|
|
Post by Instant Classic on Dec 26, 2013 9:40:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 26, 2013 12:12:06 GMT -5
Yes.
They kind of have to. Some will say it could be kept around as a lower midcard belt, but the problem is that The United States Championship has been written into a corner. The current champion Dean Ambrose has been pushed so hard as part of the Shield that none of the lower midcarders who "should" be fighting for the title can be a credible threat to him. They'd have to rely on former world champions like Henry, Ziggler, and Miz to give Ambrose viable competition, so it would still be like having two upper midcard titles.
It's best to start over by bringing in a new title, or an old one.
|
|
Turd Ferguson
Hank Scorpio
John Cena: Colossal Douche
Posts: 7,402
|
Post by Turd Ferguson on Dec 26, 2013 12:53:49 GMT -5
Depends on what they do with the WWE World Heavyweight title. If they merge them into one belt with an influence toward the WWE title, or more toward the big gold belt, then do the opposite with the mid card belt.
IE:
If the unified WWE World HW Title belt looks more like the WWE title, make the unified midcard belt look more like the US title. Or if it looks like the big gold belt, then they should keep the midcard belt look like the IC title.
But either way, call it the North American title.
|
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 26, 2013 12:56:21 GMT -5
I say Kofi unites them. Doesn't feel right otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 26, 2013 12:57:40 GMT -5
^i don't think they should make a new belt or rename it. Imo, they should Keep the Intercontinental Title, but bring back the black strap. That way it seems like it has elements of "both" titles. I say Kofi unites them. Doesn't feel right otherwise. Why should Kofi get yet another token midcard title run when there are so many others waiting for an opportunity? I don't think Kofi should be anywhere near the title unless the unification match is with Ziggler, and even then Ziggler should be the one to go over because... Since the belt is going to be the #2 title, it needs to go on someone that the casuals and little jimmies think of as "important". So imo the guy who unifies the titles should be Miz, Ziggler, Del Rio, Ryback, Rey, Big Show, Henry, or Christian if he ever comes back. |
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 26, 2013 13:08:46 GMT -5
^i don't think they should make a new belt or rename it. Imo, they should Keep the Intercontinental Title, but bring back the black strap. That way it seems like it has elements of "both" titles. I say Kofi unites them. Doesn't feel right otherwise. Why should Kofi get yet another token midcard title run when there are so many others waiting for an opportunity? I don't think Kofi should be anywhere near the title unless the unification match is with Ziggler, and even then Ziggler should be the one to go over because... Since the belt is going to be the #2 title, it needs to go on someone that the casuals and little jimmies think of as "important". So imo the guy who unifies the titles should be Miz, Ziggler, Del Rio, Ryback, Rey, Big Show, Henry, or Christian if he ever comes back. I was joking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 13:28:52 GMT -5
Step 1: Unify the IC and US Championships and have the winner be the Undisputed Intercontinental Champion
Step 2: Bring back the European Championship
Step 3: Give the European title to a midcarder who's been booked relatively strong, but won't be ready for the main event for a while - e.g. Seth Rollins, Cody Rhodes, Wade Barrett
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 26, 2013 13:34:22 GMT -5
I don't see the point with replacing one belt with another, and using it the same way that you could have used the other.
As if all the problems with the midcard are so easily fixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 26, 2013 13:45:42 GMT -5
I don't see the point with replacing one belt with another, and using it the same way that you could have used the other. As if all the problems with the midcard are so easily fixed. Like I said, the U.S. Title's been written into a corner. You can't make the U.S. Title into the new low card belt because the current champion has been pushed too hard. Can we really see Heath Slater or Titus O'Neil beating someone who's been going over main eventers? The only viable contenders that Ambrose would have are fallen main eventers like Miz and Ziggler, so the U.S. Belt would continue to be stuck in limbo and the low card will never get their chance with it. It would still be like having two upper midcard titles. It's best to start over with a new title that the lower card guys can realistically win. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 13:51:49 GMT -5
I don't see the point with replacing one belt with another, and using it the same way that you could have used the other. As if all the problems with the midcard are so easily fixed. Like I said, the U.S. Title's been written into a corner. You can't make the U.S. Title into the new low card belt because the current champion has been pushed too hard. Can we really see Heath Slater or Titus O'Neil beating someone who's been going over main eventers? The only viable contenders that Ambrose would have are fallen main eventers like Miz and Ziggler, so the U.S. Belt would continue to be stuck in limbo and the low card will never get their chance with it. It would still be like having two upper midcard titles. It's best to start over with a new title that the lower card guys can realistically win. So just have Ambrose lose the belt to Ziggler or Miz and then have them lose it to someone more appropriate for the belt. You act like Ambrose is the first guy in the history of wrestling to be too important for their current title. |
|
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 26, 2013 13:52:49 GMT -5
Heh.
