If The Wrestling Thread Keeps Changing Titles, Thread Manager Gets A Brogue Kick

[Project862006]

did'nt people complain orton and cena hogged their respective titles

wtf you think will happen if we have 1 title and cena and orton are top faces along with punk?

 

[bullets]

It's not so much the baldness that I find disturbing, but it's his "awesome-smiley-face." awesome I don't think the Undertaker in character has ever smiled.

It makes him look much older and he kinda loses some of the intimidation factor. I guess we'll have to see how it looks live.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Mark Henry got an opportunity to be one of the best heels of the last five years with his world title push. Bryan was able to break out of his shell with his MITB victory. Christian was Orton's best opponent in years. You think with one title they would have had that opportunity to put forth their best work? It would only be endless variations of Orton/Cena/Del Rio/Sheamus/Punk.

Honestly, I've no problem with any of those guys, but I think it's a sign of just how far WWE and the wrestling business has fallen in general when Mark Henry, Daniel Bryan, and Christian are the guys holding world titles.

I love Christian, but as a main eventer, even if he is good, he still can't hold a candle to the main event characters that were / are The Rock, Austin, HBK, Undertaker, Triple H, Kurt Angle, or even newer guys like Cena, Orton, or CM Punk.

Daniel Bryan being a world champion and considered the "best heel in the business" right now to me is a sign of just how bad wrestling has gotten compared to the glory days. Daniel Bryan as champion is evidence to me of everything that has gone wrong with WWE.

Daniel Bryan in and of himself is fine, but he is in no way shape or form the guy that I tune in to see week in and week out, and should not be holding a top title.

Mark Henry was okay. He had a solid run for a monster with absolutely zero excitement in the ring. When guys like Henry, or Big Show, get belts and are in big storylines and matches, I get bored to tears. Henry had some nice moments and some nice quotables, but there was nothing about his run that stood out as memorable to me.

I don't tune in to see what guys like Daniel Bryan, Mark Henry, or Christian are gonna do next, or what's going to happen with them.

I tune in to see what the next thing to happen with guys like Triple H, The Rock, John Cena, The Miz, Austin, HBK, Orton, CM Punk, will be.

I also don't take the World Heavyweight Championship as any kind of serious, knowing that it's a "B" title, on the "B" show. That belt has absolutely zero prestige in my book. I view it as nothing more than a meaningless prop to give to people who aren't good enough to actually be true main eventers, so they get a "B" belt to try to push the guy because he wouldn't be taken seriously with a real belt.

 

[Project862006]

1 thing wwe is lacking big time is a top heel

the fact that punk had to get a returning star in jericho for a mania title match speaks volumes

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

There's a reason why I say I'd rather watch the 40 year olds like Triple H, Undertaker, Austin, HBK, and Rock over the young guys of today.

Today's guys suck compared to the guys that they can bring back for return matches.

There's some potential for some good guys on the roster, but nobody that can hold a candle to the glory days.

 

[Project862006]

why do you even watch wwe time and time again i am reminded you are an attitude era mark

you always say how much you loved the attitude era stars so much and dont care for new stars

why do you even watch it

 

[Keyser Soze]

Honestly, I've no problem with any of those guys, but I think it's a sign of just how far WWE and the wrestling business has fallen in general when Mark Henry, Daniel Bryan, and Christian are the guys holding world titles.

I love Christian, but as a main eventer, even if he is good, he still can't hold a candle to the main event characters that were / are The Rock, Austin, HBK, Undertaker, Triple H, Kurt Angle, or even newer guys like Cena, Orton, or CM Punk.

The problem isn't with the wrestlers themselves, but rather the state of wrestling today. Evidently you're an Attitude Era fan, but I don't know how closely you were watching back then. Someone like Triple H was always a gifted wrestler, but I remember him never quite connecting as a top guy, as much as WWF creative wanted him too. They tried him as a face running DX, they tried him as the Corporation heel. They pushed and pushed, and people didn't bite for the longest time, even in his early World Title reigns. It took his matches with Mick Foley to really, definitely put him over as a top guy, I think. Ditto for Orton. I remember fan indifference in the initial attempt to establish him as a top face, so much so that Batista hijacked that particular push.

