View RSS Feed

Blogging 3:16

The Value of Titles and the Brand Split

Rate this Entry
Hi all, this is going to be the first blog that I have ever written so please don’t be too harsh to me on the comments! However as a lifelong fan of the WWE (apart from a 3-4 year break in the mid 2000’s) and an avid reader of many blogs and news stories throughout the past couple of years, I have always wanted to have a go at adding in my own input but have never known what to write about, until now! Also be warned, if you are not in for a long read then probably best to quit now!

I am aware that many blogs have probably been written about the brand split but here we go with my views.

To me the brand split, although pretty much over, needs to be officially over. And the reason for that being, I just dislike the idea of having 2 world champions; quite frankly I find it absurd. Everyone knows that the WWE title is the biggest prize in the company, and that the WHC is second to it. So to me, it just seems totally pointless to have both, because the WHC in reality isn’t the best heavyweight wrestler in the company let alone the world. When I grew up this was the order of how important the championships were.

  1. World Champion
  2. Intercontinental Champion
  3. Tag Team Champion
  4. European Champion
  5. Cruiserweight/Hardcore Champion


Obviously this could be a debate in itself arguing around the tag and European titles importance but let’s just go with it for now! And I have purposefully not included the women’s title because let’s be honest, Women’s wrestling in the WWE is irrelevant and only there for a piss break and pervy dads who have been dragged to the event by their kids and been banned from watching porn by their wives. And the Cruiserweight/Hardcore title just existed so lower carders had something to feud over, which to be fair, was very entertaining at times!

The current Title Value (again which could be argued) looks like this;

  1. WWE Champion
  2. WHC
  3. Intercontinental Champion
  4. US Champion
  5. Tag Team Champions


I just feel that if the WWE not only got rid of the brand split, but merged the WWE and WHC Titles together again, we would not only stop seeing the same matches at every single PPV! (Think Punk v Cena, Del Rio V Sheamus) We would also be able to bring some value back to the intercontinental title again. I remember the days where those title matches would not only matter, but would steal the show! To me it now seems as though because it has been relegated to the 3rd most important title, fans just don’t seem to care about it anymore. There is half a reaction at best when the title is on the line or changes hands, and this IMO is because the superstars competing for the title don’t even remotely look like a threat to the biggest prize of all, so it’s hard to care about them for some fans.

This is where the merger of the WWE and WHC Titles would come in, you could have the top 3 or 4 guys feuding for that one title, for example Punk, Cena, Orton and Sheamus. Then guys who are not currently in the WWE title picture i.e Kane, Del Rio etc, should be looking to feud with guys like Ziggler and Rhodes for the IC Title. This would make the title have so much more appeal if the top guys who weren’t in current feud for the WWE title actually cared about the IC title. Then to further make them look like an actual threat, maybe incorporate some champion vs champion matches where there is an actual winner instead of interference! Hell you could even try having one of the top guys run with both the IC and WWE title for a while.

Anyways I don’t think I have to explain the same thing over about doing similar things with the lower and mid card but just doing it with the US and Tag Team championships. But I honestly believe that if this were to happen (and before you start bashing me, I know the chances are slim to none) then we would see the product improve because we would get better and more varied rivalries, more care for the mid to lower card because they actually pose a threat, and greater development if they actually caused an upset now and again!

So that’s me done on this one! Sorry about it being a bit of a marathon read, I got a bit carried away for a second! I would love to know what you guys think of my first ever blog, tell me whether you think I have made a little bit of sense and should look into doing another one, or if I have just talked absolute bollocks and should hang up my keyboard for good!

Submit "The Value of Titles and the Brand Split" to Digg Submit "The Value of Titles and the Brand Split" to del.icio.us Submit "The Value of Titles and the Brand Split" to StumbleUpon Submit "The Value of Titles and the Brand Split" to Google

