The curse of the WWE titles.

[Mr. Artistic guy]

This is a thread I've been wanting to make for a little while now.

It's a phenomenon that's been plaguing the company for some time. I'll try to back-track to help you understand what I mean because I go off on one. Since debuting on the main roster, Kofi Kingston has won 3 IC titles, 2 US titles, and 3 tag team titles. I'd wager that's probably more than anybody else in that space of time. Kofi Kingston is sort of over, people pop when he comes out and enjoy his matches, but it's never gotten him anywhere. You struggle to remember anything significant he's been involved with outside of his one short feud with Randy Orton which went tits up. Point being, those titles did not benefit him in any respect. He didn't get any more exposure than most mid-card wrestlers, he's never had a bone to chew on in terms of being really successful.

The reason being is that WWE is, and has been for a good length of time, in an adverse manner. The belts are used to satiate a particular superstar, not to allow them to shine and thrive in their promotion, but to quietly wallow away and have decent matches.When you hold a WWE title, it's to keep you quiet. It does nothing for a guys' career.

Another more recent example. Cody Rhodes was the talk of the wrestling world for a while in January of 2011 when he returned in a plastic mask after moths away and adopted a new character that got a great deal of airtime. He continued to generate interest for a while, slowly moving his character along and ticking off crowds around the USA. Then he wins the IC title. For a while it seemed to be bucking the trend and be doing him good. He lost the mask, was still getting talk time and his character continued to trundle along. He feuded with Randy Orton for a little bit and then -------------- not much really happened. He eventually got into a wrestlemania feud with The Big Show which was pretty poor and finally lost. Then he won it again. Now he's lost it again. Other guys that didn't have a title have been able to surpass him in that time despite him being leagues ahead beforehand.

Daniel Bryan - Rhodes was getting the better of this before he cashed in his briefcase. Mark Henry - Woomph, nowhere to world champion in 5 easy steps. Christian - not even valued as a mid-card guy. All of these guys have done insurmountably better since Rhodes won his belt, and were all floundering somewhat before. And one of the longest IC title reigns in history couldn't change that. It's only now that he's los that title it seems he's going to start moving somewhere again, last night was the first mic time he's had since before mania and it was on a night where he lost his belt.

Other examples. Drew Mcintyre - Comes in as an undefeated annointed chosen one. Wins the IC belt and holds it for six months. #whereishenow? Losing mid-way through in a battle royal for number1 contendership of the very same title that he lost. Dolph Ziggler - in retrospect, those US titles only prevented him from moving up to the top of the card and really being successful in his own right. #whereishenow? Losing tag title matches on PPV. A year and a half ago he competed for a world title on PPV. McGuillicutty, Slater and Gabriel - All tag team champions, the latter two multiple times. You rarely see any of them on TV for consecutive weeks. Jack Swagger was US champ recently, no honestly he was. How hot was Zach Ryder getting before he won that title. Ezekiel Jackson? No words necessary. Wade Barrett?

My point is, that once upon a time is was true that when you were the IC champion, the WWE would lavish you with exposure, with speaking opportunities, with a lot of ring time. This is no longer the case. In fact, it's become detrimental to your career for you to hold anything less than a world title in the WWE because they'll lazily set you up with opponents, not attempt to build a feud assuming that involving the title is fuel enough to power it into a PPV spot, an assumption dangerously far from the truth. If I were a WWE superstar, I'd want NOT to hold a WWE title for fear that it might make my career stall.

The tale of the past champions dictates that the IC was something that you held on your steady climb to the top, if you did well with it you got treated to a higher push. You lost the title and went onto better things. Macho Man - IC champ before going onto 2 world title reigns, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Stone Cold, The Rock, Kurt Angle, Rey Mysterio, Benoit, Guerrero, Booker T, Edge, Christian, the list goes. All these guys showed the best way to come up, and were great mid-card belts holders before becoming WWE champions because they were great WWE superstars and we're rewarded for having good title reigns by getting a main event push. It's the opposite case now. When you hold one of those titles, the tag team belts, the US or IC championships, they forget about you and almost punish you for being successful. Something in the thinking has gone very very wrong somewhere along the way.

