One World Championship: The Pros and Cons of Unification

[Uncle Sam]

Things were different back in my day. I'd often go down to the market and trade mules for a quart of milk. Some days, I'd sit on my porch and smoke my corn cob pipe. My speeches on racial purity were a lot more well received. Oh, and there was one world champion in WWE. Simpler times.

As we already know - it's been repeated as nauseam - the brand split is effectively over. There's still some degree of separation, but Raw and SmackDown are becoming like Brundle and fly. As this mutated mass slowly becomes more and more a deformed mess, we must ask ourselves important questions.

Question number one: One world championship or two?

You've all seen that episode of Friends, right? Well, I thought we could do a pros and cons list. It'll be like the nineties all over again, only with less shitty pop music.

Pros (of unification):

• Prestige. One prize, one big boss, one champion that looks that much more dominant because he's the undisputed king.
• A fuck-off big main event to unify the belts, possibly between two superfaces. Punk versus Sheamus? Rock versus Lesnar? Cena versus Orton?
• A new belt, potentially. People often complain about the design of the WWE Championship. If there were ever a legitimate reason to trash it, this would be it.
• Midcarders stay midcard and don't get pushed before they're ready (if they ever are). No more Bob Holly matches for the WWE Championship - only a select elite group get to challenge for or hold the belt.
• Logic. If the WWE is done with branding (and thus becoming a more homogeneous mass), it makes sense to have just one world champion, not two.

Cons:

• Less card mobility. Fewer wrestlers get the rub of being or having been a world champion.
• The genuinely deserving - Rey Mysterio or Christian maybe - could get squeezed out of the title picture entirely as spaces at the top become more sparse.
• One fewer big match to sell cards. Sheamus versus Alberto Del Rio for the world heavyweight championship becomes Sheamus versus Alberto Del Rio.
• The death of the world title's legacy? Currently, the world heavyweight title is recognised - as per WWE's own history (http://www.silvervision.co.uk/produ...rld-Heavyweight-Championship-DVD-3-Discs.html) - as a continuation of the same title that Buddy Rogers held in the sixties, or that Ric Flair held in the nineties. Unification could mean that this part of wrestling history gets erased or obscured.
• If the likes of John Cena, The Undertaker, Triple H and Brock Lesnar are going to be perpetually above the world championship, what worth does an undisputed title even hold?

 

[dman1373]

the simplest way to make it work is to have the world champion almost like the nwa champion in the 70's and 80's. You have one world champion that goes to smackdown or raw when there is a guy over enough to fued with. And then you can make the us and intercontinental championships the raw and smackdown main belts, that way if the world champion isn't on the card you have either the the us or intercontinental championships end the night. This will make all three titles mean alot more. And also since there are less titles then there will be more attention on the titles that are there like the tag titles. If the world title isn't going to be one of the main event than maybe the tag titles could be. It opens alot more space for other titles. So I think it could really work.

 

[Shotaro]

Things were different back in my day. I'd often go down to the market and trade mules for a quart of milk. Some days, I'd sit on my porch and smoke my corn cob pipe. My speeches on racial purity were a lot more well received. Oh, and there was one world champion in WWE. Simpler times.

As we already know - it's been repeated as nauseam - the brand split is effectively over. There's still some degree of separation, but Raw and SmackDown are becoming like Brundle and fly. As this mutated mass slowly becomes more and more a deformed mess, we must ask ourselves important questions.

Pros (of unification):

• Prestige. One prize, one big boss, one champion that looks that much more dominant because he's the undisputed king.
• A fuck-off big main event to unify the belts, possibly between two superfaces. Punk versus Sheamus? Rock versus Lesnar? Cena versus Orton?
• A new belt, potentially. People often complain about the design of the WWE Championship. If there were ever a legitimate reason to trash it, this would be it.
• Midcarders stay midcard and don't get pushed before they're ready (if they ever are). No more Bob Holly matches for the WWE Championship - only a select elite group get to challenge for or hold the belt.
• Logic. If the WWE is done with branding (and thus becoming a more homogeneous mass), it makes sense to have just one world champion, not two.

