Wrestlemania Champ vs Champ? sound interesting?

[RkoMachine]

WWE Champ vs World Champ at mania!
never been done!
Should it be done?
If so who should the champs be?
who should win? should the titles be unified?
if not then what happens to the other title?

These are the questions that i would like to have answered in this thread, now i would like to see this match, maybe not at mania 27 but sometime yes, here is how I would love to see it go down

WWE Champ The Miz! Miz cashes in blah blah blah he becomes champ, but to me he is still too green to main event mania so im going to give him a few years, i think this should happen at mania 30 so he will be better then ever and for sure one of the WWE's top stars

World Champ Kofi Kingston! Once again, too green now but to me he will be there eventually, and i think by mania 30 he will also be a top star and a huge fan favorite!

The Stipulation for the match would be this "The winner of the match will be named the Champion of Champions thus a Champion of Champions title will be made and they will be the title holder, the loser will lose his title, but the title will still exist and a battle royal will take place the following week (rather raw or smackdown depending on what shows title holder wins) to determine the new champ, the loser will not be in this battle royal so a new champion will definitely be crowned

I would love to see this, this would end the debate on which show is the A show which i believe will be a more interesting debate with SD's move to syfy and hopefully once the show is moved they will start doing it live like Raw

So what do you guys think of this? would you like to see it? make up your own storyline for how you would want a champion vs champions match at mania, or if you dont want to see one happen explain why.....

Thanks for reading

 

[D-Will316]

Personally I wouldn't want to see it. There are WAY too many wrestlers that need mainevent time for there to be only one Heavyweight Championship. It was fine back in the 90s but now with the brand split and a larger roster there needs to be 2 champs. If the titles ever do wind up being on somebody at the same time. Then let us pray that the titles are defended SEPARATELY!!! and not that Unified or Undisputed stuff..

 

[I_Am_Electro_Boy]

Can I just say something do you really see Kofi Vs Miz as the main event of WM?

Anyway I think it could be a good idea but I think there is too many people in the title picture for just one championship. But I would like to see it if the titles weren't on the line but then neither the World Championship or the WWE Championship would be defended at WM. So I hope it doesn't happen, at first I thought it was a good idea but then thinking about it, it isn't that good.

 

[DL23]

Seriously that makes no sense what so ever, why crown a champions of champions only to pull it away a week later?
WWE did this back at Cyber Sunday 2006, without any title changes Booker T won and jobbed to Batista 3-4 weeks later at Survivor Series, it made no sense and yours is following the same pattern.

Champion VS Champion isn't Wrestlemania worthy, we get that match every WWE Draft RAW and now and again RAW's throughout the year, so no I'm not interested in that match concept happening at Wrestlemania.

 

[darthbonkeys]

i reckon if wwe did with what they did with Hogan VS Ultimate Warrior instead maybe us vs wwe championship bryan daneilson vs super cena you could have a great match if it was all techincal no super cena just a great wrestling match but then again that me but i would like to see it though!

 

[neildittmar]

WWF essentially did this about 20 years ago when Hulk Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior fought at Wrestlemania 6. Now granted, that was for the WWF title and the Intercontinental championship respectively. However, Warrior was such a big star and was so dominant at the time that he gave quite a bit more prestige to what is otherwise considered a mid-card title. The fact that they were both faces and nearly had the crowd split 50/50 was also a credit to that match. It was a serious champion vs. champion, title unification in every sense of the word.

In order for it to work today, I think you would need to have two VERY over stars, probably babyfaces. John Cena and Randy Orton spring to mind, but I question whether either of them are at the level of superstardom that Hogan and Warrior were back in 1990. That's no knock against either of them, but Hogan was the biggest star in wrestling for literally decades and Warrior came with such an intensity and ferocity that is still unmatched in my opinion. Plus, Orton vs. Cena has been done and was done to death at one time... Hogan/Warrior was never done up to that point, so there was a heavy intrigue factor added to everything else that made that match great.

If a champion vs. champion WM encounter were to work today, I think you'd need many of the same ingredients that made the main event of WM6 so memorable. Two top level champions, both very over with the crowd. Two titles that mean a lot to the organization, but don't necessarily have to be on the same exact level. Two competitors who have preferably never wrestled each other before, but have maintained a level of excellence in matches against different opponents. Two guys that capture the imagination and intrigue of the fans who can't help but NOT to buy tickets or order the PPV because they just have to see who comes out on top.

