The Midcard Comparison Fallacy

[Loveless]

I've been taking part in this Wrestlezone tournament for some time now and it's about time I brought this up because it bugs me.
Repeatedly in arguments when it comes to wrestlers of different generations, I see this consistent statement that because "older wrestler" only held the midcard title, that they're immediately inferior to a modern day talent with a world title under their belt.

This is a nonsense and shows a fundamental ignorance of wrestling history and how things used to be.

I'm going to use Mr Perfect as an example though I could easily use Steaboat or Rude, even Dibiase.
Perfect is a guy with obvious talent, he can work in the ring, he can work with the mic, good looking guy. He has one simple problem, he arrives in the wrong era. In the era of muscleheads, facepaint and steroids, there is no space for an ordinary guy no matter what his ability. Bret Hart was in exactly the same boat and the only difference between these 2 is that Perfect injured his back before his time came. Yet when legacies get compared, Bret gets favoured as a legend while Hennig is dismissed as a terminal midcarder.
These are the margins between success and failure, if HBK comes along 10 years earlier then he doesn't stand a chance, this is a guy regarded as one of the very best. Hell Steve Austin was stuck in midcard hell for the same reasons. I'm sure you see my point that using the same stick to judge sucess in different eras is somewhat stupid. Which brings me to my 2nd point and I'll try to be brief with this.

The IC title of (let's say) 1988-1999 is far more valuable, prestigious and legitimate than the WWE Heavyweight title (or whichever title is on Smackdown).
Firstly and purely as fact, it was the 2nd title of the WWF (in that respect equal to the smackdown belt)
Secondly it was fought over by the whole roster instead of just half of it.
Thirdly, it provided better matches, was booked stronger and had better talent holding it.

Now to finally get onto the comparison.
IC Champion - Mr Perfect
Heavyweight champion - Sheamus

Who's better? What if instead of Sheamus it's Daniel Bryan or Mark Henry? Big Show? Christian? Ziggler? Who's the most legitimate champion of all these talents if they're all working in the same company right now?
Comparing being a champion these days to being a midcarder in the golden era of the midcard is not something that works in favour of the current generation and holding up modern day titles as the equal of 20 years ago is a nonsense because the midcarders of that era would stomp all over what's around now.
Bloody kids, show some respect to your elders

 

[PEP3]

To be honest, I could not agree more!

This assessment says nothing of the actual talent of today's performers. Instead, it merely speaks to the actual value of titles in today's WWE. With monthly pay-per-view extravaganzas constantly trying to out-do the previous buy-rates, the WWE grew to believe it necessary to cycle through champions faster than Hogan cycled through underwear during his prime.

Not only does this mean we'll likely never again see a champion hold his title the 14 months Honky Tonk Man did, it means we're pretty much guaranteed to never see a champion with a reign like Hogan's initial four-year run.

In the '80s and even into the '90s, WWE believed in wrestlers paying their dues for years before receiving a major championship title reign. Wrestlers like "Mr. Perfect," mentioned in the post above, and "Ravishing" Rick Rude had proven themselves tremendous box office draws and main event worthy competitors before ever being given the Intercontinental title. Both were 100-percent capable of carrying the World Heavyweight championship, if given the opportunity. Unfortunately, the WWE had other plans. That does not mean they should fall at the feet of people in today's crop of wrestlers simply because they never had a WWE title run.

In the modern era, rather than requiring wrestlers to build a reputation, develop a following and earn a title, the WWE seems to give people the belt first -- as if it will give them immediate credibility -- then make them work to support that after-the-fact. And they are very, VERY seldom given ample time to earn a reputation worthy of being a "World champ." People like Sheamus, Alberto Del Rio, Jack Swagger, Christian and many others have been in-and-out of the title scene so quickly, even the most dedicated fans can't keep up!

Were people like Rude, Hennig, and even wrestlers who never held a WWE title during their hey-day -- the "Mr. Wonderful" Paul Orndorffs, King Kong Bundys, Jake "The Snake" Roberts & "Big" John Studds of the world -- to compete in today's WWE, they would almost assuredly get at least one World title reign under their belt, even if a brief one. Unfortunately, they came along at a time when it was nearly as prestigious to be a contender who took the champ to the limit, nearly stealing victory, only to fall just a tiny bit short.

They competed in an era where getting close to the belt was good enough, and when titles actually have value. Now, everybody seems to get their time to shine -- even if just for a few days -- and belts are barely worth the faux metal they're made of. Today, titles hardly mean a thing -- which we acknowledge all the time on these boards -- so why should simply having a Championship reign in an era where it means so little carry more weight than being a top Intercontinental champion or even long-standing #1 contender during a time when those belts mean everything?