in a competetive sense so much as a "how do we make more money for WWE" sense. They don't compete for fan support against each other, they work to have the same fans watching both shows.

Sports teams all have seperate owners, all with a GM or Director of Player Personnel depending on each teams title. Cowboys Jerry Jones, Raiders Al Davis. The League doesn't own them. The league doesn't orchestrate what they do. So no, Cowboys vs Raiders is not NFL vs NFL. The Cowboys aren't concerned about winning over Raiders fans. They care about Cowboys fans and winning the Superbowl. Same for the Raiders.

 

[arkady]

I'm gonna say the WHC is the best because hey, it's the champ of the world.. while the WWE champ is only the champ of the WWE Universe.

Oh, yes. Three reasons for this:

1. The one you already said.

2. WHC belt is simply classier looking.

3. The Miz has (AFAIK) made a single clean defence of his title, and that was against an old man (Jerry Lawler - no disrespect). At the same time Edge had his finishing move banned and was made to defend his title with the odds stacked as far against as Vickie could make them. And he did. Result: The Miz appears as an illegitimate champion, and The Edge seems really REALLY deserving of his title.

VABurghman, it doesnt make sense to eliminate Smackdown, combine the rosters and have a bunch of jobber matches. 1st of all the roster is far to large to go back to just having Raw, almost half of the talent would get future endeavored. Then you're gonna replace them with jobbers? Raw would be far worse then it already is. I agree with unifying the belts, and having all champs be able to cross brands, but this only works if the rosters are more balanced. If Raw is always superior to Smackdown, then all the titles would realistically stay on Raw. So at the next draft, please Vince, more balance! Second there should be a set number of ways to get specific title shots since there's no #1 contender system. There's already $ in the bank (and there should be only 1 with 1 world title), Royal Rumble with the automatic WM title shot (and it should be a main event shot, not a card opener), winning a dual brand King of the Ring (which should have semi finals and finals at a PPV like night of champs) and throw in the winning captain at bragging rights so they have more then a dumb trophy to win.

I have nothing against the brand split. It's a good way to make the most of a large roster. Having some inter-brand competition is great too. (Survivor Series trophy? How about each brand has their own King of the Ring competition, with the two winners facing each other to be the WWE King of the Ring?)

Having a single top champion wouldn't be difficult either. You could give each brand a turn at nominating a #1 contender for the title, which is then defended at PPV (or if the GM own both title holder and #1 contender, on their show if they want). It wouldn't be hard to organise and would legitimise title runs far more IMO.

 

[VABurghman]

.

3. The Miz has (AFAIK) made a single clean defence of his title, and that was against an old man (Jerry Lawler - no disrespect). At the same time Edge had his finishing move banned and was made to defend his title with the odds stacked as far against as Vickie could make them. And he did. Result: The Miz appears as an illegitimate champion, and The Edge seems really REALLY deserving of his title.

I have nothing against the brand split. It's a good way to make the most of a large roster. Having some inter-brand competition is great too. (Survivor Series trophy? How about each brand has their own King of the Ring competition, with the two winners facing each other to be the WWE King of the Ring?)

Having a single top champion wouldn't be difficult either. You could give each brand a turn at nominating a #1 contender for the title, which is then defended at PPV (or if the GM own both title holder and #1 contender, on their show if they want). It wouldn't be hard to organise and would legitimise title runs far more IMO.

These are more reasons for combining the rosters. Two #1 contenders? That would lead to more and more gimmick matches that should be reserved for anything OTHER than title matches or contender matches. Those matches should be mano-e-mano.

 

[blkshp]

The is VA, I don't think your suggestions are bad, I just don't think Vince would ever go backwards like that. He has two networks paying for two shows, there's no way he'd get rid of one of them. Second, having local jobbers makes sense for Superstars, because everybody expects squashes there, but Raw has been built up since the attitude era to have top or mid card talent in every match, people might tune out if they see unknown jobber vs Sheamus for example, to watch monday night football even if they like wrestling. That's what Vince is terrified of. Add to the fact that Vince loves promos (hell Sheamus and Daniel Bryan were cut from WM just for Rocks promo it would seem), so he's not going to make Raw a pure wrestling show now. I just don't see those things happening.

