The Best American Midcard Title Ever

[Y 2 Jake]

Those are matches you remember. Not the feud. I didn't say that the IC title hasn't produced many a great match. Just not feuds. Does anybody remember anything about the Steamboat/Savage rivalry? HBK didn't feud with Razor Ramon, he feuded with his title. Ramon was the prop in that match. What happened in the lead up to Mr. Perfect vs. Bret Hart match.

Austin was feuding with the whole Hart Foundation. He was only facing Owen because McMahon for some reason didn't want to go all the way with him.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Interesting topic, as evident by the amount of good replies. Unfortunately, it is one that will probably have no difinitive answer. Most answers will be based on biased opinion, some even made by those haveing limited knowledge of the titles. Not through ignorance, but by time and the unavailability of some matches.

First i would like to point out the the question itself is somewhat vague. Best ever. In what way? By importance to wrestling? To the given company? Depending on how you veiw it I could make a sound arguement that the WCCW texas title was the 'best' midcard title ever, using my latter question. If we are talking the former then all the arguements brought up here come to light, such as length of reigns, men who held the title, fueds and quality of matches. Just something to ponder.

Second, I would like to comment on some others posts.

MattButcher said-

The other cool thing about the IC belt was that heels could win it.

True, but not really something that sets it apart. There have been many heels who hade lengthy US title reigns. Valentine, Lugar, Windham etc etc.
Not really a point that makes an arguement.

MattMoses said-

While it had been held by many greats, I severely doubt you've even seen those title reigns. Sure, Harley Race held it. For all we know, those matches he had while defending his title could have been piss-poor. Same goes for Flair's reigns in the 70's. Sure, they're great wrestlers, but how can we comment on them being great champions when we don't know the quality behind those matches and feuds they were being taken through?

Or they could have been great. Or the early IC matches might have sucked. Again, an arguement that not only goes both ways but is really pointless. Are we really to assume, based on nothing, that wrestlers who are considered great such as Race, Flair, Steamboat, Brazil and Johnny Valentine for some reason sucked just to prove your point. I think it is safe to assume that these great wrestlers put on at least good matches the same way it is safe to assume that guys like Patterson, Patera and Moralas defended the IC title well in its early days.

Matt Moses said-

The title was pretty much meaningless during WCW's later days. Reigns lasted no longer than a month, very minimal to no build up was behind them, the titled was vacated seven times between 1996 and 2000, title changes occured at house shows, and they generally threw the strap on any old randomer who did nothing to honor their commitments with it and defend it regularly. Even Nash was stripping and awarding the title to whomever was in his stable at the time he was commissioner.

True, but during that time period the IC title was much the same. The belt was given to many different people, including Chyna. Reigns were short and meaningless. The title was held up a few times. Again, the point that hurts the US title can be used against the IC title.

Mighty NorCal said-

Yea, im gonnahave to disagree with the "lineage" and greatness of the US title, that everyone is marking on and on about. Im not sure why people get so romantic with the bingo hall territory days, and when WCW/NWA was doing their shows from a soundstage in front of 500 drunks who got into the show free, and just automatically claim anything from that era to be so great.

You are aware that the AWA and WWF also ran their TV shows in small soundstages. Thats how it was done. Again, critisize one, critisize the other.

MattMoses said-

Four years longer. That's barely a reason to choose it over the Intercontinental title.

This was said in responce to someone mentioning that the US title was older. I have two things to say here. First, while most people go back to 75 as the start point for the US title, there are some that have it older. I have seen, and heard at one of the Clashs, that it goes back to the late 60s and Ray Stevens. I myself have a match on tape from the early 70s in which The Sheik defeats Mark Lewin for the US title. Second, I tend to agree with MattMoses on this one. If we are just going to say that one is better because of age then all NWA titles would win any arguement.

MattMoses said-

By the time it got to the Monday Night Wars, the US title was worthless.

Again, same could be said for the IC title.

Mattmoses said about the US tilte-

You seem to be discounting the later-era history of the title. Sure, the glory days were great and some great feuds and matches took place, but you have to look at the bigger picture here.

Again, not to beat a dead horse, but you can make the same arguement about the IC title. You yourself seem to only be looking at certain points of the IC title and ignoring the bad points.

MattMoses said-

I can do you one better. Randy Savage, Ricky Steamboat, Ric Flair, Steve Austin & Shawn Michaels, just to name a few.

This was in responce to someone who had posted a short list of US champs. Matt countered with this list. The irony is that the men I put in bold lettering where also US champs. If they strengthen the IC list they strengthen the US list.

Y 2 Jake said-

Those are matches you remember. Not the feud. I didn't say that the IC title hasn't produced many a great match. Just not feuds. Does anybody remember anything about the Steamboat/Savage rivalry? HBK didn't feud with Razor Ramon, he feuded with his title. Ramon was the prop in that match. What happened in the lead up to Mr. Perfect vs. Bret Hart match.

