Why doesn't WWE put their respective brand names..

[Guest Teckneek]

Why doesn't WWE put their respective brand names in front of their Championship belts? JBL is the champion of the WWE and Benoit is the Champion of the World. The World Heavyweight belt seems like an unoffical belt. It would be more balanced if the World Heavyweight title and WWE title where changed to the

WWE RAW World Heavyweight Championship and

WWE SMACKDOWN! World Heavyweight Championship. I know they did that because of the history behind each belt(world=wcw and wwe=wwf), but they were both combined and the WWE title has both histories. It's so messed up. Same with the tag straps. WWE should've started over with the belts when they did the brand split. It is perfectly balanced in terms of belts though; each brand has 2 WCW and 2 WWF belts:

 

Smackdown!:

WWE Championship(WWF)

United States Championship(WCW)

WWE Tag Team Championship(WWF)

Cruiserweight Championship(WCW)

 

Raw:

World Heavyweight Championship(WCW)

Intercontinental Championship(WWF)

World Tag Team Championship(WCW)

Women's Championship(WWF)

 

Now I know the World tag straps are the original WWF tag belts and were combined withe the WCW tag straps, but during the lottery draft, HHH for example was listed as WWE Tag champion, not World tag team champion, therefore, the WWE Tag straps on smackdown are the ones based on the WWF history.

[Dark Age 0]

No they aren't.

 

WWE Tag Titles go back to God's Team. World Tag Titles been around forever.

[Promoter 0]

I think the wwe should not even use raw or smackdown as the brand names and do a real split. I don't know what to call it, but this whole thing you went over sounds confusing to a regular Joe. I also think calling it something besides tv show names would help make it seem like two different leagues. I don't like using raw champ or smackdown champ either. That doesn't sound too prestigious or elite compared to WWF Champion and World Heavyweight Champion. The world tag titles are in lineage with the wwf tag belts. The wwe even acknowledged this in either the raw or smackdown mag around WM XX when going over the history of events at MSG.

[AndrewTS 0]

"I don't know what to call it, but this whole thing you went over sounds confusing to a regular Joe. "

 

Regular Joes are stupid if they can't figure out the difference. How is it any more confusing than "World" and "WWE" anyway?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

"I don't know what to call it, but this whole thing you went over sounds confusing to a regular Joe. "

 

Regular Joes are stupid if they can't figure out the difference. How is it any more confusing than "World" and "WWE" anyway?

Really, if it isn't broke... why fix it?

[Promoter 0]

WWE and World could be seen as two different leagues. RAW and Smackdown come off like all the same thing being wwe. It worked in the 80's and 90's

 

Besides raw champ vs. smackdown champ just sounds like blasphemy

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

WWE and World could be seen as two different leagues. RAW and Smackdown come off like all the same thing being wwe. It worked in the 80's and 90's

 

Besides raw champ vs. smackdown champ just sounds like blasphemy

I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

They shouldn't be referred to as RAW and SD! titles, that cheapens them. WWE and WHC are just... more prestigous sounding.

[Slickster 0]

I think that's what he's saying, and I agree.

[Promoter 0]

The brand "extension" isn't exactly doing great business. I wouldn't exactly say if it isn't broke don't fix it. It could be better and not much worse. As for the titles and its names look at it like this. Suppose they strip the crusierweight name and call it the Velocity belt and the I-C title turns into the Heat title.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

The brand "extension" isn't exactly doing great business. I wouldn't exactly say if it isn't broke don't fix it. It could be better and not much worse.

You'd like the WWE a lot less if they stopped the BE.

[Slickster 0]

The brand "extension" isn't exactly doing great business. I wouldn't exactly say if it isn't broke don't fix it. It could be better and not much worse.

Changing the name from WWF to WWE took away a lot of the company's history.

 

Changing the title that Rogers, Sammartino, Hogan, etc. won into the 'WWE SmackDown! World Title' would be a far worse slap in the face to tradition.

 

And really, if the name WAS changed, do you think that would draw in more viewers?

