Do they still need to call it the undisputed title

[Guest Youth N Asia]

When there were two belts it made sense to do the whole UNDISPUTED thing...but do they still need to.

 

I'd rather hear it announced as WWE Heavyeright Champion instead of WWE Undisputed Heavyweight Champion...it just sounds stupid and bugs me.

 

And are they going to referece older champions as former WWE champions...cause Taker has never been a WWE champ, only a WWF champ.

[Guest netslob]

i agree, it's a stupid phrase.  i said before and i'll say it again:  

 

if it's UNDISPUTED, then what's all the fighting about?

[Guest Ravenbomb]

WWF undisputed world title was stupid because there was never any dispute over who the WWF champ was. But calling it the Undisputed world title is stupid because there are world champs in Japan and in GCW

[Guest treble charged]

The whole point of the Vengance main events was to "unify" the titles, not "undispute" them.  It never made any sense to me why the WWF decided to use that term.

[Guest papacita]

I agree there shouldn't be an Undisputed title. Know why? Because they should SPLIT THE TITLES!!!!!!!!!!!

 

*ahem* TY