I know its still a month away but it looks like the Vengeance ppv will be a 'Night of Champions' where every match on the card is a championship match. I think that is a great idea. It would really give the ppv a big time feel imo. What does everyone think about this possibility?
The pimping of this concept is funny, because Backlash was already an entire night of championship matches.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
Maybe it'll be more like "Every championship is defended" night, so there'd be... 9 matches [WWE, ECW, World, IC, US, WWE Tag, World Tag, Women's, CW].
The concept sounds good on paper until you realize that all of WWE's championships are defended on a regular basis, and it's not all that uncommon for most (if not all) of a card's matches to feature a champion.
The only way they could make this truly special would be to make a few champion vs. champion matches. Like, say, unify the two tag titles, or re-visit the three-way from Cyber Sunday.
9? There are ONLY 9 titles in WWE? (3 of those being "WORLD" titles!)
I really hope for some unification matches! I hate it when a company has more than 1 World champion! (And no - I don´t buy that brand extension stuff!)
If we do a championship unification of any sort, I agree with Jim Smith-- let's unify the tag-team titles. Heck, Matt Hardy's a SmackDown wrestler wearing a RAW title belt anyway.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Fan of the Indianapolis Colts-- Super Bowl XLI Champions
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
I would like to see one tag champs defending their belt on all three shows and the Hardy's are the best choice. The WWE could use it as a trial for the eventual uniting of the world championships. What I would most like to see though is the return of the T.V. title to ECW. Have the 10 or 15 minute time limit. This would be a good belt for the younger guys who aren't in the IC/US title hunt and aren't yet formed into makeshift tag teams for the Hardy's or Londrick to beat. Hell, give me some reason to want to watch ECW.
Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
Originally posted by Tyler Durden(And no - I don´t buy that brand extension stuff!)
It´s been ALMOST FIVE YEARS! You should probably try to get over it!
I tried! And if you honestly see the WWE champion, the WWE World champion and the WWE ECW champion as TRUE World champions (every one of the three at the same level with the old NWA champion, the old WCW or ECW champions, the ROH champion ....) - then you´re right! If not, you´re probably not over it as well! And that´s the point! What´s the worth of being a "World" or "ECW" champion in WWE right now? Do you guys really take those belts serious?
One example: I often wonder, what Chris Benoit thinks when it comes down to the "History of the WWE Championship" (DVD or Magazine or whatever) - The MOST ELITE TITLE IN ALL OF SPORTS! Guess what? He beat Shawn Michaels and Triple H in a great, great match at the Main Event of Wrestlemania (!) XX (!) in MSG (!), BUT when you look at the men who won THE WWE title you will never ever find a picture of him, because all he won that night was the WWE World title - The NOT SO elite title in all of sports! Get my point?
Unification, please! (And give Benoit a shot at THE title!)
Having two world titles, ven two world titles defended on the same PPV, is not that much different from having the WCW and WWF havyweight titles. The ECW title I agree with, but there's nothing wrong with each show having a belt. They both have varied rosters, the champions don't interact with ach other, and both titles have been kpt incredibly strong over the past year. Right now, the two world titles are as distinct and valuable as they have been since the split.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
Originally posted by oldschoolheroHaving two world titles, even two world titles defended on the same PPV, is not that much different from having the WCW and WWF heavyweight titles.
Those were two entirely separate companies with entirely separate rosters. I'd have no problem with Raw and/or SD! and/or ECW having their own champions if they were entirely separate entities, but with wrestlers appearing on the "wrong" show on a thrice-weekly basis, monthly cross-branded pay-per-views, and a Smackdown wrestler holding a Raw tag time championship, I say they may as well ditch a pile of the extra belts in hopes of having some championships that actually mean anything. One world title, one IC title, one pair of tag belts, one women's belt, one cruiser belt, all defended across all shows. (Or even better, defended only on house shows and PPVs.)
Originally posted by oldschoolheroThey both have varied rosters, the champions don't interact with each other.
They all fought at Cyber Sunday. And Cena and Batista teamed up for the December SD PPV (I think). And I'm sure there are other examples I'm too lazy to look up right now.
Floating belts don't work. They leave shows directionless for their off-months, with big stars too busy on the other night of the week to be doing anything meaningful. If the brand split stays - and it's going to - then the belts stay. Anything else would render one show (and let's face it, that show would be SmackDown) almost totally title-free.
And limiting TV title defences is a strange suggestion. They're a great way of maintaining interest in the weekly shows.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
Originally posted by oldschoolheroFloating belts don't work. They leave shows directionless for their off-months
Technically, crappy writing and booking does that. Not that I think that particular problem will be going away anytime soon.
Originally posted by oldschoolheroAnd limiting TV title defences is a strange suggestion. They're a great way of maintaining interest in the weekly shows.
But weekly TV is just a means to advertise PPVs and merchandise (and to a much lesser degree, house shows), which actually generate income. Only now (and it's not like this is a new problem) you've got five hours of (mostly) competitive matches on TV per week, so they need to do something in order to make PPVs and house shows worth spending money on. You can save the big gimmick matches for PPV, but you can only have those so often before those get burnt out too.
But the shows are directionless anyway. Multiple titles mean you have utterly gay situations like Rumble winners two years running not being in the main event of Wrestlemania. Three World Champions is just insanely retarded and lame. I don't see how the shows have to be directionless, either. The absence of a Champ on a show over a three-week period is overestimated anyway, and totally negated if whoever the #1 contender is has free reign to brand-hop until his title match is contested. Even if he couldn't, he could hire goons, cut 'via satellite' promos, and do other things to have a presence. Even if, logistically, that couldn't be done, house shows aren't really used as PPV promotion tools anyway; you wouldn't have several thousand fans sitting in an arena watching a house show while RAW is on if you were trying to sell PPVs. It's nonsensical. What matters is that you have good grudges and hot matches; not having a belt in the mix would go almost unnoticed, especially with the half-assed way they treat their titles nowadays.
I wouldn't mind a few titles unified, but their won't be a World title unification until you-know-who gets back from injury.
The ECW title will fade away soon enough anyway, as I don't think that show will be around this time next year. I wouldn't want it involved with a unification anyway, it would dilute the prestige of such a match.
If the entire brand split ends, you can almost guarantee it will be HHH vs. Cena for all the gold, no one else really has a chance, outside of maybe Taker, or HBK.
Dean! Have you been shooting dope into your scrotum? You can tell me! I'm hip!
Originally posted by DahakI would like to see one tag champs defending their belt on all three shows and the Hardy's are the best choice. The WWE could use it as a trial for the eventual uniting of the world championships.
I was thinking more like WWE should have only one tag championship and all the tag teams should go to one show to compete for it. Raw and Smackdown both manage to keep their respective singles titles active, but it's been clear for years now that WWE can't operate two separate tag divisions simultaneously.
The problm with the concept of going back to a single set of titles is that it assumes that the booking would miraculously improve. Th benefits of the system are completely reliant on great booking. And seeing as that's the only thing stopping th current system from operating at its fullest potential, I don't see how swapping one badly-booked set-up for another would be beneficial.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
I don't see how this is different from any other year of The Streak. Same thing with CM Punk and other challengers - they go over mid carders, they cut promos, they lose. It's pretty pointless and honestly, Taker looked old as hell out there this year.