Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
tiger_rick

Random thoughts thread v2 *NO NEWS ITEMS*

15,005 posts in this topic

I wished they'd have gone with Raw and Smackdown belts, so you'd have a Raw champion, Smackdown champion, and NXT champion. Then kept the WWE title for Goldberg/Lesnar/Reigns/Cena and only had it defended three or four times a year.

 

Going a step further, Raw could have a traditional tag title and let Smackdown have a trios tag championship instead, to give it some difference. All belts would look the same (like the UFC) but would have different coloured leather. Keep the WWE title black obv.

That would widen the already problematic chasm between 'current champions' and 'actual big time wrestlers'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is Dean Ambrose, Rich Swann and Drake Younger's interpretation of it.

 

Class!

 

It must have been a running joke in CZW amongst their wrestlers. Because when I casually passed comment to M-Dogg 20 about how naff their theme song was (CZW sent it to us to use on TWC), he was all over it & started singing it - he knew all the words. We had commented that it sounded like it'd been sung down a phone. And of course Jody & Jonny had been to CZW too in the BOTB2 tourny. And Alex Shane & Burridge were on the same IWW tour, so just decided to join in.

I had to convince Alex Shane to take his top off - he didn't want to at first and commented that he doesn't even wrestle with his top off. Ironically, I told him to stop being so gay and just take his top off, we'll lash on a strobe, and I'll film him playing drums. It was just a goof in the TWC office one evening before an IWW tour kicked off in March 2005.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wished they'd have gone with Raw and Smackdown belts, so you'd have a Raw champion, Smackdown champion, and NXT champion. Then kept the WWE title for Goldberg/Lesnar/Reigns/Cena and only had it defended three or four times a year.

 

Going a step further, Raw could have a traditional tag title and let Smackdown have a trios tag championship instead, to give it some difference. All belts would look the same (like the UFC) but would have different coloured leather. Keep the WWE title black obv.

That would widen the already problematic chasm between 'current champions' and 'actual big time wrestlers'.

 

 

I don't think it would widen it. The problem's already there between the top normal guys and the elite guys like Lesnar and Goldberg, and I think that's a problem that goes far beyond who's champion. Someone on here suggested giving Goldberg the Universal title and that would feel like a big step down for Goldberg. I think there'd be more merit from eventually giving the WWE title to the next star every year or two. What we have currently is two lacklustre world belts. At least with a Raw and Smackdown belt, you could have two lacklustre show-specific belts (essentially what the WWE/Universal are now) and still be able to retain that top belt for the big occasions (Summerslam/Rumble/Wrestlemania etc).

 

More than anything, the names of the current singles belts make no sense. World/Universal/Intercontinental/US/Cruiserweight. The first three essentially mean the same thing (or is Universal bigger because it can be defended throughout the universe), the US belt doesn't have any criteria that makes it US-only, and the cruiserweight title means nothing in an era when cruisers can go for the big belts. 

Edited by Undefeated Steak
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wished they'd have gone with Raw and Smackdown belts, so you'd have a Raw champion, Smackdown champion, and NXT champion. Then kept the WWE title for Goldberg/Lesnar/Reigns/Cena and only had it defended three or four times a year.

 

Going a step further, Raw could have a traditional tag title and let Smackdown have a trios tag championship instead, to give it some difference. All belts would look the same (like the UFC) but would have different coloured leather. Keep the WWE title black obv.

That would widen the already problematic chasm between 'current champions' and 'actual big time wrestlers'.

 

 

I don't think it would widen it. The problem's already there between the top normal guys and the elite guys like Lesnar and Goldberg, and I think that's a problem that goes far beyond who's champion. Someone on here suggested giving Goldberg the Universal title and that would feel like a big step down for Goldberg. I think there'd be more merit from eventually giving the WWE title to the next star every year or two. What we have currently is two lacklustre world belts. At least with a Raw and Smackdown belt, you could have two lacklustre show-specific belts (essentially what the WWE/Universal are now) and still be able to retain that top belt for the big occasions (Summerslam/Rumble/Wrestlemania etc).

 

More than anything, the names of the current singles belts make no sense. World/Universal/Intercontinental/US/Cruiserweight. The first three essentially mean the same thing (or is Universal bigger because it can be defended throughout the universe), the US belt doesn't have any criteria that makes it US-only, and the cruiserweight title means nothing in an era when cruisers can go for the big belts. 

