|
|
Post by ~*Young $ Money*~ on Oct 6, 2009 20:21:00 GMT -5
I don't really understand it. People were complaining that Kofi held the belt to long, now people are complaining Cena and Orton are changinging hands to often. The title changes imo don't mean anything like they used to, back then people had to chase the belt and a feud was made out of the chase. Anyway, discuss do you like short title reigns, long title reigns, whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by ortonisgod on Oct 6, 2009 20:23:22 GMT -5
If this is the only year this happens im ok with it. But if in 2010 we see the title thrown around like this, i might stop watching.
I easily prefer long title reigns, they mean so much more and make so much more sense. HHH's 2002- 2003 title run was great!
|
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Oct 6, 2009 20:30:14 GMT -5
It really depends for me.
I define a short title reign as 2 months or less. Probably less than 3 months actually.
A long title reign for me is 7 months and over.
So for me, 3-6 months is a pretty good amount of time to be a champion.
But there are exceptions to the rule. I really hate The Great Khali, so when he won the world title, I didn't care how much I hated short title reigns his ass couldn't lose the title quick enough!
Sometime I like a champ who have had their title for a very long time. I really liked Orton's IC title reign. He had it for 7 months and it was a really good reign imo. Cena and HHH's really long reigns just got boring after a while so for some people it is okay but others not so much.
|
|
eenyc21
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 15, 2009 10:50:24 GMT -5
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by eenyc21 on Oct 6, 2009 20:57:58 GMT -5
Kofi's title reign didnt bother me, the longer the title reign the better. It was all wasted anyways since he lost it to the Miz, who is not awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~*Young $ Money*~ on Oct 6, 2009 21:09:45 GMT -5
I agree they jsut threw his title reign down the toilet. Him losing it to the Miz would have been fine with me had it been in a feud. Kofi has won more triple threats and everything else then all the sudden gets beat by him is what pissed me off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cassa Nova Kid on Oct 7, 2009 0:28:17 GMT -5
I would have liked to see Kofi keep the title for another 4 months. I hope miz keeps it for at least 4 months.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnm213 on Oct 7, 2009 2:00:35 GMT -5
Kofi defended against too many people in too many title matches. If he went through everyone one by one and had maybe ONE multi-man match and held it for a YEAR, then none of us would complain...
... except me who would be furious at him surpassing MVP, of course!
|
|
BlackSwagger
Main Eventer
Pro Wrestling is fake?! Oh nooooes!
Joined on: Aug 24, 2009 12:06:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by BlackSwagger on Oct 7, 2009 10:53:08 GMT -5
I prefer long title runs. Hot potato title changes kill the prestige and the meaning of winning a title.
Flair is a 16 time World Champ, but he had long title runs. Austin and the Rock had long title runs which is why their counts are so low.
While I have no problem with title changes on network tv, I do have a problem with title changes right after successfully defending that title on a PPV the night before. If the E wanted to put the title on the Miz, no problem. Do it at the PPV instead of the following night.
|
|
|
|
Post by irishcurse64 on Oct 7, 2009 11:55:58 GMT -5
I thought the same thing about people complaining about Kofi's reign.I thought they were doing a great job with the US title by keeping it on Kofi(A very exciting wrestler) and have him defeat a lot of different superstars.It made the title seem important having all those superstars gunning for it.Yet,everyone complained and I have no idea why.
|
|
DKR
Main Eventer
It's all good...
Joined on: Feb 13, 2008 13:23:53 GMT -5
Posts: 3,916
|
Post by DKR on Oct 7, 2009 13:28:46 GMT -5
The longer the title reign the better.
But long title reigns cannot happen nowadays cause the core WWE audience is the ADD generation and have the attention spans of a gnat.
I would love for another year long Cena reign or even for Orton to hold onto it for awhile.
Triple H '08 run was pretty good (about 8 months)
|
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Oct 7, 2009 13:43:59 GMT -5
It wasn't the length of the reign (Kofi's) that bothered me; It was the way he kept retaining it.
|
|
DKR
Main Eventer
It's all good...
Joined on: Feb 13, 2008 13:23:53 GMT -5
Posts: 3,916
|
Post by DKR on Oct 7, 2009 13:48:29 GMT -5
It wasn't the length of the reign (Kofi's) that bothered me; It was the way he kept retaining it. By winning? I thought they did a good job with Kofi; he was being built as a fighting champion. |
|
|
|
Post by 1992 on Oct 7, 2009 13:50:31 GMT -5
The fact that there practically a PPV every week now doesn't help.
|
|
Conor
Main Eventer
Joined on: Dec 18, 2008 17:27:35 GMT -5
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Conor on Oct 7, 2009 16:25:02 GMT -5
Cm Punk could have stayed Champ for alot longer and it would not have been boring I don't see 'takers reign lasting too long!
|
|
|
|
Post by 1992 on Oct 7, 2009 16:29:27 GMT -5
Cm Punk could have stayed Champ for alot longer and it would not have been boring I don't see 'takers reign lasting too long! I don't think anyone does. Tbh, I think WWE just wanted to put one more belt on Taker's resume since he's getting ready to hang em up. |
|
