|
Post by Iheartblackpeople on Dec 26, 2007 9:03:24 GMT -5
The official death of the WWF Intercontinental Championship was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre on February 14th, 1999. On that day, Val Venis became the IC Champion. Val was always entertaining but he was a mid-card act and him winning the title began a downward spiral for the belt. Right. A downward spiral that included reigns by Angle, Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, Van Dam, and Booker T, some of the greatest wrestlers of the past decade and of all time. All of those men went on to become future world champions and their names alone help elevate the cred of the title. My personal opinion is that guys like Jeff Hardy and MVP will also go on to become world champions and cement their names in history as further examples of midcarders using midcard titles as a stepping stone to greatness. However the fact that the brand spit has made the rosters thinner has changed things significantly. Imagine the IC title feuds/matches that could happen if guys like The Hardyz, CM Punk, Umaga, MVP, John Morrison, and Rey Mysterio were on the same roster; solid midcard guys being measured up against solid midcard guys. But since talent is spread across 3 rosters the amount of legit contenders for midcard titles isnt very high. Creative tries to compensate by giving midcard runs to guys like Carlito, Shelton, Santino, Umaga, and Nitro before they might be ready so as to shake up the title scene, but the thin rosters only give 3 real options in the matter: having the same midcard guys (some who are still pretty green) face each other 1,000 times in succession, have them face main-eventers and either job to them or lower the cred of the main event scene, or put them in cakewalks with jobbers. I think its better to have the midcard champ doing high-profile things (Hardy VS HHH and Orton, Umaga in the battle of the billionaires, MVP's long running feud w/ Matt Hardy) even if its not necessarily the midcard title at stake than to defend the title against the same guy over and over again. Creative is trying, but its not perfect. Having the announcers shill the belts more, folding the tag team/midcard rosters over a bit or even having more interbrand feuds might help matters. ALSO, I think weight-based divisions is a bad idea in this day and age as it would put further pressure on athletes to bulk up in order to get into the main event. And those are my opinions on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Dec 26, 2007 10:02:35 GMT -5
ALSO, I think weight-based divisions is a bad idea in this day and age as it would put further pressure on athletes to bulk up in order to get into the main event. And those are my opinions on the matter. It wouldn't if WWE puts any emphasizes that cruiser weights are in the same league as the heavyweights. I know Vince loves big guys, but ideally if the weight division is in the same level as another division then it can work. Again, look at TNA. The X-division belt, a de-facto cruiserweight belt, was once in the same league as the NWA world title.
|
|
HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Dec 26, 2007 10:17:38 GMT -5
WWE has no idea how to book divisions anymore.
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Dec 26, 2007 10:32:41 GMT -5
No. What the heck are the midcarders wrestling for if there is no IC title? They gotta have something to feud over, hence why there are midcard titles.
Also, I totally agree that when there was one roster the Euro/IC/World thing worked well. I keep saying, it was awesome because it was just like the Minor/Major/World title scheme of Punchout.
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Dec 26, 2007 10:36:24 GMT -5
No. What the heck are the midcarders wrestling for if there is no IC title? They gotta have something to feud over, hence why there are midcard titles. Easy, they feud with themselves to move up to the World title ranks. Both TNA and ROH do not have midcard titles, and the wrestlers beneath the world title scene is well known. I don't see how it is acceptance for two companies to be OK without a midcard title yet WWE needs to have one.
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Dec 26, 2007 10:37:44 GMT -5
No. What the heck are the midcarders wrestling for if there is no IC title? They gotta have something to feud over, hence why there are midcard titles. Easy, they feud with themselves to move up to the World title ranks. Both TNA and ROH do not have midcard titles, and the wrestlers beneath the world title scene is well known. TNA has the X-Division belt. Plus it is arguable that that TNA can be considered "OK".
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Dec 26, 2007 10:38:53 GMT -5
Easy, they feud with themselves to move up to the World title ranks. Both TNA and ROH do not have midcard titles, and the wrestlers beneath the world title scene is well known. TNA has the X-Division belt. Plus it is arguable that that TNA can be considered "OK". The X-Division belt was at the same rank as the NWA world title, and it was a separate division consisted of lightweights(it wasn't official, but it was there until Samoa Joe won the belt).
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Dec 26, 2007 10:40:52 GMT -5
TNA has the X-Division belt. Plus it is arguable that that TNA can be considered "OK". The X-Division belt was at the same rank as the NWA world title, and it was a separate division consisted of lightweights(it wasn't official, but it was there until Samoa Joe won the belt). But it's a midcard belt now.
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Dec 26, 2007 10:49:43 GMT -5
The X-Division belt was at the same rank as the NWA world title, and it was a separate division consisted of lightweights(it wasn't official, but it was there until Samoa Joe won the belt). But it's a midcard belt now. I don't think a former NWA world champion fighting for the X-Division title repeatedly and winning makes the belt a "midcard" title. I am referring to AJ Styles.
|
|
|
Post by OldGravyLeg on Dec 26, 2007 11:01:27 GMT -5
I actually think you have a point.
In the days before the Monday Night Wars, the IC belt served a purpose because it could be defended on TV without giving away "main event" calibur matches for free. Nowadays, since WWE is on prime time, they have to feature the main event guys every week, and that more often than not involves the World or WWE title. The main titles are so overexposed at this point, that the IC belt is less than meaningless.
