Does the champ make the title...

[Guest Downhome]

I was just sitting here thinking about various things, which finally led me to this question, and I was just currious as to what you guys thought out it. Do you feel that the man/woman who holds a title looks better because they hold said title, or do you feel it's the other way around, where the title looks better because of a certain person holding it?

 

Ok, I know this pretty much works both ways for different situations, but which do you feel it works out more so? Or heck, which do you feel it SHOULD do?

 

I guess what really led me to think about this was the upcoming IC Battle Royal to crown a new IC champion for the first time in a while. The title has a great history for the most part, but near the end of it the last time it was around, it really seemed to have meant very little to people. So now we have it returning, and in my eyes it really needs someone VERY strong to hold it in order to bring back some prestige to it. This would obviously be a case of the champ making the title look much better. As of now, the title will do little to make someone on the undercard look that great in my eyes.

 

So back to my questions, heh, any thoughts on this?

 

Sincerely,

...Downhome...

[Guest Coffey]

I think the person makes the belt. Then again, if seems that some people should get a belt just to show that they are getting better and working hard. That doesn't seem to be the way that it works anymore. It doesn't seem that people are getting better as they climb the ladder of success. It appears as if people are put where other people want them.

 

Here's to hoping that the "former Intercontinental champions only" rule is abolished on RAW. I'd like to see The Hurricane in the battle royal. I think he should get the belt. Perhaps even working a program with RVD afterwards. I hate Kane & RVD as a tag team.

[Guest razazteca]

Well it takes a strong champion 1st to give it the prestige and honor of being something to work for something to obsess over. Such as the case of the WCW CW title which Dean Malenko held early on, if you watched his title reign you could see that Dean put the title over as something that he could not live without, this gave it prestige & honor.

 

Now who in the WWE can do this for the IC title? Rico seems to be a fan favorite here and has the verbal skills to put it over plus a good wrestling style that can get fans excited about the matches. So who shall be his rival for the title? Who can put on a series of breath taking matches that will put both the wrestlers and the title over? I think somebody like a serious Stevie Richards can do this very effectively.

[Guest Coffey]

I don't wanna watch Rico Vs. Steven Richards to begin with, let alone as a title match. Maybe if Rico went solo and got a gimmick makeover first. Maybe if Steven Richards wasn't just a glorified jobber.

 

I mean, I like both of them in the ring, which is what really matters, but I can't really get behind them.

 

Hey Downhome, your avatar made me start fucking around w/ PSP.

 

Benoit/Dynamite < Rhino/RVD

 

 

LOL!

Edited May 11, 2003 by Jago

[Guest Austin3164life]

The belt makes the superstar, because once they hold the belt the fans know that "this guy is a big star".

[Guest Lord of The Curry]

I dunno about that, many times fans have known that wrestlers are stars without them holding the belts.

 

As for belts themselves, they mean dick in the WWE these days.......but I know that's not the response you're looking for. It's kinda hard to think back to a time when the belt actually meant something.......

[Guest Downhome]

As for belts themselves, they mean dick in the WWE these days.......but I know that's not the response you're looking for. It's kinda hard to think back to a time when the belt actually meant something.......

Then what do you feel could change that? Simply someone who the fans see in a great light holding the title, or would it take months/years more of focusing on the title, etc... in your opinion?

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

It would take at least six months, maybe even a year, of making the title in question the focus of Raw/Smackdown, and it would have to involve great angles, good to great matches, and people the fans could get behind.

[Guest razazteca]

I don't wanna watch Rico Vs. Steven Richards to begin with, let alone as a title match. Maybe if Rico went solo and got a gimmick makeover first. Maybe if Steven Richards wasn't just a glorified jobber.

I would prefer Rico to go solo myself and this is the perfect time for that kind of push as the IC Champ. Rico can leave the 2 Ton Island Boys, establish himself as a solo champ develop a character through title defenses against Stevie Richards. Stevie can go even more wacko psycho obsessing over the IC title instead of looking out for his girl Victoria starting an angle of the IC Title or Me. Both wrestlers would advance beyond midcard nobodies and the title would mean something since they want it so bad that they would do anything to get it.

[Guest webmasterofwrestlegame]

Downhome - the answer is neither.

 

Its all down to the amount of times the belt changes hands.

 

i.e. it would mean more if Brock held the belt for a year (he would then 'make' the belt, and the fact he has the belt, 'make' him) and if Angle beat him at Mania next year, the change would further 'make' Angle - but not because it is a belt, but because he won the belt off someone who had it for so long.

 

Of course, none of the above would mean anything if the belt was lobbed around like a hot potatoe.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Worker makes the title > Title makes the worker

 

Yes, a title CAN signify that the worker is more over, getting better in the ring, and could be big one day. However, get an awful champion, and look what happens. The worker then Billy Gunn's the title.

 

A good example of each?

Worker making the title: Rob Van Dam, ECW, TV title. RVD nearly held the belt for 2 solid years, and was just a month shy before a broken leg ended his chance at doing that. After about the 7th month or so, the TV title was held in higher regards than the ECW World title. TV title matches were more common to see as the main-event of shows than World title matches were. That belt, once it was stripped from RVD due to injury and put up for grabs in a tournament, gave its winner a big rub.

