**MERGED** Championships WWE Should Consider (keep it in here!!)

[justinsayne]

They don't have to set that as a rule for just one belt, they could easily rotate through the titles, & just have at least one champion defend his title each week. For example one week the IC champ defends his title, the next week its the Tag champs turn, the maybe the Divas title, followed by the US title, etc. They could make it random so you don't know which of WWE's 4 weekly shows (RAW, SD!, ME, & Slam) show that weeks title defense would be taking place.

 

[Thedancingheel]

I like the idea of a weekly title match just not the same title every week because it would get boring. I would like a rotation of the titles being defended and a shock i.e a title change to the under dog etc.

 

[Dysturbed]

I agree with justinsayne. Rotating which belts are defended each week (without any specific pattern) is probably better than adding yet another title to the picture.

The problem with this, is that it maybe goes against HGR's desire to have mid carders find a spot that they otherwise may not get. I say that cause if mid carders that are viewed as jobbers or are barely on tv frequently get US and IC title shots for example, people may feel that it devalues the titles since less established people can compete for them. At the same time it is possibly better to go about things that way than a champ having so many non title matches and losses or repeat matches.

When NWA/WCW had the TV title for so long, things were able to work a certain way but there weren't as many belts in the picture and when ECW had a tv title, the same applied, plus ECW had a different kind of way of making lesser wrestlers relevant.

 

[Olly]

I remember when TNA did this with the TV title and to be honest it did absolutely nothing to give the belt any prestige at all. The opposite, in fact, if you can imagine such a thing.

An upper-mid-card star like Barratt or Cesaro would get nothing from beating Yoshi Tatsu or Zack Ryder every week, and it would be even worse if the belt started changing hands every week.

The single thing WWE could do to elevate the IC title would be to unite the World titles. Ziggler could do this in the same way Jericho did with the WWE and WCW belts - it would put him all the way over and allow guys like Sheamus, Bryan, Barratt and Cesaro (and the Shield) to hold the "second" belt without the pressure of being a world champion.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

There's always the potential of bringing back the Hardcore title. It wasn't the most prestigious belt in wrestling history, but it sure did make for some ridiculous and surprising moments.

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

I hate this idea, I absolutely hate it... If you think WWE Championships don't have prestige, then just wait until that idea starts to get "the same old crap" routine. What's special about PPV's for the majority of the fans? It's the place where championships get defended, the place where wrestlers fight to get their due after a rivalry in the weekly program.

If you give a championship match per week, you are transforming the title into crap. It's not exclusive anymore, it does not have value anymore. Back in the days, Golden Era, where the championships had value, champions would only defend his titles at SME or WWF PPV's. It's rare, really rare the championship match at weekly television, and that's why championships had value.

I think that WWE gives us way to much championship matches at SmackDown/Raw/ME. It's supposed to be special, I want to pay for a championship match, because every time the title changes, we see something new, but it made sense. I will not pay for a championship match, if I am sure that two weeks after the PPV I'll see the champion defend again. It's basic marketing, and quite frankly it's what pro-wrestling should be all about. WWE needs to get more old-school again. Reigns (not Roman) should have meaning, I am not a CM Punk crazy fan, but I enjoyed his title reign because he didn't had to defend his championship outside PPV's, even though he did against at least three other people on Raw (Henry,Cena and Ryback).

 

[Olly]

I hate this idea, I absolutely hate it... If you think WWE Championships don't have prestige, then just wait until that idea starts to get "the same old crap" routine. What's special about PPV's for the majority of the fans? It's the place where championships get defended, the place where wrestlers fight to get their due after a rivalry in the weekly program.

If you give a championship match per week, you are transforming the title into crap. It's not exclusive anymore, it does not have value anymore. Back in the days, Golden Era, where the championships had value, champions would only defend his titles at SME or WWF PPV's. It's rare, really rare the championship match at weekly television, and that's why championships had value.

I think that WWE gives us way to much championship matches at SmackDown/Raw/ME. It's supposed to be special, I want to pay for a championship match, because every time the title changes, we see something new, but it made sense. I will not pay for a championship match, if I am sure that two weeks after the PPV I'll see the champion defend again. It's basic marketing, and quite frankly it's what pro-wrestling should be all about. WWE needs to get more old-school again. Reigns (not Roman) should have meaning, I am not a CM Punk crazy fan, but I enjoyed his title reign because he didn't had to defend his championship outside PPV's, even though he did against at least three other people on Raw (Henry,Cena and Ryback).

yes but we're not talking about the WWE or WH titles, we're talking about the IC, US, tag and Diva championships, which are worth less than a damn these days.

