Why does the WWE still need 2 world championships?

[momma]

The world champion should be undisputed king of the mountain, the #1 person to beat. I get the need for it with a brand split and a huge roster, but main event feuds often don't need a belt to begin with and if they do while the world champion is in a program, then they should use the US / IC belts, making them actually desirable championships to hold instead of midcard fodder. You can just allow whoever holds the world title to be a dual-branded superstar. This goes for the women's championships as well.

On top of that, there's only one real lineage which is the main WWE belt that goes back to 1963. Any other world title is second place in prestige and not truly represented as the "top prize in the company".

This would also get rid of situations at Mania where a world title match is not the main event, which it should be if you're trying to give meaning to your #1 belt(s) unless it's a HBK/Taker or Rock/Cena match that needs to go on last.

 

[JerseyBoy23]

It's because they believe people wouldn't show up to a show that didn't feature a world champion. Specifically for house shows, RAW and Smackdown ran different routes and having one champ would mean one of the brands wouldn't have a World Champion that weekend.

They tried having one champ during a brand split before but they must've not liked the house show numbers in 2002 since they went back to having two champs within 9 months of unifying the belts.

 

[stro]

It's because they believe people wouldn't show up to a show that didn't feature a world champion. Specifically for house shows, RAW and Smackdown ran different routes and having one champ would mean one of the brands wouldn't have a World Champion that weekend.

They tried having one champ during a brand split before but they must've not liked the house show numbers in 2002 since they went back to having two champs within 9 months of unifying the belts.

This argument doesn't fly when one of the champs for most of the past 5 years has worked less than 20 house shows since 2012.

 

[Legal]

It's because they believe people wouldn't show up to a show that didn't feature a world champion. Specifically for house shows, RAW and Smackdown ran different routes and having one champ would mean one of the brands wouldn't have a World Champion that weekend.

They tried having one champ during a brand split before but they must've not liked the house show numbers in 2002 since they went back to having two champs within 9 months of unifying the belts.

Yep, it was house shows that caused the original championship split. Obviously not the reason.now, since house show numbers are down, and after the pandemic is under control, they're probably not touring as hard as they used to.

The reason now is likely keeping broadcast partners happy. I imagine it's harder to get someone to drop serious money on broadcast rights without the promise of (in non Brock cases) of having the champion available regularly.

 

[Bryan Danielson]

Cuz they have too many people

I not only think and agree that they should have 2 of each titles/champs.

I think they should really go back to the “hard” brand split and have brand specific PPVs

Just keep the big grandfathered ones (RR, WM, SSlm, SSrs) as the bigger full roster shows and split the others among the brands.


the Raw Champ dont needs to look stronger/more important than the Smackdown champ (and Vice verse)

 

[NYChase718]

Its lesnars belt wen hes around

 

[Mr. Brown]

They only have 1 world champion. The other is the champion of the universe.

 

[Womb Raider]

They only have 1 world champion. The other is the champion of the universe.

 

[momma]

Yep, it was house shows that caused the original championship split. Obviously not the reason.now, since house show numbers are down, and after the pandemic is under control, they're probably not touring as hard as they used to.

The reason now is likely keeping broadcast partners happy. I imagine it's harder to get someone to drop serious money on broadcast rights without the promise of (in non Brock cases) of having the champion available regularly.

Roster was thinner back then and women's wrestling wasn't a real thing, if they tried it again today it'd work a lot better because the belts are less relevant now and people attend shows to see their favorites. Just look at WrestleMania where people gave more of a fukk about the 3 big matches not involving a world title

As far as the TV thing, is that confirmed the way they're thinking? If that's the case, then like I suggested just elevate the US / IC titles. I think both world titles suffer anyways when there's 2 of them around.

 

[Cartier Murphy]

I’m assuming the only reasons these days are for broadcasting partners to be happy and to make that merchandise money off replicas and other shyt

 

[Metal Face]

It's only because of the split to keep the shows even

I prefer 2 world titles tbh, just only if they knew how to book the shyt properly

 

[mannyrs13]

Careful that Vince doesn't follow in UFC and boxing footsteps and creates a championship for each weight class.

 

[momma]

Cuz they have too many people

I not only think and agree that they should have 2 of each titles/champs.

I think they should really go back to the “hard” brand split and have brand specific PPVs

Just keep the big grandfathered ones (RR, WM, SSlm, SSrs) as the bigger full roster shows and split the others among the brands.


the Raw Champ dont needs to look stronger/more important than the Smackdown champ (and Vice verse)

Too many people doesn't mean you need 2 world titles unless you're 100% decoupling the shows which they can't since you're still having dual-branded PPVs and a draft every year (and the product is identical, SmackDown is just Raw but blue). Just think in the context of if there was no brand split at all, because that's pretty much the case. Makes no sense to have 2 world titles for a giant talent pool that's under the same umbrella - the more coveted and elusive the grand prize, the better the champion looks and without needing to devalue the other world title. Vince always just puts the spotlight on whichever belt has the champion he likes more anyways.

Elevating the US / IC titles would still keep the goal of gold for main event / upper midcard guys - no reason for Braun Strowman to be needing a world title in whatever storyline he's in right now. It hurts the brand, the belt, and whoever beats the current champion if it's treated as a #2 world title.

 

[YakSpiller]

They only have 1 world champion. The other is the champion of the universe.

The champion should move around brands like Chuck. I always thought 2 titles weakens the validity of a world heavyweight champion.

Also the title changes way to often.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I’m assuming the only reasons these days are for broadcasting partners to be happy and to make that merchandise money off replicas and other shyt

This