Cons:

• Less card mobility. Fewer wrestlers get the rub of being or having been a world champion.
• The genuinely deserving - Rey Mysterio or Christian maybe - could get squeezed out of the title picture entirely as spaces at the top become more sparse.
• One fewer big match to sell cards. Sheamus versus Alberto Del Rio for the world heavyweight championship becomes Sheamus versus Alberto Del Rio.
• The death of the world title's legacy? Currently, the world heavyweight title is recognised - as per WWE's own history (http://www.silvervision.co.uk/produ...rld-Heavyweight-Championship-DVD-3-Discs.html) - as a continuation of the same title that Buddy Rogers held in the sixties, or that Ric Flair held in the nineties. Unification could mean that this part of wrestling history gets erased or obscured.
• If the likes of John Cena, The Undertaker, Triple H and Brock Lesnar are going to be perpetually above the world championship, what worth does an undisputed title even hold?

Whether or not to Unify the belts is a genuinely difficult question to answer. So far, I think that the Pros outweigh the Cons (in all honesty outside of guys like us on this forum, does Joe Public give a damn about Buddy Rogers?) Also is Sheamus vs Alberto Del Rio being just that really such a terrible thing? I agree that there are some guys who deserved a title run but would've never been near it had there not been two titles around but in all honesty whose career did it really hurt when there was only one title? Roddy Piper? Jake Roberts? Ted DiBiase Snr? All three of those guys are well known to damn near everybody and none of them held the big one.

Guys like Mysterio and Christian would still be big names, they'd still be legends if they didn't win the big one. Christian would easily be included on most lists on the best Tag Teams in history and Mysterio is arguably the most well known "Luchadore" style wrestler outside of Mexico.

As far as guys who aren't ready for the rub of being World Champion that list is ridiculously long. Jack Swagger, Del Rio, Dolph Ziggler (admittedly only a ten minute reign but still), Sheamus (his first run, he's much better now though).

I'd love to write a more thorough post but unfortunately time is against me. However for me, the pros massively outweigh the cons.

 

[B.Ware]

First of all, excellent thread Great White Sam. It's really got me thinking.

I'm undecided on the matter at the moment. However, I don't think people hold the World Heavyweight Championship with the same regard that it had in previous years. It's respect has definitely been watered down with some of the names that have held it recently such as Swagger, Khali, Hardy and Henry. No disrespect to those wrestlers but they're not in the same league as some of the legends who have held it before. So, this does create some sort of an argument to retire this belt.

The WWE Championship I believe is viewed as the main prize in the company. Does this mean this belt should stay as a stand alone belt or create a new one completely? Creating a new belt would be a bit of a slap in the face to the history of the title, so I believe if unification were to happen the big E should keep this belt.

I don't think it's a negative that some wrestlers would be forced out of the title picture. Although I admire their work, Henry, Del Rio, Miz and Mysterio should not be main title holders in my opinion. One main title should be defended on both shows with the US and Intercontinental staying on their respective shows. A few more challengers to the smaller belts would only be a positive for these titles.

I think I've made up my mind here really. Yes, I would like to see one world title. The WWE World Championship. Maybe at Wrestlemania next year, stranger things have happened!

 

[Uncle Sam]

To go off on something of a tangent, I dislike how Swagger is the poster child for how being "hotshotted" to the title can go wrong.

First thing's first, guys like Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar won their first world championships in less time. There is nothing inherently bad about a sudden push. Quality writing and quality talent can make it work, and have made it work.

