WWE: One world champion not enough

[SmattyG]

The main reason none of the guys you mentioned have a shot at winning the world title in the coming months is they are just not quite good enough. Don't get me wrong - I think Bray Wyatt and Cesaro should have already had runs as the top guy, but that was before Brock came back.

I do like your idea of a brand exclusive titles though. The guys you mentioned could perhaps be in the hunt for the US Title on Smackdown with the IC Title on RAW. The big problem with having two World Titles again is it diminishes the prestige of both; and you have Brock Lesnar lurking waiting for his next shot.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Again with one of these threads? There is just no pleasing some fans. People complained constantly during the Brand Extension to only have one World Championship. Now they are wanting two again. Make up your mind, guys. There is no point in having more than one World Championship. The only title tier that is big enough right now to justify two belts is the midcard. I miss the big gold belt as much as the next guy, but if it came back it would just be a glorified midcard belt. No thanks. All they need is the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. One top guy for the whole federation, which is how it's supposed to be. If you really want a belt exclusive to each show, have Smackdown center around the Intercontinental Championship and make the US Championship only defended on Raw or something.

 

[Rykerzane]

I'm not sure bringing back a WHC would help solve what seems to be the resounding theme which is that a lot of these guys are talented but have nothing to fight for, especially because some story lines aren't good these days.

But I do believe a cruiser weight and one other title brought back would be good. Don't know if it's European because I just never got that or come up with a new title but I think titles create good motivation in story lines.

Think of our cruiserweights without splitting up tag teams. Neville, Sin Cara, Kalisto, Kofi, etc would put on great matches again with something to fight for.

I agree though that it seems like we have a lot of guys who COULD be WWE Championship match material but are put in these weird or dead end story lines which is sad because to me, the talent on the roster is as good as it has been but the writing is not great.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Why create another world title when they could just put some effort into making the IC title more important?

Which is what they were attempting to do by giving having Daniel Bryan wear the IC belt. Having him constantly defending it on both Raw and Smackdown would have given prestige.....plus a lot of excitement....to the title. See how much attention was paid to the US title when held by John Cena.

As for whether or not to have a 'world' title for each brand, there are arguments to be made for both sides, and we've read most of them in this thread. Still, I'm a fan of having only one person designated as the 'best' ......by virtue of being the one to hold the world title.

Let everyone else chase that person. It means more that way.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

One top guy for the whole federation, which is how it's supposed to be. If you really want a belt exclusive to each show, have Smackdown center around the Intercontinental Championship and make the US Championship only defended on Raw or something.

Exactly right. There should only ever be ONE premier Championship in WWE. That title signifies that you are THE man in the company, having 2 World Titles waters this down. Not every wrestler needs to be World Champion, that right should be reserved for the a few- the World Title means more that way. That's why guys like Mr Perfect, Roddy Piper, Scott Hall, Rick Rude, Ricky Steamboat etc never held the top belt in WWE- because the competition was so fierce. With 2 World Titles you get guys like Jack Swagger, Rey Mysterio, Alberto Del Rio etc getting title reigns, when really they were never World Champion material.

There's no reason why WWE can't make the Intercontinental and/or United States titles more important, instead of ignoring them as they have done in recent years. They've got more than enough TV time to do that, and John Cena has done a great job with the US belt since WrestleMania.

It just doesn't (and never has) made sense to me for WWE to have 2 World Titles.

 

[timothy26]

having two world titles led to things like

- Alberto Del Rio vs Jack Swagger for the World Heavyweight Championship fourth down on the card at Wrestlemania 29

- 18 Second match opening the show at Wrestlemania 28. World Heavyweight Championship, Daniel Bryan vs Sheamus

- World Heavyweight Championship match opening the show at Wrestlemania 27 and getting and getting less time than Michael Cole vs Jerry Lawler

it also means with the increase in titles, quite often, the IC title and US title weren't defended on PPVs, making them meaningless for a long time.

The title is there to elevate the performer, with the way the US title has been booked lately, whoever has it in theory should be the number 2 guy in the company.

