Would you rather have had one true World Champion, or two for WWE?

[AegonTargaryen]

Yes, unfortunately and tragically this involves "the brand split" in an implicit way. But we won't discuss the split. Regardless of whether there are two distinct brands, or one(in which case there'd only be one champ), does the idea of one TRUE/bonafide champion seem more agreeable and promising, or does the idea and reality of two world champions(world/universal are used interchangeably for this thread) for one global Entity like the WWE, chime with you?

I seem to feel like regardless of whether there are two brands/shows, there should be one champion and it feels far more special like that.

An argument can be made for either option, so I'll justify my argument and feeling by a few thoughts:-

1)The last time around, two titles felt special for a while because they had a unique set of guys for both titles who carried their respective brands and championships for a number of years- Taker, Batista and Edge carried the WHC; Cena, Orton, HHH carried the WWE championship, with guys like Rey Mysterio, Jeff Hardy, CM Punk, Sheamus, Miz and Jack Swagger, even the godforsaken Alberto del Rio becoming champions between 2008-2012.

The con in that case was that 8 out of 11(or so) of Edge's title wins and reigns weren't all that glorious, and are still laughable to think of to this day. As do Sheamus' 4 title wins, one of them post-unification, I might add. And IMO, Del Rio never deserved them so soon either, nor did the Miz ever deserve to win the WWE(I know many of you like Miz and think him world championship material, I don't).

They had Sheamus, Miz, Swagger, Del Rio win the title but none of them became bonafide maineventers or stars, unlike Punk and Bryan, and you can feel it to this day. Sheamus is a former 4-time champion but does he seem like one? Punk's entrance in 2011 meant a champion's entrance, whether he had the title or not.

That's one of the cons of having two world titles.

Fast Forward to the present,

2)The title distinction hurts just as much and only one of the two world/major champions feels legitimate.

When KO mocked AJ Styles that he's a paper champion and that his "Universal championship" means a lot more because he's the one holding it, even though he said that out of the kayfabe Raw vs SDL animosity, there was a subtle truth you could feel in that statement. The truth being that it's one company, there are half a dozen talented guys, and a potential star like KO calls a seasoned, internationally established world champion and stars like Styles a "paper champion", and it reflects on the company as a whole. The message is clear, neither champion is REALLY the champion. (Remember Raw in Chicago when Punk said to Sheamus- you're the world heavyweight champion and I'm the WWE champion and it makes you second-best at best??)

The essence- you've got world-class athletes like Seth Rollins, AJ Styles, KO, Roman Reigns in there..but to me, it felt like KO's title win and run so far doesn't feel legitimate, nor does the Universal title. Styles as the SOLE champion in that same environment, with hungry dogs like Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose would have meant that whoever holds the title is a top dog amidst half a dozen top dogs. (Sort of like how it was with Mankind, Rock, Austin, Taker, HHH, back in '99 ). Rather than the kayfabe animosity in who's the true champ. It just feels awful, IMO.

3)Unnecessarily protracted storylines and more title reigns for even undeserving candidates, if that's what you really like.

Think of the Styles-Ambrose program. It was really great between Summerslam and No Mercy, but in the last two months, much of their feud has been centred around a guy named James Ellsworth. Need I even say more? (And God please, don't tell me that James Ellsworth makes money for the WWE, adds value etc etc. because that is irrelevant, the Ambrose-Styles program has sucked as a result, period.)

On the Raw side of the story, I've really not felt like KO's title win and run has been good, and it never felt legit. I understand he's playing this cowardly heel, and I'm a huge KO fan, but it just doesn't feel like he's a World/Universal champion. I can say that Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns and AJ Styles, WWE's champions in recent memory, all of them felt legit, but KO's doesn't. I just can't get why.

4)Personally, I've failed to enjoy both singles feuds, the Styles-Ambrose, and Rollins-KO feud, due to the drawn-out nature and numerous matches and rematches.

