skinsfan87

I would think, and again, this would take a lot of work by WWE to restore the lost luster, that utilizing the Intercontinental belt as it was done in the 80's would sure come in handy for 2 tours (i.e., having the I/C title holder headline one tour, the World Champ the other). It worked before, seems like it would work once more. Just a thought.

Good discussion. Boxing, before the days of the alphabet soup organizations, did certainly benefit from one major champion in each weight division, certainly during the days of Joe Louis through Marciano (and, arguably Ali's early reigns) in the heavyweight ranks. Boxing would greatly benefit from this again. Wrestling, due to its worked nature and being a pseudo-sport...well, maybe nobody truly cares about the belts any longer. Being an old bloke, I remember fondly a day when people did care about who was the World champ, and long for those days quite honestly. I believe those days aren't coming back any time soon, but hold out one kernel of hope in how WWE views itself against UFC/MMA. Meltzer would have us all believe...at times...that MMA = pro wrestling, when, truly it doesn't. But, they are, to a degree, competitors. And, fans have shown they take to an organized system where there are clear World Champions. If WWE views UFC as competition, it may have to evolve to the point where it has one World Champion again, IF its fan base starts to care about it in viewing UFC's organized title structure. If WWE doesn't view UFC as competition, well, we're probably stuck with what we have. And, if the major league of wrestling if you will in the States doesn't see the need for one clear World champ, then it ain't going to happen. Thanks for the discussion.

Also: *looks around furtively, whispers to skinsfan* Pro wrestling isn't a sport I know, I know. I just loathe the term sports-entertainment. Let's just call it an athletic exhibition, shall we?

Wrestling has always been fractured, from the days of the territories, to, arguably, even now. Yes, WWE is the accepted "major league" of the sport/art form, at least in this country, but there is somewhat of a rebirth of what at first glance almost appears to be territories in the U.S. From Chikara to ROH to PWG to 3XW...it doesn't take much to see that there is an appetite for wrestling at least at the local/regional level. These independent feds, at least some of them, all proclaim to have a "World Champion". Really, as we all know, its just the champion of that promotion. WWE tries to give us the facade of having 2 different promotions under one banner, but doesn't really sell it well. We have 2 World Champions under one promotion in reality, which may in fact help explain the fact that they've lost a lot of their "seasoned" audience. Wouldn't wrestling promote itself better if it somehow banded the promotions together under one umbrella (which, will never happen again), and recognized one true World Champion? The NWA worked, at least for a while, because there was one true standard bearer. The WWF worked best, when it was becoming accepted as the major league of the sport in the U.S., when it had one World Champion. I would tend to think that, overall, wrestling would benefit by an organized system of territories, all working together, promoting and accepting one true World Champion. Or, as I hypothesized in my title, does wrestling work best when there are 2-3 major companies, and we all argue over who is the greatest champion of the sport? I can remember the days of arguing would Flair go over Hogan, or vice versa, and who was truly the "real" champion of the squared circle. Does this arguing lend itself to making the sport more popular? Again, right now, due to really not having a true #2, we can't truly argue who the best World Champ is (from a performance standpoint now...as kids, it was all too real!). Just interested in hearing people's opinions on the topic, and thanks for your time.