I disagree here. The IC title has produced great fueds. Moralas and Muraco fueded and traded the title. I have three of their matches on tape/dvd, including a Texas death match. From 81 to 83 they battled on and off for the title. Muraco had a small fued with Rocky Johnson and a major one with Jimmy Snuka, ending in the famous cage match. Santana/Valentine, where Valentine put santana out for awhile. It was during this fued that Santana added the figure four to his arsenal. Santana and savage had a good fued. Savage and Steamboat, and i do remember more then just the WM3 match. There were great fueds prior to Rude/Warrior, and great ones after. And yes, HBK fueded with Ramon over the title, going so far as to create his own belt and call himself champ, setting up the WM10 match. HBK even cost Ramon the title to Diesal.

I would also like to respond to the many mentions of the bad/short US reigns in the late 90s. The IC title was just as bad. Douglas was awarded the belt. his reign lasted about 15 minutes. many had reigns of about a month or less including Mero, Austan, Owen Hart, Val Venis, Road Dogg, Golddust, Jarrett, Edge( one day ), D-Lo Brown, Chris benoit, Chris Jericho, Chyna( who had 2 reigns ), Billy Gunn. It got no better after 2000. Doesn't exactly sound like a great list of acheivement. Certainly not something that buries the US title.

So, which do I think was/is better. Well, I have been watching wrestling since 81. At the time all I could watch was WWF here in the northeast. It wouldn't be till 85 that I was able to watch the AWA and 86 for the NWA. I remember the fueds I mentioned above. Once i was able to get the NWA I watch often, I have done research( not like school work but just reading and finding out things I had missed ) and learned about passed reigns and other matches i may not have seen. For my money I think the US title was the best. I always felt that For some reason it was treated better, not only by the company but by wrestling magazines( before the internet you had to read mags to learn about other areas and such ). Through the mid to late 80s the wwf got too cartoonish, and in my eyes that lessoned the value of its titles. Obviously this is only my opinion, but it is what it is.

One more thing that makes me lean toward the US title is that fact that once the Monday Night Wars were over and the invasion done. Once WCW was a thing of the past the WWE got rid of the IC title. If the WWE felt it was not that important then...

 

[MattMoses]

Or they could have been great. Or the early IC matches might have sucked. Again, an arguement that not only goes both ways but is really pointless. Are we really to assume, based on nothing, that wrestlers who are considered great such as Race, Flair, Steamboat, Brazil and Johnny Valentine for some reason sucked just to prove your point. I think it is safe to assume that these great wrestlers put on at least good matches the same way it is safe to assume that guys like Patterson, Patera and Moralas defended the IC title well in its early days.

That post was directed at somebody who said that Harley Race, The Shiek and Ric Flair were great champions. Now, it seems that The Shiek never actually won the title, as it isn't noticed in the WWE's record books, nor is it recognized on http://www.wrestling-titles.com, a very credible source.

But you are totally correct here. The early IC title reigns and feuds could have been terrible. But I never said they weren't. The point of that post was not to judge a championship reign based solely off the person who's carrying it, despite how great they are or what else they might have accomplished. If somehow this person had seen these championship reigns (I'd imagine 1970's NWA footage isn't easy to get a hold of, especially in decent quality), then fair enough. But I really doubt it.

True, but during that time period the IC title was much the same. The belt was given to many different people, including Chyna. Reigns were short and meaningless. The title was held up a few times. Again, the point that hurts the US title can be used against the IC title.

If we're comparing 1997 - 2001, the Intercontinental championship takes it easily.

WWF IC Title 1997 - Most of the year was built around Owen Hart and the Hart Foundation versus Steve Austin. This spawned a great feud, and I can recall two great matches off the top of my head - Summerslam 1997 and In Your House: Canadian Stampede.

WCW US Title 1997 - Dean Malenko held the title for the first few months, resulting in some good matches on Nitro. Steve McMichael and Jeff Jarrett also have title reigns. Hennig winds up winning the title, makes a few defences on Nitro. He isn't even thrown into a singles feud with the championship, resulting in pointless title defenses on Nitro. Page ends up with the title at Starrcade.

I'd say the Intercontinental Championship came out of 1997 looking better than the US Championship did.

WWF IC Title 1998 - The Rock holds the title for 8 months in a lengthy feud with Triple H. Culminates in a great championship match at Summerslam. Title gets vacated due to injury - can't be helped. Shamrock goes on to hold the title for the rest of the year.

WCW US Title 1998 - Raven holds the title for one day, losing the title to Goldberg. Defends the title in squash matches on Nitro and Thunder. Vacates the title when he wins the World Championship. The title goes back and forth for the rest of the year, resulting in a one day title reign for Luger and a decent feud between Hart and Page.

