KM
I’m afraid I just blue myself
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 49,912
Look how well he's selling the move!
I was going to suggest this!
I was going to suggest this!
Good, they should unify the title belts, have away with brand extension and have everyone compete to be THE number 1. Whilst the heavyweight title is a world title I don't take it very seriously as the WWE title is the one with the prestige.
Actually the world title is the title with the history and the prestige.
Look how well he's selling the move!
Rumour doing the rounds that they're going to unify the world title belts.
With about a tenth of the impact/reaction mind... I think they've shot the gun on that moment too early, but then I can see why they have done it just before the PPV to create intruige.
Wouldn't surprise me. With Rock vs Cena headlining and Undertaker coming back, the title matches would get a bit lost in the shuffle. If they unify, this could be the perfect blend of a PPV for the older and younger fans. On top of that they're bringing back Money in the Bank and that instantly makes the overall card stronger.
I agree, but I don't think it was ever going to have the same impact no matter how high they built it up. It was always going to be a copy of the original.
Also I really hope they find a way to keep Johnny Ace on tv. He's grown on me every week.
I personally would hate a title unification... I like the two belt system they currently have. It gives more guys a shot at legitimacy, and it allows for a guarenteed two big matches on every PPV... it's not like the talent isn't there to fill the spot, there is a fairly strong upper midcard at the moment.
In a one belt enviornment, Daniel Bryan would never have become a champion and given the excellent push and character development he's now recieving. Sure, a unification match is a good hook, but is it really all that beneficial in the long term?? Is anyone strongly against the current system?? If it isn't broke...
I personally would hate a title unification... I like the two belt system they currently have. It gives more guys a shot at legitimacy, and it allows for a guarenteed two big matches on every PPV... it's not like the talent isn't there to fill the spot, there is a fairly strong upper midcard at the moment.
In a one belt enviornment, Daniel Bryan would never have become a champion and given the excellent push and character development he's now recieving. Sure, a unification match is a good hook, but is it really all that beneficial in the long term?? Is anyone strongly against the current system?? If it isn't broke...
The problem is that one belt always plays second fiddle to the other. Basically one of them has replaced the old intercontinental belt. The Intercontinental belt was were the younger wrestlers made their name before being moved onto the headlining acts.
WWE Title has been around a lot longer than that World Heavyweight Championship. The WHC is currently represented by the same belt as the old WCW Title, but it's a separate title that was created in 2002. The WCW Title's lineage follows into the current WWE Title as they were unified in 2001 or 2002.
What about the WCW Title Booker T brought to WWF when they two companies merged?You could make a case that the WWE title - and not the big gold belt - is the actual linear successor of the WCW/NWA title. They were unified when Flair won the Rumble in 91.
He seems quite light on his feet for a big fella! This gimmick will get old very quickly so it will be interesting to see where they go from there.Anyone convinced about Brodus Clay? He's like a cross between Rikishi and Prince Albert.
He seems quite light on his feet for a big fella! This gimmick will get old very quickly so it will be interesting to see where they go from there.