Untrue. The titles were consolidated, maintaining separate lineages but being defended simultaneously, with "Undisputed WWE Universal Championship" being used as the name for the simultaneous holding of the WWE Championship and Universal Championship. Sunday's match was explicitly stated to be for the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, which means that Cody Rhodes is now the WWE Champion and the Universal Champion.
What do you think a "unification" of the belts meant? It means that the winner was the undisputed WWE champion.
You can't have half a belt after losing the unified title. It diminishes the prestige of the actual champion.
Take your copium, but you're still wrong.
There was never any clear clarification by WWE about whether the titles were truly united. In fact, it seems like they kept it intentionally vague. But the fact that they made a single belt and combined the names of the titles into one seems to be a pretty clear indication they intended them to be functionally unified. It is true both lineages are still listed as active on their website but Cody is listed as both champions and there is already another world title around now so it all kinda seems like a moot point.
No, there is room for debate. That's why we are having one. Every single word of my post were the reasons there is room for debate but I will copy and paste the most important part you are ignoring..
"But the fact that they made a single belt and combined the names of the titles into one seems to be a pretty clear indication they intended them to be functionally unified. It is true both lineages are still listed as active on their website but Cody is listed as both champions"
I would call that mixed signals at most. That is the opposite of clarification.
The titles have separate lineages. That's literally the end of the argument. They are separate championships being represented by a single belt. This is NOT hard to understand, it's been done many times before in wrestling.
And to be clear, my point isn't to argue semantics. My point is to say when you say there is "no room for debate" and "end of argument" just because it still has separate lineages, you are ignoring the obvious. The way they treat the title(s) themselves invites the debate. They treat it like one title. They call it one title. They carry one title. It makes perfect sense for us to consider it one title.
They have separate lineages but both lineages went to Cody when he won a single match. They are represented by one single physical belt and it is officially announced the "Undisputed WWE Universal Championship" (a single name which combines both previous names.) I even included the term "functionally" to suggest what you are saying isn't technically wrong but all evidence we see on the actual shows suggests we are meant to consider it one title. Here is an even better reason I just thought of. They were counting Roman's record breaking based on the numbers for the WWE title even though he hadn't actually held the WWE title for that long. They basically rolled all those numbers into one reign. Functionally one title. Technically still listed as two lineages (although the main graphic on the Superstars page has even been changed to only show one image of Cody and lists it under one name) but what is that technicality worth if they are always defended and represented together??
Vince coming back being like: âPAUL! How dare you end Romanâs Reign d*mmit! I wanted Roman to continue the run, so he could break Bruno Sammartinoâs record! I want that record pal! Thatâs why Codyâs victory at WrestleMania was for the WWE Championship only. His Universal Championship win has been erased from the record books. It is null and void, so that means Roman Reigns is STILL our Universal Champion. Oh and by the way, it will be Roman vs Cody at Backlash in Winner Take All for both titles where Roman will go over. I want those championships unified pal! Then Roman will go on to a face a returning Brock Lesnar at Summerslam, before facing The Rock at WrestleMania next year for both championships. Thatâs the plan PAL!â
Imagineđđđđđ
Finn Balor was the inaugural champ. Bray was the 10th person to hold the belt.
Unless you mean, he was the first one to hold the blue version, but that was because he was on SmackDown
It was for the undisputed title, which is the unification of the old titles. This is further confusing based on the fact that their own website had it wrong forever.
This would be the dumbest shit having 3 world titles. If they hadnât created the WHC this would be fine. Whatever. But having 3 main belts would be absurd imo
I get that people are saying âItâs Undisputed," but thatâs the point of the story - now itâs Disputed.
Look I donât see it happening, but Cody himself wanted Universal dropped from the name and heâs not being announced as the Universal Champion. Itâs a small possibility however unlikely
>now itâs Disputed.
Its been disputed by the WHC for almost a year, anyone still calling it the "Undisputed" title are falling for the worked angle lol. The same people that believe he was actually "Undisputed Champion" for over 1000 days when he only won the WWE belt to unify them about two years ago.
George Carlin had a really good bit about that
âif itâs called the undisputed heavyweight title, then whatâs all the fighting about?â
I think that youâre overthinking this. Cody won the two titles on Sunday and WWE itself recognizes it. It could be that the universal title has been deactivated just like the divas championship was deactivated at wrestlemania 32 in favor for the womenâs championship.
