Unifying The Belts

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Lockard 23, Jan 6, 2013.

  1. Other than the toy deal with Mattel, it seems the main argument against unifying the world titles is that the WWE runs two house show circuits, and each one is headlined by a world champion. If they combined the belts, they couldn't do this anymore, and the WWE would lose money from having less house shows. However, they ran two house show circuits in the 80's, and the second one was headlined by the Intercontinental champion, which just shows you how prestigious that belt was back then. MSG was even sold out plenty of times with the IC Champ as the headliner. They could go back to doing this. And it could work, because honestly, the WHC is pretty much what the IC belt was back then - only the second most important title. WHC matches don't headline PPVs or shows except the B-show Smackdown, but yet they're considered good enough to headline an entire house show circuit of their own. Thus, there's no reason why an IC Title that was built back up to mean something couldn't mean just as much, as it means very little that the WHC is called a 'World' title, it's still an upper-midcard title in people's minds.

    Another argument against it is that Smackdown showcases the WHC as the center of attention, and they likely won't go back to how it was from the fall of '99 till the introduction of two titles in 2002, where the world champion was always on both shows (it burns them out having them on two shows a week in my opinion as well.) However, here maybe the solution is that SD is centered around the WWE Title feud every now and then (but not always), or by a non-title major feud, or by the IC Title itself, which again, could be made into a bigger deal like in the old days, since the WHC is always only the second most important title (mid card title) on Raw and PPVs itself. (And Smackdown is the B-show for a reason... what's the problem with having it headlined by a B-title?)

    Just a couple of rebuttals to the arguments that people make against unifying the belts and at least we wouldn't have two 'world' titles and the IC Title would mean more by default.
  2. I see your point, and no one likes the IC title more than I do, but then what becomes of the US title? Does it stay on one show? Both shows? Is a new title introduced to balance out the midcard like a European Championship? :hmm:
  3. I'd prefer they unify the IC and US belts, as I like one main event singles title and one mid-card singles title. But if it stayed, then it would become the equivalent of the European Title.
  4. On the surface it seems like a plausible plan, but there's a flaw in where people on the lower end of the spectrum would have nothing to fight for. If the IC title was made a more prestigious title then that would cut off some the access some superstars had to it. Then there's the US title, which might be a good replacement, but that's only one title. WWE is already having trouble giving attention and good storylines to it's lower tier divisions, so adding a title would only worsen the situation (unless it's the hardcore title :hardcore: because the matches would sell themselves). I think WWE is doing an okay job with their lower card championships, by letting good people hold them, like Cesaro. I don't think many people cared about the US title up until Cesaro held it, so the prestige is definitely up, same with Rhodes when he first changed the IC title.

    Aside from that another problem would be tapings. Unifying the titles now would leave a lot of top tier talent with nothing to do, but to go for lower titles that have not have their stock raised. It would be the equivalent of Miz & Cena holding the tag titles, worthless. If the WHC disappeared tomorrow we'd have more guys doing what Orton is doing right now, floating around from inconsistent feud to inconsistent feud with very little meaningful story attached, until the next title shot. The World Title is a good stepping stone for superstars who aren't ready for the WWE title. They get the opportunity to fight with people who have already been at the top like Orton and get even more proficient in the ring.
  5. My main reason for being against the unification of the World Championships has nothing to do with any kind of business reason, or for equality's sake with Smackdown; my reasoning is completely aesthetic. The Big Gold design is my favorite title design period, and one of the few today I still like in the WWE. I'd hate for them to scrap it.

    But beyond that, I think the more preferable option to unification is just to start treating the WHC with more prestige and value than they have been (or at least, as I assume they have been). I like having two World Champions, even though the idea isn't exactly the most logical, I like having that championship that WWE presents as the top when they want, or at the very least is always contested for every PPV with a built feud. I like the fact the people who would never be World Champions otherwise get a belt. Christian winning the World Heavyweight Championship was great, as was Bryan's, and Punk's initial one/two, and none of those would've happened without this belt. I still have doubts Bryan will ever win the WWE Championship, and I know Christian won't (I'd love to eat my words here), so at the very least I'm glad they got their reigns. I know it doesn't mean as much the WWE but it's something nice and will still mean more than them winning even a revamped Intercontinental Championship.

    But I do think there is a problem business-wise. The name of the World Heavyweight Championship matters. Fans, especially casuals, are more likely to buy tickets to something if it's to watch the World title being defended rather than the Intercontinental title being defended. You can build it up all you want, but people will always be more likely to shell out money for a World title than an Intercontinental. It's like the difference between having the Rock advertised for a show, and say Dolph Ziggler. Yes, I realize that there is a lot more factors going into going to see a wrestler but it's still a decent analogy.

    Although, it might be better than decent, what exactly would be your plan for the guys like Sheamus? Will you just be inserting them into side feuds or will you be having them take over the Intercontinental scene. Either way, it's kind of pointless and just would be a downgrade for the casual audience in terms of value. Once again, a feud over something deemed as the World Heavyweight title will always seem more important to casuals.

    A final thing I forgot to mention actually touches upon my aesthetic point, you're risking merchandise sales. While it's certainly not as much as a money maker as the WWE, I know it does sell relatively well, and you'd be taking the championship away from the public eye which will undoubtedly decrease it's revenue. Obviously not a big enough deal to keep it itself, but altogether, I'm just not a fan of unifying the titles.
  6. IC Title will never die over the US Title b/c the IC Title was WWE creates and the USA Title was NOT IT WCW creates!
  7. I'm for a unification as you could in theory have the WWE title, IC, US, Cruiserweight, Divas and Tag titled leaving plenty for the mid card to do with a cruiserweight division and a revamped tag division. Using both the tag and cruiserweight as a springboard for future stars. You only have to look at ppl like the Dudleys, Matt and Jeff, Edge and Christian to know this could work in conjuction with the op.