[Promoter 0]

I'm not saying to stop the Brand Extension, but improve it. Then again, it has been rumoured Vince wants the raw brand to be the A circuit and smackdown the B circuit. The way he has changed philosophy seems that he wants smackdown to be the show to groom his talent for the big sea of raw.

[Slickster 0]

Teckneek, do you want me to explain the lineages of all WWE titles? They ARE confusing and I (being a title history mark) would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Guest Teckneek]

Teckneek, do you want me to explain the lineages of all WWE titles? They ARE confusing and I (being a title history mark) would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

No, as confusing as they are, I know them.

WWE Championship=Undisputed, WWF, WCW Championship

World Heavyweight Championship=Reintroduced after Smackdown got the exclusive rights to the WWE Undisputed Championship. The Undisputed Championship then was turned into the WWE championship and was based only on the WWE/F history. The World Title also has the history of the Old Hardcore, European, United States, and Intercontinental titles as they were all absorbed into each other at one point. Confidential did a piece on the World Heavyweight title and showed that its based on the history of WCW.

 

Basically as it stands right now(even though they changed their minds a million times), the WWE title is based on the history of WWE and the World title is based on the history of WCW.

[Slickster 0]

Teckneek, do you want me to explain the lineages of all WWE titles? They ARE confusing and I (being a title history mark) would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

No, as confusing as they are, I know them.

WWE Championship=Undisputed, WWF, WCW Championship

World Heavyweight Championship=Reintroduced after Smackdown got the exclusive rights to the WWE Undisputed Championship. The Undisputed Championship then was turned into the WWE championship and was based only on the WWE/F history. The World Title also has the history of the Old Hardcore, European, United States, and Intercontinental titles as they were all absorbed into each other at one point. Confidential did a piece on the World Heavyweight title and showed that its based on the history of WCW.

 

Basically as it stands right now(even though they changed their minds a million times), the WWE title is based on the history of WWE and the World title is based on the history of WCW.

Yeah, that's mostly true. The WHC doesn't have the IC and US lineage, though; it was made clear that both titles were 'brought back' and as such were de-unified with the WHC.

[Promoter 0]

Wouldn't the WHC have the I-C and US titles in its lineage when Triple H unified the title in 2002 against Kane? The two titles were then brought back.

[Slickster 0]

Wouldn't the WHC have the I-C and US titles in its lineage when Triple H unified the title in 2002 against Kane? The two titles were then brought back.

It had the IC and US from October 2002 to May 2003, when the IC was brought back.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Please, not another history/lineage/who's seen a real breast argument.

[Guest Loss]

If Vince didn't care about Smackdown, the Undertaker would be on RAW, since he's one of his favorites.

 

The title situation already reminds me of WCW in 1993 when they had two world champions, one from WCW and one from WCW International.

 

I'm all for the brand extension actually, just because it has allowed for the focus to be spread *a little*, but I think that every champion (not just the top guy) should float between shows because the belts would mean so much more and being a champion would mean so much more than it does. Do away with the US title completely and have the World, IC, tag, cruiser and women's champs float between shows.

[Slickster 0]

Please, not another history/lineage/who's seen a real breast argument.

No argument here; I'm right, plain and simple.

 

And implying that I'm some loner who'se never had a a girlfriend is VERY classy, Kotz.

[Crimson G 0]

If Vince didn't care about Smackdown, the Undertaker would be on RAW, since he's one of his favorites.

 

The title situation already reminds me of WCW in 1993 when they had two world champions, one from WCW and one from WCW International.

 

I'm all for the brand extension actually, just because it has allowed for the focus to be spread *a little*, but I think that every champion (not just the top guy) should float between shows because the belts would mean so much more and being a champion would mean so much more than it does. Do away with the US title completely and have the World, IC, tag, cruiser and women's champs float between shows.

That pretty much defeats the purpose of the split because you would have too many titles floating between the shows. They should just completely split off from each other and have unending hate between the two brands. There should be shoot comments about the other brand with occasional (one-night) invasions. Basically, they should pretend that the other brand is really a different company.

[dubq 0]

The World Heavyweight belt seems like an unoffical belt.

Pfft, whatever. The WWE title has been second-rate [at least, in my eyes] for months now.