Some added help

[truk24]

Every now and again I see someone talking about the way the WWE misuses the mid card titles. Most of the time I find myself agreeing with many of those posts(threads). However I hardly see that anyone comes up with any solutions.

Most often when we think of these mid card titles IC or US, we think worthless, no prestige, and just a prop. We don't even think those titles make a difference. It is a matter of an opinion yes, but at the same time I think these titles have lost their luster over the last decade or so.

With that being said I think it is time for the WWE to consider revamping the mid card titles importance. No, not some new hunk of metal on leather, but give the titles some leverage. Here is what I mean. When a wrestler wins the IC title what do they get?

Obviously a title belt. What I mean is does the belt come with any kind of power, or reward? The answer is no, and the title holder just goes with the flow. The titles should have "bonuses" or "perks" what ever you want to call them that go along with holding on to the title. This could be from length of title reign, consecutive victories of title defenses, or even just plain title defenses. Perhaps even all three ideas.

In other words the mid card titles become of very important value. Lets say coming in to the Royal Rumble the holders of both the US, and IC titles automatically receive the 27th, and 28th pick every year, but they have a match to see who goes after the other. Maybe holding these titles exlcudes them from matches like the MITB, or even gets them a bye to qualify for the MITB.

Maybe if the title is held for more than 6 months that star can ask for a #1 cont match for their respective shows world champion. With the last two scenarios I have presented you have a situation in which holding the IC, or US title may lead to a chance at the world titles. Now you have titles that actually create meaning for themselves.

The WWE has to give these titles options to go along with them. Making them just as important when they first debuted, and perhaps even greater. These titles have to change, and this wouldn't be a bad idea either. They have lost much of their recognition, and this was just an idea as to what they could do with the titles.

 

[farlance]

I think one of the reasons the mid card titles arent prestigious anymore is the fact like you said, they go with the flow. The belt get put on them and they just show up in the ring and defend it.

To fix it these champions need TV time, they need to cut promos like the world champ does. They need to do something more than just show up with it on there shoulder week in and week out. They need to have memorable moments. Is it just me or is it hard to even remember who the last 5 or so champions were. The fact that Kofi Kingston held the belt is a distant memory, I like him and all, but he didnt do shit to make his reign memorable, JBL not very liked guy but at least he gets your attention on the championship and everyone will remember him holding it.

 

[JGlass]

I think your third idea, the one where the IC and US champs get a #1 contender spot if they hold the belt for 6 months is actually subtly genius. It promote long title reigns, which will obviously bring some prestige back to the belts, but also, it helps the mid-carders who are holding these belts up to the main event scene. The only problem with this perk is the same problem with all the other perks you suggested, which is that every time the IC or US champ gets a World Championship shot, they're going to have to drop their current 2nd tier title. It's going to get really predictable because after 6 months, you know that if the US/IC champ drops the title, there's a good chance that he's going to win the World Title. I think the only way to fix this is force the champ to vacate the belt if he's going to take the World Title shot, but that could be damaging to the belt's prestige too.

 

[Diablosbomb]

You suggested giving them later spots in the rumble, and getting the champs in MITB automatically. I don't see these giving them prestige, because it just shows that those titles are meaningless. One of the biggest complaints is that the IC and US title aren't defended at the PPVs instead they are in the MITB and Rumble.

If you want them to gain prestige all you need is people chasing them. Instead of having a bunch of random matches on the shows each week have all the mid-carders fighting one another to gain recognition and a #1 contender spot for the IC and US titles. For a title to have meaning and prestige you need people to want it, not just because it gets them to the WWE and World titles, but because they really want those titles, Have feuds going and have them DEFENDED at WM and RR, not using those titles to get into matches for a shot for a higher title.

Now I don't like JBL but putting the IC title on him is great. He has decent mic skills and all he does is boast about how he IS a champion, not that he got a stepping stone to become a World champion, and hopefully he can pull in some feuds for the IC title.

Honestly, MITB ruined it because they should have had CM Punk chasing JBL and fighting his way back through the mid-card to get HIS title back. The fact that he was just like whatever onto MITB took away from what the IC title should mean.

The US is doing just fine right now because of Shelton Benjamin and MVP going at it for the title, now all they need to do is throw a few more people trying to take that #1 contender spot from Shelton and possibly making a few of the title matches into 3 or 4 way matches.

 

[jbremner2]

The main disadvantage is that being an IC or US champion just doesn’t draw a lot anymore, part being the misuse of the belt but also the fact that the wrestlers themselves don’t really see it as prestigious anymore. The days that a fued and a show could be built around the IC or US belts is long gone. Your point that it is seen as a prop and as something that is not that memorable as far as previous champions in the last few years is correct. When in the WWF, when the belt was being used right, the champion was seen as the 3rd or 4th heel or babyface of the company, that makes it prestigious and the fact that the matches that were put on by the champion/challenger was so good it made the belt seem the second most important thing to have apart from being the top champion.

The ideas you have are really good, but the simple fact is that they need to make it come across that being the champion is rewarding itself as is defending the belt. Giving rewards for being the champion could work, but I don’t think it is the right solution. Scenarios for example like Edge losing his belt at Armageddon then challenging the IC or US champion the next night just to get a better pick at Royal Rumble wouldn’t make being champion prestigious but it would turn it into a joke. They really just should go back and make the person holding the title make it seems as the biggest achievement of there career without over doing it. They should cut promos like was said. Feuds should be built around it. And they should get a WWE or World title shot if they beat every challenger that is a direct threat to the belt. Like they used to do, when a wrestler cleans up all challengers, they then move into main event status and challenge the main title holder. That way defending the belt leads somewhere other than using it as a prop.