 

I wouldn't say the WWE title is lacklustre at all, it's the big prize in my eyes. Any diminishing of it's stature is just symptomatic of the spot it has to share with the Universal title. If that strap didn't exist tomorrow and AJ continued to hold on to his title for a few months with the likes of Goldie and Reigns sniffing around it with the rest of the upper midcard behind them then it's stature would be even bigger.

 

I just can't get on board with what you're suggesting, really. The two titles are shit anyway so let's just solidify that, draw a line under it and throw another WWE Actual Championship on top of what is already a bloated scene?

 

To each their own.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a pointless discussion. I don't mean that harshly, 99% of what we discuss on here is pointless. It is though and always has been. It was like all the chatter before the brand split. They were always going to do it this way. It's how they like it. They want a "major" title on each show. They have since a month or two into the first one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's only personal preference. It's just how I wished they'd done it. There's far bigger problems creatively for them and even if they did do it the way I'd like, it wouldn't make any difference long term anyway. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had a WWE Proper Actual Champion who only defended the title at cross-brand PPVs, my inclination would be "This guy's not a fighting champion, the Raw champ and SmackDown champ have to earn their place against top guys at least once a month so those belts mean more."

 

I know they can mould people's image to try and counter that perception, but it would always be lurking beneath the surface for me. I do want a single champion, but not a paper champion compared to those slugging it out at the next tier down.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My vision of the model would be that the Proper Actual Champion defends every time his own brand has a PPV, maybe even sometimes on TV.

 

The cross-brand PPVs are the other brand's opportunity to take the title over to their show. It's not without flaws, admittedly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I wished they'd have gone with Raw and Smackdown belts, so you'd have a Raw champion, Smackdown champion, and NXT champion. Then kept the WWE title for Goldberg/Lesnar/Reigns/Cena and only had it defended three or four times a year.

 

Going a step further, Raw could have a traditional tag title and let Smackdown have a trios tag championship instead, to give it some difference. All belts would look the same (like the UFC) but would have different coloured leather. Keep the WWE title black obv.

That would widen the already problematic chasm between 'current champions' and 'actual big time wrestlers'.

 

 

I don't think it would widen it. The problem's already there between the top normal guys and the elite guys like Lesnar and Goldberg, and I think that's a problem that goes far beyond who's champion. Someone on here suggested giving Goldberg the Universal title and that would feel like a big step down for Goldberg. I think there'd be more merit from eventually giving the WWE title to the next star every year or two. What we have currently is two lacklustre world belts. At least with a Raw and Smackdown belt, you could have two lacklustre show-specific belts (essentially what the WWE/Universal are now) and still be able to retain that top belt for the big occasions (Summerslam/Rumble/Wrestlemania etc).

 

More than anything, the names of the current singles belts make no sense. World/Universal/Intercontinental/US/Cruiserweight. The first three essentially mean the same thing (or is Universal bigger because it can be defended throughout the universe), the US belt doesn't have any criteria that makes it US-only, and the cruiserweight title means nothing in an era when cruisers can go for the big belts. 

 

I wouldn't say the WWE title is lacklustre at all, it's the big prize in my eyes. Any diminishing of it's stature is just symptomatic of the spot it has to share with the Universal title. If that strap didn't exist tomorrow and AJ continued to hold on to his title for a few months with the likes of Goldie and Reigns sniffing around it with the rest of the upper midcard behind them then it's stature would be even bigger.

 

I just can't get on board with what you're suggesting, really. The two titles are shit anyway so let's just solidify that, draw a line under it and throw another WWE Actual Championship on top of what is already a bloated scene?

 

To each their own.

 

Yeah, I can see 1 world title and elevating the IC and US being somewhat workable, but basically three world titles is a ludicrous idea. I'm fine with the way they are doing it and have always done it tbh and would probably choose to do it the same way, if there has to be a brand split that is

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can do it in 3 too.  (if I understand right...that I have filled in 3 of the question marks)

Edited by The Dart
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My vision of the model would be that the Proper Actual Champion defends every time his own brand has a PPV, maybe even sometimes on TV.

 

The cross-brand PPVs are the other brand's opportunity to take the title over to their show. It's not without flaws, admittedly.

This is how I imagined it when I wrote that too. The other brand could focus on finding a suitable contender at their ppvs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0