It's now getting to the point where the WWE champion is playing second fiddle to whatever the most important thing going on at that time is; be it Laurenitis, Cena, whatever, the same manner in which the world championship is portrayed as second fiddle to the WWE championship. It's at the point where it looks bad for the belts because everyone who holds them sinks back down deeper than they were, hence the name of the thread. If this trend continues it's going to ruin the prestige of such belts to the point where it'll be difficult to regain them. It's one thing that sadly TNA does far better than the WWE, makes their belts important. Regularly defences, belt holders are the focal pooint of their division (Roode, Aries, Kaz and Daniels are on a high also). I want to make the Appeal before things go desperately wrong. WWE, make your champions look important again.

Naturally my first question would be 1) Do you agree with my summation?

2) If so, what can be done, and what would you do to rectify the situation?

Thank ye.

 

[TLK]

I see your point, but I think that has typically always been the case. The initial surprise/thrill of seeing a title change evaporates almost as quickly as it happens. Punk became pretty stale after winning the WWE title from Cena last summer. Sheamus' heat has declined dramatically. I think it's the shock factor that has everyone glued to their seats for a title change, but once it happens, the balloon deflates and you grow accustomed to seeing a certain wrestler with a belt around his waist until the next change occurs.

It also boils down to the fact that the titles are merely props in the current era. Unless Cena is involved in a title feud, title matches aren't even the headliner. I see why some matches are bigger than the title (Taker/HBK II, Rock/Cena, Brock/Cena), but it has been happening fairly frequently lately. The WWE only cares about it's top match/main event, so the midcard champs get lost in the shuffle with no real benefit from winning a title.

 

[LegendKiller716]

Why does the internet always have to have things NOW! NOW! NOW! Everyone on your list is young, why can't they just enjoy the ride? The only person in your list capable of competing in a main event feud for an extended time is Barrett, and if rumors are true he'll be winning MITB soon so a world title reign is soon to follow.

Nobody else is main event ready. I'll say Ziggler may be close, but he still has a lot to prove. Swagger was close, but not anymore. And with that said, both of those men have been world champion.

Titles are awarded for being among the best in a certain level of the show. If your a great mid carder you get a mid card belt. If you become head and shoulders better that the rest, you get a shot at the main event. You either impress at the top, or you fall back down.

It's not like everyone that won the IC title won a world title with in a month. How long was The Rock an IC title contender before reaching the top? How long was it for Edge? Christian? Y2J? Dare I say Mark Henry? The list goes on, give the stars time to fully develop before we rush them to the top.

Long story short, all those guys have long careers ahead of them. If they deserve to main event they will, if not, sucks to be them.

 

[the_vipers_enigma]

For the last couple of year the WWE proved again and again that they simply don't give a f**k for their titles. And I have to agree with everything you said. People like Ryder, Seamus, Rhodes and many more were extremely hot and look what happens when they win a title everyone forgets that they exist.
But at the moment I have to say that Ryder is starting to gain louder reaction and Daniel Bryan a man who for me wasn't very interesting as champion(although I am a big fan of him ) is getting bigger and bigger crowd reaction. This for me yet again proves that in the modern day WWE you don't need a title to be huge.

 

[midgensa]

1. I see the points you are making and think that you definitely have a little bit of a point, but I also don't know that winning the title is what hurt these guys. Something that is fresh is always going to be nice. Ziggler was fresh, Rhodes was fresh, Kingston was fresh ... so naturally they earned some screen time and actually rose through the midcard. Then they nabbed the gold. Now the question should be made ... did they lose their "freshness" anyways ... title or not. I would say for all of them that the title didn't hurt them ... THEY hurt them. They just got boring.
All are young ... and Rhodes and Ziggler will CERTAINLY find themselves near the top of the card again, but I think blaming the IC and US Title booking on them losing some of their momentum is kind of a cop-out. They are to blame some for it.
Christian and Mark Henry both turned runs with the ECW Championship (which is definitely comparable) into huge moves to the top of the card. Not long ago, The Miz and CM Punk did the same thing. It is more about the people than the title.

2. I do agree that they need something to spice up these titles. I mean, it looks damn silly to have Big Show running around with the IC title ... and does anyone give a fuck about the U.S. Title at all? It is more about the who than the title though. So, they need to get them on the right waist (Christian with the IC title might work) and go from there. Good feuds are what make titles. I remember giving a shit about the US Title because the MVP vs. Matt Hardy feud was solid as hell. Jericho vs. Mysterio made the IC Title super relevant. If they get the right two guys feuding ... the titles will feel important again.

 

[MCMG]

Cm punk - tag team champion. Sheamus- Had a US title reign between his world championship reigns. Orton- ic belt. Cena- Us belt. Bryan- US belt.