 

[truk24]

Not every IC, or US title holder is going to hold the title for 6 months or more. That would mean not every person is capable of holding on to that title for that extensive period of time. Meaning that only certain stars could do such things. If someone isn't a draw they won't hold on to the title long now will they.

What is wrong with having a late pick in the Royal Rumble as IC or US champion? It doesn't make the title a joke, and if it does how? the titles need something that makes them desireable. The titles need something added to them to help make them interesting.

 

[jbremner2]

I am not saying that everyone is going to hold the title for 6 months or more, what i am saying is that if you are wanting to give the belt more prestige, people have to hold the belt longer and make it seem that they are fighting for that belt.

Like everything in wrestling, if it is used right it will more or less work. I don’t think having the title holders be late picks is a bad idea if used right...but if scenarios like I said happen, that will take away from the belt and it will be like a prop again. The reason that i think that it might take away from the belt instead of giving to it is that the reason to be champion around december/january is so that they get a good spot in the rumble. Now if the champion has held the belt for long enough going into the rumble, then it would be justified. But then you get into to many rules ect. I think to give it more prestige, you really need to give the two or more wrestlers fighting for the belt more tv time, more promo time and give them something to build the feud around. If it is the belt itself, then let the wrestlers state i will be fighting you because I want to be ic/us champion.

 

[JJYanks121]

No one is stating the obvious here. There are 3 shows with separate superstars, and each show has a "top title". For a division as such to work, there needs to be probably 5-6 superstars that can go in and out of the title picture. Also, all 3 of those titles are defended at every PPV. Despite the "lack of respect" the ECW title seems to get, even it is defended at every PPV. By the time you get to the IC or US belt, the importance is stripped because the level of competition is lower.

Up until the merging of WWE, ECW, and WCW, the WWE's Intercontinental Title was the #2 title, and since every superstar was on every show, the top 5-6 stars would be in title contention and the next tier (7-14 let's say) would be IC contenders. If you figure rank in company now and 5-6 guys compete for titles on Raw and Smackdown, then 3-4 on ECW, you are already and 16 before you even get to the IC and US contenders, thus, back in the day, guys with the same place in the company would not even be in contention. They would either be a leach on a faction, a European or Light Heavyweight contender, perhaps the hardcore division or would be in a tag team. Pick any other excuse you have, be it booking, lack of TV time, etc, but the draining of the talent pool due to the influx or titles is what lowered the bar for the midcard titles. Bottom line, merge the titles and shows and you might restore prestige to your midcard belt, because then it might be something worth going after.

 

[Total Impact]

An easy way to get a title over, is to have these four things:

1. Entertaining Champion, a champion that is great in the ring, great on the mic, or has a great character. Every great mid-card champion had at least two the three skills that made the belt even better.
2. Champion who cares about his Belt, I mean at least put the title around a guy who wants the belt, instead of trying to upgrade. What made Mr. Perfect a great IC Champion is that he didn’t care about the WWE title, he said he was above the WWE title. Instead of today’s champion who are always in MITB matches or only defending the belts to set up losing the belts. Also have a champion who can sell the belt as being important.
3. Real Title Feuds, we once lived in the days of Savage/Steamboat, Rude/Warrior, Perfect/Hart, Hart/Piper, Owen Hart/Austin, Austin/Rock, Rock/HHH. Now what do he have, nothing that is worth mentioning. Why not have a real feud over the title that people can become interested in. Instead of these feuds put together in the matter of weeks and a new champion is crowned.
4. Outside feuds for the belts. Do you know what makes a belt seem worthy, other people wanting it as well. I mean actually have other people feuding for a shot at a mid-card title while the mid-card champion is in a feud with someone else. Create the illusion as if the title means something and stop giving it to guys who are in the main event already or have been.

 

[RH23]

I like the idea of them automatically getting into the Royal Rumble but it would be better if they had to defend the titles in the same night. I agree with Total Impact. You need to have a champion care about his title it makes it show more value to them. and of course an entertaining champion is needed.

 

[zags]

How about aside from the fact there are too many titles why not have the US, IC, tag champs (which will happen after Wrestlemania)womens champion float around the different brands allowing for more options for opponents and storylines. It will keep it fresh and seem not so cluttered. Personally I'd like to see the world and wwe title merge into one as well, but that won't happen so at least let the others be shown on all shows. Perks for holding the belt isn't as important as showcasing the title on ppv's on a regular basis. Look back in the 80's and 90's. All the titles were always defended at the royal rumble, summerslam, wrestlmania, king of the ring, in your house events. Only Survivor Series is where you may not get all the belts shown. Now you get the world titles at a ppv and that's basically it. Untill you limit the amount of titles, and allow the champs to float around the different brands nothing will bring prestige back to any of the belts.

 

[thisisatest]

I personally love the idea. My problem with the mid-card titles is that I constantly forget who holds them. "Back in the day", when someone cut a promo, they wore the belt or had it draped over they shoulder, so they were constantly seen wearing it. It doesn't help though that nowadays it seems as if the titles change hands every few shows and it's hard to keep up with sometimes. It used to be that wrestlers were rated in regards to whichever title/titles that they chasing, with the Intercontinental Title holder typically being the #1 contender to the World Title. Seems like now I tune in and I'm like, "wow I didn't know (fill in wrestler's name) had that belt."

 

[NaturallyPricele$$]

I remember watching WCW back in the early 90's when they would list a weekly top 10. The #1 ranked wrestler and #1 contender to the World Championship was always the US Champion. They put as much if not more emphasis on the secondary title because they knew the World championship didn't need the push. IT WAS THE FREAKIN WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!

Over the years I think alot of factors have caused titles to become just "props" David Arquette as WCW champion, Austin throwing the IC title into the river just before making his bid to fight for the WWF title. Single belts changing hands multiple times on the same shows. All this contributes to titles meaning shit.