repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,075
|
Post by repomark on Jan 24, 2021 8:21:32 GMT -5
I am a bit of a broken record on this, but if they had one world title and rotated the show he defended it on by month that would solve the issue of one show being treated as better than the other. It also cuts down on instant month after rematches (as there would be a minimum of a month gap before that brand’s top guy could challenge again if they failed).
Bring back King of the Ring to decide the Summerslam opponent, make Survivor Series mean something by having a 1990 style sole survivor play off whereby the last man standing gets the Rumble title shot. I would get rid of match type ppvs like HIAC and TLC - allowing these to match types to happen sparingly and when storyline dictates. The MITB matches would switch to Wrestlemania again replacing the battle royals. The Elimination Chamber match I would switch to later in the year (at No Mercy) as a cross brand match deciding who challenges at Survivor Series.
They could also big up the extra element of danger for a champion when it is the month they have to appear on the show where the money in the bank holder resides. I would make it so that they are completely brand exclusive and can only cash in on their contracted brand’s show or on a PPV (which will all be cross brand).
So the year looks like something like this:
Royal Rumble - Survivor Series winner challenges (Raw or SD)
No Way Out - Smackdown challenger
Wrestlemania - winner of Royal Rumble challenges (Raw or SD)
Backlash - Raw challenger
Judgement Day - Smackdown challenger
King of the Ring - Raw challenger
Fully Loaded - Smackdown challenger
Summerslam - KOR winner challenges (Raw or SD)
Vengeance - Raw challenger
No Mercy - Smackdown challenger
Survivor Series - Winner of Elimination Chamber challenges (Raw or SD)
Armageddon - Raw challenger
I’d watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by CeilingFan on Jan 24, 2021 8:40:12 GMT -5
I like the idea of separate brands, so merging the titles wouldn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 24, 2021 8:59:35 GMT -5
brand splits are idiotic. nobody believes these 2 parts of the same company are actually in competition with each other. and having 2 world titles diminishes both as an accomplishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by CeilingFan on Jan 24, 2021 9:13:24 GMT -5
brand splits are idiotic. nobody believes these 2 parts of the same company are actually in competition with each other. and having 2 world titles diminishes both as an accomplishment. Why should I watch the same people twice a week? That's what I hated about WWE from 2012 until 2015. |
|
|
|
Post by katieklaus on Jan 24, 2021 10:06:34 GMT -5
brand splits are idiotic. nobody believes these 2 parts of the same company are actually in competition with each other. and having 2 world titles diminishes both as an accomplishment. Why should I watch the same people twice a week? That's what I hated about WWE from 2012 until 2015. Because the roster is supposed to be so deep and full of interesting characters and story lines that you won't get exactly the same stories from the lower card playing out on both shows every week and the mid to upper card stories that do should be so exciting that you're thirsting for that extra beat that comes round on a Friday. |
|
The Yes Man
Unicron
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 2,502
|
Post by The Yes Man on Jan 24, 2021 10:54:04 GMT -5
Unify the World Titles and tag titles, unify the Women’s titles, keep the IC and US titles separate.
|
|
The Kevstaaa
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Heck of a wrestler, great technician, and a jam up guy
Posts: 18,526 
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Jan 24, 2021 11:23:28 GMT -5
Two world champions. I know it's not as prestigious but the roster is way too talented. With only one title, who knows if we'd have gotten Drew's run or Roman's current Tribal Chief run.
As long as the Jack Swaggers, Alberto Del Rios, and Dolph Zigglers of the world don't get lame top title runs, it'll be fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 24, 2021 11:38:29 GMT -5
brand splits are idiotic. nobody believes these 2 parts of the same company are actually in competition with each other. and having 2 world titles diminishes both as an accomplishment. Why should I watch the same people twice a week? That's what I hated about WWE from 2012 until 2015. you don't have to. different shows can be used for different angles. it's a false dichotomy and it's WWE's fault for thinking that way. they never had that problem back during the attitude era, nor did WCW with Nitro and Thunder. having 2 world champions has also lead us back into the "everyone gets a turn" bullshit that killed the WHC's prestige when they started giving it to guys like Jack Swagger and Khali, or using it to pad out Edge, Sheamus and Randy Orton's resumes with completely meaningless title reigns. |
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,075
|
Post by repomark on Jan 24, 2021 12:04:39 GMT -5
Two world champions. I know it's not as prestigious but the roster is way too talented. With only one title, who knows if we'd have gotten Drew's run or Roman's current Tribal Chief run. As long as the Jack Swaggers, Alberto Del Rios, and Dolph Zigglers of the world don't get lame top title runs, it'll be fine. I think that’s just it, too many people who had no business being world champion have been due to having two separate belts. When you think of guys like Piper, Mr Perfect, Dibiase or Jake Roberts who were main event level over but never held a world title in WWF, their legacies are not tarnished by the fact. Yet the very notion of being world champion has been tarnished by the likes of Jinder Mahal, Jack Swagger or Great Khali being elevated to that position. The splitting of rosters to give the talent more television time (and the top guys some rest) is necessary. The splitting of titles is not. |
|
greyfmdan
Mephisto
Posts: 744
Member is Online
|
Post by greyfmdan on Jan 24, 2021 12:20:46 GMT -5
Some good points raised here. Personally I probably prefer a single world title per division. But ultimately, the number of titles is a secondary issue until they start booking better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jan 24, 2021 18:35:56 GMT -5
I don't think it matter either way. They can't book shit whether they've got one or two top belts.
