|
|
Post by smokeandmirrors on Jan 25, 2013 18:19:19 GMT -5
I hear a lot of reasons why there should only be one World Champion and granted, most of them stand to reason. However, can somebody put a point across why two World Championships works ok? And I don't mean for house shows, talent purposes etc. I mean explain to me why you think there can be more than ONE Champion of the World.
Now of course during the Raw vs Smackdown era, each brand was entirely seperate and needed it's own World Championship. It didn't matter that there was two because Raw and Smackdown were to complete seperate entities.
Now, WWE refer to someone holding "a" World Championship. Not, "the" World Championship.
Anyone think this actually works ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Jan 25, 2013 18:23:38 GMT -5
I just think of it as one being the champion of the world and the other being the champion of the UNIVERSE! THE GLORIOUS WWE UNIVERSE! Something something, and then Vince struts out of a meeting with the board of directors.
|
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Jan 25, 2013 18:30:14 GMT -5
You know I could almost be into two world championships if they were in some ways defended and/or acted differently from each other. Like maybe the WHC having time limits to its defenses, or the WWE championship (MITB/Royal Rumble excepted) requires the challenger to have held say the IC championship prior to their status as number one contender.
You've got two belts, do something interesting with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Jan 25, 2013 18:37:25 GMT -5
I hate it now. It's final when Smackdown and Raw had there own PPVs. But how the World title looks more what the I-C title did in the 90's it's not the same. When was the last time the World title was the TITLE match of WM. The WWE title has been it for years. You can tell that it doesn't mean as much. When the last two WM the World title match was the opener and one lasted very short.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 11,001 
|
Post by Sparkybob on Jan 25, 2013 18:41:11 GMT -5
I just like seeing 2 world champs. I have no specific reason why I just do.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 25, 2013 23:27:22 GMT -5
You know I could almost be into two world championships if they were in some ways defended and/or acted differently from each other. Like maybe the WHC having time limits to its defenses, or the WWE championship (MITB/Royal Rumble excepted) requires the challenger to have held say the IC championship prior to their status as number one contender. You've got two belts, do something interesting with them. Yeah, I agree: a strong gimmick is basically the only way to make multiple world titles work, but like many wrestling companies, WWE isn't interested in getting creative about it. One of the big problems with it all is just that, as a fan, you can sit there and legitimately wonder "...so what does holding this other belt mean?" It doesn't indicate anything, really: you're not the WWE champion, which is specifically depicted as the company's top spot, and this belt has no gimmick, rules, or whatever attached to it. Hence...what in the name of all that is holy are you even champion of? |
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Jan 25, 2013 23:39:44 GMT -5
The problem I have with people calling for them to drop the WHC altogether and push the IC title as important.... is that the IC title hasn't been important in years. And suddenly telling people it's important won't erase the lame lineage the IC title has endured in the past 14/15 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2013 0:19:07 GMT -5
You know I could almost be into two world championships if they were in some ways defended and/or acted differently from each other. Like maybe the WHC having time limits to its defenses, or the WWE championship (MITB/Royal Rumble excepted) requires the challenger to have held say the IC championship prior to their status as number one contender. You've got two belts, do something interesting with them. Yeah, I agree: a strong gimmick is basically the only way to make multiple world titles work, but like many wrestling companies, WWE isn't interested in getting creative about it. One of the big problems with it all is just that, as a fan, you can sit there and legitimately wonder "...so what does holding this other belt mean?" It doesn't indicate anything, really: you're not the WWE champion, which is specifically depicted as the company's top spot, and this belt has no gimmick, rules, or whatever attached to it. Hence...what in the name of all that is holy are you even champion of? It makes zero sense to new viewers. You don't want to confuse someone away over something involving such a simple concept. I hate the WHC because it feels like a consolation prize, just a belt to throw on someone that sounds better than IC champion since they tarnished that belt so long ago. It's pretty crazy to me they've done this for so long without the brand split being strong. |
|
|
|
Post by Unaffiliated on Jan 26, 2013 0:27:04 GMT -5
I don't see what's wrong with it. Then again, I don't buy the WWE Champion or World Heavyweight Champion being world champions in the first place... not when the WWE roster is barely a representation of "the world".
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 26, 2013 4:47:44 GMT -5
The problem I have with people calling for them to drop the WHC altogether and push the IC title as important.... is that the IC title hasn't been important in years. And suddenly telling people it's important won't erase the lame lineage the IC title has endured in the past 14/15 years. I think it all depends on who's fighting for the belt, and who's holding the title. The past year, they've been giving the Intercontinental Championship to former World Champions. The current IC Champion is Wade Barrett. While he has never held a major title, and tends to go through periods of irrelevance, he is still generally booked with main event level credibility. Let say if Wade Barrett and The Miz were fighting over the IC Title, it would look important. The IC Title just needs to stay on someone who can carry themselves like a top star, or someone who puts their heart and soul into all their performances at all times. |
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Jan 26, 2013 5:36:43 GMT -5
It allows for more feel good moments, back when Bryan won the WHC I had doubts that he'd ever hold the WWE title, but seeing him win the title made me so happy and you could see that he was so happy too. Same goes for someone like Christian, he's probably never gonna hold the WWE title but him winning the WHC was clearly a HUGE moment for him and it made a fair few people here happy..... well, for a few days anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Jan 26, 2013 9:28:24 GMT -5
It made sense when there were two separate rosters. Now there is so much crossover that it's weird to have two "top" champions.
Although on the plus side, with two world titles you can give wrestlers long reigns instead of having to pass one belt around between your main eventers. CM Punk's long reign wouldn't have happened with a unified title.
|
|
