Fair or Foul: Lack of ECW titles during InVasion Angle

[The Indy Junkie]

This just came to me recently. During the 2001 InVasion WWF and wCw had titles displayed and defended. yet ECW's titles were noticeably left out of play. So i ask you OWW Knowledgeable is this......



Fair: Due to the over abundance of WWF and wCw titles in the federation at this point. It would make more complication than with just WWF's titles and wCw's four titles.


Or is this....


Foul: Showing disrespect to a company that gave WWF so much: They Dudleyz, TAZ, and others. Also it would have still made sense since WWF featured the ECW world title on Taz for a while. Also WWF acknowledge these belts before when ECW invaded in the 90's. So they should have been given due.



What do you call?

[McFly]

I call foul only becuase if you had brought more of the ECW titles then it would of made for better matches,more fueds, and more chances of winning a title. Maybe Vince would of thought of making WWECW sooner.

[Mighty Boosh]

I say Fair, ECW wasn't as big what people really wanted was WCW vs WWF the real monday night wars, ECW was just sort of along for the ride, extra participants (after all they were missing WCW's biggest stars) and there were so many titles all ready, enought titles that you could still have the fueds Mcfly mentioned.
Besides they pushed the ECW guys yet buried the WCW guys, infact guys that like RVD that came with ECW were actually pushed more than ECW guys already in the company like Raven. So ECW didn't come out too badly, they were more of a cult following they wouldn't have fit in as well yet got their own PPVs in One Night Stand, WCW never would.

The ECW titles just weren't nessecary and there were already enough titles if not too many as it was.

[NDX]

Fair. As popular as ECW was, they feud was between WCW and WWE. WCW nearly ran WWE into the ground, and then WWE finally killed off WCW. This was the big feud. ECW was added not for the fanbase of the program but rather the fanbase of the wrestlers. They brought in Dreamer and RVD, two of the most popular ECW had. It was a way to make Heyman a character and add bulk to the WCW side of things, as well as make Stephanie a villain. It worked, for a short time. In the end, the titles were not missed or needed.

[Sharpshooter33]

Fair.

With the proliferation of titles comes the cheapening of titles. If WWE would have had 20 different champions (that's just a number I grabbed out of the air...FAR too lazy to figure out how many it actually would have been with all the titles from all 3 feds) during the invasion angle, it would have made it seem like EVERYBODY was champion! It would have been far too confusing for the viewers to keep track of, considering the invasion angle was before stars were relegated to certain shows, and what's worse, PPVs would have been absolutely flooded with matches trying to make every title seem worthwhile.

No. For that matter, I'm not fond of how many titles are floating around now. I especially don't like the 2 World Champions thing. It has been my point of view that each show should have their champion (Raw - US, Smackdown - IC, ECW - well....ECW), their should be one Women's Champ, one pair of Tag Team Champs, and one World Champion. Each show would essentially be it's own midcard/feeder system to the World Champion. The shows would be like the territories of the NWA, with the World Champ, Women's Champ, and Tag Champs going in-between shows to defend against different opponents. Basically, your World, Women's and Tag Champs would all work like the Unified Tag Titles work now. It would keep match-ups fresh and interesting, and their would be a definitive face of the company.

I know that was a little long-winded for a "I-wish-it-was-like-this" moment, but I believe it helped illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Champions need to FEEL like champions! If there are too many champions in a given show, or territory, it dilutes the significance of being one of those champions. YOU DIG SUCKA?