For 1998, I'd go with the IC title again. A very lengthy reign culminating in a fantastic match, though the title loses steam towards the end of the year. The US title gets two one day completely worthless reigns and a barely memorable feud between Hart and Page.

WWF IC Title 1999 - This year results in short title reigns, terrible matches and forgettable feuds.

WCW US Title 1999 - The title gets vacated and immediately placed on David Flair. David fucking Flair? Just like the IC Title this year, short title reigns, terrible matches and forgettable feuds.

There's no disputing 1999 was a terrible year for both titles.

WWF IC Title 2000 - A much better year. While Chyna did go on to hold the title, some great matches and decent reigns took place. Angle, Benoit and Jericho put on some great matches this year.

WCW US Title 2000 - A complete shambles of a year. The title is vacated three times this year. Title changes take place at house shows. People like Lance Storm and General Rection go on to hold the title in short, worthless, boring reigns, with Storm feuding with the M.I.A. This title had been reduced to lame Midcard status by this time.

The IC title this year. With ease.

WWF IC Title 2001 - The year starts off with a fantastic feud between Benoit and Jericho, which results in one of the best matches of the year in the RR Ladder Match. The rest of the year comes off a little more weak, people like Albert, Christian and Storm hold it.

WCW US Title 2001 - Rick Steiner holds the title, but is too busy serving as his brothers bodyguard to defend it. Loses to Booker T, who holds on to it for four months, with no defences. Gives it away to Kanyon. Short reigns ensue and is soon unified with the IC title.

Again, the US title has nothing on the IC title come 2001. So while the US title got worse year by year, the IC title had one weak year, the rest giving us some fantastic feuds, matches and overall great title reigns.

This was said in responce to someone mentioning that the US title was older. I have two things to say here. First, while most people go back to 75 as the start point for the US title, there are some that have it older. I have seen, and heard at one of the Clashs, that it goes back to the late 60s and Ray Stevens.

This is news to me. I'd be interested to hear more, and any sources would be great.

One more thing that makes me lean toward the US title is that fact that once the Monday Night Wars were over and the invasion done. Once WCW was a thing of the past the WWE got rid of the IC title. If the WWE felt it was not that important then...

They got rid of it for a few months. Most likely due to the fact that Smackdown! didn't have a secondary title, and wouldn't be fair to them if RAW held a World Championship and a Upper Midcard title. It was introduced again once it was announced the US Title would be exclusive to Smackdown!

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Quote:
This was said in responce to someone mentioning that the US title was older. I have two things to say here. First, while most people go back to 75 as the start point for the US title, there are some that have it older. I have seen, and heard at one of the Clashs, that it goes back to the late 60s and Ray Stevens.

This is news to me. I'd be interested to hear more, and any sources would be great.

First, i am not saying or claiming this is true. I have heard it mentioned before and the Clash where they mention it is the one where Rude beats sting for the US title. The thing is that when the NWA was at its most wide spread in the 60s and 70s they had different territories that claimed a US champ. Chances are it is during this time that the Sheik and Stevens were champs. In 75 I believe Crockett promotions unified the titles into one.

 

[No Count Pup]

I prefer the Intercontinental Championship over the US Championship for several reasons. Here are a few:

The Intercontinental Championship, by virtue of its namesake, represents a more global title. Intercontinental means "across continents" whereas the US Championship represents one country. By virtue of the US Championship representing one country, it has always come across as the least significant of the two titles.

Another reason why I see the Intercontinental Championship as superior is that it's matches have produced among the most memorable performances in wrestling history. We had Hart/Bulldog at Summerslam 92, the headlining match of the show. It was also the prize of the Ladder Match at Wrestlemania X; the most dynamic gimmick match at that time. It gave us Bret Hart and Mr. Perfect at Summerslam 91, an all-time top 20 match. It gave us Savage/Steamboat. The list could go on and on.

I remember watching wrestling as a kid with my friends. We marked out for the Intercontinental Championship as much, if not more, than for the WWE Championship. For many kids and fans, the Intercontinental Championship wasn't simply a "secondary title." It was on a world title tier.

One of the reasons for that was because in the late 80s through the mid 90s, wrestlers who were clearly world title material decided (in kayfabe of course) to put all of their efforts in to becoming the Intercontinental Champion. Look at men like Mr. Perfect, Ravishing Rick Rude, Razor Ramon, Ricky Steamboat, and even Rowdy Roddy Piper. None of those men made any serious WWE Championship runs. The only title they seriously pursued was the Intercontinental Championship. For Razor, he was perfectly content with being the Intercontinental Champion. The same goes for Mr. Perfect. And Piper--one of the biggest wresting stars EVER-- carried around the Intercontinental Championship with the pride of a world champion.