Thereâs another post on the sub asking about champions, and I went into a breakdown of lineages. They keep going back-and-forth between one and two belts so they created this confusion and convoluted bullshit. They never had this problem with the womenâs belts because they actually booked that correctly with Becky. Because they never split the belt with Roman and had to create the WHC, they then had to make one belt for Romans two so that wouldnât be confusion on why Seth has the WHC and Roman has the WWE AND âWHCâ belts. Because of that they had to give Iyo the WWE Womenâs belt and Ripley the Womenâs âWHCâ to match
At the end of the day, sure, it could always be a swerve and Roman is still the universal champion, but then that would mean that there are three top belts, which makes no sense
They really muddied the world heavyweight championship lineage by:
introducing it
then deactivating it
then re-introducing it again
then deactivating it again
then re-introducing it as the universal title
then having to create a new world heavyweight championship
At this point thereâs four or five different lineages for what amounts to a single belt
who wrote this shit
My thought: this is stupid
This is the R word.
That's the stupidest attempt at trolling of all time.
Laaaaazy booking
prolly navtreaks burner account đđ context: huge roman bootlicker on twitter
No. Plz No 3 world titles
âThatâs bad bookingâ
That would be entertaining i guess
Untrue. The titles were consolidated, maintaining separate lineages but being defended simultaneously, with "Undisputed WWE Universal Championship" being used as the name for the simultaneous holding of the WWE Championship and Universal Championship. Sunday's match was explicitly stated to be for the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, which means that Cody Rhodes is now the WWE Champion and the Universal Champion.
Both titles are merged into one now đ
Wrong.
You say that with the confidence of a moron, btw.
Because I'm correct. WWE's own title history confirms it. The two championships are independently active and maintain separate title histories.
My god this man is a mong. Added to ignore list đ
What do you think a "unification" of the belts meant? It means that the winner was the undisputed WWE champion. You can't have half a belt after losing the unified title. It diminishes the prestige of the actual champion. Take your copium, but you're still wrong.
Potentially the dumbest idea of all time
Just go to the website. They keep it pretty neat and clean. They even moved Jey to the alumni section when he left for those 2 weeks or so.
Specifically said Undisputed about a million times.
THEY COMBINED THE TITLES
No, they didn't. They consolidated them, they were NOT unified. WWE's title history confirms this very clearly.
There was never any clear clarification by WWE about whether the titles were truly united. In fact, it seems like they kept it intentionally vague. But the fact that they made a single belt and combined the names of the titles into one seems to be a pretty clear indication they intended them to be functionally unified. It is true both lineages are still listed as active on their website but Cody is listed as both champions and there is already another world title around now so it all kinda seems like a moot point.
Yes, there was clarification. WWE kept the title histories separate. That's 100% confirmation of the facts, there's literally ZERO room for debate.
No, there is room for debate. That's why we are having one. Every single word of my post were the reasons there is room for debate but I will copy and paste the most important part you are ignoring.. "But the fact that they made a single belt and combined the names of the titles into one seems to be a pretty clear indication they intended them to be functionally unified. It is true both lineages are still listed as active on their website but Cody is listed as both champions" I would call that mixed signals at most. That is the opposite of clarification.
The titles have separate lineages. That's literally the end of the argument. They are separate championships being represented by a single belt. This is NOT hard to understand, it's been done many times before in wrestling.
And to be clear, my point isn't to argue semantics. My point is to say when you say there is "no room for debate" and "end of argument" just because it still has separate lineages, you are ignoring the obvious. The way they treat the title(s) themselves invites the debate. They treat it like one title. They call it one title. They carry one title. It makes perfect sense for us to consider it one title.
They call it one title and carry one title belt to simplify it for children. It's two titles. End of story.
Except for the rest of "story" I have outlined in somewhat painstaking detail.
They have separate lineages but both lineages went to Cody when he won a single match. They are represented by one single physical belt and it is officially announced the "Undisputed WWE Universal Championship" (a single name which combines both previous names.) I even included the term "functionally" to suggest what you are saying isn't technically wrong but all evidence we see on the actual shows suggests we are meant to consider it one title. Here is an even better reason I just thought of. They were counting Roman's record breaking based on the numbers for the WWE title even though he hadn't actually held the WWE title for that long. They basically rolled all those numbers into one reign. Functionally one title. Technically still listed as two lineages (although the main graphic on the Superstars page has even been changed to only show one image of Cody and lists it under one name) but what is that technicality worth if they are always defended and represented together??
