Are Titles Important? And If So,...

Discussion in 'The Wrestling Archives' started by TheIcon2, Mar 22, 2012.

  1. TheIcon2

    TheIcon2 Dark Match Winner

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    3
    Are titles important or do people just view them now adays as a prop used to fight over and create storylines around? Lets face it the "best" doesn't always have the title and nor will they ever always have the title because this is entertainment and not a shoot.

    If you feel titles are important....Then are the lengths of the title reign more important than the quantity of title reigns? Once again the entertainment portion of the business plays a role. If you held the title 10, 12, 14 times its because of a storyline. Not because your overall skill has allowed you to such as in boxing or MMA.

    However if you win the title once and hold it for a year would people view it differently?
     
    #1
  2. MrGameTime

    MrGameTime Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    12
    I believe they used to be important but so much no adays. Does Cena really deserve to be a 10 time WWE champion? People like del rio etc It's just a joke, the main event title used to be symbol to show you were the best, the man on top of them all, but now it means as you put it "because of a storyline" or the easiest way WWE uses to try and get someone over, its a joke like when they give the title to guys and then they loose them the night after or a week later.. whats the point in that. In my opinon the title has lost nearly all significance I wouldnt be suprised if Santino won it as part of a story line in the near future... but hell what do we know??? If it sells tickets and PPV's it must be good right??
     
    #2
  3. Jack-Hammer

    Jack-Hammer YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12,959
    Likes Received:
    3,793
    The subject of titles and their prestige is among the most common complaints of the IWC. Considering that the IWC as a whole tends to complain about everything most of the time, that's saying something. As with most subjects revolving around pro wrestling, past uses of the titles have been overly romanticized due to feelings of nostalgia.

    Despite whatever internet propoganda you might hear regarding title runs during the 80s especially, not all of them were truly these great epic happenings. Not every match was some clash of titans to be discussed through the ages. Sure, reigns did tend to be longer on average back in those days but look at a few circumstances. During the 80s, aside from Macho Man Randy Savage & The Ultimate Warrior, who really had the kind of incredible runs that some still laud as how things should be done? Aside from them, the title holders were the likes of Greg The Hammer Valentine, Don Murroco, Tito Santana, Ken Patera, etc. While some of them were solid wrestlers and all, let's face it, none of them are anywhere close to the level of stardom and/or abilities of guys like Savage, Warrior, Rude, Hart or Perfect. Comparatively speaking, most of those guys were shit compared to Savage or Bret Hart or Hennig, etc. The Honky Tonk Man, for the most part, was sort of the Santino Marella of his day. He had the longest run in history but aside from the fact that he held the title for so long and dropped it in less than 30 seconds, did he really do anything particularly memorable aside from feuding with Randy Savage in matches where he had to be saved every single time? People automatically equate length with greatness when it comes to title runs. It's a belt people, not a dick. :p

    Even during Hogan's runs as WWF Champion during the 80s, you can't seriously tell someone that all of Hogan's matches or promos or feuds were incredible happenings because they weren't. He had his share of lousy matches, believe me, and lackluster opponents like the Big Boss Man, Akheem, Bad News Brown, King Kong Bundy, etc.

    I do agree, however, that rapid fire title changes isn't something that I find particularly interesting and I'm glad that WWE seems to have slowed down on that. At the same time, runs that last for years and years just aren't going to fly in this day and age. Back in the 80s, wrestling wasn't such a constant presence on tv & various media outlets as it is today. The Prime Time Wrestling show was, for the most part, Gorilla Monsoon & Bobby Heenan interacting hilariously while showing brief promo segments and matches taped at house shows. It was fun but, even today, a champ defends the title most of the time at house shows. As much as some might like it, or kind of proclaim to like it, you can't have title matches on free television every other week without it growing stale.

    I think another problem lies with personal perception. I'm guilty of this myself in that I sometimes rag on WWE if a title isn't being "used right" or is on the "right person". That's perfectly natural to some degree. After all, you're not going to be as into some champions or how they're booked as you will be with others. There's no such things as a "perfect run" and there's always going to be something, somewhere that doesn't meet with approval. At the same time, however, just because what's happening doesn't match up with what I think should happen or want to see happen doesn't mean that it's automatically bad, or that a title is being misused.
     
    #3
  4. sadistic_joker32

    sadistic_joker32 Dark Match Jobber

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    2
    I agree to some parts about the titles aren't as significant as they should be but i feel some wrestlers like santino needed that push because santino is a very great wrestler.... if you look at his indy matches. It is just that wwe doesn't want to push the right wrestlers when they should be pushed. I also feel they should bring some old titles back for the other wrestlers that really don't get the time to shine, like the lightheavyweight championship since the wwe has a lot of wrestlers that are barely heavyweights
     
    #4
  5. DirtyD79

    DirtyD79 Championship Contender

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    93
    It helps if you try to watch as a normal fan and not a smark. Normal fans realize the titles are what drive the story and want to see their favorite wrestler get the gold. Being a fan means you make an emotional investment in the character in this case a wrestler so you want to see them succeed and get what they deserve and you want to see those who stand in their way get punished. Also without titles wrestling would amount to little more than an episode of Jerry Springer in spandex.

