Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 29,331
|
Post by Sephiroth on Sept 30, 2013 21:39:20 GMT -5
And since so many agreed with me about the smoking skull belt, here are my other ideas about titles. Hope you all agree.
THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF TITLES
In general, less is more with titles. A title is supposed to be a prize to be desire and competed for, so having too many of them makes it less of an achievement. The bare minimum would be three (WHC, #2, and tag titles) and the absolute maximum would be five (WHC, #2, midcard, tag team, and women/cruiserweight title).
THE APPROPRIATE LOOK OF A TITLE
A title belt should be gold-there is no if, and, or but about this. The most coveted trophies, medals, and plaques in any sport of endeavor are all gold, and therefore a title belt should be gold to put its value on part with highest honor a person can earn. A title should not have "bling" some jewels encrusted in the plates are fine, but it should not look like something a low-rent rapper wears on his teeth. Because a title should be gold, the strap should be black to help emphasize the glisten of that gold. Multi-colored straps simply do not work, they clash with the gold plates and make it look less distinguished.
THE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF A TITLE
A title belt is a belt for a reason-it is meant to be worn around the waist. But it is also supposed to be an object of reverence, and therefore should always be visible to the public eye. For backstage interviews it should be held on the shoulder, but otherwise it should be worn. The exception would be interviews where the title holder is wearing street clothes, in which case it can be shouldered simply because wearing it in street clothes would look ridiculous. It should be with the title holder for all public appearances such as autograph signings to make certain the public never forgets who the champion is and to show how much the champion covets the title. When a title is defended in a match the champion should hand it to the referee, who shoudl then hold it up high for all to see, perhaps even turning to face all corners of the ring so the entire audience gets a good look at what is at stake.
THE APPROPRIATE LENGTH OF TITLE REIGNS
A title should not switch hands too often, or it loses a lot of its meaning. The appeal of a title is just as much about who is chasing it as who is currently holding it. WHC title reigns should be the longest, and a WHC should rarely change hands on television-such a special event should primarily be a PPV event. A #2 title also should not change hands to frequently, but it can be switched more often on television to help get the next rising contenders for the top title into the audiences mind as main eventers. Mid-card, tag team, and women/cruiserweight titles can change hands a bit more often and also on television more regularly-to help maintain interest in regular television programs and give the audience more bang for their money.
THE APPROPRIATE USE OF NON-TITLES
Yes, this is a category in itself. Less is more with titles, but you still need a way to elevate new talent and/or keep top talent in the main event when they are not holding the top titles. Therefore, the non-title. Examples of non-titles would include the King of the Ring, Money in the Bank, the World X Cup, Diva of the Year, or the Slammees. These are special honors and credentials that add a great deal to a wrestlers profile-but that are not worn around the waist and defended on a a regular basis. Like with titles, less is more in this case, you do not want to inundate the audience and thereby water down the special nature of a non-title. But you also don't want to treat a non-title as anything casual either; just like a title, it is meant to be a thing of value that a person would be willing to give their all for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Sept 30, 2013 22:18:27 GMT -5
THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF TITLES
I think there should be no less than the current number of titles (Six:WWE, WHC, IC, US, Tag, Diva). I think there is actually room for expansion in regards to titles. Promote the Internet Title to roster status, add a cruiserweight belt, and maybe another "regional" belt. They give the low & midcard guys a reason to wrestle. And, People like seeing title matches at Wrestling shows. Having a few extra titles on the line/champions competing wouldn't hurt house show gates. Heck, allowing a few of the lower ranked belts change hands at house shows, with a mention on TV could potentially help live gates, because there really is a "anything could happen tonight" feeling.
THE APPROPRIATE LOOK OF A TITLE
I don't think all titles should be gold. Lower ranked belts can afford to be different or ornate. The top Title should always be gold. WWE/WWF's Eagle belt designs were pretty much the standard for expectations. However, I feel custom WWE titles do work in the right scenario. I understand that you don't like the Smoking Skull belt, but I love it. It fit what was going on in the Attitude era perfectly. And, I'm by no means an Austin mark. I'm fine with the copper Tag Belts (have you seen the going rate on copper lately!)
Also, as a followup to what I said in regards to #1, if the Internet title was to be promoted to roster status - It would need a new look.
THE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF A TITLE
I don't disagree with you there at all. Whether it be the lowest ranked belt or the highest prize, it should always be shown respect in public.