And no...once again, I say no to unifying them. They have a whopping 5 titles right now, one of which you need a partner to win, and the other you need a vagina. Since most people are never going to realistically win the WWE title, having two midcard titles works. Having less makes it even harder to give guys a reason to wrestle. I hate to stress the Attitude era, but holy hell did a lot of belts go a long way to giving people a reason to feud. There's nothing wrong with making the US title become the new European title.
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 26, 2013 13:55:53 GMT -5
Like I said, the U.S. Title's been written into a corner. You can't make the U.S. Title into the new low card belt because the current champion has been pushed too hard. Can we really see Heath Slater or Titus O'Neil beating someone who's been going over main eventers? The only viable contenders that Ambrose would have are fallen main eventers like Miz and Ziggler, so the U.S. Belt would continue to be stuck in limbo and the low card will never get their chance with it. It would still be like having two upper midcard titles. It's best to start over with a new title that the lower card guys can realistically win. So just have Ambrose lose the belt to Ziggler or Miz and then have them lose it to someone more appropriate for the belt. You act like Ambrose is the first guy in the history of wrestling to be too important for their current title. But I can't see anyone "appropriate" for the belt beating Ziggler or Miz either. It'll just be in the same spot as it is now. Those guys will just do nothing until someone like Ryback or Del Rio comes along. There are so many percieved "main eventers" on the roster, that they'd just end up forming their own tier above the guys who are supposed to be fighting for the lower card belt, and they'll end up keeping the title in a bubble. It'll still be two upper midcard titles. |
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 26, 2013 13:56:36 GMT -5
I don't see the point with replacing one belt with another, and using it the same way that you could have used the other. As if all the problems with the midcard are so easily fixed. Like I said, the U.S. Title's been written into a corner. You can't make the U.S. Title into the new low card belt because the current champion has been pushed too hard. Can we really see Heath Slater or Titus O'Neil beating someone who's been going over main eventers? The only viable contenders that Ambrose would have are fallen main eventers like Miz and Ziggler, so the U.S. Belt would continue to be stuck in limbo and the low card will never get their chance with it. It would still be like having two upper midcard titles. It's best to start over with a new title that the lower card guys can realistically win. I think you're really overestimating how hard they've been pushing Ambrose. His big wins have only come from being in 6 man tags. And most of his singles matches have ended in him getting a cheap win, or by getting disqualified. And the belt hasn't looked like an upper midcard title in years. Dean Ambrose's reign hasn't changed that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 13:58:40 GMT -5
So just have Ambrose lose the belt to Ziggler or Miz and then have them lose it to someone more appropriate for the belt. You act like Ambrose is the first guy in the history of wrestling to be too important for their current title. But I can't see anyone "appropriate" for the belt beating Ziggler or Miz either. It'll just be in the same spot as it is now. Those guys will just do nothing until someone like Ryback or Del Rio comes along. There are so many percieved "main eventers" on the roster, that they'd just end up forming their own tier above the guys who are supposed to be fighting for the lower card belt, and they'll end up keeping the title in a bubble. It'll still be two upper midcard titles. Then have them lose the belt in a triple threat match with the other guy getting pinned. It's not nearly as hard as you're making it sound. |
|
|
|
Post by JTG Fan on Dec 26, 2013 13:59:57 GMT -5
Good read but no. There are not too many titles, this is the least they have had since 1997.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 14:10:20 GMT -5
I think they should BOTH be abandoned until they prove they can be trusted to book them.
Then we might have actual midcard storylines again. Instead of random ic/us title matches with no build.
