Anyone remember this US/IC title scenario?

[King Blitzkonic]

I remember how through most of my childhood, the US (in WCW) and IC (WWF) titles usually meant that they were the number one contender to the world title of their federation.

Three notorious examples:

Goldberg: Ran through the competition, won the US title, ran through more competition, won the WHC from Hogan, went hard until the taser incident at Starrcade.

Ultimate Warrior: Ran wild, won the IC title, ran wild with the title, WM 6 match with Hogan

HHH: Won the IC title and WWF titles too.

Now to my question: Would you like to see the US/IC champion earn a world title shot for their brand after...say... 3 months as the mid-card champion on the condition that they've defended some number of times?

I say YES especially since rarely do the reigns actually last long when there are actual defenses.

 

[Ferbian]

No.

The Intercontinental and United States championships now serve more of a stepping ground onto the main event scene. I think that it should stick that way.

They serve as great ways to have feuds over the belt to make both the champion. As well as the contender look good. And ultimately the champion shouldn't be champion anymore when stepped up.

I've never thought highly of the fact that someone is holding a mid-card as well as a main event championship at once. Which is what I would assume you're suggesting. It ruins the chance for someone to legitimately have a run with the United States championship or the Intercontinental championship.

Mostly because of the fact that the main event champion. The world champion with the mid-card championship as well. Would therefore be looking weak if someone in the mid-card defeated him and went on.

And on the other hand it would need to be vacated. Which does no good for the championship belt (for the most of it) if it becomes vacated. or somewhat defected every time a champion goes up to the main event scene.

The mid-card championships should serve as stepping grounds to make someone look good. Get them into the upper mid-card. And then someone elevates them to the main event and the world titles.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Absolutely, and here is why. This even extended to the old days of JCP/WCW, when you were a secondary title holder it meant something in many ways. Most of the time more so in WWF's case, the IC Champion was typically one of the company's most athletic and charismatic performers and sometimes those skills at least in my view made them just as intriguing as the World Champion of that time who in the WWF's case was mostly Hogan. Now I am not saying that made me less of a Hulk Hogan fan, far from it. But to me many of the competitors that held the IC and United States Titles were wrestlers that were just as suitable to main event shows as anyone else and sometimes they did. Randy Savage, Sting, "Mr. Perfect" Curt Hennig, Roddy Piper (I'm referring to his time with JCP in the 80s and not when he won the title from Bret Hart in 1999) and Ricky Steamboat are just a few prominent examples. And I just thought of another one, Bret Hart as an IC Champion he headlined SummerSlam 92, albeit it was in England and his opponent Davey Boy Smith being a native of England helped sell that, but at the same time matches like that proved the IC Title was more than just a mid card title at least during that era.

Now as far as how the title scene for the US and IC belts should be handled, well maybe three months is a little too soon but depending on how well the performer is over with the crowd then who knows. It can't be any worse than what WWE is doing now by having a Money In The Bank PPV? I mean c'mon seriously the concept is getting tirelessly watered down, now I think a scenario like that is much worse than wanting to give a secondary champion a shot at the World Title. After all they just had one at WrestleMania, themed pay per views are the most nauseating concept to an old school wrestling fan like myself.

But getting back to point something should be done with the secondary titles. Their prominence is not what it used to be, just watch the past ten years worth of WrestleManias and you will see what I am talking about. And events like SummerSlam 1992 were proof that the secondary titles can and do mean something, and quite sadly they don't anymore and that should be changed. So to the starter of this thread you have brought up an interesting topic.

 

[shattered dreams]

Outside the box idea here that they would never do. If someone holds the upper midcard belt for some time, say 6 months, then they can relinquish the title in exchange for a not MITB style title shot contract to usually take place not on ppv. Then you can determine the new mid card scene title holder through tournaments or other interesting ways while the previous holder can enter the main event scene. It would not happen that often and could be a draw for something like raw when it did. It also adds that extra sacrifice when a guy is trying to make it big which would be interesting win or lose.

 

[marklouis]

Maybe. It would certainly address one of my pet peeves: the titles are not defended @ every PPV. Neither was defended @ Wrestlemania, & neither will be defended @ Money in the Bank. There should be a rule that the US & IC titles are defended @ every PPV. If you adpoted this idea, then the champions would not need to appear in MITB matches, because they are guaranteed a World title match as long as they take care of their own business. I agree with others though and would bump the requirement up to 6 months rather than 3.

 

[hurleyworld4]

I remember this scenario, as it was obvious while playing the Raw is War video game. But I don't agree with the idea. It seems to me that the scenario was in place during a different time in wrestling. Back then, the overall roster was a lot thinner than it is now. The Intercontinental champ would inevitably be a number one contender. Today, the roster is large enough where the two belts are comfortably segregated into their own distinct levels. The WHC title or the WWE title are top tier championships, and the IC title and the US title are second tier championships. Just because a wrestler wins the IC title and successfully defends it for 3 or even 6 months doesn't mean he is ready to main event.

