|
Post by Edge618 on Oct 27, 2007 21:16:13 GMT -5
IT becomes too long when theres simply nothing left for them to do w/ that champ. Cena got stale and boring becuz every feud he had made you feel like they were just holding him over until the next. You never legitimately thought he was going to lose. When HHH was champ for as long as he was, every PPV match he had, you got that feeling in your stomach that he might actually lose it, and thats a good feeling. With Cena, you never had that feeling, well, maybe once or twicem but when you had that feeling, WWE always stole it from you and rubbed it in our faces.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 7, 2024 20:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2007 21:18:19 GMT -5
Londrick and Helms' title reigns were good because they werent stale and they put on good matches. Cena is stale because he held it for the majority of the time from WrestleMania 21 to the Raw before No Mercy
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 27, 2007 21:19:01 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. I couldn't have said it better myself man.
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Oct 27, 2007 23:48:39 GMT -5
If the champ is getting X-Pac Heat, then the title reign is too long.
|
|
|
Post by Cass on Oct 27, 2007 23:53:19 GMT -5
If the champ is getting X-Pac Heat, then the title reign is too long. Didn't Rock get that heat with his IC title reign, and his lasted quite a long time. Both of them, or was it three?
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 27, 2007 23:58:03 GMT -5
when their name ends with Cena
|
|
|
Post by foshizzle on Oct 28, 2007 0:09:12 GMT -5
Title Reigns can not be long enough. I think it is better when a champion is champion for like a year, not a month.
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Oct 28, 2007 0:16:42 GMT -5
If the champ is getting X-Pac Heat, then the title reign is too long. Didn't Rock get that heat with his IC title reign, and his lasted quite a long time. Both of them, or was it three? I don't know about all of them, but definitely his first. The fans legitimately hated him because at the time, he had the personality of Wonder Bread, a permanent smile on his face, a lame-ass finisher, and a push that only existed due to his family ties. Obviously, that changed later on.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. McCluer on Oct 28, 2007 0:25:48 GMT -5
when it goes longer than 6 months
|
|
|
Post by compton on Oct 28, 2007 7:07:27 GMT -5
I think it depends on personal taste quite a bit. If you're a big fan of someone, you'll be more willing to tolerate a longer reign than someone who isn't a fan. But I think the most important determining factor are the times. Look at how long Bruno Sammartino was the WWWF champion and how long Moolah was the Ladies champion.
|
|
|
Post by LeighD on Oct 28, 2007 7:20:45 GMT -5
Definitely when a wrestler has become stale and rarely defends the title or parttakes in a big angle. Kendrik & London's reign was awesome but it should've been given more acknowledgement during the later half. Helms title reign was cool, but he rarely defended the title or was consistently on TV.
I loved Cena's year+ reign because it hasn't been done for quite some time. The last time the WWF champion held the belt for a year without a break was Diesel.
As a champion, I feel they should be on TV consistently. Helms, L & K, and Jordon had good to awesoem title reigns, but they were hardly acknowledged and at times, were not seen on TV for weeks at a time.
|
|
|
Post by fallenhero on Oct 28, 2007 7:27:26 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. . Bingo. If WWE would stop throwing their champion on TV in matches week in and week out, it would make the champion less stale, and make their reigns able to go longer without people complaining that they've had it forever.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus Prime on Oct 28, 2007 9:05:04 GMT -5
It becomes too long when the Champion doesn't even defend the title. I remember when Ric Flair was the Intercontinental Champion, and he defended the belt three times! I love MVP, but I hardly recall him defending the title. That's when a reign gets stale IMO.
|
|
|
Post by binnzer317 on Oct 28, 2007 9:14:52 GMT -5
After about 4 months.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 7, 2024 20:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2007 9:38:03 GMT -5
When the smarks get bored.
|
|
|
Post by TheBigThing on Oct 28, 2007 10:43:48 GMT -5
Whenever they run out of fresh feuds or opponents and simply aren't being used on TV or PPVs.
|
|
|
Post by TurboEddie on Oct 28, 2007 11:29:02 GMT -5
I love long title reigns, unlike TNA. I just hate when they never defend the championship or even pay attention to it!
|
|
bobski.
Main Eventer
...
Joined on: Feb 4, 2007 13:40:53 GMT -5
Posts: 1,751
|
Post by bobski. on Oct 28, 2007 12:21:19 GMT -5
If you're Vince Russo then 3 minutes is too long, I'd say 7-10 months is a bit long
|
|
|
Post by BV on Oct 28, 2007 14:22:09 GMT -5
When the persn goes clean ovr people that are 100 times better than that person.
|
|
|
Post by bobby on Oct 28, 2007 15:34:57 GMT -5
The minute Cena holds it, spins it, and says,"The Champ.....iz here!". ;D
|
|