Is the World Heavyweight Title the new IC title?

[James McCloud IS John Godot]

One thing a lot of fans seem to feel is that the 1980's Intercontinental championship meant a lot more than later incarnations. Due to the longevity of Hulk Hogan as WWF Champion, the Intercontinental belt would often be perceived as being held by the second best wrestler, or even simply the best non-Hogan guy, in the company, lending the belt and the feuds around it a certain aura of competitiveness and respectability. In fact, the Intercontinental Champion was, once upon a time, considered the default number one contender to the WWF Championship.

Today, the belt that most equates to this formula seems to be the World Heavyweight Championship, held by those considered to be "main eventers" yet on the fringes of the "real" top dogs (Cena, Orton, etc.).

The comparison isn't perfect, of course. But I think the similarities are there. Much like the IC title was evidence that you were doing a bang up job but simply, for whatever reason, not in the WWF Championship frame, the World Heavyweight Championship seems to serve the same function today.

What say you?

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

The WWE Title's been around longer and it's on the more popular brand, so that helps a lot. But overall, no.

Jack Swagger's reign as WHC left a lot to be desired, but I do consider him a former world champion.

[KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!!]

I think that is a good observation. I would say the ECW Title around the time Punk/Morrison were feuding for it was like the new IC title. Now, that, that title is defunct though and some of the main eventers have shifted shows, I would say the World Heavyweight Title has taken the ECW Title's place and the WWE is now more highly valued.

[Lance Uppercut]

whatever belt that's not on Raw. As weird looking as it it, I prefer that the WWE title is the A title.

Felt weird that the old WCW Belt was the more prestigious Raw one for the first couple of years.

[fw91]

Nov 19, 2010 16:58:44 GMT -5 Lance Uppercut said:

whatever belt that's not on Raw. As weird looking as it it, I prefer that the WWE title is the A title.

Felt weird that the old WCW Belt was the more prestigious Raw one for the first couple of years.

yeah up until cena showed up on raw i always felt that the whc was the most prestigious

[percymania]

This might sound weird, but ever since they went back to the two World Titles, I've always considered the World Heavyweight Champion to be the top wrestler, and the WWE Champion to be the top sports-entertainer.

Does anyone else see it that way?

[EJS]

Nov 20, 2010 5:17:56 GMT -5 percymania said:

This might sound weird, but ever since they went back to the two World Titles, I've always considered the World Heavyweight Champion to be the top wrestler, and the WWE Champion to be the top sports-entertainer.

Does anyone else see it that way?

I could see that being an argument made if the WWE Title was forever on Raw, but it wasn't. And it was the "wrestling" title for a while since Smackdown has mostly been the "wrestling" show.

Even then pretty much no because there are pretty big exceptions. Such as The Great Khali, World Heavyweight Champion.

["Dashing" Dr.VonPhoenix]

OP: It disturbs me that your retrospective view of Hogan is so logical. But, seriously, it's true. The IC champ was always a "second to Hogan" title that meant a whole hell of a lot back then. Any mark worth his/her markiness knows that the WHC is simply the old WCW title put in place of the IC title. Holding it means you're second best to the WWF champion (WWE for a lot of you.) By default, whoever holds it is the Riker to Orton'd Picard... iiiiiif you wiiiill......



BTW, the legit IC champ is Dolph Ziggler. Awesome as he is, nobody (aside from us) even f***ing cares. That's really unfortunate.

[Hobby Drifter]

I don't think it's really fair to compare today's WWE belts with WWF belts from the past. SO much has changed since there were only two major titles. How do you compare a company with two (fairly) distinct brands that have to fill a half dozen hours of TV per week with it's earlier "TV once in a while" incarnation?

And until we have the WHC saying that he's got his eye on the WWE title, I think the comparison is already flawed.

[KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!!]

Nov 20, 2010 5:17:56 GMT -5 percymania said:

This might sound weird, but ever since they went back to the two World Titles, I've always considered the World Heavyweight Champion to be the top wrestler, and the WWE Champion to be the top sports-entertainer.

Does anyone else see it that way?

Sorry, but I just can't see it that way. I mean when you have guys like Khali and Batista (good in-ring talent sometimes, but not always) holding the title for months, how can you consider them the top wrestlers? Especially their reigns came when people like Shawn Michaels were in the company.

[i.Sarita.com]

You can't really put Edge, Batista, and The Undertaker in "..."

They were Champions of equal ground as Cena, Orton, HHH.

It's not the belt, it's the person who holds it and how the WWE uses them.

[agent817]

Like someone else mentioned, whatever is on the A show is what matters more. Remember when the WHC was on RAW? It seemed like it was the more important title, especially since Wrestlemania XX's main event was for the WHC, rather than the WWE title.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Nov 20, 2010 5:17:56 GMT -5 percymania said:

This might sound weird, but ever since they went back to the two World Titles, I've always considered the World Heavyweight Champion to be the top wrestler, and the WWE Champion to be the top sports-entertainer.

Does anyone else see it that way?

"Wrestler" and "sports entertainer" are more or less the same thing to me, so no, not really. I think it boils down to which ever champion at the time is showcased the strongest.

[Cyno]

I've always seen the WWE Championship as higher up, even when the WHC was on RAW and the WWE Championship on Smackdown. It's the original title with lineage going all the way back to the WWWF.

WHC on the other hand was only created so Triple H (and RAW) could have a title when Lesnar went to Smackdown exclusively. Sure it looks like the WCW World Title, but they share no lineage. At least officially. But it's still the top title of a brand and a world title. So I still hold it in higher regard than even the IC title in its prime.

[Lila]

Nov 20, 2010 5:17:56 GMT -5 percymania said:

This might sound weird, but ever since they went back to the two World Titles, I've always considered the World Heavyweight Champion to be the top wrestler, and the WWE Champion to be the top sports-entertainer.

Does anyone else see it that way?

Well technically for some reason the WWE title is consider to be more prestigious than the World Heavyweight Title. I never got why.

[luiscurse]

No, to me they are both World Titles but I do agree that the title that is on Raw at any time is more valuable.

But that does bring up an issue I told my friend yesterday,
having two World titles really brings down the product and the IC/US titles specifically, they should Unify the two world titles, have the champion take on challengers from both brands, and raise the status of the US/IC belts so the person carrying it could be seen as the #2 guy of their respective brand.

[The Doctor]

The WWE Title is the holy grail, being as it is WWE's own title. But the Big Gold belt will always be a very close second. It is only second because it's not got as much WWE history.

I just view them like the World Titles in boxing. There are four World Heavyweight Championship titles all of roughly comparable value. But the true value comes in who holds it, how they have defended it and how they won it.

[4real]

Would I have marked so hard for Kane winning the World Title if I believed it to be the same level as the IC Title? Hell no!