 

[No Count Pup]

One top guy for the whole federation, which is how it's supposed to be. If you really want a belt exclusive to each show, have Smackdown center around the Intercontinental Championship and make the US Championship only defended on Raw or something.

Exactly right. There should only ever be ONE premier Championship in WWE. That title signifies that you are THE man in the company, having 2 World Titles waters this down. Not every wrestler needs to be World Champion, that right should be reserved for the a few- the World Title means more that way. That's why guys like Mr Perfect, Roddy Piper, Scott Hall, Rick Rude, Ricky Steamboat etc never held the top belt in WWE- because the competition was so fierce. With 2 World Titles you get guys like Jack Swagger, Rey Mysterio, Alberto Del Rio etc getting title reigns, when really they were never World Champion material.

There's no reason why WWE can't make the Intercontinental and/or United States titles more important, instead of ignoring them as they have done in recent years. They've got more than enough TV time to do that, and John Cena has done a great job with the US belt since WrestleMania.

It just doesn't (and never has) made sense to me for WWE to have 2 World Titles.

I disagree vehemently. There is one major world champion in all of North America. It has been awful. The ratings are in the toilet. Having one world champion and one mainstream wrestling company is sapping the fans dry. If "the man" is draining ratings, he isn't really the man. Swagger, Khali, and JBL drew better ratings than Rollins and Lesnar. That was back in the two world title days.

 

[laodaron]

I disagree vehemently. There is one major world champion in all of North America. It has been awful. The ratings are in the toilet. Having one world champion and one mainstream wrestling company is sapping the fans dry. If "the man" is draining ratings, he isn't really the man. Swagger, Khali, and JBL drew better ratings than Rollins and Lesnar. That was back in the two world title days.

Please stop talking about ratings. Your other rantings in this thread are silly enough, but ratings mean absolutely nothing anymore, except to a few old fashioned executives. The Network is really strong, and the viewership on the PPVs is really high.

In addition, you're drawing logical fallacies all over the place. There is no reason to ever believe that the two titles drew more than the unified title. Wrestlemania 32 is expected to beat the American indoor attendance record. Does it have anything to do with one title? Nope. But you would lead us to think that it does.

Two titles is convoluted and boring. It only made sense in 2001 when there was an invasion, and then afterwards for a short time when there was a brand split. But even with a brand split, there should have been a unified top tier champion.

People don't care who the ultralightwelterfeather champion is. They care who the single undisputed heavyweight champion is.

 

[The Brain]

This points to a fundamental difference in our arguments. I see world champion in those guys. If WCW was around they would win the Big Gold Belt. To see them wrestle in tag matches, or suffer from 50/50 booking is frustrating. The current main eventers are rating-anemic anyway. Might as well let the uber talents rise to the top on the WHC side.

I think we actually agree in what we want. Our finish line is in the same place but we're taking different paths to get there. I agree that the tag matches and 50/50 booking is frustrating. I want more out of those guys too. I don't know how long you've been watching WWE but the IC title used to be a much bigger deal than it is now. Even though I said I don't see the guys you mentioned as world champions I do like them and that wasn't meant as an insult by any means. If WWE can simultaneously restore the importance of the IC title and give those guys a push by having them compete for something more meaningful everybody would win and we would get the best of both worlds. If they bring in another world title and present it as something equal to the current title then someone like Dean Ambrose could be elevated by winning it but it would be at the expense of bringing Seth Rollins down. If the IC title is taken more seriously again then those that have been successful competing for it will be more ready to eventually move up to the world title. Basically I want the exact same thing you do. The only thing we disagree on is what the title should be called. You want the word world in the title they compete for while I want the word Intercontinental.

 

[L@RISANO]

The ratings are a disaster. One world champion is the worst idea in history. Bringing in the WHC would be huge. It's time to make WWE great again. Sorry to talk like Trump, but that was fun. Now if I could be serious for a moment: ratings have suffered since the one world title thing began. Khali and Swagger drew better than Raw 2015. Something's gone terribly wrong.