As to your other point about having weight classes - If that worked, we would still have a light-heavy weight or cruiserweight championship... and it would actually be considered important.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 26, 2007 14:41:12 GMT -5
I don't see how it is acceptance for two companies to be OK without a midcard title yet WWE needs to have one. I already glossed over this; the WWE doesn't need to be ROH, and it sure as hell doesn't need to go the TNA route. If they're doing alright using the existing method, why reinvent the wheel? I can't recall sitting down watching professional wrestling, which is already staged, and thinking to myself,"Damn, there's too many titles, I think by getting rid of more of them, i'd watch again." It's just too farfetched. I can't wait for the 'WWE Should Abolish Smackdown' thread. -metylerca
|
|
Jam
Unicron
Spiral out
Posts: 2,934
|
Post by Jam on Dec 26, 2007 14:43:52 GMT -5
Another point, why does there have to be a midcard title to get someone over? Neither TNA or ROH has midcard title, and yet we see new wrestlers being built up in the main event without it. I know WWE does use this method to build up stars, but it can be done without it. Isn't the X Division Title a secondary title? Samoa Joe and AJ Styles held both the X Division and the world title. And didn't Kurt Angle hold it for a week or two?
|
|
icarus
Trap-Jaw
j-tex
Posts: 252
|
Post by icarus on Dec 26, 2007 14:51:03 GMT -5
funny how nobody has mentioned the US title .... if any title needs to go, it should be that. it's been defended about twice this year.
and yeah, send the cruiserweight title to ecw
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Dec 26, 2007 14:55:37 GMT -5
I think the midcard titles can still have purpose, they should be the main events of the TV shows, and the World titles should be defended more on PPVs. Thats how it used to be.
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Dec 26, 2007 16:07:09 GMT -5
Another point, why does there have to be a midcard title to get someone over? Neither TNA or ROH has midcard title, and yet we see new wrestlers being built up in the main event without it. I know WWE does use this method to build up stars, but it can be done without it. Isn't the X Division Title a secondary title? Samoa Joe and AJ Styles held both the X Division and the world title. And didn't Kurt Angle hold it for a week or two? IIRC, the X-Division title has been main evented in couple of ppvs, and I believe "Destination X" ppv used to be focused around the title. I say it was equal if not greater than the NWA title and I can't see how it is a secondary title. To other poster, yes, the US title should be gone also. I am saying that midcard titles are obsolete now since the World title is being defended regularly on TV, and hence why it serves no purpose.
|
|
|
Post by darthpipes on Dec 26, 2007 18:22:46 GMT -5
That's very fair. I always felt though that when the Val Venis' of the company were winning the title, it reduced its prestige. I still feel that way.
|
|
.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,452
|
Post by . on Dec 26, 2007 19:23:08 GMT -5
I remember my little cousin watching wcw and making a brillant observation about how he thought the U.S title was only defended in america and the world title defended everywhere,
which brings me to my question satus aside what is the difference between World Champion and Intercontinental Champion(which i assume includes all the continents which wold make it the entire world i suppose)?
|
|
Dr. Tré
Mike the Goon
KEN-UH-DAY!!!
Posts: 38
|
Post by Dr. Tré on Dec 27, 2007 1:31:35 GMT -5
I remember my little cousin watching wcw and making a brillant observation about how he thought the U.S title was only defended in america and the world title defended everywhere, which brings me to my question satus aside what is the difference between World Champion and Intercontinental Champion(which i assume includes all the continents which wold make it the entire world i suppose)? IIRC, it was won in a (fake) tournament and Rio by Pat Patterson and brought to North America, thus the belt become a South & North American based belt, or the Intercontinental Championship.
|
|
|
Post by mrwednesdaynight on Dec 27, 2007 2:11:16 GMT -5
The great thing about the IC belt back in the day was that the champion was usually on tv. Whereas world champion, Hogan, was never on regular tv, since he was always making movies or doing something else. Hogan rarely, if ever, defended the World title on Superstars of Wrestling or Wrestling Challenge, but whoever was IC champ would be out there every week or other week. Wrestling has just changed so much since then. It's not like they would like Randy Orton take the belt with him while he takes four monthes to make a movie. The only problem with the IC belt these days is how its booked and thats an extention of what I find wrong with WWE television these days. How are you suppose to build a midcard or midcard feuds when an hour of a two hour show is vince coming out cutting a 20 minute promo, divas shaking what their momma gave them, promoting the next pay per view, and recapping what happened last week. Thats why I can't even remember the last time I bothered to watch Raw and I catch Smackdown if I have nothing else going on Friday. If you have a big problem with the product, I suggest you do the same. Somehow life hasnt ended for me now that I dont follow wrestling as religiously as i used to. i keep up to date by reading this board or going to wwe.com and it seems to suit me fine.
|
|
|
Post by Redbeard's Ghost on Dec 27, 2007 9:31:22 GMT -5
The WWE Intercontinental Title is one of the top 10 most respected championships of all time. It was always used as a steppingstone for guys WWE thought could make the next step in their careers (ex. Macho Man, Warrior, HBK, HHH) and also as another belt to add prestige to mid card level workers. The belt was contested in some major matches over the years, headline matches like Santana vs. Valentine, Muraco vs. Snuka, Bulldog vs. Bret, Henning vs. Bret and was treated as a huge deal all the way up until the Attitude era. Once WCW was bought out, the IC belt simply became another title in the deep pool of belts. The IC belt was not invented due to anything that had to do with Hulkamania, it was around long before Hogan, and was a major piece of the early 80's WWF puzzle. The belt has a long history with some of the greatest workers of all time holding and defending it at major PPV shows. I believe the IC belt needs to be not only kept, but reestablished as a major title. Hardy has done a good job of holding the belt but now that he has been moved into the main event circle, he should drop it to the next guy in line, Kennedy or someone along that line.
|
|