oldad5518
Trap-Jaw
THE GREATEST NIGHT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR SPORT
Posts: 316
|
Post by oldad5518 on Aug 31, 2010 15:00:56 GMT -5
f4wonline.com and pwpix.net are reporting that the plans within WWE within the next year are to unify all titles-- they already unified the tag titles, they're unifying the Women's titles at NoC, and plans for the WM 27 main event tentatively are a title vs. title match between the WHC and the WWE Champion. It's unknown when the IC and US titles will be unified. www.pwpix.net/pwpixnews/headlines/285254418.phpFunny.........BUT TRUE {Spoiler}Cena wins
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Aug 31, 2010 15:01:56 GMT -5
While the brand split gives more guys a chance, it also makes for a LOT of unnecessary filler. The WWE could put on two pretty tight shows if they combined the brands now.
|
|
|
Post by chunkylover53 on Aug 31, 2010 15:09:01 GMT -5
Personally I think the WWE and World title belts need to be unified. The belt is supposed to symbolize the best wrestler in the WWE, and having two of them means that the holder is only half a champion. I'd keep the IC and US titles separate, and focus on building feuds based on emotion and story rather than just wanting a belt that has no meaning. For everyone saying that someone can't get over without a title, look at Roddy Piper, Jake Roberts, Ted DiBiase Sr., Razor Ramon, Undertaker for the first half of his career, Kane, Vader, etc. They either had no titles or very short reigns, yet all are fondly remembered and highly admired to this day. That was a different era where success was alot easier to come by A)Due to only having three major championships, B)Stacked roster, and C)Wrestling not be overexposed like it is today. In this era, they might be lost in the shuffle. I really do hope they unify the World titles, one World - one World champion.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,067
Member is Online
|
Post by CMWaters on Aug 31, 2010 15:10:56 GMT -5
Before I give my thoughts on the whole unification on the World TItles thing possibly happening, I'd like to list all the people on the WWE Roster currently that have held either the WWE Championship or the World Heavyweight Championship, and look at their future. In order of their first of the wins:
The Undertaker -Seriously, I don't think Taker has too much longer. This feud with Kane may be one of his last World Title feuds. Speaking of which...
Kane -I'm seeing them giving him the World Title as a "thank you and goodbye" reign, ala Tommy Dreamer's WWE ECW Championship reign.
Triple H -He's now the father of three daughters, one of whom is almost 4 years old. Series of leg injuries. He's one quad tear away from retiring for good. Only reason he didn't come back at SummerSlam was because he got injured on top of the nagging injuries which had them write him off by having Sheamus take him out. Don't see much longer for him.
Big Show -Yeah I could have put him on the list earlier for his WCW title reign, but I'm only counting reigns won in WWE. Big Show doesn't NEED a World Title OR to be in the World Title picture. He's good enough being the Andre-like special attraction. Plus, though he's been pretty good on not getting seriously injured recently, he HAS been around since 1995...
Chris Jericho -We'll see with him. He may be leaving after this PPV. But he can be easily plugged in anywhere...he doesn't NEED a World Title. Remember, after his Undisputed reign, it took him another 7 years before he actually GOT another World Title.
Randy Orton -Most likely will stay in the main spot, since he seems to be becoming the Austin of this current era. Injuries may hurt that though.
John Cena -Currently the Hogan equivilent in WWE. He's at the point where he doesn't really NEED a World Title as well. If it were up to me I'd send Cena and Orton into the tag ranks for a while. They have good tag team chemistry.
Edge -Another iffy. He's movable, but not as easily as Jericho or Big Show. He's also had NUMEROUS injuries, this most recent one almost ending it. He may be young, but I don't see him lasting much longer.
Rey Mysterio -Mysterio's knees are bad. Looks like they wrote him off for a while via Del Rio. Not sure how much longer he'll have in WWE. But like Jericho, he's easily programmable elsewhere. Remember their IC title feud of 09?
The Great Khali -He's already bumped down to midcard. They may give him one more run but it doesn't seem likely. NEXT!
CM Punk -While I would like to see Punk get another World Title reign (or a WWE one sometime soon), the fact remains that he is doing well without one. He's pretty young and fairly injury free, the exception I think being the injury that put him in a sling for a while. He may be the new Jericho depending on what Jericho does.
Sheamus -He's got time to build...he's got a while on the top. Maybe after this title reign take some time away from the title picture, maybe a face turn (I saw a video of a post Cena/Sheamus match in Ireland, Sheamus could WORK as a face)...then after getting over enough as a face go again in the title hunt.
