Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 14:25:55 GMT -5
I really don't remotely get the point of making both shows have the same main event scene, basically killing the entire purpose of a brand split given the main event scene on each show tends to eat up an hour of it each week, just to keep down some pointless statistics. The two shows should be completely separate entities. It's nothing to do with statistics, it devalues a world title if there are two of them in the same company. I really don't see how. It's just the MacGuffin everyone's contending for, nothing more, and really, it's not like the thing's worth shit right now anyway with how they had Brock faffing off with the belt for eight months then Seth's neverending reign as a champion who couldn't buy a win followed by a nonsensical chain of champions drawing nothing but apathy. Better to have an alternate option and genuine variety between the shows so if you don't like one the other might suit your fancy than to keep up some nebulous concept of value that seems to not have any actual effect on anything.
|
|
lince
Mike the Goon
Posts: 38
|
Post by lince on Jun 1, 2016 14:27:19 GMT -5
Keep one world title but elevate the IC title, let it have the lengthy PPV matches the WWE champion has. It'll work as long as you don't 50/50 book it.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Jun 1, 2016 14:39:57 GMT -5
It's nothing to do with statistics, it devalues a world title if there are two of them in the same company. I really don't see how. It's just the MacGuffin everyone's contending for, nothing more, and really, it's not like the thing's worth shit right now anyway with how they had Brock faffing off with the belt for eight months then Seth's neverending reign as a champion who couldn't buy a win followed by a nonsensical chain of champions drawing nothing but apathy. Better to have an alternate option and genuine variety between the shows so if you don't like one the other might suit your fancy than to keep up some nebulous concept of value that seems to not have any actual effect on anything. The World title is supposed to be the top prize in the whole company. Splitting it in two and making those titles brand-specific automatically makes both less prestigious than having everyone across the board gunning for just the one.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Jun 1, 2016 14:43:50 GMT -5
I really don't see how. It's just the MacGuffin everyone's contending for, nothing more, and really, it's not like the thing's worth shit right now anyway with how they had Brock faffing off with the belt for eight months then Seth's neverending reign as a champion who couldn't buy a win followed by a nonsensical chain of champions drawing nothing but apathy. Better to have an alternate option and genuine variety between the shows so if you don't like one the other might suit your fancy than to keep up some nebulous concept of value that seems to not have any actual effect on anything. The World title is supposed to be the top prize in the whole company. Splitting it in two and making those titles brand-specific automatically makes both less prestigious than having everyone across the board gunning for just the one. The general idea of the brand split is that Raw and Smackdown are separate companies.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Jun 1, 2016 14:50:21 GMT -5
The World title is supposed to be the top prize in the whole company. Splitting it in two and making those titles brand-specific automatically makes both less prestigious than having everyone across the board gunning for just the one. The general idea of the brand split is that Raw and Smackdown are separate companies. Two companies, yes, but both under the same umbrella, meaning just like the rosters, you've effectively had to split the World title in half to accommodate both brands.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Jun 1, 2016 15:14:50 GMT -5
The general idea of the brand split is that Raw and Smackdown are separate companies. Two companies, yes, but both under the same umbrella, meaning just like the rosters, you've effectively had to split the World title in half to accommodate both brands. But if you are creating two separate and distinct companies under one parent, having ANY cross over defeats the purpose. Why would I bother with Smackdown when RAW has the title for 4 weeks or even at all since I can just see the champ on Mondays? The whole idea of this split is to create two unique brands and having one champ kills it. You don't go to Olive Garden to get what you can from Chilli's so why make the same title available in what is being set up as multiple companies Raw and Smackdown?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jun 1, 2016 15:23:54 GMT -5
I really hope they don't add another world title. If there are two world titles, then there are no world titles. EXACTLY how I feel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 15:25:37 GMT -5
Upgrade the IC title.
.........not a new world title, just upgrade the entire program (which seems like what it is already sorta doing, since IIRC IC title-related matches have been main eventing Raw & SD! lately).
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Jun 1, 2016 15:25:52 GMT -5
Two companies, yes, but both under the same umbrella, meaning just like the rosters, you've effectively had to split the World title in half to accommodate both brands. But if you are creating two separate and distinct companies under one parent, having ANY cross over defeats the purpose. Why would I bother with Smackdown when RAW has the title for 4 weeks or even at all since I can just see the champ on Mondays? The whole idea of this split is to create two unique brands and having one champ kills it. You don't go to Olive Garden to get what you can from Chilli's so why make the same title available in what is being set up as multiple companies Raw and Smackdown? I guess I tend to think of Raw and Smackdown as separate territories, kind of like the old days of the NWA, where the World Champion would travel between them and defend accordingly. And when a guy from your territory knocked off the WORLD Champion, it was a huge deal. Far less so if he just knocked off some schmuck from the same territory that you see every week or month. To me, being the champion of the entire parent company sounds far more prestigious than just being the main guy on your brand.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Jun 1, 2016 15:31:36 GMT -5
But if you are creating two separate and distinct companies under one parent, having ANY cross over defeats the purpose. Why would I bother with Smackdown when RAW has the title for 4 weeks or even at all since I can just see the champ on Mondays? The whole idea of this split is to create two unique brands and having one champ kills it. You don't go to Olive Garden to get what you can from Chilli's so why make the same title available in what is being set up as multiple companies Raw and Smackdown? I guess I tend to think of Raw and Smackdown as separate territories, kind of like the old days of the NWA, where the World Champion would travel between them and defend accordingly. And when a guy from your territory knocked off the WORLD Champion, it was a huge deal. Far less so if he just knocked off some schmuck from the same territory that you see every week or month. To me, being the champion of the entire parent company sounds far more prestigious than just being the main guy on your brand. I can see it in that regard, honestly did not think of a territory type setup. For me I remember loving when Smackdown and RAW gave different types of show, the more wrestling oriented SD and the more storyline driven RAW and how much the shows dragged when they had to share and did not have the champ for that PPV. Of course with the Network, that wouldn't be a big issue since they could conceivable have a RAW and Smackdown special each month and force the champ into two different feuds at once. Not as against as the the idea of one champ if that would be the case, though I would prefer two.