And on the booking comment, I would guess it is easier to book a midcard title than a world title. How does the WHC lead to lazy booking?

So, your big plan to help the ratings is to introduce(/reintroduce) a glorified Midcard title?
As many have said in this thread already(as have I), the Intercontinental title with better booking could do the same job as you're proposing with regards to the WHC title.

Ratings have been crap because WWE Creative have dropped the ball big-time and have resorted to poor storyline booking in general. It really has nothing to do with having One World title whatsoever.


As for my 'lazy booking' comment. Just putting yet another belt so people could randomly fight over it without any proper storylines involved is basically what plagues the current Midcard titles in general. Bringing back the WHC would be no different whatsoever.

 

[No Count Pup]

Please stop talking about ratings. Your other rantings in this thread are silly enough, but ratings mean absolutely nothing anymore, except to a few old fashioned executives. The Network is really strong, and the viewership on the PPVs is really high.

In addition, you're drawing logical fallacies all over the place. There is no reason to ever believe that the two titles drew more than the unified title. Wrestlemania 32 is expected to beat the American indoor attendance record. Does it have anything to do with one title? Nope. But you would lead us to think that it does.

Two titles is convoluted and boring. It only made sense in 2001 when there was an invasion, and then afterwards for a short time when there was a brand split. But even with a brand split, there should have been a unified top tier champion.

People don't care who the ultralightwelterfeather champion is. They care who the single undisputed heavyweight champion is.

Numbers don't lie. One company, one champion=anemic ratings. I would go further, but since you think opinions are rants I don't see the point.

 

[No Count Pup]

So, your big plan to help the ratings is to introduce(/reintroduce) a glorified Midcard title?
As many have said in this thread already(as have I), the Intercontinental title with better booking could do the same job as you're proposing with regards to the WHC title.

Ratings have been crap because WWE Creative have dropped the ball big-time and have resorted to poor storyline booking in general. It really has nothing to do with having One World title whatsoever.


As for my 'lazy booking' comment. Just putting yet another belt so people could randomly fight over it without any proper storylines involved is basically what plagues the current Midcard titles in general. Bringing back the WHC would be no different whatsoever.

Midcard titles elevate midcarders to the midcard level. Fans know it, even younger audiences. If fans know that a midcard titleholder won't go any further its signals to fans the wrestler has hit a ceiling. I think what I need to restate is having one company and one world champion stymies main eventers who could work elsewhere to win the big one. Too many gifted wrestlers hang in limbo and fans get restless. At least with two world titles more wrestlers can scale the top. It worked well for most of the Brand Extension.

 

[L@RISANO]

Midcard titles elevate midcarders to the midcard level. Fans know it, even younger audiences. If fans know that midcard titleholder won't go any further its signals to fans the wrestler has hit a ceiling. I think what I need to restate is having one company and one world champion stymies main eventers who could work elsewhere to win the big one. Too many gifted wrestlers hand in limbo and fans get restless. At least with two world titles more wrestlers look important. It worked well for most of the Brand Extension.

Hence, the many responses by various posters with regards to making the IC title matter more as a stepping stone towards the Main Event level, thereby making the re-introduction of a glorified Midcard title with the word "World" in it unneccessary.


Too many 'gifted' wrestlers are in limbo not due to lack of titles at all, but rather due to poor storyline writing.
Booking title feuds of non-Main Event titles usually follows the formula of Superstar A attack/insult Superstar B = Title match at PPV > Rinse. Repeat


Fortunately, with Cena winning the US title at Mania, we saw something more engaging. Now, only if they could do as such for the current IC Champion and use the IC feud as a way to build a new Main Event guy, then we might get to see more Hogan vs Warrior type feuds down the line.



As the Brain said:
"I think we actually agree in what we want. Our finish line is in the same place but we're taking different paths to get there."

"Basically I want the exact same thing you do. The only thing we disagree on is what the title should be called. You want the word world in the title they compete for while I want the word Intercontinental."

