Why Is there a wwe and a world title belt Still?

[bret hart mark]

Its time to combine the titles. The brand split is practicly a waste of time now. All they are doing is watering down the titles more then they already have.

[The Champ]

Why does it matter?

It gives people something to do so that we have less guys floating in limbo. I fail to see how this is a problem.

[Westy316]

I agree to a point as at the moment we are struggling for top feuds with the roster so thin. But the problem you have if you cut down to one belt it just reinforces the glass ceiling as let's say at the moment 4 people are after each belt if that gets cut down to one then you going to have 8 people after one, so new guys are going to have even less chance at the title.

I would agree with getting rid of the us belt and making the intercontinental belt something social again.

[Marc]

If there was one title then there would be less people in the title picture and only one person going after it at a time. As much as i don't like two titles, it makes sense when they have two main shows.

[bret hart mark]

they dont have 2 shows anymore. i see smackdown guys on raw almost every monday.
there was a time when there was 1 belt and guess what? wrestling was alot more popular.

[bret hart mark]

If there was one title then there would be less people in the title picture and only one person going after it at a time. As much as i don't like two titles, it makes sense when they have two main shows.

you're right everyone should get a title! world titles for everyone woohoo!

[Steeda90GT]

Maybe if the roster wasn't so thin and there was two actual shows, then I could see the need for two titles.

[Marc]

you're right everyone should get a title! world titles for everyone woohoo!

Hold on, did I say everyone should get a title? Did I even imply that? Was I even close in suggesting that?

I'm 100% certain the answer to all of those is no.

[bret hart mark]

Maybe if the roster wasn't so thin and there was two actual shows, then I could see the need for two titles.

they shouldnt even have 2 shows it just watering it down! raw should be the main show and smack down should be for mid carders and divas and tag teams. they shouldnt have their own champion.

[HilaryFan]

I do think having such a low credibility World title (which it is, it can't be denied) makes both titles look bad as a whole. As long as it stays like it is being a top champ of any kind will never quite feel how it used to feel. If we wanna get back to the days of Austin etc when the world title meant something special then I do think the titles need unifying badly.

Then unify the IC and US and have the people who currently feud over the World title like Ziggler battle it out for that. It elevates both tiers then instead of the absolutely lack of any credibility in all fields we currently have.

It worked before and it would work again

[Quadrivium]

Having 2 premier belts takes away from the supposed prestige of winning the belt. consequently, fans give less of a shit. It's like having 2 people win gold at the olympics for the same event.

[Untouchable]

I personally wish there would only be one too , for no other reason than thats just what I prefer. I understand both sides but I'd love to have one world title , one midcard title and the tag belts. A cruiser or even TV belt wouldnt hurt either.

It wouldnt be so bad if there was actually different purposes for the belts , but the the rosters are pretty much unified now anyways. Unify all the titles , maybe add a cruiser tourney and be done with it.

Then trim some of the excess fat at the bottom of the roster.

[The Champ]

they dont have 2 shows anymore. i see smackdown guys on raw almost every monday.
there was a time when there was 1 belt and guess what? wrestling was alot more popular.

Yeah, because having two belts was what caused wrestling to not be popular anymore.

[bret hart mark]

Yeah, because having two belts was what caused wrestling to not be popular anymore.

It certinaly didnt help. The brand split hurt wrestlings popularity imo

[The Champ]

Not really, the end of the Monday Night Wars and the Attitude Era hurt wrestling's popularity. The brand split was created long after it was clear that the boom was over.

[Todd]

You need separate rosters to share the load with the house shows. You need a major championship on each roster to make each roster important. This isn't difficult to understand. Until such a time comes as WWE are happy for your Cena's, Punk's and Bryan's to work all the shows all the time, there will continue to be two titles.

[merle]

Or they could actually enforce the brand split, make Raw and Smackdown two completely different shows and treat them as such, like they should have done in the first place! Two different writing teams and try to recreate the feeling of the Monday night wars. Let Raw and Smackdown seem like they are competing with each other. Have the GMs occasionally (OCCASIONALLY!) sign guys to jump ship to the other brand but other than that, no mixing of the brands outside of a PPV here and there. If anything, they need to push the brand split, not eliminate it!

[Jake]

I'm guessing because if there was no 'World Title', there wouldn't be a chance to showcase the 'Next-Gen' of guys in a World Title role. I mean most of the time, guys who win the 'World Title' its treated as a test run. You know to see if they suit it, sometimes it works in the cases of Batista, CM Punk, Randy Orton, HHH, Daniel Bryanto name a few.

Then other times, it doesn't work all together. Jack Swagger being the most notable name of when it didn't work, I'm unsure because this is going back a while but I didn't believe the King Booker 'World Title' reign worked.

Also, People are right about having two separate 'World Titles'. I mean it sells tickets for the house shows, so it'll stay. Fans will clamour and crowd into the arena to see the Champion of the specific brand's house show.

[Untouchable]

I'm guessing because if there was no 'World Title', there wouldn't be a chance to showcase the 'Next-Gen' of guys in a World Title role. I mean most of the time, guys who win the 'World Title' its treated as a test run. You know to see if they suit it, sometimes it works in the cases of Batista, CM Punk, Randy Orton, HHH, Daniel Bryanto name a few.

HHH getting a "test run" with the World Title to see if him as champion would work? Unless I misunderstood something , HHH was hardly being given a test run into the Main Event scene when given the WHC.

I completely understand the logic behind having the two titles , especially with the house shows. I've never disputed that it's probably never going way for that sole reason.

The idea though that they need for for Superstars on the rise though I dont agree with , thats what a midcard title was designed for , its a title that so many great held and battled over on their way to the top and theres no reason why it still cant be that with the younger guys moving their way up the card.

I was speaking more for selfish reasons and personal preferences , not that I think it will or absolutely should go away ... just wish it would.

[bret hart mark]

Not really, the end of the Monday Night Wars and the Attitude Era hurt wrestling's popularity. The brand split was created long after it was clear that the boom was over.

The end of the Attitue Era and the Brand split went hand and hand with me.
2 champs makes things confusing the guy who said its like have to gold medals for the same event nailed it. maybe i am just too old school

[bret hart mark]

You need separate rosters to share the load with the house shows. You need a major championship on each roster to make each roster important. This isn't difficult to understand. Until such a time comes as WWE are happy for your Cena's, Punk's and Bryan's to work all the shows all the time, there will continue to be two titles.

This is difficult to understand because when wrestling was at its peaks (84-92 then 96-03) there was 1 roster with 1 champ. The only reason there was a brand split was to showcase all the talent from WCW and ECW that just came over. Now all that talent is gone and we are stuck with a watered down product.

[Jake]

So, that's what this thread is about. A comparison from a long gone era to this one.....

[Todd]

This is difficult to understand because when wrestling was at its peaks (84-92 then 96-03) there was 1 roster with 1 champ. The only reason there was a brand split was to showcase all the talent from WCW and ECW that just came over. Now all that talent is gone and we are stuck with a watered down product.

A watered down product that still makes more money now than it ever has.

[The Champ]

The end of the Attitue Era and the Brand split went hand and hand with me.

Then you have your timelines mixed up, because the AE was over long before the brand split.

2 champs makes things confusing the guy who said its like have to gold medals for the same event nailed it. maybe i am just too old school

As if the WHC isn't the silver medal as it is.

[thedude]

I preferred when they had one champ during the first few months of the brand split who would go on both shows. They should have kept it that way and never reintroduced the WCW title.

I'd rather they eliminate the WHC and elevate the IC title.