    That said title reigns should have some length to them in order to be credible. Saying you won the belt 16 times means you lost it 16 times if you ain't holding it now. Im not a big fan of feds playing hot potato with belts. Especially if it happens the night after you just paid 40 bucks to watch the guy loser win that title. In that case you start to figure "What was the point? Why should I bother paying to watch this shit when it isn't gonna matter the next day?"
     
    #5
  6. mb47

    mb47 Occasional Pre-Show

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    5
    There is a lot less focus on the importance of titles compared to a few years ago. However they haven't become an accessory like a fair few people think.

    Just look at Cena vs. Punk at MITB in Chicago. The place was electric and a lot of emphasis for that feud was based on the title. Yes the contract dispute was the main part but they made the title relevant to the story by having Punk leave the company with it and if Cena lost and Punk won the title Cena would be fired.

    That's just an example but to me that was a great feud with a great match at MITB, I was hooked on this one because of how much emphasis was put on the value of that title, and no I don't mean money value, I mean the prestige of being champion.

    I don't mind the title being thrown around between guys at times just as long as there is a good reason for it. I think commentators need to say more about the importance of the title and I think the stars themselves need to be mentioning it even if they're mid-card. The more it's talked about then the better it seems.

    It's not so much the booking of who has the title and for how long, it comes down to how the title is built up. The desire, the passion, the dream to be champion, that's what they've lost and need to regain.

    My two cents on the situation any way.
     
    #6
  7. BarryHorowitzfanclub

    BarryHorowitzfanclub Occasional Pre-Show

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    6
    I wish they'd stop having the title up for every month at every PPV. It becomes very obvious early on whether a person will keep or give the belt.

    The main thing wrestling fans crave is unpredictability. We talk about what we want, and who should do what, but what we really want is either something unseen or something unknown. Give us intrigue!
     
    #7
  8. King Patrick Star

    King Patrick Star K. O. T. R. 2007 -€“ Team Undisputed

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,067
    Likes Received:
    657
    Titles are important. There really isn’t much to explain here, but I do see the argument. Yes, in essence, they are props for a staged TV show. However, in my mind, they are the trophies signifying the goal a SuperStar goes after and serves as a symbol of that accomplishment. I collect these things, so I may be a little bias in my opinion, but the Belts in our TV shows are the most important aspect of the program.

    Now, I understand the marketing behind everything and how at the end of the day, this is all a business. Hence why we have Main Events that are not World Championship matches, and I’m okay with that. I get that a Legend vs. Legend match would sell tickets and should be the main focal point of a PPV, but how did they become Legends?? They won the World Championships. Think about it.

    Now to the details. I see a yearlong reign just as important and as great of an accomplishment as 12 one month reigns. To clarify, it’s the total number of days as Champion divided by the total number of reigns as Champion, is how I determine “good” reigns. I know some of their opinions one way or the other, but that’s the way I look at it.
     
    #8
    midgensa and Hollywood Naitch like this.
  9. daddyJ_t

    daddyJ_t Getting Noticed By Management

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    25
    its like vince russo was channeled in this one. russo helped devalue the title when he publically said the championships were nothing more then a glorified prop used to advance a storyline. ive noticed people seemed to follow that line of thinking and stopped careing for it and dragging it around and stopped wearing it. it should be held jus like the american flag to some degree. dont let it drag the ground when u walk to the ring and its a belt, wear the damn thing around your waist for fuck sake, not over your shoulder to make your suit look better. i think it also devalued alittle when it became a piece of bling for john cena. the last 2 champs of any kind that cherished any title like it was their life was cody rhodes and believe it or not was santino. the honka-meter was meant to be a joke for his character, but it showed (to me anyway) that he cared and wanted to be the best ic champ ever. length is nice, cause it means that u are defending it alot someway or somehow. reigns were longer back in the day cause u pretty much had only 4 ppvs to defend at. a 1 year reign i think if the challengers were right could really bring back some of the glory
     
    #9
  10. OneTooManyPunts

    OneTooManyPunts Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    54
    Should titles be important...YES, are they, NO! Titles in pro wrestling, at least when you look at WWE and TNA, are simply gimmicks in and of themselves..tools to promote a particular talent, rather than bring a level of prestige to the promotion. Now I'm sure some of you will say that a title is supposed to promote the talent that holds it, and you are right, but that simply no longer seems to be the case. TNA's Television Title and WWE's United States Championship..they serve to promote midcard talent, almost exclusively in a comedic role these days. Robbie E as TV champ does nothing for him as a character, and by defending it against talent that is essentially lower on the food chain than even he is, devalues it completely..not to mention the countless identities the belt has had over the years. The United States Championship did nothing for Jack Swagger, and was rarely defended..now it is simply a way of using Santino (who is no doubt mega over) on a more frequent basis.

