|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 20, 2013 14:34:12 GMT -5
I have said it before and I will say it again, I think there should only be one WWE Champion. The World Heavyweight Title has for a long time been playing second fiddle - and it is kind of like the Intercontinental title used to be back in late 80s/early 90s - i.e. a meaningful title that you carry to see if you are ready for the step up to the big title. Too many world champions deflate its meaning. Guys have held the World Heavyweight title that never could be considered worthy of being "the man" in WWE - so for that very reason it should not exist. The IC Title should take its slot, and unify the WWE and World Titles. The Great Khali and Jack Swagger. For me the idea of keeping the World Heavyweight title as supposedly an equal standing as the WWE title ends there. Agreed. There shouldn't be a "second tier world title." You know that if a guy like Daniel Bryan or Dolph Ziggler becomes World Heavyweight Champion, nothing is going to change for them. Their current spots in the pecking order will still be the same, and they'll still be just another guy on the roster. People will throw around the excuse that <insert wrestler here> wouldn't be World Champion if there was only one belt, but I don't see anything wrong with that. If someone like Daniel Bryan or Dolph Ziggler is talented enough, they'll break the glass ceiling regardless. WWE needs to get away from this "only world champion level wrestlers matter" mindset of booking. Even guys like Wade Barrett, Miz, and to a lesser extent R-Truth and Cody Rhodes would not be such strong forces in the midcard, if they didn't previously enjoy a main event level push. Imo, the only reason they kept the WHC is because of The Rock. Once the Rock announced he was challenging for the WWE Title, they had no choice but to keep the belt on Punk, and thus needed the WHC to keep their top stars somewhat relevant. But I think that after WM29, once The Rock is completely out of the picture, they should unify the belts. John Cena, while still having a large presence on the show, isn't really in the title picture anymore, and is basically a "full time special attraction" now. I don't see him holding the belt again except maybe as a transitional reign. Randy Orton has been depushed due to his issues. So even with one major title, there will be plenty of room to push new stars in the WWE Title scene.
|
|
|
Post by George. on Jan 20, 2013 14:42:49 GMT -5
Its not the same, and it won't be. Explain.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Jan 20, 2013 15:06:06 GMT -5
I go by what WWE says, and they said that the WWE and WCW belts were unified into the current WWE Championship. The WHC uses the Big Gold Belt, but doesn't share lineage with the old WCW Championship. No amount of fanon and fan rationalizing's going to change that. WWE's belts. WWE's rules. On the other hand, I believe WWE considers its US Championship to share lineage with the old WCW and NWA US Championships. What I don't get is they can't seem to make up their minds with the WHC. The lineage only goes back to HHH, but they released a history of the WHC DVD a few years ago and included WCW matches in it.
|
|
|
Post by Ser Davos on Jan 20, 2013 16:46:24 GMT -5
That's the WWF and WCW title, which were unified into the WWE title currently held by one Carl Matthew Punk. I'm talking about that belt and the World Heavyweight Championship created by Eric Bischoff and given to HHH in 2002 being separate since then. Actually, technically speaking, the WCW championship was officially renamed the "World Heavyweight Championship" by Vince McMahon on the RAW after Survivor Series 2001. Holding both the WWE championship and the World Heavyweight (WCW) Championship would make one the "undisputed WWE champion", which is what Chris Jericho is pictured as above. When Eric Bischoff reintroduced the World Heavyweight Championship and awarded it to Triple H in 2002, that disputed the WWE championship again. I'm 99% the WCW Championship was renamed the World Championship (minus "Heavyweight"). I've always been under the impression the WHC was a brand new World Title.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 20, 2013 19:32:58 GMT -5
The lineage of the original World Heavyweight Championship was absorbed into the current WWE Championship when the belts were unified.
|
|
|
Post by Sparvid on Jan 20, 2013 22:14:55 GMT -5
But on the other hand, the IC title was "de-unifed" from the World title, and retained its prior history.
|
|
|
Post by George. on Jan 20, 2013 22:17:53 GMT -5
WWE Championship = Main title I.C. and U.S. Championships = Mid-card titles
People are acting like WWE never had one sole main event title.
They were doing alright when they only had one main title you know...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 0:13:54 GMT -5
BTW the Big Gold Belt had been used for 5 different Titles.....
