Guest Mole Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 Ever since 1998, when HHH had to vacant the title, the IC title doesn't mean as much as it used to. The reason is because the title changes hands too frequently. From 1980-1998, the title changed hands 45 times. From 1999-2002, the title has changed hands 38 times, and maybe a 39th on Sunday. If the WWE were to just let someone hold it for a whole year, the belt will mean something once again. I still don't get why they let Eddy win the title from RVD. They should of let him hold onto it for over a year, but I'm not booking anything...
Guest Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 Ever since 1998, when HHH had to vacant the title, the IC title doesn't mean as much as it used to. The reason is because the title changes hands too frequently. From 1980-1998, the title changed hands 45 times. From 1999-2002, the title has changed hands 38 times, and maybe a 39th on Sunday. If the WWE were to just let someone hold it for a whole year, the belt will mean something once again. I still don't get why they let Eddy win the title from RVD. They should of let him hold onto it for over a year, but I'm not booking anything... TELL ME you don't have the time on your hands to sit down and count EVERY IC title exchange? This has been the Taker Mark
Guest papacita Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 I always thought Shamrock's title reign was pretty good. Same with Angle's, Jericho's and Benoit's. I thought the Jericho/Benoit feud brought some a lot of meaning back to the title, and made Rikishi's and Val Venis' reigns look a lot more important than they would've been if they would've beaten...I dunno...say Albert for the title. 2000 was a good year for the I-C Title up until they RUINED IT by putting the belt on Chyna at SummerSlam (why they didn't put the title on Tazz, I'll never know). It's been all downhill for the belt since then. Anyway, this idea has been run into the ground in this forum, but if the WWF really wants to bring some of the old prestige back to the title, they should not only put it on a wrestler for an extended period of time, but they should have him go over a bunch of BELIEVABLE challengers. And have one of the challengers talk about how much the title means to them. If enough wrestlers openly talk about winning the title, it would gain a lot more credibility.
Guest red_file Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 I wonder, though, if it's possible to keep a title on a wrestler for any extended period of time in the current environment. Sure, in the past wrestlers held the titles for longer, but they also didn't defend them nearly as often. In the 70s or the 80s, how often was a champion expected to defend a belt (not counting house shows, of course)? And then there's always the idea of trading wins that seems to have cropped up. How can a champion hold onto a title if he's forced to give the job back to his challenger the next time they face? Selflessness seems to have been lost. Which, of course, ties into the idea of having the champion go over "credible" contenders. Credible contenders want their heat back after doing the job. I'd like to see longer title reigns. I'm not sure I'd like a return to the three year reigns, but a six month one would be nice. Perhaps they'll give it a shot sometime in the furture. I wouldn't put any money on it.
Guest Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 The I-C title is a joke, I long for the days when legends like Greg Valentine, Don Muraco, Rick Rude, Curt Hennig, Randy Savage, ect. held the title. Right now the title is just a decoration that is thrown around like yesterday's garbage.
Guest Mole Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 "TELL ME you don't have the time on your hands to sit down and count EVERY IC title exchange?" Actually I was just looking through the PWI Almanac, and I noticed all the title changes later on. So I just counted them up, it took like 5 minutes of my time.
Guest Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 I'll tell you why the IC title doesn't mean anything... When they put it on heatless, talentless jackasses like Albert and Test. I say they put the title on somebody whom the fans actually care about (RVD), place IC title matches just under the main event, only allow good workers with heat to feud for the title, and allow the champion to have at least a 4 month title reign. Damn... it seems like only yesterday when Bret Hart beat Perfect for the title at SummerSlam '91 and the place went fucking nuts.
Guest Anglesault Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 Giving it to test was a HUGE mistake. (why they didn't put the title on Tazz, I'll never know). Because Tazz sucks.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 When the Wwf changed the IC belts look, the history and prestige that came along with it died. When the Wwf made the Euro Belt, the Hardcore belt, the ladies belt, and the lite hvy belt, the IC title got lost in the schuffle. The Wwf didn't structure their divisions well enough to maintain the heirarchy of belts. Usually it's Ic then World. It should have been Euro, IC, then World. With Hardcore, Womens and Lite hvy being their own lil microcosm of a fed; separate from all others. But instead they just shifted guys from divisions; one minute Jeff Hardy is a tag champ, the next he is intercontenental, soon he is litehvy and finally he is hardcore. All within 4 months or so. The Wwf lacks structure, it's as simple as that. The only 'structured' division right now is the World Heavyweight Title div. Everything else is the wild west.
Guest Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 I agree. Structure and organization is the key, and the WWF(E) lacks both. It's a shame. It's funny that the IC title meant more when the Honkey Tonk Man was holding it than it does now, which is sad... but at least then people cared about the title and desperatly wanted to see somebody take it away from him
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 Exactly. Honky was no Chris Benoit, but the belt meant more around his waist than around Benoits, or Jerichos, or Angles, or Venis'. It's not WHO the belt is around, it's about WHO WANTS IT. The Wwf title has been around such luminaries as Sid, Nash, and VINCE! Yet it still maintains it's value.
Guest Ravenbomb Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 Huh...I was born the same month and year that issue came out... I was thinking they were gonna do a RVD TV title reign-like thing when RVD won the IC title
Guest Flyboy Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 I was thinking they were gonna do a RVD TV title reign-like thing when RVD won the IC title I thought that, too... But we thought wrong.
Guest papacita Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 (why they didn't put the title on Tazz, I'll never know). Because Tazz sucks. Say what you will about Tazz, but in the Summer of 2000 the man had definite I-C Level heat. If they had put him in "Path of Rage" mode and given him a dominant I-C Title reign, we might not be having this convo right now.
Guest evenflowDDT Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 I was thinking they were gonna do a RVD TV title reign-like thing when RVD won the IC title I dunno... 24 months is a long time... plus, then when Rhyno wins the belt, someone will just steal it from his house, and then we won't be having this convo again.
Guest papacita Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 when Rhyno wins the belt, someone will just steal it from his house, and then we won't be having this convo again. LMAO
Guest Risk Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 Angle likes Taz, Sault. I don't like Tazz, but I do like Taz.
Guest Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 The WWE can't decide what kind of theme to use for the IC title. Sometimes it's placed in a more technical division with wrestlers like Benoit, Angle, Shamrock, Bret, and Hennig. Other times it's used as a technical belt and a way to eleveate young stars like Jericho, RVD, Edge and Test. The belt is also used (more often then I like) as just another belt with no division theme and for wrestlers with no set style. Such holders in that division include; Road Dogg, Godfather, Chyna, Regal, Billy Gunn, HHH. I believe that belts are at their best when there's a set "feel" for the division. The IC division should have a technical feel where submission and grappling are key aspects. I'm not saying we should completley ignore other styles as RVD, Edge and Eddy are VERY worthy of holding the belt. But a style system should be implemented for each belt. What do you think?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now