It's just the way I feel, and you could go back to when Sheamus and Reigns were feuding over just ONE championship and it had been boring, but then, had they not split the titles, right now, you'd have had John Cena, AJ Styles, Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose feuding for the same (and Lesnar, Jericho, Orton, Roman Reigns always an option to contend for it, with Cesaro waiting in line) and it'd have gotten so much better between June- now.

Take those 5 guys and between June and now, you'd have seen intriguing matches. Styles' win and reign would've been better. KO winning the Rumble and the ONE world championship finally, would've probably been far more legit, something of a Chris Benoit or Eddie Guerrero win, IMO.

5)The quality of matches and rematches is just better, with one TRUE world title and 6 good-quality contenders, and you get multi-man matches more often.

Just think of it. The sheer reason Edge won the world title 11 times is because of two titles/brands. And most of those wins were really stupid and unmemorable cash-ins. You could also classify Del Rio's and Sheamus' wins as that.

It's going to happen now, again.

With only a part-timer like Cena, an-already stagnant 13-time champ like Orton, a potential maineventer like Bray Wyatt(and it can be argued whether he's a world championship material or not, IMO), Ambrose and Styles, what do you really do? It gets so boring that you hire James Ellsworth and that's your subplot.

6)Finally, it's not glorious. I wish there was one TRUE champion.

I don't care if it's Reigns, Rollins, Styles, even Ambrose. I am a huge fan of the former 3, and slightly like Ambrose.

Kindly proceed.

 

[ShinChan]

As much as I would love to see one true champion, brand split doesn't allow it. I get it that the top prize of the whole organization should be one. But brand split contradicts the notion of one ultimate champ.

Let's think what other options are available if we don't want two champions. Either the world champion can appear on both brands or he can appear exclusively on one brand.

But logically, both options ain't realistic enough. If you make the world champion exclusive for an individual brand, the other brand suffers. If you make him available for both brands, the storylines and feud get affected.

Now, I agree with you that Kevin Owens isn't a legitimate champion yet. I do think that AJ Styles is a legitimate world champion as of now.

It's not Owens' fault. You know how he became a champion? Triple H basically cost Roman Reigns the title and sacrificed Rollins for Kevin Owens to become champion. I was so excited to see what happens next? But what happened is Triple H is nowhere to be seen. The root cause of Owens' title reign is absent. We don't know why it happened. That's why Rollins-Owens feud hasn't been what it could have been.

So two champions could still be seen as legitimate champions unless their booking is worth of a true champion.

US title was elevated by John Cena. InterContinental title was elevated by The Miz. Why? How? Good strong booking.

There's no point of one champion as long as brand split is alive.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

I was against the brand split and always will be. They don't have enough talent to keep from throwing the same feuds together over and over again. Already sick of .....

Seth Rollins vs K.O
Ziggler vs Miz
Ambrose vs Styles
Charlotte vs Sasha
Y2J vs Seth

It's been happening since the brand split and even a little before with Charlotte vs Sasha. Splitting up the women was dumb as was splitting up the tag teams. Then they started pulling out all these new titles because of the split. I admit, some of them look nice....like the blue belts on SD. Plus I'm getting used to the look of The Universal Title. (Stupid name.). But it's all still a shitty idea.

They're trying (and possibly succeeding) in turning The Universal Title into a more important title than the WWE Championship. It's on the flagship show and that's where the WWE Championship should be.

Erase the brand split.

Use the blue tag belts and replace the copper tag belts for New Day. Now suddenly without a split you have a STRONG-ish division with lots of teams.

Keep Charlotte's belt and combine the women.

IC and U.S now have more contenders.

Most importantly, The Universal Championship gets thrown in the garbage and the WWE Championship gets returned to its rightful spot as most important title in the company.

Raw can regain some steam it's lost with refreshing feuds (Raw is nearly unwatchable, except for Braun Strowman)

SD Live can be even better with a refreshed roster as well.

They can have a soft rule where wrestlers aren't on both shows every week so it won't get stale.

The WWE Championship should be the only number 1 title in the company.

