Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just re watched Bret Hart Vs Davey Boy Smith from summerslam 1992, and man that was a match.

A 30 minute classic, main eventing in front of 80,000 people, it didn't even matter that it wasn't the World title, it felt like it was for THE championship.

There's no way you could pull that off these days, the IC title is a complete joke, they de-valued it worse than the other titles.

I'm glad it's on a trooper like Christian, he brings it some dignity, but you know it won't last long.

On a side note, WWE should do another PPV in the UK, I know the time difference isn't the greatest, but just have it a bit later at night in the UK so americans can see it, they will make a fortune off the gate anyway if they had it at Wembley.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,096 Posts
The IC title back then though was the number 2 title. With the bran extension it was behind the WHC. It's served its purpose. Time to unify the IC and US titles and reintroduce the hardcore title.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
The IC title back then though was the number 2 title. With the bran extension it was behind the WHC. It's served its purpose. Time to unify the IC and US titles and reintroduce the hardcore title.
They need to re-unify ALL the belts

WWE + World Heavyweight = WWE Heavyweight Championship

IC + US = Intercontinental

and as for Hardcore title, nah not really any point.

Boxing got watered down by having too many titles, same thing happening to WWE

I mean you've really got 3 world titles anyway:

The "John Cena Title" which is what John Cena always has as he's the face of the company, it doesnt have a physical belt as such, it just exists in name only, and only John Cena can hold it. and then the other 2 "lesser" titles, the WWE championship and the WHC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
Dunno about unifying the US and IC titles. . .

The US title just needs to be done away with period. It's practically never around the waist of anybody that matters. it's practically a joke belt.

Ryder?
Swagger?
SANTINO?

Stop it!


If US title is gone, IC title by default becomes more important, which by default makes the WHC more important. Or you could take out the WHC and leave the US, which instantly makes the IC a hell of a lot more special because it becomes the second best belt.

I wouldn't mind if the WHC belt got done away with too though tbh. But I understand why it's there. There are so many wrestlers now that WWE wants to push as main eventers, only having two belts like in the past really doesn't work. So having three makes sense.

Basically, 4 is too much, but 2 is too little. Replacing US with Hardcore is also okay with me because that's always been sort of a joke belt, though at least it was always interesting. It's like a toxic belt where the entire roster who DOESN'T have it pretty much all have an infinite MITB cash in on it. Hilarious concept that I wouldn't mind being brought back.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
Dunno about unifying the US and IC titles. . .

The US title just needs to be done away with period. It's practically never around the waist of anybody that matters. it's practically a joke belt.

Ryder?
Swagger?
SANTINO?

Stop it!


If US title is gone, IC title by default becomes more important, which by default makes the WHC more important. Or you could take out the WHC and leave the US, which instantly makes the IC a hell of a lot more special because it becomes the second best belt.

I wouldn't mind if the WHC belt got done away with too though tbh. But I understand why it's there. There are so many wrestlers now that WWE wants to push as main eventers, only having two belts like in the past really doesn't work. So having three makes sense.

Basically, 4 is too much, but 2 is too little. Replacing US with Hardcore is also okay with me because that's always been sort of a joke belt, though at least it was always interesting. It's like a toxic belt where the entire roster who DOESN'T have it pretty much all have an infinite MITB cash in on it. Hilarious concept that I wouldn't mind being brought back.
90% of those guys are NOT main event calibre though, and the reason we are getting no established AAA stars (other than Cena) is because there is so many belts, and so many inept stars being given failed main event pushes.

Back in the day you had PRIME versions of HBK, Kane, Undertaker, Austin, Hart, HHH, Rock, Show, Foley, etc all revolving around one belt, granted there was some crossover, but the fact is with the arguable exception of Cena you could drop ANY of those names, in their prime in the current roster and they instantly become the number one guy in the WWE.

They do not need all these titles, they managed fine, if not better with a deeper roster of main event talent in the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
WWE has too many belts, TNA has too many belts and I don't get why. TNA should have at most 2 belts (WHC and X Division, TV title is BS) and WWE should have (WWE/WHC one title as well as US/IC one unified title), right now the titles seem completely meaningless. I hardly remember when IC title actually meant something, but I do know it used to be important, unfortunately that was LONG time ago in Galaxy far away...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
90% of those guys are NOT main event calibre though, and the reason we are getting no established AAA stars (other than Cena) is because there is so many belts.