Sure, many good things could be said about the US Championship. But to be honest, that title didn't exactly provide matches that would take your breath away. I hope that most of you saw Legends of Wrestling on WWE 24/7 in March. There was a great discussion about Savage/Steamboat from Wrestlemania III. They brought up a very astute point that makes perfect sense the more I think about it. Wrestlemania III was the night that workrate changed in wrestling. Fans saw a ring-mat classic from Savage and Steamboat. In fact, it was the Intercontinental Championship that overshadowed the main event of the most significant pay-per-view in wrestling history. After that night, wrestling fans, the territories, and the industry realized that workrate was going to need enhancement in the future because technical masterpieces were to become the appetite of the future.

Sure the US Championship provided a few good matches. But all-time classics? Let's not lose our heads here.

If a championship is defined by the performances it inspires, it's lineage of title holders, and its distinction among fans, then there is no greater mid-card championship than the Intercontinental title.

 

[No Count Pup]

I might also add that the Intercontinental Championship remains intact from its original organization. One could argue that the US Championship doesn't. That hurts the US Title's credibility.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Eight people, counting myself voted for the E.C.W. Television Championship.

I understand the prestige of the United States and Intercontinental Championships, but a lot of people are pushing the E.C.W. Television Championship off simply because it was apart of the 3rd company that wasn't huge. When if you're looking at the midcard Championships equally, you really need to see what they've done for their companies as a whole. What they do as a whole.

How many times has the United States Championship Main Evented a W.C.W. Pay Per View? World War 3, in 1998 I believe. How many times has the Intercontinental Championship Main Evented a W.W.F/E. Pay Per View? Summerslam 1992.

Now how many times has the E.C.W. Television Champion Main Evented an E.C.W. Pay Per View. Several. The Television Championship, when held by Rob Van Dam for damn near 2 straight years was seen as an even HIGHER Championship than their actual Heavyweight title.

Because of that, one could argue that the Television Championship is one of the best midcard Championships in all of Professional Wrestling. Simply because it wasn't hosted on a top two company, doesn't mean its anything less of a title.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Eight people, counting myself voted for the E.C.W. Television Championship.

I understand the prestige of the United States and Intercontinental Championships, but a lot of people are pushing the E.C.W. Television Championship off simply because it was apart of the 3rd company that wasn't huge. When if you're looking at the midcard Championships equally, you really need to see what they've done for their companies as a whole. What they do as a whole.

How many times has the United States Championship Main Evented a W.C.W. Pay Per View? World War 3, in 1998 I believe. How many times has the Intercontinental Championship Main Evented a W.W.F/E. Pay Per View? Summerslam 1992.

Now how many times has the E.C.W. Television Champion Main Evented an E.C.W. Pay Per View. Several. The Television Championship, when held by Rob Van Dam for damn near 2 straight years was seen as an even HIGHER Championship than their actual Heavyweight title.

Because of that, one could argue that the Television Championship is one of the best midcard Championships in all of Professional Wrestling. Simply because it wasn't hosted on a top two company, doesn't mean its anything less of a title.

Yeah, but at what point does the ECW TV Title no longer become a midcard title if it is IN THE MAIN EVENT. Mid-card would indicate (i'm assuming) that it is to be fought for in the middle of a card. Surely, there are exceptions. But the only time that the WCW WHC was on the line at ANY World War 3 event was in 1995 when Savage won the vacant WCW Heavyweight Title in the battle royal itself. The ECW World Television Championship was decided during 3 pay-per-view events: ECW (Eastern Championship Wrestling) November to Remember 1993, Living Dangerously 2000, and Anarchy Rulz 1999. However, there were many other instances, particularly in 1999, that the World Television belt was either worn by a participant in the main event or was on the line in a match later in the card than the World Heavyweight belt. So, to me, this is not a "mid-card" title.

However, didn't winning the U.S. Title guarantee you a chance at winning the WCW World Heavyweight Title? I'm almost positive that it did. If so, this makes the U.S. Title the quintessential mid-card title, as it solidifies a performer with gold, yet it also springs him into the main event.

Furthermore, there is absolute legitimacy to ranking the IC and US belts ahead of any ECW belt (except maybe the heavyweight) because they were held by the two top brands. The top two brands had the best exposure and cash flow, which is necessary for a wrestling promotion to stay alive, regardless of the quality of the wrestling.

WCW United States Heavyweight Title takes the cake on this one. Sorry, Will.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Sorry my last post was short, but I did not have time to give a better reply.

MattMoses, while I comend you on finding the info and taking the time to get it all and write it out, I feel your logic is still somewhat lacking. Most of what you put down is solely opinion. While I understand that most of this discussion is opinion, we have to back it up somewhat with facts, not more opinions. Any of the years you mentioned i could write up different, giving the nod to the US title rather then the IC title. For instance...