 

[King Patrick Star]

Back when the WWE had 3 Brands going at the same time, I always thought that the Championship Titles should be unified and the Undisputed WWE World Heavyweight Champion should hold the WWE Championship Title Belt, World Heavyweight Championship Title Belt, and the ECW Championship Title Belt. I also thought the Mid-Card Champion should hold the Intercontinental Championship Title Belt and the United States Championship Title Belt. I loved it when the Unified WWE World Tag Team Champion held the World (Raw) Tag Team Championship Title Belt and the WWE (Smackdown) Tag Team Championship Title Belt. I was hoping Layla and Michelle McCool were going to hold both the Women’s Championship Title Belt and the Divas Championship Title Belt. My point is, no, I don’t think the WWE needs a second World Championship Title, but yes, I think the WWE should have a second World Championship Title Belt for the WWE World Heavyweight Champion to hold. If Seth Rollins is “The Man” now with the Big W and the Big Flag, imagine what he would look like with the Big W, Big Flag, and Big Gold!!

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I think the simple fact that we are all agreeing on in is that WWE need ALL their Championship belts to be prestigious and important.

The WWE Title is obviously the premier championship in the company, but there's no reason why the Intercontinental Title and United States Title should be afterthoughts. By dedicating tv time, creating captivating storylines and putting big name wrestlers into feuds for those titles, WWE can make the IC and US Titles mean more than they currently do.

Holding the secondary belt in WWE used to mean alot, PPVs have been headlined by IC title matches in the past and could be again if the storyline is right and the talent is good enough. Instead of just throwing random people into title matches, if WWE actually put the effort into revitalising these titles then they won't need a 2nd world title.

As The Brain said, we want the same thing- another important title that people want to see defended, but it shouldn't be called a second WORLD title, that totally takes away from the idea that the champ is the best.

 

[Winds-Of-Change]

No. For the same reason there isn't two Super Bowls, two NBA Finals, etc. If there was two Super Bowls or World Titles, then both World Titles would be devalued. Like, I'm not the man, I'm just one of two men.

Totally agree.

Remember when WWE had two world titles? Remember what a mess it was post 2007 and how jumbled everything was?

Having two titles devalues the other one...there isn't a need for two.

 

[KromyD]

Bringing back the European Championship could work. Keeping just the 1 WWE title and making the I.C and U.S title more relevant seems like it would work.

A story line where Wade Barrett returns and aligns with the Authority, could than show glimpses of HHH's run with the title to make it seem a bit more prestigious.

 

[No Count Pup]

Several recent posts have noted that we all want characters to be treated well and we all want the titles to mean something. I agree. Winds-of-Change added that the two world title situation was messed up after 2007. There is truth to that. But from 2002 to 2007 it worked really well. Having two world titles enabled John Cena and Batista to take the reigns at the same time. It opened doors for Eddie Guerrero, Randy Orton, and Edge. For all three the IC Title helped them but world titles made them.

Maybe fans should pine for a second world title that gets pushed like the 2002-2007 years. There was less of a ground swell for a unified world title back then. Just my two more cents.

 

[HBKperfect23]

I hated the 2nd world title with a passion. I feel it devalued both titles during the time. It would have been like if the Patriots/Seahawks game was for the NFL Championship and the Packers/Colts played earlier in the day for the Pro Football Championship and that was Super Bowl Sunday.

Some good points were brought up with adding value to the IC/US titles which I don't need to bring back up. I'd even like them to get rid of one of those titles and just have the world, mid card, and tag titles. I do think the E has done a great job as of late adding value to titles.

In the early/mid 90s I liked the IC title more then the world title. No reason they can't have that as the workhorse title again and do the same thing now.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Get this through all your heads... One World Champ IS enough...

What isn't enough is the still piss poor way lower titles are treated, look at UFC... does it matter to Connor or Punk they aren't going for the Heavyweight belt? No... they have their division and being top of that is the goal - there is no UFC pound for pound "ultimate" champ cos they know it would kill their business, yet WWE still has cruisers holding a heavyweight title (sorry Rollins, good as you are...)