Back in the day you had PRIME versions of HBK, Kane, Undertaker, Austin, Hart, HHH, Rock, Show, Foley, etc all revolving around one belt, granted there was some crossover, but the fact is with the arguable exception of Cena you could drop ANY of those names, in their prime in the current roster and they instantly become the number one guy in the WWE.

They do not need all these titles, they managed fine, if not better with a deeper roster of main event talent in the past.
Back then they also had the Hardcore title, Light Heavyweight title, and European title though. So despite the fact that they didn't have two belts they have now, they had three they don't now.

So they actually had MORE belts in the attitude era than they do now, not less! Then, near the end of the attitude era, they added in the WHC and US titles too. Don't try to spread false info to support an argument bro.


Anyway, I also disagree that the WHC belt is why nobody besides Cena is getting marketed. Is that a joke? The fact that people rarely get put over Cena is why nobody gets put up there. It has NOTHING to do with the presence of the WHC belt.

That's like saying your car broke down because you bought a can of beans that day. Should've gone with B&M, not fuckin Bush's beans!

Seriously, that's about as relevant of an analogy. Cena's not even in the WHC division, so it doesn't matter. Cena also doesn't have the WWE title, and hasn't been in the mix for that in half a year.


Again, the only reason so few new wrestlers are put onto the AAA stage is because they aren't booking people to be put over the current AAA guys. The only way to get there is to beat the guys that are there. These guys also have to be good enough to be accepted by the crowd. . .which again, has ZERO to do with there being more than two belts.

When you look at the roster, there is a huge log jam of "main eventers", barely any mid carders because half of them have been pushed to the main event too early, and a pool of scrubs that nobody wants to see. Having only one world belt just compounds the problem, because now several guys lose their progress since they have to get demoted to the mid card, while Cena, who doesn't even have a belt, is constantly in the main event with his fueds.

Which again, has nothing to do with the WHC belt existing. That is primarily a Smackdown belt. It's the world title of Smackdown. Which is why it has nothing to do with what happens on Raw. Again, it has nothing to do with the belts and everything to do with Cena's perpetual push.


If you want proof, here's a little bit for you. Remember when Smackdown was boring as fuck last year? When Kane and Big Show were just dominating everyone, and Orton was always the champ? It was like Rock paper Scissors on Smackdown. . .except paper and rock beat everything besides scissors, and scissors beat both paper and rock, so Scissors was always the champ. Scissors being Orton, and rock and paper being Kane and Show.

Then Mark Henry gets a push, and takes out both paper and rock, so now we didn't have to deal with the weekly squash matches for everyone put against paper and rock. Then lo and beold, Henry beats scissors too. Suddenly Smackdown is interesting because someone got put over rock, paper, and scissors for a change. Now it's no longer a boring squash fest for the Smackdown triumvirate. Suddenly we have Mark Henry. Suddenly Smackdown is interesting, and it was interesting BEFORE Henry won that belt. Then when he did win it, it was even more interesting.

CM Punk was also pushed hard to AAA status, and no he wasn't there prior to his fued with Cena. How did he get there? He was allowed to beat pretty cleanly Cena TWICE.

It's not a coincidence. The WHC belt has nothing to do with it. It's always about the current "AAA" stars not putting anyone new over. Though like I said, the lack of real talent is another reason why there aren't many new stars. Can you really list 5 guys who have not won either title who are legit main eventers right now? Can you even list 3? I can only think of maybe two guys, and one is a stretch.
 

·
Starving for poutine
Joined
·
7,260 Posts
I remember Christian's awesome run in 2003. "Excuse-me! Intercontinental champion over here!!!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
WWE has too many belts, TNA has too many belts and I don't get why. TNA should have at most 2 belts (WHC and X Division, TV title is BS) and WWE should have (WWE/WHC one title as well as US/IC one unified title), right now the titles seem completely meaningless. I hardly remember when IC title actually meant something, but I do know it used to be important, unfortunately that was LONG time ago in Galaxy far away...
IC title doesn't mean much anymore because there's a US title which has been irrelevant forever. Having a single irrelevant title devalues every other title. Putting a title on the likes of Santino Marella and Zack Ryder is precisely why that title is devalued, and why it devalues all the other titles.

