|
Post by Chip on Mar 13, 2015 15:08:47 GMT -5
No way. The WHC was nothing more than the IC belt for years. gotta disagree wholeheartedly here. the WHC was treated WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY better than the IC title. the WHC was presented as a legit main event. it was defended in ladder matches, in elimination chambers, guys who won MITB could actually choose to fight for it, guys who won the Rumble could choose to fight for it the WHC gave guys like Ziggler, Swagger, Christian a chance to actually be considered main event champions. right now? the WHC could be helping guys like Ambrose, Wyatt, Barrett, Cody, Rusev....so many options. To be considered a "World" Champion meant you were a big deal and the biggest thing? Guys who won the WHC didn't immediately start jobbing out in non-title matches every week.
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Mar 13, 2015 15:11:34 GMT -5
separate post for actual thoughts...
I miss the WHC because since they got rid of it they have NOT "made the IC title more important" at ALL.
so if getting the WHC belt back meant we could actually get good title reigns for guys like Ambrose, Barrett, Wyatt...before getting to be the main guy (as WWE Champion) i want it back.
If anything? Retire the US title....keep the IC title for the mid-card, and let the big boys fight over the WWE/WHC
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Mar 13, 2015 16:02:50 GMT -5
No way. The WHC was nothing more than the IC belt for years. gotta disagree wholeheartedly here. the WHC was treated WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY better than the IC title. the WHC was presented as a legit main event. it was defended in ladder matches, in elimination chambers, guys who won MITB could actually choose to fight for it, guys who won the Rumble could choose to fight for it the WHC gave guys like Ziggler, Swagger, Christian a chance to actually be considered main event champions. right now? the WHC could be helping guys like Ambrose, Wyatt, Barrett, Cody, Rusev....so many options. To be considered a "World" Champion meant you were a big deal and the biggest thing? Guys who won the WHC didn't immediately start jobbing out in non-title matches every week. I could be wrong but I think @monoxide23 meant that the WHC had become the IC Title of the old days. Like when Bret Hart, Mr. Perfect, Shawn Michaels, Diesel, etc. had it. They were treated with prestige and it was the second best title to have. When the WHC Title was around and Swagger, Christian and Ziggler had it, it was similar and treated with less respect than the WWE Title, but more respect than the IC or US Title. It was treated kind of the way the IC Title should be treated now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 12:13:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 21:35:30 GMT -5
gotta disagree wholeheartedly here. the WHC was treated WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY better than the IC title. the WHC was presented as a legit main event. it was defended in ladder matches, in elimination chambers, guys who won MITB could actually choose to fight for it, guys who won the Rumble could choose to fight for it the WHC gave guys like Ziggler, Swagger, Christian a chance to actually be considered main event champions. right now? the WHC could be helping guys like Ambrose, Wyatt, Barrett, Cody, Rusev....so many options. To be considered a "World" Champion meant you were a big deal and the biggest thing? Guys who won the WHC didn't immediately start jobbing out in non-title matches every week. I could be wrong but I think @monoxide23 meant that the WHC had become the IC Title of the old days. Like when Bret Hart, Mr. Perfect, Shawn Michaels, Diesel, etc. had it. They were treated with prestige and it was the second best title to have. When the WHC Title was around and Swagger, Christian and Ziggler had it, it was similar and treated with less respect than the WWE Title, but more respect than the IC or US Title. It was treated kind of the way the IC Title should be treated now. Pretty much. It was treated like the IC title but not in a bad way. It's how the IC title should be treated right now.
|
|
|
Post by The Natural Eddy Valintino on Mar 13, 2015 22:28:01 GMT -5
We're good with one title. Ever since the Supershow concept on 2011 started and the brand split ended, there was no use for two World Championships. Just elevate the value of the IC Title and you'll basically get what the World Title was like when the brand split ended.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 12:13:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Two belts
Mar 13, 2015 22:46:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 22:46:43 GMT -5
for example: 2 women > 1 woman same here yep I agree
|
|
becks007
Main Eventer
BELT MARK
Joined on: Aug 14, 2011 9:11:57 GMT -5
Posts: 2,185
|
Post by becks007 on Mar 15, 2015 1:00:05 GMT -5
Brock won't be holding the title for long and that is a fact. Only time will tell. And when he does lose it, the holder will surely be a full timer that will appear every week and keep the title alive and going. Right now, Brock is missing week in and week out and it wasn't even defended at the recent ppv. Thats probably why some people want the other former main title resurrected. As it stands, one company, one main title.
If anything, the titles that needs to be unified is the IC and US title since they are both basically in the same class. US title was brought on from WCW and the IC was a product of WWE for so long. Both of them needs to be unified but somehow, I just don't see that happening anytime soon. Thats WWE logic for you.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Mar 15, 2015 12:11:15 GMT -5
No it was stupid having 2 World Champions. Thats like letting both teams that make it to the Super Bowl win the Lombardi trophy or having 2 teams win the National Championship in College football. Society needs to get out of this "everyone is a winner as long as you compete and everyone deserves a trophy" mindset. Contrary to what MLK, Lincolin or anybody else says...Not all men are created equal!
|
|
|
Two belts
Mar 15, 2015 12:23:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ian from 616Entertainment. on Mar 15, 2015 12:23:56 GMT -5
No. Everyone chases the dream of being #1.
And when you're #1 you can't have somebody else going "I'm kinda #1 too, though."
The U.S. and IC Titles are the #2. Even if they're tried less than.
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Mar 15, 2015 12:33:55 GMT -5
1 belt is the way go. It makes it that much more important. 2 titles worked from 2002-2005 because the roster was so huge that they needed to split them. Around 2006 it became apparent that there was no more need for 2 titles but the WWE kept both of them anyway. Today the roster is one of the weakest its ever been. 1 title is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle - legendkilla2k9 on Mar 15, 2015 13:39:44 GMT -5
Absolutely not. It was ok when you had guys like Taker, Shawn, Edge always involved in title matches but now there's not enough star power. I think the WHC severely lacked credibility when it was part of rivalries between Sheamus and Big Show that no one really gave a damn about.
|
|