|
|
Post by Spearmint* on Dec 19, 2013 20:34:08 GMT -5
Dean Ambrose: United States Champion for 214 days. Last Defended: October 27th, 2013.
Big E Langston: Intercontinental Champion for 31 days. Last Defended: December 15th, 2013.
These are our current mid-card champions. Do you feel that there should be a Unification of the two titles like what has recently happened with the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships? Or should they be left alone to be defended as separate championships?
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087 
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Dec 19, 2013 20:36:24 GMT -5
No, the current guys wearing them make them look good. Even if Ambrose doesn't defend his belt that often, his strong record by association with The Shield elevates the US Title. It was the WHC Title that was screwing everything up.
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 19, 2013 20:42:43 GMT -5
Yes. The U.S. Belt is a relic of WCW. If the WHC goes, the U.S. Belt should go too.
While some say the U.S. Belt could be the new lower midcard title, the problem is that Ambrose has been pushed too hard to the point where none of the REAL midcarders are a threat to him. You have to rely on former WORLD champions like Miz or Ziggler to give him a credible opponent.
There's no way to keep the US belt around without it coming off as WWE lording it's superiority over WCW over our heads.
If we need another midcard belt, bring back the European/Hardcore Title or create a new title.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 20:50:11 GMT -5
No, we need the secondary titles.
Two world titles in one company without brand split were ridiculous but I'm all for keeping the US & IC along with Divas and Tag belts. And even possibly introducing a new title like the Internet title or Divas Tag Title or sth.
|
|
|
|
Post by "I'm Batman..." on Dec 19, 2013 21:13:03 GMT -5
I think there should be a TV title.
WCW had:
U.S.
Cruiser
TV
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 19, 2013 21:14:36 GMT -5
I think there should be a TV title. I agree. And i know the perfect way to introduce it... Give it to Bo Dallas. |
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Dec 19, 2013 21:18:38 GMT -5
No.
Considering the size of their roster, there's enough room for two other singles belts outside of the World title. They can use one for guys sitting on the cusp of the main event, and the other for guys hovering around the midcard.
That way it helps stop guys from aimlessly floating around and gives most everyone something realistic to challenge for. It also helps distinguish the two belts so that you can believe a former main eventer would still value the higher tiered title without it looking too weird.
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 39,295
|
Post by fw91 on Dec 19, 2013 21:25:14 GMT -5
no but there should be a clear division in prestige between the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 19, 2013 21:26:19 GMT -5
WWE should have more than one singles midcard title.
But while I do believe the IC Title should be a high ranking belt for the guys on the fringes of the main event and that the low/mid card deserve a title to fight for, I just don't think the United States title with all its history should be relegated to that role.
The U.S. Title should be laid to rest and replaced with a clearly defined third tier title.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Dec 19, 2013 21:29:57 GMT -5
No. Considering the size of their roster, there's enough room for two other singles belts outside of the World title. They can use one for guys sitting on the cusp of the main event, and the other for guys hovering around the midcard. That way it helps stop guys from aimlessly floating around and gives most everyone something realistic to challenge for. It also helps distinguish the two belts so that you can believe a former main eventer would still value the higher tiered title without it looking too weird. WWE should have more than one singles midcard title. But while I do believe the IC Title should be a high ranking belt for the guys on the fringes of the main event and that the low/mid card deserve a title to fight for, I just don't think the United States title with all its history should be relegated to that role. It would be better to have a clearly defined third tier title. As much as WWE would want us to believe otherwise, the history of the US belt only goes back to 2003. I don't think it really hurts anyone to make that the lower tier belt. The thing about creating another belt is that it really accomplishes nothing. They'd just have to spend a bunch of money on a new belt that doesn't exactly add anything special to the product. It used to be a joke that you'd always hear people wanting a TV Belt for whatever company they were following. But honestly what would be the real benefit for adding such a belt when they already have a belt that could easily take up it's position without the hassle and cost of designing and booking a brand new belt would bring? |
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 19, 2013 21:44:04 GMT -5
WWE should have more than one singles midcard title. But while I do believe the IC Title should be a high ranking belt for the guys on the fringes of the main event and that the low/mid card deserve a title to fight for, I just don't think the United States title with all its history should be relegated to that role. It would be better to have a clearly defined third tier title. As much as WWE would want us to believe otherwise, the history of the US belt only goes back to 2003. I don't think it really hurts anyone to make that the lower tier belt. The thing about creating another belt is that it really accomplishes nothing. They'd just have to spend a bunch of money on a new belt that doesn't exactly add anything special to the product. It used to be a joke that you'd always hear people wanting a TV Belt for whatever company they were following. But honestly what would be the real benefit for adding such a belt when