THE APPROPRIATE LENGTH OF TITLE REIGNS
I like seeing the top title reigns having a some meat to them. but there's a place for shorter reigns. Sometimes shorter reigns are more memorable. For example, I think Curtis Axel has been IC champ for about four months (a decent amount of time for that title), and I can't remember him winning many/any matches since picking up the title. Upper tier champions shouldn't lose that much. Lower tier champions can afford to lose nontitle matches against bigger superstars/champs/etc.
THE APPROPRIATE USE OF NON-TITLES
I don't have a problem with shows like the Slammy's, they're meant to be taken tongue in cheek. However, I'm glad KOR isn't a yearly event.
|
|
Malcolm
Grimlock
Wanted something done about the color of his ring.
May contain ADHD
Posts: 13,508
|
Post by Malcolm on Sept 30, 2013 22:24:04 GMT -5
Re: All titles should be gold. I don't necessarily agree with that. Since some posters feel that there should be 3 titles(WWE, IC, and US which I don't agree with), I believe the top title should be gold, the mid title silver, and the lower title bronze.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,284 
|
Post by CMWaters on Sept 30, 2013 22:55:32 GMT -5
THE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF A TITLE A title belt is a belt for a reason-it is meant to be worn around the waist. Ahem.  EDIT: Also, I will agree to disagree with you PARTIALLY on the strap of the belt. A white strap looks just as classy as a black strap to me. |
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Oct 1, 2013 7:00:25 GMT -5
THE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF A TITLE A title belt is a belt for a reason-it is meant to be worn around the waist. Ahem. EDIT: Also, I will agree to disagree with you PARTIALLY on the strap of the belt. A white strap looks just as classy as a black strap to me. personally I've liked them using multicolor straps. |
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 29,331
|
Post by Sephiroth on Oct 1, 2013 10:10:45 GMT -5
Re: All titles should be gold. I don't necessarily agree with that. Since some posters feel that there should be 3 titles(WWE, IC, and US which I don't agree with), I believe the top title should be gold, the mid title silver, and the lower title bronze. Look at the current tag team titles. Tell me the classic, gold bets were not better. |
|
CM Dazz
King Koopa
Chuck
Posts: 10,475
|
Post by CM Dazz on Oct 1, 2013 12:05:21 GMT -5
THE APPROPRIATE LOOK OF A TITLE
A title belt should be gold-there is no if, and, or but about this. The most coveted trophies, medals, and plaques in any sport of endeavor are all gold, and therefore a title belt should be gold to put its value on part with highest honor a person can earn. A title should not have "bling" some jewels encrusted in the plates are fine, but it should not look like something a low-rent rapper wears on his teeth. Because a title should be gold, the strap should be black to help emphasize the glisten of that gold. Multi-colored straps simply do not work, they clash with the gold plates and make it look less distinguished.    I agree with the rest, just not this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 12:50:52 GMT -5
^ Those would look better gold too, IMO, but I'm not a sports fan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joshie el Gato Rey on Oct 1, 2013 13:22:01 GMT -5
White straps are awesome. See the WWE & IWGP Intercontinental Championships   I think there should be a title specific to each show, just to make the shows a little more special. Raw: Intercontinental title Smackdown: United States title Main Event: European/WWE Television title Superstars: Internet title The other titles would be defended on all shows/ppvs. The US title needs a makeover, although it looks like a toy so it would sell to kids more. Same with the tag and divas belts. Set up a rankings system for each belt that can be viewed on the website or the APP**1@-*#*$:$*$**#! The NXT champion can appear on any show and defend the title against certain opponents. Bo Dallas did this at a house show a couple of weeks ago. I feel that it would give a new guy a chance to be known before he becomes an official member of the roster, and he would be given some cred because he has a giant gold belt with him. |
|
CM Dazz
King Koopa
Chuck
Posts: 10,475
|
Post by CM Dazz on Oct 1, 2013 13:24:58 GMT -5
^ Those would look better gold too, IMO, but I'm not a sports fan. I've always felt yellow gold was too gaudy. It's the reason our wedding rings are white gold. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Oct 1, 2013 13:46:23 GMT -5
Number:
Four: WWE, Heavyweight, Tag, Divas. The main reason is the US and IC titles are on guys who get beat into powder, surprising, except Dean Ambrose, who is relatively protected. I feel the Shield though has lost a lot more since gaining some hardware. Anymore then that is too much, and the midcard title should be on a guy you're not always beating. I guess it also frees up room for them to beat guys who aren't the champion, as one issue is if you don't have any guys to beat that are established enough to mean something, you just beat the champions. Antonio Cesaro, The Miz, Wade Barrett, Curtis Axel, Cody Rhodes, Dolph Ziggler, take your pick.
