LG
04-23-2013, 02:46 PM
The WWE’s midcard is in shambles, and if we’re just being honest with ourselves here, it has been for a very long time.
You can blame the struggles the midcard division has had on any number of factors, too. Everything from a lack of over babyfaces to poor booking to too much focus on the main-event picture has contributed to the demise of the midcard division and its titles.
Perhaps the biggest problem, though, is the way that the midcard champions lose way too many non-title matches.
Especially over the last six months or so, the WWE has made a really bad habit out of putting its midcard champions in non-title matches that they wind up losing.
In fact, this weird concept even applies to the World title scene—as evidenced by the fact that Dolph Ziggler just lost a non-title match to Jack Swagger on last week’s Raw.
For whatever reason, it seems that the creative team only knows of one way to ignite a feud: Have a champion lose a non-title match on TV in order for whoever beats the champion to step up as his No. 1 contender.
At best, this is a very questionable booking philosophy. At worst, it’s a downright terrible one.
JPQipAVXIM0
There are literally countless way to build up new feuds and rivalries, and yet, the WWE has resorted to a philosophy that ultimately destroys the credibility of its titles. After all, no one wants to see a champion who loses all the time, and that’s what the company’s midcard champions—and even World champions at times—have done as of late.
Want to know why The Miz, Kofi Kingston and Wade Barrett all had incredibly lackluster runs with the Intercontinental Championship? It’s because they lost so many non-title matches on Raw while holding the belt that no one cared when they lost a title match because, hey, it was just another loss for them.
Want to know why Antonio Cesaro’s United States title reign did nothing for him even though he held the belt for the better part of a year? It’s because he spent that reign having no meaningful feuds and constantly losing non-title matches to the likes of Ryback, Randy Orton and so many others.
Any which way you slice it, this idea that a good way to build up midcard title contenders is to have them defeat the champions in non-title matches is absolutely ridiculous.
At its core, it’s meant to build up contenders as strong potential challengers. But ultimately, all it really accomplishes is hurting the prestige of two midcard titles that mean less by the minute.
Both the Intercontinental and United States Championship were once highly regarded titles that were held by some of the WWE’s biggest stars, but now, they are two props that are passed back-and-forth between stars who the creative team doesn’t put enough effort into building up as credible champions.
This, of course, stems largely from something that, at least to some, doesn’t seem like such a big deal: Non-title TV matches.
In and of themselves, non-title TV matches aren’t a bad idea. After all, you can’t expect a champion to defend his title on every episode of Raw or even SmackDown—that’s not going to happen.
But if we are going to constantly see champions (mainly midcard ones) involved in non-title matches, then the effort must be made to protect those champions. They should be winning the vast majority of those bouts, and if they’re going to lose, creative should find a way to keep them looking strong in the process.
If that can’t be done, then non-title TV matches will continue to be used and booked poorly. They will serve as a means to elevate a talent to being the No. 1 contender at the expense of the champion that he wants to take the title from.
How does that benefit anyone? Well, it doesn’t.
We know that’s why so many non-title TV matches happen, but what we don’t know is why the WWE thinks it works because, at least recently, it hasn’t worked for Cesaro, Miz, Barrett and a long list of other midcard champions.
Non-title TV matches are OK. How the WWE uses them is not.
Until that changes, the midcard division will struggle, and the WWE’s champions won’t seem nearly as important as they should.
BR
You can blame the struggles the midcard division has had on any number of factors, too. Everything from a lack of over babyfaces to poor booking to too much focus on the main-event picture has contributed to the demise of the midcard division and its titles.
Perhaps the biggest problem, though, is the way that the midcard champions lose way too many non-title matches.
Especially over the last six months or so, the WWE has made a really bad habit out of putting its midcard champions in non-title matches that they wind up losing.
In fact, this weird concept even applies to the World title scene—as evidenced by the fact that Dolph Ziggler just lost a non-title match to Jack Swagger on last week’s Raw.
For whatever reason, it seems that the creative team only knows of one way to ignite a feud: Have a champion lose a non-title match on TV in order for whoever beats the champion to step up as his No. 1 contender.
At best, this is a very questionable booking philosophy. At worst, it’s a downright terrible one.
JPQipAVXIM0
There are literally countless way to build up new feuds and rivalries, and yet, the WWE has resorted to a philosophy that ultimately destroys the credibility of its titles. After all, no one wants to see a champion who loses all the time, and that’s what the company’s midcard champions—and even World champions at times—have done as of late.
Want to know why The Miz, Kofi Kingston and Wade Barrett all had incredibly lackluster runs with the Intercontinental Championship? It’s because they lost so many non-title matches on Raw while holding the belt that no one cared when they lost a title match because, hey, it was just another loss for them.
Want to know why Antonio Cesaro’s United States title reign did nothing for him even though he held the belt for the better part of a year? It’s because he spent that reign having no meaningful feuds and constantly losing non-title matches to the likes of Ryback, Randy Orton and so many others.
Any which way you slice it, this idea that a good way to build up midcard title contenders is to have them defeat the champions in non-title matches is absolutely ridiculous.
At its core, it’s meant to build up contenders as strong potential challengers. But ultimately, all it really accomplishes is hurting the prestige of two midcard titles that mean less by the minute.
Both the Intercontinental and United States Championship were once highly regarded titles that were held by some of the WWE’s biggest stars, but now, they are two props that are passed back-and-forth between stars who the creative team doesn’t put enough effort into building up as credible champions.
This, of course, stems largely from something that, at least to some, doesn’t seem like such a big deal: Non-title TV matches.
In and of themselves, non-title TV matches aren’t a bad idea. After all, you can’t expect a champion to defend his title on every episode of Raw or even SmackDown—that’s not going to happen.
But if we are going to constantly see champions (mainly midcard ones) involved in non-title matches, then the effort must be made to protect those champions. They should be winning the vast majority of those bouts, and if they’re going to lose, creative should find a way to keep them looking strong in the process.
If that can’t be done, then non-title TV matches will continue to be used and booked poorly. They will serve as a means to elevate a talent to being the No. 1 contender at the expense of the champion that he wants to take the title from.
How does that benefit anyone? Well, it doesn’t.
We know that’s why so many non-title TV matches happen, but what we don’t know is why the WWE thinks it works because, at least recently, it hasn’t worked for Cesaro, Miz, Barrett and a long list of other midcard champions.
Non-title TV matches are OK. How the WWE uses them is not.
Until that changes, the midcard division will struggle, and the WWE’s champions won’t seem nearly as important as they should.
BR