NWA World Championship: 1986 - 1993 WCW World Championship: 1991; 1994 - 2001 WCW International World Championship: 1993 - 1994 WWF/E Undisputed Championship: 2001 World Heavyweight Championship: 2002 - now.
|
|
TCM
Don Corleone
The Outcome Justifies Even the Biggest Lie
Posts: 1,887
|
Post by TCM on Jan 21, 2013 0:52:09 GMT -5
WWE Championship = Main title I.C. and U.S. Championships = Mid-card titles People are acting like WWE never had one sole main event title. They were doing alright when they only had one main title you know... They also never had a brand extension during that time, even if it sort of doesn't exist now.
|
|
|
Post by kamero00 on Jan 21, 2013 1:00:44 GMT -5
I could see Vince putting both titles on Sheamus, thinking that would be the thing to finally get him over.
|
|
|
Post by George. on Jan 21, 2013 1:13:07 GMT -5
WWE Championship = Main title I.C. and U.S. Championships = Mid-card titles People are acting like WWE never had one sole main event title. They were doing alright when they only had one main title you know... They also never had a brand extension during that time, even if it sort of doesn't exist now. Exactly. Also when they did have a brand extension the Undisputed Champion could show up on both shows anyway.
|
|
TCM
Don Corleone
The Outcome Justifies Even the Biggest Lie
Posts: 1,887
|
Post by TCM on Jan 21, 2013 2:04:33 GMT -5
They also never had a brand extension during that time, even if it sort of doesn't exist now. Exactly. Also when they did have a brand extension the Undisputed Champion could show up on both shows anyway. They also didn't have a tour system like they do now. I'm fine with having two titles if it means some people get a shot they otherwise wouldn't get. WWE isn't exactly known as the place where someone can easily break the glass ceiling. No one would watch SmackDown if the U.S. and IC titles were all they fought for, and SmackDown has always been my favorite brand since the split. They have a tough time as it is because so many choose spoilers over watching. This idea that the WHC is "second-tier" is self-inflicted. I've always considered the top titles on the same level, yet I would be considered the weird one for thinking so.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 21, 2013 2:21:02 GMT -5
Exactly. Also when they did have a brand extension the Undisputed Champion could show up on both shows anyway. They also didn't have a tour system like they do now. I'm fine with having two titles if it means some people get a shot they otherwise wouldn't get. WWE isn't exactly known as the place where someone can easily break the glass ceiling. No one would watch SmackDown if the U.S. and IC titles were all they fought for, and SmackDown has always been my favorite brand since the split. They have a tough time as it is because so many choose spoilers over watching. This idea that the WHC is "second-tier" is self-inflicted. I've always considered the top titles on the same level, yet I would be considered the weird one for thinking so. The reason the WHC is seen as second tier is because that's how WWE books it to be. The World Title is used to test new stars and give thank you runs to veterans while the WWE Title is given to the big boys. Why isn't The Rock isn't coming back to go after the World Heavyweight Title?
|
|
TCM
Don Corleone
The Outcome Justifies Even the Biggest Lie
Posts: 1,887
|
Post by TCM on Jan 21, 2013 2:32:11 GMT -5
They also didn't have a tour system like they do now. I'm fine with having two titles if it means some people get a shot they otherwise wouldn't get. WWE isn't exactly known as the place where someone can easily break the glass ceiling. No one would watch SmackDown if the U.S. and IC titles were all they fought for, and SmackDown has always been my favorite brand since the split. They have a tough time as it is because so many choose spoilers over watching. This idea that the WHC is "second-tier" is self-inflicted. I've always considered the top titles on the same level, yet I would be considered the weird one for thinking so. The reason the WHC is seen as second tier is because that's how WWE books it to be. The World Title is used to test new stars and give thank you runs to veterans while the WWE Title is given to the big boys. Why isn't The Rock isn't coming back to go after the World Heavyweight Title? - If he beats CM Punk, he can boast all he want that he broke the longest WWE Championship reign in the modern era. CM Punk needs to be shut up and since Cena of all people failed the few times he has, since Ryback keeps getting screwed and since all his other challengers straight up failed, this is prime time for Rock to raise his stock to an even higher astronomical level. - What looks more impressive: being an eight-time WWE Champion, or a one-time World Heavyweight Champion? (he's been WCW Champion/World Champion before, but not WHC; WWE says there's a difference) - The brand probably has a lot more to do with it than the belt, IMO. If the WHC was the Raw belt, he'd be going after that belt. - What beef does he have with Sheamus/ADR/Show? None, he can at least use Punk ambushing him at Raw 1000 as an excuse.
|
|