Look
I'm a big fan of symbolism on titles. The Eagles, the gold, the jewels, the wrestlers on the sides, the way the words are presented as with the IC title, the world, stuff like that.
Treatment
Bret Hart did this great interview that I'll never forget. It was building up to his match with Diesel at the February 1996 In Your House and was on Raw. Bret talked about how Diesel would drag the belt to the ring with him. But he holds it up here, with respect. Same goes with when Austin Aries got pissed at Brian Kendrick for throwing down the X-Division Title and thinking it was just a material possession (one of the worst lines on a wrestling show I've ever heard, up there with some WCW Russo garbage). So yeah, I definitely agree with this concept here as stated before, how they shouldn't be thrown around or used as weapons, unless it's a one off thing and happens ever few years or so.
Non-Titles
This is where things get rough. In wrestling, you have people you're pushing and people you're not pushing. Some guys have to win, and some guys have to lose. And even though they have a non-title like the Money in the Bank briefcase, at certain points, Daniel Bryan needs to wrestle a heel so he can look strong. Randy Orton needs to wrestle a babyface so he looks strong. Earlier in the year, they had a ridiculous amount of Randy Orton/Antonio Cesaro matches, where Orton just beats this guy every time and I think, can we not put another heel against this man, especially not your US Champion. But another strong heel was Wade Barrett, your IC Champion, so now we beat him. It's almost like these titles are meaningless, because Randy Orton doesn't want these. Why would he lower himself to hold these pieces of tin. He wanted the World Title, so I guess that's important. This is why too many titles aren't needed because they're just abused and useless. Now, we have Dolph Ziggler fighting Dean Ambrose for the US Title, and it's looked at as a step down, but the US Title is shit. If Dean Ambrose and Dolph Ziggler didn't have matches where there was a belt, man, what great matches those would be, and Ziggler could be seen as bringing Ambrose to the level of a former World Champion. Even Punk vs Axel and Heyman wasn't for the IC Title, because why would Punk sully his image with that piece of garbage. Do you think it would upset Heyman a bit if Punk took the IC Title from Axel and then beat the crap out of him? So yeah, dump both the titles actually. I know there is history, but now, if a US or IC Champion is in a feud with a strong guy, or a former World Champion, now they're being brought down to the level of the midcard champion.
|
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Oct 1, 2013 16:15:17 GMT -5
Number of titles: At one point I was all for having both the WWE and WHC around, but now it's time to unify the damn things, if only to give Del Rio (who is quite talented ahd charismatic) something else to finally do. WWE, IC, US, Tag, Divas.
Look: The world title belts should be big, gaudy and flamboyant. That's why I like the WHC Big Gold and the current WWE Title a lot more than the Undisupted design or the old NWA strap, and why I tolerated the Spinner to an extent (still didn't like the "CHAMP" lettering, though).
Treatment of titles: Don't care.
Length of title reigns: I think it should vary. Depends on the available feuds for a champion, who crowds like and whose segments gain the most.
Use of non titles: Going along with my wanting to see the WWE and WHC belts unified, I'd like to drop the MITB PPV and go back to one briefcase holder, determined at Wrestlemania.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Oct 1, 2013 18:44:20 GMT -5
THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF TITLES
Minimum of three - First tier, second tier, tag team
Maximum of six - First tier, second tier, third tier, tag team, women's, women's tag team
THE APPROPRIATE LOOK OF A TITLE
Agreed on the plates: always gold and if jewel encrusted, done so in a classy way. Can incorporate symbols in it's design (flags, globes, etc.), but should not be too gaudy or look overdone. Colored straps don't hurt, so long as the colors are fairly neutral (white, burgundy, etc.). Done right: World Heavyweight Championship (sophisticated, with gems as an addition, not a distraction), WWE Undisputed Championship (simple, but credible. Done wrong: The two most recent incarnations of the WWE Title. Both look gaudy, like personalized belts (the latter almost a personalized belt buckle).
THE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF A TITLE
Agreed that the title should be cherished, not just dragged around carelessly like a prop (you know who you are). As a sign of a wrestler's status, it should be displayed, nee flaunted, outside the ring, including at events.
THE APPROPRIATE LENGTH OF TITLE REIGNS
Titles shouldn't be hotshotted, period. There should be a story behind every title exchange; there's nothing wrong with building a long reign, especially if the reign bearer is hated - it makes their fall all the more worthwhile. A title shouldn't exchange hands five times during a feud, nor should someone have ten title reigns to their name and have been champ for less than a year in those ten reigns.
|
|
