Do The I.C./U.S. Championships Actually Hurt The Credibility Of Those That Hold Them?

[PlayTheGame]

I'm really not sure about this. Now, I'm talking in terms of veteran wrestlers, not rookies, because, obviously, they would of course boost the careers of rookies and give them great starts.. but, nowadays, do you think holding either of these would actually hurt/stymey the career of big-name wrestlers?
Now I know the popular argument against this will probably be "well they're just not meant for them".. But thats not true.. if anything, thats what the WWE has simply led you to believe because they themselves have devalued the belts over the years, especially the I.C. Title, a title that was almost as prestigious as the WWE Title itself, a title that was always fought over between the big-name guys, even as recent as HHH, who was a serious I.C. holder in the early part of this decade in between world title reigns, and the title held him over until he did reach the top again and became world champ again. Now a common comparison of this would now be what theyre doing with CM Punk.. but the difference here is that it almost seems that Punk's one world title reign was just a one-time thing, and that this current IC title reign is just going to be one of the highlihgts of the rest of his career, and nothing too much more. My argument can be pushed even further due to the fact that many people have seen Punk's IC win as a de-push, which would legitmize my argument, as it could be argued that it cements him as a midcarder now that he's a veteran, which is sad because the midcard belts used to mean so much more for the main event guys, especially during the very early days of them. I mean, do you remember when the likes of Benoit/Guerrero/Angle/etc etc feuded over the US Title in its early WWE years? Now its being used to hold up midcard guys that seem to be going no where, and you would never ever see it now on the likes of someone like Edge or 'Taker.

So, what do you think about all of this? Do you think the midcard belts actually hurt the credibility of vet wrestlers that have already made it to the top, which would be a sad fact if true, because the belts used to mean so much more...

 

[Sparky]

How could it hurt them? They held the title back when they did mean something. If HBK was to meet somebody and say I held the IC title, they won't go Gee because that actually means something. They would acknoledge the fact he held it back then. and not now. How could holding any kind of title other then the Womens ones hurt the credibility of a superstar?

Its not possible for holding a title even if it means something to hurt the credibility of that wrestler If they are a vet or a rookie.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Its give and take, it works both ways. You put the title on an established guy, for a long run, to legitimize the belt. Then, you can throw it on a young guy, and legitimize HIM with it. If you get the two twisted around, it can result in negative effects. Most of the time though, throwing it on a upper carder or ME guy will do more positive for the belt, than negative for the wrestler, of course all of everything is based on how things are booked. So its impossible to put a blanket definition on it.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'd think no for the most part. To me, a title is a title. The company think enough of you to put you among it's highest stars. Now obviously, there are some that don't need titles to be over. For someone like Kofi though, the IC title was a huge deal. It made him instantly seem legit. Putting it on Jericho earlier that year though was a negative in a way because his reign was a waste. As Norcal said, it's all about the booking. When the title is build up right, it fits. Look at Benoit's longest reign. He defended it sometimes 3 times a week. That makes him look great. Jericho defended it what, twice? That means nothing.

 

[Mr. TM]

I think sometimes it may be a step down. When Ric Flair won it, it was almost assured that for the rest of his career, he was no longer in the main event. When Chris Jericho won it, he wasn't quite ready for the main event, and winning the IC belt showed that. If Jeff Hardy were to once again win the IC belt now, it would make him look as though he was out of the title picture. For the most part, the only way it doesn't hurt you is if you are already the Champion when you win the IC belt, then you look bad ass.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I'm going to be very brief in my response.

They certainly don't hurt who holds the title. But they certainly don't help the person, either. And that is because they don't treat the titles with much respect, and see that they are:

1) Given proper time on television to build the feuds around ... instead they focus pretty much on ONLY the WWE/World Heavyweight Titles ...

and ...

2) They aren't defended on every PPV.

 

[supergav67]

I guess most Forumers feel these belts have become meaningless & they shouldnt be .Especially now the Euro,Hardcore,CW,LHW,& TV belts have gone.
But how can we think of it in any other way when its no big part of any recent PPV & giving it to even a worthy holder like CmP,is like saying "Youre not part of the title scene just now but hold onto this in the meantime.
It should be a stepladder for the midcard & even IF theyve been around a while,recent winners HaVe include Matt & Jeff pre-world titles,which is how it can & should be used for.& what we,d like them to be used for.
as usual,its up to those idiots in CReaTiViTY to give them the scheduling & respect they deserve,there lieth the problemo!
,

 

[realblackhart]

I think that at the end it helps the business. A vet winning the IC title gives the the title legitimacy. It won't hurt the vet If you put him in a non-title match against a main-eventer who does or doesn't have a world title and make him beat him. The IC belt can then be used to build up a rookie or mid-carder to help get some recognition and then the title means something. There have been too many times that the IC title has looked bad against a bad wrestler. A vet holding it and defending it successfully gives the title respect. Then to make sure that vet isn't over looked as a former main eventer you can make him win a big title, giving the IC champ at that time more respect.

 

[Henry Hill]

even the big belts change hands too much to matter, i get that edge's gimmick is to scheme his way to the title, however realistically what does the title actually mean when you hold it for only a couple weeks without defending it? further more how much does a belt awarded to the winner of a fake fight actually mean anyway? agreeing with someone as jaded as disco kills me, but it is a good point its not like trips or edge are the most over or best performers in the company, close but arguably not the best. so truly the belts really are just props. if cm punk is the whc defending against jbl, and trips is the ic champ and hes defending against taker, which belt is more prestigious? neither cos they're both fake championships!

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I think it's about who holds them and what they do with them. Jericho as Intercontinental Champion was a huge waste of time and it was great for Kofi to win it even though he dropped it to Santino two months later. MVP didn't defend the belt much when he had it, but he had the charisma to make it relevant and entertainment. I think CM Punk could be the start to making the IC title more important; it's just a matter of him defending it every other week on RAW and sometimes on pay-per-views.

 

[NSL]

For the future, this may be the case. For right now, I think that whoever holds the belt is hurting the title.

The US Championship was must-see TV when guys like Cena, JBL, and even Orlando Jordan were wearing it. The fueds were great, and the matches worked well for TV. MVP and Matt Hardy had a great run with the US Title, but other than that, it hasn't meant anything, because no one that's worn it has done anything special, and doesn't look to be doing anything special.

The IC Title is a constant wave of popularity. People enjoy watching the matches surrounding the belt now, because CM Punk holds it. When Regal had it, we couldn't wait for him to lose it, and didn't care to see it on TV.

Hopefully, both of these belts can be on deserving champs for a while, and possibly get some PPV time to up their status. Night Of Champions is coming up, and would be a perfect time to put both belts in quality matches, with people that the fans care about, and then give them a run through the summer to see what develops.

 

[Lee]

How can the IC/US belts harm a champs credibility?

Did it hurt Ric Flair when he won it?
Did it Hurt Jericho when he won it?
Did it hurt Chris Benoit when he won it?

These are just three examples of people who won one of the mid card belts after being a world champion, and it did nothing to hurt their credibility. In fact I would say it build up their reputation that bit more. Look at Punk for example, he's a former WHC but for some reason seems more credible as IC champion then he was as WHC champion.