[Oxidamus]

Often I see a lot of posters here talking about how certain superstars can "bring credibility to the _ championship." - often it's the Intercontinental Championship because it has been a title in the WWE for a ridiculously long time and has been booked as an afterthought ever since its heyday.

What's worse than posters talking about how some certain superstar becoming the Intercontinental Champion and apparently making the title look prestigious or 'credible', is the superstars doing it themeslves.

Not long after winning the World Heavyweight Championship from Alberto Del Rio at Hell in a Cell, John Cena proclaimed to 'Bring prestige back to the World Heavyweight Championship", or something along those lines.


Now on the subject of Cena, a lot of people are on one side, and a lot of people are on the other.
The first side is this: Cena, a (now) fourteen time World champion holding the World Heavyweight Championship generally makes it look more like a 'big deal' than someone like Del Rio or Ziggler.
The other side is: Cena, a person who is constantly booked to be more important than the WWE Championship itself (the most prestigious championship (however as these people (myself included (brack-ception)) argue, not the most prestigious championship) in the WWE) holding the championship overshadows it.

Now, this can go either way - but it's a clear observation and just proves that "credibility" is an entirely subjective thing.


Maybe a better example is people thinking that Dolph Ziggler beating Curtis Axel for the Intercontinental Championship would immediately make the title look better (AKA more "credible"). Now, I'm not going to debate that Ziggler would be a better champion than Axel - personally I disagree, but I know a lot of people think that and that's hardly the point of the thread.

The point, however, is that a former world champion (especially one whose reigns have been absolutely shit) doesn't necessarily make the championship look better - and it certainly doesn't necessarily mean the championship, and feuds related to it, will get better stories or more television time.

A great example of that is, in recent history, The Miz, former WWE Champion and WrestleMania main-eventer (as he likes to bring up even though he's in jobber territory right now). He was put into very small, short lived, shitty feuds - he even had a one day reign.


Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that no matter who holds what championship, it's not an indication of soon-to-come "credibility". The "credibility" of everything in the WWE relies on the creative team and the booking team - you can be damn good, but if you're not booked in a slot where you're given enough time to show your skills, you don't get recognition. Ever. And neither would the title you hold.

 

[Cardiac Kid]

I'd pretty much agree with all of that, however I think the title loses credibility when it is given a superstar such as Axel in a desperate attempt to make people care about him. But who can make the championship credible if they're not given any meaningful feuds

 

[Gretchen]

It depends on how the wrestler is booked as champion.

However, credibility is present, and its effects are clearly visible in some cases. Like, if Sandow cashed in on Del Rio, when he was champion, after losing to Santino, and being made to look like a goof for a month, not very many would take him seriously. The audience will tend to take those booked weaker less seriously, because most are supposedly weaker, and don't capture as much of fans' attentions.

 

[JD=JohnDorian]

I think people say things like that because they want the titles to be prestigious and have credibility, so when someone they view as being credible wins a championship they assume said title will become credible, but when it comes to the IC title for eg. it seems as though no matter who holds the title it won't be booked to be credible.

 

[Rick_James]

Yeah I think the problem is the belts are commonly used as a tool to help someone get over, I almost never see this tactic work though. This is opposed to what some of us used to see, where the most over guys would be rewarded with the title, or guys that were really starting to make it big with the fans. But yah, a former WHC guy like Ziggler wouldn't give the IC title prestiege, it'd just look like he got downgraded to be honest. Prestiege IMO comes from the owner of the title being over with the fans as well as having a large pool of candidates and popular feuds, if you have all 3 of those, the titles is going to be hot.

 

[BigSams50]

In my opinion, for a title to have prestige, wrestlers actually have to be shown as caring for it. Build storylines around the IC belt, make wrestlers WANT to have it, not just oh Axel is champ now. Let him defend it once every 3 months to a random person.

 

[Jimshine]

Credibility isn't subjective, or rather, isn't subjective to the individual.

It is however subjective towards general concensus, I.E the collated 'general opinion' of fans.

Like, Bret Hart has credibility- why? because eeeeeerybody knows, he earned his spot

 

[Batko10]

...The "credibility" of everything in the WWE relies on the creative team and the booking team -

AMEN! (Y)

It has always been like that in pro-wrestling. Only today there is only one promotion and one team as opposed to the decades of regional, territorial promotions. In my mind, there is no excuse for lack of creativity and coordinated booking.

- Mike

 

[Oxidamus]

I'd pretty much agree with all of that, however I think the title loses credibility when it is given a superstar such as Axel in a desperate attempt to make people care about him. But who can make the championship credible if they're not given any meaningful feuds

Axel is a good worker and knows how to play a heel in the ring fairly well. It's the booking and creative that has made him look bad.

Yeah I think the problem is the belts are commonly used as a tool to help someone get over, I almost never see this tactic work though. This is opposed to what some of us used to see, where the most over guys would be rewarded with the title, or guys that were really starting to make it big with the fans. But yah, a former WHC guy like Ziggler wouldn't give the IC title prestiege, it'd just look like he got downgraded to be honest. Prestiege IMO comes from the owner of the title being over with the fans as well as having a large pool of candidates and popular feuds, if you have all 3 of those, the titles is going to be hot.

My idea of 'credibility' to a championship (specifically the IC in this situation) is giving it to a promising talent before they've broken out their true ability. For example, giving it to someone who has gotten a decent reaction in the past few weeks, but can obviously do much more if given the title, and some time to prove it.

That makes them look good, the title is given a position on the card, defended often and is an important part of both the superstars resume and the organization itself.

 

[DiscoInferno123]

Take two title reigns: Randy Orton's IC title run in Evolution- absolutely great in building him up to the WHC title and it must be said along with the stable was a big part in propelling him.

Antonio Cesaro is a talent and is starting to get over with the crowd; however it would have helped him putting the US title on him in the following months now the cesaro throw is taking off rather than when he was a no body