One World Championship: The Pros and Cons of Unification

[Reflection]

I can see the Title-Unification as a possibility once the Brand-Unification happens (which is unlikely). As long as they are two separate shows, I don't think it would (or should) happen.
The most common pro would be "ONE Champion"- the guy who will be declared Best in The WWE, with no other person on the same rank as him.
On the other side, the most common con will be the lack of chances of most people winning the belt. For example, we already have Cena, Orton, Sheamus, Punk, and now Bryan competing for the belt. Chances of guys at slightly lower level than them, like Wade Barrett, or Dolph Ziggler, or Mark Henry for instance, their chances of winning the belt comes down to almost Zero if the titles are unified; and that is one reason why I believe the titles should continue being the way they are now.
Same with the talks of IC/US Title Unification- We have one guy (say Christian) holding the belt. That would leave about 20 others (from Santino to Swagger to Ryder to Rhodes) competing for the belt, which I feel is a little more than they can arrange for. Plus if the Undisputed champion is from SD for some reason, that would only add to the clusterfuck as Supershow guys don't come to SD.
The Unifications of Divas title and Tag Team Titles worked because there were not enough talent left to compete for two separate titles. But that's not the case of the two World titles and the two Mid-Card titles.

 

[MCMG]

I am a fan of having two belts. With the sheer quantity of wrestlers on the roster it is obvious that places in the main-event are limited and taking away a belt will only hamper the development of superstars. Wrestlers who deserve to be in the main event; will never get their chance.

 

[Xombi_woof]

I agree with unifying the world titles. The WHC could be replaced with a cruiserweight belt to keep some of the smaller fish in a title picture. Besides, a much as I like Mysterio, he ain't exactly a heavyweight

 

[tripleddd]

Once again my favourite debate raises its ugly head - Unify the titles WWE & WHC - answer yes of course why?
One champion means he is the best of the best - the rest are left to challenge him and rise to that challenge or get the push towards it.Even if we go back to the Attitude era and it was dominated by three main players The Rock,Triple H and Stone Cold there were still plenty of other champions Too Undertaker,Kane,Y2J, Angle , Big show Mick Foley etc. And consider the matches these guys had to be number one contender - fantastic and consider the possibility on no 1 contenders matches now fantastic too
I don't get the angle of two titles means more superstars get a chance to be champion - why? its not prizes for all.
Lets unify it at one of the big PPV but lets have a decent storyline leading up to it.One of the reasons people got fed up John Cena winning the title because there was two main belts and we saw the same old same old matches it was in all honesty boring. One title would have meant the likes of Cena would not of won as many and if he was screwed out of the title or title contention he would of got more sympathy from the crowd.
It would also increase the prestige of both the US and IC belt and for gods sake WWE don't unify these two.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Anyone here who thinks this is a good idea to unify the titles, and just LOVE CM Punk, should think twice. If they make one sole world title, the CM Punk and Daniel Bryan get knocked off the top. You can try and deny it, but with only one world title, they would leave it for Orton vs. Sheamus or Cena vs. Big Show. Those would probably be the only four contenders. It would be like the shitty Attitude Era which had maybe 4 top stars at a time and didn't do shit with them.

Having two world titles gives people credibility. Sure, the WHC seems like a lesser title and there really isn't anything wrong with that. Give them the smaller world title to see if they can hold their own as a main eventer. Then switch them to Raw. It's worked with guys like Punk, Edge, and soon Daniel Bryan... just to name a few.

Title designs don't bother me too much. I've kind of gotten used to the current titles and after the IC title recently got changed, I think it'll be a while before we get another design change.

 

[tripleddd]

Anyone here who thinks this is a good idea to unify the titles, and just LOVE CM Punk, should think twice. If they make one sole world title, the CM Punk and Daniel Bryan get knocked off the top. You can try and deny it, but with only one world title, they would leave it for Orton vs. Sheamus or Cena vs. Big Show. Those would probably be the only four contenders. It would be like the shitty Attitude Era which had maybe 4 top stars at a time and didn't do shit with them.