Obtaining all those ingredients would be a particularly lofty goal in my opinion.

 

[DL23]

WWF essentially did this about 20 years ago when Hulk Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior fought at Wrestlemania 6. Now granted, that was for the WWF title and the Intercontinental championship respectively. However, Warrior was such a big star and was so dominant at the time that he gave quite a bit more prestige to what is otherwise considered a mid-card title. The fact that they were both faces and nearly had the crowd split 50/50 was also a credit to that match. It was a serious champion vs. champion, title unification in every sense of the word.

In order for it to work today, I think you would need to have two VERY over stars, probably babyfaces. John Cena and Randy Orton spring to mind, but I question whether either of them are at the level of superstardom that Hogan and Warrior were back in 1990. That's no knock against either of them, but Hogan was the biggest star in wrestling for literally decades and Warrior came with such an intensity and ferocity that is still unmatched in my opinion. Plus, Orton vs. Cena has been done and was done to death at one time... Hogan/Warrior was never done up to that point, so there was a heavy intrigue factor added to everything else that made that match great.

If a champion vs. champion WM encounter were to work today, I think you'd need many of the same ingredients that made the main event of WM6 so memorable. Two top level champions, both very over with the crowd. Two titles that mean a lot to the organization, but don't necessarily have to be on the same exact level. Two competitors who have preferably never wrestled each other before, but have maintained a level of excellence in matches against different opponents. Two guys that capture the imagination and intrigue of the fans who can't help but NOT to buy tickets or order the PPV because they just have to see who comes out on top.

Obtaining all those ingredients would be a particularly lofty goal in my opinion.

WWE had the opportunity to do this in 2005 with JBL/Cena with the WWE & US titles and two weeks out they had Orlando Jordon beat Cena for the belt, now in my opinion JBL and Cena were both pretty much booked as unstoppable and that match as much as it wasn't great, could of worked and added more with a champion vs champion theme, that match hadn't been done before hand like Mania6 and both guys were booked to look unstoppable and both had their own gimmicks, yet WWE pulled the rug, I wish they hadn't in all honesty, but as a whole no match in WWE is worthy of title vs title at Wrestlemania like Hogan/Warrior, and I don't see WWE trying to replace that match anytime soon with their new and updated Champion VS Champion match, if they wanted to they could of at Mania21 but they didn't then again Hogan was inducted at Mania 21 and known Hulk he probably pulled a few strings to get the title off of Cena so he can lay claim to have had the only champion vs champion match at Mania.

 

[KKarvox]

No, it shouldn't be done. The reason being you'd get rid of two major draw matches in favor of one. You also take away title shots from two other stars, in favor of two guys that are already champ. Plus, we have the Brand Extension, and unifying the titles would give one show all of the spotlight.

In Order

"Should it be done?" Never Should be done, not at Wrestlemania, this is something you have at a three hour Raw Special, or the Draft.

"If so who should the champs be?": Only if it was two MAJOR draws, and only in a match weve never seen at Wrestlemania, like Taker vs. Cena, one time only. But that fued would draw huge on its own, no titles needed.

"who should win? should the titles be unified?": The Titles should not be unified, there is too much good talent to go around.

 

[jholcomb22]

I would like to see this in only one way.

Miz has built himself to be a main eventer with or without the MITB suitcase. I would love to see him hold on to the case until Wrestlemania. Either win the Rumble, or the Elimination Chamber for the Title or #1 contender at Mania. Challenge Raw champion with Rumble opportunity, and SD! champion with MITB. It would be different to see him win both title in one night, but not to unify them...just to make him bigger, and, imo, a better heel.

 

[Thephenominal1]

I like the idea of that. I just don't think it would work in todays time. Yeah, when hogan and the warrior did it they were bassically two of the biggest if not the two biggest guys vince had. Maybe down the line they could do somthing like us title vs IC title in a co main event. That might be somthin to look forward to. If they did it that way at least they could still have the big titles from both brands defended. Now another thing I would love to see before he officially retires in a year or two. I would like to see Taker face off against super Cena. Cena is the face of the company and is bassically made to look unstopable. Taker has been unstopable for his whole career. I could see that happening, not at this years mania but the next. (especially because reports are that taker is done after he does his 20th mania) You could have them face off in Hell in the Cell, a Casket match, or a Buried Alive match. Have the stipulations be Cena's powers or takers streak and career. It could end up good for both guys. Have Taker get his 20-0 record and still go out on top. Then have cena turn back into the ganster like when he came in. Any thoughts on that?

