|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Jan 23, 2011 20:11:49 GMT -5
So I have been thinking of when the IC Title started to loose its prestige. In my mind the beginning was when Austin tossed the title into a river. After which the Rock I believe got the title. While it was still treated well for a little while later. For me I think this was the writing on the wall that creative or who ever was loosing interest in the title. For me it was the best belt in the federation for years. To just toss it away seemed dumb. While Austin wanted to move on, I think back to Hogan/Warrior, where both wanted to have both titles. Don't know if many will agree but that is my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jan 23, 2011 20:16:33 GMT -5
1999, when it seemed to change hands on a bi-weekly basis.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,084 
|
Post by CMWaters on Jan 23, 2011 20:17:58 GMT -5
Most times when I've seen this question asked, this is the answer people give:  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jan 23, 2011 20:19:54 GMT -5
I disagree with that. It had already lost it's credibility before that.
|
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Jan 23, 2011 20:20:58 GMT -5
I get your thoughts on Chyna, but she was over and I think people could buy her as the champ. My problem with Austin tossing it in the river was if the guy holding the belt could care less about it, why the hell should I?
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,084
|
Post by CMWaters on Jan 23, 2011 20:24:16 GMT -5
I get your thoughts on Chyna, but she was over and I think people could buy her as the champ. My problem with Austin tossing it in the river was if the guy holding the belt could care less about it, why the hell should I? I didn't say I agreed with it, I'm just saying that when I've seen this question asked from other areas, that's the answer people give. The importance seems to rise and fall on occassions. It raised a bit during the Angle reign, followed by the Benoit and Jericho feuds for it. Dipped a bit when the US title came in from WCW...seemed to rise up a bit IMO during the Punk/JBL/Mysterio/Jericho set of reigns. |
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Jan 23, 2011 20:24:49 GMT -5
Personally, I feel it's lost credibility with certain guys and restored it with certain guys and their feuds/angles.
And besides, regardless of it's status, it still has to be the #2 title. Or #3. Or #4 if you consider when they were putting the Tag-Belts on more established guys..
|
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jan 23, 2011 20:27:46 GMT -5
IMO after Road Dogg won it.
That's not a knock on Road Dogg. But that's when the downward spiral really began, albeit with the odd diamond in the rough every now and then.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,084
|
Post by CMWaters on Jan 23, 2011 20:29:53 GMT -5
IMO after Road Dogg won it. That's not a knock on Road Dogg. But that's when the downward spiral really began, albeit with the odd diamond in the rough every now and then. I dunno...Dogg WAS pretty over at the time, even just for his pre-match spiel. Though it was weird that they just randomly decided to swtch Dogg to the IC division and Gunn to the Hardcore division shortly before WrestleMania XV. |
|
|
|
Post by turkeysandwich on Jan 23, 2011 20:30:04 GMT -5
1999, when it seemed to change hands on a bi-weekly basis. I agree here. I've always thought that Ken Shamrock's reign ending by losing to Val Venis was the last legitimate I-C title change. After that it seemed that it changed so many times. I could recite the I-C title history from it's inception until then. There have been some good title reigns since then, but the history is so muddy that it just doesn't seem important like it once did. I'm also old school in that I think that once you've been a world champion that you shouldn't hold the I-C title. But that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Jan 23, 2011 20:30:08 GMT -5
I get your thoughts on Chyna, but she was over and I think people could buy her as the champ. My problem with Austin tossing it in the river was if the guy holding the belt could care less about it, why the hell should I? I didn't say I agreed with it, I'm just saying that when I've seen this question asked from other areas, that's the answer people give. The importance seems to rise and fall on occassions. It raised a bit during the Angle reign, followed by the Benoit and Jericho feuds for it. Dipped a bit when the US title came in from WCW...seemed to rise up a bit IMO during the Punk/JBL/Mysterio/Jericho set of reigns. I agree with you on the last point. I just wish it was still a major thought on the show and not just an afterthought. |
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Jan 23, 2011 20:32:12 GMT -5
When World Title angles and matches started becoming the center of the TV shows.
In the mid-80s, the intercontinental title got the most TV time - you had to buy a ticket to a house show to see Hogan wrestle.
|
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Jan 23, 2011 20:32:26 GMT -5
The first real chink in the belt honestly would probably have to be when Shawn had to forfeit it to Douglas and then it was hotshotted to Razor out of nowhere.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,084
|
Post by CMWaters on Jan 23, 2011 20:33:01 GMT -5
I'm also old school in that I think that once you've been a world champion that you shouldn't hold the I-C title. But that's just my opinion. If that was the case, Pedro Morales would have never been Intercontinental Champion. |
|
|
|
Post by turkeysandwich on Jan 23, 2011 20:38:07 GMT -5
I'm also old school in that I think that once you've been a world champion that you shouldn't hold the I-C title. But that's just my opinion. If that was the case, Pedro Morales would have never been Intercontinental Champion. That was very early in the title's history. That didn't happen again until almost 20 years later when Triple H won it in 2001. So not allowing a world champion to win the I-C belt had to be something that Vince and Co. purposely avoided. |
|
|
|
Post by Nic Nemeth on Jan 23, 2011 20:38:48 GMT -5
It was awesome when Ziggles feuded/had it, then it just sucked again.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,084
|
Post by CMWaters on Jan 23, 2011 20:41:03 GMT -5
If that was the case, Pedro Morales would have never been Intercontinental Champion. That was very early in the title's history. That didn't happen again until almost 20 years later when Triple H won it in 2001. So not allowing a world champion to win the I-C belt had to be something that Vince and Co. purposely avoided. True, but we did come kinda close to it at WrestleMania VI, with Hogan wanting Warrior's title. Also, I seem to remember on the Savage DVD a match with Bruno Sammartino where Bruno was going for the Intercontinental Championship. |
|
|
|
Post by woodface on Jan 23, 2011 20:41:47 GMT -5
When Orton lost it. Since then, there have no long-term reigns that came closing to being as epic as that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giul T. on Jan 23, 2011 21:31:30 GMT -5
I think its getting better nowadays on Smackdown, tbh. Ziggler and Kingston have had long title reigns
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyfo on Jan 23, 2011 21:40:31 GMT -5
In my opinion, Randy Orton in 2003-2004 was the last great Intercontinental Champion.
His reign felt important, like it was building a future superstar, and most of his title matches were a decently big deal.
|
|