 

[TheKingHustla]

I think they need the belts to spotlight more superstars. If the miz didnt have the gold, he wouldnt be relevant, but if edge didnt have the belt, christian and del rio wouldnt be relevant. The championships give a easy storyline to make guys relevant. If you combine the titles, who would be champ? the miz? or edge? and who would compete for the gold? del rio? a del rio/miz rivalry would not be remotely as interesting as the edge/delrio/christian rivalry. maybe they should combine the US and the Inc, and have 5 titles, 1 wwe, 1 wh, 1 us/inc, 1 tag and 1 women, but not 4. That would make one show extremely boring. whoever doesnt have a superstar in the title chance would have a horrible time building a main event because everyone would worry more about the one show that has the main title fued. unless the make the tag division big again like in the past, it would do more harm than good. Titles make irrelevant superstars relevant. I say keep them.

 

[The Champ]

No. 1 contendership could happen. You don't HAVE to have people feuding for a title. Bryan and sheamus could feud to help build someone up so later on they could go onto getting a title shot. It doesn't mean just because they aren't feuding for a title they get pushed away. As for 1 WHC/WWE champion (i'd rather have WHC since the WWE title has no credibility) its the same thing. 2 titles means the same people on the same shows will get the title shots and the feuds. Getting it down to one belt would mean more, I dunno how people see it as less feuds. Example: Del Rio is WHC he can go to raw or S.D. and feud with cena, orton, sheamus, punk, ziggler, edge, rey, taker, HHH, and maybe some new stars as opposed to just staying on S.D. and feuding with 2 people. Doesn't mean the rest get buried, they just feud with others until they get a title shot. Building up someone is most important and not rushing people into title shots. Morrisons title shot failed horribly not just because hes not a good wrestler but he was rushed and got one chance and lost. No build up at all for that.

But what about long, personal feuds? You say "feuding with the same two people" like that's always a bad thing. It's not. I would be fine with the Edge/ADR feud continuing for a while longer, and then becoming a segway into the Edge/Christian feud. That only happens if the title is involved. You have to remember that once a number one contender is decided, that person needs to challenge for the title ASAP, meaning the title feud has to be put on hold so that that person can get his shot. The only evidence one needs to look at is how the Undisputed Championship was handled back in 2002. The champion feuded with one guy for a month, and then switched feuds immediately. The other show didn't have all that much of a direction in the meanwhile, either. What leads anyone to believe that it would be different this time around? Having one title completely takes away the chance to create an interesting feud before immediately having to move onto the next one. And the number one contenders feuds would be even less interesting. "I want to be the next guy to challenge for the title once the current contender is done." Versus, "I want your title." There are so many more places you can go with the latter as opposed to the former. This plan that has been proposed here would make the WWE infinitely more boring and would leave a lot of guys out in the dust.

You say the main eventers could still feud with each other on the other show in the meantime. But there have to be a goal, an objective, in every feud. Something more than just being number one contender. Sorry, but that's not enough to create something that can captivate an audience. Because they know they'll just have to wait a month to see if the guy can actually win the belt anyway. People don't tune in to see number one contender feuds, they serve as supplements to the main feud. And really, that's how it should be.

 

[DeathClutch]

to be honest, i am not a fan of unifying all the belts. there are guys like Christian, Morrison and Del Rio who wouldnt be in the World Title picture if the WWE and World title were unifyied which is why i like having two titles. it gives others a chance in the main event scene and while it may fail at times, it also may work.

I see where you're coming from but in all honesty guys like Undertaker, HHH, CENA, Edge DON'T need to be in the world title picture and all guys like Christian, Morrison (I doubt he'll be World champion anytime soon after his stunt @ Mania) Del Rio flurish with the belt and let guys like Cena, HHH, Edge etc have more non-title feuds with and up and comers they're over enough without the belt so don't waste the belt being on them constantly.

And unifying the belts is needed, it's weird how they have one tag and Divas titles yet two mid card and two world belts kind of dilutes their precieved value if you ask me.

 

[silrock316]

They are not going to unify the World Title for two reasons that are the same.

1. If they keep just the World Title it would eliminate WWF/WWE's title that they have had for years. Its just not going to happen because its THEIR TITLE.

