Does WWE have to many titles?

[Scroby 0]

This recently popped up in one of the threads and I figured it would actually make a good stand alone topic to talk about.

 

People recently said that the WWE have to many titles and that majority of PPV matches are title matches and that to many titles are now being defended at pay per views.

 

First lets take a look at the titles.

 

Raw

World Title

Intercontinental Title

Raw Tag Titles

Womans Championship

 

ECW

ECW title

 

Smackdown

WWE Title

U.S. Title

WWE Tag Titles

Diva Championship

 

So the WWE has a total of 9 championship titles (no, we're not counting each tag title as it's own title.) but why do people think that's to many titles when the titles are exclusive to each and it's own show? Also why shouldn't the major titles always be defended at a pay per view? Is having to many titles causing to many championship feuds on each show?

 

What are your guys thought on if the WWE has to many titles?

[ChrisMWaters 0]

Back in the days that they had seperate PPVs for Raw and Smackdown (before ECW was created) I think they had the perfect amount.

 

Now though...

[Mike wanna be 0]

The roster size necessitates that many titles, but the shows & PPVs aren't long enough to fit them all in.

 

You're looking at 30 minutes per Raw/Smackdown for each title assuming there are no not-about-a-title segments on the program. A three-hour pay-per-view allows 20 minutes per title, and that's not long enough.

 

The problem you run into is, which titles do you drop? I mean, you have a major title, a midcard belt, a set of tag belts and a women's belt. How do you drop one of those without completely eliminating a division's worth of workers from the roster, and which one do you drop if you decide you have to do it?

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

I think back when each brand had their own PPVs it made sense to have separate copy titles (tag titles, and now diva title) as well as a WWE Champion and a World Champion on each brand. Now that the PPVs are shared? I don't think theirs too many titles for how their spread across the brands, just how many titles are on a PPV.

 

OK, so people will say that people buy PPVs due to title matches, but with so many titles around doesn't it devalue them? There's two 'World Champions' in WWE, two Diva Champions, two Tag Team Champions - who's the best out of them? Are they equals? I think this goes back to me just not liking the brand split idea but treating it like the same show still (though trying not to). Its still WWE, but they have 2 people basically sharing the same spot and never really tease as to who the best champion is.

 

Now down the line if they had Diva Champion v Diva Champion match, I could get behind that to see who the best Diva Champion was at the time - though it could be argued they'd be making one champion look weak and lessen that title with the defeat.

 

As for the IC and US title, I don't mind those, I like them, I'm a fan of midcard titles, however, I would really like to see them distinguised from just being the World Title reserve. They don't really mean much at the moment, they're just there to be there at times - what happened to the classic feuds over the IC title ala Bret Hart/Shawn Michaels and in recent years Morrison/Hardy, or the US title, the title that helped establish MVP, Eddie G and Chris Benoit as contenders?

 

WCW had a lot of titles too, but they were all a bit different. World Title was the for the Main Eventers, US Title was for up and comers, Cruiserweight Title was the work horse title tag titles were teaser titles. If WWE wants to have so many titles then they'll have to start distinguishing which title is which, which champion has which belt, and what it means to have a title. As at the moment, up until CM Punk got the title, you could probably interchange who had what belt and it would just be the same thing - though maybe that's more about the WWE style and presentation at the moment, then it is about the titles themselves.

[foleyfanforever88 0]

I mentioned this before, and IIRC it didn't get a very positive response, but I think that only one of the World (WWE or WHC) Titles should be defended at each PPV. This allows for twice the build-up for each one, and less repetition down the road (see: Edge vs. Batista, Triple H vs. Orton). Of course this doesn't have to be a strongly enforced rule, but having both titles defended 14 times a year on PPV really makes title matches seem a lot less significant.

 

I think each PPV should have 7-8 matches, with 4 or 5 being title matches. The 4-5 titles being defended would be 1 of the world titles, 2 of the 3 midcard (US, IC, ECW) titles, 1 of the tag titles, and one of the women's titles (or the 3rd midcard title, if there is no good women's feud going on).