A lot of the time, becoming a top guy has as much to do with a continued, extended commitment from the booking team, and having a host of credible, established top stars to put you over as being on their level, as it does with inherent talent or charisma. Even with CM Punk, who I love, I feel his run on the top floundered a bit post-Cena, because after Cena put him over he was lacking in credible foes until Jericho returned. That's not to say Dolph Ziggler isn't talented, but WWE are in a position where the old stars are on their way out and they haven't really developed new ones.

Daniel Bryan being a world champion and considered the "best heel in the business" right now to me is a sign of just how bad wrestling has gotten compared to the glory days. Daniel Bryan as champion is evidence to me of everything that has gone wrong with WWE.

Arguably the best pound-for-pound wrestler in the world today being champion is the sign of everything that has gone wrong with WWE? Most people would argue the opposite, that WWE putting their faith in a guy who might not have the size or "WWE look", but who undeniably has the talent to have a quality match with just about anyone, is a positive sign for WWE's future. There's more hope in a Daniel Bryan or a CM Punk being a compelling top guy in my view than in another bland, by-the-numbers WWE developmental product. Bryan and Punk are a throwback to that former generation of stars, the HBKs and the Austins and the Jerichos, in that they honed their craft elsewhere, they did the touring the territories and working their way up the ranks from the small crowds, they mixed the "WWE style" with their own unique flavour rather than learning "WWE style" and nothing else.

Daniel Bryan in and of himself is fine, but he is in no way shape or form the guy that I tune in to see week in and week out, and should not be holding a top title.

I know he's who I tune in to see week in and week out.

Mark Henry was okay. He had a solid run for a monster with absolutely zero excitement in the ring. When guys like Henry, or Big Show, get belts and are in big storylines and matches, I get bored to tears. Henry had some nice moments and some nice quotables, but there was nothing about his run that stood out as memorable to me.

In this I agree, as I think big man title reigns can often be limited.

I don't tune in to see what guys like Daniel Bryan, Mark Henry, or Christian are gonna do next, or what's going to happen with them.

With Daniel Bryan and Christian. Bryan and Christian's heel world title reigns were probably the best title reigns ever in ROH and TNA respectively. Both have proven capable of carrying a belt and having compelling reigns, of developing strong characters and having matches that live up to any storyline heat. And it's not a case of "big fish in a small pond" either, as in the case of both, when even being given a sniff of the ball in WWE, they've run with it and handled themselves very well. Even with Mark Henry, who I wasn't a fan of for the longest time, he really upped his game and was operating at a career-best level, and was credible as a monster heel. For that period of time, he WAS who fans were connecting with, and they wanted to see what he did next. So it made sense to put the belt on him.

I tune in to see what the next thing to happen with guys like Triple H, The Rock, John Cena, The Miz, Austin, HBK, Orton, CM Punk, will be.

Woah, how did The Miz get in there? I like The Miz, but he doesn't seem to meet your hardline stance of who is considered worthy to be a top guy.

I also don't take the World Heavyweight Championship as any kind of serious, knowing that it's a "B" title, on the "B" show. That belt has absolutely zero prestige in my book. I view it as nothing more than a meaningless prop to give to people who aren't good enough to actually be true main eventers, so they get a "B" belt to try to push the guy because he wouldn't be taken seriously with a real belt.

I do agree partly with this. In spite of the attempts to portray them as "equal", everyone knows the World Heavyweight Championship is the "B" title. And that has killed the mid-level titles. The World Heavyweight Championship is probably taken as seriously as the Intercontinental Title used to be, so where does that put the IC Title now? But I wouldn't say it's about, "If you get that belt, you're not good enough to be a true main eventer," but rather that this belt often seems to be used as a trial run to see how you would handle carrying the "real" belt in the future. And given how well he's handled his character evolution during his tenure as champion, I'd say Daniel Bryan has set himself in good stead to compete for the "real" belt in years to come.

 

[Hunter Rider]

There's a reason why I say I'd rather watch the 40 year olds like Triple H, Undertaker, Austin, HBK, and Rock over the young guys of today.

Today's guys suck compared to the guys that they can bring back for return matches.

There's some potential for some good guys on the roster, but nobody that can hold a candle to the glory days.

The problem with this and your previous post is you act like you speak for all, and when you say glory days it really shows how trapped in the Attitude era you really are, because there were periods before that many would consider much better.

