What's Wrong With The Midcard?

[Mac Attack]

Nothing.

That's the simple truth to it all. Being in the midcard is absolutely fine position and yet often times many people think it's the equivalent of a bottomless pit of hell. Looking specifically at WWE and the majority of its fans the proverbial midcard is a place where your career is basically in limbo. Your stuck there to win when you win and lose when you lose. It's to put the Main Eventers over, and to go over the jobbers. This role is CRUCIAL in order to establish a pecking order of WWE Superstars and yet all too often fans and the IWC equate it to career hell.

Don't believe me? Take a look at these forums. Enter any thread about Kofi Kngston, or a recent one about Ezekial Jackson, or the last 5 in 3 months about Santino, what do they revolve around. Two things: Should they be stuck in the midcard, and how can we create a scenario where they become main eventers? Let me use this quote to explain why a midcard is important.

If everyone's special, nobody is.

Insert main eventer where the word special is and it comes out the same. Not everyone can be a main eventer. The status quo of the WWE depends on the ideal that there is a pecking order of superstars and the ME get over by beating midcard, the midcard over by beating jobbers, and the jobbers get over from entertaining the audience with the time they can. Yet every week people love to complain about the fact that _______ is not a main eventer. Or ______ is not being used in every humanly way possible. However the argument still lies in the fact that midcarders are necessary.

Now why I didn't put this thread into General Discussion is cause TNA is a big exception to this rule. They're superstars go from ME to jobber to midcard, almost constantly. Sure they have the MEM, but are all of those guys main eventers in all honestly? Nope. And don't get me started on their heels there's only one ME heel and that's Bully Ray everyone else changes week to week.

So back to WWE realm and look at how they are using the midcard right now. You have 9 midcarders +RVD+ Bryan fighting against an evil corporation. Shield beat 10 of them in a fight last Monday---> shield goes over and doesn't look nearly as bad for losing to a fellow ME in Bryan. Look how simple and useful having the midcarders around is. They take their fall and elevate others. Now envision the scenario where everyone was a ME it wouldn't work having the 3 beat 10 other ME, it's illogical.

Now I'm not saying WWE couldn't use a few superstars more wisely, because they could. However all the bitching and complaining about midcards being dead careers or absolutely terrible needs to stop. Several legends where built upon being the best midcard talent possible. Jim Duggan, WWE HOF'er was one for the majority of his career, he turned out pretty good. Guys like Kofi, Santino, Dolph Ziggler to some extent all will have great careers. Just as midcarders.

But what do you think?

 

[The_Sharpshooter]

I understand where you're coming from, and do agree with what you said about pecking order and such. With that being said, I can't agree with the statement that nothing is wrong with the midcard. You have the IC & US champ with no real contenders until they may get pinned in a random tag match. Just as you spoke on the pecking order, there should be one for all the titles, not just for who finishes the show. Kofi should be a perennial contender for the IC belt, as dolph should be for the US. Those should be the fall back guys until new contenders arise, but instead we'll go months on end without seeing Axel defend his title. If the midcard was fine, we wouldn't have to deal with that nonsense. And if Axel is fighting Heyman's battles, he should drop it to someone deserving & that gives for more interesting rivalries.

 

[Mac Attack]

I understand where you're coming from, and do agree with what you said about pecking order and such. With that being said, I can't agree with the statement that nothing is wrong with the midcard.

And that's a totally fair statement. However I have full intention of discussing it and hopefully we can both gain more understanding from it.

You have the IC & US champ with no real contenders until they may get pinned in a random tag match.

I'm not entirely sure what your referring to here to be honest. The last title match for the US championship was based off a feud between Ziggler and Ambrose as set up by Triple H. The feud before that was set up from a battle royal. I recognize in the past it's been set up randomly like that but I think especially with the US championship it's been handled pretty well with relatively decent names fighting for it.

Now it's only fair to look at the IC championship. So it was defended against Kingston due to Triple H having been made the day of. However Kofi and Axel had fought in what 2? 3? matches preceding this and in then Kofi got wins in shady manners. It only makes sense that the grudge would occur at a PPV. Axel was a part of the Lesnar-Punk feud so he gets an exemption. And before that you had the whole Miz/Fandango/Axel/Barrett saga. So it's not like it's willy nilly to me it sounds like real feuds were established.

Just as you spoke on the pecking order, there should be one for all the titles, not just for who finishes the show. Kofi should be a perennial contender for the IC belt, as dolph should be for the US. Those should be the fall back guys until new contenders arise, but instead we'll go months on end without seeing Axel defend his title. If the midcard was fine, we wouldn't have to deal with that nonsense. And if Axel is fighting Heyman's battles, he should drop it to someone deserving & that gives for more interesting rivalries.

As pointed out above, he skipped one PPV right? If champs fought at every PPV wouldn't every night be Night of Champions? Now I absolutely agree that Axel should drop the title and be more essential to Heyman. However I argue that that's a championship issue and not a midcard issue.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The problem with the midcard is simple... the conveyor belt system that began in the 90's. The one that says "if a midcard champion doesn't move up to a World title within 2 years, they've failed." Savage was the first one to do it, drops the IC and one year later is winning the World title but most people accept that he was there more because of Hogan's need for a break than cos he "earned that spot".

