Mr Wrestling Jr.
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 6, 2010 7:07:35 GMT -5
Posts: 3,410
|
Post by Mr Wrestling Jr. on May 31, 2012 3:47:47 GMT -5
Early good morning to you guys www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/title-reign-length-vs-multiple-titlesWWE.com has an article up looking at Championship reigns, and asking what is more important. The time you hold the title, or the times you hold the title. I think this is an interesting article since CM Punk has been the WWE Champion since November and Sheamus is said to have a long reign as World Champion, Cody Rhodes first IC Title reign and Santino holding the US Title for a few months now and doesn't seem to be losing it any time in the near-future, it looks like WWE will be giving wrestlers longer reigns. And WWE is running out of top draws that have been "on top" for years, like Cena with his family problem at the moment, chance of injury due to main eventing nearly every single night, and working both RAW and SmackDown! Orton being suspended, getting concussions an awful lot, and not helping SmackDown! with the ratings and tickets. Triple H moving backstage. Undertaker only appearing at WrestleMania. Punk, Bryan, Sheamus, Del Rio can be considered new to the "top" since they rose up last year/this year.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on May 31, 2012 3:54:16 GMT -5
I think a longer reign is usually better than 2 or 3 short reigns that last < 1 month to 2 and half months.
Of course someone can have a long reign and barely defend their belt and someone can have a short reign but be a fighting champ who defends nearly ever week on TV/PPV.
I think it is good that WWE seems to be giving the main belts longer reigns.
I know I really hated how the WWE/WHT were in 'hot potato mode' during 09-10...
|
|
Mr Wrestling Jr.
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 6, 2010 7:07:35 GMT -5
Posts: 3,410
|
Post by Mr Wrestling Jr. on May 31, 2012 3:57:44 GMT -5
I know I really hated how the WWE/WHT were in 'hot potato mode' during 09-10... That was just stupid. I loved how the RAW Superstars were on RAW and the SmackDown! superstars were on SmackDown! I loved the PPV schedule how they were organized. Just the Title reigns were off
|
|
|
Post by Jaz on May 31, 2012 4:01:51 GMT -5
For me it's how long they hold it. I remember back in 04/05 when JBL was WWE champ every pay per view I wanted to see him lose the title, and when he finally did to Cena at Wrestlemania, it was awesome. If wrestlers have the belt for a long time, it builds a lot of suspense.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on May 31, 2012 4:59:11 GMT -5
Yeah, the "Hot Potato period" as I like to call it was awful. It just seemed like every week the title changed hands. The amount of times the title changes hands now doesn't mean anything anymore.
Before, it would take guys like Sheamus to become a two time WWE Champion at least a few months to a year apart from each reign. Now, once you lose it, you can almost guarantee you will win it back in three weeks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 9, 2024 20:36:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2012 7:43:01 GMT -5
Longer title reigns only mean something when they are defended regularly, in a decisive manner.
By this, I mean real wins, not DQs, schmoz or anything resulting in an undecisive finish.
|
|
|
Post by ● kaneisdaman ● on May 31, 2012 8:30:51 GMT -5
Im still surprised they let Kane and miz have 5month reigns with the world title and wwe titles back in 2010. Its good to have longer reigns because its more fulfilling to see them lose it, like punks current reign is providing he loses it in a situation that is shown as a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on May 31, 2012 9:26:25 GMT -5
Length means far more than frequency, but honestly, even having length on your side these days doesn't make you credible.
All of WWE's Champions are essentially paper right now, even CM Punk. They've put no faith in any of them to carry the company, or even main event a Pay-Per-View. The titles are secondary to whatever is happening with John Cena or John Laurinaitis. They mean virtually nothing.
|
|
|
Post by done on May 31, 2012 9:56:28 GMT -5
Last year was such a bad year for titles to be about, and it is nice to see WWE keep titles on superstars a little longer now, might be on certain guys that I don't like, but at least the title isn't getting thrown around so much.
|
|
|
Post by wabarrett on May 31, 2012 10:28:39 GMT -5
As for the poll itself, well from a kayfabe point of view I can't decide, both are impressive.
As for long reigns vs 'hot potato' with the Titles. I'm on the fence with that too. I don't mind a period with multiple Title changes every now and then because it keeps it unpredictable; otherwise every time anyone won a belt we'd all be like (and many actually do this on here) 'He'll keep it until around [insert month or PPV] and drop it to ______.' Plus, it seems unrealistic if everyone who wins a belt manages to hold on to it for at least 3-6 months (or even more) every time.
On the other hand, there have been times when it is just overdone and from a booking perspective rather than a kayfabe perspective, we as fans get to thinking 'What was even the point of _____ winning just to lose the belt the next night?'
So that's my 2 cents. You have to have a variety of lengths of Title runs IMO.
EDIT: I also actually think it's more important to make sure the World Titles are only won by an elite group of Superstars who are good enough. Sounds obvious enough, but WWE really messed that up when they gave World Titles to guys like Great Khali, not to mention Sheamus and Miz far too soon, and others.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 9, 2024 20:36:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2012 10:57:44 GMT -5
Definitely longer reigns because they're more meaningful. Cena's 2006-2007 reign was fantastic, because you knew when he finally lost it, it would be a big deal. It's just a shame he had to surrender it due to injury rather than actually getting beat for it. On the other hand, like Edge is one of my absolute favourites of all-time, but the fact he amassed 12 world title reigns in 5 years is ridiculous, when the majority of them were meaningless barely-a-month-long reigns.
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on May 31, 2012 13:42:30 GMT -5
Longer reigns by far. The fact Edge won 12-13 world titles in only 5 years is a joke IMO. Of all his reigns, maybe two or three were memorable. Punks current WWE Title reign is far more memorable IMO than any or Edge's reigns, except for maybe his first when he cashed in MITB.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Papagiorgio on May 31, 2012 15:04:40 GMT -5
I am glad that the WWE Championship hasn't changed hands this year thus far, I am sick and tired of championships changed hands like crazy, let a guy hold it for more then a ing month.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 9, 2024 20:36:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2012 15:13:56 GMT -5
Waits for hockey bro to come in and say "wwe championships are worthless, it's all scripted and doesn't mean anything"
|
|
June
Main Eventer
High Fives All Around!!!
Joined on: May 31, 2009 10:54:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by June on May 31, 2012 15:19:04 GMT -5
Length of the reign, and the person defeated for the title are what I look at.
The way that the WWE started passing the title around like a hot potato turned me off big time. now the titles mean nothing since they are no longer associated with the top draw on each respective brand.
|
|
|
Post by skribbel24 on May 31, 2012 17:10:42 GMT -5
For me it's length.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 9, 2024 20:36:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2012 17:16:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 9, 2024 20:36:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2012 19:14:43 GMT -5
What, no love for Ric Flair being a 16 time world champion?
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on May 31, 2012 19:38:46 GMT -5
What, no love for Ric Flair being a 16 time world champion? Flair was a 16 time champion but also defended it regularly against the best competition around and also held the title for year(s) at a time.
|
|
|
Post by wyleecyotee on May 31, 2012 19:53:33 GMT -5
Thats me screwed then Length is better than multiple reigns as one long reign = 0 title loses 4 quick reigns = 3 loses They need to just mix it up, have periods where the title goes from one guy to another but keep it unpredictable. Punks reign is great but I feel we need a heel champion like JBL now (I think all titles are held by faces). Fans love a chase but no face is chasing at the moment.
|
|