The Intercontinental Championship: Past and Present.

[mkw1962]

I know there is a thread from Heartbreak kid out there about what is next for the IC Title but I was watching something the other day about the IC Title and I came up with this.
Pat Patterson won a tournament in Brazil back in 1979 and that is where the IC Title starts. The first ten years there was 11 title reigns of 216 days or more. In the last ten years there have been 5 title reigns of 112 days or more. In the first 5 years there were only 8 title reigns and in the last 5 years there have been 27 title reigns.
There was a period of time from Oct. 1998 when Ken Shamrock held the title for 125 days after his reign nobody held the title for longer than 78 days until Randy Orton won it in Dec. 2003 his reign lasted for 210 days.
So my questions are was the title stronger back in the day and does these short reigns hurt the title.
Lets make this even better who is your favorite IC champ and what is your favorite IC title match that you can recall.
The match I most remember is Shawn Michaels vs. Razor Ramon at Wrestlemania X in a ladder match.
So who do you guys think is it:
Chris Jericho 9 time champ
Pat Patterson 1st champ
Pedro Morales 2 time champ who held the title for a total of 619 days
Honky Tonk Man 2 time champ and 1 title reign for 454 days
Macho Man 1 title reign for 414 days
The history has been awesome so what do you guys think I look forward to your input.

 

[Jobber4life]

I always thought Randy Savas reign was historically significant.Once Randy won the strap from Tito he gave the title added credability in his promos by referring to the title as a"passport/stepping stone" to the heavyweight title.He was still defending the Intercontinental title against Tito but he also made a run on house shows vs Hulk Hogan for the World title.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

Was it stronger back in the day? Of course it was, but you have to remember that wrestling was very different prior to 1995.

First off, there was only up to 5 WWE ppvs each year, until they added the In Your House events in May 1995. So titles were defended far less frequently, despite the '30-day rule' they presented on WWE television. Secondly, until they added the European title in early 1997, WWE only had two singles titles to challenge for; therefore the Intercontinental Championship was highly prestigious. Finally, in the Hulk Hogan-dominated 1980s and early '90s, where the Hulkster matched up with larger opponents, the IC title became the domain of the smaller wrestlers, giving them something to aspire to. As it turned out, several of these were then promoted to the world title picture, but for a long time the likes of Mr Perfect and Bret Hart probably wouldn't have expected any higher accolade than the IC belt.

Regarding your highlighted match, I'm currently watching every episode of Raw, chronologically, on the WWE Network. One of the recent storylines is Shawn Michaeks being suspended and subsequently stripped of his IC title, which was then won by Razor Ramon. He won this by being co-winner of a decent battle Royal, one in which they actually included several big names. He then beat Rick 'the Model' Martel in the final the following week, in what was a very good match. Now Michaeks has returned, starting the story that culminates at that epic ladder match. In this era, the WWE title is barely seen or even spoken about on Raw, but the IC title IS featured prominently. It's a shame that, over the last 18 years, the title has been treated more and more of an afterthought, but there are certainly signs that point to a return to its former glories, not least the Wrestlemania ladder match and the Elimination Chamber. Ryback held it for a decent amount of time and hopefully Owend will keep it a while too.

As for other favourite matches, as an Englishman, obviously Bulldog v Hart at Summerslam - in fact, 5 years in a row, from 1989-93, the IC title match was IMO the best on the Summerslam card. But a very honourable mention must go to Michaels v Jannetty on Raw, probably Raw's first truly great match.

 

[Prince Vee]

My favourite matches will be BRITISH BULLDOG vs BRET HITMAN HART at Summerslam 1992, in London. You can watch that match 100 times and it'll never bore you and the celebration aftermath is exceedingly great.

Yes indeed I would also add SHAWN MICHAELS vs RAZOR RAMON at Wrestlemania. Those are two IC title matches that I can barely forget.

As far as my favourite IC Champion, I would go for an odd choice, Bad News Barrett. Even though his reign was short and plagued by his shoulder injury, he was well over with the fans.

Cheers!!

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The biggest loss to the IC title was that the champion was always they automatic #1 contender to the World title. How long someone held it was immaterial, by holding it they were the next in line to the World champion. Why they took that away is obvious, but the belt never actually recovered from it.

To me, the best way to use the IC title now is to replace MITB/King Of The Ring as the vehicle that new stars are brought to the World title picture with. They're never going to end the Rumble winner main eventing WM so they should have the main event of Night Of Champions ALWAYS be Title for Title, meaning the IC title gets reset each September.

The story then becomes about defending that belt (and guaranteed title shot) for one year, with the caveat that only one rematch/loss is allowed.