 

[Hunter Rider]

The problem isn't with the wrestlers themselves, but rather the state of wrestling today. Evidently you're an Attitude Era fan, but I don't know how closely you were watching back then. Someone like Triple H was always a gifted wrestler, but I remember him never quite connecting as a top guy, as much as WWF creative wanted him too. They tried him as a face running DX, they tried him as the Corporation heel. They pushed and pushed, and people didn't bite for the longest time, even in his early World Title reigns. It took his matches with Mick Foley to really, definitely put him over as a top guy, I think. Ditto for Orton. I remember fan indifference in the initial attempt to establish him as a top face, so much so that Batista hijacked that particular push.

A lot of the time, becoming a top guy has as much to do with a continued, extended commitment from the booking team, and having a host of credible, established top stars to put you over as being on their level, as it does with inherent talent or charisma. Even with CM Punk, who I love, I feel his run on the top floundered a bit post-Cena, because after Cena put him over he was lacking in credible foes until Jericho returned. That's not to say Dolph Ziggler isn't talented, but WWE are in a position where the old stars are on their way out and they haven't really developed new ones.



Arguably the best pound-for-pound wrestler in the world today being champion is the sign of everything that has gone wrong with WWE? Most people would argue the opposite, that WWE putting their faith in a guy who might not have the size or "WWE look", but who undeniably has the talent to have a quality match with just about anyone, is a positive sign for WWE's future. There's more hope in a Daniel Bryan or a CM Punk being a compelling top guy in my view than in another bland, by-the-numbers WWE developmental product. Bryan and Punk are a throwback to that former generation of stars, the HBKs and the Austins and the Jerichos, in that they honed their craft elsewhere, they did the touring the territories and working their way up the ranks from the small crowds, they mixed the "WWE style" with their own unique flavour rather than learning "WWE style" and nothing else.



I know he's who I tune in to see week in and week out.



In this I agree, as I think big man title reigns can often be limited.



With Daniel Bryan and Christian. Bryan and Christian's heel world title reigns were probably the best title reigns ever in ROH and TNA respectively. Both have proven capable of carrying a belt and having compelling reigns, of developing strong characters and having matches that live up to any storyline heat. And it's not a case of "big fish in a small pond" either, as in the case of both, when even being given a sniff of the ball in WWE, they've run with it and handled themselves very well. Even with Mark Henry, who I wasn't a fan of for the longest time, he really upped his game and was operating at a career-best level, and was credible as a monster heel. For that period of time, he WAS who fans were connecting with, and they wanted to see what he did next. So it made sense to put the belt on him.



Woah, how did The Miz get in there? I like The Miz, but he doesn't seem to meet your hardline stance of who is considered worthy to be a top guy.



I do agree partly with this. In spite of the attempts to portray them as "equal", everyone knows the World Heavyweight Championship is the "B" title. And that has killed the mid-level titles. The World Heavyweight Championship is probably taken as seriously as the Intercontinental Title used to be, so where does that put the IC Title now? But I wouldn't say it's about, "If you get that belt, you're not good enough to be a true main eventer," but rather that this belt often seems to be used as a trial run to see how you would handle carrying the "real" belt in the future. And given how well he's handled his character evolution during his tenure as champion, I'd say Daniel Bryan has set himself in good stead to compete for the "real" belt in years to come.

Great post.

Your point about Triple H and Orton and how long it took to get them over is spot on, another example is Edge, they pushed him for nearly 5 years before they finally got him over enough to be a main event guy. Guys like Ziggler, Cody, Sheamus, Barrett, Bryan etc...have not had that type of time or push.

I'm glad you brought up the fact The Miz was in the list of main eventers, I only scanned the list and hadn't noticed Nell had put him in, if that doesn't showcase the tunnel vision of "My opinions are fact" then I don't know what else will.

 

[Metallo]

Its all about presentation. Does Nell seriously think most people cared about Rocky Miavia? They chanted die Rocky die despite the babyface push. He only started to get over once he had a consistently GOOD presentation. If Bryan, Mark Henry, Christian, Del Rio, etc. had consistently GOOD pushes they'd be as good and over as just about anyone. Thats not their fault.

To say their main event runs are a sign of how far WWE has fallen is ridiculous and short sighted.The problem is with WWE creative not so much the talent.

WWE pushed Orton for years and did everything they could to get him over. Same with Cena. Almost no one else gets that kind of commitment.

