The European and IC Title Used To Be Almost The Same

[mountaindew]

For the first year or so of the European Title, it was almost on par with the IC title. It was held by guys who were upper mid carders at the time (and HBK).

Then Triple H lost it to D-Lo, and it became the same as WCW's Television title. 

Did you like it better when it was a major mid card title?

[DichEvans]

It was supposed to be on the same level as the IC title, then Michaels wanted to stroke his own ego and be a "grand slam" champ. He treated the belt like garbage his entire run, purposely never wore it, threw it around and literally laid down for Triple, while mocking the title itself after the match.

[CMWaters]

As much as I am for a "less is more" approach when it comes to championships, I feel the European title worked in its later placement, as it worked for a title tier system of sorts:
World was the obvious top.
IC was your upper mid carders/occasional main eventers
Euro was your lower mid carders/occasional upper mid carders

And then you had the tags, which were their own separate entity. Hardcore and the rarely used Light-Heavyweight were specialized titles with either different rules of normal matches or weight restrictions.

If WWE ever had to go back to a position with one brand again (hopefully after the Roman experiment is well and done for good), I'd set up a similar positioning, with the US title being in the European's position in my ranking.

[Legion]

I liked it as the lower Midcard title.

I like that NXT has the Heritage Cup for that now.

[Schizo]

Jan 26, 2024 18:19:00 GMT -5 CMWaters said:

As much as I am for a "less is more" approach when it comes to championships, I feel the European title worked in its later placement, as it worked for a title tier system of sorts:
World was the obvious top.
IC was your upper mid carders/occasional main eventers
Euro was your lower mid carders/occasional upper mid carders

And then you had the tags, which were their own separate entity. Hardcore and the rarely used Light-Heavyweight were specialized titles with either different rules of normal matches or weight restrictions.

If WWE ever had to go back to a position with one brand again (hopefully after the Roman experiment is well and done for good), I'd set up a similar positioning, with the US title being in the European's position in my ranking.

That’s pretty much what they were doing with the US Title from 2012 - 2016 when WWE was just one brand

[thegame415]

I don't know, I always thought the longterm plan was for it to be give something for mid and lower card guys to feud over. Never thought it'd be equal to IC.

[Renslayer]

the best match for the european title might've been the one with the messiest political backstory to it with hbk vs bulldog at one night only. that match rules, but...

[tirtefaa]

Jan 26, 2024 18:16:25 GMT -5 DichEvans said:

It was supposed to be on the same level as the IC title, then Michaels wanted to stroke his own ego and be a "grand slam" champ. He treated the belt like garbage his entire run, purposely never wore it, threw it around and literally laid down for Triple, while mocking the title itself after the match.

The title up to that point was only Bulldog, who was getting into tug of war scenarios with Owen over the title, then went on to be a background lackey for Bret. It's not like the European title was this prestigious item that was on the level of any other title. What other path would the title have gone down to maintain any so called "prestige"? Shawn was a top guy, in fact the only top guy to ever even win the belt. As far as Shawn "not wearing it", I mean I don't see how that is him "treating the belt like garbage", especially since he wore the world title, which makes sense if you had to choose one over the other. And there's plenty of instances where he models both titles together.

In all honesty, it was never that interesting to begin with. The inaugural title match was fun, but I would argue Triple H and Owen fighting tooth and nail over it helped elevate the belt more than anything that happened before it.

[fw91]

Jan 26, 2024 18:22:37 GMT -5 Schizo said:

Jan 26, 2024 18:19:00 GMT -5 CMWaters said:

As much as I am for a "less is more" approach when it comes to championships, I feel the European title worked in its later placement, as it worked for a title tier system of sorts:
World was the obvious top.
IC was your upper mid carders/occasional main eventers
Euro was your lower mid carders/occasional upper mid carders

And then you had the tags, which were their own separate entity. Hardcore and the rarely used Light-Heavyweight were specialized titles with either different rules of normal matches or weight restrictions.

If WWE ever had to go back to a position with one brand again (hopefully after the Roman experiment is well and done for good), I'd set up a similar positioning, with the US title being in the European's position in my ranking.

That’s pretty much what they were doing with the US Title from 2012 - 2016 when WWE was just one brand

I'd say equal footing. Cena held it then

[tirtefaa]

Jan 26, 2024 22:52:25 GMT -5 fw91 said:

Jan 26, 2024 18:22:37 GMT -5 Schizo said:

That’s pretty much what they were doing with the US Title from 2012 - 2016 when WWE was just one brand

I'd say equal footing. Cena held it then

Yeah, if anything...it's actually always felt like the US title was treated as better. Other than recently, most IC champions were short lived, and most longer reigns were with lackluster stars. I would say that the United States title "built" more stars over the last 20 years than the Intercontinental title has.