sluggo
Curtain Jerker
Posts: 145
|
Post by sluggo on Aug 7, 2014 15:55:56 GMT -5
As I see it there, there is 2 ways the WWE can rehab their secondary titles and make them meaningful again.
First - They merge the US and IC titles back into one (they only need the IC title) and restore the IC to its status as "the workers" title, which it was prior to Hart/Michaels era, not an up and comers belt. I think an "up and comers" belt is good in theory but doesn't work in practice.When its seem only a stepping stone to something better......people stop caring. When Bryan is ready to come back, the WWE will have moved on and be in a position to push Reigns as their new star, and lets be honest Cena is not leaving the WWE title picture anytime so....... pushing Bryan as the IC champion, having him on great matches with guys like Rollins and Kenta and Devitt and Casero (while guys like Ambrose and Del Rio and ZIggler etc....fill out that division and keep each other busy) keeps Bryan poised as a champion, give IC title meaning again, and creates a place on the card for guys who probably won't and/or can't break into the main even but can put on a great show.
Second - this idea is more radical - get rid of the US and IC titles all together and create weight divisions on the WWE. The main title is already called the WWE World HEAVYWEIGHT title. So introduce a Light Heavyweight title and a Cruiser Weight title (Iknow they have been the same in the past, that can change) and slot guys based on size and weight. That gives them 3 champion's who SHOULD (if booked right) all be of the same or similar importance. Use the UFC as the model.
As for the Tag Titles, its simple and the same given both options, they need more good tag teams. Personally I think need to clean out the bottom of the card wrestlers and replace them with more guys in tag teams. Create leaner WWE and IC title Divisions and devote that money and those roster spots to teams. The reason no one cares about the Tag belts is there is no one there to wrestle for them. In the late 90's and early 2000's the tag division, and by extenion the championship, looked great, but thats because they had 3 amazing teams (Hardy's, E&C, the Dudleys) who were constantly battling for the belt, and good collection of supporting talent (Too Cool, TnA, DX, APA). This title is easy to fix - just get more teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milky on Aug 8, 2014 7:38:42 GMT -5
There is too much WWE television these days, but still, what I'd do is try to keep the titles from being defended on television; make them special again. Also, be consistent with your booking. If a guy's your guy then have faith with him over the long haul. These start-stop pushes that Cesaro and the like get don't do anyone any favours. Also, have long title reigns and don't hot-shot programs. It's actually quite simple, the hard part is filling all of that tv time with meaningful segments that aren't title matches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 9:59:47 GMT -5
Have good feuds for them instead of just sticking them on someone for a year. Have US title on Smackdown, IC on Raw.
Your idea is to introduce a new title? NXT title is the light heavyweight title if not Cruiserweight.
Titles never meant anything. I watch NXT and I forget there even is a title. Its the guy with the title that makes it important. Tyler Breeze and Tyson Kidd would make better champs, because they have storylines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Tonkinson on Aug 8, 2014 11:18:25 GMT -5
Tell you what I'd like, ranking tables, like you had on the old Smackdown games. You build a guy up that he has to beat guys in and around his ranking to get to the Champion and not just throw some feud together because the two have some issue that only came to being a week before the PPV.
You have the potential for overlapping longer feuds, the Champion costs someone in the rankings a match to keep him out of the title picture for a little longer.
