|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 31, 2013 17:37:04 GMT -5
One thing I've never understood, what is the holder of a TV title actually champion of? Just the mid-card, like any other similar title. The initial idea would be to have title matches within a specific time limit of around 10 minutes, which would fit into a TV broadcast, as opposed to titles mainly defended on PPV's in matches that would last longer
|
|
|
Post by Gerard Gerard on Aug 31, 2013 17:47:58 GMT -5
One thing I've never understood, what is the holder of a TV title actually champion of? Just the mid-card, like any other similar title. The initial idea would be to have title matches within a specific time limit of around 10 minutes, which would fit into a TV broadcast, as opposed to titles mainly defended on PPV's in matches that would last longer It makes sense, but sounds too concrete for something the 'E would ever commit to. It's time to go flat-out meta, and just refer to the US belt as 'Title #4'.
|
|
|
Post by rybackrulez on Aug 31, 2013 18:18:01 GMT -5
Right now
Actually for the past 3 years
Us title>ic title
People have irrational "way it was and should be"
Belts=props and can be made important based on the whim of the bookers.
|
|
|
Post by cool guy on Aug 31, 2013 18:45:29 GMT -5
I really don't mind the World Title. Sure, it pads some people reign count with "World Title Reigns" that don't count nearly as much as the WWE title, but other than the number it adds the company doesn't treat it like an equal to the WWE by any means.
I mostly just want someone other than Del Rio to hold it for a while.
|
|
|
Post by The Baltimore Staircase on Aug 31, 2013 18:54:12 GMT -5
One day they should send Del Rio out with the European title and announce him as from Madrid and never mention it.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 31, 2013 19:06:29 GMT -5
Right now Actually for the past 3 years Us title>ic title People have irrational "way it was and should be" Belts=props and can be made important based on the whim of the bookers. The physical belts are props. The titles they represent are macguffins. They should ALWAYS be made important. It makes no logical sense in wrestling to make a title meaningless. Any booker who has the whim to do that should be sacked.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard Gerard on Aug 31, 2013 19:11:35 GMT -5
I really don't mind the World Title. Sure, it pads some people reign count with "World Title Reigns" that don't count nearly as much as the WWE title, but other than the number it adds the company doesn't treat it like an equal to the WWE by any means. I mostly just want someone other than Del Rio to hold it for a while. They're really started to dial back on that as well. Cena's was only billed for his WWE title reigns during the run-up to Summerslam this year. Though, this is undermined by Orton's reign-count's gotten bundled in with his WHC runs.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Aug 31, 2013 19:13:27 GMT -5
They don't need a European Championship. They never needed one. It was one of the most pointless titles ever created in WWE The Intercontinental title should be the sole mid-card title. The WHC should be scrapped because it damages both the WWE and IC titles. Dilutes both their significance. they were planning on doing a lot of European tours and it would be mostly defended then. But then the Monday Night Wars heated up and they needed to be live
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Aug 31, 2013 19:15:33 GMT -5
One thing I've never understood, what is the holder of a TV title actually champion of? I think he was the champ who defended his belt on TV as opposed to the the World champ who traveled. The NWA TV title was created during the touring days after all
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 31, 2013 19:15:48 GMT -5
They don't need a European Championship. They never needed one. It was one of the most pointless titles ever created in WWE The Intercontinental title should be the sole mid-card title. The WHC should be scrapped because it damages both the WWE and IC titles. Dilutes both their significance. they were planning on doing a lot of European tours and it would be mostly defended then. But then the Monday Night Wars heated up and they needed to be live Could have simply used the IC title, since it changed hands so frequently it was hard to keep track of who was the champion anyway Even the name "Intercontinental" would have fit.
|
|
|
Post by rybackrulez on Aug 31, 2013 19:20:02 GMT -5
Eh. Never should consolidate the belts. Leaves too many guys directionless.
Ambrose as us champ is just great because of the justice and bossman gimmick shield have
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 31, 2013 19:25:14 GMT -5
Eh. Never should consolidate the belts. Leaves too many guys directionless. Ambrose as us champ is just great because of the justice and bossman gimmick shield have Not all guys are title material. They don't ALL need to be competiting for one. As for Ambrose, he'd be just as good with the IC title. The US title is redundant.
|
|
|
Post by rybackrulez on Aug 31, 2013 19:47:35 GMT -5
Not really.
Deal with it
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 31, 2013 20:44:30 GMT -5
Deal with what? What are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by cool guy on Sept 1, 2013 15:44:59 GMT -5
Not every guy needs to be going after a belt, every guy just needs to be doing something.
I actually think cutting away one or two of the midcard ones might be good, since they'd be forced to think of actual reasons for these people to fight now.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,536
Member is Online
|
Post by FinalGwen on Sept 1, 2013 15:52:00 GMT -5
So from what I understand, the main problem with most belts is that they all invalidate the worthiness of the IC title in various ways. So why don't we just scrap the IC belt, and solve all the problems at once?
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 29,333
|
Post by Sephiroth on Sept 1, 2013 15:53:50 GMT -5
On this same note, you could cut down the number of titles while still having ways to elevate other talent-through things like the Slammy's, the King of the Ring, or Money in the Bank. Basically a non-title sort of special honor that still carries prestige and helps the audience to see this guy or gal as going places. Another reason to merge the WHC and WAE titles would be to cut down the number of Money in the Bank cases floating around to help make it a more high profile honor. And fun factoid: there was a King of the Ring title belt in the 90's thst never once showed up on TV. The more you know!
|
|
Malcolm
Grimlock
Wanted something done about the color of his ring.
May contain ADHD
Posts: 13,508
|
Post by Malcolm on Sept 1, 2013 16:47:20 GMT -5
I remember when the WHC was considered THE title for the WWE(mostly because it was Raw's belt). It made sense then considering Raw superstars NEVER came onto Smackdown and vice versa. Nowadays, both brand of superstars compete on both shows so I think it would be time to unify both the WWE and WHC titles along with unifying the IC and US titles.
And Smackdown is starting to seem like an afterthought nowadays since Raw recaps take up most of the show and RAW is now 3 hours long...
|
|
|
Post by rybackrulez on Sept 1, 2013 17:03:19 GMT -5
So from what I understand, the main problem with most belts is that they all invalidate the worthiness of the IC title in various ways. So why don't we just scrap the IC belt, and solve all the problems at once? Seems like you got the plan
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,286
|
Post by CMWaters on Sept 1, 2013 17:20:08 GMT -5
So from what I understand, the main problem with most belts is that they all invalidate the worthiness of the IC title in various ways. So why don't we just scrap the IC belt, and solve all the problems at once? Because then Stone Cold Steve Austin will just pop up on the show a few months later, say something along these lines: And just bring the belt back. You know, like he did the LAST time they got rid of the IC title.
|
|