The amount of WWE Championships...

All WWE/F Related Reviews and Discussions
Post Reply
User avatar
XIV
Posts: 1340
Joined: Aug 19th, '13, 11:38

The amount of WWE Championships...

Post by XIV » Feb 22nd, '19, 14:44

Is it just me or is the sheer amount of Championship belts in WWE killing off the fact that there are even any at all?

You can’t push a set of tag team champions as saying “we’re the best Tag Team in the world” when we know there’s another set of your belts gonna show up Tuesday and Wednesday?

Same goes for World/Universal Championship.

They all dilute each other and too many championships are meaning that they don’t mean shit because everyone’s got one.

Should WWE look at what they’re going to do with the Women’s Tag Team Championships and dial back on the amount?

I would prefer one world champion, one set of Tag champions, one women’s champion and have the champions working programs on whatever show. For me that’s just makes sense, because then you don’t have to try and get 10 Championships defended on a PPV so you end up bumping some down to the pre-show which fuckin’ diminishes that belt because clearly it’s not important enough to defend on your main PPV.

Is it just me? Or is it just fuckin’ stupid having 8 Championships across the two main roster shows?
Have A Nice Day!

User avatar
KILLdozer
Posts: 5863
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 22:54

Re: The amount of WWE Championships...

Post by KILLdozer » Feb 22nd, '19, 14:48

It's always been that way though. What about when you had, a European, Hardcore, Light-heavyweight, Cruiserweight, Intercontinental, AND United states title amongst the other tops lol.
When they come, they'll come at what you love.

User avatar
XIV
Posts: 1340
Joined: Aug 19th, '13, 11:38

Re: The amount of WWE Championships...

Post by XIV » Feb 22nd, '19, 14:58

KILLdozer wrote:
Feb 22nd, '19, 14:48
It's always been that way though. What about when you had, a European, Hardcore, Light-heavyweight, Cruiserweight, Intercontinental, AND United states title amongst the other tops lol.
When the European was around you had the WWF Championship, Intercontinental, Tag team, European and Tag Team. Then there was the Hardcore title and Light Heavyweight which were defended either in short skit matches or on Sunday Night Heat. So it was less noticeable, but there were clear categories.

The US came in after the European, Light Heavyweight and Hardcore titles had been wound up so it wasn’t too bad to bring that one in.
Have A Nice Day!

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25026
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: The amount of WWE Championships...

Post by Big Red Machine » Feb 22nd, '19, 15:09

XIV wrote:
Feb 22nd, '19, 14:44
Is it just me or is the sheer amount of Championship belts in WWE killing off the fact that there are even any at all?

You can’t push a set of tag team champions as saying “we’re the best Tag Team in the world” when we know there’s another set of your belts gonna show up Tuesday and Wednesday?

Same goes for World/Universal Championship.

They all dilute each other and too many championships are meaning that they don’t mean shit because everyone’s got one.

Should WWE look at what they’re going to do with the Women’s Tag Team Championships and dial back on the amount?

I would prefer one world champion, one set of Tag champions, one women’s champion and have the champions working programs on whatever show. For me that’s just makes sense, because then you don’t have to try and get 10 Championships defended on a PPV so you end up bumping some down to the pre-show which fuckin’ diminishes that belt because clearly it’s not important enough to defend on your main PPV.
All of this.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
NWK2000
Posts: 1330
Joined: Feb 26th, '14, 00:52

Re: The amount of WWE Championships...

Post by NWK2000 » Feb 26th, '19, 15:11

I think it's time to combine all the Women's Championships because the Women's Tag Titles are defended across all brands. It would give the women's division something unique if they were all competing for one singles and one tag belt. I'm neutral on combining the tag belts, because it's clearly low on the priority list for WWE so who cares anyway, but I'd like to see it.
Up next on NWK Reviews
Matt Riddle's/Josh Barnett's Bloodsport
AAA When World Collide
WWE Wrestlemania 21
NWA-TNA Weekly Shows
WWE New Year's Revolution 2006

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25026
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: The amount of WWE Championships...

Post by Big Red Machine » Feb 26th, '19, 17:12

NWK2000 wrote:
Feb 26th, '19, 15:11
I think it's time to combine all the Women's Championships because the Women's Tag Titles are defended across all brands. It would give the women's division something unique if they were all competing for one singles and one tag belt. I'm neutral on combining the tag belts, because it's clearly low on the priority list for WWE so who cares anyway, but I'd like to see it.