Second thing's second, Swagger's reign was actually rather good. It was a little bit chaotic and lacking direction but there are some hidden gems in there and Swagger upheld his end of the bargain admirably. Some solid little feuds - and matches - with Big Show, Morrison, Orton, Jericho, Edge, and Mysterio. Some of the state of the championship addresses drew major heat. It even featured, and this will be about the fiftieth time I've brought it up, what was one of the best promos of the year - the trophy promo. The myth that Swagger 'wasn't ready' for the title seems to stem from him being given no material to work with after his reign was over. He was allowed to fade into obscurity; he was encouraged to fade into obscurity. The reign itself was good, if a little rough around the edges, and Swagger did great with what he what he was given.

As far as I'm concerned, Jack Swagger is a good wrestler, capable of good matches and good promos, with a good character, and still some potential to realise if he's nurtured properly. His reign with the world heavyweight championship is an argument for sudden elevation, not against it.

Edit: I had to edit because I fucked up a tense and whatnot. Instead of just some tiny red text, have a Swagger gif:

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Cons:

• Less card mobility. Fewer wrestlers get the rub of being or having been a world champion.
  
  There's really no such thing as a rub of being World Champion anymore, because that rub has been so diluted with the multiple World Championships in the first place
  
• The genuinely deserving - Rey Mysterio or Christian maybe - could get squeezed out of the title picture entirely as spaces at the top become more sparse.
  
  Honestly, if they get squeezed out of the picture, then they truly weren't genuinely deserving. Let me give you an example:
  
  Tito Santana was a great wrestler. Twice held the Intercontinental title when it was the 3rd biggest championship on the continent, and at a time when that meant something. He never competed for the WWF title though... because he wasn't on the level necessary to hold the big title and be believable as the best in the business (because that is what the champion should be). Today however, Tito Santana would be a multiple time WWE/World Champion, probably getting one run on RAW and a couple on Smackdown.
  
  Guys like Mysterio and Christian, while I love to watch them... wouldn't be getting squeezed OUT of the title picture... they were actually squeezed INTO the picture in the first place.
  
• One fewer big match to sell cards. Sheamus versus Alberto Del Rio for the world heavyweight championship becomes Sheamus versus Alberto Del Rio.
  
  The WWE brand sells cards these days. Sheamus vs Del Rio for the World Heavyweight Championship, or Sheamus vs Del Rio... doesn't mean anything different to me anymore
  
• The death of the world title's legacy? Currently, the world heavyweight title is recognised - as per WWE's own history (http://www.silvervision.co.uk/produ...rld-Heavyweight-Championship-DVD-3-Discs.html) - as a continuation of the same title that Buddy Rogers held in the sixties, or that Ric Flair held in the nineties. Unification could mean that this part of wrestling history gets erased or obscured.
  
  All good things must come to an end as the saying goes. The company that held that legacy died over a decade ago. The company that held it before gets excited if they draw 1,000 people to one of their shows and hasn't been relevant for a couple of decades. Continuing that legacy... a worked legacy in a worked sport... at the expense of the legacy of their own title, should not be the WWE's problem.
  
• If the likes of John Cena, The Undertaker, Triple H and Brock Lesnar are going to be perpetually above the world championship, what worth does an undisputed title even hold?
  
  I think part of the reason these guys are above the title is because of the watered down nature of the title these days. I know there's always arguements today that the Hogan's, Austin's, Rock's ect of bygone days were above the title too. Funny thing about that... is if they weren't holding the title, they were competing for it. The title being the biggest thing in the company is what gave them the rub to get that aura of being bigger than it. Get back to that, and maybe in a few years we'll be talking about how CM Punk or Sheamus is also bigger than the title as well.

Without a brand split, there is no logical reason to continue with the multiple World titles (or multiple mid card titles). These championships need to have an air of exclusivity to make them meaningful, and the problem is, they don't. Hell, on RAW this week, you had the US champion Santino get beat in less than a minute by World title challenger Del Rio... and not only wasn't the title on the line, but Del Rio didn't care one bit that he had just beaten the US Champion. If Del Rio doesn't care about the US title, then why should I as a fan? If the US Champion is that far below a World title challenger that he can get beat that badly, then what does that say to me about his division?