1997- lackluster year for the IC title as there are several champs but no real great reigns. Maivia enters as champ but is poorly recieved and has no great matches. Owen wins it next but spends time defending it and tag titles plus helping the foundation fight its battles. Austin defeats hart in a good match that ends poorly. Then Austin vacates due to injury; Hart win tourny; Austin defeats him a month later; refuses to defend and vacates the title; title is immedeatly award to Maivia who is dominated as the year ends by Shamrock.

However- US title has a good year as Guerrero comes in as a great champ. He drops it to another solid champ in Malenko who carries the title well for half a year. Malenko drops the title to Jarrett in a well done match were Guerrero interferes. Jarrett was already in a good fued with McMicheals, so they flow easily into the title picture. McMicheals wins the belt right as he and the horseman are ready to fued with Henning, who takes the title from him. Henning was already fueding with Page, so once again they flow into a battle over the title, which Page takes at year end. All in all good champs, good fueds which flowed nicely into one another.

Now, to some of the posts...

MattMoses said-

WWF IC Title 1997 - Most of the year was built around Owen Hart and the Hart Foundation versus Steve Austin. This spawned a great feud, and I can recall two great matches off the top of my head - Summerslam 1997 and In Your House: Canadian Stampede.

Actually it wasn't. First, Owen did not defend the title at Canadian Stampede. And he did not wrestle Austin one on one. They were oppisites sides of a ten man tag team match. Their fued starts here as Owen gets the win for his team by pinning Austin, who up till now was fueding with Bret Hart. They have the match at SummerSlam, which does end poorly. Then the vacate, the tourny, the one rematch, the turning over of the title. Sorry, I have to disagree here.

I think what happens is we here so much about the Attitude era and how great it was that we forget that not everything was great. The Austin/Owen fued was short and not that great.

MattMoses said-

WWF IC Title 1998 - The Rock holds the title for 8 months in a lengthy feud with Triple H. Culminates in a great championship match at Summerslam. Title gets vacated due to injury - can't be helped. Shamrock goes on to hold the title for the rest of the year.

Again, i don't agree. Yes, The Rock does have a lengthy reign, most of which is him dominated by Shamrock. He defended the title against him at two ppvs and was dominated though he won both matches. Shamrock pinned him at the Rumble, but the decision was reversed; and Shamrock forced him to submit at WM14, but again the call was reversed. They also met in the finals of the KOTR 98 where Shamrock defeats The Rock clean. It is only after this that DX and the Nation start to fued, resulting in two ppv matches with HHH vs The Rock. not really that lengthy.

Also, you like mentioning all the times the US title was vacated or had short reigns, yet never mention all the times the IC title was vacated or all the short , pointless reigns.

MattMoses said-

They got rid of it for a few months. Most likely due to the fact that Smackdown! didn't have a secondary title, and wouldn't be fair to them if RAW held a World Championship and a Upper Midcard title. It was introduced again once it was announced the US Title would be exclusive to Smackdown!

Actually, it was gone for 7 monthes and, if the story is correct, was brought back due to fan complaints.

fanofwrestling said-

Sure, many good things could be said about the US Championship. But to be honest, that title didn't exactly provide matches that would take your breath away. I hope that most of you saw Legends of Wrestling on WWE 24/7 in March. There was a great discussion about Savage/Steamboat from Wrestlemania III. They brought up a very astute point that makes perfect sense the more I think about it. Wrestlemania III was the night that workrate changed in wrestling. Fans saw a ring-mat classic from Savage and Steamboat. In fact, it was the Intercontinental Championship that overshadowed the main event of the most significant pay-per-view in wrestling history. After that night, wrestling fans, the territories, and the industry realized that workrate was going to need enhancement in the future because technical masterpieces were to become the appetite of the future.

Sure the US Championship provided a few good matches. But all-time classics? Let's not lose our heads here.

You wrote much, and most of what you said i could turn around and say about the US title. The ones I really wanted to touch on are the ones bolded. OK, great US matches. Classics.

Starcade 83- Piper vs Valentine Dog collar match. Originally for the US title but the NWA refused to sanction match because it was too violent.

Starcade 85- Magnum TA vs Tully Blanchard I quit Steel cage match

Bash 86- Nikita Kololf vs Magnum TA best of 7 series for US title.

Bash 88- Dusty Rhodes vs Barry Windham Student vs mentor plus a Ron Garvin heel turn.

Starcade 90 Lex Lugar vs Stan Hansen Bull rope match. Good brutal match.

SuperBrawl 92- Ricky Steamboat vs Ric Rude Great match. Put main event to shame.

