In a way. Because what happens when the brand split ends? It will happen one day. They will get rid of half the titles. And it sure as hell wont be the WWE titles that have been going for years. It'll be the WHC that was established in 2002. The US title that was established in 2003 and the tag titles from 2002. The only one that would probably stay is the Cruiser title. I'm not saying the titles are worthless. The US title has been on some pretty good wrestlers and means more than the IC title. And before Cena's year long reign the WHC was far more prestigious. But they would still get rid of them ahead of the Raw titles. Not to mention that Benoit has held all the title on Smackdown. Sure he's held the tag and IC on Raw but nowhere near as many times.
Winning A Smackdown Title Is A Waste Of Time
- Thread starter Y 2 Jake
- Start date
If there was to be a brand unification i'd want both the top titles, as even though having one title would mean more variations of title matches, i really like having 2 main title matches on a ppv. Plus it would also mean different ends to the shows, as at the moment its always the wwe championship rivalry closing the show, i do reckon that they should combine the tag titles- and finally have a good tag division. They could also make the ECW Title like what the hardcore title used to be, and use it as a step above the U.S Title.
TheOneBigWill
[This Space for Rent]
If they have a brand unification, they'll do something likely similar to what happened during the end of the E.C./W.C.W. inVasion. They'll have head-to-head match-ups, with the winning Champion unifying both Championships & becoming the main Champion.
I'd see the Smackdown Tag Team Championships staying. The Intercontinental Championship staying, & then they'll likely create a *NEW* World Heavyweight Championship, as the Spinner belt (even the glued version Orton has) won't be the dominate Championship, yet like Jake said, they won't overshadow the former W.C.W. Heavyweight Championship as the main title either.
I'd see the Smackdown Tag Team Championships staying. The Intercontinental Championship staying, & then they'll likely create a *NEW* World Heavyweight Championship, as the Spinner belt (even the glued version Orton has) won't be the dominate Championship, yet like Jake said, they won't overshadow the former W.C.W. Heavyweight Championship as the main title either.
M
Mr.Mvp
Guest
he i would like them to keep the whc because to me that just seems more valauble. just like i think the united states is better than the intercontinental but. if they do get rid of the whc i would be very dissapointed. i dont think it is a waste of time now but maybe it will be!!!
I agree Jake. The only way i can see any significance in winning the WHC, is when the time to end the brand split comes up, I could see whoever is WH Champ walking away with both titles.
Winning the WHC shortly before winning the WWE Championship. Almost like a Jericho thing with the Undisputed Championship. Have the man who is looked at by many as the lesser of the two champions walk out with an upset and the unified championship.
Edge would be perfect. He deserves IMO to be at the absolute top more than anyone right now...if it happens.
Until then..meaningless title to me.
Winning the WHC shortly before winning the WWE Championship. Almost like a Jericho thing with the Undisputed Championship. Have the man who is looked at by many as the lesser of the two champions walk out with an upset and the unified championship.
Edge would be perfect. He deserves IMO to be at the absolute top more than anyone right now...if it happens.
Until then..meaningless title to me.
K
Koko B Ware's Parrot-Kes!
Guest
What a ridiculous comment! So are u saying that there's no point in having any championships on Smackdown. What else would they do?
Of course the brand split will eventually end but in the interim there is every reason for having the titles. When all the brands are one again this is how I'd have the championships:
WWE Championship + World Heavyweight Championship
Intercontinental
ECW Hardcore Championship
Cruiserweight
WWE World Tag Team
Women's
I'd have two top titles (similar to boxing) because of the sheer number of main eventers that there would be (HHH, HBK, Cena, Orton, JBL, Y2J, Batista, Edge, Undertaker, Rey Mysterio) as well the upper mid card who challenge for those titles(Lashley, Mr Kennedy, MVP, John Morrison, Jeff Hardy, Umaga, Khali, CM Punk, Kane).
The ECW Hardcore would be always defended under extreme rules, but would be almost as prestigious as the top two, with none of the old 24/7 crap.
Of course the brand split will eventually end but in the interim there is every reason for having the titles. When all the brands are one again this is how I'd have the championships:
WWE Championship + World Heavyweight Championship
Intercontinental
ECW Hardcore Championship
Cruiserweight
WWE World Tag Team
Women's
I'd have two top titles (similar to boxing) because of the sheer number of main eventers that there would be (HHH, HBK, Cena, Orton, JBL, Y2J, Batista, Edge, Undertaker, Rey Mysterio) as well the upper mid card who challenge for those titles(Lashley, Mr Kennedy, MVP, John Morrison, Jeff Hardy, Umaga, Khali, CM Punk, Kane).
The ECW Hardcore would be always defended under extreme rules, but would be almost as prestigious as the top two, with none of the old 24/7 crap.