Get rid of the World and US titles. Go back to a WWE title, and an IC title. Instantly, you will give more meaning to those titles, because they will become more unique. If Del Rio then beats the IC champion in less than a minute, he will care, because there isn't a whole host of championships anymore. When Sheamus vs Del Rio for the WWE title is advertised for a show, it'll pique interest more, because that title match is more special now, just not another of many title matches. In kayfabese, characters will care more about titles, because the line to get a shot at either of them will be a lot longer.

You can even see a better tag division, because with more crowded WWE and IC title scenes, the guys that get squeezed out can be put into tags to give them something meaningful to do.

Honestly, there are no cons to merging the titles, only pros. It's something that should be done.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

One thread about Title Unification that doesn't deserve to get closed!

I mostly agree with the idea of having one World Championship. First of all it shows who is THE man, the top dog that someone has to beat in order to take the Championship. And let's not forget one more problem with today's WWE that could be solved with a move like this: the lack of credible main-event heels. Right now we have a dozen of credible main-event faces, Sheamus, CM Punk, Cena, Orton all look really strong. But what about the heels? We only have Daniel Bryan who is trying to break out as a permanent main-event heel and The Big Show, who's been in the same postion for over a decade now. If there's one World Championship and one top heel who's holding it, then you know he's the real deal, a threat to anybody.
And finally, being the World Champion would mean more than it does now. Look at Bryan, he lost the chance of being World Heavyweight Champion and what does he do? He jumps in the other title picture, the WWE Championship. Brock Lesnar coming back and challenging Cena for the #1 spot was an insult to both World Champions. I don't mean that the match shouldn't have taken place, just the story behind it should be different. The state in today's WWE title picture is a result of lazy and bad booking which first began in 2008. Having one World Championship might change the situation.

 

[JaceEvans]

While there are definitely some pluses to the world titles being unified I believe it shouldn't happen and won't happen.

who knows how many past champions wouldn't have received a title run because of the lack of two. I could imagine the horror of Cena holding the only world title for two years because Vince doesn't want to take a risk on someone. Two titles mean more excitement too because you never know who will hold the world/wwe title at anytime. With only one championship that would lead to more predictable outcomes and matches

 

[rokuma]

Think about boxing and the surreal number of World titles there are: There is always a question about who the true world champion is. Is it good for the sport? It's hard to say, since boxing's popularity has waned in recent years. I don't think it's a positive for wrestling to say, "Who is the true champion?" Shouldn't we know? Shouldn't there be the one guy who is above all the rest? The guy that defends that belt night after night and overcomes obstacles? This is what wrestling was built on.

Besides that, the World Heavyweight Title has been devalued in recent years. This isn't the WCW World Heavyweight Title, heck, it isn't even the Raw World Heavyweight Title that Bischoff introduced. It's a meaningless prop with second-rate feuds that are seen as the little brother to the big brother (WWE title). Just unify the belts already and officially end the brand-split. One WWE champion, one Intercontinental champion, one Womens/Divas champion, one tag team champion and be done with it. Having two World championships makes WWE look ridiculous. One belt, one champion, one brand.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Cons of having One World Championship :

WWE Championship looks like shit.

No need for Smackdown if they ever decide to unify the Titles.

World Heavyweight Championship is way more prestigious than the WWE title.

Most of the mid-carders that became World Champion would never have become World Champions if there was one World Title.

 

[rocksaviour]

I would like to see it happen. Would it? We would have to wait and see.