Bash at the Beach 93- Ric Rude vs Dustin Rhodes iron man match.

Bash at the Beach 94- Ricky Steamboat vs Steve Austin.

My point is that it is silly to say there have not been any great US title contests. I could name more, as I could name more IC matches. In the end it is pointless.

fanofwresling said-

I might also add that the Intercontinental Championship remains intact from its original organization. One could argue that the US Championship doesn't. That hurts the US Title's credibility.

I disagree. WCW was bought out and closed. That has nothing to due with the title. Plus, the WWE willingly terminated the IC title. I could argue that hurts worse.

 

[Mugatunow]

Eight people, counting myself voted for the E.C.W. Television Championship.

I understand the prestige of the United States and Intercontinental Championships, but a lot of people are pushing the E.C.W. Television Championship off simply because it was apart of the 3rd company that wasn't huge. When if you're looking at the midcard Championships equally, you really need to see what they've done for their companies as a whole. What they do as a whole.

How many times has the United States Championship Main Evented a W.C.W. Pay Per View? World War 3, in 1998 I believe. How many times has the Intercontinental Championship Main Evented a W.W.F/E. Pay Per View? Summerslam 1992.

Now how many times has the E.C.W. Television Champion Main Evented an E.C.W. Pay Per View. Several. The Television Championship, when held by Rob Van Dam for damn near 2 straight years was seen as an even HIGHER Championship than their actual Heavyweight title.

Because of that, one could argue that the Television Championship is one of the best midcard Championships in all of Professional Wrestling. Simply because it wasn't hosted on a top two company, doesn't mean its anything less of a title.

This is one of the reason's I put the ECW TV Title in the running. It has arguablely some of the best rivalries of ECW's history, and main evented many of their pay per views, and has been held by many of todays biggest stars. I almost picked it, but I like the U.S. Title a little more.

 

[AnthonyM4]

For me, it would be the ECW tv title. I loved how they had RVD hold it for two years and defend it against all comers. When he held that title, fans saw it as almost as big as the ecw world title. Usually when someone holds a title for too long it gets boring, but RVD"s two year title reign was a lot of fun. I'm glad wwe didn't bring back the tv title because they'd likely tarnish its legacy, like they have with the world title and not too mention, the name "ECW" itself.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I think that the intercontinentle title is the best midcard title because it has always brought out the best in everybody and most everybody who holds it goes on to be world champion

How could you not say the very same thing for each of the other Championships as well? Are you implying that neither the E.C.W. Television Championship, nor the W.C.W. United States Championship promoted wrestlers to Main Event status, or World Championship glory?

While I'm not going to sit here and run off the list to make you look completely foolish.. allow me to simply say this..

Sting & Ric Flair are two of many, many greats who've held the United States Championship and went on to become World class Main Event multiple time World Champions.

Rob Van Dam and Rhino are two big names from the original E.C.W. era, in which R.V.D. has went on to become a W.W.E. Champion, and a world class name to millions.. whereas Rhino was the last original E.C.W. Champion and some would say the undefeated, uncrowned true E.C.W. Champion since that brand W.W.E. promotes isn't half of what the original was.

While I'm not discounting that the Intercontinental Championship certainly has its history.. and definately has great names to go along with it. Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Triple H., Edge, Randy Orton, etc, etc, etc.. the fact is.. what you're arguing is something that all three of those Championships can lay claim to.

 

[Slim Pickns]

Sting & Ric Flair are two of many, many greats who've held the United States Championship and went on to become World class Main Event multiple time World Champions.

Thats true, but the one factor that makes the U.S. Title above the rest is that big name superstars have held the belt after being World Champion. Remember when Vader was the unstoppable world champ but lost the belt to Flair. A few months later he won the US belt and challenged Hogan for the World Title. Benoit, Sting, and a few others that slip my mind have also done this. The U.S. belt was the best midcard belt because it actually did what the company claimed it was suppose to due, and thats be fought over by guys who are close to earning a world title shot.

 

[Tully Blanchard]

Let me clarify...the WCW TV Title in the 1990s sucked. The NWA TV Title was great. Blanchard, Rhodes, Koloff, Anderson, Sting, Muta, even Rotunda were worthy champs. It was the stepping stone to the US Title, then a World shot.

 

[Mugatunow]

I think that the intercontinentle title is the best midcard title because it has always brought out the best in everybody and most everybody who holds it goes on to be world champion

I don't know about that. There has been a lot of Intercontinental champs that have not been the WWE champ. Tito Santana, Roddy Piper, Don Muraco, Rick rude, Albert, test, Rikishi, william regal, Lance Storm, Christian, you get the idea. All of those guys have done nothing of consequence after being Intercontiental champ. So, that part of the arguement doesn't hold up, but my opinion, not yours.