 

[JackGallow]

I have one firm belief wen it comes to pro wrestling and there is one thing i will always hate about WWE, there should be only one "world" champion in the company. Having the WWE title and the World title's leaves a big question in the air that decreases credibility in the company and taht is the question who is the best in the world? If the UFC had two "World" champions in the same weight class i no id sure ask that question. So to be honest i truely believe those two titles should be unified for that purpose alone and maybe that could even be the angle leading up to wrestlemania, who is the true champion of the entire world.

 

[Judah's Lion]

i've been split on this for a long time. the WWE made such a big deal about unifying the world titles, then WWE and WCW, at the time and Jericho got instant heat for beating the Rock and Stone Cold in the same night to be the first ever undisputed world champ. and then not long after, like maybe a year or so, the titles were split again. and there was one WHC for each show, smackdown and raw. so what was the point of unifying the titles? why not just keep them separate in the first place? or how about just leaving the WHC unified?

as i said, i'm split on this. but i do know that there has been more than one Champion vs. Champion match with both belts on the line. of course, Hogan vs. Warrior is the most iconic, and for good reason.

but IC Champion Kane fought WHC Triple H in a title vs. title match, with Triple H winning and unifying the titles. then, a few months later, the IC title was re-created. which brings me back to my first point; why disolve/unify titles if you're just gonna bring them back a few months later? Triple H should have just dropped the IC belt or defended both or anything other than unifying it with the WHC and then re-creating the belt a few months later. totally odd booking, IMO.

so back to the thread on hand: champion vs. champion at Mania? i'm okay with that. i'm also okay with unifying the titles that are the line. with the expectation that they remain unified. and that the booking was done right. otherwise, just have a champion vs. champion match and have only one title on the line. whatever the booking and decision, just be consistent.

 

[neildittmar]

I have one firm belief wen it comes to pro wrestling and there is one thing i will always hate about WWE, there should be only one "world" champion in the company. Having the WWE title and the World title's leaves a big question in the air that decreases credibility in the company and taht is the question who is the best in the world?

This is a really good point. Professional boxing suffers from exactly the same problem. Too many "world" titles... too many people claiming to be champion. Title unifications are few and far between and when they do happen, there is yet another sanctioning body claiming that their fighter is champion. Along with somewhat lackluster talent, the "alphabet soup" title mess is probably what has all but killed boxings heavyweight division.

Therefore, WWE would have to be VERY careful how they handled a champion vs. champion, title for title storyline. Along with the things I mentioned previously, another big factor would be how the loser of the contest fared afterwards. At WM6, when Warrior became champion a torch was (supposedly) passed labeling him as the top star in the company. As the loser, Hogan gained his "immortal" moniker and went on to become an even bigger star than he was, if that was even possible.

Once again, the same scenario would need to be played out so that the "loser" isn't forgotten. Moreso, the loser needs to be elevated in a match like that so that he effectively looks good while going out on his back. Again, pretty tough to pull off but it can be done if the competitors, championships, locale, and other key factors are done right.

 

[sepehrsfmech]

guys not at wrestlemania, at bragging rights, champion of smackdown, vs champion of raw, the winner gets to be the smackdown or raws GM until the next years bragging rights

 

[Dave]

You know, I was actually thinking a couple of days ago that we have not had a good Champion versus Champion match in a long while in the WWE. Whether that is a good thing or not still remains to be seen but I do think that there is a definite magic to a Champion versus Champion match at all times. I fondly remember when The Two Man Power Trip went against The Undertaker and Kane for 4 Championships and think how awesome that match was. I honestly had no clue who was going to come out on top in that match and that was what was so great about it. I am a huge Triple H mark and just witnessing that match was a treat for me.

As for this idea though, I don’t think it will legitimately happen. I will admit that I would like it to but will we ever see the WWE bring it to fruition with the ultimate goal being an amalgamation of the Championships? Probably not. If it was to happen though, I think there is only two men who could pull of that match and make it a huge spectacle that it deserves to be. Those two men, from the respective brands, are The Undertaker and John Cena.