That's just one of my ideas anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Sheehy on Aug 8, 2014 11:34:53 GMT -5
I like the idea of weight classes in WWE. It would make titles mean something. The Intercontinental Title Holder always jobs these days to hasbeens like R-Truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 12:14:25 GMT -5
Tell you what I'd like, ranking tables, like you had on the old Smackdown games. You build a guy up that he has to beat guys in and around his ranking to get to the Champion and not just throw some feud together because the two have some issue that only came to being a week before the PPV. You have the potential for overlapping longer feuds, the Champion costs someone in the rankings a match to keep him out of the title picture for a little longer. That's just one of my ideas anyway. How do Ladders work anyway? Like points ala BFG Series? Submissions get 20 points, pinfalls get 10, DQs get -10? Or would it be #1 vs #2, #3 vs #4, #5 vs #6, #7 vs #8 in the division. Then the loser of 1 vs 2 becomes #3, winner of 3 vs 4 becomes #2 and loser become #5, winner of 5 vs 6 becomes #4 and the loser becomes #7 and the winner of 7 vs 8 becomes #6? I kinda threw a fit when Kane was the #1 contender after Mania and he was in a losing 6 man tag while Brock ended the streak, which should make him #1 contender. |
|
|
|
Post by T Anthony Auld on Aug 9, 2014 0:23:57 GMT -5
Tell you what I'd like, ranking tables, like you had on the old Smackdown games. You build a guy up that he has to beat guys in and around his ranking to get to the Champion and not just throw some feud together because the two have some issue that only came to being a week before the PPV. You have the potential for overlapping longer feuds, the Champion costs someone in the rankings a match to keep him out of the title picture for a little longer. That's just one of my ideas anyway. How do Ladders work anyway? Like points ala BFG Series? Submissions get 20 points, pinfalls get 10, DQs get -10? Or would it be #1 vs #2, #3 vs #4, #5 vs #6, #7 vs #8 in the division. Then the loser of 1 vs 2 becomes #3, winner of 3 vs 4 becomes #2 and loser become #5, winner of 5 vs 6 becomes #4 and the loser becomes #7 and the winner of 7 vs 8 becomes #6? I kinda threw a fit when Kane was the #1 contender after Mania and he was in a losing 6 man tag while Brock ended the streak, which should make him #1 contender. If anything like Rob was mentioning with the SmackDown games analogy? The more you win, the more you move up. Certain required points to compete for a certain title. IC/US title was 74 points, WWE/WHT was 87 points for example. I think what he was saying that in that aspect wins & losses would TRULY matter in that format. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 6:15:18 GMT -5
I used to calculate contenders based on who wins PPVs, since they're the only thing that matters to me. RAW and Smackdown can be full of squash matches. Cena over Kane, Orton & Reigns Miz won the IC title over Ziggler Jericho over Bray Wyatt Seth Rollins over Dean Ambrose Rusev over Jack Swagger AJ Lee over Paige Usos over Wyatt Family Cameron over Naomi Adam Rose over Fandango By a ladder logic, Summerslam would be: Cena vs Jericho for the WWE title Miz vs Ziggler for the IC title Bray Wyatt vs Roman Reigns Seth Rollins vs Rusev Jack Swagger vs Dean Ambrose AJ Lee vs Cameron Usos vs  Kane & Orton? Paige vs Naomi Adam Rose vs Sheamus for the US title |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Tonkinson on Aug 13, 2014 19:42:53 GMT -5
How do Ladders work anyway? Like points ala BFG Series? Submissions get 20 points, pinfalls get 10, DQs get -10? Or would it be #1 vs #2, #3 vs #4, #5 vs #6, #7 vs #8 in the division. Then the loser of 1 vs 2 becomes #3, winner of 3 vs 4 becomes #2 and loser become #5, winner of 5 vs 6 becomes #4 and the loser becomes #7 and the winner of 7 vs 8 becomes #6? I kinda threw a fit when Kane was the #1 contender after Mania and he was in a losing 6 man tag while Brock ended the streak, which should make him #1 contender. If anything like Rob was mentioning with the SmackDown games analogy? The more you win, the more you move up. Certain required points to compete for a certain title. IC/US title was 74 points, WWE/WHT was 87 points for example. I think what he was saying that in that aspect wins & losses would TRULY matter in that format. That is what I meant, just something that makes the result of the match truly matter, start bringing up everyone's yearly win/loss record and explaining why a certain person deserves to be where they are. I think wrestling needs to start promoting itself as if it's like real sports and one way to achieve that is to start taking wins and losses much more seriously. |
|
sluggo
Curtain Jerker
Posts: 145
|
Post by sluggo on Aug 17, 2014 19:15:17 GMT -5
There is too much WWE television these days, but still, what I'd do is try to keep the titles from being defended on television; make them special again. Also, be consistent with your booking. If a guy's your guy then have faith with him over the long haul. These start-stop pushes that Cesaro and the like get don't do anyone any favours. Also, have long title reigns and don't hot-shot programs. It's actually quite simple, the hard part is filling all of that tv time with meaningful segments that aren't title matches. The only issue I see with that is either your champs don't wrestle on TV or at house shows or you have them in a lot of non-title matches. Personally I think every match a champ is in should be a title match. And you're absolutely right, good booking is needed. And longer title reigns that mean something would help too - I think its silly that Cena is a 15 time champ. I'd put an in house cap on 5 reigns on everyone. Only if they get rid of the USA and IC titles, replace them with weighted titles to create clear division's within in the company, giving you 3 champions of roughly equal value. I think this solution would have the added bonus of bringing new/different styles of wrestling to the shows. |
