Falconsinclair
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 24, 2012 9:16:24 GMT -5
Posts: 802
|
Post by Falconsinclair on Nov 23, 2012 6:02:52 GMT -5
Who here thinks that Triple H's decision to have longer title reigns is a way to protect some of the higher numbers of Championship reigns.
Ric Flair is a 16 time Champion while Sting is next @ 14 & Triple H has 13 combined reigns.
Cena is up their as well with 12 reigns with the big belts.
So my question to you is this, was Triple H's decision to have longer Championship reigns his way of protecting Flair's number from a guy like Cena? Or did he make that call to build up title reigns like Punks 370+ and counting.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:37:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2012 6:33:35 GMT -5
I genuinely think it was to deliver an impact when the titles changes hands.
|
|
|
Post by Escape The Rules on Nov 23, 2012 7:07:18 GMT -5
I think you're just being overly cynical. Not once did that ever cross my mind because I just don't see that being the case.
|
|
|
Post by Lewscher on Nov 23, 2012 8:18:06 GMT -5
id guess its because the newer guys aren't on the same legendary level as the older guys. and it helps keep that age and era of wrestling seem more prestigious, and you about change the past so you need to keep the future under control. plus the title should be held by people who deserve it, so ok the best could be on top and keep that way to keep their reign relevant.
|
|
JoeRocco420
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 22, 2010 16:31:53 GMT -5
Posts: 3,199
|
Post by JoeRocco420 on Nov 23, 2012 8:38:15 GMT -5
LoL wow
|
|
|
Post by Kanenite on Nov 23, 2012 8:50:52 GMT -5
I genuinely think it was to deliver an impact when the titles changes hands. Exactally. I remember not really giving a damn when Cena and Orton were passing the title back and forth in 2009. I think I actually forgot who was WWE champ once in that time frame.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:37:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2012 8:51:29 GMT -5
I genuinely think it was to deliver an impact when the titles changes hands. this
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Nov 23, 2012 8:53:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MacReady on Nov 23, 2012 9:16:26 GMT -5
Reading a little too much in to the decision.
|
|
|
Post by LeighD on Nov 23, 2012 9:54:10 GMT -5
I think its great as it makes the title and title changes mean more. I mean look how many times Edge was WWE or WHC champion. Of those how many reigns were a quality or meaningful reign? 1?
|
|
Stinger TNA
Main Eventer
"Support TNA"
Joined on: Mar 31, 2010 19:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 1,481
|
Post by Stinger TNA on Nov 23, 2012 10:17:03 GMT -5
i like longer reigns if the belt is on the right guy/diva/knockout
dont like it if its a boring reign with no feeling of "he could lose the title tonight" in this ppv match iv waited to see
|
|
|
Post by OverTheEdge on Nov 23, 2012 10:20:01 GMT -5
I genuinely think it was to deliver an impact when the titles changes hands. Exactly. Think of how it'll be when someone finally beats Punk for the WWE Championship. Even if it is an already established guy like the Rock, it'll still be a huge deal because Punk's been champion for over a year.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Nov 23, 2012 11:57:57 GMT -5
it's great. the title actually means something again.
|
|
500DaysofNight
Main Eventer
Joined on: Dec 30, 2001 10:19:35 GMT -5
Posts: 4,639
|
Post by 500DaysofNight on Nov 23, 2012 13:20:55 GMT -5
It makes my stomach turn to think that someone like Edge is an 11 time champion. Nothing against him, but that's ridiculous. There's no need for it and no wonder the titles were a joke for so long.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Nov 23, 2012 13:29:00 GMT -5
I genuinely think it was to deliver an impact when the titles changes hands. Exactly. Think of how it'll be when someone finally beats Punk for the WWE Championship. Even if it is an already established guy like the Rock, it'll still be a huge deal because Punk's been champion for over a year. Thing is though, it's a bit of a waste. When Rock wins the title, the headline is "The Rock wins the WWE title again after all these years" rather than "The Rock ends 400+ day title reign." If Punk lost it to someone like Cena or Orton, it'd just be a big "meh." There isn't really any mileage in getting anything out of the long reign now unless Punk does carry it to WrestleMania and defends it against the streak, or loses it to Ryback. But if they were gonna put it on Ryback, the time to do that with any momentum was a month ago.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Wrestling on Nov 23, 2012 13:47:03 GMT -5
Honestly, I do think they don't want everyone reaching the number of reigns Flair has. If someone will, it has to be a guy they trust and has earned all their and the fans' respect. On the other hand, I hate the number of reigns most of them have because they weren't lengthy. I don't think kids right now that people like Piper are that awesome since they never held the title, unlike today that people like Swagger (who I really like) who's barely doing anything interesting nowadays (before being injured) that has been a World Champion already. I'm not saying every reign should be like Punk's, but I do feel that the average reign should be as long Miz's first, with the few exceptions of a transitional.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Nov 23, 2012 13:49:26 GMT -5
Given all of the positive change Triple H has brought to the direction of the company, I like to think positively when it comes to his leadership and assume that he'd like to extend the length of title reigns to build their prestige and restore some luster to the idea of a title changing hands.
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Nov 23, 2012 13:56:54 GMT -5
Why the Cena hate? Why does it have to be protected from a "Guy like Cena?" I think it was to protect it in general, as well as to make title changes more meaningful.
Besides, if the Punk/Foley promos are any indicator (as much as I love Foley), they're trying to hammer home the point that longevity is more important than number of reigns.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Nov 23, 2012 14:57:35 GMT -5
I don't think kids right now that people like Piper are that awesome since they never held the title I don't think that's really true. Piper, by being one of the very top stars when the 80s boom happened (and by appearing on Raw a couple of times a year), is held in much higher regard than the likes of Backlund and Sammartino.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 2, 2024 9:37:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2012 19:10:59 GMT -5
I genuinely think it was to deliver an impact when the titles changes hands. Exactly. Think of how it'll be when someone finally beats Punk for the WWE Championship. Even if it is an already established guy like the Rock, it'll still be a huge deal because Punk's been champion for over a year. yeah pretty much.cant help feeling it will be wasted on the Rock though as mentioned above.
|
|