I don't think having WWE and WHC titles is bad though because they are the titles for each specific show. If there was only one "high title", we'd have even faster fueds that begin and end well before it ever gets interesting, because they're going to want to use more guys in the main event for said title. Having two "top tier titles" relieves a lot of that pressure.

Since the IC division is so subpar anyway, and the US division is practically non existant, then there's no reason not to do away with the US title and strengthen the IC division.

But again, both the WWE and WHC divisions are always active and busy, so it would just create a logjam to get rid of the WHC title. With the new 3 hour Raws coming up, what the fuck are they going to do for 3 hours while waiting for the only title fued of the night? Jesus, just think about it. . .we're gonna have a bunch of filler matches for 2 1/2 hours, then Smackdown would be the IC title show.

Getting rid of the WHC title would be a terrible idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
For the love of God... THERE WILL NOT BE A HARDCORE TITLE. That would imply that there's hardcore wrestling. It's not that difficult.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why weight-classed titles won't work. One heavyweight champ, one lightweight champ, everybody wins. Sin Cara and Cody Rhodes could be "legit" champs in the lightweight division without anyone blinking an eye and wondering why Brock Lesnar doesn't just murder either one of them for the belt.

Edit: getting rid of the WHC is an excellent idea, given what I just wrote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
For the love of God... THERE WILL NOT BE A HARDCORE TITLE. That would imply that there's hardcore wrestling. It's not that difficult.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why weight-classed titles won't work. One heavyweight champ, one lightweight champ, everybody wins. Sin Cara and Cody Rhodes could be "legit" champs in the lightweight division without anyone blinking an eye and wondering why Brock Lesnar doesn't just murder either one of them for the belt.

Edit: getting rid of the WHC is an excellent idea, given what I just wrote.
Being marked as lightweights devalues their presence as wrestlers. It indirectly means, "cannot compete against heavyweights, so they have their own division". Automatically bastardizes that division.

Also, it does not make getting rid of the WHC an excellent idea, because neither of the mere two wrestlers you mentioned are even in the WHC division. Therefore giving them a belt does nothing to relieve the pressure on the "heavyweight division", where all the main eventers would be log jammed at. Making it a terrible idea that you clearly didn't think out very well before posting it was an excellent idea.

You're like those people who post a comment on facebook then give it a thumbs up as soon as it's posted. No shit you think it's a good idea, you just posted it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
@SinJackal I actually agree with everything you are saying, I think you are misunderstanding the point i'm trying to make.

The Hardcore/European/LHW titles never really "meant" anything they were just kind of there.

I agree with what you say about needing new stars and only a few guys being at that "top level"

But the way to put them there, I belive is to have ONE top title, and make it mean something again, then build worthy stars toward it. The IC title or the tier 2 belt is a means to an end as traditionaly it was pretty much the "number one contender" title, or interim championship as you will.

I just think WWE is too unfocused right now, if it was me I'd go back to the old ways, merge the brands and merge the championships.

People will argue that WWE has too many guys, know the soloution there? Fire the dead weight.

because that's what it is, just a whole load of dead weight weighing down the ship.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Being marked as lightweights devalues their presence as wrestlers. It indirectly means, "cannot compete against heavyweights, so they have their own division". Automatically bastardizes that division.

Also, it does not make getting rid of the WHC an excellent idea, because neither of the mere two wrestlers you mentioned are even in the WHC division. Therefore giving them a belt does nothing to relieve the pressure on the "heavyweight division", where all the main eventers would be log jammed at. Making it a terrible idea that you clearly didn't think out very well before posting it was an excellent idea.

You're like those people who post a comment on facebook then give it a thumbs up as soon as it's posted. No shit you think it's a good idea, you just posted it.
No, I've thought it through, and yes, it's an excellent idea. Your pompous rant amounts to absolutely nothing. Try again!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Being marked as lightweights devalues their presence as wrestlers. It indirectly means, "cannot compete against heavyweights, so they have their own division". Automatically bastardizes that division.

Also, it does not make getting rid of the WHC an excellent idea, because neither of the mere two wrestlers you mentioned are even in the WHC division. Therefore giving them a belt does nothing to relieve the pressure on the "heavyweight division", where all the main eventers would be log jammed at. Making it a terrible idea that you clearly didn't think out very well before posting it was an excellent idea.

