I-c title

[Guest papacita]

Before I continue, the first person to reply saying that the I-C Title should be done away with is getting kicked in the back of the neck!

 

*Ahem*

 

Now! Seeing as how Smackdown doesn't have a secondary singles title other than the Cruiserweight Belt...should the I-C Title be allowed to float?

 

Personally, I think all titles with the exception of Euro and Hardcore should be split up evenly between the two brands so that Raw and Smackdown can function like two different organizations, but if the World and Women's Titles are allowed to float, I say that the I-C and even the Tag Team should be allowed to float also. What do you people think? I need answers...

[Guest RetroRob215]

I think each brand should have their own champions and PPVs.  It should be a complete split, none of this sharing they are doing now.

[Guest]

I believe that at Summerslam and Wrestlemania (possibly one other PPV) that their should be title matches between each organization.  That way except for world, womens, and I think Tag champs they could move the titles around.  And they won't be stuck on one side except for about 6 months.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

hmm...it depends on who's holding it.

 

Would I like to see RVD or Eddy defending on both shows?  

 

Hell yes...sign me up.

 

but if Test or Albert ever got hold of it...

[Guest The Vanilla Midget]

they should share the 5 big ppv's

rumble: 'nuff said, if only to make up the numbers

mania: 'nuff said

King of the ring: Use it to elevate one guy, so both brands need be involved

Summerslam: Just cos its sort of a mega card

Survivor series: The only truly interpromotional ppv, with 8 man tags b/e the brands

 

but the IC shouldnt float, euro should be transferred to smackdown.  tag titles on the other hand should definitely float.

[Guest Risk]

I think the IC title should be done away with.  Maybe replace it with a TV title.

[Guest The Vanilla Midget]

why, its exactly the same thing, just with a different name.  an new name wont change the problems currently associated with the title.

[Guest red_file]

Risk wants the name of the belt changed because he's somehow come up with the idea that the words "intercontinental" and "world" mean the same thing, hence calling a belt the intercontinental belt is, in his view, the same as calling it a world title.  Consider it his private hobby horse and ignore it.

 

I tend to agree that a permanent singles title of some sort needs to be placed on SD (other than the cruiser title, of course), which would mean either sending the Euro or hardcore over or floating the intercontinental.  I'd prefer having the Euro move over as it seems necessary to have permanent belts for the shows; if there are not permanent belts there doesn't seem to be any chance at all that a true split will occur (of course, the merits of a true split are always debatable).  

 

So, put me down for no floating.

[Guest Risk]

Risk wants the name of the belt changed because he's somehow come up with the idea that the words "intercontinental" and "world" mean the same thing, hence calling a belt the intercontinental belt is, in his view, the same as calling it a world title.  Consider it his private hobby horse and ignore it.

 

I tend to agree that a permanent singles title of some sort needs to be placed on SD (other than the cruiser title, of course), which would mean either sending the Euro or hardcore over or floating the intercontinental.  I'd prefer having the Euro move over as it seems necessary to have permanent belts for the shows; if there are not permanent belts there doesn't seem to be any chance at all that a true split will occur (of course, the merits of a true split are always debatable).  

 

So, put me down for no floating.

It does mean the same thing.  Look at the definitions.  And don't ever tell me what I want.  I can answer for myself.  I don't need you to respond for me.

[Guest El Psycho Diablo]

I actually thought the WWF didn't like using the word "world" in theirs. I believe it used to be just World Wrestling Federation Champion. Meaning, the WWF 'is' the world, in their logic.

 

-Shiro

[Guest papacita]

Before I continue, the first person to reply saying that the I-C Title should be done away with is getting kicked in the back of the neck!

 

I think the IC title should be done away with.

 

Papacita: .::KICKS RISK IN THE BACK OF THE NECK::.

[Guest red_file]

It does mean the same thing.  Look at the definitions.  And don't ever tell me what I want.  I can answer for myself.  I don't need you to respond for me.

Hmm, posturing on a wresting board -- who would've thought?  A few points, perhaps.

 

a) "Intercontinental" and "world" do not mean the same thing.  "Intercontinental" describes motion, or reach, while "world" describes place or dominion.  By definition, an "intercontinental" title would be a title that was capable of being defended on any of the continents; it need not be a title of really any stature.  The WWF light heavyweight title was, in the past, an intercontinental title as it was defended both in the United States and Japan.  By applying the term "intercontinental" to a belt one is merely saying that said belt need not be confined to a single continent.

 

By contrast by saying that a title is a "world" title makes no such claim that the title is capable of being defended anywhere in the world.  By saying a title is a "world" title, one is merely making the claim that the title holder is recognized, by whatever federation owns the title, as the champion of the world.  Now, a world title can certainly be an intercontinental title (the NWA heavyweight title is a good example of a world title that was defended intercontinentally), but saying that a title is a world title does not necessarily mean it is an intercontinental title.

 

Bringing up definitions, though, does bring us to the conclusion that the IC belt is misnamed.  However, the reasons for it being a misnomer have nothing to do with "world" and "intercontinental" meaning the same thing.

 

b) I was not, contrary to whatever you believe, telling you what you want. I was informing the Vanilla Midget of what you had previously said that you'd wanted on many occasions.

 

c) I know that you can answer for yourself, and even felt sure that you would do so in due time; it is, after all, your hobby horse.  I'd hoped, in my own naive way, to spare another retelling of how the definitions seem similar.  Alas, I failed in my endevor.  I am shame faced.

 

There is, of course, always the idea that a Television title makes little sense in this age of PPV, as a Television title would, if we were to go by strict definitions, not be able to be defended on PPV which is the only place it could be given significant time.  With television matches mostly being sub-3 minute affairs, it makes little sense to doom a title (and the formerly number two title, no less) to that fate.   But hey, let's not get into that.

[Guest Risk]

Hm.  Good points.  But I think it's easy to see why I was confused.

[Guest Risk]

Don't role-play fight me Papacita, it's so boring.  We don't even have any RPG characters...

[Guest papacita]

Don't role-play fight me Papacita, it's so boring.  We don't even have any RPG characters...

 

RP fight? My friend, someday I'll have to school you on the ancient art of Norwegian neck-kicking: the sport of the New Millenium.

[Guest RetroRob215]

The WWE Title isn't a World Title, so isn't your point moot?

[Guest papacita]

How do you figure that it's not a World Title?