Regional Titles for WWE

[Slickster 0]

WWE's overseas house shows do well (see: this past week of TV), but they will inevitably drop off due to the fact that they will be more frequent since making $ in North America is a tougher task than it was 3 years ago.

 

To keep fan interest (in at least a minor way), I propose that WWE reinstate the European Title and create the Pacific Title. These championships can only be won/lost/defended in their respective areas (the European Title can only change hands in Europe, the Pacific Title can only change hands in Australia and Asia).

 

This idea is kind of a take-off of WCW's European Cup, the difference being that WCW only went to continental Europe in 1993 and 2000, rendering the Cup all but useless. However, I think that having a 'regional' champion could be beneficial to house shows since the chance of a title change is very, very high, whereas the main WWE titles don't change hands off TV unless someone gets injured.

 

Plus, this could be worked into storylines on TV (i.e. commentators talk about how the European Champion has to get ready for the upcoming tour, others challenge him backstage for matches at the upcoming house shows, etc.).

 

The title could also be a feather in the cap of midcarders who are not in storylines/the IC Title hunt but are on the active roster.

 

Your thoughts?

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

It's an horrible idea because the titles would be even more worthless then the current titles are right now. Basically the title would be defended 6-12 times a year.

 

Keep the european title retired as it is and let's not create a Pacific title as well.

 

It's got enough titles to work with right now; just focus on keeping people wanting to come to the show.

 

Creating a Pacific title isn't going to maintain the Pacific Rim market...

 

It's a pointless prop in the end if they do that.

[Youth N Asia 0]

They have enough titles as it is.

 

It woldn't make much sense for

 

JR: "Here's you European Champion, Chris Jericho...he'll defend the title again in 5 months, folks."

[Slickster 0]

It's an horrible idea because the titles would be even more worthless then the current titles are right now. Basically the title would be defended 6-12 times a year.

 

Keep the european title retired as it is and let's not create a Pacific title as well.

 

It's got enough titles to work with right now; just focus on keeping people wanting to come to the show.

 

Creating a Pacific title isn't going to maintain the Pacific Rim market...

 

It's a pointless prop in the end if they do that.

Well, I meant that the title would only be referred to once a tour is coming up. The KOTR tournament winner wasn't always referred to as such for the next 12 months, it was only brought up when it was convenient. I'm not expecting the champ to carry the belt around for 5 months when he can't defend it.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

Again; it's a pointless thing to bother with. You can have a special "King of Japan" tournament deal where the winner gets a giant trophy but no "title" or championship level deal.

[tommytomlin 0]

Shows in Australia, Japan and Europe sell out on a consistent basis without the need for personalised titles. If anything, WWE should look at ways of making the domestic house shows more important.

[Slickster 0]

Shows in Australia, Japan and Europe sell out on a consistent basis without the need for personalised titles.

Right now, yes, they sell out.

 

However, WWE is going to be going overseas this year more than ever, so therefore some places will get multiple events in a year, which decreases the possibilities of a sellout.

[razazteca 0]

Make King of the Ring the exclusive PPV for the overseas tour, one year it can be in London the next in Toyko the next in Sydney.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Okay, I am interested in the whole title importance thing.

 

Some say that if the title changes too much, it becomes meaningless. Some say that if the title is defended too little, it becomes meaningless. Still others say that if the same guy holds the title too long, it may become more meaningful, but the champion becomes a bully who holds everyone else down. Is there supposed to be some kind of fragile balance between the three?

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Okay, I am interested in the whole title importance thing.

 

Some say that if the title changes too much, it becomes meaningless. Some say that if the title is defended too little, it becomes meaningless. Still others say that if the same guy holds the title too long, it may become more meaningful, but the champion becomes a bully who holds everyone else down. Is there supposed to be some kind of fragile balance between the three?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Some say that if the title changes too much, it becomes meaningless. Some say that if the title is defended too little, it becomes meaningless. Still others say that if the same guy holds the title too long, it may become more meaningful, but the champion becomes a bully who holds everyone else down. Is there supposed to be some kind of fragile balance between the three?

 

1) Absolutely. Good examples are the WCW Title in June 2000, or the IC Title in 2001. Nobody will care if somebody keeps losing their title a week or two later.

 

2) The old 30 days rule is a good one to follow. Three months is too long in between title defences (as in Big Show's US Title run). Once a week is probably too often for the World Titles, but acceptable for lower level belts. No title should go more than 4-6 weeks between televised defenses.

 

3) Too long is when they become stale and fans are no longer buying the product. Someone like Hulk Hogan in his prime could be champion for years at a time. Austin probably could have gotten away with having the belt for a couple of years after he first won it in 1998. Meanwhile, one day is too long for Viscera holding the belt. In the current situations I have no problem with JBL holding the belt. He remains entertaining and people are finally getting into him now. It isn't like there were much better choices on Smackdown anyways. Angle was hurt, Big Show was hurt, Eddy was rapidly having a nervous breakdown, and nobody else was anywhere near that level. Meanwhile, HHH has had the belt for about 4 weeks now and people are already sick of him because he has dominated everybody on the roster (save Batista) so often that nobody (save Batista) is seen as a credible threat to him. There is no hard rule that says when a champion has held the belt too long.

[Guest Trivia247]

Only way the Euro and Pacific Titles would work is that you have enough wrestlers to truly represent the titles.

 

European Wrestlers and Japanese/Samoan/Australian wrestlers basically.

 

For the Euro title you only got William Regal

 

and the Pacific, Akio, Funaki, Tajiri, Kenzo, and Alas ONE samoan in Rosey.....

 

I don't remember a time when the WWF/E was down to only one Samoan, what is this world coming to????

[LessonInMachismo 0]

<<For the Euro title you only got William Regal>>

 

Rene Dupree.

 

Speaking of Europeans, I wish WWE could get Doug Williams.