|
Post by nerdkiller4life on Dec 28, 2007 10:15:47 GMT -5
I just felt curious and thought I'd figure out which one of the PWI reconised titles is the better.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Dec 28, 2007 10:17:16 GMT -5
I say WWE because it has more history. I think having more than one world title in the company is stupid
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 28, 2007 10:20:45 GMT -5
I say WWE because it has more history. I think having more than one world title in the company is stupid Don't they call one of the tag titles the world tag team championships though? But yeah, having more than one singles world title is pretty stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Loves Dr. Pepper on Dec 28, 2007 10:33:57 GMT -5
I say WWE because it has more history. I think having more than one world title in the company is stupid Unless I am misunderstanding, since there is a brand split, one title would be the undisputed title. Would you want this instead of a world champion for each brand? I may not be making sense, but I just wonder how if you have Raw, Smackdown! and ECW brands how this would work?
|
|
HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Dec 28, 2007 10:34:16 GMT -5
The WWE Championship.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 28, 2007 11:04:21 GMT -5
I say WWE because it has more history. I think having more than one world title in the company is stupid Unless I am misunderstanding, since there is a brand split, one title would be the undisputed title. Would you want this instead of a world champion for each brand? I may not be making sense, but I just wonder how if you have Raw, Smackdown! and ECW brands how this would work? Seperate ECW from Raw and Smackdown and have them both fight for the Undisputed title. It worked in 2002.
|
|
|
Post by nerdkiller4life on Dec 28, 2007 11:08:51 GMT -5
OK, what I ment to say is that which is the better world title "right now" and I think its the WHC because, we know how Vince is taking constant dumps on the WWE belt by making it hidious looking and all, especially when he makes it a spinner belt and putting "The Champ" as the champ.
|
|
|
Post by nerdkiller4life on Dec 28, 2007 11:13:30 GMT -5
Unless I am misunderstanding, since there is a brand split, one title would be the undisputed title. Would you want this instead of a world champion for each brand? I may not be making sense, but I just wonder how if you have Raw, Smackdown! and ECW brands how this would work? Seperate ECW from Raw and Smackdown and have them both fight for the Undisputed title. It worked in 2002. Yea, that would work, that would be a good way to start a new Attitude era and end the brand extension.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2007 14:56:21 GMT -5
Yea, that would work, that would be a good way to start a new Attitude era That was a specific era in time spurned on by some specific people. Unifying a few belts won't recreate it. Nothing will. Even after intermingling the Smackdown and ECW rosters, it's still pretty unlikely. And yeah, the WWE(former WWF and WWWF)title has the prestigious lineage dating back to Buddy Rogers, and Bruno Sammartino, and Bob Backlund, and Hulk Hogan, etc etc. But I'll always mark for the big gold belt.
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Dec 28, 2007 14:58:30 GMT -5
I say WWE because it has more history. I think having more than one world title in the company is stupid I don't think the level of prestige should be based on history. The NWA has history, but it doesn't mean crap these days.
|
|
mo
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
"Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..."
Posts: 16,303
Member is Online
|
Post by mo on Dec 28, 2007 15:04:31 GMT -5
I've always considered the WWE Title to be THE title, even when the WHC was on Raw and being treated as the top belt.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 28, 2007 15:04:44 GMT -5
I don't think the level of prestige should be based on history. The NWA has history, but it doesn't mean crap these days. But then what are you basing it on? Just the current champions? Yeah, Edge owns Orton...
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Dec 28, 2007 15:08:55 GMT -5
I don't think the level of prestige should be based on history. The NWA has history, but it doesn't mean crap these days. But then what are you basing it on? Just the current champions? Yeah, Edge owns Orton... I agree that Edge owns Orton, but basing on soley History is not the way to go imo.
|
|
rko
Don Corleone
DANCE MONKEY! DANCE!
Posts: 1,411
|
Post by rko on Dec 28, 2007 15:59:08 GMT -5
i say the big gold belt, just cos it is a BIG GOLD BELT!
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 28, 2007 16:02:05 GMT -5
Unless I am misunderstanding, since there is a brand split, one title would be the undisputed title. Would you want this instead of a world champion for each brand? I may not be making sense, but I just wonder how if you have Raw, Smackdown! and ECW brands how this would work? Seperate ECW from Raw and Smackdown and have them both fight for the Undisputed title. It worked in 2002. I must be the only person that hated that (one title for 2 shows/brands). It just made the shows too predictable. The show without the champ suffered and went into #1 contender mode while all the focus went to the show with the champ. On the question at hand, if you are talking about the belt (as your second post seems to point out), then the WHC by far. That is one of the top 2 or 3 belt designs of all time. If you mean the lineage of the title/history/which seems more important then the WWE Title by far.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Dec 28, 2007 16:08:54 GMT -5
The obvious answer is whichever title is currently on RAW as that is the most valuable title in the company, and the only one that really means something.
Right now its the WWE Title then. Before that, the World.
|
|
|
Post by Branimal on Dec 28, 2007 16:10:06 GMT -5
I like the current design of the WHC so much more..but..I prefer the WWE Championship overall.
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Dec 28, 2007 16:10:56 GMT -5
The Worldwide Hot-Dog Eating World Championship.. of the World.
I used to hold it you know.
|
|