Title making the worker: Brock Lesnar, WWE, Undisputed title/WWE title. Once Lesnar won the belt from Rock at SummerSlam '02, he got OVER. Fans no longer saw him as just a Goldberg clone, but as a legitimate threat in his own right that could outwrestle even a top star like The Rock.

[Guest Lord of The Curry]

As for belts themselves, they mean dick in the WWE these days.......but I know that's not the response you're looking for. It's kinda hard to think back to a time when the belt actually meant something.......

Then what do you feel could change that? Simply someone who the fans see in a great light holding the title, or would it take months/years more of focusing on the title, etc... in your opinion?

They're far beyond change. Why?

 

The Raw Title: HHH (literally) has the belt molded to his waist. He's gone over Booker, RVD, Kane and others. Who's left? Nash and Goldberg. Spec-fucking-tacular.

 

Smackdown Title: They're dug themself into a really deep hole with Brock. Who's a viable challenger? Angle? Not likely. They'll turn Team Angle on him and do a half-assed face run. Not Chris Benoit, who's everybody's choice as the guy to take it off Brock. When you've gotten pinned by Cena, Chuck Palumbo and The Big Show in rapid succession you're pretty fucked.

 

I've gotta go have dinner, I'll post the rest later.......

[Guest Downhome]

They're far beyond change. Why?

So you do not think they can EVER do anything to make any of the titles mean anything ever again?

[Guest razazteca]

Brock got over because he was facing an established star of the Rock and a big win over the huge star made the title mean something. The title did not make Brock, The Rock made Lesnear.

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

Lesnar's title win also meant a lot because they spent over two months building to it, and used videos and the like to make it seem like it was a big deal.

[Guest Lil Naitch]

It depends. When the title first comes out, it should have a strong champ who can back it up in the ring. this is why the IWC calls the World Heavyweight Championship a joke, beside the fact that it was just given to HHH.

For an already established belt, such as the IC circa 98, the belt makes the champ. It elevates the wrestler in the fans eyes to make them look even better.

 

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I may be wrong.

[Guest godthedog]

Not Chris Benoit, who's everybody's choice as the guy to take it off Brock. When you've gotten pinned by Cena, Chuck Palumbo and The Big Show in rapid succession you're pretty fucked.

 

I've gotta go have dinner, I'll post the rest later.......

with a good opponent & 20 minutes, benoit can pretty much regenerate his credibility at will. so, in the marvel comics sense, he really IS a wolverine. put him in a good-length smackdown main event with brock where he BARELY loses or end it with some dusty finish, & you've got an instant contender. same with eddie.

 

anyway, to the original question...it obviously goes both ways, but the guy making the title is definitely more the case.

[Guest Lord of The Curry]

They're far beyond change. Why?

So you do not think they can EVER do anything to make any of the titles mean anything ever again?

I said they're far beyond change, not totally helpless. Of course they can change. They just won't. It's the way of the WWE.

[Guest j.o.b. squad]

feuds make the title and the champ

 

if they can not pick a foe for the champ to face then the title is meaningless.

[Guest jester]

I think the Raw title would look great if HHH was getting real heel heat. Right now he's getting a mix of everything--face pops, heel pops, and a lukewarm reaction in general. If he was a really hated heel, we'd be itching for someone to take that belt off him and we'd love the person who finally did it.

 

Of course, HHH doesn't seem to agree with that line of thinking.

[Guest HellSpawn]

I think its a combo of both...

 

Some of you guys mentioned in a rant out there.

 

The SmackDown Tag Titles became a Golden Belt after a great tournament, great feuds and great matches.

and how about, in a comedy style, Crash made the hardcore title something interesting.

The Wrestlers made the Belt.

 

But some belts made the wrestlers too.

Flair could be the star he is without winning a WORLD Title?

Same for Bret Hart ?

Austin really turned a star when he beat HBK at WM 14.

They were great wrestlers but the belt added Greatness to his aura.

[Guest El Satanico]

The wrestler makes the belt usually.

 

But a wrestler alone can't make a belt great. The champion needs an interesting storyline and/or feud before the title and title reign will mean something.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I think the title is only as good as it's challengers.

[Guest El Satanico]

I think the title is only as good as it's challengers.

Unless the champion is someone like Flair who can make any challenger look good.

[Guest snuffbox]

a good recent example of 'title making the worker' would be Mike Awesome's ECW world title run in my opinion.

 

It all seems to vary alot from situation to situation.

[Rendclaw 0]

I think that with the exception of a few select few wrestlers, it starts out as the title making the wrestler... arguably, Hogan wasn;t all that much until he won the title from the Iron Sheik in 83, and then BOOM. Hogan goes on a five year title run, where the man and the title were basically neck and neck and then Hogan became bigger than the belt.

 

to me, it has to start out as the belt making the man when he wins it, then over time it is the man making the belt with great matches against legit opponents, excellent storylines and angles (which as we all agree are rare and only getting more rare) and a red-hot feud or two.

 

Say what you will about Hogan but during that title run some of the hottest feuds and angles came from that reign. Its an undeniable fact.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Austin really turned a star when he beat HBK at WM 14.

I disagree with this. Austin already a HUGE star when he finally won the title from HBK and really, it was just a formality, anyway.