I could go on but the point is that the transition from midcard belt to a world championship is very hit and miss. Some can't make the step up (e.g. Kofi) some do it with ease (e.g. Cena, Miz) and some just don't get the opportunity (rhodes,ziggler,morrision)

If you look at the main event more people have held a belt previous to being exposed. It is a great method to make the wrestler important letting him loose in the main event. Basically i would say that it is easier for a wrestler to take a midcard championship and then have a solid run before moving into the main-event.

 

[TLK]

The problem is that once these midcarders capture the title, they simply get lost in the shuffle. In a way, the thread-starter makes a good point in that "once you win the title, you lose your momentum." Ironically, this is partly true. It's like purchasing a new car. At first, it's exciting because it's fresh and different from what you're used to. After a while, you grow accustomed to it and it loses its initial lustre. When someone wins a title, it's exciting because, again, it's fresh and different from what you're used to. Once it begins to set in that the champ is no longer "new," the excitement wears off and it's back to square one. This is particularly the case with the midcard titles, because they aren't as prominent, nor are they a primary focal point. There have been many times when I simply forgot who the current US/IC champ was over the course of the last few years.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Why does the internet always have to have things NOW! NOW! NOW! Everyone on your list is young, why can't they just enjoy the ride? The only person in your list capable of competing in a main event feud for an extended time is Barrett, and if rumors are true he'll be winning MITB soon so a world title reign is soon to follow.

Nobody else is main event ready. I'll say Ziggler may be close, but he still has a lot to prove. Swagger was close, but not anymore. And with that said, both of those men have been world champion.

Titles are awarded for being among the best in a certain level of the show. If your a great mid carder you get a mid card belt. If you become head and shoulders better that the rest, you get a shot at the main event. You either impress at the top, or you fall back down.

It's not like everyone that won the IC title won a world title with in a month. How long was The Rock an IC title contender before reaching the top? How long was it for Edge? Christian? Y2J? Dare I say Mark Henry? The list goes on, give the stars time to fully develop before we rush them to the top.

Long story short, all those guys have long careers ahead of them. If they deserve to main event they will, if not, sucks to be them.

No wait, my point is that all those men I listed, probably about half of the title bearers in the last few years, all HAD momentum approaching the titles. Then whilst holding them, they got less coverages than they had without which I believe is regressive, and they then fell back lower in the card than they previously had.

McGuillicutty - Tag champ, now seen on NXT mostly.
Gabriel and Slater - Same
Zeke - Same
Swagger - World champion onto US champion onto tag team champion. Falling further and further from grace
Ziggler - Same situation as swagger really
Mcintyre - NXT
Barrett - Might be an exception.

My idea is that holding the titles should do something for you. You should come away at the end of a reign and not have difficulty having to claw your way back up the card. It should do something for your character, get them over in some respect and they would be better off than they started. I believe that was, at one time, more generally the case. Now it seems those who follow that are exceptions to the trend.

For example, Swagger was a world champion, a main event guy. But if you stuck him into a main event feud right now, he'd look so out of place that it wouldn't be funny. Now, is that a point against Swagger or is that a point against booking. From looking at the history with regards to guys who've held the belt like him, it seems to me to be the latter. They are major exceptions of course, The Miz sticks out for example, but just generally when you hold a title, they seem to stop caring about what you're doing, acknowledge you have a title and think that's enough. It isn't. You still need to push a guy who has a title. On the contrary, that guy needs to be getting more or as much airtime as anybody else on their level.

It seems to be the case that the guys who avoid these titles tend to do better than they would otherwise. Not going back more than about 5 years, but within the last 5 or so years.

 

[LegendKiller716]

No wait, my point is that all those men I listed, probably about half of the title bearers in the last few years, all HAD momentum approaching the titles. Then whilst holding them, they got less coverages than they had without which I believe is regressive, and they then fell back lower in the card than they previously had.

McGuillicutty - Tag champ, now seen on NXT mostly.
Gabriel and Slater - Same
Zeke - Same
Swagger - World champion onto US champion onto tag team champion. Falling further and further from grace
Ziggler - Same situation as swagger really
Mcintyre - NXT
Barrett - Might be an exception.

My idea is that holding the titles should do something for you. You should come away at the end of a reign and not have difficulty having to claw your way back up the card. It should do something for your character, get them over in some respect and they would be better off than they started. I believe that was, at one time, more generally the case. Now it seems those who follow that are exceptions to the trend.