Smackdown needs titles. But yeah they are pretty worthless. Not currently, but eventually. Because it doesn't matter how good the MVP or Edge pushes are. When the brand split ends they will have been champions of a title that no longer exists. It's like Booker T saying that he's a 5 time WCW champ. It's true. But that title isn't around anymore. So waht does holding it really mean.
K
Koko B Ware's Parrot-Kes!
Guest
They're not pointless though.
Why do they push Ric Flair as a 16 time world champion even though he has only won the WWE championship TWICE?
Same for Trips, they wouldnt call him the King of Kings if he's only held the WWE championship 6 times.
Both the titles show that you climbed to the top of the mountain- there are enough main event stars on both brands (Smackdown Heat, sorry, ECW, doesnt really count).
Why do they push Ric Flair as a 16 time world champion even though he has only won the WWE championship TWICE?
Same for Trips, they wouldnt call him the King of Kings if he's only held the WWE championship 6 times.
Both the titles show that you climbed to the top of the mountain- there are enough main event stars on both brands (Smackdown Heat, sorry, ECW, doesnt really count).
They push the number not the titles. Which of those title reigns were the most pointless. Probably the WCW ones. Where is that title now anyway?
Sure they would.
True. But the climb to the top of that mountain is devalued if the title no longer exists. Several years after the title is gone new fans wont remember even know about the title reigns. Without looking it up could you remeber who Booker T defeated for all 5 of his WCW World Titles?
T
Tomko
Guest
It's not a waste of time. I think that the WHC has more prestige then the WWE championship right now. Look who's held the WWE championship in the past year...
Cena
Orton (only because of Cena injury)
HHH (For about an hour)
Orton
Now the WHC has...
Batista
Undertaker
Edge (because of Taker injury)
Khali (because of Edge injury)
Batista
Edge
Besides, what place made John Cena a star? Oh yeah it was Smackdown. Who made Kennedy a star? Smackdown. Who's making MVP a Main Event wrestler? Smackdown. I don't think you can say the same for RAW.
Cena
Orton (only because of Cena injury)
HHH (For about an hour)
Orton
Now the WHC has...
Batista
Undertaker
Edge (because of Taker injury)
Khali (because of Edge injury)
Batista
Edge
Besides, what place made John Cena a star? Oh yeah it was Smackdown. Who made Kennedy a star? Smackdown. Who's making MVP a Main Event wrestler? Smackdown. I don't think you can say the same for RAW.
No. Cena gave the title more prestige with his year long title reign. The WHC has lost any prestige it had by having Khlai as champ, and Batista as a multiple time champ. Also winning the title in a battle royal doesn't help. Notice how WWE didn't do that with the Raw title.
It's not really about the brands anyway. Because they can switch. It's about the titles. And the ones that are currently on Smackdown would be the ones to go.
K
Koko B Ware's Parrot-Kes!
Guest
J
jerichoholic1991
Guest
that was 2001 actually..
2002 was rock vs taker vs angle where the rock won the title if im correct
i cant remember who said it, but i agree with them when they said they should have a unification match and edge should win. that would bring him so much more heat especially if he were to beat a top face like hardy if/when he wins the title.
or even cena once he returns. i woud love to see a unification match between them and see edge steal it from cena..again haha
I think people are mistaking something else for prestige. Yes Smackdown has had the more credible champions recently but lets be honest here, the big title is and always will be the WWE championship.
Where has this brand re-unification idea come from anyway? I dont see it ever happening. More belts = more champions = more money for the company.
Where has this brand re-unification idea come from anyway? I dont see it ever happening. More belts = more champions = more money for the company.
Err no. Cena holding the title made him look dominat. Nobody got buried when Cena defeated them. He beat Edge who's career got better after his feud with Cena. Umaga went on to perticipate in the biggest match at Mania. Khali went on to have a title run. Lashley had an excellent match with him, evenly contested as well. And Orton looked impressive for the first time in years when he had a feud with Cena.
Sure No Mercy devalued everything Cena had done before that night. But for 13 months or so that title was the most important one in all of wrestling. It's just wrestling fans today don't have the patience for long title reigns.
HBK-aholic
Shawn Michaels ❤
If the title was on someone who deserved it, and the matches weren't repetitive as they were when Cena had the championship for that long, I think long titls reigns are good. But it takes a very good wrestler not to bore the fans with it. Cena didn't have that ability. In fact at the moment I doubt there is anyone that would be able to have a title reigb for that long with the repetiveness.
The older wrestling fans got bored of paying for PPV's when they could guess the outcome - Cena would win.
I dont know Jake, I would disagree with you on this to an extent. Booker T was a five time champion on a show that beat out Raw for years( I think, my history stinks
).Smackdown is where some stars were made, John Cena, I believe Batista and i believe Edge was made a star on SD.