Christian is better than Miz in every way. Better wrestler, funnier, better talker. When someone puts Miz on a list next to greats like Austin, Michaels, Rock the whole argument has ZERO credibility.

Bryan has had one of the longest WHC runs I've seen in recent memory. We all thought he'd have dropped it by now. Clearly SOMEBODY thinks he's doing something right. Meanwhile Miz has fallen by the wayside. What he had was superficial and now it shows.

As for the IC title it began its slide into irrelevance before WWE even brought the World Heavyweight championship back. The titles being damaged began in the Attitude Era.

The same is true for most titles. WCW managed to make the Cruiserweight title mean more than WWF's pitiful light heavyweight title. So much so that they gladly replaced it with the CW title. Once WWE got their hands on the cruiserweight title they slowly eroded any value it had left.

 

[Van Petrol]

I wouldn't necessarily say the World Heavyweight Title is a 'B' title, per se. But rather the 'Raw' title (whichever it may be) is seen in higher regard than the 'Smackdown' title (whichever that may be).

 

[Van Petrol]

Btw, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Bella's thrown into the mix of the Bryan-AJ storyline, seeing as though Vince loves implementing real relationships into the storylines. Looks like they may already be going somewhere with that given AJ's opponent last week and her opponent this week, but we'll see.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

why do you even watch wwe time and time again i am reminded you are an attitude era mark

you always say how much you loved the attitude era stars so much and dont care for new stars

why do you even watch it

Just because I believe the Attitude Era was far superior doesn't mean that I think what we have today is just pure garbage. I did tune out for a long time because I thought what was going on was pure garbage. I actually do get entertainment value out of it now, but I've resigned myself to the fact that it's never going to be as good as it used to be. The stars aren't as good, the stories aren't as good, nothing is as intriguing as it used to be.

That doesn't mean that the product is absolutely void of all of that.

Also, I'm not stating my opinion as fact, or speaking for anyone other than myself. I know what works for me in wrestling, and I know what doesn't work for me in wrestling. But if everyone can talk about how so and so needs to put over so and so, and wins need to be clean, and guys need to get "put over", then I can also talk about what I need from main eventers.

I also don't deny that guys like Christian, Mark Henry, and Daniel Bryan put up career best performances when they got their hands on the World Heavyweight Championship. I liked Mark Henry more than I ever liked him when he did his "Hall of Pain" title run. I like Daniel Bryan now more than I ever did before. Same goes for Christian, although Christian had some memorable tag team runs that I love him for as well.

What I'm saying is that those career best performances aren't what I want to see out of a main eventer. They don't capture me. I go for extended periods of time fairly frequently without watching Smackdown, because it just doesn't matter to me, because those are the types of guys that are headlining that show. They aren't interesting enough to be carrying a show to me. If they were feuding for Intercontinental or United States belts, I think it would be incredible. Which is why I think there should only be one World title, so that these guys are fighting for mid card belts, and raising the prestige of those belts. But those aren't the acts that I tune in to see. That's not who I want to see. I don't want to see Daniel Bryan "headlining" Wrestlemania (in quotes because there are about 4 different "headline" matches for Wrestlemania). Daniel Bryan may be a good in ring worker, but when his character amounts to running around screaming "Yes! Yes! Yes!" all the time, there's just not a lot there to invest in. There's nothing intriguing about the whole AJ angle. It's total mid card character work that's being thrust into the main event, and for me it's *yawn*

As far as The Miz goes, I put him on that list because when he had the belt, he elevated himself as far as I was concerned. I actually tuned in to see what shenanigans he was going to get involved in. It was constantly funny, and kept me tuning in. Lately, they haven't given him **** to work with, and he hasn't really done much with what he's been given, so I'm tuning in for him less and less. We'll see what happens at Wrestlemania, if he's actually got something good in store.

It has nothing to do with me speaking for everybody else, and me stating my opinion as fact, and has everything to do with the fact that I watch wrestling for completely different reasons than everyone else in this thread. I still don't understand why Metallo considers that an insult, when it can't be anymore blatantly obvious that I demand a completely different element out of my wrestling product than everyone else here. I don't look for the backstage aspect of it, I don't look for who puts who over and how, I don't sit there and judge "clean" wins vs. "tainted" wins, I don't critically analyze how every guy got pinned and how, I don't see an interference as a "protection" of someone that they didn't want to book as "vulnerable", I look at it as a TV show, a soap opera, and I look at these guys as characters. I want to see guys act as the best, most engaging characters they can be. I don't think the characters and stories are as good as they were in the Attitude Era, and I don't see guys like Daniel Bryan, Mark Henry, or Christian as the "main characters" in the story. Essentially, that's what the main eventers are for me, the "main characters" who the TV show is about, and I don't want to tune in to a TV show about Daniel Bryan, but I do want to tune in to a TV show about The Rock, or Triple H, or HBK, or Steve Austin.