For example, Swagger was a world champion, a main event guy. But if you stuck him into a main event feud right now, he'd look so out of place that it wouldn't be funny. Now, is that a point against Swagger or is that a point against booking. From looking at the history with regards to guys who've held the belt like him, it seems to me to be the latter. They are major exceptions of course, The Miz sticks out for example, but just generally when you hold a title, they seem to stop caring about what you're doing, acknowledge you have a title and think that's enough. It isn't. You still need to push a guy who has a title. On the contrary, that guy needs to be getting more or as much airtime as anybody else on their level.

It seems to be the case that the guys who avoid these titles tend to do better than they would otherwise. Not going back more than about 5 years, but within the last 5 or so years.

Well, where are your examples to support the other side to your argument? Recently, who has been able to make it as a top guy without holding a midcard belt first? The only one that comes to mind for me is Del Rio. You can argue Sheamus, but he, like Swagger, fell back to the mid card. The only difference is Sheamus rose back up.

If I'm missing someone, let me know, but I think getting a mid card belt is still the way to the top.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The problem is titles themselves have become so ingrained as the perceived way to get over that they are no longer relevant.

Go back to the 80's and so few guys held a belt that it was a massive deal to have one, but more to the point guys got over without them. Big Bossman didn't have a belt, he had a nightstick, Brutus his shears, Jake had Damien... belts were superfluous cos they had a gimmick that got them over without one.

Today if someone hasn't got the IC or US title within a year of debuting they are "failing", guys like Del Rio, Zeke and McIntryre were put into the position where they were forced into titles way sooner than they should have been just to be seen to be having momentum.

It's not the fans... for some reason it's WWE, most likely that they are sorely missing a "mega star" and are throwing belts to see if one of them can take off and then once they have it, it's all about how many times they have it, not how long they held it. Last night's PPV all I kept hearing was x time champion... I want to hear about the guy who has held the belt forever, not 12 times... one is impressive, the other means he lost it 11 times... The tag belts are worthless, Kofi has had them how many times with different people? Doesn't make him a great tag champ, just means he loses it a lot...

The "curse" is that titles are little more than trinkets now, careers get damaged by them because people say a run is "lacklustre" or didn't get over... the reality is most of them never should have had a belt to begin with and should have been given some other way to get over... Get it back to 2 singles belts... make the tag titles mean something...

 

[whoopin' ass]

it has always been weird when it comes to the titles. wwe does have a tendency to let people float around midcard, winning IC/US and tag titles yet never quite making it to the top and then hot-shoting someone else right past them. they have teased Kofi and the bunch being wwe/World champ a number of times and it looks like Tensai is going to be pushed right past all of them. i am not sure what Vince's logic is because it doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Well, where are your examples to support the other side to your argument? Recently, who has been able to make it as a top guy without holding a midcard belt first? The only one that comes to mind for me is Del Rio. You can argue Sheamus, but he, like Swagger, fell back to the mid card. The only difference is Sheamus rose back up.

If I'm missing someone, let me know, but I think getting a mid card belt is still the way to the top.

If were talking the past five years like I said, guys who made it to the top without belting up first would be; Del Rio as you mentioned, Sheamus perhaps (as you said, he did dip below to have an upper mid-card run with that KOTR tournament and JoMo feud although it didn't last long), Umaga, Khali, Lord Tensai seems a lock but it's not set in stone yet, Kozlov although he didn't make it stick, still had a clean win over the Undertaker not even on PPV.

There's probably more but I'm off to bed.

 

[LegendKiller716]

If were talking the past five years like I said, guys who made it to the top without belting up first would be; Del Rio as you mentioned, Sheamus perhaps (as you said, he did dip below to have an upper mid-card run with that KOTR tournament and JoMo feud although it didn't last long), Umaga, Khali, Lord Tensai seems a lock but it's not set in stone yet, Kozlov although he didn't make it stick, still had a clean win over the Undertaker not even on PPV.

There's probably more but I'm off to bed.

But we're talking about title runs here, and while I may have overlooked Khali (can you blame me?), nobody on your list has been world champion. Also Umaga, Kozlov, and Tensai have all held titles in the WWE.

Building superstars takes time, but nobody wants to wait. At the same time when somebody gets hotshot to the top, we all complain they haven't paid their dues. It's not the curse of WWE titles, it's the curse of the IWC always wanting to criticize every little aspect of the product. Just enjoy "your guys", regardless of their placement on the card.

