|
Post by SenorCrest on Aug 31, 2010 16:48:57 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? Idk but Chris Jericho explained it before, something about a pirate or something idk. Maybe they can keep the US title but SD is more international then Raw (cuz its on basic TV, my cousins in Mexico don't have cable so that's why they watch sd, plus many people hate the US).
|
|
Chiral
Salacious Crumb
Posts: 73,562
Member is Online
|
Post by Chiral on Aug 31, 2010 16:56:56 GMT -5
Night of Champions is sure going to suck next year with 4 title matches...and I'm pretty sure NOC usually does good PPV buys.
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on Aug 31, 2010 16:57:46 GMT -5
What is wrong with that? The world title is for the maineventers not the midcarders. How do the midcarders actually become maineventers then? . Didnt you watch WWE in the 80´s or the 90´s? In the old days the wrestlers were built up before they became maineventers. WWE should really go back to that again.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Aug 31, 2010 16:59:31 GMT -5
Funny that they didn't post this before the Womens title announcement and the Unification of the Tag Titles become official. Exactly. I'll buy this when they announce the same thing for the IC/US or WWE/WHC title. Even then, I still won't buy it as anything more than NEWZZZZ that just happened to be right. They did it with the tag belts, and they announced it with the women's belt. I know the first thing that popped into my head when that announcement happened was "Are they gonna do that with all the belts?" It's an educated guess based on what we've already seen, and nothing more. They're just spinning it to make it look like "insider information" to generate web hits.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Aug 31, 2010 17:01:16 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. 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 ) That wouldn't be a bad idea if the WWE hadn't already destroyed the importance of the IC title. The average fan doesn't give a damn about who has that title anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Aug 31, 2010 17:02:12 GMT -5
How do the midcarders actually become maineventers then? . Didnt you watch WWE in the 80´s or the 90´s? In the old days the wrestlers were built up before they became maineventers. WWE should really go back to that again. Yeah, but you want main eventers all over both shows. Where is the room for elevation?
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Aug 31, 2010 17:09:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shaun2k5 on Aug 31, 2010 17:33:58 GMT -5
I've always said one WWE Champion is the best course for WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh Carlson on Aug 31, 2010 17:45:00 GMT -5
My first instinct is newz. If they were going to do it, though, my idea would be to have The Miz keep the briefcase for now ... he wins the Royal Rumble to get a title match at Mania and then at Elimination Chamber he cashes in the briefcase to get one of the titles. Then he uses his rumble win to face the other champion at Mania and unify the titles.
|
|
|
Post by chaimwitz on Aug 31, 2010 18:44:18 GMT -5
BAD IDEA.
its gonna be just liek the 80's til about 2001 when they only had 3 titles and everyone else was a jobber
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Aug 31, 2010 18:55:24 GMT -5
I can't understand why some people act as though having fewer world titles (and thus, fewer world title reigns) will make less people get over. Throwing extra championship runs at every moderately successful wrestler doesn't make them seem special; it just makes the titles seem like an afterthought and a prop, a brief "hey, you're a main eventer now" slap on the back instead of some huge acomplishment that the wrestlers are (kayfabe) aspiring to achieve as the pinacle of their careers.
Did it actually help for, say, CM Punk to get multiple world title reigns with the secondary B-title? No, it didn't, because he was never booked to look like more than a high upper-midcarder anyway, and the sum result was that it made the world title look comparatively unimportant if it would be getting won and feuded over by upper-midcarders instead of the top handful of stars.
I'm all for this unification. I'm also all for there never being more than 5-6 guys in the company at any given time who are former world champions, and I'm all for there being guys who are considered established main eventers and regularly fight over the world title who will still NEVER actually win it in the course of their careers.