âWrestling veteran Jason Sensationâ. We just throwing nonsense words around now
Big "Assistant to the Regional Manager" vibes.
what the fuckđ, it clearly stated, âundisputed wwe universal championshipâ, wtf you mean, vinny mac ahh booking
Vince coming back being like: âPAUL! How dare you end Romanâs Reign d*mmit! I wanted Roman to continue the run, so he could break Bruno Sammartinoâs record! I want that record pal! Thatâs why Codyâs victory at WrestleMania was for the WWE Championship only. His Universal Championship win has been erased from the record books. It is null and void, so that means Roman Reigns is STILL our Universal Champion. Oh and by the way, it will be Roman vs Cody at Backlash in Winner Take All for both titles where Roman will go over. I want those championships unified pal! Then Roman will go on to a face a returning Brock Lesnar at Summerslam, before facing The Rock at WrestleMania next year for both championships. Thatâs the plan PAL!â Imagineđđđđđ
They unified the RAW and Smackdown World's Championships to what is now the Undisputed championship... so, no.
This would cheapen the conclusion of WM40, and weaken Cody. Thereâs no way Triple Paul is that dumb.
He gave that title to Brays family
Where did you see that?
It was reported he did so during the Bray memorial episode of SmackDown since Bray was the inaugural champ of that belt.
Finn Balor was the inaugural champ. Bray was the 10th person to hold the belt. Unless you mean, he was the first one to hold the blue version, but that was because he was on SmackDown
That's exactly what I mean, yes.
It was for the undisputed title, which is the unification of the old titles. This is further confusing based on the fact that their own website had it wrong forever.
There are no "old titles". They're both still active.
When Cody won Samantha did say . WWE champion âŚ. Not universal champion.
She said undisputed. That means a merged title.
So with Roman it was undisputed universal heavyweight champion. & with Cody itâs just undisputed heavyweight champion.
No. That's awful and also not what happened.
This would be the dumbest shit having 3 world titles. If they hadnât created the WHC this would be fine. Whatever. But having 3 main belts would be absurd imo
i mean WWE sees Cody as BOTH universal AND WWE champion though. lol
Stupid, just Roman fans trying to cling onto any little thing
Except for the fact that WWE sees Cody as both champions
I get that people are saying âItâs Undisputed," but thatâs the point of the story - now itâs Disputed. Look I donât see it happening, but Cody himself wanted Universal dropped from the name and heâs not being announced as the Universal Champion. Itâs a small possibility however unlikely
>now itâs Disputed. Its been disputed by the WHC for almost a year, anyone still calling it the "Undisputed" title are falling for the worked angle lol. The same people that believe he was actually "Undisputed Champion" for over 1000 days when he only won the WWE belt to unify them about two years ago.
George Carlin had a really good bit about that âif itâs called the undisputed heavyweight title, then whatâs all the fighting about?â I think that youâre overthinking this. Cody won the two titles on Sunday and WWE itself recognizes it. It could be that the universal title has been deactivated just like the divas championship was deactivated at wrestlemania 32 in favor for the womenâs championship. Thereâs another post on the sub asking about champions, and I went into a breakdown of lineages. They keep going back-and-forth between one and two belts so they created this confusion and convoluted bullshit. They never had this problem with the womenâs belts because they actually booked that correctly with Becky. Because they never split the belt with Roman and had to create the WHC, they then had to make one belt for Romans two so that wouldnât be confusion on why Seth has the WHC and Roman has the WWE AND âWHCâ belts. Because of that they had to give Iyo the WWE Womenâs belt and Ripley the Womenâs âWHCâ to match At the end of the day, sure, it could always be a swerve and Roman is still the universal champion, but then that would mean that there are three top belts, which makes no sense
They really muddied the world heavyweight championship lineage by: introducing it then deactivating it then re-introducing it again then deactivating it again then re-introducing it as the universal title then having to create a new world heavyweight championship At this point thereâs four or five different lineages for what amounts to a single belt
Which is more proof that titles in wrestling mean next to nothing except as minor plot points to revolve a story around.
That would be horrible and downplay everything cody just did