 

[sicmcnasti]

I was with you until you made the TNA comparison. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? The TNA midcard titles are just as relevant as the TNA championship.
I digress.
The midcard scene is an evaluation period for most. Either you sink or you swim. The fact that a lot of the guys you mentioned are still there means that WWE sees SOME value in them just maybe not immediate. You don't want to over-saturate your main event scene because not everyone is main event caliber and not everyone needs to be in the main event. It's a steady rotation. A year ago Sheamus was a midcard heel hot off being the United States champion and Miz was main eventing Over the Limit in a WWE title match. Look how these two have changed since then. Those titles mean a little but the guys holding them are the ones that carry the weight of that meaning.

 

[IT Factor]

These questions are relatively easy to answer for most longtime fans of wrestling;

1}I do indeed agree with your summation. WWE uses titles nowadays as placeholders for certain WWE superstars with potential. Its not even about talent or merit, but, simply that WWE wants to use these guys and test it first. The IC Title used to mean you were being considered as future WWF/WWE Title material and given that belt to test you to see if you were ready to advance. The division for the IC belt was more structured in the old days and had alot of contenders and great memorable feuds. WWE have now ****ed the title out and given most mid-card talents numerous title reigns instead of simply doing the right thing and elevating guys to the next level when they deserve to advance. Guys like Cody Rhodes & Christian should be main eventing currently instead of floundering around in the IC division and getting multiple reigns. That makes the title look more like a consolation prize instead of a prestigious title worthy of contenders. Although I do agree that Kofi Kingston hasn't shown any reason worthy of advancing into the main events. His feud with Orton showed promise and flopped big time. Kofi is impressive in ring and doesn't have any character outside of the ring. Which in TNA may work, but, doesn't really get you anywhere in the E.

2}The only way WWE can correct this problem is to put effort into the shows. Define the divisions seperately and only make feuds that are sensible and give meaning to the belts. Don't give guys the IC/US titles because there are no real contenders or because creative has nothing else for them. That's the easy way out and WWE has been doing this basically since WCW went under. It's lazy of them and shows no real effort to make the WWE legit like it used to be. In the day, WWE was a legit great wrestling product with relateable characters in defined divisions that made the shows worth watching. Sadly, I don't see this changing until WWE are willing to admit they've been on auto-pilot entirely too long. They have to admit there's a problem to address it and if history proves anything, it's that McMahon is too proud to admit wrong until it's too late. XFL anyone?

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

But we're talking about title runs here, and while I may have overlooked Khali (can you blame me?), nobody on your list has been world champion. Also Umaga, Kozlov, and Tensai have all held titles in the WWE.

Building superstars takes time, but nobody wants to wait. At the same time when somebody gets hotshot to the top, we all complain they haven't paid their dues. It's not the curse of WWE titles, it's the curse of the IWC always wanting to criticize every little aspect of the product. Just enjoy "your guys", regardless of their placement on the card.

Basically, this thread is about how lesser titles ought to be used as vehicles to help guys get higher up the card, when in point of fact many guys are gaining them and being booked to stagnate and end up worse off than they were beforehand. It seems crazy. On the other hand, those guys posted above are all guys who, as you mentioned didn't necessarily win world titles, but were able to successfully transition straight into the main event without working their way through the title system. Kozlov and Umaga were champions AFTER becoming main eventers, Tensai doesn't really count as he's almost started anew in WWE. And similarly none of those guys proved to have real staying power, ultimately I feel because of the lack of previous work in lower divisions that other longer staying names did have.

Ultimately this makes those titles appear redundant.

I can't just consider it another little aspect of the product because those titles ought to carry a namesake and a deep heritage which makes you important. WWE are negating this by booking their own champions as uninteresting. It's logic-defying. At current, the stock of titles that aren't world titles is very low, when once they carried such weight with individuals like Randy Savage, Honky Tonk Man, Stone Cold, The Rock, HBK, Bret Hart and so on and so on, and it made those people seem important and they made the titles seem important. It was a symbiotic relationship. Now it's just used to put the breaks on a guy's career.

Ya dig dawg?

 

[ultramattman]

So let's see, some wrestlers hold a midcard title then elevate to the main event. Some wrestlers hold a midcard title and then langush there. Some wrestlers hold a midcard title then regress into obscurity.

Hmmmm, maybe it's more about the wrestlers than the belts they hold. Maybe some guys take the opportunity and run with it, some guys get the same opportunity and they just don't have what it takes. After all, the title IS a prop and it always was. And the chase is often more interesting than the title run - that's why faces get screwed out of wins, to create the excitement of a chase.