 

[Thedancingheel]

There's always the potential of bringing back the Hardcore title. It wasn't the most prestigious belt in wrestling history, but it sure did make for some ridiculous and surprising moments.

How awesome would it be to have the Hardcore title back. Imagine the fun the writing staff could have with the 24/7 rule. We can dream can't we....

 

[Agent Of S.H.I.E.L.D.]

I don't like this idea. It diminishes the cool factor of title defenses if you are always expecting one on Raw.

 

[Judah's Lion]

I hate this idea, I absolutely hate it... If you think WWE Championships don't have prestige, then just wait until that idea starts to get "the same old crap" routine. What's special about PPV's for the majority of the fans? It's the place where championships get defended, the place where wrestlers fight to get their due after a rivalry in the weekly program.

the only problem with this thinking? Mania happened last week and 3 of the titles mentioned by the OP were left off the card completely. the IC Title was defended on the pre-show, but not the actual card, the US Title and Champion were left off completely and the Diva's Title/Champion got the same treatment.

how about Mania 28 last year? almost the same thing happened. the IC Title was defended on the Mania card, but the US Title and Diva's Title were left off the card, as were the Tag Team Titles.

Mania 27 the year before? no IC Title, US Title, Diva's Title or Tag Team Titles matches.

the truth is, History, that i agree with you, but only in theory. it would make much more sense to me if the title belts were defended on ppv instead of free tv. it'd make them more prestigious because of their exclusivity. the only problem with that theory is in the delivery. in delivery, the very titles we wish were exclusive and prestigious are hardly ever defended on the biggest ppv stage that the entire world of professional wrestling has ever created.

with that in mind, i wouldn't mind one title being defended per week. not per show, cuz that'd be at least four titles or title matches for WWE. but one title per week, whether that's on Raw, Smackdown, Main Event or Saturday Morning Slam, and the audience not always knowing in advance which title will be defended could help recreate some much needed buzz, anticipation, excitement and prestige for the title belts and the champions that defend the titles.

with some tweaking, i think the idea suggested by the OP could be a brilliant move by WWE.

 

[mlp420]

It's really tough to read through a thread when this subject comes up. Did anybody actually watch wrestling before 2002? I remember when WWE had 7 Titles at one time pre brand split. And the titles were defended all the time and it was AWESOME. I know conventional wisdom with the IWC is that the titles should change hands rarely and be defended here and there, but I remember European title changes in 2000 getting bigger pops than WWE title changes today.

Many people seem to believe that CM Punks 400+ reign added prestige to the belt, but I disagree. It was that summer angle, and all the twist and turns of the title picture around that time. That's what I think most people watch for, that week-to-week soap opera aspect of it. Like watching Raw in 98 where Vince would plot and scheme to get the title off Austin every week. Or in 2001 during the Invasion angle when there was a power struggle for the WWF/WCW titles between the to sides. And of course that wacky hardcore division.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

A title that's defended every week would quickly lose its novelty. TNA tried the same thing a while back with the TV title and the result was Devon would come out once a week and wrestle a random opponent each week for the title. The match was just simply there without any sort of storyline or feud to fuel it. It got old very, very quickly.

Title defenses that take place on television should, ideally, feel like something special. Both WWE and TNA have diluted that aspect considerably when it comes to mid-card and tag team titles. It's not like that every single time, but it is most of the time. A title that's defended each week only serves to dilute the novelty of mid-card or tag title defenses on free television all the more.

If WWE ever did create another title, having it defended on television once or twice a month, certainly no more, but I think once would ultimately work best. Defenses could be divided up between Raw, SmackDown! and Main Event. It would give the company a lot of time to build up the coming match and develop a storyline & feud to go with it. It wouldn't need to be a different feud every month, as you'd essentially just have one match programs for the title just as TNA did with RVD when he was TNA WHC after they implemented the ranking system.

In the creation of this new title, I think merging the US title into the IC title, thereby retiring the US title, should take place.

 

[Aquaman6686]

I'm of the mind that there are way too many championships in WWE already, but I do think a title that is defended every single week would be great for the product. Maybe it's about time they got rid of the US title, and replaced it with a WWE Television Championship, or just changed the rules of an already existing belt. Maybe Vince or Triple H decides they really don't like Antonio Cesaro, and forces him to defend the title every single week, or give it up.

