Both TV shows need 3 singles titles, a tag title and a woman's title.

[mikeyboy]

nope and the reason why is it renders the belts meaningless,imo having both the wwe title and the world title already makes being champ less prestigious having to many titles would make being a champ mean next to nothing

 

[People's Champ]

After combining the two tag titles to create one single title, though represented by having two different belts, that leaves the WWE with a total of seven and there's really no need for anymore. Having 9 or 10 titles on the WWE roster would be a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Even though the WWE has 6 hours of weekly television, that's still not enough time to give all the titles enough time that they need in order to help get them over, build up matches for ppvs, etc. There'd be weeks upon weeks at a time in which some titles probably wouldn't even be seen on WWE television, maybe even longer. TNA has been a good example of having too many championships and not nearly enough tv time to promote them.

There have been times in TNA in which the X Division, Global and Knockout Tag Team Championships haven't been seen in the longest time. TNA tries to pack so much content into iMPACT! in the first place that it's not surprising that such a thing happens. The Knockout Tag Team Championship is pretty much useless at this point, it's little more than a prop used just to give someone the appearance of being successful. Such a jumble of titles would be no different in the WWE.

Also, as has been said a huge number of titles can bring down the number of titles already active.

This is the perfect answer. All you have to do is look at TNA and see that having all those titles really creates nothing but problems. Right now, I think they have more than enough titles. we hadn't seen the U.S title defended in what seemed like months. To add more titles to the mix would mean having to use more time building feuds without actually getting more time. It would just be a clusterfuck. What they should do is focus on the title at hand and build those up. There's no need to go add any more.

 

[Bobby B]

Quite a lot of negativity at this idea from people, and I can understand why.

There is a time where this may have worked. Back a few years ago when PPV's were brand specific, and the rosters were bigger, you might be able to justify five belts on each brand.

With PPV's being shared brands - having 10 belts to defend potentially would be a nightmare (imagine Night Of Champions!!).

What I think the WWE needs is an introductory type belt. One of the big reasons that the US and IC titles seem to have lost a bit of prestige is that people who get them for the first time seem to have only been in the company for 5 minutes. If you had a European/Cruiserweight/TV Title, that was focussed more specifically on the newer guys, it would give more prestige back to the to the two middle belts.

Two Women's title's - a disaster right now as it is, the sooner they unify them the better.

Two Tag Titles - with a big tag team roster, perhaps. But right now they don't have a division to satisfy one major tag team title - let alone two.

Unification of main belts (as has been mentioned by others) - bad idea. Far too much main event talent to unify the belts. It'd be like the situation we have on Raw, but with no belt on Smackdown. Mid carders getting to the main event would be near impossible.

 

[GameOver]

Said time and time again (i don't agree but it's the TV Network execs facts), there's not enough time to build fueds for multiple titles on both shows in the 4 weeks between each PPV, and for whatever reasons whether it's society or just lazy Hollywood creative writers fueds only last 4-8 weeks tops. and the only titles they want to advertise are the world titles both male and female (though now it's the Diva's title more so than the Womens title) and maybe the Unified Tag Titles

We won't see the World titles become 1 title anytime soon, the WCW world title has too much history for them to just dump it and at the same goes for the WWE title (good in theory, bad in practice with 2 seperate shows)

Saying that. too many titles not enough time in a nutshell. on the other hand it is hard to have 1 world champ given what does the other show do when they aren't featured in the title hunt on a given month and how to build up the next contender the following week after the PPV

1 Unified World title (winner carries both titles) champ moves back and forth either each month or battles 2 opponents 1 from each show.

1 Womens title (no Diva's title), bugger all women's contenders anyway so moving them all into 1 bracket and moving them around isn't a struggle

1 Tag Title, well they have that atm with the Unified Titles

US/Intercontinental Title - Just like the World Title's, they are the same thing. Only difference is one is WWF/E one is NWA/WCW created, with this you can have RAW holding the IC Title and Smackdown holding the US title and they are the show specific champs and number 1 contenders for the world title.

or have a Unified US/IC Title same as the World Tltle with contenders being up and comers/upper mid carders like the old days, and have a Show Champ similar to the TV Title and have them as the number 1 contender for a given show but doesn't compete for the US/IC title and are main eventers for the given show.

No need for cruiserweight titles as there are only a handfulll of people in that category and would get drowned out by all the other title angles anyway, they can compete in the US/IC Title hunt.

Titles don't make the star, performance makes the star get a title which just reinforces it and gives something for 2 guys to fued over. Unfortunately that hasn't been the way titles work in over a decade and with 2 more or less seperate shows (though the storylines are usually identical) it's not like they are doing creative for one huge roster, they are doing it for for 2 smaller rosters, so create talent not paper champs..

 

[Sean Valjean]

I disagree entirely. There are enough belts as is, and this would be overkill. If anything, they need to unify the women's belts and nothing else.

Why bring back the Euro and TV titles? They've always been lesser versions of the IC and US belts, so you'd essentially be creating a lower card division which is pointless. Hell, if this HAD to be done, I'd bring back the Hardcore and Crusierweight belts; at least those are unique and have it's own division (well, more so Crusierweight than hardcore)

The WWE barely has enough tag teams for one set of belts, so why have two again? When there were two, there was, on average, two teams per show to fight for them. That's it. The WWE realized that it was pointless to have 2 belts with so few teams, hence the unification. Plus the unified tag champs can go on both shows anyway, so what's the point of adding another set?

Having more titles may give some guys more stuff to do, but it would also dilute the prestige of being a champion in the first place. There would be 10 champions total. That's way too many, it'd be as bad a boxing if not worse. If you want to use a guy, they don't have to go for titles. There is such a thing as non-title feuds.

Sorry, but this is a terrible idea.

 

[Super Geng Boy]

I think that the title picture is fine on each brand at the moment. Many in this thread have stated before me, why do you want so many titles? I was reading one of Kbs reviews and he mentioned that they called the Intercontinental title a major singles title. If so what is a minor title? I think that sums it up personally.

The titles need to be rare. Shawn Michaels once said that the person gets over before they get the title, not the other way about, and I think that is so spot on. You should not be pushed by getting the title, the title should be the reward for doing well in a push. Ok, fair dues that will not and should not always be the case, but in most ocasions I think that is what the buisness is lacking these days.

So to answer the original post I think that the titles should be kept exactly the way they are.