Seriously, just think about this for a moment. John Cena being the icon that he undoubtedly is within the WWE and his record at WrestleMania goes against the streak that the Undertaker has amassed. Who wouldn’t mark out for that!? You could actually see The Undertaker lose his streak and at this point, I honestly believe that John Cena is the only man in the WWE that could actually pull that off. However, it would make sense for The Undertaker to retire with his streak intact and that is where the real mystique of the match comes into play. Both have a lot to lose and win and it would be a huge blockbuster for the WWE, no doubt about it!

 

[JGlass]

Hey man, a Kofi vs. Miz match sounds like a good time. It HAS been done before (they feuded over the US Champ on RAW a few times), but since then they have both matured as performers and wrestlers, so I don't doubt it will be a very entertaining match.

However, the main event at Wrestlemania? Where BOTH belts are on the line?

Ehhh, I think I'd rather see John Cena or Randy Orton, Edge or Chris Jericho. Maybe by that time, CM Punk will be a main event level heel, and maybe we will be lucky enough to see Daniel Bryan in the title hunt by then. By no means, am I excluding Kofi or Miz from being in a title match; I just don't think they belong in one together, let alone one where both belts are on the line.

No, let's stick to the current format. One WWE Title match, one WHC match, and one or two main event level grudge match(es).

 

[Nomis]

Meh, its a decent idea. But didn't SvR do thatfor a Road to WrestleMania? They had the ECW, WWE, WH Champions all fight in a triple threat at Wrestlemania. Its not that exciting, it wouldn't really draw me, and plus Miz v. Kofi WM 30? I don't see Kofi Maineventing Wrestlemania 30, maybe Miz, but not Kofi. Not the greatest, but, I say a 5.5 on a scale of 1-10

 

[Greydon]

Well...This has happened. We do have an Undisputed Champion, in Y2J. Even though not at a Wrestlemania. That match was huge. He beat two of the biggest stars in the WWE at the time. The unified the titles, at this time, and ruined that idea because there can be only one...Undisputed champion, and that was and is Jericho.

I don't see the titles combining soon.

 

[donfryeismyhero]

I gotta disagree with the majority of posters here. I definatly wanna see 1 WWE world champ NOT 2. It's completely stupid to have 2 world champions and ultimately devalues either 1 or the other. People on these boards bitch moan & groan all the time about how their so sick & tired of see the same old world title fueds. Well 1 undisputed champion makes for alot more different fueds as that 1 undisputed champion gets to defend on both brands. And if they were to crown a new undisputed world champ, it should be at wrestlemania & it should be between Cena & whom ever WWE precieves to be the # 2 guy or the next Cena of the WWE. The titles picture in WWE should look like this. 1 undisputedf world champ, 1 undisputed womans champ & 1 set of undisputed world tag team champ while keeping the IC & US titles. The IC & US title should be used to elevate guys to the world title & should be held with great prestige. In the glory days of WCW they did this well with their US title having main eventers like Bret Hart, DDp, Sting Luger, Hall etc.. battle over the title while others like Hogan, Nash, goldberg etc.. battled over the world. Those 2 belts should also be used to lable someone who is next in line for the world title. The issue of too many main eventers warrenting 2 world titles is just dumb.

 

[donfryeismyhero]

I have one firm belief wen it comes to pro wrestling and there is one thing i will always hate about WWE, there should be only one "world" champion in the company. Having the WWE title and the World title's leaves a big question in the air that decreases credibility in the company and taht is the question who is the best in the world? If the UFC had two "World" champions in the same weight class i no id sure ask that question. So to be honest i truely believe those two titles should be unified for that purpose alone and maybe that could even be the angle leading up to wrestlemania, who is the true champion of the entire world.

Well the UFC has on numerous occasions. Just recently their were 2 heavyweight champs with Brock being the "real" HW champ & Shane Carwin being the interim HW champ. Brock unified the titles.

 

[CyDeez]

You are reaching pretty far on this one. Battle Royal and what not. LOL.

I could see another Unification one day. I'm not sure who would be in that match. I can assure you it won't be Kingston. In 3 or so years, Orton AND Cena will still be atop the company. I think for any kind of match with the magnitude you are speaking of, needs to be the biggest stars you have involved. So even by then, Cena and Orton will still be in the picture.

The only way I would want to see that match, is if they combined the 2 brands again and both shows were like they used to be, with all wrestlers on both shows. Not that I want that, because I think more guys are pushed this way, with the brand split.