That said, like most pro wrestling "news", this article sounds more like educated guessing than fact.
|
|
|
Post by dada3345 on Aug 31, 2010 20:46:59 GMT -5
Why does everyone think that no belt = no top star? Stars can be made without titles, if they face other top guys in the company and make the feuds matter. Back in the territory days and even in the 80's, you never saw the world champion wrestle for free on TV. The title feud was emphasized, but done through promos, announcer hype, and the occasional confrontation during an interview. This is how WWE should build their title matches, but do so in only 1-2 segments each night, while keeping the in-ring action focused on the other top feuds. Meanwhile, let Superstars be the place where new guys not only wrestle, but advance feuds. In the early days of Shotgun and Heat, some important things actually did happen on those shows, not just on Raw (and later Smackdown). Give us a reason to watch Superstars, through some feud advancement, face/heel turn, and (lower-level) title changes, so that it's another avenue to build an angle up for ppv, and not just a throw-away show for the lower midcard. This. If WWE can't elevate young guys without randomly throwing a world title on them, they have bigger (i.e. creative) problems than unifying the belts.
|
|
|
Post by draus on Aug 31, 2010 21:02:34 GMT -5
I've been saying they should unify the world and wwe titles ever since Bischoff just handed Trips the World belt for no reason in 2002. The prestige of a champion just is not there. You can't have two world champions for one company. One world title where the champ can go to either show is much more acceptable. Unifying the rest of the belts too gives it more prestige as well. Instead of having 9,000 belts it makes the titleholders actually feel important.
|
|
kingoftheiwc
El Dandy
Coles whipping boy is better then you.
Posts: 7,923
|
Post by kingoftheiwc on Aug 31, 2010 21:14:59 GMT -5
I wonder if this move is cost cutting for the E because the two shows RAW and Smackdown are on the same corporate umbrella and it would make sense to have everybody on both shows.
|
|
|
Post by brettappedout (BLM) on Aug 31, 2010 21:20:05 GMT -5
I wonder if this move is cost cutting for the E because the two shows RAW and Smackdown are on the same corporate umbrella and it would make sense to have everybody on both shows. That means some guys will lose there jobs and other guys that are use to being on RAW & SD! will be on Superstars more often. I hope it's not people we like.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Aug 31, 2010 21:29:46 GMT -5
I wonder if this move is cost cutting for the E because the two shows RAW and Smackdown are on the same corporate umbrella and it would make sense to have everybody on both shows. That means some guys will lose there jobs and other guys that are use to being on RAW & SD! will be on Superstars more often. I hope it's not people we like. And if it's people we don't, well screw them!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Aug 31, 2010 21:29:49 GMT -5
Thank God. Two world titles is such an unbeliavably stupid idea on so many levels and always has been. First of all, having two WORLD champions in one company doesn't make any sense. So Sheamus is the best wrestler in the world...on Monday nights? Thats stupid. At PPV's they kind of shuffle around which title is more important depending on the month. Its confusing. One title is simpler, and is easier to point out who is the top guy. 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. Not to mention the fact that there are what, 10 or so, multiple-time former "World Champions" on the roster. That's pretty stupid too.
|
|
|
Post by brettappedout (BLM) on Aug 31, 2010 21:32:23 GMT -5
That means some guys will lose there jobs and other guys that are use to being on RAW & SD! will be on Superstars more often. I hope it's not people we like. And if it's people we don't, well screw them! I will feel bad if people lose there jobs, but if it a JTG or something I'm not going ot miss them, but if a guy like Morrison or Ziggler is on Superstars everyweek I'll be somewaht upset. I just don't like the idea of one mid card title.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Aug 31, 2010 21:32:39 GMT -5
BAD IDEA. its gonna be just liek the 80's til about 2001 when they only had 3 titles and everyone else was a jobber I can't disagree more, but I'll take that as opposed to the Little League "Everybody gets a title!" mentality.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Aug 31, 2010 21:36:38 GMT -5
And if it's people we don't, well screw them! I will feel bad if people lose there jobs, but if it a JTG or something I'm not going ot miss them, but if a guy like Morrison or Ziggler is on Superstars everyweek I'll be somewaht upset. I just don't like the idea of one mid card title. I kinda get it. It just sounded so mean....
|
|