 

[Father:_Polley]

i would disagree with what you've just said. simply because WWE chose not to book them as HWC, doesn't take away from the fact that many of the men you have listed were outstanding wrestlers and probably some of the most underrated performers (except maybe test and rikishi). that doesn't change the fact that they were greats. regal and storm are probably two of the most under-rated wrestlers of recent times simply because they were never booked to get a title shot.

as for nothing of consequence, christian was NWA champion in TNA, roddy piper is one of the most influential heels ever.

 

[Mugatunow]

i would disagree with what you've just said. simply because WWE chose not to book them as HWC, doesn't take away from the fact that many of the men you have listed were outstanding wrestlers and probably some of the most underrated performers (except maybe test and rikishi). that doesn't change the fact that they were greats. regal and storm are probably two of the most under-rated wrestlers of recent times simply because they were never booked to get a title shot.

as for nothing of consequence, christian was NWA champion in TNA, roddy piper is one of the most influential heels ever.

I never said they weren't talented. You did. All of those guys I listed are among my favorites. what I was getting at was they never became the WWE champion, and most likley were never were in the running, therefore making the IC Title somewhat worthless. I don't know why you thought I was insulting their talent, but I definetly wasn't. And Regal and Storm are fantastic, and should of been in championship matches on a regular basis.

 

[MattMoses]

I don't know about that. There has been a lot of Intercontinental champs that have not been the WWE champ. Tito Santana, Roddy Piper, Don Muraco, Rick rude, Albert, test, Rikishi, william regal, Lance Storm, Christian, you get the idea. All of those guys have done nothing of consequence after being Intercontiental champ. So, that part of the arguement doesn't hold up, but my opinion, not yours.

There have been a lot of United States champions who have not been a World Heavyweight Champion. Konnan, One Man Gang, David Flair, Rick Steiner, General Rection, Kanyon, Tajiri, you get the idea. All of those guys have done nothing of consequence after being United States champion. So, that part of the argument doesn't hold up.

it is clearly the ECW TV title. That belt was better then the World Title. Yet you are picking the IC belt. LMFAO!!!!

Yet you provide us with a great argument. Good job.

 

[MattMoses]

Oh, boy, Captain Asshole is back.

No need for personal attacks. Reported.

Do you just like coming on here to piss people off?

Except from you, who seems to get annoyed over everything, who have I pissed off?

Actually, I don't think I really care.

You care enough to respond, your thread or not.

As I said before, this is people's opinion of the best midcard title. Opinion. As I put in that original post that you just pretty much copied and put in US Title instead of IC Title.

Because it works both ways. Your argument was weak, and I proved why.

Probably because I made you look like an idiot for calling me a liar about me seeing the Terry Funk house show match from the early '90's.

a) Show my where you made me look like an 'idiot'.

b) It was at a house show in late 2000. Where did you get 90's from?

have a healthy debate about it

Which I have been doing up until now, when you feel the need to resort to personal attacks.

stop being a little bitch and trying to be clever. (Slyfox is around for that one. The funniest 11 year old I've ever met.) Anyway, have a nice day.

Another personal attack. Calling Slyfox names as well? Maybe you should grow up.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

Here's old Spawnie's two cents on the whole thing.

For the longest, the Intercontinental title was used to subjugate every wrestler that was considered to be unworthy of main event status. it was the WWF's way of saying "hey, here's something to shut you up because you're not going to be the WWF champ anytime soon. And it was all because of one man...... Hulk Hogan. Hogan was the man in the spotlight and only defended his title when he felt like it and if the opponent was worthy enough. If Hogan beat someone, odds were that they were strong enough to destroy the IC champ, and did on a couple of occasions in non-title bouts to get Hogan's attention. It was like putting someone in the position of being Hogan's little brother who he could do one of those whole hair mess things that little brother's hate. Often, the wrestlers who were performing in the IC title picture were well capable of being world champions, if given the chance. Just look at Ricky The Dragon Steamboat. And before anybody brings up the special cases of The Macho Man and The Ultimate Warrior, you have to remember that Mach was Hogan's buddy and Warrior was an ego maniac who raked in millions. In essence, the WWF, IC title was used like it was the WWE's equivalent of a light heavyweight title. The math was simple. If you were Hogan's size or bigger, you got shots at the World title. If you were smaller than Hogan, then you got to play around in the IC title picture.

The US title, on the otherhand, had some great men holding it. It was like a second main event class title. You had guys like Sting, Luger, Windham, Koloff, Hayes, and many other world title level wrestlers squaring off for it. There were no 'pale comparisons" nobody who held the US title was smaller than the world champ. Hell, it was like having TWO world champs. You had great gimmicks and alot of great matches that made kept the title picture constantly active, even when the world title was stagnant. And while the world title matches often ended in dq's, the US title matches would always have a decision based on pin. It was more or less used as a grooming title for men who would eventually be able to get world title shots.