they already have a belt that could easily take up it's position without the hassle and cost of designing and booking a brand new belt would bring? While the World Heavyweight Championship is/was clearly a new title, the United States Championship has always shared its lineage with the NWA/WCW incarnation of it. Traditionally, it has always been an upper midcard title, on par with the Intercontinental Title. There are lots of guys in the lower card I'd love to see get pushes and win titles, but I worry that giving someone like Fandango, Tyson Kidd, Heath Slater, or Alex Riley a title that was held by "legends" needlessly sets them up for negative fan backlash. It happened when Santino won it and he was actually red hot and mega over at the time. And how many of the REAL midcarders will be able to take the belt off of Ambrose, anyway? He's been pushed so hard that only "main eventers" are viable threats, so the title is basically stuck in purgatory. At least with a new belt, or even bringing back the Hardcore or European Titles, these underutilized talents can enjoy success without the black cloud of "WWE is disrespecting the legacy of the U.S. title" or "this lame jobber is dragging down the title's prestige" hanging over their heads. |
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Dec 19, 2013 21:50:33 GMT -5
As much as WWE would want us to believe otherwise, the history of the US belt only goes back to 2003. I don't think it really hurts anyone to make that the lower tier belt. The thing about creating another belt is that it really accomplishes nothing. They'd just have to spend a bunch of money on a new belt that doesn't exactly add anything special to the product. It used to be a joke that you'd always hear people wanting a TV Belt for whatever company they were following. But honestly what would be the real benefit for adding such a belt when they already have a belt that could easily take up it's position without the hassle and cost of designing and booking a brand new belt would bring? While the World Heavyweight Championship is clearly a new title, the United States Championship has always shared its lineage with the NWA/WCW incarnation of it. Traditionally, it has always been an upper midcard title, on par with the Intercontinental Title. There are lots of guys in the lower card I'd love to see get pushes and win titles, but I worry that giving someone like Fandango, Tyson Kidd, Heath Slater, or Alex Riley a title that was held by "legends" needlessly sets them up for negative fan backlash. It happened when Santino won it and he was actually red hot and mega over at the time. And how many of the REAL midcarders will be able to take the belt off of Ambrose, anyway? He's been pushed so hard that only "main eventers" are viable threats, so the title is basically stuck in purgatory. WCW's been gone for over 10 years now. I don't think anyone really looks at the current US belt and is reminded of the reigns of Lex Luger, Diamond Dallas Page, Steve Austin, or Ric Flair. Plus even in WCW, the prestige of the US title at the end of the company's life was reflected by guys like Hugh G. Rection, Rick Steiner and Shane Douglas. I'ts been a loooooong time since that belt had the same prestige as you remember it. Honestly the only credibility that the belt had in more recent times was that it was the first title won by Cena. |
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Dec 19, 2013 21:53:25 GMT -5
Yes and then unify that belt with the WWE World Heavyweight Championship.And do we really need 2 Tag Titles?UNIFY EVERYTHING!!!!!!
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Dec 19, 2013 22:02:12 GMT -5
No, they should just push the US title in a role that the European title was pushed as; ideally guys like Matt Hardy and Al Snow.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 19, 2013 22:05:05 GMT -5
Main event champ
Midcard champ
Tag team champ(s)
This idea that everyone gets a belt for showing up, or being a good sport or being in a specific niche division just undermines everything. There should be one champ for each category. Otherwise they don't mean anything. At one point there were two world champions, a US champion, a hardcore champion, an IC champion, world tag champions, WWE tag champions, a woman's champion, a Diva's champion, light-heavyweight champion, cruiserweight champion, European champion...
..hell I'm not entirely sure I didn't hold at least two of them at any one time myself. You can't have belts flying around that overlap. If the US title is the midcard belt, then what about the IC, and visa-versa. Does one cancel each other out, are they both equal.If so, which one is the best?
From a narrative and selling stand point you need to have ONE guy identified as the guy to beat. Not two or three a show in an absurd game of "No, I'm Spartacus".
The US title is just something worn to keep Dean Ambrose's pants up anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Dec 19, 2013 22:09:46 GMT -5
No.
They should turn the US title into the United States Television Title, defended in matches with time limits, to make it stand out
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 19, 2013 22:10:52 GMT -5
No. They should turn the US title into the United States Television Title, defended in matches with time limits, to make it stand out What sort of time limit? |
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Dec 19, 2013 22:16:09 GMT -5
No. They should turn the US title into the United States Television Title, defended in matches with time limits, to make it stand out What sort of time limit? Variable. |
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 19, 2013 22:18:25 GMT -5
That'll make it stand out. Also, why not have it defended only on dates which contain a number to be decided as and when? |
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Dec 19, 2013 22:19:17 GMT -5
They should either unify them or find a way to make them unique from each other. Three singles titles is fine, but the IC/US belts have been completely interchangeable for years, which is just lame.
|
|