So Say Owens has it now... he has to go through to next September in one reign... if he does, he gets his title match at NOC, no questions asked.

If he loses the belt, he has to immediately regain it in that one rematch, he can't win it later and get the title match... likewise if he loses it again, no guaranteed title match.

In essence an IC champion gets double jeopardy... and the storylines can be built around it... Imagine if Owens holds it for the WHOLE year bar 2 weeks and then loses it to Reigns... he gets his rematch right before the PPV or even on the same night... the drama comes from defending the belt for a whole year, only for someone to pop up right at the death and take that title and World title shot away from you.

After NOC, either way the IC belt is vacated and a tourney held, that winner then has 11 months to build momentum, learn how to be a champion and become ready... if it's not looking good six months in, they make the change and that other person has 5 months till NOC.

This would also make interesting stories for challengers... You'd want to make "your tilt" as close to NOC as possible so you'd have less time to run the gauntlet... could even do some of those face v face or heel v heel #1 contender matches or have friends fall out over getting that Summerslam IC title shot.

This would be ideal for guys like Owens, Cesaro, Barrett, Wyatt... the kind of guys who WWE haven't managed to get to that next level... it's in essence a one year audition for the World title/stepping up.

If they're not gonna do anything like that then personally I think the belt needs to onto someone like Jericho for a while, his "part time" schedule and stardom of being the 10 time champ would make the belt more of an attraction... if he was back to his heel "Best In The World..." persona, all the better.

"You don't DESERVE to see the IC title, you didn't care before...I cared...and now it's mine... I DECIDE when you see it..." would be a great heat magnet and help to build the prestige of the title in the opposite way to Cena's open challenge.

 

[AJ1981]

Pat Patterson won a tournament in Brazil back in 1979 and that is where the IC Title starts. .

There was no tournament in '79. Apart from the dirtsheets there was no wrestling media to speak of at this time and the WWF would often claim tournaments had been held for titles (they did this with both the World and Tag titles previously)and they would put the straps on whoever they wanted and announce results from a fictional tournament. The supposed location in Rio was a rib on Patterson because of his sexuality.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The biggest loss to the IC title was that the champion was always they automatic #1 contender to the World title.

True, and it reinforced the notion that the IC title was much more important back then; the concept of a 'midcard championship' was unheard of.

For that reason, my favorite IC champ was Ultimate Warrior because his title reign seemed to place him directly behind Hulk Hogan, the world champ. To that point, no IC holder had ever beaten the world champion......yet, with Warrior, it seemed a strong possibility......and eventually became reality.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

It depends on when you class back in the day? Before 1999 the IC title was very big. It meant a lot -especially between when Steamboat and Savage had their match at WM3 for the next 7 years. It has had its stand out moments since - Rock V HHH in 1998 for example, but it was only when Daniel Bryan recently won it that it went back to having prestige.

Any title can mean the world or mean nothing depending on how it is booked.

 

[mkw1962]

There was no tournament in '79. Apart from the dirtsheets there was no wrestling media to speak of at this time and the WWF would often claim tournaments had been held for titles (they did this with both the World and Tag titles previously)and they would put the straps on whoever they wanted and announce results from a fictional tournament. The supposed location in Rio was a rib on Patterson because of his sexuality.

I did hear that there was no tournament, but tournament or not that is where it all started.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Was it stronger back in the day? Of course it was, but you have to remember that wrestling was very different prior to 1995.

First off, there was only up to 5 WWE ppvs each year, until they added the In Your House events in May 1995. So titles were defended far less frequently, despite the '30-day rule' they presented on WWE television. Secondly, until they added the European title in early 1997, WWE only had two singles titles to challenge for; therefore the Intercontinental Championship was highly prestigious. Finally, in the Hulk Hogan-dominated 1980s and early '90s, where the Hulkster matched up with larger opponents, the IC title became the domain of the smaller wrestlers, giving them something to aspire to. As it turned out, several of these were then promoted to the world title picture, but for a long time the likes of Mr Perfect and Bret Hart probably wouldn't have expected any higher accolade than the IC belt.

Regarding your highlighted match, I'm currently watching every episode of Raw, chronologically, on the WWE Network. One of the recent storylines is Shawn Michaeks being suspended and subsequently stripped of his IC title, which was then won by Razor Ramon. He won this by being co-winner of a decent battle Royal, one in which they actually included several big names. He then beat Rick 'the Model' Martel in the final the following week, in what was a very good match. Now Michaeks has returned, starting the story that culminates at that epic ladder match. In this era, the WWE title is barely seen or even spoken about on Raw, but the IC title IS featured prominently. It's a shame that, over the last 18 years, the title has been treated more and more of an afterthought, but there are certainly signs that point to a return to its former glories, not least the Wrestlemania ladder match and the Elimination Chamber. Ryback held it for a decent amount of time and hopefully Owend will keep it a while too.