Having two world titles gives people credibility. Sure, the WHC seems like a lesser title and there really isn't anything wrong with that. Give them the smaller world title to see if they can hold their own as a main eventer. Then switch them to Raw. It's worked with guys like Punk, Edge, and soon Daniel Bryan... just to name a few.

Title designs don't bother me too much. I've kind of gotten used to the current titles and after the IC title recently got changed, I think it'll be a while before we get another design change.

i think your sadly wrong since CMpunk came onto the scene he was always going to be champion and to a lesser extent Daniel Bryan but take alook now Orton and Y2J out of the picture for 2 months, Cena not invovled as Im sure he will have another go with Lesnar - both titles are looking week

 

[CyberPunk]

It is always an interesting discussion. As appealing it looks, unification may not work that well.

The current WWE rosteris not thin, but the gap between midcard and main event is huge. There are so many wrestlers who would have nothing to work with if titles are unified. Why? Look at the current storylines. Either you fight for a title, or fight with John Cena. Otherwise, you do not have a story. Heck, even IC and US titles have zero feud or story. I don't remember when was the last time two midcarders were put in a feud without any title on the line.

Before unification of titles, it's imperative that creative actually staft creating some stories, else the shows will be full of fillers and squashes.

 

[One to Remember]

Pros (of unification):

• Prestige. One prize, one big boss, one champion that looks that much more dominant because he's the undisputed king.

• 
  you can do that depending on how serious WWE takes its brand extension.
  Just like the NFC and AFC championships mean almost as much as the SuperBowl. When the brand rosters intermix the two titles formula falters. just having the same commentary, same speakers, same GMs hurts it. If WWE had let the two brands become two companies under the WWE umbrella this wouldn't be an issue.
  

  [*]A fuck-off big main event to unify the belts, possibly between two superfaces. Punk versus Sheamus? Rock versus Lesnar? Cena versus Orton?

  thats one main event period. WWE needs great mainevents about ten times a month to stay in business.
  

  [*]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.

  WTF are you talking about? There was never a reason needed to change a belt design. Don't think back to the Cena WWE belt and the Smoking Skull belt but think back to the 3 versions of the WWF belt Hogan wore. When the WWF belt turned into the green strapped name plate belt that Bob Backlund wound up dropping to the Iron Sheik was a catalyst needed?
  When they had the red carpet on the ring floor and that Attitude era belt in the case during that ceremony Austin disrupted there was no build up to a belt change.. Punk just being Punk with his views would be grounds enough for a ceremony but WWE has forgot that he declared he would change the belt when he got it back and he hasn't.
  

  [*]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.

  I hear everyone saying Jarrett was a midcarder yet he got a shot at the WWF title. Lots of midcarders got shots at the WWF and WWWF titles.
  

  [*]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.

  thats in dispute though.
  
  

  [*]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.

  Christian's first reign was going to be in dedication to Edge so that had to go down, the only issue was the length and it was longer then Kane's WWF title reign, and just barely shorter then Stan "The Man" Stasiak's.. Rey Mysterio is good enough to win the title anytime there is a vacancy and a battle royal can be used to determine a new champion.. His title reign was also linked to Eddie Guerrero's death which was gonna happen one way or the other.
  

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

  Yeah if your gonna have a main event with one guy who is a main eventer and another guy who is barely a main eventer even with a title yeah your gonna need any type of championship to boost that up. Give me Sheamus vs. Lesnar or CM Punk vs Undertaker and no belt exchange will be needed to get me to watch and pay..
  
  

  [*]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?

  
  This is where your confusing me. Most people would say either the WHC is ten years old or the old WCW title. I am in the minority that thinks its a branch of the old WWF title. The original top title was the WWE World heavyweight championship title, when the title split each new title got half of those four words, one "WWE Championship" title, the other got "World heavyweight" title, the latter name is based on the fact that those two words scream king of the hill, the former got his name because WWE is thetop fed in the Worldd making its title by default the king of the hill.. They are basically splitting criteria.. You can become larger then the World title if thats the level your own. Gacie is above the UFC.. Mayweather is above his title. Piper did not need a title, neither did Andre.. Mike Tyson without his title could still do fights that overshadowed title bouts and he could do this for nearly a decade after he dropped his belt.
  