 

[johnbragg]

But logically, both options ain't realistic enough. If you make the world champion exclusive for an individual brand, the other brand suffers. If you make him available for both brands, the storylines and feud get affected.

This is on the writers, and this really shouldn't be an impossible task. I always thought it was a mistake to split the World/WWE title in the first brand split.

How it works in kayfabe? Well, Vince McMahon has delegated Raw to Bischoff and SmackDown to Stephanie. Correction, I forgot that the original split was Vince vs Flair. But they still had CEO Linda and the "Board of Directors" arbitrating between Vince and Flair anyway. So have the World Championship and the champion be controlled by the "Board of Directors", with opportunities for both Raw and Smackdown superstars to compete for the World title. The champion can appear on both shows, but the belt can only be defended on pay-per-view. Raw and Smackdown alternate nominating challengers.

I can see the argument that both shows needed a champion. But Raw already had the Intercontinental championship, it was SmackDown that needed a title for their top guy. "How do we bring back prestige to the midcard titles like back in Ricky Steamboat's day?" Go back to regularly putting those belt on one of the top guys in the company.

So, Lesnar wins the title, *tries* to make is "exclusive to Smackdown." Board of Directors overrules Stephanie, allows Bischoff to name Lesnar's challenger at Unforgiven (September). Undertaker is supposed to wait until No Mercy(October). So you have the setup for Undertaker to intervene at Unforgiven, leading to the Undertaker-Lesnar HIAC match at No Mercy, where HHH challenges Kane for the Intercontinental title.

That puts RAW's top title on RAW's top guy, for a month at least. At Survivor Series, instead of Big Show taking the title from Lesnar, HHH gets his shot. Citing the Ultimate Warrior precedent, HHH has to vacate the Intercontinental title on the night of Survivor Series. (You're not supposed to remember that Warrior vs Hogan was for both titles.) Lower on the card, have RAW's Jeff HArdy take HHH's spot in the Elimination Chamber for the vacated Intercontinental Championship, which should go to someone besides HBK. HHH, with some help from the Big Show, goes over Lesnar and takes the World Championship back to RAW.

(And as a bonus, someone out of RVD, Kane, Jericho and Booker T will have to have some spotlight with the Intercontinental title.)

Now Smackdown is the brand that doesn't have a Champion on the show. After the great success of her Tag Team Tournament, Stephanie debuts the United States Heavyweight Championship, as the SmackDown counterpart to Raw's Intercontinental title. She books a double-elimination tournament for with Lesnar, Big Show, Angle and Benoit, to finish at Armageddon.

It shouldn't be impossible to book the World Champion with alternating, often overlapping feuds rotating between the two brands. You have three titles that the writers almost HAVE to pay attention to.

 

[ISkye]

Not very long ago I was willing to watch several full Raw segments, and nearly all of Smackdown weekly. As time moved on that changed increasingly fast. I didn't even read results when I saw Styles's opponent in the Ladder match. A lot of it is pretty filler type stuff, but they felt like they were beating a dead horse.

I liked Miz vs Ziggler, because right when it was getting personal they'd make it over the belt. Like the belt was bragging rights, or whatever. I think I got behind the Miz weeks upon weeks ago, because he acts like a champ. Heel, Face, Legend, etc. I'd like to see someone treating whatever championship around their shoulder or waste higher than their opponent. Even higher than themselves if needed.

A lot of these feuds seem to climax on Smackdown around TLC. So hopefully building to the Rumble and it's fall out give us a little more light. Hopefully Styles can retain and we can see him in a different program. RAW kind of feels like everyone is floating around. Besides a few stand outs, even guys who can split a crowd like Rollins can are feeling stagnant.

Sometimes while I'm watching it doesn't even feel like Kevin Owens, or Styles is the champ. I'd like the belt to be a platform, even in a heated personal feud. I think it'd be cool to see a champion that felt like a champion. A lot of the story lines involving the Champion 3rd wheeling or looking like an idiot on repeat really are a pain. Not only is the belt just there, but the guy who's living just to hold onto it is as well.

