The Official UKFF RAW thread (part 2)...

[FUM]

It’s quite simple really. One is undisputed champion of the WWE. The other is the champion of the world.

WWE is a universe, so that’s bigger than the world.

Undisputed Champion of the Universe. Easy.

Edited July 22, 2025 by FUM
Simples

[air_raid]

17 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

Crazy to think that McMahon *spits* did such a great job of reestablishing one champion and the genius booker who replaced the crazy old bastard has pissed it away.

Let’s not forget, he only cobbled together Reigns vs Lesnar unification at that Mania because Reigns got covid so they moved Lesnar over into winning the WWE title at Day One, which originally would have been won by Rollins and the titles kept very much separate.

[Carbomb]

Two titles is shit, even with the brand split draught. It would've made the world champ a bigger deal if he was the only one to appear on both shows. It is, and always was, a cynical marketing thing to have two champs. 

[air_raid]

I promise this is the last time I’ll moan about this but…

30 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Two titles is shit, even with the brand split draught. It would've made the world champ a bigger deal if he was the only one to appear on both shows. It is, and always was, a cynical marketing thing to have two champs. 

…. imagine trying to get a main eventer to appear on both shows every week, these days you can’t rely on them to turn up every week to one.

[Carbomb]

49 minutes ago, air_raid said:

I promise this is the last time I’ll moan about this but…

…. imagine trying to get a main eventer to appear on both shows every week, these days you can’t rely on them to turn up every week to one.

Can't comment about now, but it was possible back in the day. Still, the answer for them should have been simple: instead of a second world belt, just really push the IC and US belts as being the "brand" titles, and have the world champ only show up on the show where his big feud is.

(Although that's another bug-bear: they showed it was possible back in the 90s and very early 2000s to have multiple feuds for the world belt. Doesn't have to be focused on one opponent.)

[BomberPat]

it was short-lived, but the brief period of having the Undisputed Champion appear on both shows was fun - you had Undertaker feuding with Hogan leading into a PPV main event on Smackdown, while on RAW he was working the feud that led to his ladder match with Jeff Hardy. There's a good model there for allowing the champion to work a main event story on one brand, while elevating a wrestler lower down the card on the other, but they never really pulled it off again.

[Snitsky's back acne]

2 hours ago, BomberPat said:

it was short-lived, but the brief period of having the Undisputed Champion appear on both shows was fun - you had Undertaker feuding with Hogan leading into a PPV main event on Smackdown, while on RAW he was working the feud that led to his ladder match with Jeff Hardy. There's a good model there for allowing the champion to work a main event story on one brand, while elevating a wrestler lower down the card on the other, but they never really pulled it off again.

Yes, loved this concept. Having the one champion work the number one contender on a Raw PPV one month and then the number on contender on Smackdown at their PPV the next month.

If the champ lost, they would assume a spot on whatever show the challenger was on.

Great. Simple. Effective. As BomberPat said, it made for some fun scenarios AND it would mean regular defences without spamming them on TV. You still get the champ defending once a month but make people pay for the PPV's to see it. Plus, it gives logical and interesting scenarios for wrestlers appearing on other brands.

Of COURSE they had to fuck that up. 

[air_raid]

Funny that the first time they abandoned a bouncing “one champion,” the WWE Champion was Brock Lesnar.

[Snitsky's back acne]

22 hours ago, air_raid said:

Funny that the first time they abandoned a bouncing “one champion,” the WWE Champion was Brock Lesnar.

Didn't they stop it because HHH wanted a title? 

[air_raid]

6 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Didn't they stop it because HHH wanted a title? 

No. The original plan was for Hunter only to hold the title until Unforgiven to lose it to RVD because they wanted to go all in on Rob as the new top babyface to carry Raw, until Hunter convinced the office to hold off on crowning RVD (IIRC) the day before the PPV.

