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 14:46:42 GMT -5
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. Well, I hope you'll be happy with a show revolving around just about a dozen or so people, because that's what it's going to become. And it'll be the same 12 or so people over the next few years, because you have guys who skyrocket quickly and then never leave, so you're left with a bunch of redundant people doing the same things over and over. Here's an idea...quit doing that shit, clean up the main event and get rid of people who shouldn't be on TV all the time, and then refocus more attention on the midcard and put emphasis on the feud behind the belt. Because I for one, don't want to continue to see Del Rio, Big Show and Kane in the repeated cycle we've seen over and over and over again. Give me a meaningless title feud with 2 fresh guys over that shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 15:20:32 GMT -5
Yes, they should be combined into one title called "The WWE App Championship"
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 26, 2013 15:35:04 GMT -5
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. But those guys aren't midcarders. That's why a guy like Ambrose has to keep taking DQ losses whenever he defends the U.S. Title. Because guys like Kane and RVD have clearly been shown to be "above" the midcard, so they can't "lower themselves" to be "tied down" with a midcard title. I'd like to see the REAL midcarders having feuds, belt or no belt. And those same people generally do get storylines with or without the titles. WWE basically tries to hastily put together feuds for the guys that they've deemed "too important to not be doing anything". That's why we get things like Sheamus and Mark Henry having tug of war contests or Alberto Del Rio trying to prove he's "the true Apex Predator". And that's pretty much been the whole purpose of the Shield and now The Wyatt Family: Keep the "main eventers" busy outside of the title picture. Those guys aren't "midcard". They may be not be closing the show or in the title picture at the moment, but we're not supposed to think of them as "lowly" midcarders. I'll take Yoshi Tatsu and Tyson Kidd fighting over an action figure or Primo/Epico fighting Khali over a parking space over Randy Orton, Sheamus, and Big Show being throwin into a six man to give them something to do, or guys like Miz or Bryan having to slum it with Fandango or the Wyatts because WWE refuses to elevate anyone to THEIR level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 15:35:18 GMT -5
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. Well, I hope you'll be happy with a show revolving around just about a dozen or so people, because that's what it's going to become. And it'll be the same 12 or so people over the next few years, because you have guys who skyrocket quickly and then never leave, so you're left with a bunch of redundant people doing the same things over and over. Here's an idea...quit doing that shit, clean up the main event and get rid of people who shouldn't be on TV all the time, and then refocus more attention on the midcard and put emphasis on the feud behind the belt. Because I for one, don't want to continue to see Del Rio, Big Show and Kane in the repeated cycle we've seen over and over and over again. Give me a meaningless title feud with 2 fresh guys over that shit. I'd love if they would clean it up. That would be preferable. But they won't. It simply will not happen. Hence me saying "until they can be trusted" earlier. Nothing would please me more than for them to deemphasize or job out half of the upper midcarders. Hell we have one of the upper midcarders as champ for some reason right now. People like Big Show, Sheamus, and Randy Orton do nothing but slowly kill fan interest and have no business being heavily featured.
|
|
|
Post by xxshoyuweeniexx on Dec 26, 2013 15:37:12 GMT -5
Whether the US and IC title merge or not...their needs to be an emphasis on feuds regardless. You should have your main eventers doing main event things, then your tag team division, Divas, midcard belt(s). Everything inbetween? Feuds. If you're not feuding for a title, you should be feuding with someone for something. The trick here is to make sure the feuds aren't just "you beat me, I beat you". Stuff like Eddie vs Rey for custody of Dominic, Bossman vs Al Snow, the stuff with Brodus vs Xavier Woods. They don't all need to be over the top, but guys like Del Rio, Miz, Ziggler, Swagger, Khali etc., who are never getting a main event shot ever again, need to be in actual feuds so you keep people's interest in them. Dicking around having meaningless matches isn't going to fix anything.
If not that, put them in a tag team. The Rey/Show, Big E/Henry, and the Rhodes Brothers teams are good uses for aging veterans and young guys who could use the rub.
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Dec 26, 2013 21:20:08 GMT -5
I say keep both titles. I would agree with bringing back the European Title, but what's the sense when you can use the US Title for the same purpose? Have someone get an upset win over Ambrose.