So, in my humble opinion, there isn't even a debate here. The IC title is trash. Hell, it''s trash now. The US title, has always and will always have a certain flare that, even in it's darkest days, helps it beat the IC title in both quality and stature. And that's my two cents.

 

[blackhart07]

Van Dam made the ECW televison title bigger than the actual worlds title. Its hand down the ECW televison champion. The IC title got passed around way to much. I personally didnt watch any WCW so i wouldnt know. Van Dam was the best champion though. He was a big time main event guy and didnt need the worlds title. Not to mention had some amazing matches with guys like Jerry Lynn. Van Dam held the title for 2 years and never lost it. He broke his ankle then Super Crazy one is( which was dumb). Nothing against Super Crazy i love the guy, but he isnt no Van Dam.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

I wanted to take a stab at the ECW TV Title. While it would be foolish to claim it was not an important title, I have failed to see any good arguement putting it over the IC or US titles.

First, as I have said earlier, one must decide what type of importance we are assigning to the titles. Is it to company or wrestling in general. As I have also said I could argue that the WCCW Texas title was more important to the company then the others. The general tone of the thread has been best for wrestling, so I will base my point there.

While it is an important title it seems that that the men who held it, or rather man, are overshadowing it. In the few posts put here defending the title as the best choice, all have used RVD and his long reign as proof. In fact, if you took RVD away it seems that there is not much else to discuss. It was during his reign that the belt was elevated, and when he was stripped of it it went down a notch. By your own examples it seems that the ECW TV title was not so much great as RVD's reign was. With the other titles, while sometimes they may have been overshadowed by their holders, they were always treated as great titles. Whether it was Magnum's US reign or HonkyTonkMan's IC reign they were always looked on as important. I don't think that could be said of the ECW TV Title.

 

[sm3030]

I voted for the US Title because in the 80's and 90's big name stars held the belt and were the number 1 contender for the World Championship. The Lex Luger/Stan Hansen fued started over the fact Hansen wanted to be #1 contender for the World Title so He attacked Luger and thus the importance of the US belt. In those days, anyone that wore the US title could have been world champ and many did ie; Rhodes, Windham, Luger. Magnum TA would have if he'd not been injured. I agree in the late days of WCW the title was meaningless, just like the Tag titles in the WWE are now. However when I used to watch those matches, I knew the US champ could be the top dog. On the Flip side I never saw the IC title after the 80's as a big title. You had 123 Kid, Marty Janetty, Goldust, Ahmed Johnson, Owen Hart (great Wrestler, not Heavyweight status though), Jeff Jarrett and many others. There were awesome IC champs and the matches were tremendous, but they were never the automatic #1 contender as they should have been. Steamboat/Savage is still my favorite match to date. Both belts used to be legendary, but I'm giving the edge to the US title.

 

[dave_theanimal_batista]

More Intercontinental Champions have went on to be WWE Champions rather than US Champions became WCW Champions. It is like a stepping stone for the WWE Championship and it was one of the dumbest moves when they unified it for that short time around late 2002-2003. When someone wins the Intercontinental Championship you can say Ok theyre World Championship material but, just not quiet there yet.

 

[Mugatunow]

No need for personal attacks. Reported.


Except from you, who seems to get annoyed over everything, who have I pissed off?


You care enough to respond, your thread or not.


Because it works both ways. Your argument was weak, and I proved why.




a) Show my where you made me look like an 'idiot'.

b) It was at a house show in late 2000. Where did you get 90's from?


Which I have been doing up until now, when you feel the need to resort to personal attacks.


Another personal attack. Calling Slyfox names as well? Maybe you should grow up.

Why Captain, you're no fun at all? You're the one who got me banned? Oh well. First let me start off by saying that you are right about the 90's being 2000 reference. My mistake, simple one. Now, rather than continuing the banter we've had, (which you started back up for me, I almost forgot about you) I make you look like an idiot at the bottom of the first page. You really should have read my original post more carefully. I had meant that from the matches I've seen, I preferred the U.S. title matches, leading me to like the U.S. title better. Which is something I've already told you, but I guess you need a reminder. Matt, it seems you have somewhat missed the point of this thread, or at least overanalyzed it. Whether you believe that there is a distinction called upper or lower midcard, that's irrelevant because all we're doing is taking those titles and seeing which one you like the best. That's it. Don't come on here and say that I haven't seen all those matches of U.S. champs for me to make an opinion. Have I said that to you? Of course not. If you say you like the IC Title, I'm assuming you have seen many of those matches and like them better than all the other titles listed. Also, if you think that was a personal attack, I'd hate to see someone talk trash about your mother. Also, i like Slyfox.