Time for ONE World Champion?

[UndertakerTheGreat]

We as of now have two world title holders on RAW. That will probably change at Backlash. However right now the draftlines are a bit blurry, and nobody really stays on their homeshow much. I never really know who's supposed to be where. Even though that supposedly will change after Backlash too. Either way I STILL don't think it's a bad idea to have just ONE World title. ONE Creme de la Creme of WWE. How can you have TWO best of the bests. Now to get around the fatigue thing a world champion doesn't necessarily have to wrestle every show that's what various promos are for.
What do you think? Should WWE have just one title or two?

 

[BlackVenom]

Depends on if they end the separation between shows.

If they don't...keep the two belts. If they do, then fine, have only one World Champion.

I'd prefer to end the roster split..or if they don't, stop with the constant talent sharing.

 

[The Rated R CMStar]

Hell no. WWE has a shitload of main eventers right now, and would only exist one main championship, either they would have to cram them up in Fatal Four Ways time after time, or we would have then floating in meaningless feuds.

 

[BlackVenom]

Hell no. WWE has a shitload of main eventers right now, and would only exist one main championship, either they would have to cram them up in Fatal Four Ways time after time, or we would have then floating in meaningless feuds.

They could possibly get around that, by giving credibility back to titles like the Intercontinental belt..hell even the European.

Bring tag teams back.

Some wrestlers don't need titles to stay over with the crowd, or make their feuds compelling.

 

[davidian13]

That might bring more credibility to the title by having just one world champion but considering WWE is trying to build main event level stars to carry the show its beneficial to have 2 world titles. I feel its safe to say that guys like Jeff Hardy in 2008, Batista in 2005, and Edge back in 2006 probably would never have been given the chance to shine with the strap had it not been for 2 separate titles on 2 separate shows. As long as their is a strong main event star champion on the opposing brand the WWE will take chances and risks on certain guys and push them as top tier wrestlers almost ensuring future title reigns/feuds. One title will slow that process down and will prevent certain wrestlers from getting their chance to "run with the ball"

There are drawbacks though. Having 2 titles can sometimes result in The Great Khali becoming world champion. Who remember that? Wasnt that a great time to be a wrestling fan?

 

[MikeRaw]

As others said, it depends. IMO I strongly prefer two belts. But with that being said, I prefer two distinct, seperate brands. I've said that numerous times. I prefer the brands to be kept seperate, as it brings a bit of realism and competitive storylines to the show... They say the draft trades will take effect after Backlash, so as long as they do it properly, and keep the brands seperate, I want, and think we need, two world titles.
However, if they fail, and we end up in 6 months with all the different guys on any brands at any time shit again, then yes, we need a unified belt.
I onyl want it as a last resort, but I don't think we'll get to that point.

 

[chessarmy]

no. WWE won't do it, as long as there is a brand extension, there will be two World Titles. Thats the way I see it.

Besides, the roster pool is just too big for only one world title

 

[noumenon]

I don't think the fact that there are "too many" main eventers has anything to do with it. There was a time back in the Attitude Era when there was plenty of people in contention for the title.
For the brand separation to be taken seriously there pretty much needs to be two titles. If not then people would constantly be hopping brands in pursuit for the belts... I think it comes down as simple as that.
The only problem I have is there really seems to be a distinct priority on the WWE Title over the WHC. They even went so far as to say "You know how much THAT belt means to Vince" during the HHH/Orton match last week...referring to the WWE Title.

 

[Rated-R Punk]

^JR also constantly refers to the WWE Belt as the "richest prize in sports entertainment".
If you have two belts they should be of equal importance in theory.
Can't see it happening at the moment to be honest but as already mentioned, if they have the brand seperation, each brand needs a title. that needs rectifying soon.

 

[Vengeance]

I reckon they should unify the world titles and push the IC as the main belt on Smackdown. I've always preferred SD as it's a wrestling heavy show, with arguably the best wrestlers in all WWE. The IC title for me was always held by the wrestlers, with the world title being the top guy in terms of merchandise and fan support (with the exception of the Hopeless Khali). When Hogan was a champ, you'd have someone like Mr. Perfect or Bret Hart holding the IC, so I always preferred those feuds.