I think it'd be cool to bring back the Cruiserweight title to bring the number of belts back to Attitude era times. Not the Hardcore title. I think that style had it's time.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Dec 26, 2013 21:22:10 GMT -5
I say Kofi unites them. Doesn't feel right otherwise. The unified belt should be called the Kofi Kingston Memorial Midcard Championship.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 27, 2013 1:34:46 GMT -5
I say keep both titles. I would agree with bringing back the European Title, but what's the sense when you can use the US Title for the same purpose? Have someone get an upset win over Ambrose. I think it'd be cool to bring back the Cruiserweight title to bring the number of belts back to Attitude era times. Not the Hardcore title. I think that style had it's time. One of the reasons that I think the U.S. title needs to go and be replaced by the European Title or a new belt is because I think that l if someone like Ryder, Kidd, Xavier, Yoshi, Gabriel, or Riley were perfectly capable of defeating Dean Ambrose, logic would dictate that they should be able to move higher up the card and wrestle other high profile opponents and it would look awkward if they accomplished such a major feat only to stay in the lower card. A new title wouldn't have such logic issues like that. I think that the concept of the Hardcore and Cruiserweight Titles could be combined into a new Hardcore Title. Like unofficially make the Hardcore Title into the new high flier belt and have the quicker paced and harder hitting wrestlers (both Cruiserweight and heavyweight, mixing aerial wrestlers with big bruiser types like Tensai or Luke Harper) compete under No-DQ/Falls Count Anywhere rules. Weapons allowed, but not necessary.
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Dec 27, 2013 1:38:41 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. Bottom of the card guys shouldn't be winning championships.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Dec 27, 2013 1:52:58 GMT -5
I say keep both titles. I would agree with bringing back the European Title, but what's the sense when you can use the US Title for the same purpose? Have someone get an upset win over Ambrose. I think it'd be cool to bring back the Cruiserweight title to bring the number of belts back to Attitude era times. Not the Hardcore title. I think that style had it's time. One of the reasons that I think the U.S. title needs to go and be replaced by the European Title or a new belt is because I think that l if someone like Ryder, Kidd, Xavier, Yoshi, Gabriel, or Riley were perfectly capable of defeating Dean Ambrose, logic would dictate that they should be able to move higher up the card and wrestle other high profile opponents and it would look awkward if they accomplished such a major feat only to stay in the lower card. A new title wouldn't have such logic issues like that. I think that the concept of the Hardcore and Cruiserweight Titles could be combined into a new Hardcore Title. Like unofficially make the Hardcore Title into the new high flier belt and have the quicker paced and harder hitting wrestlers (both Cruiserweight and heavyweight, mixing aerial wrestlers with big bruiser types like Tensai or Luke Harper) compete under No-DQ/Falls Count Anywhere rules. Weapons allowed, but not necessary. Two things. 1) Just because 'A' can beat 'B,' and 'B' can beat 'C,' it doesn't necessarily mean 'A' can beat 'C.' It's not Scissors Paper Rock. 2) Guys like Yoshi Tatsu, Justin Gabriel, Tyson Kidd, Alex Riley, etc. as and where they are right now should not be winning titles. The lower belt should be for midcard guys like for example Kofi Kingston, Curtis Axel, Jack Swagger, or R-Truth. Then comparatively, the upper belt should mainly be for guys like Del Rio, Christian, Rey Mysterio, and other quasi-main eventers who aren't currently in the main event.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 27, 2013 2:06:26 GMT -5
One of the reasons that I think the U.S. title needs to go and be replaced by the European Title or a new belt is because I think that l if someone like Ryder, Kidd, Xavier, Yoshi, Gabriel, or Riley were perfectly capable of defeating Dean Ambrose, logic would dictate that they should be able to move higher up the card and wrestle other high profile opponents and it would look awkward if they accomplished such a major feat only to stay in the lower card. A new title wouldn't have such logic issues like that. I think that the concept of the Hardcore and Cruiserweight Titles could be combined into a new Hardcore Title. Like unofficially make the Hardcore Title into the new high flier belt and have the quicker paced and harder hitting wrestlers (both Cruiserweight and heavyweight, mixing aerial wrestlers with big bruiser types like Tensai or Luke Harper) compete under No-DQ/Falls Count Anywhere rules. Weapons allowed, but not necessary. Two things. 1) Just because 'A' can beat 'B,' and 'B' can beat 'C,' it doesn't necessarily mean 'A' can beat 'C.' It's not Scissors Paper Rock. 2) Guys like Yoshi Tatsu, Justin Gabriel, Tyson Kidd, Alex Riley, etc. as and where they are right now should not be winning titles. The lower belt should be for midcard guys like for example Kofi Kingston, Curtis Axel, Jack Swagger, or R-Truth. Then comparatively, the upper belt should mainly be for guys like Del Rio, Christian, Rey Mysterio, and other quasi-main eventers who aren't currently in the main event. Those bottom guys are generally the guys I think of when I think of a lower card championship such as the European Title. Guys like Swagger, Truth, and Kofi seem like they should be on the lower end of the upper midcard tier. I do agree that the likes of Del Rio, Christian, etc should pursue the Upper midcard title to elevate it, But I figured they'd spend most of their time in non title feuds or chasing the WWE World Title so that it doesn't stagnate to just Cena/Orton/Punk/Bryan. They'd fill the world title picture once Cena, Orton, and Punk eventually phase away from the belt to do marquee non title feuds.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Dec 27, 2013 2:12:44 GMT -5
Two things. 1) Just because 'A' can beat 'B,' and 'B' can beat 'C,' it doesn't necessarily mean 'A' can beat 'C.' It's not Scissors Paper Rock. 2) Guys like Yoshi Tatsu, Justin Gabriel, Tyson Kidd, Alex Riley, etc. as and where they are right now should not be winning titles. The lower belt should be for midcard guys like for example Kofi Kingston, Curtis Axel, Jack Swagger, or R-Truth. Then comparatively, the upper belt should mainly be for guys like Del Rio, Christian, Rey Mysterio, and other quasi-main eventers who aren't currently in the main event. Those bottom guys are generally the guys I think of when I think of a lower card championship such as the European Title. Guys like Swagger, Truth, and Kofi seem like they should be on the lower end of the upper midcard tier. I do agree that the likes of Del Rio, Christian, etc should pursue the Upper midcard title to elevate it, But I figured they'd spend most of their time in non title feuds or chasing the WWE World Title so that it doesn't stagnate to just Cena/Orton/Punk/Bryan. They'd fill the world title picture once Cena, Orton, and Punk eventually phase away from the belt to do marquee non title feuds. Being realistic, we can't expect any proper non-title feuds that don't involve the current WWE holy trinity of Cena/Trips/Punk. At best they'd probably get a series of matches where they'd trade wins back and forth like we've seen with Ziggler and the tag scene recently. That's why I'm so against them getting rid of one of the mid card belts. It would leave the show even more top heavy that it already is. Because you can bet we'd see even less of the midcard than we do right now.