Bret was the first guy who really did "move up" on merit within a year, Nash quickly followed cos he was big and Shawn was still World champ within a year of his last IC reign ending.

Then it became the norm, guys like Austin, Rock, Triple H, Jericho, Benoit, Angle, Eddie, JBL, Batista, Rey, Booker, Cena, Orton and more recently Sheamus, Miz and Bryan.

The guys who don't move up as quick or at all seem to be written off as being inferior, failing and under threat. Even Ziggler was to some failing before he got that, albeit shortened title reign. Guys like Barrett are considered "washed up" because they haven't clicked or found that World title worthy gear yet... doesn't mean he won't - the irony is the two guys who really started this, Bret and Shawn had both been in the E for 8 years and wrestling for 10 or more when they got that break... Someone like Barrett has been wrestling 5-6 years total and now is starting to find a groove, as a Harley Race style bad ass heel - you can tell the guy has been watching tapes of the Handsome one cos he's even picking up some mannerisms... it COULD be the way forward.

The thing is - for years guys literally had no shot at the title but were considered ultra important to the show and the fans never questioned their abilities. Guys like Tito Santana, Greg Valentine, Rick Martel, Jim Duggan and Big Bossman could all have been World Champions in another fed in 87-90 but they barely got IC title shots in that time for WWE. All but 2 are in the HOF and the other 2 are locks in the next few years.

Someone like Bossman never needed a belt, he'd have looked stupid with one - he had his Nightstick, Cuffs - a belt would have taken away from those gimmicks. Jake Roberts could have been a champ - but then he'd have to parade the belt etc rather than unleash Damien.

Today's midcard are taught that without a belt you are nothing, without a World title you are not "important" and even your best "probably won't be good enough" if you fail to achieive either and they'll replace you...this is rather than the fans and the E embracing guys who make the ones who do rise look good.

The other big issue is that especially in the attitude and Hogan era's EVERYONE ALWAYS HAD A FEUD... Look at those 14 match Mania's like 6 and 7 - every match had some kind of TV feud involved and you could see progression from it, even if it had only started in the 3 weeks before Mania for the lower card... Today Mania's "top matches" get booked 2 weeks before? At Mania 6 Perfect's feud with Beefcake was in swing and he was "promoted" to the IC title. Quake beat Hercules to win his first major feud and he was soon splashing Hogan... A year later Davey Boy won the "battle of the full nelsons" with the Warlord and again defeated him at Summerslam but teaming with 2 former NWA champs to do so - sure it was the opening match but he stepped up from that feud and was putting in major shifts in the Rumble and Summerslam the following year, despite narrowly missing Mania 8.

That's why the original Survivor Series concept was so good, you had all levels of the roster on one team, Hogan would have an upper mid, mid and lower mid on his team and the opponents the same... you could see who was moving up, who was moving down all on one show. Try doing that from Raw to Smackdown taping these days...

 

[akathelaw]

Some of my favorite wrestlers were midcarders: Mister Perfect, Chris Benoit, Dean Malenko, Jake Roberts, Lance Storm and Chris Jericho. Sometimes midcarders win a top title, sometimes they don't. If you're not in the main event, you're a midcarder, and there's no shame in being anywhere on the card. What matters is that you're there, and the crowd cares about it. I think a lot of wrestlers have a perception of the midcard being a waste of time, just filler booking until they "really" get pushed. Chris Jericho's midcard Cruiserweight run in WCW was so entertaining that I'd skip the main event sometimes because it paled in comparison. It's all about what the talent does with the time given, they're all entertainers and I'm sure fans want a packed show, not just some filler matches and then one that they do care about.

 

[LuckyLouie]

The way I see it, is they build talent up then break them down, build them up, break them down over and over again. After a while I lose interest. The one guy im holding out for is Cesaro. He needs a solid fued where he wins more then once every two month. That way people can take him as a threat. People love to watch him wrestle, he draws me in by how technical and ruthless he is. But he is trashed as a character. To me it seems like Santino ( as much as I love him ) is seen as a bigger threat.
Talent need feuds. We need to see them and watch them grow. Otherwise its just a new gimmick over and over again.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Nothing wrong with being on the midcard. A lot of performers make a career of it. Sure, it's good to be at the top, but if it weren't for the midcard, there would be no main eventers. How would you measure them if everyone was at the top level?

It's as if a group of super-geniuses were in a classroom. Especially if graded on a curve, some would have to fail, no matter how smart all of them were, right?

Main event status is something you'd presume everyone aspires to, yet many performers are probably happy to remain midcard wrestlers for their entire stay with the organization. There's no shame in it; we need folks in the middle.

More interesting is that we never read about anyone being a "lower-card" performer. Yes, it might be logical to designate jobbers to be at this level, yet I've never read the term being applied to anyone.