Hopefully things shift moving towards Rumble or whatever direction RAW / SD becomes more clear.

 

[@smarkmouth]

One world champion, absolutely, no hesitation.

Even during the original brand split, the Undisputed Championship was originally defended on both Raw and Smackdown. The champ might have been overworked compared to the rest of the roster, but them's the breaks. Want to be champ? Earn it. It made the champ look like a true hero taking on all comers from all brands. Then, Lesnar takes his title to Smackdown as an exclusive, prompting Bischoff to reestablish the World Heavyweight Champion for Raw.

I was disappointed back then, and I'm disappointed now.

 

[johnbragg]

One world champion, absolutely, no hesitation.

Even during the original brand split, the Undisputed Championship was originally defended on both Raw and Smackdown. The champ might have been overworked compared to the rest of the roster, but them's the breaks. Want to be champ? Earn it. It made the champ look like a true hero taking on all comers from all brands. Then, Lesnar takes his title to Smackdown as an exclusive, prompting Bischoff to reestablish the World Heavyweight Champion for Raw.

I was disappointed back then, and I'm disappointed now.

There's also the option of the (heelish) champion working to the letter of the 30-day-defense rule, or just not doing house shows.

(Note: The Undisputed Champ working both Raw and Smackdown didn't add that much workload--it just meant a TV appearance instead of a third house show that weekend. Maybe more travel, if Raw and Smackdown were touring different areas, and the champ would have to fly with Vince & Co from the Raw city to the Smackdown city on Tuesday morning.)

 

[rmp0012002]

There should be one champion between the two brands. The lower belts should be the brands top belt and the world champion should rotate through the two brands like a traveling champion, ala NWA. If you want to be the top dog you have to work hard for it, the tougher schedule comes with the job. It gives you more possible match ups rather than being restricted to one brand.

 

[Naniwa91]

Something I'd like to see is the two titles be something like the number two headband in Afro Samurai. Except that the two champs would be facing each other for the right to be the number one contender for The world heavyweight championship.

A stupid championship with a name which implieth itself to be more important than the gold standard of names--World Heavyweight Championship--despite only just being introduced months ago; that title being named Universal. Such a championship should be the number two.


Another idea is to ditch that one altogether and have the Intercontinental Champion face the United States Champion for the right to face the World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion at the following PPV.


Sounds silly but it could work, a couple years from now granted better writers and whatnot.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

It is a necessary evil in the world of two PPV's a month. That doesn't mean I like it. But I can't imagine one person holding down two feuds on two programs and defending on PPV twice a month. But I never guessed they would be doing this two PPV thing when they announced another brand split.

That doesn't mean this is hopeless. WWE can give equal weight and solid writing behind both belts and I like the way each champ can use getting his belt over the other shows belt but I'm afraid at this point I don't care much at all for the Universal and I don't often care for the other major prop either. But that's just me, I have pubes.

Where the rubber hits the road for the titles is at the Rumble in to Mania over the next few years and where the pieces get moved from show to show. That will be where we see if one title is more of a prop over the other.

 

[johnbragg]

It is a necessary evil in the world of two PPV's a month. That doesn't mean I like it. But I can't imagine one person holding down two feuds on two programs and defending on PPV twice a month.

It's doable. Have them on TV a lot less, and accept that World title feuds will usually run for multiple PPV's.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I am aware that I might be in the minority on this, but I like having two World Championships. Raw and Smackdown are two separate shows, so they should each have one top guy. Now, while it can be argued that the US Champion could be the top guy of Raw and the Intercontinental Champion could be the top guy of Smackdown while the World Championship would then be dual-branded, I do not like that setup. Why? Because no one should be above the brand lines. Raw stars should feud with other Raw stars with the exception of on the Big 4 and same goes for Smackdown. Survivor Series saw battles for brand supremacy. Summerslam, Royal Rumble, and Wrestlemania could do the same. Having two full tiers of titles for each brand is the right move.