My preference would be to have one men's top champion, one set of tag titles, and one women's title floating between the two brands. The problem with that is that every division other than the women's tag titles has enough people on the roster to support one division per show, and in this day and age of both fan mentality about who "deserves" to be a champion and probably also about keeping talent happy by actually letting people have a chance to be in the spotlight, I think two sets of titles works better.
The solution that I would propose is to enforce a lot more separation between the brands and particularly by going back to split PPVs. As I've argued many times in the past, this allows midcards to flourish by essentially doubling the number of PPV spots, but as relates to titles, it also creates room on the PPVs for each title on that respective brand to be defended each time, rather than either leaving some titles off of each PPV or forgoing any feuds without titles (this would also let you do two five-hour shows (including pre-show) each month rather than one eight-hour show, which is both more manageable for fans as well as more total hours watched to tell Wall Street about. It also avoids the issue of making one show's title look better than the other based on who gets which spots on the show. Bring everyone together for Mania, Summer Slam, the Rumble, and MITB (which I'd make the new member of the Big 4, or possibly dumb Survivor Series for a joint King of the Ring in November because Survivor Series is a dull gimmick and that's even before taking into account WWE's inability to do it right), and try to manage which show gets the main event spot each time so no one comes off looking too secondary. Doing this will also open up more opportunities for the women's or tag titles to headline a PPV.

I'd also switch 205 Live's affiliation to Smackdown so that it's not taking a spot on Raw's PPVs, as Raw has a larger roster than SD. This might also let you do some sort of situation where you could have some sort of crossover with Rey or Ali appearing on 205 Live to endorse someone.

So basically I'd keep the same number of titles, but take steps to make each one feel less duplicated.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25026
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: The amount of WWE Championships...

Post by Big Red Machine » Feb 26th, '19, 17:23

NWK2000 wrote:
Feb 26th, '19, 15:11
I think it's time to combine all the Women's Championships because the Women's Tag Titles are defended across all brands. It would give the women's division something unique if they were all competing for one singles and one tag belt. I'm neutral on combining the tag belts, because it's clearly low on the priority list for WWE so who cares anyway, but I'd like to see it.
This is the sort of thing that it bothers me when they apply to some divisions but not others. It should be an all-or-nothing thing. I think doing this inherently makes the duplicated titles look a little worse, but it also rubs in that WWE mentality of "we don't need structure. We can just do whatever we want as the mood strikes us" and the idea that "this is all staged/controlled rather than (lacking a better term) 'real' fictional sport."


It's also the kind of thing that brings up the inherent question of "well then why did you have two titles in the first place." It's the kind of thing that they could have headed off before the draft by booking things so that each of the new titles had some sort of legitimacy. As I've probably said before, I'd have done a disputed finish in the WWE Title match at Battleground with Raw management team claiming Seth was the champ and the SD side claiming Dean was, had New Day get separated in the draft (preferably drafting away one of the guys who was in the match where they won the titles for the most legitimacy), so you had two of them on one show with the tag titles and the other one being allowed to pick a new partner to be the new tag champs with on the other show, and for the women I either would have done a tournament (so at least there is one one tournament for a new title going on at the same time), or, ideally, would have thrown however much money I needed to at Trish Stratus to get her to come back for a Brock-schedule run (or even just for one match if that was all she'd be willing to do) just to lend the linear legitimacy of someone who retired as champion to the new women's title for the other show.

But either way, they'll never combine the women's titles because then they would lose a match form their stupid "champion vs. champion" Survivor Series gimmick..
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
Bob-O
Posts: 3514
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 06:06

Re: The amount of WWE Championships...

Post by Bob-O » Feb 26th, '19, 22:08

If they're going to have separate brands, they have to have separate championships, otherwise one show (Smackdown) is going to get neglected. They are simply incapable of running things any other way. Raw hasn't had a champion in two years, but still closes out 99% of their ppvs. A "traveling champion" wouldn't change this, because the "big angle" is always going to be on Raw. As soon as the champ is booked for the next ppv, the heat is on the other show to maintain relevance.

Which is possible, but WWE isn't capable.

I don't think they've got too many titles, not if you consider each brand as it's own company. Two singles, one tag team, and a women's per show? Seems like the right amount to me. I like the Traveling Women's Tag Team Champions, for that division it seems like the right thing to do. They could follow suit with the Men's and I think it'd solve some problems, but openly I'll say each show should have their own but WWE isn't capable of pushing two championship caliber teams... and secretly I'll say I love the idea of the men's champions defending in NXT.
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests