Why WWE Shouldn’t Have Only One Champion
The WWE is thinking of having only one World Champion. There are many reasons why this might not work out well.
In 2002, the WWE’s roster expanded since they acquired many wrestlers from WCW and ECW. Because of the large number of wrestlers, they decided to split the roster into two shows. Raw and Smackdown each had different wrestlers and one World Champion. Raw usually had the WWE Title while Smackdown had the World Heavyweight Title.
For many years, the WWE operated this way and the rosters even travelled around the world separately. More recently though, the rosters started to merge and wrestlers started to appear on both shows. Now it seems the roster is “one” and WWE wants to only have one champion.
Right now, John Cena is the World Heavyweight Champion and Randy Orton is the WWE Champion. These two will fight at the TLC PPV to see who will become the only World Champion in the company.
To me, having only one champion will make the product slightly more boring. For one thing, there will only be one Elimination Chamber match and one Money in the Bank match. Since there will be only one champion, they can only have one match to determine who is the no. 1 contender now.
Another thing that might happen is that the same old wrestlers will hold the belts for a long time. If there is only one champion, it’s very likely only guys like Orton, Cena and CM Punk will fight for it. Other wrestlers will just be stuck in the mid-card with no belt to fight for. Without two heavyweight belts, guys like Dolph Ziggler, Christian and Mark Henry may have never become “World Champion”.
The only positive thing to come out of this is that the WWE might start to make the Intercontinental and US titles more relevant. Over the years, the WWE have forgetten about both belts.