Unified Title or Seperate?

[Maxximus 353]

Sure, give one guy in every feud a title. That'll solve everything.

[GENE 86]

Do the people that think they need two titles not remember pre 2001? It worked fine with one champion then. Not everyone needs a run with the title, I think it's embarrassing when you have a tag team match and all four guys are like ten, eleven twelve time world champion.

[Guest Ciaran The King]

All WWE need to do at the moment is design and produce a belt which is at least half decent and crown a new Champion

[Maxximus 353]

We don't need another shitty new belt do we?

[Guest Edgehead]

Bring back the Winged Eagle. Best belt ever!

[Guest Ciaran The King]

We don't need another shitty new belt do we?

 

No we need a brand spanking new one

[dsrchris 190]

After the money they pitched out on the last one for The Rock? Not likely.

 

I don't think we'll see a proper unified title belt anytime soon.

[Guest Ciaran The King]

Carrying those belts must be heavy

[Guest BeorimJ]

Sure, give one guy in every feud a title. That'll solve everything.

Not really what i meant - WWE needs more good story lines and believable feuds. But in absence of that, a title makes the bad feuds they get going atm more believable.

[Guest Will O the Wisp]

Yeah, it seems that when people start mentioning the number of belts, they forget that a good feud can exist without the mention or notion of a belt.

 

More Belts ≠ More Entertaining Feuds

------also-----

Less Belts ≠ Less Entertaining Feuds

[Guest Ciaran The King]

Undertaker/Shawn comes to mind