You're like those people who post a comment on facebook then give it a thumbs up as soon as it's posted. No shit you think it's a good idea, you just posted it.
I actually agree with him on the divisions.

Wrestling needs to get over this whole "size is everything" thing it has going on and there is no harm in pushing the smaller guys within their own division.

Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao were just named the two highest paid athletes on the planet in 2012, and neither of them are heavyweights.

Little guys can draw, IF they are given a chance to show their superior athletiscism and skill, and not squashed by fat bastards and treated like comic relief
 

·
FAKE HAPPY
Joined
·
12,533 Posts
I think the last time the IC title meant something, was when Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit feuded for it in 2000-2001.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,096 Posts
Back then they also had the Hardcore title, Light Heavyweight title, and European title though. So despite the fact that they didn't have two belts they have now, they had three they don't now.

So they actually had MORE belts in the attitude era than they do now, not less! Then, near the end of the attitude era, they added in the WHC and US titles too. Don't try to spread false info to support an argument bro.


Anyway, I also disagree that the WHC belt is why nobody besides Cena is getting marketed. Is that a joke? The fact that people rarely get put over Cena is why nobody gets put up there. It has NOTHING to do with the presence of the WHC belt.

That's like saying your car broke down because you bought a can of beans that day. Should've gone with B&M, not fuckin Bush's beans!

Seriously, that's about as relevant of an analogy. Cena's not even in the WHC division, so it doesn't matter. Cena also doesn't have the WWE title, and hasn't been in the mix for that in half a year.


Again, the only reason so few new wrestlers are put onto the AAA stage is because they aren't booking people to be put over the current AAA guys. The only way to get there is to beat the guys that are there. These guys also have to be good enough to be accepted by the crowd. . .which again, has ZERO to do with there being more than two belts.

When you look at the roster, there is a huge log jam of "main eventers", barely any mid carders because half of them have been pushed to the main event too early, and a pool of scrubs that nobody wants to see. Having only one world belt just compounds the problem, because now several guys lose their progress since they have to get demoted to the mid card, while Cena, who doesn't even have a belt, is constantly in the main event with his fueds.

Which again, has nothing to do with the WHC belt existing. That is primarily a Smackdown belt. It's the world title of Smackdown. Which is why it has nothing to do with what happens on Raw. Again, it has nothing to do with the belts and everything to do with Cena's perpetual push.


If you want proof, here's a little bit for you. Remember when Smackdown was boring as fuck last year? When Kane and Big Show were just dominating everyone, and Orton was always the champ? It was like Rock paper Scissors on Smackdown. . .except paper and rock beat everything besides scissors, and scissors beat both paper and rock, so Scissors was always the champ. Scissors being Orton, and rock and paper being Kane and Show.

Then Mark Henry gets a push, and takes out both paper and rock, so now we didn't have to deal with the weekly squash matches for everyone put against paper and rock. Then lo and beold, Henry beats scissors too. Suddenly Smackdown is interesting because someone got put over rock, paper, and scissors for a change. Now it's no longer a boring squash fest for the Smackdown triumvirate. Suddenly we have Mark Henry. Suddenly Smackdown is interesting, and it was interesting BEFORE Henry won that belt. Then when he did win it, it was even more interesting.

CM Punk was also pushed hard to AAA status, and no he wasn't there prior to his fued with Cena. How did he get there? He was allowed to beat pretty cleanly Cena TWICE.

It's not a coincidence. The WHC belt has nothing to do with it. It's always about the current "AAA" stars not putting anyone new over. Though like I said, the lack of real talent is another reason why there aren't many new stars. Can you really list 5 guys who have not won either title who are legit main eventers right now? Can you even list 3? I can only think of maybe two guys, and one is a stretch.
True but what I would argue is that with exception of the European title, the Harcore title and LHC wasn't just a belt for the sake of having a belt. They appealed to a certain degree because of a limited division.

The hardocre title- Lots of weapons
LHC- cruiserweights only.

Furthermore, the roster in the AA seemed a lot bigger back then.

Since the brand extension there has been confusion over what is the number 1 title. The WHC or the WWE title.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top