Do you think that the WWE needs three world titles?

Question

I mean the ECW title has lost its prestiege. Im not going to go on how old ECW was better or anything because alot of things contributed to that title losing its real meaning. But do you think WWE needs 3 world titles? Would it be better if it just had one or two? Or do you think its good to have a world title on each brand?

So, do you think the WWE needs three world titles and why?

Thanks.

Answer 1

2 world titles are enough IMO.

I don't think we can consider the ECW title a proper world title, as it's been treated as more of a stepping stone title, which is why people like CM Punk and Matt Hardy, and John Morrison have held it.

2 world titles might not sit well with some people, but I do actually think it's better than having one world title alone. I don't think it's fair on one world champion having a harder schedule than everyone else, although some people might argue that it should be the case, as the top dog has to do his duties. Everyone will have a different opinion, but IMO the WWE is fine with their current two world titles, and the ECW title being more of a modern day mid-card title.

Answer 2

yeah they do, they have 3 brands and if ECW didn't have a title it would definitely make it c**p and it would be a pointless brand

Answer 3

dont think so for one most people dont even care about the ecw title and i have nothing against ecw but do you think they should have changed it to silver i think it in a way would be better with out the ecw title

Answer 4

I'm gonna say keep the 3 world titles because many people look down on ECW most of the time. Getting their main title taken away gets rid of alot of what little prestiege they still have.

Answer 5

Of Course ECW needs a World Title, they have a lot of wrestlers coming onto the brand, they need something to wrestle for, other wise ECW would be pointless, It would turn into something like Heat.

To answer you question - Yes they do need 3 world titles

Answer 6

yes i think three titles is important. lets face it the wwe is top heavy with talent. if only one brand had a title you could automatically assume no one on ecw would ever be allowed to carry the gold. Smackdown is only good for wrestlers like Triple H and The Deadman. so if it wasn't for the three titles you could pretty much guarantee the belt would be on raw More than anywhere else. so yea lets keep the 3 titles and once in a while have a champion of champion match to keep the three titles on an equal footing.

Answer 7

I think wwe should do wat they did in 2002 have one title it dont make sense to have 3 major titles in one company

Answer 8

Rofl. It's all fake, why would you watch wrestling? It's soooooooo stupid. There should be zero WWE world titles.

Answer 9

Yes it does. If there wasn't three titles the wrestlers on which ever brand or brands that didn't have a title would never have a chance to win one.

Answer 10

they dont recognize the ECW title as a world title, but no, i think they should have every wrestler on every show with 1 world champion like it used to be. i also dont think they need 2 sets of tag team titles either.

Answer 11

The WWE needs to have a Major title on all 3 brands in order to have a goal for the wrestlers. Without it, they would not be able to develop storylines and rivalries. Especially with all three brands having thier own cast.

Chasing a title has always been the driving factor in Pro Wrestling, as it lets people choose a side and decide who they want to cheer for or against.

Answer 12

No--Just Dilutes the title--Need a World Title (on RAW) and make the others just Smackdown and ECW titles