Intercontinental & United States Championship

[Luke Flywalker]

Okay, I'm going to assume most of you don't remember this. But there was a time in the WWE and WCW, when a #1 contender did not exist without either the Intercontinental or United States Championships hanging around their waists.

The thing was, you could either hold onto the belts, and try to become the greatest IC or US Champion to ever live, or you could defend your belt 3 times and earn a right at challenging for the Heavyweight championship.

Shortly after a feud between The Rock and Triple H for the IC Belt, it lost it's purpose as a #1 Contender item, and lost its meaning somewhat. I was hoping that Regal was going to bring this up with his "bring meaning back to the IC Belt", but unfortunately, he didn't.

Who would like to see this idea be reinstated? I know I would, as it would make both the belt, and the wrestlers holding the belt more "prestigious".

 

[Airfixx]

Hell yeah, bring back the prestige and build the belts back up... I grew up in the period when the IC champ was regarded as the REAL 'man'!




BUT.... I don't recall the specific trend/blueprint with reigns as you described when considering the wider scheme of things (i.e BEFORE the attitude era.).

 

[MikeRaw]

That would be a great idea, however, I think only one of them should have that. Two would be two much, and the storylines of a guy winning 3 matches then challenging would get old.
If they do that with say the IC title, it would obviously be the easiest way to make it mean more, by making it a legitamate path to the world title, and if they spread the matches for the IC title out, it wouldn't get too repetitive, becuase a guy would only challenge for the wwe title that way once every 7 months or 8 months.

I see no hurt in doing that concept with one of the titles.
Like I said, it brings more value to it, and it provides an interesting twist, and it makes a good way to set up a title match at one of those lower ppv's like No Mercy and shit like that.

 

[The Rated R CMStar]

The United States around the time between Mania-SS was very important with the MVP-Benoit and MVP vs Hardy feuds, but when the MVP/Hardy feud focused on who was better, the US title lost its shine and it hasnt been able to recover.

 

[MikeRaw]

^What's that have to do with anything he asked? lol
I take it you just read the poll, and not the question?

 

[Luke Flywalker]

That would be a great idea, however, I think only one of them should have that. Two would be two much, and the storylines of a guy winning 3 matches then challenging would get old.
If they do that with say the IC title, it would obviously be the easiest way to make it mean more, by making it a legitamate path to the world title, and if they spread the matches for the IC title out, it wouldn't get too repetitive, becuase a guy would only challenge for the wwe title that way once every 7 months or 8 months.

I see no hurt in doing that concept with one of the titles.
Like I said, it brings more value to it, and it provides an interesting twist, and it makes a good way to set up a title match at one of those lower ppv's like No Mercy and shit like that.

Yeah, but, you'd have such a high demand because everyone wants to earn their shot at the Heavyweight belt, that it would ultimately lead to the belt being defended EVERY single night. With title changes, you could guarantee that the IC or US title would be defended at the PPV, so you could still have feuds for the heavyweight championships elsewhere that doesn't involve the belt. It would make things a bit more unpredictable. Not to mention, you've still got the 2 and a half months between the Royal Rumble and WrestleMania to build up a storyline without either belt... and you could see more high-profile matches surrounding the IC or US belt, giving guys more experience in quality matches, and boosting them into the spotlight (see Shelton's performances in the MITB matches).

 

[noumenon]

Of course they should be viewed with more importance... that goes without saying.
I don't know about the whole 3 defenses and a title shot thing though. I would imagine we'd be cycling through champions pretty quickly at that pace..lol.
But I definately remember a time when the IC title feud was usually the most interesting thing going on.
I think it's going to take one brave main event talent to step down and grab these belts to really give them some weight again.

 

[Luke Flywalker]

Of course they should be viewed with more importance... that goes without saying.
I don't know about the whole 3 defenses and a title shot thing though. I would imagine we'd be cycling through champions pretty quickly at that pace..lol.
But I definately remember a time when the IC title feud was usually the most interesting thing going on.
I think it's going to take one brave main event talent to step down and grab these belts to really give them some weight again.

How often do you think the IC champion would beat the Heavyweight champs? It wouldn't happen EVERY single PPV, and like I said, you could have guys who keep it for longer, use it to fight on bigger stages to help push for their name, so they'd just wait it out before issuing their opportunity to fight for the Heavyweight belts.

You all are acting like it would always result in a new champion at every PPV. This is something that ACTUALLY used to be done. It's not just a brand new idea. It used to work too... in the days that Flair would hold the Heavyweight Championship for 9-13 months. Guys like Goldberg had the US title for 7 months. Back when Michaels vs. Razor Ramon fought back and forth for it. It's a way to establish yourself as a name. You get the opportunity... it spreads the names of the undercard guys.

 

[Airfixx]

Rebuilding the midcards titles...

Quick fix answer: Treat them like TV titles then feature any special matches or title changes on PPVs.

Finger's crossed the IC belt is somewhat 'on the mend', but the US title concerns me; primarily because all the credible SD midcarders (MVP, Kennedy, Umaga, Jeff... Yup, I said Jeff!) are arguably poised for ME spots.

Truth, Helms, Khali, even Big Show... None of these guys scream US champ to me. Ok you could have Big Show squash Shelton, but that just buries the belt (and Shelton) even further.

 

[Nancy Di Loreto]

Rebuilding the midcards titles...

Quick fix answer: Treat them like TV titles then feature any special matches or title changes on PPVs.

Finger's crossed the IC belt is somewhat 'on the mend', but the US title concerns me; primarily because all the credible SD midcarders (MVP, Kennedy, Umaga, Jeff... Yup, I said Jeff!) are arguably poised for ME spots.

Truth, Helms, Khali, even Big Show... None of these guys scream US champ to me. Ok you could have Big Show squash Shelton, but that just buries the belt (and Shelton) even further.

Jeff? Midcard? ::aman

Actually have Shelton beat everyone with that title, except MVP, which is what they've already done :wassat:

 

[Airfixx]

^^^Kinda my point... Shelton has had that belt for 6+ months, beaten anyone who he's likely to be put over and the title still means virtually nothing.

The point at which I believe they screwed up was stalling the pay-off of the Matt/MVP saga. You had two convincing title reigns prior to that from Benoit & MVP, then what...? Matt did nothing during his reign and then Shelton wins it at a PPV and the crowd don't even pop.


As for Jeff...

Damn straight! He's not even at the level Jericho was before he returned... Y'know, when most fans on the net would claim he wasn't a bonafide ME-er and was "upper midcard for life".

Look at it another way.... You think he'd have had such a shitty world title reign if WWE saw him as someone who has what it takes to be a truly succesful ME-er?

I bet Punk is laughing his ass off now when he considers how HIS world title reign could have panned out! (Newsflash: No, Punk isn't a true ME-er yet either).