Something I absolutely wouldn't want to see is The Title's name being changed to the Champion Of Champions. I have never liked it. I never will either.

All I think of when I hear Champion Of Champions, is Booker T saying it in his "King" gimmick voice! lol

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Nothing wrong with having a title vs. title match, but not at wrestlemania (unless they unify both titles).

First reason being it would make the Royal Rumble pointless if they were just going to have a champion vs. champion match at WM and RR matches are always a highlight for the WWE, so why make one of the biggest matches that WWE has mean nothing? I'm sure you could work around it but there's no point.

Another reason would be that building a storyline for it wouldn't be too intriguing and probably wouldn't have the build to it that would be needed. Since the WWE champ is usually on RAW and the World champ is usually on Smackdown it would make it a little difficult to make a storyline around it that would work. Besides, if they were doing a champ vs. champ match (and the titles WEREN'T being unified) it would be the main event for sure and people have gotten accustomed to seeing a world title match at Wrestlemania, if both champions are in the main event then it probably wouldn't be a world title match as it seems that WWE is quite content with the 1 champ on RAW and 1 champ on Smackdown.

Main event(s) at wrestlemania should be reserved for big matches and although a champ vs. champ match fits that category, it completely forgets about all the other wrestlers that could use a main event match at WM, why build a non-title match with 2 champions when you can build 2 world title matches and elevate 4-5 guys in those 2 matches.

I have no issue with a champ vs. champ match, but as others have said reserve it for Bragging Rights, let them have a quick 3-4 week program and move on.

 

[donfryeismyhero]

Nothing wrong with having a title vs. title match, but not at wrestlemania (unless they unify both titles).

First reason being it would make the Royal Rumble pointless if they were just going to have a champion vs. champion match at WM and RR matches are always a highlight for the WWE, so why make one of the biggest matches that WWE has mean nothing? I'm sure you could work around it but there's no point.

Another reason would be that building a storyline for it wouldn't be too intriguing and probably wouldn't have the build to it that would be needed. Since the WWE champ is usually on RAW and the World champ is usually on Smackdown it would make it a little difficult to make a storyline around it that would work. Besides, if they were doing a champ vs. champ match (and the titles WEREN'T being unified) it would be the main event for sure and people have gotten accustomed to seeing a world title match at Wrestlemania, if both champions are in the main event then it probably wouldn't be a world title match as it seems that WWE is quite content with the 1 champ on RAW and 1 champ on Smackdown.

Main event(s) at wrestlemania should be reserved for big matches and although a champ vs. champ match fits that category, it completely forgets about all the other wrestlers that could use a main event match at WM, why build a non-title match with 2 champions when you can build 2 world title matches and elevate 4-5 guys in those 2 matches.

I have no issue with a champ vs. champ match, but as others have said reserve it for Bragging Rights, let them have a quick 3-4 week program and move on.

I didn't even think of how the Royal Rumble would work into this idea as far as unifying the titles at Wrestle mania. The only way I can think of it working would be for 1 of the champions just prior to the rumble having to vacate the title thus maybe putting that particulare title on the line during the actual royal rumble match (see Royal Rumble 92). Then from their they can build towards a Champion vs Champion match on the big stage. Maybe something like the new world champ saying that while the winner of the rumble was obviously gonna be crowned new world champ, the stipulation of the typical rumble contract still stated that the winner of the rumble would go on the WM to face the champ. It can be done & done well just as long as thier's no Russo type of booking in it which WWE does often

 

[M. Winters]

I don't really like the idea too much. There's too many guys in the title picture on their respective show and it would just become a huge clusterfuck if there was only one belt. I like the way they have it set up now with each guy on their respective show and sometime inter-mingling on the other one.

 

[JackGallow]

Well the UFC has on numerous occasions. Just recently their were 2 heavyweight champs with Brock being the "real" HW champ & Shane Carwin being the interim HW champ. Brock unified the titles.

Yeah I know but that was different Carwin was only the Interim champion like you said until Brock was ultimately healthy to unify the belts. Anytime there is an interim champion it is only temporary, I meant it as if there were permanently two world champions in one weight class, that would make one scratch their head and ask well who really is the champion of the entire world?, there can only be one and i think thats my biggest issue with the WWE i feel they devalue themselves with not having a definite World Champion