One way it could be booked is having Triple H come out the day after Wrestlemania when both the WWE Champion and World Heavyweight Champion are stood in the middle of the ring. He says that at Summerslam it will all come to an end (picking that as it is a Big Four PPV), whoever are the two champions after the July PPV will face each other in the main event at Summerslam. That way we would get title matches at the PPVs leading up to that as being more important, wrestlers getting last chances to feature in the history making match at the end of it. If that was booked it would make the post-Mania season a load more interesting and could go some way to making the Unification match at the end of it more of a big match occasion, not like the Cena/Punk match last year after we had 'two champs' for a month and it couldn't match the interest or excitement of what came a month before.

On this day you would say that Cena, Punk, Orton, Sheamus, Del Rio, Jericho and Bryan would be involved for the title. With four megastars of Taker, Hunter, Rock and Brock not being featured in the title picture. My booking solution could give some like Rhodes, Ziggler or Christian a chance.

Over the IC and US titles, they could rebuild the IC title into what it once was and held by men either on their way to the big one or like the modern day Pipers and Titos, so Christian and Mysterio would be there.

Over the past decade you would say that men like Kane (in 2010) would not of held the title, that was a prop added to the feud with Taker which to be honest wasn't required.

Sheamus vs. Del Rio non-title would need some sort of storyline behind, well I thought that was what the creative department was for.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It absolutely needs to happen now! the reason WWE can't create any "stars" that stick long term is cos the concept of the "top guy" is so diluted that pretty much anyone can have the World title but be nowhere near carrying the company.

The solution I see is to go more like UFC and have titles according to weight. A Cruiser, Middleweight title replacing the IC and US titles with the Unified World title above them all. This stops the ridiculous concept of Rey beating Big Show for a World Title UNLESS he really is the best in the business...

 

[jrichardson25]

I'd like to see it. They've hinted at it for a year plus. They know the cost of having only one champion but if they want to completely restructure the company on screen that would be the penultimate shakeup. There's a lot they can elevate with that shift. They can fix the non-existent midcard and elevate the tag titles out of the hole they're in now...

The pros outweigh the cons but that doesn't mean that it will ever happen. Here's to hoping.

 

[zee4u2nv]

There should only be 1 wwe champion and thats it! They are giving titles to anyone these days and they hold no value. The rosters are so weak that they just give any tom, dick and harry a belt.

1 wwe champion
1 US intercontinental champion
1 tag team champions
1 womans champion
1 hardcore champion

Then there will be a real value for each belt and champion, and just faze put this roster split crap.

 

[B.Ware]

To go off on something of a tangent, I dislike how Swagger is the poster child for how being "hotshotted" to the title can go wrong.

First thing's first, guys like Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar won their first world championships in less time. There is nothing inherently bad about a sudden push. Quality writing and quality talent can make it work, and have made it work.

Second thing's second, Swagger's reign was actually rather good. It was a little bit chaotic and lacking direction but there are some hidden gems in there and Swagger upheld his end of the bargain admirably. Some solid little feuds - and matches - with Big Show, Morrison, Orton, Jericho, Edge, and Mysterio. Some of the state of the championship addresses drew major heat. It even featured, and this will be about the fiftieth time I've brought it up, what was one of the best promos of the year - the trophy promo. The myth that Swagger 'wasn't ready' for the title seems to stem from him being given no material to work with after his reign was over. He was allowed to fade into obscurity; he was encouraged to fade into obscurity. The reign itself was good, if a little rough around the edges, and Swagger did great with what he what he was given.

As far as I'm concerned, Jack Swagger is a good wrestler, capable of good matches and good promos, with a good character, and still some potential to realise if he's nurtured properly. His reign with the world heavyweight championship is an argument for sudden elevation, not against it.

Edit: I had to edit because I fucked up a tense and whatnot. Instead of just some tiny red text, have a Swagger gif:

I totally agree and I hope you don't think that I was knocking Swagger in any way. He is a solid wrestler and I was impressed with his title run as I was with Mark Henry. However, in the context I used his name along with Khali, Hardy and Henry, I was trying to get the point across that if there were only one main title in the WWE wrestlers like these would not gain the push to the top. It would create more prestige for the Intercontinental and US Titles which is where these particular wrestlers would be focussed. I don't think that's a negative in my eyes.