|
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,739
|
Post by schma on Dec 27, 2013 2:29:34 GMT -5
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. Well, I hope you'll be happy with a show revolving around just about a dozen or so people, because that's what it's going to become. And it'll be the same 12 or so people over the next few years, because you have guys who skyrocket quickly and then never leave, so you're left with a bunch of redundant people doing the same things over and over. Here's an idea...quit doing that shit, clean up the main event and get rid of people who shouldn't be on TV all the time, and then refocus more attention on the midcard and put emphasis on the feud behind the belt. Because I for one, don't want to continue to see Del Rio, Big Show and Kane in the repeated cycle we've seen over and over and over again. Give me a meaningless title feud with 2 fresh guys over that shit. The same 12 or so people constantly being in the spotlight and vying for top dog is nothing new. I remember in the attitude era we would sometimes go months at a time with the same three guys challenging the WWE champion. It might not mean that each of them got three PPVs dedicated to it but there were definitely times where I just wanted to say "if you aren't going to give them the belt stop giving them opportunities and let someone else have a crack at it". I remember in the attitude era when they had the European, Light Heavyweight and Hardcore titles. The Light Heavyweight was a poor response to the Cruiserweight title (I wish WWE had kept that one but they likely wouldn't book it properly). With the European title I was always aware it was the lower tier title and honestly never really cared about it regardless of who held the title. At least the IC title has a great history. Really it would be kind of awesome if they went back to the IC title goes around the waist of the best technical wrestler like when Curt Hennig and Bret Hart used to feud over it. That would give the IC belt its own flavour while allowing the WWE to showcase a style that sadly is in short supply. Honestly though, for the past few years it's been hard to be excited about the IC/US titles because as people mentioned they basically get put around stars they sort of want to push. It's more than that though. How many times do we see someone beat the title holder and then get a title match. To me it cheapens the belt if the champion can lose clean to anyone but it doesn't matter because it wasn't a title match. Every match should be a title match. That was one of my favourite things about Benoit's World title reign. It maintains the "you never know" excitement and it keeps the belt from being cheapened by having the title holder lose multiple matches while still holding the title. If you must have someone go over the title holder, do it in a tag match. These midcard titles are not defended enough and when they are defended you get the same trouble as the main event. You get the same few people fighting over the title over and over and over and over. People complain about being tire of Orton/Cena, Orton/Bryan, Orton/Punk. How about Kofi/Cesaro, Kofi/Ziggler, Kofi/Barrett, Kofi/Miz. Granted none of them have the title but there are those people who seem perpetually in the midcard title picture just like there are people perpetually in the world title picture. WWE needs to take a long hard look at how they utilize their belts and how best to make them feel important. Bringing back the European just so lower wrestlers have something won't work. People won't care unless you give them a reason. Get rid of the U.S. title. It will make the IC title more important and more emphasized. The US/IC water each other down. Also, I kind of miss when main eventers didn't just automatically shoot right to a world title opportunity/reign. Make them go through the IC, earn some credentials. You can still do it quickly like Angle did. But make the IC belt a necessary step to the world title picture.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Dec 27, 2013 16:59:42 GMT -5
I've said it in a number of threads. It's not the number of titles that's the issue... It's how the titleholders are booked. Midcard champions shouldn't be used as regular feeder to main eventers. Also, put a midcard title on a main eventer every now and then if they are going to face up. It's terrible when top guys ignore the fact that the midcarder they're feuding with at the moment has a belt. The WWE could have eight titles and no one would mind it, if the champions were booked properly.
|
|