[Mystery Eskimo 0]

I mentioned this before, and IIRC it didn't get a very positive response, but I think that only one of the World (WWE or WHC) Titles should be defended at each PPV. This allows for twice the build-up for each one, and less repetition down the road (see: Edge vs. Batista, Triple H vs. Orton). Of course this doesn't have to be a strongly enforced rule, but having both titles defended 14 times a year on PPV really makes title matches seem a lot less significant.

 

I think that's a good idea. The show that doesn't have a title match could really focus on showcasing their tag or IC/US belts, which are all pretty much dead in terms of value and rub for the wrestlers at this point.

[dubq 0]

^^ I also agree with that idea. At least it would force them to do more than 4 weeks build to another title match.

[foleyfanforever88 0]

Just as an example of how I would book things, had Triple H been chasing Edge for the title, I would have replaced their match at GAB with an 8-man battle royal featuring HHH, MVP, Big Show, Kennedy, Carlito, Umaga, BDV, and Jeff Hardy. The past few weeks of Smackdown would have been pretty much the same, with Triple H getting involved with La Familia, but he would've had to earn a title match at GAB. Then you get more popular guys on the show, and even though there are only 4 or 5 weeks til Summerslam, you have the additional 3 weeks before GAB helping to build towards Edge vs. Triple H.

[Scroby 0]

I just couldn't see a pay-per-view not having the World, WWE, and ECW titles defended on it. That'd be weird and I don't think people would buy less PPVs if the top titles weren't defended.

 

(The ECW title in my opinon is a top title, no you won't change my mind.)

[dubq 0]

Wait, you don't think people would buy less ppvs or you do?

[Scroby 0]

Whoops fuck, I think people would buy less pay per views if the top titles weren't always defended.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

But what makes its credible to have TWO different tag champions when either pair don't really have much competition? They should throw down the gauntlet by the end of next year, to see who the best Tag Team is between the two and unite the titles - whoever the champions are at the time.

 

With two World Titles and a WWE Champion, is there any interest from the general crowd towards the IC and US title at the moment? I don't think there is that much, certainly not since the MVP/Hardy program ended. OK, so you can argue that those titles aren't the draw anyway, but they're the titles the create your future stars and if no one is interested in them, how can you do that?

[MrRant 0]

Yes. Though I understand why they have them but yet I don't since it's not like both brands are ran as seperate companies. *IF* they had their own deals going and it was back like the original plan for WCW to have it's own tour etc, then fine.

[foleyfanforever88 0]

Whoops fuck, I think people would buy less pay per views if the top titles weren't always defended.

 

I disagree. I think after the first few months, pay per views would make just as much, if not more money, because feuds would be fresher and built up better. If I order a show to see Triple H vs. Kennedy (or something else new) and then three weeks later they're fighting again on pay per view, I'm not going to order that second one unless the rest of the card is really worth my money. And plus, I'm only getting rid of one of the major belts; it's not like I'm saying that only the WHC and WWE Tag Titles are on the line. You could always have the champion in a non-title match too..I think a lot of younger fans especially just watch to see their favorite wrestlers and could care less who the champions are.

 

EDIT: I guess another solution would be that if both titles are on the line, one of them should be a rematch from the previous PPV (no 3-peats though, unless it's a REALLY great feud). I just hate seeing first-time title matches taking place with less than 4 or 5 weeks build (see Triple H vs. Edge).

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

Aye, I mentioned it earlier, I feel the same way. If they actually did more head to head stuff with their champions or even the brands, then maybe then I'd buy into more.

[cabbageboy 0]

Thing is, have these B grade PPVs gone up in buyrates enough to justify this? WWE has thrown all these title matches on all these PPVs and I don't think there's really been a huge return on that investment. They don't have to put the same exact guys on every PPV, the same title matches, etc. Maybe have a tag match main event from one brand while the other has a title match. Feature one secondardy belt one month, then the next month the other belt, etc.