  

  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.

  you cant make a lower title a main title. it either stays at its level or it has a name change and becomes a world title.. ECW never had a midcard title as its top title it had a regional based heavyweight title which became a World title after they left the NWA. The same for the WCW title. The NJPW IWGP title. The World Class title too. All the top titles in the NWA territories would attempt to push the NWA title out at some point and elevate themselves. It would be bizarre if the SD U.S. title and the RAW I-C title did not follow suit and it would be a complicated transition because they are secondary titles not less prestigious top regional fed titles.. The U.S. title has an advantage in this set up though because in WCW it was the title the number one contender held yet the WWE U.S. title wasn't treated the same way as the WCW U.S. title in that regard. No one is going to fight over the U.S. title the way Lex Luger, Sting, Steamboat, Nikita, Wahoo or Bret Hart did in WCW. MVP's handling of the WWE U.S. title was similar to Luger but still miles behind him which was bad for the WWE U.S. title which since day one was weak. The U.S. title was unified into the I-C title, the I-C title has been deactivated several times and before that was toted around by Billy Gunn, A Train, Test, and Santino..
  

  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.

  the tag team division is not comparable to the singles division. Just like the Women's division is not. One needs good singles stars, one needs good tag team specialist, one needs athletically gifted and charming divas. there's some over lap but you can't feel a singles division void with a tag team division guys. Weak champions have never created a situation were the tag team champions rose to prominence to feel a void in the upper echelons of the roster. Not in WWE, WCW, AWA, NWA, ECW or anywhere else, except in EMLL..

  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.

  some people do some people don't, a large segment of the audience at those shows cant even comprehend the debate we are having here over how the two titles are different. The WHC has Batista, Orton, Benoit, Angle, and Taker in its lineage. Its inaugural champion is Triple freakin H, he was in his prime from 2001-3 and him being awarded that title definitely gave it solid footing. WWE title has had del Rio, JBL, and Mysterio to water it down.. Before that it had Slaughter, Yokozuna, and McMahon to water it down.. And Khali is like 7'2, 445 pounds, how much longer could he stay on the roster without winning a title or the entire roster looking unauthentic and scared to add him into the mix? That would had been like Shamrock doing what he did in the old UFC but still not getting the old UFC title. Would that not had hurt the credibility of every champ in the old UFC if he was just never given a title shot? Come on..
  

  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.

  Brock Lesnar was promoted as the Next Big Thing and had the look, size, and ability to fit that role. He got the Drew McIntyre treatment without the Drew McIntyre results basically.
  Kurt Angle was an Olympian, he was not going to make the transition to the WWF and just stay a European Champion or something. Just like Hulk Hogan wasn't going to come to WCW in 1994 and not be at the top of the heap. Those are bad examples you cited.
  

  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.

  You have misinterpreted the criticism clearly. There saying that WWE made a mistake by given the title to a wrestler who couldn't be anything without a title. There saying that the proof in the pudding is the fact that the reaction he got after parting ways with the title was a bit mute. There saying he may had been world championship material but he wasn't world championship caliber and when you have that issue you can't work your way back to the top. Its like if you rub a screw with a magnet even though the screw isn't a magnet you can still expect it to from that point on be able to grab other screws.. When Swagger i.e. the screw got rubbed by the magnet i.e. the belt, he did not get magnetized. Now obviously his title reign is akin to when the screw is directly touching the magnet and the screw is able to at that point pick up screws with help from the magnet.. After Sheamus dropped his title he still had a reaction and a draw either as a heel or a face. Same for Guerrero too.
  The AFTER is always important unless your goal in wrestling is to retire after getting the title.. And what goes on after always has the potential to retroactively effect title reigns. Similar situations happened with Vader, Steamboat, Christian, Kane, and Simmons.. Swagger can do good as a champion but the means it would take to get him back with a title might be too hard for WWE to manage..

  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.