Jack Swagger -Swagger right now is where I saw Kurt Angle after his first title. Got the first title to have it on his resume, then gets bumped down to lower card stuff. Give him time to work with this new feud with MVP...maybe an altercation or two with Del Rio for interrupting his match on Raw. He's still young enough that he could become a major name.
NOW THEN...
Having said all that, there's only a few of the current World Champ level lot that I can see staying for more than 3 years...Cena, Orton, Sheamus, Punk and Swagger.
Saying that now, I will say that I've NEVER been a fan of the two World Titles. For me, the WWE Title has been the real World Title in WWE. Even when Trips was main eventing PPVs with the WOrld Title, I counted Brock's title as the real one.
So I'd LOVE for a return to how things were pre late August/Early September 2002, and have one World TItle for the WWE.
|
|
|
Post by kingfeurio on Aug 31, 2010 15:15:13 GMT -5
It wouldn't be a bad idea if more than three or four different people held the belts. But we all know that's not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Aug 31, 2010 15:16:37 GMT -5
The two title thing has also devalued the belts a lot. Edge shouldn't be a 9 time world champion, no matter how good he is. I feel like having two titles has just been used as a way of inflating numbers and trying to pad peoples legacies to make them seem like more than they are. I have to quote this paragraph in particular. It's ridiculous how guys are getting title reigns willy nilly. Ric Flair won 16 World Titles in the span of about 20 years, and some of his last few title reigns. I hate these guys with so many reigns. Back in the day, when people didn't have a turn at wearing the belt, you had all these great talents who didn't get the belt, and it brought up the value of the title so much. That all these great talents just couldn't get the job done. Now, pretty much everyone gets a turn at the belt at least once. I long for the days when the belts meant something. And maybe, they could help draw on certain house shows. Maybe they could draw on pay per views or tv ratings because the World Champion is going to be there this week. They could build up the value of the belt, and make people want to see it. Keeping the IC and US Titles is good though, if you're going to keep the brand split. If it ends, then they definitely should unify those titles. But, if there's gonna be two brands, then why not have those particular belts be the championship of that particular brand. I'd like to see it where the Tag, Women's and World Titles are defended on both brands, and challengers from each brand vying for that all important title shot. Then, you don't have guys like Batista putting in a cheat code for unlimited title shots. If I had to pick a champion though, I would pick either CM Punk or John Cena. Punk, because once Jericho leaves, he's gonna be the top heel. Plus, with guys around him similar to Kevin Sullivan, or Raven and his band of misfits, he could help keep the title on himself. And by top heel, I'm basing that on the guy who draws the most heat. Miz might be a good choice as well in the future. Cena though, or Randy Orton, as someone who is the face of the company. Orton actually would be a better choice, as all the fans are behind him.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Aug 31, 2010 15:17:16 GMT -5
Do we also end the brand extension though? Maybe with Smackdown moving to Sci-Fi, they feel that half of their stars aren't enough to keep the audience?
Anyone have numbers for the households that recieve MyNetworkTV vs Sci-Fi?
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,331
|
Post by bob on Aug 31, 2010 15:19:42 GMT -5
clearly NEWZZZ
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Aug 31, 2010 15:20:05 GMT -5
I think it is a bad idea unless they are ending the brand extension.
|
|
MolotovMocktail
Grimlock
Home of the 5-time, 5-time, 5-time, 5-time 5-time Super Bowl Champion 49ers-and Wrestlemania 31
Posts: 13,958
|
Post by MolotovMocktail on Aug 31, 2010 15:36:30 GMT -5
Do we also end the brand extension though? Maybe with Smackdown moving to Sci-Fi, they feel that half of their stars aren't enough to keep the audience? Anyone have numbers for the households that recieve MyNetworkTV vs Sci-Fi? I'd end it. There was a HUGE influx of star power after the WWF bought out WCW and ECW, and they just couldn't fit all of those guys on the roster at once. Now most of those guys are gone, and the top talent is a lot more dispersed. WWE has tried to make up for this by focusing the majority of their show on 1-2 storylines, and with one ppv each month, there are only 4 weeks to build to it. Ending the brand extension would create more variety in feuds, and give them more times each week to build hype for their ppv.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Aug 31, 2010 15:37:56 GMT -5
Did you not watch before 2002? That was before the branch split. If they unify the titles that would mean the WWE champion would be feuding on one show for months while the main eventers on the other show have nothing to do but twidle their thumbs and hope the champ one day looks their way. Unless they want to put all the main eventers on RAW and make Smackdown is midcarders. I'm sure that'll boost ratings. I'm sure that you're being sarcastic, but actually, let's think about this for a moment. Having your top draws on Raw isn't necessarily a bad idea, since it is a live show - you want your best performers there. Consider WWECW - How many main eventers did it typically have? It was all about showcasing lower card workers, and it had more wrestling per hour than either Smackdown or Raw. I don't think that it would be a terrible idea. The only hard pill to swallow is that Smackdown would become a C Show with no B show between it and Raw. If Smackdown
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,067
Member is Online
|
Post by CMWaters on Aug 31, 2010 15:41:58 GMT -5
That was before the branch split. If they unify the titles that would mean the WWE champion would be feuding on one show for months while the main eventers on the other show have nothing to do but twidle their thumbs and hope the champ one day looks their way. Unless they want to put all the main eventers on RAW and make Smackdown is midcarders. I'm sure that'll boost ratings. I'm sure that you're being sarcastic, but actually, let's think about this for a moment. Having your top draws on Raw isn't necessarily a bad idea, since it is a live show - you want your best performers there. Consider WWECW - How many main eventers did it typically have? It was all about showcasing lower card workers, and it had more wrestling per hour than either Smackdown or Raw. I don't think that it would be a terrible idea. The only hard pill to swallow is that Smackdown would become a C Show with no B show between it and Raw. If Smackdown If it were shown in more places, Superstars could easily be the C Show.