As for other favourite matches, as an Englishman, obviously Bulldog v Hart at Summerslam - in fact, 5 years in a row, from 1989-93, the IC title match was IMO the best on the Summerslam card. But a very honourable mention must go to Michaels v Jannetty on Raw, probably Raw's first truly great match.

"Back In The Day" there wwas WrestleMania....that was it. The NWA offered Starrcade & Great American Bash. That's all. 5 PPVs, etc was an era long after "Back In The Day".

Mid card Titles in general had WAY more Importance back then, but the industry's basic promotional model was totally different.
A) Way back you built TV based on jobber matches and rarely showed top caliber talent against each other - Today (post 1996) it's opposite

B) With only one or two "signature events" (W-Mania, S-Cade) companies depended largely on house show revenue, meaning feuds (and conversely title reigns) lasted longer so everyone "on the circuit" had one or sometimes two chances to see feud/match live - Today storylines progress much faster with monthly PPVs driving much of the revenue & live TV (almost unheard of way back when) featuring top stars competing against each other weekly (faster moving storylines means shorter storylines aka shorter title reigns).

C) With so much revenue based on house show attendance way back it was important to prop up the secondary titles as much as possible and give them major storylines, major TV time for promos and storyline progression, thus making them more important/bigger draw for attendance. Today top feuds often are big because of the names involved with no titles at stake because of the faster moving storylines. Taker has had huge matches against HHH, HBK, Lesnar, & Punk in the last 6 years that have been major draws, but none of them involved a title. Cena's best feud last year was against Bray Wyatt, neither of them holding a belt.

WWE has been trying to make the secondary titles more relevant in the past year, the IC Title hasn't fared as well as the US Title (due to Cena's impressive star power & popularity making his title reign more important) but one guy or one guy's reign alone wont accomplish that - It will have to a concerted effort on WWE's part to portray future champions as important and give significant storyline time & development to them after Cena leaves/is no longer champ. Otherwise it will be just like the IC Title circa 2006, Ric Flair wins the title, it's a huge event, celebrate, the last major title he had never won in his career, and major stars like Edge & HHH were challenging him, he used his position as Champ to enter a tournament for a Mania Title Shot and faced Kurt Angle, the title helped get him a World Title Match vs Edge on RAW, The IC Title had real value at this point (which it hadn't had for some time previous). Shelton Benjamin won and initially it seemed like a huge deal, he was given a major push out of the gate, but as he faltered and sputtered pretty soon the IC Title was a non factor again and wasn't promoted as a major storyline driving TV or PPVs for some time afterwards. WWE propped up the title and restored it's value during Flair's reign but "dropped the ball" after Benjamin. Maybe Benjamin was over rated and not worthy the push but that didn't mean WWE had to put the title on the low end storyline wise after that. I fear the same mistake will be made after Cena ends his run as US Champ with that title.

It would do WWE good to make both titles significant again, it gets harder and harder to drive monthly PPVs and house shows with "non title" storylines as major stars retire/get older & work less, and if the titles themselves are promoted as important and given major story value then by extension anyone (young or old) who challenges for them gets a major bump, revitalizing older talent and making them relevant with the audience or upgrading the image of younger stars, adding a legitimacy to their character as a major player they lacked before.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

There was no tournament in '79. Apart from the dirtsheets there was no wrestling media to speak of at this time and the WWF would often claim tournaments had been held for titles (they did this with both the World and Tag titles previously)and they would put the straps on whoever they wanted and announce results from a fictional tournament. The supposed location in Rio was a rib on Patterson because of his sexuality.

I wouldn't say there was no media to speak of.

The magazines were extremely popular back then. More so than the dirt sheets, which were pretty rare in the 70's when the IC title was created.

The Rio tournaments? I never heard they were a rib on Patterson. They did the same thing when they crowned Buddy Rogers as the first WWWF Champ back in '63. I think they liked using that location as a way to make them seem like more of an international promotion, considering this was a time when the furthest south you could ever see a WWF show was Pennsylvania.

These were a pretty common trick that many promotions used in the kayfabe days. The magazines would print the stories of these tournaments as legit. It'd be rare to use video footage on TV of the historic events, and even if they needed to, that would be easy enough to fake. The only thing you ever had to worry about with them, was a rival promoter going on their own show and telling people the truth about your fake tournament, like Bill Watts did in the UWF when World Class had a fake tournament (I think this one was in San Francisco) to crown Black Bart as their new champ.

