Would wrestling benefit from one World Champion?

[MikeCampbell]

The days of a real world champion, by most of our definitions, are long over. When pretty much every promotion is able to be viewed on a national or international basis, there's no need for one. That's why the WWE pretty much killed the idea of the Undisputed Champion defending against both RAW and SD wrestlers after four months.

[Al]

In all seriousness, when did wrestling ever have "one" World Champion? 1904-20ish, 1948-61 with some gaps in there, and 2001-02.

[Victator]

And the clinging-to-kayfabe mentality has led to nothing but awesome stuff?

More or less.

[Mad Dog]

In all seriousness, when did wrestling ever have "one" World Champion? 1904-20ish, 1948-61 with some gaps in there, and 2001-02.

1904-1920, maybe. Even back in the 30s there were multiple belts. The Midwest Wrestling Association had a world title and it ran mostly out of Columbus.

[Victator]

I think WWE would benefit greatly from unifying the World belts. They do not have the roster to support it anymore.

[Ricky Jackson]

It'll happen sooner or later, maybe as a hook for Mania 30 or something.

[Cox]

I think as long as they have two touring brands, they'll have two World championships. They will need something to headline for each tour.

[Phil Schneider]

I think as long as they have two touring brands, they'll have two World championships. They will need something to headline for each tour.

You don't need two titles for that. Right now you could have one show main evented by Punk one by Cena. That would draw better then a show headlined by Sheamus even if Sheamus has a belt.

[Cox]

I would tend to agree, but that seems to be the mindset behind keeping two World titles alive at this point, since we've been well past the need for two World titles for quite some time now. Because of the Randy Orton suspension, this summer they are doing a Cena tour and a Punk tour, so it will be interesting to see if the Cena tour does well without a World title match, and if Punk can draw on top without Cena.

[Matt D]

There's a history component now anyway. I can see us arguing who the greatest TV champion of all time was.

Now THAT I could see happening here.

 

(It's Tully)

 

Alright, granted, I've seen very little 84 NWA, but I think the inherit problem with Tully as TV champ in 85 is that his US title run is basically interchangeable. It feels like a lateral move for him. Part of that is due to the WCW show starting the championship challenge, so he ended up defending the belt a little more on TV than he probably would have, and had matches very similar to his TV title matches.

 

Like I said, I haven't seen much 84 NWA, but I can't imagine his act was better pre-Baby Doll.

 

There are a lot of great choices though.

[skinsfan87]

I would tend to agree, but that seems to be the mindset behind keeping two World titles alive at this point, since we've been well past the need for two World titles for quite some time now. Because of the Randy Orton suspension, this summer they are doing a Cena tour and a Punk tour, so it will be interesting to see if the Cena tour does well without a World title match, and if Punk can draw on top without Cena.

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.

[Mr Wrestling X]

There has been talk of unifying the two secondary belts recently. I'd imagine that the Intercontinental title will be retained if this unification were to occur. I think that this would be a foolish move unless WWE plans to debut a new belt that would be booked as an attention capturing title for the lower midcard. akin to the way the European Championship was booked in WWE from 1999-2002.

 

If WWE does unify the two world titles (which they should), then they should consider tweaking the name of the WWE Championship to something like the "WWE World Championship" to reflect the fact that the WWE Championship is actually a world title. It's always slightly annoyed me that they named the secondary titles after continents but named the top belt after the company. Not only this, but the World Heavyweight Championship (the lesser of the two world titles) sounds like it should be the "top belt" when it clearly isn't.

[Coffey]

I think WWE would benefit greatly from unifying the World belts. They do not have the roster to support it anymore.

I agree completely and I don't think my arguments for why have really changed all that much over time either. The only thing that has really changed, in my opinion, is that the roster is more thin now than it even was back when I was asking for it a few years ago.

 

First of all, and this point isn't real strong or anything, but it is pretty annoying having to explain to someone in detail who the world champion is. Before, you could just answer with a name. Now, you have to explain the brand extension, Smackdown, RAW & give two names. It doesn't come up all that often but when someone knows I'm a fan, they'll say something like "Oh, I used to watch that. Who's the champ?" UGH. "Well..."

 

Secondly, a lot of people have said things in the past relating to "without the brand extension, less people will get TV or get over" which I don't think is true. Would Daniel Bryan be a former World Heavyweight Champion? Would The Great Khali? I don't know. But the show is still dominated by John Cena, even without the title, and WWE Champion C.M. Punk still plays second fiddle to him. I would rather have one credible champion than two non-credible midcard champions. I agree with skinsfan87 in that the second belt to headline a second tour should be the Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship of the World (as Randy Savage would call it).

 

And finally, it would give WWE a reason to actually make a new title to get rid of the non-spinning spinner title. I just really dislike the design and always have and this is a pretty selfish reason.

[Mad Dog]

I think Money in the Bank is a bigger problem in the WWE than having two World Champions. I don't think two World Champions helps matters but I think smart booking could overcome having two World belts. I think where the WWE has gone wrong is with the fly by might title changes that can happen anywhere. The title history of both belts has been littered with guys winning the belt in short matches after the champion has gotten beaten up and it's devalued the belts as a result. Jack Swagger, Dolph Ziggler, the Miz, etc. all make the championships lesser because they held it. But that's all a product of booking too. Are those guys forever remembered as World Champions? Has it changed their career even as they came down the card? That hurts the belt a lot too. I remember when I first started to watch WCW in the 90s. They talked up guys and their former belts all the time. Renegade was a fucking jobber and Tenay talked about his Television Title reign every time he showed up on tv. That sense of history made the belts more important. Now it feels like being a champion only counts if it was within the last year. That sense of history isn't there and you don't feel like someone was forever marked because they won a fucking belt at some point in their career.

[NintendoLogic]

If there are going to be two world title belts, I think they should have separate identities. Make the WWE Championship the sports entertainment belt and the World Heavyweight Championship the workrate belt like the Intercontinental title was in the 80s and early 90s.