Updated 10-19-2012 at 07:24 AM by Blogging 3:16

Categories
Thoughts and Opinions

Comments

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
  1. AndyWonder's Avatar
    The brand split worked just fine when only the champions were allowed to be on both shows. That gave credibility to those belts and was a perfect reward for being a champion. Challenges to the title were easily be made on one show or the other. The champ just shows up the challenge could be made and the feud was made while having the separate rosters. they were doing it in a great way. It was working. But I still to this day personally believe that the whole 2nd heavyweight title was brought in because Triple H whined about possibly losing his chances of winning WWE title again with the roster split and refusing to put over Brock Lesnar. Back then Triple H vs. Brock Lesnar for the WWE title could have easily happened but did it? No. Coincidence? Don't think so. And what I think happened is Triple H wanted to be over while Brock Lesnar was being put over by others at the same time. Remember, when that WHC was introduced, who had it handed to him on a silver platter? Triple H! So IMO Triple H is the cause of the whole "2 heavyweight title" era, which it should be called instead of "Ruthless Agression" and "PG." I wish they stuck with one heavyweight champion as well as one mid card champion like it was from start of brand split, and we would not have these problems the IWC constantly bitches about. The same matchups over and over again could have easily been avoided by Vince not bowing down to what the individual wrestlers want for themselves. New stars could have easily been made even with one belt. Champions and challenegers can meet on one show and on the other show only the champ can show up to build the title feud more. It is very simple.
  2. AndyWonder's Avatar
    And yeah the values of titles diminished big time. If both heavyweight title holders are on same show week in week out its very diminishing to both belts. IMO when the world heavyweight champ is on both RAW and SMACKDOWN each and every week and the wwe champ is on RAW each week and only on SMACKDOWN on occasion, that tells me that obviously brands are not separate anymore and also the world heavyweight champ is more important. shouldn't happen that way. Also devaluing is the fact that if one loses one heavyweight title, they don't go to back of line, they just get to challenge for the other one right away; look at how Daniel Bryan's or Big Show's year of 2012 went and you'll know what I mean. I agree with mid cards. Sometimes I forget who even has those belts. I realize wwe wanted to establish new stars by this two belt method but it did not work; ask Alberto Del Rio or even The Miz. Or even ask Dolph Ziggler when he had that world heavyweight belt for only a 10 minute celebration only to lose it right back to the previous champ and already established (5 years) star Edge.
  3. AndyWonder's Avatar
    But looking at guys like John Cena, Batista, Randy Orton, even Sheamus; I think they still could have been the new stars they became without the two belt system.
  4. Double Axehandle's Avatar
    I agree the "brand" titles are very watered down. This is the wwe we should have only historical wwf titles i.e the wwe/f championship, intercontinental, tag titles and for lower mid card bring back the European or the lt heavy/cw title.

    Anything to do with the old wcw at this point should be removed. Vince won the war it's time to end the legacy. Hell give the big gold belt back to the nwa where it belongs. The wwe product needs to go back to their title format.
  5. TheGreatOne's Avatar
    The reason they don't want to have just 1 world champion is because they want to sell tickets for the Smackdown live events. I like having two world titles because it helps young guys get to the top faster.

    WWE Title; World title; US title; IC title; Tag titles....that is how it is currently to me. It really depends on to me who has the belt. With Kofi having the belt, not a big fan of his as I am in Cesaro's. Whoever is world champion on Raw is the man. Back in 2008 when the world title was on Raw, I thought the man was the world champion.
  6. Double Axehandle's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatOne
    The reason they don't want to have just 1 world champion is because they want to sell tickets for the Smackdown live events. I like having two world titles because it helps young guys get to the top faster.

    WWE Title; World title; US title; IC title; Tag titles....that is how it is currently to me. It really depends on to me who has the belt. With Kofi having the belt, not a big fan of his as I am in Cesaro's. Whoever is world champion on Raw is the man. Back in 2008 when the world title was on Raw, I thought the man was the world champion.
    So you associate the show they're on with the real champ not the title belt. In that case why bother having 2 titles? Make smackdown the more edgy, experimental show trying out new guys and new themes even moving a little away from pg, then keep raw as is.
  7. TheGreatOne's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Axehandle
    So you associate the show they're on with the real champ not the title belt. In that case why bother having 2 titles? Make smackdown the more edgy, experimental show trying out new guys and new themes even moving a little away from pg, then keep raw as is.
    Raw is the A-Show and sometimes it depends on who is champion. Example: Top champion in 2002 was Lesnar who was on SD not HHH who was on Raw because he was undefeated at that time and HHH was just handed the title. That along with who Brock beat along that run namely Hogan, Flair, Rock, Taker and so forth. HHH beat Kane, HBK, RVD, Booker T. Who is better? The length of the reign as well is a factor. Punk is the longest reigning champion currently plus I like him more than Sheamus. I like Cesaro more than Kofi.
    Updated 10-19-2012 at 03:59 PM by TheGreatOne
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

© 2011 eWrestlingNews, All Rights Reserved.