I hear people talk about the IC title being above the US title. No. They're both garbage. You know what those belts mean? "We kinda want to push this guy, but we have absolutely no idea what to do. So we gave him this belt". That's all they mean. That's all BOTH of them mean.
|
|
CM Dazz
King Koopa
Chuck
Posts: 10,475 
|
Post by CM Dazz on Dec 26, 2013 14:19:56 GMT -5
But I can't see anyone "appropriate" for the belt beating Ziggler or Miz either. It'll just be in the same spot as it is now. Those guys will just do nothing until someone like Ryback or Del Rio comes along. There are so many percieved "main eventers" on the roster, that they'd just end up forming their own tier above the guys who are supposed to be fighting for the lower card belt, and they'll end up keeping the title in a bubble. It'll still be two upper midcard titles. Then have them lose the belt in a triple threat match with the other guy getting pinned. It's not nearly as hard as you're making it sound. Exactly what I was going to say. Almost too easy to book. |
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 26, 2013 14:21:55 GMT -5
But I can't see anyone "appropriate" for the belt beating Ziggler or Miz either. It'll just be in the same spot as it is now. Those guys will just do nothing until someone like Ryback or Del Rio comes along. There are so many percieved "main eventers" on the roster, that they'd just end up forming their own tier above the guys who are supposed to be fighting for the lower card belt, and they'll end up keeping the title in a bubble. It'll still be two upper midcard titles. Then have them lose the belt in a triple threat match with the other guy getting pinned. It's not nearly as hard as you're making it sound. It does nothing for the guy winning it if he has to win it via a fluke or a technicality. Yes you protect the uppercard guy, but it just makes the lower card guy look like a lame duck champion. I really don't think the U.S. Title will ever become a proper low card title. They had that opportunity with Ryder, Swagger and Santino, but once Cesaro won it and started having matches with Orton and Sheamus every week, that was when the title got "stuck". The only face who could beat him was Kofi, and then Kofi transitioned it to Ambrose and here we are. |
|
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 26, 2013 14:31:50 GMT -5
I think they should BOTH be abandoned until they prove they can be trusted to book them. Then we might have actual midcard storylines again. Instead of random ic/us title matches with no build. I hear people talk about the IC title being above the US title. No. They're both garbage. You know what those belts mean? "We kinda want to push this guy, but we have absolutely no idea what to do. So we gave him this belt". That's all they mean. That's all BOTH of them mean. Do you remember 2002 when they did this? It was a terrible idea then, and it's a terrible idea now. Getting rid of the midcard titles only gives them more of an excuse to do nothing with the midcard. The problem is there are too many guys considered main eventers, so they're always going to be given the go ahead any time they see fit; Cena Orton Del Rio Sheamus Lesnar Triple H Big Show Punk Bryan Kane Batista Undertaker Do you think ANY of those guys (with the exception of 1 month a year Undertaker) are going to get pushed aside for midcarders? Absolutely not. You have a bunch of guys that are going to be even more directionless with the absence of a title. I don't care if they have to bring back a sleazy title like the Hardcore title and the joke being that only low card guys hold it. So? Better something than nothing. At least the Attitude era made me care about who was champion, even if the titles were changing every few weeks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 14:41:04 GMT -5
I think they should BOTH be abandoned until they prove they can be trusted to book them. Then we might have actual midcard storylines again. Instead of random ic/us title matches with no build. I hear people talk about the IC title being above the US title. No. They're both garbage. You know what those belts mean? "We kinda want to push this guy, but we have absolutely no idea what to do. So we gave him this belt". That's all they mean. That's all BOTH of them mean. Do you remember 2002 when they did this? It was a terrible idea then, and it's a terrible idea now. Getting rid of the midcard titles only gives them more of an excuse to do nothing with the midcard. The problem is there are too many guys considered main eventers, so they're always going to be given the go ahead any time they see fit; Cena Orton Del Rio Sheamus Lesnar Triple H Big Show Punk Bryan Kane Batista Undertaker Do you think ANY of those guys (with the exception of 1 month a year Undertaker) are going to get pushed aside for midcarders? Absolutely not. You have a bunch of guys that are going to be even more directionless with the absence of a title. I don't care if they have to bring back a sleazy title like the Hardcore title and the joke being that only low card guys hold it. So? Better something than nothing. At least the Attitude era made me care about who was champion, even if the titles were changing every few weeks. Many of those BECOME the midcarders. I don't care who they are. IC/US title matches are non feuds, they might as well not be on the show. It's like me loading up a random match on youtube. I get a match with nothing behind it. It's as bad as a diva match. I don't care who the "midcarder" actually is, or who becomes them. If that means Kane in the midcard that's fine. I'd just like RAW to have more than like 2 storylines going at once. The show is the same length regardless. Roughly the same people are going to be featured whether the titles exist or not. Without them though, it means instead of filling space with a non feud for a midcard title, they have to fill it with a storyline. |
|