 

[Hunter Rider]

 

[Metallo]

There's no consistency to what you're saying, Nell. Miz brings absolutely nothing to the table when compared to guys like Rock, Austin, HHH, HBK, etc.

He was a sniveling whining chickensh** heel at best....and that was the same thing Christian did for most of his run. But Miz wasn't even particularly good at that. His promos were repetitive and boring. They weren't funny and they had no substance. They weren't creative. I could name ten guys who did the same thing only better.

It has nothing to do with whats going on behind the scenes or who pins who. Even when we talk about what we see on screen once you put Miz on that list it just shows a biased double standard.

He didn't do anything to elevate himself. Most people did not take him seriously as a main eventer. Some of his peers don't even seem to take him seriously. Triple H, Punk, and Del Rio don't. ZACK RYDER is someone who did something to elevate himself.

Most people here prefer diversity and can appreciate different styles while you hook on to one simple thing over and over to enjoy it. Most others are more open minded.

I just want a good show. You seem to look for a particular thing and if its not there its poor. Checking off a box to see if someone has a certain thing or if they don't or seeing if its done a certain way. Thats a more smarkish attitude than anyone else here. Meanwhile some of us realize not everybody has to do things the same way.

Thats the difference in preference you're talking about.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

And this is why I dislike posting in this thread a lot of times, because this is the type of response I get for having an opinion that doesn't follow this thread's trend.

 

[Hunter Rider]

And this is why I dislike posting in this thread a lot of times, because this is the type of response I get for having an opinion that doesn't follow this thread's trend.

I don't really care what you dislike, but when you write half a dozen paragraphs that have **** all to do with what the person posting to you had said which shows as usual you don't read what is said to you, then you're damn right I'm just going to facepalm you and not bother writing out a response you wont even read properly.

 

[Daniel Thompson]

I think the 80s was better then the Attitude Era. And WWE today is just like the new generation era from the mid 90s, young guys who have to become top guys cause the older guys are on the way out. One of these years in the future WWE will have young guys hit a growth spirt into stardom like what happened in 1996/1997.....I hope.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I don't really care what you dislike, but when you write half a dozen paragraphs that have **** all to do with what the person posting to you had said which shows as usual you don't read what is said to you, then you're damn right I'm just going to facepalm you and not bother writing out a response you wont even read properly.

How does what I said have nothing to do with what was said to me?

People were commenting on my dislike of Bryan, Henry, and Christian as main eventers, and I explained why I don't like them as main eventers.



And then everyone runs around crawling out of the woodworks calling me a "hypocrite" for liking The Miz, because for some reason, I can't possibly enjoy The Miz the way I've enjoyed guys like Rock, Triple H, Kurt Angle, or Chris Jericho in the past, just because nobody else here does.



I get it. You all think that The Miz is the bane of professional wrestling. I don't. I am allowed to enjoy Miz the way I've enjoyed my favorite wrestlers of the past, and that doesn't make me a hypocrite because I do.

 

[Metallo]

This...

I don't look for the backstage aspect of it, I don't look for who puts who over and how, I don't sit there and judge "clean" wins vs. "tainted" wins, I don't critically analyze how every guy got pinned and how, I don't see an interference as a "protection" of someone that they didn't want to book as "vulnerable", I look at it as a TV show, a soap opera, and I look at these guys as characters.

...had nothing at all to do with what we were discussing. You just saw it as an opportunity to b*tch and complain about people here in broad generalizations that aren't even true.

Then in the very same post you say "Lately, they haven't given him (Miz) **** to work with"

If it is a show/soap opera Miz would be a pretty poor lead. If he was doing such a good job he'd still be in a starring role.

Most people give new "characters" a chance. You don't even do that. Not every "character" in an ensemble should be the same to work. Not every lead in a tv show is the same.