[RepoMan 0]

I think they should unite the World and WWE titles. I'd also unite the Tag Team and Women's/Diva titles as well. One top man, one top team, one top women, and they can show up on whatever show they feel like. I'd keep the US and IC titles for midcarders you want to elevate.

 

I also wouldn't mind bringing back the Hardcore title for Raw/ECW when they start touring togeather, and the Cruiserwieght Title on Smackdown to differentiate the brands a little bit.

[Perfxion 0]

"To be the (wo)man, you have to beat the (wo)man"....

 

Well who is the (wo)man, when there are two or three (wo)men champions. What makes everyone promotion, sport, event important is that there is ONE MAIN CHAMPION. There really is no need for three world titles, two mid card titles, two women's champion, and two tag team champions. There is NO POINT having a total of 6 tag teams and 2 titles for them. Three world titles is a joke because no reason to have that many titles when the same 4 people seem to rotate into these title matches.

 

I think they should drop 2 world titles, a tag team title and a women's title. Let those three belts rotate the brands, hell disband the brands, and let the best of the best wrestle each other than. "Hes only champion because X is on another show". "They are only champs because there are no other teams to give the title to". Plus if they want an ECWish show, call the show WWE Extreme and bring back the hardcore title. Problem solved without needing another world title.

 

As for the buyrate, the last title match to draw people in was the Rumble because of the Orton/Hard feud. But other than that, most people buy for the sake of seeing a WWE show since every match will be on TV the next week, if not the next PPV. 'You beat me in a falls count anywhere match, now beat me in a last man standing match. NOW BEAT ME IN HELL IN A CELL!!!!"

[Mike wanna be 0]

They don't want one belt, though. The brands go on outside-the-US tours and it would suck to be out there knowing the world champion was back in the US, and it would equally suck to be in the US and know the "real" world champion was thousands of miles away.

 

Even though every champion doesn't appear on every show, they like to maintain the possibility.

 

And besides, which title feuds currently going actually require the title?

-Punk is trying to prove he can beat guys like Batista, he could do that with the MITB briefcase still or even just for the sake of respect.

-HHH is defending against Edge because of Vickie and now he's defending against Khali because it's time for HHH to play the role of Cena and go through giant after giant (next up: Umaga?).

-Mark Henry has feuds against Dreamer in a "I got screwed" rematch, Hardy is #1 contender with Finlay, Miz & Morrison in the mix, and Delaney is a wild card.

-Kofi is fighting Burchill, Mickie is fighting Katie Lea, those two feuds could go based on the conflicts they've already had.

Shelton just won the US gold so he hasn't had the chance to do anything yet.

-Hawkins & Ryder just won the tag belts and they've got feuds against any of the three teams in the fatal four-way and specifically Miz & Morrison.

-Rhodes & DiBiase are looming over Lawler & Hacksaw for the "You're too old" storyline and could easily pull the rich pretty boy cards to wrestle Cryme Tyme, and McCool could just wrestle Natalya for the sake of feeling like it for all I care, she's boring and unattractive.

[Perfxion 0]

But how did the WWF(at the time) have two touring brands and yet managed to have only 1 world champion. Some people are so over a title is meaningless. NWA/WCW did the same thing. The Road Warriors were in NWA for like 4 years before winning the World tag team titles, then dropped them real quickly(for 88 standards).

 

If they want 9 different titles, fine, but only have just 1 World champion, 1 World Woman's champion, and 1 World tag team champion. For 6 years now they have had 2 world champions. And for 2 years now they have 3 world champions. The reason it is dumb, with everyone jumping brand to brand at will, they just pop up and become world champion. It means nothing to be champion anymore. Plus, with 14 to 16 PPVs a year, and seems like there are 4 to 6 title changes a year, who can keep with who's champion.

[jackmcmanus21 0]

I personally think that there should only be one championship belt, one IC level belt, one set of Tag titles and one Women's championship....but titles are used as getting people over so I guess it wouldnt work. It seems like everyone has a title though