The issue of having two World Champions raises the question of who is THE undisputed top guy in all of the WWE. Well, typically one would say the guy holding the belt for the flagship show which we all know is still Raw. Arguments could be made in Styles' favor here though. He has the belt with all the history in its lineage. I am fine with this being up for interpretation. A brand would be incomplete without a World Champion, a Women's Champion, a midcard champion, and Tag Team Champions. Thus, Raw needs the Universal Championship and Smackdown needs the World Heavyweight Championship.

The extra titles do not create more "unncessary" storylines. On the contrary. If we did not have two World Championships and Styles is feuding with Dean Ambrose for what in this case is the only World Championship, then what are Seth Rollins and Kevin Owens going to do? Take turns jobbing to Roman Reigns? No thanks. The Universal Championship gives them the opportunities they deserve instead of being stuck in stupid feuds. Say what you will about the inclusion of Ellsworth in the Dean VS Styles feud or the situation surrounding the main event scene on Raw, I'll take that any day over a clogged up main event like we had a year ago.

One "undisputed" World Champion doesn't make the quality of matches increase. Again, a brand is incomplete without having a World Champion on it. I don't want a situation of Smackdown being without a world title feud on a month where it would be Raw's "turn" to provide a #1 contender, or vice versa. Two brands, two World Champions. There will never be a perfect formula to having a two brand format, there's always going to be people who find things to nitpick about. I'd rather just watch the show and enjoy myself. If something or someone is stupid, fast forward past it to the parts you do like. No one's making you watch any of this, and that goes to anybody not just the threadstarter.

I love the structure that WWE has right now. The only things missing are reviving Night Of Champions in its intended format, as well as keeping Money In The Bank, and adding the two of them to the Big 4 to make a Big 6. That's 6 months of massive special shows, and 6 months where we have 1 Raw and 1 Smackdown event the same month. WWE's made such big steps in the right direction this semester. It can only continue to get better from here and having two World Champions is part of that process.

 

[johnbragg]

I am aware that I might be in the minority on this, but I like having two World Championships. Raw and Smackdown are two separate shows, so they should each have one top guy. Now, while it can be argued that the US Champion could be the top guy of Raw and the Intercontinental Champion could be the top guy of Smackdown while the World Championship would then be dual-branded, I do not like that setup. Why? Because no one should be above the brand lines.

Do you want to tell that to Lesnar and Goldberg and Undertaker and HHH? Because I think it's fair to say that they're above the brand lines, and feud or not with whoever they want to (subject to WWE approval) regardless of brand lines.

Since the Attitude Era, we've frequently had a situation where you had big stars who were "above the belts." That should never be more than a temporary situation, while the current World Champion either moves up to the "real stars" level, or the belt gets put on one of the "real stars."

I don't think of it as having one big championship. I look at it as having three. (It's the midcard titles I've never bought the kayfabe logic for.)

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The thing about the brand split is that, as usual, WWE can't win over everyone. Some have wanted to see the brand split return, some will be bitching about it a few months from now & say that it should end, some were against the brand split in any way, shape or form, etc. so, as is the way of the world, somebody's ultimately not going to get what they want.

I didn't care a whit for the first brand split because when it was all said & done, there just wasn't as much effort or relevance made of SmackDown and that's something that's been changing since the return of the brand slit. I watched SmackDown and enjoyed it when it was taped, due in no small part to going out of the way to avoid anything that might potentially contain spoilers; the problem with that, however, is that meant that there was nothing of any real relevance taking place on the blue brand because it was taped and any sort of major happening would be splattered over the internet in such a way that you couldn't help but read about it. If they went ahead and had SmackDown as a live show even without the brand split, it wouldn't be long before the complaints of SmackDown Live being nothing more than a show that's a continuation of the storylines & overall happenings from Raw and Raw already gets 3 hours a week.