|
|
|
Post by groovyphoenix on Aug 17, 2014 19:22:21 GMT -5
As for the Tag Titles, its simple and the same given both options, they need more good tag teams. Personally I think need to clean out the bottom of the card wrestlers and replace them with more guys in tag teams. Create leaner WWE and IC title Divisions and devote that money and those roster spots to teams. The reason no one cares about the Tag belts is there is no one there to wrestle for them. In the late 90's and early 2000's the tag division, and by extenion the championship, looked great, but thats because they had 3 amazing teams (Hardy's, E&C, the Dudleys) who were constantly battling for the belt, and good collection of supporting talent (Too Cool, TnA, DX, APA). This title is easy to fix - just get more teams. I have to disagree here, while those three teams "revived" interest in a fading tag team division, Hart Foundation, Road Warriors, Natural Disasters, The Rockers, these are the teams that really had interest in the tag teams, back then tag teams were just that tag teams not "throw together" names that got together and wrestled together a few months, they lasted and didn't break up to feud etc, or if they did they got back together etc. Sotrylines existed around the tag teams, The Uso's are a good tag team but name the next one right now? There are none I can think of off the top of my head that are "teams" |
|
|
|
Post by Gee Hall on Aug 18, 2014 0:06:53 GMT -5
It's rather clear that there was one way, and it happened in the main event on summerslam. LOLLESNARWINS
|
|
sluggo
Curtain Jerker
Posts: 145
|
Post by sluggo on Aug 19, 2014 15:42:17 GMT -5
As for the Tag Titles, its simple and the same given both options, they need more good tag teams. Personally I think need to clean out the bottom of the card wrestlers and replace them with more guys in tag teams. Create leaner WWE and IC title Divisions and devote that money and those roster spots to teams. The reason no one cares about the Tag belts is there is no one there to wrestle for them. In the late 90's and early 2000's the tag division, and by extenion the championship, looked great, but thats because they had 3 amazing teams (Hardy's, E&C, the Dudleys) who were constantly battling for the belt, and good collection of supporting talent (Too Cool, TnA, DX, APA). This title is easy to fix - just get more teams. I have to disagree here, while those three teams "revived" interest in a fading tag team division, Hart Foundation, Road Warriors, Natural Disasters, The Rockers, these are the teams that really had interest in the tag teams, back then tag teams were just that tag teams not "throw together" names that got together and wrestled together a few months, they lasted and didn't break up to feud etc, or if they did they got back together etc. Sotrylines existed around the tag teams, The Uso's are a good tag team but name the next one right now? There are none I can think of off the top of my head that are "teams" Exactly. They need more teams. The Uso's were on the Summer Slam card, but part of the problem is, who would they face? Golddust and Star Dust have the makings a good team, but they are baby faces at this point. Sure the Asension aren't great workers but they are a tag team that can/could be on the main roster at this point, why aren't they? There are/were rumors they were after the Young Bucks, get them on the main roster asap. Samuria Del Sol (whatever his new name is) and Sin Cara....same thing. They need some teams that are real TEAMS, not just two guys wrestling together. |
|
|
|
Post by TolerancEJ on Aug 19, 2014 17:38:30 GMT -5
Now that Brock Lesnar is the WWE World Champion with a limited appearances contract, that title won't be on TV so frequently. That should give importance to the championships that are available to defend/challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by groovyphoenix on Aug 20, 2014 22:33:51 GMT -5
Now that Brock Lesnar is the WWE World Champion with a limited appearances contract, that title won't be on TV so frequently. That should give importance to the championships that are available to defend/challenge. That's actually a very valid point! Make the Intercontinental and US titles mean something once more, as well as the tag teams, but bring in some real or form some real tag teams. I have seen in the past some tags that worked well together (Big Show and Mark Henry for example) could be a very good and ferocious looking tag team that would rival "The Natural Disasters" but don't just put them together have them win then split up, that get sboring... Right now Big Showw is just a cool attraction anyway so whether he is solo or in a team people will come see him. WWE has so much talent that they could put together in teams and allow a good division to work. I know there are a lot of single guys that want to be "single only" and feel the belt is beneath them. Kevin Steen with (Sami?) they have teamed together in many many matches. ROH is gettgin raided left and right lately for NXT isn't it funny how Steen got critiqued for not "fitting the mold" yet now, they signed him? |
|
Kane & Orton?