The one hope right now is that Owens is gonna take the IC title and take it skywards... I really get the feeling that's why they took the US off Cena, so Rollins can "retire it", they saw enough on Owens to allow a long run... but it needs to be a long run... Owens breaks Honky's record, calling it now... Perhaps they let Cena have the US back so there is one belt that can change hands still, but even then...WWE still wouldn't do it right. Cena and Batista, give me a break... it's telling only one actually made it... cos only one CAN at a time... it's why Roman is on the back burner, why Davey couldn't move up the same time Bret or Shawn did and why Scott Hall was the guy who jumped...

Forget a 2nd World title, it's meaningless unless it is a weight related belt and rigidly stuck to... make the IC champ the #1 contender again - bin MITB and the best solution, make the IC title something that can not only be cashed in but that without fail, from next year on the Suimmerslam main event is always IC title vs World, with a reset eitehr way... the IC gets won at NOC and then defended till Summerslam, knowing there is a shot in it... it'd be a better plot point than the tired briefcase... someone could hold the belt 10 months and lose it the week before Summerslam or it could trade throughout the year...

All the issues are of Vince's own making - he had the PERFECT formula until Bret & Shawn moved up... now it's the conveyor and EVERYONE who has a midcard title has to move up or they failed... some of the best guys in WWE history NEVER held a title at all, or at best had one or two short IC reigns... now it's expected that Ziggler's, Breezes, Balors, Miz's all move up or they failed...

Guys like Martel, Tito, Bossman, Bigelow, DiBiase, all held very few titles and look at them, legends and bona fide deserving of the HOF... Is Ziggler cos he got two 2nd World titles? Nope...

 

[Slash-LN]

All the issues are of Vince's own making - he had the PERFECT formula until Bret & Shawn moved up... now it's the conveyor and EVERYONE who has a midcard title has to move up or they failed.

You act like Shawn and Bret are the first two who went on to win the world title after winning the IC title.

Savage? Warrior?

And don't confuse people's over fandom with people who think logical.

There's plenty of mid-card champions who people know were never going to go any higher.

Goldust. Lance Storm. Carlito. Johnny Nitro. Marty Jannetty. Jeff Jarrett. Boby Holly. Val Venis. Ken Shamrock. Dean Douglas. The Godfather. D'Lo Brown. Rikishi. Albert. Test. Santino. Drew McIntyre. Curtis Axel.

Just for IC champions. I don't think very many people would consider their WWE runs failures. Maybe Marty but it has nothing to do with his lack of a world title. It has to do with him messing his own career up.

There were some that were meant to be champions like Marc Mero and maybe Ahmed Johnson but even they aren't failures.

And there's disappointment with guys like Davey Boy Smith and Razor Ramon never winning a world title in the E but they still wouldn't be looked at as failures.

The only reason people saw the IC title as a stepping stone was because Shawn and Bret were part of an era that made the IC title so important. That's not Vince's fault.

 

[Honkey_Kong]

When WWE split the world title up to the WHC and WWE titles, you ended up having one of them being an upper mid-card title and the other one being the title that Cena was defending or challenging for.

The fact of the matter is there can only be 1 top title in any promotion. The OP listed a bunch of different promotion's world championships. Now in the territorial days, you couldn't just watch WWWF Monday and then on Thursday watch AWA. You had access to a regional promotion and with few exceptions, that was it. What happened in Atlanta, nobody in New York saw and vice versa.

What we all agree on though is the need for an importance put on the midcard title. In the 1980's and very early 1990's, WWF didn't have their world champion defending or even in action every week on TV. Usually, it was the IC champion defending the title against a no-name jobber. The IC title was the workhorse title and it's champions were typically excellent workers that could reliably put a good show on week in and out.

If you want to restore prestige to the midcard titles, put the world title on somebody like Lesnar (again) and not having him on TV every week. The world title defenses should be reserved for big events. Meanwhile the midcard titles get defended very frequently.

 

[No Count Pup]

Get this through all your heads... One World Champ IS enough...