I don't think there was ever one for the tag titles though. I could be wrong though.

 

[FlairFan2003]

I always thought Randy Savas reign was historically significant.Once Randy won the strap from Tito he gave the title added credability in his promos by referring to the title as a"passport/stepping stone" to the heavyweight title.He was still defending the Intercontinental title against Tito but he also made a run on house shows vs Hulk Hogan for the World title.

Savage's reign was significant because while he was a seasoned vet in wrestling he was new to WWE at that time, this was a major push because the title itself had significant impact back then. Savage as a heel used the title storyline wise to challenge fan favorite Hulk Hogan, proving the adage that the IC Champ is the legit #1 contender to the World Title, just like in the NWA where US Champs like Magnum TA would use that title to get World Title bouts vs Ric Flair.

Holding the IC Title was historically significant for Brett Hart, WWE gave him that title (and a very good storyline leading into his win over a very over and credible heel champ in Curt Henning) as a test to see how he would do as a singles star after being mostly a quiet tag team performer with a manager (Jimmy Hart) doing his talking and drawing his heat. Could he perform well enough both in the ring (without a partner to share highs spots & bumps with) and on the mic to gain & hold fans interest ? Like Savage he succeeded.

It was the same for HBK, who got the title in somewhat surprising fashion very soon after British Bulldog had won it with a huge set up and celebration. WWE saw Bulldog's limits put saw a lot of potential in HBK, who at this time was still raw in his newly created Heart Break Kid persona and heel character after years as a bland, carbon copy Rock & Roll Express rip off capitalizing on the tail end of the teeny bopper tag team craze. HBK got a major win, and was given prime storylines as champ, and even used the IC Title (like Savage) to get World Title Matches. Back then just holding the title gave you instant cred and doing anything significant with it (if you were that good) was a huge push forward for your character with the audience.

Favorite IC Title Matches.....there have been plenty....

Title vs Title - Ultimate Warrior vs Hulk Hogan - Huge match ups of un beaten fan faves with both titles on the line

Steamboat/Savage at Mania 3 - HUGE undercard match, LOTS of TV time for storyline development, also played off Savage's previous feud vs George Steele, this was simply a huge match draw wise for this show and highly entertaining

HHH/Rock Ladder Match - The advent of shorter reigns and change in promotional styles was well under way but the title was a major factor in this match, and this was a highly entertaining match & feud.

Flair/HHH Hell In A Cell - Brutal match, great ending, one of the few times post 2000 that the title itself was really promoted as being important and meaningful with two HOFer legends competing in a blood bath for it.

Hall/HBK - Mania Ladder Match - much like Savage/Steamboat the title was a major reason this storyline got the exposure it did and this match was a huge draw on this card. Probably made Hall's career, a guy who had been around for over a decade at that point and even been a World Tag Champ but never seemed to establish himself in the top tier. This match and storyline changed that for him and was a major reason his star power grew, paving the way for the NWO storyline success a few years later.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

@ FlairFan2003 - firstly just to say in my earlier post I did clearly say that back in the day there were 'up to 5 ppvs a year', not that there WERE 5...

Also your summarising above is largely spot on, except for the paragraph about Shawn Michaels. WWE didn't take the title off Bulldog because they saw limitations in him, they took it off him because he got fired for using Human Growth Hormone with the Ultimate Warrior, but whereas Warrior they could just dump straight away, Bulldog had the IC belt so was required to drop it; Michaels was the logical choice as he'd been lined up as top contender for a while, even though I believe he was already pencilled in for a world title shot at Survivor Series - indeed Michaels may very well have won the title at Royal Rumble 1993 (which early promotional literature had advertised the Bulldog for) anyway; the other alternative was to give the title back to the Mountie, who had been scheduled to face Bulldog for the title at Survivor Series, but I don't think that would have worked as clearly WWE had designs for Michaels to get the belt and they didn't do heel v heel stories back then; in any event, the Mountie also left WWE just before Survivor Series, which is why, IYH short notice, the Survivor Series main events got changed.

To the earlier poster referring to the fictional tournament in Rio being a rib; I was of the belief that the tournament was for the South American title, and Patterson already held the North American belt (won from Ted DiBiase), after which he consolidated both belts into the new Intercontinental title, and for reasons of consistency, as the WWE title was win 'in a Rio tournament' it made sense to say the SA title tourney was in Rio too...

