Johnny B. Decent
Patti Mayonnaise
Had one once
Everybody's Favorite Arizonian.
Posts: 31,073 
|
Post by Johnny B. Decent on Dec 31, 2013 22:19:19 GMT -5
Earlier this week, I was playing WWF: No Mercy, and I noticed that the WWF had quite a few titles back in the day: You had a top-tier title, a second-tier one, a third-tier one, tag team titles, a women's title, one for Hardcore Wrestling akin to all those Brass Knuckle title the NWA used to have and lastly a one for lighter wrestlers.
So, I ask you all, how many titles a company should have and what kind?
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 31, 2013 22:21:15 GMT -5
I liked the number of titles during that period. I also liked when WCW had a secondary tag title in place of a hardcore type belt
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 31, 2013 22:23:09 GMT -5
Main event, mid card, and tag team titles are the minimum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 22:46:39 GMT -5
It depends on the size of the promotion. Probably something like one championship for every 7 or 8 or so regular, non-jobbers on the roster, counting guys in a tag team as a single unit.
|
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Dec 31, 2013 22:52:23 GMT -5
I don't think there is one perfect amount of titles. It really depends on the size of the promotion. For instance, some of the smaller indies can get away with just having one title, perhaps two if they can pull off having a tag division.
For the more massive companies, I think WWE has it pretty good with five titles right now. Hek, I didn't think six was too bad (at least it wouldn't have been if they just booked one or two of their champs a little better at any given time). In fact six might even work better at five, but I think only if that sixth is special title, ie a light heavyweight title, hardcore title, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Dec 31, 2013 22:53:51 GMT -5
It depends on the size of the promotion. Probably something like one championship for every 7 or 8 or so regular, non-jobbers on the roster, counting guys in a tag team as a single unit. Oh, you beat me to the punch by a few minutes. But yeah this line of thining is solid. |
|
|
|
Post by champviadq on Dec 31, 2013 23:59:03 GMT -5
How about if those titles got defended more than once every 30 or so plus days.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Cokehead del Knife Fight on Jan 1, 2014 0:04:17 GMT -5
I'd say that five would be ideal.
Main Event
Second tier
Tag Titles
Specialised title (So cruiserweight/hardcore/something else)
Womens
|
|
Brood Lone Wolf Funker
Ozymandius
Got fined anyway.
Possibly a Moose
James Franco is the white Donald Glover
Posts: 61,988
Member is Online
|
Post by Brood Lone Wolf Funker on Jan 1, 2014 0:14:37 GMT -5
Like others have mentioned it really depends on the promotion and also how many wrestlers the promotion runs. I have noticed though a few companies are going with three Chikara, PWG, and ROH come to mind with that three mindset, they figure they don't need five but three is ideal
|
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jan 1, 2014 0:18:32 GMT -5
No matter the size of the promotion you should have minimum a top tier singles title and tag team title. For larger companies I like a mid tier singles and for WWE sized I'd like a mid tier title and a specialty title (hardcore, cruiserweight, X Division etc....).
|
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Jan 1, 2014 0:36:28 GMT -5
All depends. If you're an indie company running once a month, you really only need a top singles title and a tag titles. Anything else is a bit too much. You might be able to get away with a specialty title but that's pushing it. If you have a weekly TV show, you can get away with a mid-card title and a lower-card title.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 1, 2014 0:40:50 GMT -5
Honestly, 4 or 5 for me. Top, secondary, tag, a woman's if you can support, and a specialty if you can support it. I dont' see the need for 8 or 9 titles, and certainly not more than 1 top one, 1 tag team one, etc.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,929
Member is Online
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Jan 1, 2014 1:25:31 GMT -5
4 is about right, maybe, maybe 5.
Top title
Mid card
Tag
Women's if you have the division for it
Lightweight or Cruiser if you have the division for it.
Really, I liked the days of 3. Perfect amount for me. Everyone shouldn't be champion of something and for a long while, it's felt that way.
|
|
Capt Lunatic
Unicron
Buttah in mah ass, lollipops in mah mouth
Posts: 3,241
|
Post by Capt Lunatic on Jan 1, 2014 1:26:54 GMT -5
You can have 100 titles if they are all booked well. WCW had 5 for a roster of 200. The TV title ended up in the trash because they couldn't come up with any story lines for it. I agree with those saying 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by froggyfrog on Jan 1, 2014 1:29:32 GMT -5
Main event, mid card, and tag team titles are the minimum. Pretty much this. A lower tier midcard title and a cruiserweight title are also nice depending on how much talent the company features |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 2:50:32 GMT -5
I've never liked the idea of a "midcard title." Why should they not want to have the main title, and be in the main event? It's like accepting you're second rate. Every wrestler should want to be the best.
Weight related titles or region specific titles make more sense if there is a "need" for more than one champion.
|
|
|
|
Post by "I'm Batman..." on Jan 1, 2014 4:24:30 GMT -5
I thought WCW did well with the World, U.S., TV, Tag, Cruiser. It seemed like each belt actually meant something and had it's own feuds going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jan 1, 2014 6:26:15 GMT -5
They should have at least one singles and a tag belt.
Anything else added should be done when size, frequency of shows, and other variables are considered.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jan 1, 2014 8:06:04 GMT -5
You can have 100 titles if they are all booked well. WCW had 5 for a roster of 200. The TV title ended up in the trash because they couldn't come up with any story lines for it. I agree with those saying 3. that's cause they didn't try. Hell with the nWo's ability to challenge for any title at any time, that was pretty much never used, they could have put it around the waist of one of the lower card members with him thinking it made him more important. Imagine Buff Bagwell trying to hang with Hollywood Hogan because he's got the TV belt I've never liked the idea of a "midcard title." Why should they not want to have the main title, and be in the main event? It's like accepting you're second rate. Every wrestler should want to be the best. Weight related titles or region specific titles make more sense if there is a "need" for more than one champion. why should you not want a title if you're not in position to get the World title? But honestly, just look at collegiate and pro sports. It's not just the top champ that gets a trophy, and it's human nature to want recognition for your accomplishments even if someone else has achieved a bit more than you |
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Jan 1, 2014 8:31:03 GMT -5
Three.
Top singles
Top tag
Top midcarder
The reason why belts mean so little these days is because not so long ago we weren't exactly a million miles away from having an 'Over 6ft 1 with blonde hair, WWE born-in-the-midwest championship'
Fewer belts the better. If that means some people never get them - great.
|
|