Where exactly did "everyone" run around "crawling out of the woodworks?"

 

[Hunter Rider]

How does what I said have nothing to do with what was said to me?

People were commenting on my dislike of Bryan, Henry, and Christian as main eventers, and I explained why I don't like them as main eventers.



And then everyone runs around crawling out of the woodworks calling me a "hypocrite" for liking The Miz, because for some reason, I can't possibly enjoy The Miz the way I've enjoyed guys like Rock, Triple H, Kurt Angle, or Chris Jericho in the past, just because nobody else here does.



I get it. You all think that The Miz is the bane of professional wrestling. I don't. I am allowed to enjoy Miz the way I've enjoyed my favorite wrestlers of the past, and that doesn't make me a hypocrite because I do.

Ugh the smiley's only serve to weaken you further. The points being made by Keyser were that all of the guys you like didn't start out as top guys, I bet you weren't a Triple H fan when he was the Connecticut Blue blood! for instance. It takes time and a push of consistency to get guys in top spots, but you're pissing on them before they even have time to grow, that was the point being made that you ignored to go into your usual routine of self pity, I thought you might have learned with CM Punk that it takes time but I guess not.

Also your soap opera thing makes no sense when you couple it with your insistence that it doesn't matter how the matches play out. Wrestling is a riff on the Rocky movie formula week after week, do Clubber Lang and Ivan Drago matter as threats to Rocky if they don't beat the **** out of him and Apollo respectively? If Rocky loses at the end of the movie does it not matter? of course it does, for the same reason it matters in wrestling if you are building a good story and proper characters.

 

[ALP]

I'm not really a wrestling fan anymore. I use to love it when I was a kid in the early 2000s though. These days, I only tune in around Jan-April for Wrestlemania time just to see my old favorites like Undertaker, Rock, HBK, etc. But I use to really love Raw and SD, I watched every show every week. Now I just tune in around this time. Wresltemania looks like a lot of fun but it's the only event of WWE that I look forward to.

 

[E-Man]

The simple solution to building top stars when you have one belt is simple. The answer has been there all along, and it's something that you'd think would be easy. You just build up stars with the IC title. If that belt meant something you wouldn't have to worry about the main event guys hogging the spotlight. There have been plenty of guys who have had Hall of Fame careers without even holding the main title, and that's because of how important the IC belt has been. Just think about how people revere Mr. Perfect. He never won the main belt, but his IC title runs were far better than many of the main championship runs people have now.

People still remember his IC title runs, and guys like Razor Ramon for their runs while many of the people holding world titles now just aren't as memorable. Sure Mark Henry had a great run as a heel, but beyond that it's mostly been a way to call someone else besides Cena champ. Hell nobody remembers Punk's world title runs before he won big at MITB. They should just merge the two titles and put a premium on the IC title so that the guys who have don't get pushed to main event level when they're not ready.

 

[The Batman]

this convo about giving new guys a chance reminds me how lucky Undertaker was. Right from the gate, he had a solid and memorable character. He didnt have his blueblood or rocky maiva phase.

 

[Metallo]

A title belt is just a part of the process of a wrestlers progression.

The star makes the the belt important not the other way around. WWE has it the other way around for years. Thats partly why the belts don't matter. Doesn't matter if there's one world title or ten.

The belt is simply to show that someone has made it to a certain level not to magically make them a star.

WWE tried to give Drew McIntyre the IC title when he had no credibility. Their thinking was the credibility and history of the belt itself would legitimize him. That didn't happen.

You build stars with solid opportunities, steady support, and meaningful programs against other stars that matter. You don't do that by jerking the rug out from under them before they find their footing

I don't think Andre had singles gold (not counting his 90 second title reign) in WWF. I don't think DiBiase had singles gold in WWF. Yet these guys were bonafide STARS.

Roddy Piper and Jake Roberts carried ZERO gold during their 1980's WWE runs yet they were two of the biggest stars in the WWF in the 1980's. Can any one here deny that?

When Roddy Piper finally DID win the IC title in the early 90's it was a big deal and because HE was such a star it made the IC title seem even more important before dropping it to Bret Hart. Any truly talented and popular star can make any number of titles matter.

When Austin finally won the WWF title he had already been anointed the top star by the fans. Title belts shouldn't be used to MAKE a star out of thin air. They should be used to SIGNIFY a star thats on the rise.