If doesnt matter if those titles go away like the WCW title, it means something, Booker T was a champion on WCW, even though the reign was kind of worthless, but it helped the invasion storyline to an extent because w.o that reign imo booker would have never been pushed like he was in the WWE.
Smackdown is where stars are born, MVP is becoming one, apparently everyone believes Kennedy is becoming one. If they would have won gold it still means something. It was the development of future stars.
If he didnt have the ability how did he have like a 13 month title reign? Wait because he had the abilty to draw crowds, entertain the fans, a mere 100 bored fans mean nothing when he can sell out a 35,000 seat stadium. Cena had the title for 13 months because he was the best wrestler for the job. It was in a pretty low state, HHH was injured (thank you), and Michaels was injured, even though neither drew like Cena. He had several good matches in his reign, brought out a good match in Khali, two with Michaels, the Orton Match wasn't bad, and the Bobby Lashley match could be a future match headlining WM. So how didn;t he have the ability to have a 13 month title reign?
Cena was having great matches during his title run. He didn't bore anybody who bothered to watch them. People hate him because it's cool. But on PPV just look at the facts. From when he won till when he lost:
vs. Edge TLC Good
vs. Big Show & Booker T Bad
vs. Team Big Show Bad
vs. Booker T & Finlay Bad
vs. Umaga Good
vs. Umaga Great
vs. Undertaker & Batista Average
vs. HBK Good
vs. HBK, Orton & Edge Great
vs. Khlai Good
vs. Khali Good
vs. Foley, Booker, Orton, & Lashley Great
vs. Lashley Great
vs. Orton Great
vs. Orton Bad
That's a lot of good matches. And each one adds to the credability of the title. I don't want to start defending Cena. I am by far a fan. But he's certainly not as bad as everyone says.
I dont know Jake, I would disagree with you on this to an extent. Booker T was a five time champion on a show that beat out Raw for years( I think, my history stinks
It was about 18 months. That show isn't around anymore by the way.
I agree. I'm not talking about Smackdown. I'm talking about the titles that are currently on the show.
Booker was only pushed because they didn't have Flair, Hogan or Goldberg. As soon as the Invasion was finished Booker was dropped to mid card status. He struggled to get on PPV for much of 2002. And when he was it was with Goldust as his comedy tag partner.
Yeah but what about the titles. Which is what this thread is about.
K
Koko B Ware's Parrot-Kes!
Guest
Which match recieved the most hype? That was the biggest match on the card. Even if the people who wrestled the match were the least important element.
Yeah it was worth something in 1997. But it was 3 years later when Booker got hold of it. And he wasn't ready. It came out of nowhere. It would be like Matt Hardy winning a major title. Fanboys would be pleased by the decision would baffle most people. Think of it like this. It's 7 years since WCW went under. If you started watching wrestling today or in the future you would have missed the whole existence of WCW. So in another 7 years time who's going to give a shit about his title victorys. BUT Hulk Hogan held a title for 4 years in the 80's. New fans will remember and find out about his title reign. Why? Because the title will still be around.
That means nothing, it was in existence at one point. Many great wrestlers held that belt, it was prestigious while it existed. If you were referring to the titles, so apparently it meant nothing to Hulk Hogan, Vader, Flair, Luger or Sting?
Yep Bookdust was pretty sweet.
So the US title means nothing when people like Piper held it, Benoit, Snuka, Flair Steamboat. That title was prestigious and is still prestigious, it doesn't matter if it just disappears, the title means something, and will always mean something, like the US title is a stepping stone to main event status. Alright, didnt HHH win that title like 5 times? HHH is an eleven time champion so by your standard if that belt disappears HHH should be considered a 6 time champion not 11?
No. It meant something when it was around their waists. When WCW was still running. But now the company isn't around anymore the title reigns don't mean anything. They just add to each superstars number. Flair 16 time world champ, Hogan 14 or so.
Right.
Like I said. At the time it meant something. But that version of the title hasn't been around for 7 years, so not anymore.
No. He should still be considered an 11 time champ. But those title reigns wont mean as much as his WWE championship reigns. Agreed?
K
Koko B Ware's Parrot-Kes!
Guest
No not agreed- they will both mean exactly the same. When JR and the King call him 11 time champ they don't say (or won't if/when the WHC title is abandoned) the 5 time WHC and 6 time WWE champion.
Why? Simple. Because they are both equally as prestigious, with reasons already mentioned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Y2Jake are you a mod? If so do u know why I can't post new threads?
Why? Simple. Because they are both equally as prestigious, with reasons already mentioned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Y2Jake are you a mod? If so do u know why I can't post new threads?