2. The World Heavyweight title has so much history to it from past wrestling. Guys like Ric Flair, Sting etc. etc. have held this belt and it is a historic piece of wrestling history. Taking it off tv will destroy its value and carve out a piece of history. Not gonna happen.

 

[jt_punk]

I'm new at this so idk how to post this, this is about wrestlmania 28.
Imagine this:
First of Triple H = 2012 Hall of fame
Undertaker = 2013 Hall of fame
Matches:
The Rock Vs John Cena
The Miz Vs Stone Cold
Undertaker Vs Sting or Goldberg
Rey Mysterio Vs Sin Cara Vs Alberto Del Rio (Mexican pride)
The Nexus Vs The Corre (Losing team must disband)
Edge (c) Vs Christian (Christian should win the smackdown MITB, and cash it in at wrestlemania.
Randy Orton (c) Vs 2012 Royal Rumble winner(It should be Cody Rhodes, keep his dark side like he is now.)

This would be one of the best Wrestlemania ever, if it happens.

Another match that would be great to add, if the WWE could pull this off is have:
Batista Vs Brock Lesnar

 

[deforty]

No. It's not the same. It's actually apples to oranges in comparison. WWE vs WCW would have been the same when they had the Monday Night Wars. WWE vs TNA is where the battle should be and would make sense. Seperate ownership both vying for fan support.

Raw / Smack down both have the same owner. WWE / Vince McMahon. Yes, each has a "General Manager". But ultimately, everything is decided at WWE Headquarters / writers. The don't truly work in a competetive sense so much as a "how do we make more money for WWE" sense. They don't compete for fan support against each other, they work to have the same fans watching both shows.

Sports teams all have seperate owners, all with a GM or Director of Player Personnel depending on each teams title. Cowboys Jerry Jones, Raiders Al Davis. The League doesn't own them. The league doesn't orchestrate what they do. So no, Cowboys vs Raiders is not NFL vs NFL. The Cowboys aren't concerned about winning over Raiders fans. They care about Cowboys fans and winning the Superbowl. Same for the Raiders.

Yes they all do have separate owners but if they wanted to get rid of a team they could, same thing if Vince wanted to get rid of a GM he could. You make valid points, I just don't really see what good it will do to combine all the titles and shows again.

 

[CuddleBuns84]

I don't think we need to unify all the belts... In fact, two world champions is a good idea. One main event title for each brand.

What needs need to unify is the IC and US belt. And that champion makes an appearance on both shows, each week. Good way to build up a mid-card guy. For example, If Cody Rhodes won the IC/US belt, he would make an appearance on both brands.

It would bring pride and value to that belt. Because the WWE would invest into the next big thing. If they are on both shows, people will know who has the belt, and why it's a good thing to have.

They should do the same with the Tag Team belts. It would help out so much! The world champions just stick on their own shows.

 

[The Suplexer Perfecter]

Getting a shot and holding the title are two different things. If the WWE returned to the days of having to climb the ladder for a shot then you would see more title opportunities to different talent. Unlike now. How many times are Cena and Miz going to fight before there is another mix up? Same people always in the title picture (Orton, Cena, HHH, Taker, Edge) and others buried to mid card status. You lose, go to the back of the pack and work your way up again. And that has nothing to do with the number of titles there are.

If it has nothing to do with the number of titles, then what is the point of unifying them? You honestly believe they'd give Christian the title over the top guy Cena, Orton or Miz?

Those are all of the titles needed. Again, eliminate Smackdown and combine the rosters. Bring back the days of having a couple of matches with local jobbers. Return some sense of higher expectation and excitement over pay per view events rather than the watered down events of now after watching weeks and weeks of the same 2 guys.

Combining the roster means less TV time for plenty of people. And I for one don't want to see 4 squash matches on TV, or would bother to buy tickets to a live event to see that. It's a waste of time.

Since we all know it's fake, the idea that "titles mean something" and "higher expectation from beating a jobber" is moot. You KNOW that the no name guy, already in the ring, won't beat the heel coming to the ring.

Sheamus beat up on jobbers, but I never took him seriously.

Silrock316

2. The World Heavyweight title has so much history to it from past wrestling. Guys like Ric Flair, Sting etc. etc. have held this belt and it is a historic piece of wrestling history. Taking it off tv will destroy its value and carve out a piece of history. Not gonna happen.