TNA tried this with the TV title for about two months, and it was the only time I ever had any interest in the belt. I have no doubt WWE could do the same sort of idea, and do a much better job with it, simply because of the state of their roster. There are so many guys no being used that could pop up for a week to try their luck at the title. Not only would it create a buzz and provide fresh faces to the midcard on a weekly basis, it would get the champion over in a big way. Forcing Cesaro on TV in title matches every week would be great for his character. Same thing could be said for Wade Barrett.

The thing they risk doing is burning through talent, and within a few months having the same matches being done over and over again. Having the title change hands can fix that, but the other risk they run is never being able to do a real feud or program with the champ busy defending the belt every single week. I'm sure if creative was clever enough they could make it work, but I haven't seen a ton out of them in recent years to believe it will.

What are your thoughts on the weekly defended championship idea? Could WWE pull it off? Would it be good or bad for the product? What kind of matches would you like to see in the first few months?

WWE only has six titles at the moment, I don't think they have too many. If anything, I think they could benefit from going back to eight titles. But, that only works when there's an actual brand extension in effect, and with the BE dead in the water, they don't have the roster depth to manage the titles they do have, let alone more.

That being said, I've always been a fan of the Television Championship, in WCW and TNA. But I wouldn't mind seeing it in WWE, if they could actually pull it off.

 

[Headman]

If I had my way they'd go back to having only three titles. WWE, IC and Tag team and they would be defended mostly on ppv with rare televised defenses on special occasions. I don't see what a weekly title would really add.

 

[asiatic7]

I like the idea of rotating the title (hell, there's enough of them) matches every week. This concept brings some much needed notoriety to the belts and they can serve as more than just some trinket that a wrestler has draped over his/her shoulder.

Wrestlemania the last few years went without a significant mid-card title match and those titles lose prestige with every passing year.

Imagine a youngster watching the program today, and an IC or U.S. champ is walking down the ramp to the ring, and Michael Cole is noting the importance of the title and all the legends that held them (Steamboat, Savage, Flair, Dusty, Bret, Perfect, Race, Brazil, etc.) and how it elevated their careers. This youngster (who's probably too young to know any of the aboved mentioned) isn't going to give a fudge about the title or the champions, because they're not highlighted enough on tv or PPV, so to him/her the history of the title isn't important!

Miz won the IC title on a WM pre-show? I remember when the IC belt was a show stealing match in it's glory days and now it's defended before a PPV? Really?

(just to throw this in real quick, Miz and Barrett put on some great matches together....I like their chemistry)

 

[shitsngiggles]

Miz won the IC title on a WM pre-show? I remember when the IC belt was a show stealing match in it's glory days and now it's defended before a PPV? Really?

I remember Rock Vs HHH for the IC title, at summerslam '96 (I think, could be wrong, long time ago) it was a Ladder match, and it was amazing.

I remember people like HBK holding the title, Stone Cold etc.

These days it is just used as a kind of stepping stone, and sometimes not even that, some people win the US Title and IC title but never go any further. I also agree with anyone who think there should only be 4 titles, World, IC, Tag and Divas (perhaps not even divas).

 

[Mr. HD]

I agree that WWE needs a weekly defended title, but it doesn't have to be just ONE title. I think somebody on here already said it, but they can alternate what titles are defended on RAW.

One week it can be the IC Title, US Title next week, and Tag Titles the week after. Take a week or two off and repeat. Or hell, take three weeks off and have two, or three of those titles defended on one show.

I don't like how these days titles are defended specifically at just ppv's and a title defense on RAW is a rare occasion. I think one of the keys to being a dominant champion is to not only defend it on ppv's, but on RAW's as well. It builds that fighting champion mentality showing you're ready to defend your title whenever and against whoever.

 

[asiatic7]

I remember Rock Vs HHH for the IC title, at summerslam '96 (I think, could be wrong, long time ago) it was a Ladder match, and it was amazing.

I remember people like HBK holding the title, Stone Cold etc.

These days it is just used as a kind of stepping stone, and sometimes not even that, some people win the US Title and IC title but never go any further. I also agree with anyone who think there should only be 4 titles, World, IC, Tag and Divas (perhaps not even divas).

That match (Rock vs. HHH) was actually 1998. That wasSummerslam "Highway To Hell" in Madison Square Garden. The great thing about that match was you got to see the rise of two young stars before they became bonified main eventers. And that is the concept of the IC title in my eyes. If you recall, the build-up for the match was great too! DX vs. NOD. That was great story telling...

