Thread: So what would you rather do- Bring back the Hardcore title or up the IC title?
View Single Post
Old 06-25-2008, 05:01 AM   #2
Heyman
Father of Hinduship
 
Heyman's Avatar
 
Posts: 21,083
Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Optimist View Post
The Hardcore title isn't for pushing, it's for the lols. Which it brings on its good days.
Exactly. The Hardcore Title (24/7 rule in-tact) serves as an excellent side storyline from the more important ones (i.e. comic relief). Furthermore - it allows far more wrestlers to get TV time (all at once) on a more consistent basis.

The problem with the IC title nowadays, is that "deadweight" wrestlers often become champs (i.e. people that have had main-event pushes, and have been 'pushed back' to the mid-card level....case in point, Chris Jericho). On the other end of that, wrestlers that are far too below the main-event level (or have no chance of realistically beating a World champ) also hold titles such as the IC and US belt.

For me personally, I think the WWE has too many belts....belts of which that are NOT very unique.

Personally - I'm intrigued at the idea of there being a "triple threat" belt (where every single match with this belt on the line, is in a triple threat match).

Heck - replace the IC title with the "triple threat belt". Have a "fatal four-way" belt as well (similar to the European title from yester-year).
Heyman is offline   Reply With Quote