Why not? I'd wager there are plenty of pro wrestlers who would rather be on the lower-card in WWE, getting their heads knocked off every week on national television than being title contenders in wrestling federations that run their shows in high school gyms in Wheeling, West Virginia.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

At one point or another, I think just about all of us, me included, have given the impression that being a mid-carder is something to be ashamed of or is the mark of a career wasted. While it's definitely true that wrestlers who could be main eventers haven't made it out of the mid-card scene for one reason or another, in EVERY wrestling company, that's not to say that mid-carders can't have great careers.

Arn Anderson & Tully Blanchard spent their entire careers in the mid-card and tag team scenes, yet they're highly revered. Guys like Roddy Piper, Greg The Hammer Valentine, Tito Santana and Ted DiBiase are considered all time greats to varying degrees. Most of them did chase the main event titles at one point, but they never ultimately captured them. DiBiase is arguably the greatest singles wrestler to have never been a singles World Champion in the past 40 years and I think he would've made a fantastic heel champion in the late 80s. I honestly think that Arn Anderson & Tully Blanchard could have been great World Champions, although it's understandable why Crockett & later Turner would keep Flair as the top guy for so long.

There's only ever been and only ever will be so much room at the top of the mountain. Not everybody is going to make it whether it be a matter of business decisions or the sheer impracticality of EVERYBODY being a main eventer at some point. It's just like any other pitfall of life, depending on which road you take. Not everyone who goes to work for Bill Gates or Ted Turner can be CEO of Microsoft or Turner Broadcasting System, but it doesn't mean you can't have a damn good & profitable career.

 

[MCMG]

If we are defining the likes of Santino and Jackson as mid-carders then there is something wrong. One's a jobber the other hasn't been on TV for a long time and when Jackson does return he will be in the mid-card or a tag-team.

I personally see several "mid-carders" on the current WWE roster that, in my opinion, deserve a push. Guys like Barrett, Ziggler, Rhodes, Sandow are all potentially top stars. Remember, the main-eventers aren't as good as they used to be and the mid-card is a lot stronger. That means that we can easily say Ziggler/Barrett should be where Del Rio is; whereas, not one sane person would ever suggest Goldust was worthy of main-eventing over The Rock, Mankind or Steve Austin.

The current mid-card is interesting because there is a lot of talented guys who seemingly can do a lot. Some are good wrestlers, some can deliver great promos and some are all round great superstars worthy of being a World Champ or feuding with the tops guys.

In terms of the midcard titles then there is a serious problem. The US title is currently fine because Ambrose has built a feud with Ziggler. Before that it was months or random feuds and matches that no-one cared about. The same applies for the IC belt. Wade Barrett saw his career stagnate by holding that belt. I firmly believe that Ziggler and Barrett (to just name two) are far too talented to be wasting their careers in the midcard and are capable of making the step up. These guys are very talented and should be moving away from the likes of Santino, R-Truth, Sin Cara and towards the John Cena and CM Punks or this world.

 

[JBK2008]

Being a mid card guy isn't bad. Not bad at all. Capturing the WWE or World Title is the goal, but if you know you're not ever goin to get it then this is where you are. There's still the Intercontinental United State and Tag Team Titles to capture. If the lower belts were defended or talk about more often, even if it's just in passing, that's all they'll need. The belts have been soo devalued bc of the hot potato that has been done with them.

I miss the mid card feuds with managers or just grudge matches of who's better than the other or the heel is jealous of the faces success. It doesn't even have to always be about te belt, but some time had to be invested intont. There's wwe main event in between raw and smackdown. Use that show to push these feuds or titles.

The main feuds will get their time, no more wasted matches, like having Khali in action. Use that time for someone like wade Barrett or swagger to beat say Curtis axel and then have Curtis defend the belt te next week or something and there's a mid card feud right there. Or have a heel go on a mean streak only to lose to say someone like zack ryder. Ryder is shocked he wins and the heel wants revenge!

It's not hard booking guys. Stop making it seem that way!

 

[M]

Being in the midcard in the WWE isn't bad at all - that is, if the intention is that they're always going to be in the midcard and never move forward from that position. The way WWE works (and most wrestling but this is the WWE section so hah) is that the main eventers get to beat people below them until the PPV while the midcarders get to trade wins with every other midcarder on the roster until they're at a 50-50 average in singles matches and eventually given an intercontinental title reign.

That's all fine and dandy until it comes the time where they need a fresh body to liven up the main even title scene and everyone they have to pick from has either been beaten over and over again by the main eventers they're supposedly now equal to, or they're just another one in the crowd. They say that all it takes is a solid push for a month or two to get everyone to see a guy as a big star, but that's just not how it works in the real world. We, the people of the mysterious network of data known as the "internet" react to such a push in a positive light, citing that they're finally getting the recognition they deserve for their skills or some other positive bullcrap while the majority of the fans, the other guys, will see such a push as completely unnatural and be too busy wondering why the hell this guy who lost clean 4 weeks in a row to Kofi Kingston is now challenging the WWE champion. the "wins and losses don't matter" mentality is half-wrong, they don't remember the losses or wins, but they know where that guy stands because of them, they don't think "this guy loses 87% of the time" they think "this guy has no chance and therefore this is not interesting to me" and that's why being stuck in the midcard can be at times a bad thing (yes i know it's possible to break the mold and be super mega amazing all of a sudden, but how often does that happen?)