 

[Jack-Hammer]

When I look at the Intercontinental Championship, I see a title who's history has been WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY over blown, due in large part, because of nostalgia. To hear some people talk, you'd think that Savage, Warrior, Henning, Hart & Razor were the only 5 guys to hold the title; for every great run, there are a number of runs that weren't so hot.

Some of the not so memorable champs, some of whom weren't all that memorable as wrestlers in many ways or who didn't have particularly great runs as champ, include Ken Patera, Don Muraco, Tito Santana, Greg The Hammer Valentine, Ricky The Dragon Steamboat, Kerry Von Erich, The Mountie, Rowdy Roddy Piper, The British Bulldog, Marty Jannetty, Jeff Jarrett, Ahmed Johnson, Marc Mero, Ken Shamrock, Val Venis, Road Dogg, Billy Gunn, etc. Let's also not forget the numerous hot potato reigns of the Attitude Era that happened with greats like Stone Cold Steve Austin, Triple H, Chris Jericho, Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Edge, Rob Van Dam and many others.

I agree that, sometimes, WWE doesn't use the IC title in satisfactory ways, at least in my opinion. However, personally, I'm tired of all the running down the IC title has gotten during the last 10 years or so while the title's "glory days" of the 80s and 90s get conveniently left out straight through the Attitude Era due to some fans looking at those times through rose colored glasses trying to pass off every run as epic, every match as a classic and every feud as gold.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

When I look at the Intercontinental Championship, I see a title who's history has been WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY over blown, due in large part, because of nostalgia. To hear some people talk, you'd think that Savage, Warrior, Henning, Hart & Razor were the only 5 guys to hold the title; for every great run, there are a number of runs that weren't so hot.

Some of the not so memorable champs, some of whom weren't all that memorable as wrestlers in many ways or who didn't have particularly great runs as champ, include Ken Patera, Don Muraco, Tito Santana, Greg The Hammer Valentine, Ricky The Dragon Steamboat, Kerry Von Erich, The Mountie, Rowdy Roddy Piper, The British Bulldog, Marty Jannetty, Jeff Jarrett, Ahmed Johnson, Marc Mero, Ken Shamrock, Val Venis, Road Dogg, Billy Gunn, etc. Let's also not forget the numerous hot potato reigns of the Attitude Era that happened with greats like Stone Cold Steve Austin, Triple H, Chris Jericho, Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Edge, Rob Van Dam and many others.

I agree that, sometimes, WWE doesn't use the IC title in satisfactory ways, at least in my opinion. However, personally, I'm tired of all the running down the IC title has gotten during the last 10 years or so while the title's "glory days" of the 80s and 90s get conveniently left out straight through the Attitude Era due to some fans looking at those times through rose colored glasses trying to pass off every run as epic, every match as a classic and every feud as gold.

So it pisses you off that people liked how the title was booked in the 'glory days', because you thought it sucked back then for the most part... but you get tired of how it gets run down today, even though 'sometimes' the WWE doesn't use the title in satisfactory ways?

Do you mind explaining how Muraco, Valentine or Santana didn't have 'particularly great runs as champ?' Is it because they happened to have them before Wrestlemania 3? Because a lot of the IWC seems to have a hard time accepting that guys who's careers existed before the Silverdome were just as good as everyone that came afterwards?

Do you mind explaining how a title that was booked as one of the most important titles in the world, and was typically the focal point of the TV shows for well over a decade's history is completely overblown... but a title that is generally treated as an afterthough is just sometimes used in unsatisfactory ways?

Were there champs back in the 'glory days' who didn't have the greatest reigns? Of course there were. Just like there's always been with every single championship in the history of the business. Does that mean that the history of the title back then has been completely overblown because of fans who think everything was better before? No.

People like how the title was booked in the past better... because it was booked better in the past. The champions up to I'd say 1993 (when they put it on Jannetty), are looked at more fondly and more memorable then those who came after because up until then, they were to a man booked as people who should be memorable because their accomplishments surrounding this title were booked to be important.

Compare that to how the titles been booked the past decade or two? You say that it 'occasionally' isn't booked the best? How often has the championship been left off of major shows? How often when it's been used on major shows, has it just been in a throw away match? How often has the WWE used the Intercontinental championship as the focal point of a major angle?

Don Muraco didn't have a great run, but the title today is fine? Unbelievable.

 

[FromGlasgow]

I think regular short reigns would devalue any title, The IC title did feel like a bigger deal back in the day and felt like an IC title match could easily main event if the world champion wasn't available and years ago watching WWf it deffinently seemed like the IC champion was the 2nd best wrestler in the world.