 

[Raiden46]

I don't understand all of the on-the-fence BS going on in this discussion. I view things as black/white with VERY few exceptions (and this isn't one of them.) The belts need to be unified and it's not even a close decision. As people have pointed out ad nauseum, the WHC is viewed on a lower pedestal than the WWE Title. This has happened for two reasons:

1. The name of the company which all the belts belong to is WWE. If the WWE has to have one face of the company, they are going to link it to the belt which has the company brand-name smackdab in the middle of the belt.
2. A bunch of people who are/were unquestionably not main-event caliber now/yet (Christian, Swagger, Khali, Henry) considerably devalued that belt.

I understand why two main event belts were created a decade ago (surplus of talent) and, even as a WCW-hater, I appreciate the fact that WWE wanted to keep the legacy of WCW alive via the WHC, but enough is enough and its time to put the final remnants of that company to rest. Make a Punk/Sheamus title unification match, have Punk win, design a new undisputed belt, and move on to other matters.

 

[Defekt]

Less card mobility. Fewer wrestlers get the rub of being or having been a world champion.

A title run alone doesn't mean anything anymore. Miz, Jack Swagger, Dolph Ziggler, etc. are all former world champions who are mainly used as jobbers to the stars.


The genuinely deserving - Rey Mysterio or Christian maybe - could get squeezed out of the title picture entirely as spaces at the top become more sparse.

I like Christian and Rey, but neither of them are a big enough draw to main event a PPV, so they should't get title runs.


One fewer big match to sell cards. Sheamus versus Alberto Del Rio for the world heavyweight championship becomes Sheamus versus Alberto Del Rio.

It's still just Sheamus vs Del Rio. The WHC is a midcard title at best, and has been for some time. It's been years since the Smackdown title has main evented a PPV.

If the likes of John Cena, The Undertaker, Triple H and Brock Lesnar are going to be perpetually above the world championship, what worth does an undisputed title even hold?

This is a problem in itself, but having one world champion would at least make the title scene (and champion) more important.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Time for me to ineffectually stir the pot once more. If I could punch one of you in the back of the head and then point at another of you accusingly, I would.

2. A bunch of people who are/were unquestionably not main-event caliber now/yet (Christian, Swagger, Khali, Henry) considerably devalued that belt.

I disagree with at least three of the four examples given.

• Christian did not have a bad match while in the championship picture. In fact, it's fair to say he didn't have anything less than a great match. His half a dozen matches with Orton were, without exception, terrific. The match with Del Rio where he won the world title was also tremendous, and culminated in one of the best moments of the year. Not to mention that he was pretty much wrestling for Edge by proxy in the weeks preceding Edge's retirement.
• I've already addressed why I feel Swagger's reign is underrated.
• I'm no fan of Khali. I don't really ever want to watch a Great Khali match. That said, his run with the world title as the monster heel was pretty legitimate. It might not seem it now that he's a Punjabi Playboy, but it was at the time.
• Mark Henry had the advantage of being a monster heel and being entertaining to watch. That Randy Orton put him over twice certainly helped.

A title run alone doesn't mean anything anymore. Miz, Jack Swagger, Dolph Ziggler, etc. are all former world champions who are mainly used as jobbers to the stars.

With the exception of Ziggler - because someone who loses the belt after literally ten minutes isn't exactly going to look good - I'd say this is all about follow-up rather than what happens with the belt. Miz and Swagger could have been harnassed and treated as more than jobbers to the stars, but they weren't. That was the writers' decision; it wasn't related to how either did as champion, because they both did a very respectable job. The Miz beat John Cena at WrestleMania and lost the belt in a reasonable fashion. I wager he'd seem more legitimate if his current gimmick wasn't being shit, losing and then complaining about how nobody respects him.