|
|
|
Post by Hulk With A Mustache on Jun 1, 2016 15:32:17 GMT -5
I don't like the idea of two World titles. Just have the WWE, Tag, and Women's Champions be defended on both shows. Intercontinental Title goes to RAW. U.S. to SmackDown! And, bring in two lower card titles for each show, like European Title for RAW and TV Title for SmackDown!
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Jun 1, 2016 15:40:54 GMT -5
I guess I tend to think of Raw and Smackdown as separate territories, kind of like the old days of the NWA, where the World Champion would travel between them and defend accordingly. And when a guy from your territory knocked off the WORLD Champion, it was a huge deal. Far less so if he just knocked off some schmuck from the same territory that you see every week or month. To me, being the champion of the entire parent company sounds far more prestigious than just being the main guy on your brand. I can see it in that regard, honestly did not think of a territory type setup. For me I remember loving when Smackdown and RAW gave different types of show, the more wrestling oriented SD and the more storyline driven RAW and how much the shows dragged when they had to share and did not have the champ for that PPV. Of course with the Network, that wouldn't be a big issue since they could conceivable have a RAW and Smackdown special each month and force the champ into two different feuds at once. Not as against as the the idea of one champ if that would be the case, though I would prefer two. That, and as others have suggested, elevating the mid-card titles as something worth fighting for when the World Champ isn't around. The territories almost always had secondary titles for this exact purpose. And as we saw last year with Cena, making a mid-card title important and just a step below a World title isn't as hard as it seems.
|
|
|
Post by MrElijah on Jun 1, 2016 15:47:38 GMT -5
I can see Rollins/Roman ending in controversy, add in the fact Rollins never lost the belt, WC--err WWE International recognize Seth as the World Heavyweight Champion.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,950
Member is Online
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jun 1, 2016 15:53:10 GMT -5
I'd like for the Big Gold belt to sit wherever it went to, and stay there. I never liked how it looked, and given all of the other title belts have splashes over color, it looks even more like a blob of gold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 17:32:29 GMT -5
Personally my attitude on basically every, "The territories did it this way!" thing is that the territories died for a reason. That and most of the super old school slow motion booking WWE's gotten fond of the past few years I've found way, way worse than the frantic nonsense of the years before it. At least in 2009 as bad as Raw was shit happened in months besides April and August.
|
|
|
Post by CJ Lee on Jun 1, 2016 17:45:06 GMT -5
I'm torn. I like only one world championship, but I'd prefer the brand split keep the two rosters completely separate besides the rarest of occasions (Wrestlemania).
|
|
ERON
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,825
|
Post by ERON on Jun 1, 2016 17:52:08 GMT -5
Add me to the camp that would prefer one cross-brand world title. But if they must have two top-tier championships, I say have the World title on one brand and the U.S. title on the other.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jun 1, 2016 19:56:42 GMT -5
The WWE Champion should be the champion of WWE, not just half of it.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Jun 1, 2016 20:58:02 GMT -5
What about getting rid of the "World" designation? Have "WWE RAW Champion", "WWE Smackdown Champion", "WWE Women's Champion", "WWE Tag Team Champions" and should it survive "The End..." a "WWE NXT Champion"? Have it so these people rule that part of the company. I know it seems a bit sacrilegious (and plain I admit) but in this day and age we don't need to be told constantly the title is being defended around the world so that makes Champion X that much better than the rest. After all, WWE is its own Universe.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jun 1, 2016 21:05:27 GMT -5
In a perfect world they'd have a RAW title, a SmackDown title, and a World Title that wasn't attached to either brand.
I hate the idea of going back to two top titles. Especially with WWE's propensity to over state how important being world champion is. Well, if there's two of them, it's not really all that special anymore. May I remind you the brand split gave us World Heavyweight Champion, Jack Swagger.
With one world title and brand specific top titles, at least each show has a main event scene that doesn't rely on a travelling champion. At the same time it makes the guy holding the belt all the more important when he can turn up on any show without warning. Also if you can to create brand competition, then what better way than both brands petitioning their own guys to challenge for the lone WWE title. If their guy wins, they may lose his exclusivity, but they can then tout they can give wrestlers more opportunities to become champion than the other brand. It's a much better system than watering down the whole concept of a world champion again.
|
|