 

[#tamale]

I'm of the idea (and I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks this) is that in order to make a championship mean something more you need to have a storyline. It won't hurt if the X championship is defended every week, but it doesn't really help because as fans we won't be emotionally invested in just seeing two guys fight for the X championship.

Start the storyline, create the feud between champion and challenger, make sure the execution is done well, and you go from there. Look at Shawn Michaels vs. Razor Ramon for the Intercontinental Championship. The storyline was simple, the feud was created, the execution was done very well, and fans were emotionally invested. Another example would be Chris Jericho vs. Dean Malenko for the Cruiserweight Championship in WCW. Jericho beat Malenko, Malenko left (or as Jericho said "took his ball and went home"), Jericho insults Malenko for months, Malenko wins the Cruiserweight Battle Royal to determine the #1 contender for Jericho under the guise of Cicople, place goes wild for Malenko because Malenko will now get his vengeance on Jericho.

I'm not interested in seeing X champion fight X challenger for the championship without having a backstory to it. I will not be emotionally invested in it. Build your storylines around the champion and challenger and have good execution, then I will be invested.

 

[Papa Pillman]

I remember Rock Vs HHH for the IC title, at summerslam '96 (I think, could be wrong, long time ago) it was a Ladder match, and it was amazing.

I remember people like HBK holding the title, Stone Cold etc.

These days it is just used as a kind of stepping stone, and sometimes not even that, some people win the US Title and IC title but never go any further.

The difference between then and now is that at the time you speak of the company only had one belt that held "World" championship status.

The Intercontinental title at that point was the company's number two single's title and often signified that it's holder was above the mid-card pack, but still only on the cusp of being considered someone who could carry the company. Now that the company has a secondary "World" championship, that distinction belongs to the man annointed as WHC. While he is titled as a world champ, he is still only the second-tier title holder(or the modern equivalent of what the IC-title status represented in previous eras), while the WWE Champion remains the top guy(or atleast the top non-Cena guy when Cena isn't champ). This leaves the IC belt as only the third most sought after single's prize, and relgates its contenders to guys clearly outside of the current main-event heap.

As for the topic at hand, I could get behind a merger of the IC and US belts, and then the addition of a TV title. But simply adding another belt, or adding a "special rule" that effects defense frequency of an existing belt(s) seems patently unnecessary.

 

[ChrisHelms]

I really dislike this idea. Having a title belt defended on each and every show lowers its prestige IMO, and sets up for quick title changes or long, undefeated streaks which I both dislike.

The History...

You are right, we have WAY WAY WAY too many titles and title matches right now. I'd really like to see the WHC/WWE title merged and defended at the most, every other month.

 

[darkrain888]

the ic and us belt have lost relevance and it doesn't matter who is champion. theres just too many belts. adding another belt to be defended weekly is overkill. in the old days the wwe (back then known as wwf) had the wwf championship and the intercontinental championship. wwf championship is the wwe championship and the world heavyweight championship is the new intercontinental championship (its considered equal to wwe championship but who are we kidding?). new belt? I don't care if its defended weekly, or 24/7. its not needed.

 

[rerun406]

I also find the current title scene in the WWE a bit of a mess

**with Kofi picking up the U.S Title from Cesaro ... could Kingston resume his feud with Barrett (who beat Kofi for the IC title)

leading to an Intercontinental/U.S title unification match?

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I'm not too keen on bringing in a TV title of sorts especially considering the amount of issues WWE currently has making their current titles mean anything. I feel its a big issue with all titles in WWE except for the WWE Title itself.

It feels like WWE puts titles on wrestlers in hopes to make that wrestler bigger than they really are when it doesn't work like that. Triple H said it best actually: "You don't win the title to bring you there, you win the title because you are there". I feel WWE needs to learn this lesson before you start bringing in more titles.

When you put the title on anybody in hopes to make them legit you diminish the title because the guy holding said title isn't proven. If a guy can't draw without the title then they can't draw with it.

 

[ThePrawnCurry]

sounds a bit like the WCW TV title
which was one of the many reasons for the demise of WCW

the number of crocked endings to these matches so as to protect the two contestants
turned the entire thing into a farce.

not every wrestler on the roster should get a turn at being champion

even the IC and US titles are supposed to be a remarkable achievement for a wrestler