The reason they wanted each show/roster to have its own champion was 

On 7/22/2025 at 4:13 PM, air_raid said:

two rosters ran two sets of house shows and the champion was on TV every week, so you could go to either show's live event and not feel short changed if the champion was with the other crew

They wanted, briefly, two solidly separate rosters with everyone shooting for their brands World title. It’s the reason they shitcanned the Hardcore, Euro and Intercontinental titles that summer because they figured they didn’t need them with half the mens singles roster after the World title and the other have after the WWE title.

[Snitsky's back acne]

35 minutes ago, air_raid said:

No. The original plan was for Hunter only to hold the title until Unforgiven to lose it to RVD because they wanted to go all in on Rob as the new top babyface to carry Raw, until Hunter convinced the office to hold off on crowning RVD (IIRC) the day before the PPV.

The reason they wanted each show/roster to have its own champion was 

They wanted, briefly, two solidly separate rosters with everyone shooting for their brands World title. It’s the reason they shitcanned the Hardcore, Euro and Intercontinental titles that summer because they figured they didn’t need them with half the mens singles roster after the World title and the other have after the WWE title.

However, Hunter was made the first champion of Raw wasn't he? He was given the belt by Bischoff wasn't it? Or was it Vince?

[RedTwoster]

15 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

However, Hunter was made the first champion of Raw wasn't he? He was given the belt by Bischoff wasn't it? Or was it Vince?

He was given the belt by Bischoff, and defended it against Ric Flair on the same show, on the logic that he’d been made number one contender to Brock Lesnar’s WWE title the week before (and Stephanie McMahon had announced the WWE title was now exclusive to Smackdown)

If I remember rightly, he defended the belt against Ric Flair on the same show. No idea why they didn’t simply have the two of them wrestle for the vacant title, but they made the choice they made.

[The Dart]

18 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

He was given the belt by Bischoff, and defended it against Ric Flair on the same show, on the logic that he’d been made number one contender to Brock Lesnar’s WWE title the week before (and Stephanie McMahon had announced the WWE title was now exclusive to Smackdown)

If I remember rightly, he defended the belt against Ric Flair on the same show. No idea why they didn’t simply have the two of them wrestle for the vacant title, but they made the choice they made.

Because Bischoff was a heel and so was Triple H.  Fans didn't like it at the time because Triple H "didn't win" the title, forgetting it's a fictional TV show with good guys and bad guys and sometimes bad guys do things we're not supposed to like.

[air_raid]

43 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

However, Hunter was made the first champion of Raw wasn't he? He was given the belt by Bischoff wasn't it? Or was it Vince?

 

24 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

He was given the belt by Bischoff, and defended it against Ric Flair on the same show, on the logic that he’d been made number one contender to Brock Lesnar’s WWE title the week before (and Stephanie McMahon had announced the WWE title was now exclusive to Smackdown)

If I remember rightly, he defended the belt against Ric Flair on the same show. No idea why they didn’t simply have the two of them wrestle for the vacant title, but they made the choice they made.

 

4 minutes ago, The Dart said:

Because Bischoff was a heel and so was Triple H.  Fans didn't like it at the time because Triple H "didn't win" the title, forgetting it's a fictional TV show with good guys and bad guys and sometimes bad guys do things we're not supposed to like.

Apparently it was Hunter’s idea that rather than win the title in the ring ahead of losing it to Van Dam, that baddie buddy Bischoff just give it to him, because it was a killer heel move and people would hate him more. His logic was faultless.

[RedTwoster]

4 hours ago, The Dart said:

Because Bischoff was a heel and so was Triple H.  Fans didn't like it at the time because Triple H "didn't win" the title, forgetting it's a fictional TV show with good guys and bad guys and sometimes bad guys do things we're not supposed to like.

I don’t think that reasoning works, at least not for me. I was a new viewer at the time and genuinely ignorant to the workings of wrestling. To me, it felt like a fake title because of this decision; and it never really gained the credibility you’d want it to have.

Edited July 24, 2025 by RedTwoster