Like, as a rule less belts always means they mean more, so if we're just going by value judgment, they should get rid of most of them. But the shows are so badly run that I don't thin it matters. They have conditioned both their fans and themselves that you need to have a belt to have any sort of legitimacy on the show. Current top stars like Drew McIntyre or Roman Reigns shouldn't need a belt to do what they're doing, but because we have absolutely no faith in them anymore, we recognize they need these crutches just to achieve the bare minimum.
So my answer is, who gives a shit? It would be bad either way.
|
|
WR91
Bubba Ho-Tep
FAN 14685
Posts: 535
|
Post by WR91 on Jan 25, 2021 6:16:51 GMT -5
I say merge the titles. Make them matter again.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,852
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Jan 25, 2021 7:00:12 GMT -5
Unify the World Titles and tag titles, unify the Women’s titles, keep the IC and US titles separate. This here. The IC/US titles would be elevated because there's more people gunning for them on the respective brands |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 25, 2021 16:23:05 GMT -5
They have far too many titles as it is, but I think they have way too bloated a main event scene to actually cut out a main event championship.
Think about what the midcard would look like then - all the main eventers just slumming it battling over midcard titles, while genuine midcard greats like Sami end up in pre-show matches.
And yes it's often like that anyway, so imagine how much worse it can get!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 9:26:24 GMT -5
I just want better writing. Whether it's a better written show with one or two World titles doesn't even matter to me.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Jan 26, 2021 9:35:31 GMT -5
No I never like the split the titles/merge the titles/split the titles/merge the titles merry go round. I don't need a rivalry storyline between the shows but would rather keep the titles separate now that we have them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story on Jan 26, 2021 10:03:22 GMT -5
I'm fine with there being two champions, especially with the shows being on two different networks.
I actually think if booked properly, there's merit to doing ONE Universal vs. WWE Champion match a year like they do at Survivor Series. I'd make it the only brand vs. brand match on the show and the winner's brand would get the main event at WrestleMania, so that there were stakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by avenger on Jan 26, 2021 10:23:03 GMT -5
I am a bit of a broken record on this, but if they had one world title and rotated the show he defended it on by month that would solve the issue of one show being treated as better than the other. It also cuts down on instant month after rematches (as there would be a minimum of a month gap before that brand’s top guy could challenge again if they failed). Bring back King of the Ring to decide the Summerslam opponent, make Survivor Series mean something by having a 1990 style sole survivor play off whereby the last man standing gets the Rumble title shot. I would get rid of match type ppvs like HIAC and TLC - allowing these to match types to happen sparingly and when storyline dictates. The MITB matches would switch to Wrestlemania again replacing the battle royals. The Elimination Chamber match I would switch to later in the year (at No Mercy) as a cross brand match deciding who challenges at Survivor Series. They could also big up the extra element of danger for a champion when it is the month they have to appear on the show where the money in the bank holder resides. I would make it so that they are completely brand exclusive and can only cash in on their contracted brand’s show or on a PPV (which will all be cross brand). So the year looks like something like this: Royal Rumble - Survivor Series winner challenges (Raw or SD) No Way Out - Smackdown challenger Wrestlemania - winner of Royal Rumble challenges (Raw or SD) Backlash - Raw challenger Judgement Day - Smackdown challenger King of the Ring - Raw challenger Fully Loaded - Smackdown challenger Summerslam - KOR winner challenges (Raw or SD) Vengeance - Raw challenger No Mercy - Smackdown challenger Survivor Series - Winner of Elimination Chamber challenges (Raw or SD) Armageddon - Raw challenger I’d watch. I'm in a similar thought train. Merge them. Champion can appear on one show a week, but the number one contender(s) are almost always decided at PPVs, except for PPVs between the Rumble and Wrestlemania. If there are two PPVs, each PPV between gets a challenger. If there's one PPV, have a triple threat. The rest of the year, each PPV decides the next challenger similar to this: (April) Wrestlemania - Andre the Giant/Womens Battle royal winner becomes number 1 contender. Gives both battle royals a kayfabe meaning (May) Money In The Bank - ladder match winners become number 1 contender (June) Elimination Chamber - take the easy predictions out of it, based on WM booking (July) King & Queen of the Ring (August) Summerslam - show sells itself so a 1-1, triple threat or fatal 4way. (September) Fall Brawl/Vengeance - I'd bring back Battlebowl, or have a new concept. (October) Halloween Havoc/No Mercy - Six pack challenge match (November) Survivor Series - All the survivors become number 1 contender (December) Starrcade/Armageddon - Title match is a scramble match Royal Rumble title contenders get decided on the first Raw/Smackdown of the year. |
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,692
|
Post by clifford on Jan 28, 2021 6:19:22 GMT -5
Your thread title and poll question are opposites FYI. I almost voted for the wrong option. I voted yes but meant no for that very reason. |
|
