Idea For The Two World Titles

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Lockard 23, Mar 4, 2013.

  1. WWE Forums is giving away a copy of WWE 2K18 for any platform! More info: WWE 2K18 Giveaway (PS4, Xbox One, Steam)
  1. This is an idea that could be cool - I'm not talking about unifying the WWE Title and World Heavyweight Championships (although I'm always all for that) but rather someone winning both world titles and holding them on both of his shoulders at the same time. Imagine that for a few months or however long this person held both belts, they went around proclaiming to be the ultimate world champion of the company.

    The idea could work because there isn't really a brand extension anymore. Someone might try to point out a flaw in the idea by saying that if someone had both belts and they weren't unified, wouldn't they have to defend them both in separate matches? My answer to that is that this person could either simply defend them both as if they were one world title, with the idea that the person who won them acquires both belts, or since that idea is very close to it being just one unified championship, maybe they get their way of having to defend them both every month by the 30 day rule. The original rule stated that you have to defend your title every 30 days. As long as they were defending at least one of the belts every 30 days, they could still get by on it.

    Someone might try to point out another flaw by pointing out that it screws up the house show situation because both house shows circuits aren't being headlined by a different world champion. Really? The Rock is the WWE Champion and isn't appearing at house shows as we speak (not a negative criticism, just pointing out facts.) I think the house shows could survive for however long this guy held both titles. Besides, does anyone really believe that a world title is gonna change hands at a house show anyway? When's the last time ANY title switched hands at a house show? Jeff Jarrett losing to Edge in 1999? (And he won it back the next night at Fully Loaded 1999.) I think house show business does well because of the guys involved and the WWE brand name, so house shows wouldn't be affected at all.

    Here's another idea - this same person loses both of them in the same way that Kurt Angle lost the IC and European Championships at Wrestlemania 16 (I don't say Wrestlemania 2000, it sounds so lame and generic.) For those who don't remember, he wore both belts and had to defend them against Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit in a triple threat match that contained two different falls/matches - the first fall was for the IC Title and the second was for the European title. In the first fall, Benoit pinned Jericho to win the IC Title and Jericho pinned Benoit to win the European Title in the second fall. Do the same with the world champion - he has to defend them both in a triple threat match against two opponents and there are two different falls, one for each belt. The champ walks away with neither belt, despite not being pinned or forced into submission in either fall.

    I think it's a good idea to try on someone who has just made their way into the main event. Take Ziggler for example. If he were to qualify to compete for the WWE Title (by winning a tournament or battle royal or whatever) and won the belt but also used his briefcase to win the WHC that same night. And then after carrying both belts for awhile, he lost them both without taking the pin himself.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. IMO, there is no need for one wrestler to hold both the titles. This is unnecessary as there is a big roster to choose from.
  3. Something needs to be done to make the WHC prestigious again and up to par with the WWE Title.
  4. I actually think Del Rio is doing well as champion so far. He's picked up quite a bit of momentum since turning face and winning the title and is making the title seem special. Especially if they build up Del Rio/Swagger as a really personal feud and have Del Rio pick up the win at Mania.
  5. There was one about a year ago with the tag titles. I think it was Primo & Epico who won them.

    Anyway to your point, I think it would be a good idea, but at the same time it's a risky one. For the reasons being it would super push someone and unless it's going to a guy like Ziggler (which I dont see happening) it probably won't work because we'd just get another Cena run, god forbid a Sheamus run.

    I agree that at this point the brands are unified and there's almost no point in having two world titles, but I think it would leave some superstars in limbo. There's even superstars now like Barrett and Orton who just seemingly have nothng to do right now. I think removing a title would increase the number of superstars who aren't doing anything. Either that or there's going to be a lot of multi man matches and doubled up rivalries for whoever the dual champion is.
  6. It wouldn't be a lengthy CM Punk title reign, though. Just a one time title reign, which is what would make it feel special. I wouldn't even have it last a very long time. I think it would be something different and would be a good feather in someone's cap for a short time.
  7. I'm on board. Book Ziggler as a double champ
  8. I like the idea, as long as they put the titles on Bryan or Ziggler, not on Super Cena.
  9. The great thing about Ziggler or Bryan is they can easily open a show defending the WHC and close it with a WWE title match and both would be quality.
  10. Daniel Bryan would absolutely be the wrong guy for this. I imagine a heel standing there holding up both titles high in the air or proudly wearing them over his shoulders (the two belts combined are bigger than Bryan is...), and Bryan doesn't fit the mental image at all. Someone like Ziggler (or CM Punk) would be a better fit.
  11. DB is slightly shorter but way better built than Punk.
  12. His height very much works against him.
  13. This would just be another reason to give Cena more titles because we all know that if it were to happen Cena would be the first to do it. Then everyone would complain about it and wish they would go back to the old style.

    ~ Three Said That ~
  14. [​IMG]

    Also Bryan over Punk to do this all day every day. I see more potential for it in Bryan than in Punk to be honest.
  15. Yeah DB isn't right for this, he isn't holding the pure and ROH title here. He's a great performer but it needs to be someone with that special aura, someone who can go down as an Icon and neither Punk or Bryan are that guy.
  16. I'm all for this, especially if Ziggler was the guy they had do this. I can't imagine it ever happening, but it's one of the more interesting ideas. I always kind of figured if this would happen, we'd just get like a double cash-in to end it. Like after successful defending his titles at the beginning and end of the show, or successfully defends both in similar vein to the WrestleMania 2000 (it's a lot less generic than WrestleMania XVI, going purely on the definition of generic and pertaining it to how WWE normally names their WrestleMania's . . . will concede that it sounds lame though) triple threat or even some other way. Then the person who won the WHC MITB comes out and cashes in and wins the belt. Then the person who won the WWE MITB cashes in and wins the belt. Not saying I particularly want it to go that way (though I certainly wouldn't mind it, and have even booked that in one of my fantasy bookings) but I can totally see WWE ending the reign(s) that way if they ever were to do this. But yeah, great idea.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. I like the double cash-in idea. That would work as well, especially if they went the Wrestlemania 2000 route and tried to drill it into people's heads that the champ could lose both belts in separate falls without even being pinned. And then after he retained in what was probably his biggest win yet (such would certainly be true if you did use Ziggler for this idea), the two MITB winners take turns cashing in on him and he walks out with neither belt.

    That said, I don't agree that someone who is iconic has to be the guy who wins both belts or even unifies them. Who's iconic on the current roster other than Cena? Jericho wasn't exactly iconic per se when he defeated Austin and The Rock in the same night at Vengeance 2001. I certainly don't think that Punk is any less iconic at the moment than Jericho was then. Not that Punk necessarily has to be the one to it, but he's a good candidate I feel.

    Onto a slightly different topic - if they had already actually unified the belts, I do think Punk would have bee the perfect guy to do it with. It would have worked as part of his long title reign last year and added to his claim as being the best in the world and stuff. Would have been a helluva way for the Punk/Cena feud to return in the summer. The WHC could have somehow ended up around Cena's waist, and then his and Punk's match at Summerslam could have been one on one, with Punk walking out as the undisputed world champion. He could also brag about how he even defeated the original Undisputed Champion from years past (Jericho) at the grand stage of Wrestlemania earlier in the year.
Draft saved Draft deleted