Don't understand that since the NWA title is currently held by Colt Cabana.

 

[steven87gill]

Do you guys think the WWE needs to ditch one of its major titles? I was hoping that they would unify the WWE and WHC belts at W.M. but that didn't happen. For that matter just unify them all so we have one WHC, one I.C./U.S. champion, a WOMAN's champion (screw the divas title,) and the tag titles even though they mean nothing. Have all the champions be able to jump from show to show which would make for more storylines, feuds and it would be easier to build up younger talent. Which would you want? To have it as it is now or unify them?

Suprised it hasn't happend already, by all acounts VKM was hell bent on it, but creative convinced him to hold off on a unification till at least WM, so if it doesn't happen within at least the next 12 months, i'd be very suprised.

 

[jsanders78]

To me, whichever belt is on smackdown has always become the defacto "intercontinental" champion. When the split was made, Raw WH belt became #1, Smackdown WH #2, Raw IC belt #3, Smackdown U.S. belt #4, so on and so on.

So yes, I'm for a unification and getting things back to the way they used to be.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Generally speaking, having two World Championships in the WWE isn't something I've had a huge problem with. I suppose my main problem has been rather how WWE sometimes uses the titles more than anything else.

It's been a while since both the WWE Championship & World Heavyweight Championship have, simultaneously, had pretty strong runs. Aside from that nonsense the WWE did with Dolph Ziggler, Edge has been World Heavyweight Champion for close to 4 months now & Kane held it for almost 5 months before that. This is the first time there've been back to back 100+ day runs with the WHC in almost 5 years and both have been mostly quite good in my view. The Miz has been WWE Champion for about 4.5 months so, hopefully, we could be looking at a trend of significant lengths for the World Championships.

With only one World Title, however, the WWE is less likely to make certain mistakes, such as the one they made by putting the WHC on Jack Swagger. With only one top title, it makes it more difficult for the guys on the roster to show who really should be in that top spot and that's ideally how it should be. They'd really have to work that much harder to show that they should be the champ.

As for the mid-card titles, I've got no real problem with having two of them. Having a couple of mid-card belts is perfectly normal and hasn't been uncommon at all in wrestling. Crockett Promotions, even before Crockett gained a strangle hold on the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, had the Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight & Television Championships. WCW had the United States & Television Championships, many other territories such as Georgia & Florida had multiple mid-card belts, etc. So WWE having two is no big deal and does fit well with the roster size they've got.

 

[The_Reptile_]

If it's just the world titles, I'm all for it. Keep the US and Intercontinental separate, you'll always have mid cards guys to put the those straps on, but the main event scene is pretty fucking bare on both shows at the moment.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I'm all in favor of unifying the two world championships, but a lot would have to change in the WWE to make it happen without causing chaos. The WWE suffers from their current inability to build compelling feuds that don't involve the main event players fighting over the title. It's like they have extreme ADD and can't focus on more than two feuds at a time without exploding. If there really is only one champion, they would need to step up and make the mid-card a lot more entertaining and competitive. The roster is pretty huge right now, and they like to push random people for the WWE title without any warning, with the comfort of having another world title just in case that doesn't work out. That's why Edge got the belt back when Miz started his reign. Insurance. Because they can't seem to build guys up BEFORE they feud for the biggest title in the business, they need to have a credible champion that can sell tickets JUST IN CASE the risk they take on somebody like the Miz or Alberto del Rio doesn't pay off. It's not a knock on the idea, but on the WWE's inability to focus on more than a handful of guys at a time.

 

[Bobo1116]

I believe that it is only logical to unify the WHC and the WWE Title. It does not make sense to me to have 2 main event champions. If you are the WHC you are supposedly the champion of the world. Then you have the WWE Champion, when you look at it as an outsider you are the Champion for the WWE. This makes it look like the WWE title is sub par to the WHC. Combine the titles. I am tired of hearing well JoMo and Del Rio won't be in the title picture. If you get over you will win titles, everyone knows that. Did people really think when Rocky Maivia came on the scene he was going to win anything? No he had to change and get himself over. If these guys have that "It" factor it will show and they will make something of themselves.