I would be for a women Tag or a mix tag belt but most of all, I would love to get rid of the IC and the US belts. What do they represent exactly ? Nothing. If they add belts, they have to get rid of the others.
I think these belts are necessary but currently misused. I remember the days when a former world champ wouldn’t be caught dead wearing the Intercontinental Title. Other than Pedro Morales’ IC Title reign in 1980-81 (a relative “cup of coffee” for the era at under 200 days), it didn’t start happening until the 2000s.
Now the belts are clearly still “tiered” in terms of importance, even if WWE refuses to treat them as such. I think there is still a need for titles that are actually meant to build stars and not slapped onto main eventers to be placeholders while the current world champ is in a deer blind in Canada.
But when world champions (not named Brock Lesnar) have to have 50/50 matches with everybody just to make sure both guys get all of their spots in, I guess there’s no need to elevate stars. Just put any old guy in the ring with the world champ and he’ll magically be good enough to go at least 10-15 minutes with the best wrestler in the company.
1 Like
I like the TV title because it has a very straightforward meaning. Even the names “Intercontinental”, “US”, “North American” ??? What’s behind those names ? It does not make any logical sense.
1 Like
What about them doesnt make sense to you? I think they are pretty straight forward and clearly they represent specific regions on the globe. It isnt the names that are the problems with the titles, its how they are portrayed. No one was complaining about what the US & IC Title was called in the 80/90’s when they meant something.
1 Like
The IC and US titles are even more irrelevant with the creation of North American and UK titles in NXT that somehow feel more legitimate than the main roster props. In NXT it designates stars and on the Main Roster they are props.
I would like to see a women’s tag title introduced but not two of them. Bayley and Sasha should win the inaugural women’s tag team championship at Mania this year.
On the topic of titles I’ve had this idea brewing for sometime and apologies if anyone else said it first:
Great a unified version of Tag titles and the IC title and do number 1 contender matches heading into each show for the brand that the champion isn’t on. For example- if the Bar holds the titles, then Raw features number one contenders matches for the right to face them at the next ppv. At least we’d get meaningful matches out of that oppose to now where one teams loses the belt before the ppv only to defend it in the exact same match 6 days later 
This is a good idea, but when Raw goes to NBC and Smackdown goes to Fox and possibly the style of one show (likely Smackdown) changes. How do you keep that going? Both networks are going to want to see their brand have the belt because of the status.
Will it devalue the main straps? Since they live on their respective show there is no crossover it wouldn’t feel as powerful as seeing someone coming from another show to take it from the champ.
They need to treat all titles with reverence to make them something that most superstars will be hungry for.
1 Like
I think unifying the belts now, sets the path for unifying the roster later. How do they go into the network split without the big stars on both shows.
1 Like
I think they have planned for that with the next roster shakeup. I’ve heard since both are direct competitors they don’t want to see talent crossing over to the other’s brand. I think that will be exclusively reserved for PPV’s and even then it will just be matches from each brand on one card.
Also if WWE decides to go with Fox’s idea to change the focus of Smackdown to a more Pro-Wrestling style of programming, it makes it difficult to tie in stories for the titles between shows.
Imagine the build up on that, yeesh it is making me cringe just thinking about it.
I still don’t get how a Nakamura can be US champ for example. I know it has always been like this but I’ve never understood the logic. It was the same with the european title held by non europeans.
Right now, those belt are important to the main story of the brand split. While i agree that the u.s title has been misused, i can say the same thing for the ic belt. Seth as been a really good champion and they had a pretty strong line up of champion before him. The belt as been seen as a important midcard belt for a few years now and it’s been pretty much the top belt on Raw for a while now especially because of the whole lesnar not showing up on a regular bases. The u.s belt is another story, i feel sometimes they really want to do something with it and sometimes it’s just they because they need a belt for the live events. While i like nakamura, he did pretty much nothing with it since winning it for jeff hardy and i pretty much forgotten that he was still the champion when i saw him on smackdown this week. The belt is back at the point it was a few year ago when they completely forgotten about it but sadly they need a secondary belt on smackdown and that’s the only title that has the history to be a second tier title.
The funny thing and i will end with that is that On raw, whatever it was the IC or US belt that was the secondary championship, it always felt like the main title compare to the universal championship because the way they booked the universal title since they introduce it 3 years ago, it feel more like a secondary title to the IC or us title then the other way around and that’s what’s funny about the whole thing.
There are so many guys on the roster that it would be dumb to get rid of midcard titles. Have one set of men’s tag titles and one set of women’s tag titles.
There would also be no men’s singles champion on Raw if it wasn’t for the Intercontinental title.
1 Like
You are correct. But I’m a bubble, how silly is that?! What a fact. Without the IC title there would be no singles champion on Raw…(because the actual top champ isn’t on the show, like ever.)
That sounds way to complicated for WWE to keep straight.
1 Like