  Boxing has like 8 heavyweight titles and 2 or 3 of them might be regarded as World titles without unifications being needed. WWE is not a sport, ots an orginization within a sport.I am glad you bring up boxing because boxing also has many splits in the lineage of its titles. When Lesnar refused to leave Smackdown the belt presented to Trips on Raw was just like the "interim heavyweight titles" featured in boxing except in boxing the splinter would not continue for a decade. When Brock Lesnar was rising through the ranks in UFC part of his quest to becoming heavyweight champion involved him beating a interim heavyweight champion.
  

  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.

  Yoiu have a double standard though. Why is the WWE title not always having to maintain credibility? Why isn't the WWE title not having to be compared to the WWWF or WWF title all day long? How does it differ from what it was in 2002 and how does the WWE title not differ from what it was in 1998? It was never the WCW title. When the U.S. title was taken back out of the I-C title in 2003 did that meAn it held the lineage of the European title because the I-C title in 2003 also had the European title in it? The Undisputed title and the WWF title are one in the same.. any derivatives of the Undisputed have the WWF title lineage or all its lineages, not just the WCW lineage. Based on your logic I guess the WCW champions from 1991-3 arent in the WHC title lineage because their WCW title did not use the big gold belt, righhht? The I-C title is a joke, they would be better off reinstating the WWF National heavyweight title..
  
  WCW didn't have these problems in 1991 til 1993 because regardless of inequalities or favoritism showed to the WCW title the NWA title was still a real world title because it FORMALLY represented another company which was the NWA. WWE would had been better off just pushing ECW better since its title did used to represent ECW (a seperate entity) from 1992 til 2001.

 

[jhauth11]

to really keep it basic in a reply i have to say a bad idea, for the simple reason its two big of a roaster to have 1 champ over two shows when u can have a two n give guys like Shaemus and D-bryan a chance to be champ as it was only one title they wouldnt be anywhere near that belt

 

[Lee]

I think the obvious reason is house shows.

The trend over the last 10 years or so is that WWE makes more money in house shows than it does off TV and PPV and rightly so. However how many sales of house show tickets would decrease if the world champions not on the show?

Come see SD and see WHC Sheamus.
Come see Raw and see WWE champion C.M. Punk.

It doesn't matter who the champion is you want to see the champion, but if there's a unified belt on say Raw few would want to go see SD live.

 

[MWRedskins]

i think the cons outway the pros here. especially this one con. without two titles, guys like Punk would've likely never got his first push at the world title and a hardy-punk feud for a title likely wouldnt have happened. the two titles helps build up more main eventers which is why i like it. sure some fail, but then you have some that break out because of this.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Brock Lesnar was promoted as the Next Big Thing and had the look, size, and ability to fit that role. He got the Drew McIntyre treatment without the Drew McIntyre results basically.
Kurt Angle was an Olympian, he was not going to make the transition to the WWF and just stay a European Champion or something. Just like Hulk Hogan wasn't going to come to WCW in 1994 and not be at the top of the heap. Those are bad examples you cited.

My point is that talented wrestlers and talented writers can make sudden pushes work. Your point is, "No, you need talented wrestlers to make sudden pushes work!"? I don't see how that's contradictory.

I picked Lesnar and Angle because they were the first that came into my head but, looking back, they're pretty good examples - and quite comparable to Swagger. Two physically gifted, hugely successful amateur wrestlers.

[Stuff about screws and magnets.]

The AFTER is always important unless your goal in wrestling is to retire after getting the title.. And what goes on after always has the potential to retroactively effect title reigns. Similar situations happened with Vader, Steamboat, Christian, Kane, and Simmons.. Swagger can do good as a champion but the means it would take to get him back with a title might be too hard for WWE to manage..

Swagger did well with the title. That, apparently, we agree on. Afterwards, he wasn't even afforded the opportunity to stay relevant. He didn't do poorly; he didn't do anything, because he wasn't allowed to. After his rematch with Mysterio, he didn't find himself on another pay-per-view for three months and the best material he was given to work with was a couple of half feuds with MVP and then Edge. Since, he's been used to make up the numbers in team matches. You need a platform to stay over. Talent isn't enough if nobody can see you. To this day, I'm confident he'd prove to be a valuable asset if they let him - but we won't know until they do.