I like Christian and Rey, but neither of them are a big enough draw to main event a PPV, so they should't get title runs.

You could definitely make the argument that Rey is. Besides, is an advantage of two belts not that one can be used to elevate and nurture lesser stars, and not be in the main event, while the other bears the weight?

 

[Mike1411]

I think it should happen but the US and IC titles have far too little credibility these days. I see it more likely that WWE will create some new undisputed title while keeping the WWE and WHC titles as the upper mid card titles.

 

[Defekt]

You could definitely make the argument that Rey is. Besides, is an advantage of two belts not that one can be used to elevate and nurture lesser stars, and not be in the main event, while the other bears the weight?

I don't think so. With years of drafts trading people back and forth, and now the apparent end of the brand extension, title reigns have been handed out to so many non main event level wrestlers that being a "former world champion" means almost nothing.

As there are two world titles, the WWE doesn't have to commit to just one guy, which is likely why there are so few legitimate stars in the WWE now.

The less titles that exist, the more important the guys are who hold them.

Two world titles made sense years ago when the brand extension was strictly enforced, and each show had it's own pay per views, headlined by credible main event talent. But not anymore.

 

[closet_fan]

I have wanted one heavyweight champion for awhile, but will it really work in this day and age? The belt is only worth the stock that the WWE puts into it. And right now, they hardly put anything into it. I would even say they put more value on Sheamus than they do with Punk since anyone who is champion on the same brand as a certain someone is always going to be overshadowed.

And that's the problem. Back in the day, the heavyweight title holder was THE guy. His storylines trumped EVERYONE ELSE'S. People paid for PPVs because of HIM. Nowadays, the champion has been put on the backburner because the WWE invests all of it's time into a certain person who I won't mention.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Cons of having One World Championship :

WWE Championship looks like shit.

No need for Smackdown if they ever decide to unify the Titles.

World Heavyweight Championship is way more prestigious than the WWE title.

Most of the mid-carders that became World Champion would never have become World Champions if there was one World Title.

1 - Not too hard to come up with a new belt design. In fact a unification would be the perfect opportunity to do one.
2 - Funny how Smackdown worked just fine before having it's own World title
3 - Just funny. When was the last time the World title match went on AFTER the WWE title match at Wrestlemania. That alone should be a pretty good gauge on which one is more prestigious.
4 - That's actually a pro.

 

[The ShIT Factor]

Two world titles means more oppritunities for new guys and smaller guys, but one title makes it more meaningful and prestigious. I'd like to have one title so that there is a definite top guy and world champion. The brands splits have essentially dissolved and it seems to be good to finally merge the titles and stop the brand bullshit. There is no meaning now and it just causes confusion amongst us as to who is the champion of the world. With less similar titles it gives more room for other rivalries flare up and ignite into far more interesting television. Also, it wouldn't hurt to merge the U.S. and Intercontinental titles, just sayin'. Two world titles

 

[DirtyD79]

I see nothing but positives for unification. Two world championships just sounds cheesy. It doesn't sound presitigious being the world champion if somebody else is the world champion too. It just looks stupid. I also really beleive everybody is pretty much where they were going to be brand split or not. In reality very few wrestlers are really the kind of wrestlers who should be world champions. Very few are the kind of wrestlers to build a show around.

As for the "deserving" guys being squeezed out, well sadly anybody who has read enough dirtsheets and biographies knows wrestling is not a meritocracy. It pretty much comes down to who the promoter wants on top and just who is able to politic the best. Or in some cases just dumb luck of being in the right place at the right time. Sometimes it's for the best, sometimes for the worst. Another thing is some wrestlers are better off chasing the belt instead of holding it. The thing that makes them appealing is watching them try. It's sort of like the joke about the dog who finally caught a car and then says "Now what?"

 

[The Ghost of Benoit]

Im all for a unified title, but until WWE gets rid of the Being John Cena championship the rest of the titles underneath it really dont matter.