|
|
|
Post by CJ Denton is Egon on Aug 31, 2010 15:44:16 GMT -5
I guess that means the Big Gold Belt is being put out to pasture for the spinner.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Aug 31, 2010 15:55:25 GMT -5
I think it is a bad idea unless they are ending the brand extension. Pretty much this. I couldn't stand the Undisputed days and seeing one show be pointless while the other was on top. Given in those days, they still booked Smackdown as an equal to RAW (or at least close to RAW) I'd hate to see what would happen since they don't give a shit about Smackdown now.
|
|
greeby
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,088
|
Post by greeby on Aug 31, 2010 16:11:17 GMT -5
Let's see, reducing the number of titles that have to be featured on TV to four. Thus reducing the amount of time per show devoted to the main event and allowing the midcard a chance to actually wrestle? Nothing but good can come of this.
As for the issue of the main event scene. New talent always came in during the days of the single belt. It's arguably the current era that has allowed WWE to get away with keeping stale main eventers in contention long after their days as draws are over.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Aug 31, 2010 16:12:40 GMT -5
I'm sure that you're being sarcastic, but actually, let's think about this for a moment. Having your top draws on Raw isn't necessarily a bad idea, since it is a live show - you want your best performers there. Consider WWECW - How many main eventers did it typically have? It was all about showcasing lower card workers, and it had more wrestling per hour than either Smackdown or Raw. I don't think that it would be a terrible idea. The only hard pill to swallow is that Smackdown would become a C Show with no B show between it and Raw. If Smackdown If it were shown in more places, Superstars could easily be the C Show. True. I do think that it could also serve as a good neutral ground for advancing feuds, as others have mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by SenorCrest on Aug 31, 2010 16:36:18 GMT -5
Did you not watch before 2002? That was before the branch split. If they unify the titles that would mean the WWE champion would be feuding on one show for months while the main eventers on the other show have nothing to do but twidle their thumbs and hope the champ one day looks their way. Unless they want to put all the main eventers on RAW and make Smackdown is midcarders. I'm sure that'll boost ratings. Ha. Here's an idea: Make the IC title the focal point for SD and the World title for RAW. Retire the US title. (But keep that whole Main eventers on Raw and Midcarders on SD thing.) I could dig that. (maybe cuz I love the IC title )
|
|
Haulk
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,298
|
Post by Haulk on Aug 31, 2010 16:40:14 GMT -5
I think they have to unify the Women's and Wwe/World titles, You just can't have two champions in the same company. But the US title makes so much more sense than an "Intercontinental" title. What does Intercontinental mean to that title?
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,067
Member is Online
|
Post by CMWaters on Aug 31, 2010 16:44:34 GMT -5
I think they have to unify the Women's and Wwe/World titles, You just can't have two champions in the same company. But the US title makes so much more sense than an "Intercontinental" title. What does Intercontinental mean to that title? The original backstory: Pat Patterson was the North American Champion (real). He won a tournament in Rio Di Jinero (sp?) to unify it with the South American Championship (kayfabe). Hence, it was representing both North and South America. Hence, Intercontinental.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Aug 31, 2010 16:47:06 GMT -5
Let's see, reducing the number of titles that have to be featured on TV to four. Thus reducing the amount of time per show devoted to the main event and allowing the midcard a chance to actually wrestle? Nothing but good can come of this. I think the idea is that there's the chance that, since they have one set of belts, they would just stick with one set of people, while neglecting the other set.. If it was like that, it'd be like the second day of an EWR career, with WWE releasing about 80 people to Free Agency.
|
|