Smackdown and Raw both have women’s titles for, currently, 6 active women. This seems silly. Same with the tag titles.
Floating champions would be smarter, have some clause where they have to defend on the rival brand show once every 3 months, so they can alternate which title is defended month to month. That way other show can have longer build up to title matches.
Also: turning Carmella heel was a a smart move, her music is perfect for it, and she always came off Heel early on when partnered up with Enzo and Cass. Good segment there Smackdown.
I think post draft, they intend to build larger stables each.
I think floating titles depend on what your goal is with the brand split. If you really are trying to develop the shows so they have discernably different atmospheres, wrestling styles, presentation, all of that, like they were their own mini-promotions, then I think you don’t float, especially not at the outset, because you’re immediately mixing the shows together again. I’d like to see it happen, honestly, and see three WWE brands that, when I watch them, have a distinct “Raw” or “Smackdown” or “NXT” feel I immediately recognize. Get some much needed variety.
Then again, given Vince’s well-known, obsessive need to control everything, it may be impossible for shows to develop separate identities when there’s a single, domineering vision being jenforced upon them.
I think the WWE WORLD, WOMEN’S and TAG TITLES should have floated. Then have the IC belt on SD, US title on RAW, and elevate those titles to being each show’s premiere (men’s) singles title.
Regardless of whether each show has a separate feel, that has nothing to do with floating titles, IMO.
All the titles should be up for grabs between the brands at every Wrestlemania. who ever wins it that brand keeps it for a year. the title can change hands within the brand that year and when the next Wrestlemania comes around who ever has it defends it for their brand and the other brand puts up their champion. Should be done for all major titles.
#IfIHandledWWEBooking
I agree with James. The intent is important, and you can’t have the Womens title on say, RAW for a year because then what do the SD women do? Titles are the heart of Wrestling and the kayfabe competition.
I think this was the best way to go, building up the rosters overtime.
I honestly am open minded to the smaller women’s and tag divisions (on SD in particular) because it’s just the reality of the situation….the glass half full part is these women and tag teams will get major time to shine and develop.
The flip side is seeing The same women wrestle each other over and over.
Plus they don’t even get a tournament build up, just another match where they are all just tossed in. If it was elimination style, it might be more interesting.
I suppose, since I’m pretending like I know booking better than people who book for a living, one way to pad out the size of the women’s and tag divisions would be through the use of enhancement talent, which people derisively call “jobbers” but Stan Hansen called “carpenters” because they help build your big stars. Part of the issue I have with current WWF booking is this “50/50” booking where people have to “get back” a win after losing, in an attempt for the audience to not see either wrestler as less viable. Or the dreaded “distraction roll-up” which lets someone lose without “losing” (though it makes every wrestler on the roster look like they have the attention span of a toddler).
I’m okay with there being only six viable candidates to win the Women’s and Tag Titles. But you could do a lot to establish the bona fides of all six teams by showing them defeating “lesser” teams. Make them all seem like they could reasonably win the straps. I feel like the elimination of enhancement talent is a remnant of the Monday Night Wars, where WWF & WCW had to put on “must-see” matches and hot-shot to beat each other in the ratings. Modern WWE has zero viable competitors. I’m not saying Raw and Smackdown broadcasts have to become episodes of Velocity, but if you’re just going to have a five-minute women’s match anyway, why waste a match between your “marquee” roster talent on a free show?
My biggest complaint is this weird commitment to one belt design, just swapping out the color palettes. It’s one of those things that seems like a good idea in the abstract but in practice it’s hard to differentiate things mentally when they look similar visually. It made sense for the WWE and WWE Women’s title, but now there’s literally 4 different belts that all look the same but different. Weird.
Say what you will about the spinner belt, it sure stands out as identifying an era of WWE. Same with the big gold NWA belt. Bringing the white IC title back was great! Etc etc.
ANYWAY if I had any say (and I should never book real wresting) I would either craft a distinctive belt look per show, OR I would actually use a different physical object to create hierarchy between the titles and not pretend like they’re all equivalent. Like, the World Tag Team Champions get belts, the TV Tag Team Champions (or whatever) get medals or a trophy or something. Treat it as a persistent #1 contender-ship and then the main title can be contested on the crossover PPVs, then the show that loses it can have a tournament or something to award the medals if it changes hands.
I dunno, something other than 10 title belts, 8 of which look basically the same, in the same company.
It’s such a shame because the current WWE title that Dean holds is probably my favorite belt, aesthetically, of all time. Sure there are some that have more of a sentimental value or nostalgia feel….but based purely on looks and objective, the belts premise and design is so simple that it’s genius….
…having all these belts that have its look is just going to sour the overall memory of this design….aka the red belt brings down the love for the black belt. Women should of had their own belt too never liked that move for their white raw belt….and now the smackdown….ugh…
Always hated the helmets on the tag belts.