|
Post by 49% Motherf**ker, 51% SOB on Oct 27, 2007 12:35:52 GMT -5
Subject says it all. Cena's was too long. Orlando Jordan's US title reign was too long, Kendrick and London's tag title reign was too long. Helms title reign was too long. What does everyone else think?
|
|
|
Post by cia on Oct 27, 2007 12:36:56 GMT -5
I think a title reign becomes "too long" - when the person with the title becomes stale, doesn't defend the championship or generally doesn't deserve to be holding the belt.
|
|
DAN
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 20, 2004 8:29:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,659
|
Post by DAN on Oct 27, 2007 12:37:26 GMT -5
I'm not too sure, if we had title changes every few weeks then that title would lose all meaning and credibility, however when guys like Cena are holding titles for the amount of time he did (and only lost it through injury) then that's when it becomes too long.
|
|
|
Post by 49% Motherf**ker, 51% SOB on Oct 27, 2007 12:45:12 GMT -5
I don't like when a champion wrestles non-title matches and loses, but wins their title matches. I think that hurts their creditability and the titles creditability. Even though it was funny when K-Fed pinned Cena.
|
|
|
Post by JTG on Oct 27, 2007 12:57:39 GMT -5
Pretty much when they become stale. Cena became stale and as much as it sucked for him, getting injured was the best thing that could've happend, because a lot of people were getting sick of his. I enjoyed London & Kendrick's title reign for the most part. I did like Orlando Jordan but then he got stale and I didn't really care for him anymore. I also liked Helms' title reign. He carried the belt very well and it's a shame how he lost it. Would've been great for him to drop it to Yang.
|
|
|
Post by Barrett on Oct 27, 2007 13:01:10 GMT -5
\Kendrick and London's tag title reign was too long. Helms title reign was too long. I was pretty fond of both of those title reigns. I was actually hoping they'd each hold onto their titles even longer than they did.
|
|
|
Post by Blackjack on Oct 27, 2007 13:03:24 GMT -5
6+ months
|
|
|
Post by ztj_wwf on Oct 27, 2007 13:06:09 GMT -5
The Hooliganz reign was not too long because they put great matches on everytime they went out there, same with Helms.
|
|
|
Post by OverTheEdge on Oct 27, 2007 13:29:38 GMT -5
When there's no one left to defend it against.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Oct 27, 2007 13:43:52 GMT -5
I am a firm believer in long title reigns and the use of them. Short title reigns may make storylines more exciting, but they don't add any credibility to the title or titleholder. And, when WWE is in such a low period as it is now, someone needs to be able to carry the title and the company for a long period time, such as Cena. Despite all of the argument's against Cena, he was a pretty good champion for this day and age. With all of the people "suffering" from ADHD and the like, I'm not surprised that shorter title reigns are preferred. I can just imagine kids nowadays being fans during the 60's and 70's when Sammartino was holding the belt for 7+ years.
|
|
|
Post by TeamExtreme718x on Oct 27, 2007 18:49:08 GMT -5
When the person holding the title begins to get stale...
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 7, 2024 18:58:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2007 18:53:18 GMT -5
If I hate the wrestler to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by BulletV1 on Oct 27, 2007 18:59:40 GMT -5
When ever the title run, becomes boring is when it is too long. Just look at Flair's IC reign for example.
|
|
|
Post by Batista on Oct 27, 2007 19:12:45 GMT -5
It really depends on whos the champion, and what state the company is in, and how deep the talent roster is with people who the promoter feels can hold the title and not suck at it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Oct 27, 2007 19:13:55 GMT -5
Orton's title reign has already become too long. Too long is indicative of a stale champion and when a champion has held his belt for "too long" it means that it's stale, boring and repetitive to see that guy with the belt... I don't know if there is a real set time, it depends on the champ holding it...
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Oct 27, 2007 19:42:52 GMT -5
I think a title reign becomes "too long" - when the person with the title becomes stale, doesn't defend the championship or generally doesn't deserve to be holding the belt. Exactly what I was gonna say, Cena became VERY STALE. London and Kendrick were always awsome to watch. Their matches never got boring. Many people feel that OJ didnt deserve his title reign, but I personally think that he was very talented and should have had the title just a little longer. As for Helms, he was an incredible champion, he just need to defend more often, his fued with Matt Hardy was very impressive, but he definatly should have been showing off the cruiserweight division more while he was champion.
|
|
|
Post by BigShab421 on Oct 27, 2007 20:07:40 GMT -5
I am a firm believer in long title reigns and the use of them. Short title reigns may make storylines more exciting, but they don't add any credibility to the title or titleholder. And, when WWE is in such a low period as it is now, someone needs to be able to carry the title and the company for a long period time, such as Cena. Despite all of the argument's against Cena, he was a pretty good champion for this day and age. With all of the people "suffering" from ADHD and the like, I'm not surprised that shorter title reigns are preferred. I can just imagine kids nowadays being fans during the 60's and 70's when Sammartino was holding the belt for 7+ years. But ya know what, Sammartino wasn't on TV every Monday, Tuesday, or Friday all year, week in and week out. Anyways, I think the title reign is stale after 6 months, only if the champ is uncharismatic, and cannot put on good matches.
|
|
|
Post by rkolegendkilla on Oct 27, 2007 20:18:03 GMT -5
When it's defended too often.
|
|
MadDogJoe
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 4, 2006 17:14:26 GMT -5
Posts: 1,529
|
Post by MadDogJoe on Oct 27, 2007 20:27:46 GMT -5
John Cena
|
|
|
Post by "Vintage" HBK Still Rules on Oct 27, 2007 20:31:48 GMT -5
I think a title reign becomes "too long" - when the person with the title becomes stale, doesn't defend the championship or generally doesn't deserve to be holding the belt. MVP?! I think it's when the title itself loses it's luster, like there's no real reason to have it there, except to take up space.
|
|