There's no real alternative to having only one World Championship for the entire roster during a brand split because all that leads to are month long feuds that culminate in the champ having one match before moving onto the next challenger. It didn't work when TNA was doing it when RVD was their champ and it wouldn't work today with Style so Owens as WWE Champion. If you want to give the appearance and hype that both brands are relevant, then they each to have a main event singles, mid-card singles, tag team and women's championships respectively.

Personally, I don't really care if there's one or two World Champions in WWE as long as they keep said champions interesting and engaged in entertaining programs that feel relevant.

 

[OYDK]

Personally, I'd rather them just stick with one title but I also understand what WWE is trying to do. They're trying to make Raw and Smackdown seem like two completely different entities that are constantly at odds with each other; basically, they're trying to recreate a watered down version of the MNW. That means that there is a Raw world and a Smackdown world, both complete with their own titles, set rosters and PPVs, and that these two worlds interact at certain times (like Survivor Series) but are ultimately completely separate brands.

When the first brand split took place, that wasn't necessarily the deal. You had Vince and Flair, and later Steph and Bischoff, basically waging war with the main goal being to one-up the other in the already existing WWE environment. What I mean by that is, everything was up for grabs as it stood during the original split. Titles, titleholders, wrestlers, etc. Basically, the two brands existed together in the same little world if that makes any sort of sense. That never seemed to be the plan this time around. It was only later on that the brand split took the form that we know today.

Could WWE have one world champion in the current environment? Sure, but it would be very awkward.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

It's doable. Have them on TV a lot less, and accept that World title feuds will usually run for multiple PPV's.

Doable but not realistically enjoyable or profitable. You would basically be announcing rematches before the matches. They may as well be have best of threes for the title.

 

[#tamale]

Personally, I don't really care if there's one or two World Champions in WWE as long as they keep said champions interesting and engaged in entertaining programs that feel relevant.

This is my feeling as well. I just feel that when deciding on the brand split, the WWE cared much more about Smackdown then the time slot they were in.

The way I see things, I would have just removed Smackdown, placed NXT in that Tuesday night lineup on USA. Then, have the Cruiserweight Classic on Wednesday leading to 205 Live Wednesday nights only on the WWE Network. You can then have three distinct champions for three very unique shows (WWE World Heavyweight Champion, NXT Champion, Cruiserweight Champion), and maybe fans won't feel like they are seeing just seeing a mirror image of each show which are only different because of what color the brand is. Raw would also finally have a major roster that can fill out three hours a week live.

Now, that's just the way I see things. Who knows if it would be feasible or not, but I feel it would help differentiate who are the champions and what they are the champions of.

 

[Aquaman6686]

I've always been a firm supporter of two World Champions, as long as the Brand Extension remains in effect (which it should always be, in my opinion). I think of it as the two leagues of football or baseball, except without a Super Bowl or World Series.

Right now though, I don't see there as being two World Champions. The harder WWE tries to push the Universal Championship, the more of a failure it looks like. It's a terrible looking title with a cartoonish name, which serves only to cheapen the title further. Hopefully WWE will realize their error sooner or later, abandon the Universal title, and reactivate the World Heavyweight Championship.

 

[radec]

This is gonna piss a lot of people off, but i actually kinda like having 2 world titles, brand split or not. AND, I actually prefer the brand split than I joined roster. A lot of my favoritism with the brand split DOES have to do with the time that I started watching wrestling, a brand split was in effect, so i grew up with the brand split. But I like the idea of a brand split because with a roster like NXT, ROH, Evolve, Lucha Underground, TNA and even NJPW, those brands basically should have a joined roster, but with WWE, that'll keep growing, the roster will never decrease. And with the brand split, that'll help thin out the rosters a little bit, so that nobody gets lost in the shuffle. On to the 2 world titles thing, even without the brand split, the 2 world titles thing isn't that god awful, but I get what most people are saying, there SHOULD be one world champion, and rightfully so. However, with the brand split, there SHOULD be 2 world titles, WHY? Because both Raw and SD SHOULD (lots of 'should' with capital letters aren't there?) have 1 world champion for brand. I prefer to have 1 tag team and women's champion, seeing as how both divisions are kinda thin, but if you want to make Raw and SD different, having a world champion for both brands could help, and it could make more main eventers, which is what we need now. So yeah, I love the idea of a brand split, even if WWE had botched it the first time.

