Unified Title or Seperate?

[Guest Jamster26]

Since the titles were unified, I feel that it has left some of the wrestlers twiddling their thumbs and not doing much. Think I preferred when both Raw and Smackdown had their own titles and feuds going on, rather than having the one title feud over two shows.

 

We had a good Sheamus and Big Show rivalry on Smackdown for the World Title, but neither have done much since then.

 

I dunno, I was originally in favour of the unification, but now I am not so sure.

 

Do you think the titles were right to be unified or should they be separate?

[Guest Edgehead]

I think they're better unified. When they were separate the World Title wasn't much more than a midcard belt. They only really needed to be separate when Raw & SD were separate brands. I do think since they unified them it has been a bit under whelming but I still prefer them as one title.

 

I'd like to see them get rid of the 2 belts & just have one so it really seems like one title like they did in 2002 with the undisputed title.

[Guest Ciaran The King]

Having a unified title is good for WWE , finally there can be one WWE World Title instead of a tarnished WWE title and a watered down Triple H inspired World title. This way the belt will finally be rebuilt and can get some prestige back, I'm all for the unification and to be honest main event scene ain't that packed at the moment

[King 277]

What's the point of still having 2 belts?

[Maxximus 353]

It looks cool? I think it looks cool anyway. Takes the attention from that shitty wwe title. If they had to get rid of one I would hope that's the one they would get rid of and keep the big gold.

[Omega 354]

As I said before with Bryan out they should put one title on Batista and one on Orton until he comes back and have the two of them start of as TWO handpicked champions and eventually turning on each other as each one wants to be the only champ and then simply have another 3 way (or some other match it doesn't matter really) where Bryan effectively unifies them again.

[Guest darkblack]

i miss the old 2 titles. I'm a huge wow fan and love the world heavyweight belt the way it looks very old school

[Guest Ciaran The King]

If I were to pick a title to keep based on looks it would be the World Title all day long, the WWE title over recent years has descended into nothing mor than a childs toy Edited May 17, 2014 by Ciaran The King

[Guest Foil1212]

I think I liked them separate. WWE's problem wasn't having too many belts, it was in not writing storylines for those belts. If they had interesting feuds for any of the belts and not just "We like this guy, I guess, let's put a belt on him" I think I'd personally care more about them. It's not like the IC belt or the US belt got suddenly more important when they got unified, and it doesn't look like it's getting better.

[Guest pheadley]

1 title. would like to see wwe do what tna did with the x division title. whoever is holding the i.c. belt leading up to a certain ppv has the chance to trade it in for a wwe world title match. this could help guys who normally wouldnt be in the title picture.

[Dead Crow 370]

GDPR Edited February 20, 2019 by DraVen

[Guest The Beltster]

I think I liked them separate. WWE's problem wasn't having too many belts, it was in not writing storylines for those belts. If they had interesting feuds for any of the belts and not just "We like this guy, I guess, let's put a belt on him" I think I'd personally care more about them. It's not like the IC belt or the US belt got suddenly more important when they got unified, and it doesn't look like it's getting better.

While I agree it has alot to do with the booking, it 100% also had alot to do with WWE having too many belts.

[Guest Ciaran The King]

As 2002 came to a close there was never enough headliners to justify a second work title, Triple H just felt left out

[Guest Jack]

There should only ever be one world champion. Hopefully they make a new belt soon too.

[Guest BeorimJ]

i am torn.

A unified title should also be just one belt, and that would be ok.

 

But then again, they have so many wrestlers with potential, who have neither chances for any belt, nor real story lines to follow. And that sucks. At least when there is a title on the line, you can make them fight a bunch for a reason, to give it all a bit of meaning, which is missing too often atm.

[Maxximus 353]

Sure, give one guy in every feud a title. That'll solve everything.

[GENE 86]

Do the people that think they need two titles not remember pre 2001? It worked fine with one champion then. Not everyone needs a run with the title, I think it's embarrassing when you have a tag team match and all four guys are like ten, eleven twelve time world champion.

[Guest Ciaran The King]

All WWE need to do at the moment is design and produce a belt which is at least half decent and crown a new Champion

[Maxximus 353]

We don't need another shitty new belt do we?

[Guest Edgehead]

Bring back the Winged Eagle. Best belt ever!

[Guest Ciaran The King]

We don't need another shitty new belt do we?

 

No we need a brand spanking new one

[dsrchris 190]

After the money they pitched out on the last one for The Rock? Not likely.

 

I don't think we'll see a proper unified title belt anytime soon.

[Guest Ciaran The King]

Carrying those belts must be heavy

[Guest BeorimJ]

Sure, give one guy in every feud a title. That'll solve everything.

Not really what i meant - WWE needs more good story lines and believable feuds. But in absence of that, a title makes the bad feuds they get going atm more believable.

[Guest Will O the Wisp]

Yeah, it seems that when people start mentioning the number of belts, they forget that a good feud can exist without the mention or notion of a belt.

 

More Belts ≠ More Entertaining Feuds

------also-----

Less Belts ≠ Less Entertaining Feuds