Look at Kofi. Should his IC run last through November, he would meet the 6 month requirement. Under the provision, he would be a contender for the WHC title. But, I just do not think he is or will be ready to make that jump in 6 months time. Granted, he had a well orchestrated feud with Orton before the Viper's face turn, but that is the extent of his higher level exposure. Now he is, to echo the opinion of many, the third wheel in a Matt Hardy/Drew McIntyre feud. Even with the title firmly around his waist, the focus is on Hardy's hatred of Drew, and the Scott's loathing of Hardy. Hardly a WHC title worthy situation. Even with legitimate backing, it would be a stretch to see Kofi vying for the title at TLC or the Royal Rumble.

 

[King Blitzkonic]

Well...Mind you, the 6 months DOES look better. I suggested 3 as a baseline to work with.
Shattered, you hit the nail on the head of what I was after when you said relinquish the title in exchange for a world title shot. That way we don't have these "double champions" and the thing of a mid-carder embarrassing said double champion.
Marklouis, I agree, titles should be defended at every PPV. After all there used to be a 30-day clause to either defend or forfeit the title. That's a different thread for a different time though lol

 

[johnbragg]

Yes, definitely. I have argued for this in the past, although 3 months is a little short. It could also be number of successful defenses, defenses against different contenders, etc.

Now, let's look at Kofi. If his run lasts through the fall, then part of the discussion will be about whether he's ready to be a world champion. Can he climb that mountain? If the WWE brain trust doesn't think he's ready, he could lose one of his last defenses. Even if he gets the title back in a rematch, he has to start the clock over.

Or he could challenge for the title at a PPV and lose to the champ. Problem solved.

If that happened, you've still built credibility for Kofi long term.

 

[STINGER71]

Growing up a big NWA,Jim Crockett,WCW fan the US title was all ways the #1 contenders belt. Look at the list of US title holders, Sting,Flair,Luger,Magnum TA, Dusty,Tully,Goldberg and the list goes on. The US title was the second most prestigous title besides the WH title. The "E" has taken the title and basicaly ruined it, I mean really Miz the US champ, really. The Miz couldn't even fill the shoes of all the greats that has held the title. The Miz as US champ is as bad as having Hornswoggle winning the WHC. The Miz is not awesome he is a punk chump failed reality star. In Plain english he sucks.

 

[ronthony717]

the ic and us title is where they belong for now. Its like a test run. If they can grow some steam with these titles and hold some interesting fueds and matches with them to get the fans hooked then its doing its job right. i know both titles werent in wm but they were in money in the bank part right? and both champions will be in the money in the bank again right? with the mitb match giving the winner a shot at the wwe title kind of answer this thread plus many of your concepts. having the us or ic title in this match is showing that they are a contender for the title.. it means that they are close to being main event... no they wont win both titles at once... mcmahon will never let that happen because itll kill either title.. but both title holders right now are doing the job well and soon i can see them dropping the titles and going into the main event picture...

 

[Remy LaCroix]

Absolutely, positively no.

It's a different time now. There are distinct divisions now. I do like the idea of relinquishing the midcard title after half a year or close for a title shot, but you have to think about who the midcard champions are and hope they aren't...lackluster. It's a shame the issues with their visa have been resolved. Ehl oh ehl.

If you were talking about the old-school method, then the midcard and main event borders will blur and there wouldn't be enough credibility on the midcards part to defeat main eventers of such a high caliber. There will be a few old-school fans who will not agree with me, but to them I say grow up. To the lurkers: register and insult me and prove to me how my idea is wrong, go ahead.

Anyways, I voted no, but I bet you can already tell.

 

[smack4ud]

I can't believe the original poster missed this because it's his avatar, but I remember when Big Van Vader was on a rampage in hopes of getting a shot at Hogan's title in WCW. He wasn't getting that shot, so I believe he beat Dustin Rhodes at the Clash of the Champions to earn a US Title shot against Duggan at Starrcade. He won this, and I remember everyone saying that now as the US Champion he is the official number one contender for Hogan's title. He faced Hogan at SuperBrawl and wasn't able to beat him.

This sticks out to me as the classic angle where the US Champion is by proxy the number one contender.

 

[TheAnimal]

I dont think it should happen. Obviously the mid-card titles are secondary to the world titles, but WWE shouldnt make it obvious. It could demean the titles, especially since now we have MITB winner with a title shot, NXT winner with a PPV title match, people have rematch clauses, there are also the follow up matches from the previous title matches because of a screwy finish. So the title shot thing is being used too much now i think. Also, it makes the mid-card title less prestigious if it is a) clearly presented as a stepping stone and b) has the holder defeated because it makes the superstar be seen as a mid carder and that the title itself is beneath the world title (it is but it shouldnt be presented that way) and c) as mentioned above, how would it make the former champ look?

Its better to have them as they are now: Testing the waters for a future title reign.