One world champion is your preference. That does not mean it is enough. There is a malaise in WWE. Sure the writing could be better, but the biggest problem is talent stagnation. What is there to fight for if a world title is completely out of reach? We get Wyatt, Cesaro, Ambrose, Barrett, Rusev, Ziggler, and Owens spinning their wheels in the mud. There's always next year right? No, because the world title will freeze from January until WrestleMania so a part time challenger can emerge. In the meantime we'll get more six man tag fodder and cumbersome one-on-one feuds. Post-WrestleMania the usual suspects will challenge for the gold.

I understand the affection fans have for the Intercontinental and United States Championships. Let's be real though: those titles were never considered draws. The IC Title may have supplemented some major shows and headlined a SummerSlam, but in general it was the World Champion who fueled the engine. WWE has outgrown the one World Title model we knew in the 80s. It has a larger talent pool, monthly pay-per-views, and hour upon hour of original content to churn out. In addition, WWE is accountable to numbers-driven shareholders. WWE investors want results but what they see is ratings have dragged the past two years. They also see a WWE Network that is hot or cold month to month. It would make sense for WWE to try what worked in recent history: a second world title.

Who in the internet wrestling scene complained when Eddie Guerrero and that other guy embraced at the end of WrestleMania 20? Nobody said the scene was tarnished because there were two world champions. When Cena and Batista carried their world titles out of WrestleMania a year later there were similarly no complaints. Fans still recall fondly the WHC match between Edge and Taker at WM 24. CM Punk wasn't told his WHC was pointless when he cashed in on Edge in 2008 or when Daniel Bryan captured the belt in 2011. Fans today still marvel at the HBK/Jericho WHC Ladder Match. Without a second world title we would have missed out on a classic.

Many have posted that the IC and US titles need to be booked better and everything will be alright. I respect that opinion. My counter is this: WWE would elevate more stars and rejuvenate its programming if a second world title got 2002-2008 treatment. If the IC and US title can be made to look important, a second world title has all the more potential.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

You act like Shawn and Bret are the first two who went on to win the world title after winning the IC title.

Savage? Warrior?

And don't confuse people's over fandom with people who think logical.

There's plenty of mid-card champions who people know were never going to go any higher.

Goldust. Lance Storm. Carlito. Johnny Nitro. Marty Jannetty. Jeff Jarrett. Boby Holly. Val Venis. Ken Shamrock. Dean Douglas. The Godfather. D'Lo Brown. Rikishi. Albert. Test. Santino. Drew McIntyre. Curtis Axel.

Just for IC champions. I don't think very many people would consider their WWE runs failures. Maybe Marty but it has nothing to do with his lack of a world title. It has to do with him messing his own career up.

There were some that were meant to be champions like Marc Mero and maybe Ahmed Johnson but even they aren't failures.

And there's disappointment with guys like Davey Boy Smith and Razor Ramon never winning a world title in the E but they still wouldn't be looked at as failures.

The only reason people saw the IC title as a stepping stone was because Shawn and Bret were part of an era that made the IC title so important. That's not Vince's fault.

The IC isn't the point... Bret & Shawn were the first guys who went from lower card all the way to the top... Tag Team to World titles via the IC... Savage and Warrior had different pushes. Bret & Shawns became the template going forward.

 

[Slash-LN]

The IC isn't the point... Bret & Shawn were the first guys who went from lower card all the way to the top... Tag Team to World titles via the IC... Savage and Warrior had different pushes. Bret & Shawns became the template going forward.

No it didn't.

Not every wrestler even starts out in a tag team and works their way up that way.

There is no template. You just live in a false reality where you make things up and think it's true because you say it's true.

"EVERYONE who has a midcard title has to move up or they failed"

Do you not remember saying this? So the IC title isn't the point but everyone who had a mid card title has to move up or they failed? Is the IC title not a mid card title? Is everyone who was a mid card champion who didn't become the world champion looked at as a failure?

The answer is no.

You may think people think that way but they really don't.

People get disappointed if someone they like isn't moved up. That's not the same as considering them a failure. And there's no encompassing belief that all mid card champions have to move past that.