 

[MyndZero]

@OP

Part of your post was wrong, it was AJ Styles who called Kevin Owens a paper champion. Not the other way around.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

How it works in kayfabe? Well, Vince McMahon has delegated Raw to Bischoff and SmackDown to Stephanie. Correction, I forgot that the original split was Vince vs Flair. But they still had CEO Linda and the "Board of Directors" arbitrating between Vince and Flair anyway. So have the World Championship and the champion be controlled by the "Board of Directors", with opportunities for both Raw and Smackdown superstars to compete for the World title. The champion can appear on both shows, but the belt can only be defended on pay-per-view. Raw and Smackdown alternate nominating challengers.

I love this idea.

I as well thought that the brand split is a good way of rebuilding Smackdown, but the roster has so little star power to carry two world championships. KO really doesn't feel all that great on RAW.

Plus, 1 world title means mpre prestige and exposure to the midcard belts.

I'd love some "president Tunnay" moments, taking desicions about the world championship, while the managers are left to run the rest of the show, also creating some real competition, about which brand has the champion. Is it a RAW wrestler or a Smackdown wrestler?

 

[Navi]

I'm fine with two belts, one for each division because I look at it this way. What's the point of trying to make it up the ladder (no pun intended) if you don't have an end goal in sight. The title should be that end goal, no matter if you are going for the main belt or a secondary belt.

Maybe they should change the names to make them equal in stature. Call it the RAW World Championship and the Smackdown World Championship. As it is the Universal title just sounds silly and something they came up with as an afterthought. If you have two brands and want to brand specific titles, then put the brand name on them.

What we don't need is one champion going back and forth between the brands in two separate feuds. God only knows creative can barely handle one feud nevermind two. The brand split will be around for awhile, they've put too much work into it for them to end it just like that. With the size of the roster a lot of wrestlers were going nowhere, two titles might mean we see more being elevated. Also gives lot's more time for Vince's little experiments that he likes to do every once in awhile.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

I like the idea of two belts because it gives more space for developing mainevent talents. It little undermines actual title because its kinda less special to earn it when there are two of them, but it gives more space to develop talents because you have 4 people battling for belts instead of just two at the same time. So gives guys like Owens title run instead of maybe him having another feud with Zayn. Other thing is it makes Rumble less predictable. With two belts challenger can challenge whoever he wants so gives more number of combinations. Last couple of years since unification has been really predictable in terms of Rumble.

What I dont like is having dual PPVs. I understand that its great for network this way but kinda gives lesser show except when is big 4 PPVs where both brands are there because even if they have roster to cover both brands doesnt mean that its worth to have Baron Corbin vs Jack Swagger at actual PPV.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

i always thought that their always was one world champion since the brand split and he was on smackdown. I don'T really consider the universal title as a world championship. Yes it'S the top title on Raw but they made it feel as important as the u.s. title so i consider it as just a mid card title that is been hold by a mid card player in Kevin owens.

I would love to see Raw get a true world champion like they use to have during the original brand split. It felt like it was a big deal to be the world champion of your brand and you would bring the interest up to see a dream match between both champion at some point to see who's the better champion.

But right now that's not what we got, we got on world champion and a mid card champion pretending to be the top champion.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

@OP

Part of your post was wrong, it was AJ Styles who called Kevin Owens a paper champion. Not the other way around.

My bad. I did have this feeling of it when I was writing the thread. But the point remains intact, they both insulted one another out of the kayfabe Raw vs SDL animosity, but it was a subtle indication of neither of them felt really like the Champion(it'll always be so, as long as there are two brands, unlike when Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns or Dean Ambrose were the single, unified champion between 2014-2016).

At least AJ Styles feels much more credible. KO to me does feel like "paper champion" which is why that segment preceding Survivor Series bothered me a bit, resulting into this thread.