    Look at the Intercontinental Championship...Cody Rhodes character is supposed to be bringing the prestige back to the title, but his match with Big Show at Wrestlemania will be the first true and meaningful title defense in months. In Cody's case, he is lucky he's as good a heel and performer as he is, because the title isn't furthering his status in WWE whatsoever.

    Both promotions tag titles are essentially after thoughts. Samoa Joe/Magnus, while an interesting team, have been champions only to allow for the break up and feud of Matt Morgan and Crimson, and now to allow for a storyline for MCMG to return. Assuming that MCMG wins the titles in the near future, what credible team is there for them to defend it against? Same could be said in WWE..Air Boom was the closest WWE has come to revitalizing the tag division in years, and it didn't last very long at all.

    WWE's World Title and Heavyweight Championship are irrelevant in a lot of ways. If you look at the build to the two title matches at Wrestlemania, neither is being treated with any level of prestige or importance from a championship perspective. Jericho and Punk are out to prove who is 'The Best in the World', the idea of Jericho becoming champion, or Punk retaining is practically an after thought. Sheamus and Bryan have been given a horrible build to the match, with WWE more intrested in promoting the Bryan/AJ storyline than creating and real tension or sense of urgency for Sheamus. In their case, they will probably open Wrestlemania..not a spot on the card for top tier title match, no matter how hot it make help get the crowd out of the gate.

    TNA has attempted to make the X Division title matter again, by giving Austin Aries the longest reign in company history, but when you hear them talk about the title changing hands over 50 times in 10 years, you realize it's never been a truly credible division, and that they've never invested in a champion for more than a few months at a time. Aries reign has served only to further his ability to move up the card, and it even more evident when you see that TNA is not making any great strides to replenish the bare bones ranks of the X Division.

    The days of titles identifying a promotion, or being the cornerstone, are over. They have always been tools for talent promotion, but now more than ever, they are disposable tools to create brief feuds. Money in the Bank is perfect example. It creates excitement for the cash in, but it takes away from the grandeur and mystique of a great, well planned title feud.
     
    #10
  11. midgensa

    midgensa What is The Rock cooking?

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    97
    Of course the IWC is going to come out and claim that titles are not important ... but this is one of many cases where the IWC is flat out wrong.

    Titles are just as important now as they ever were. Sure, Hogan had a four-year run and whatever, but back then they were only doing a few times a year and a handful of PPVs here and there.

    The question of whether the title is a prop ... uh ... the title has ALWAYS been a prop. This is scripted entertainment folks. A SCRIPTED Championship title is simply a prop. That does not mean that it is not important, but it is definitely a prop.

    As people get older they want to think things are getting screwed up and were better in the past, so people complain nonstop about title-reign lengths (which are not significantly less now than they were say 15 years ago). They want to complain about two World titles in the WWE (but just 15 years ago we had just as many highly coveted world titles in the wrestling landscape). And everyone wants to complain about who is the champion ... blah blah blah.

    But EVERY single championship from the Divas Championship to the TNA Television Championship to the WWE Championship are props used for one thing and one thing only ... MAKING MONEY.

    To put it in perspective. Devon wins a TV Title the other night and there is a thread about it and there are people whining about it. People are discussing fucking Devon. Would he be discussed if he had beaten Robbie (that is who he beat right) in a grudge match? Hells to the no.

    This does not mean there are not mistakes made (Swagger should not have had a WHC run obviously, somehow giving Samoa Joe a world title just made him look fatter, etc.) but they are still VERY important.

    It gives the viewers a general focus point. It always has and always will. Without them ... NOBODY would be paying attention.
     
    #11
  12. flair4ever

    flair4ever Dark Match Jobber

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    1
    Titles are not important now days, Back in the territory days titles were important because they signaled who was the top guys to the fans and to the new wrestlers. Jerry Lawler wasnt a house hold name outside of Tennessee but when he went to cali or new york people knew he had some skill cause he was the mid south champ. The NWA put a title on a guy and sent him all over be it the us title or world heavyweight championship, I mean who would go see Mr. wrestling vs Ricky Morton as the main event but seeing Worlds Heavyweight Champoin Mr. Wrestling vs Ricky Morton would get people to come to see the champ. But now days with tv and internet we know who can perform and who cant, so we dont need to see a belt to make us want to watch a match
     
    #12
  13. Rainbow Yaz

    Rainbow Yaz Sing about me, I'm dying of thirst
    E-Fed Mod

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    1,794
    They are still important but not as much as they used to be.

    As it was said above me, in the territory days it was pretty important for various reasons.

    Even after the territory days they were still more important than now. It used to be that the mid level titles like the IC and US title were either held by upper midcard guys who have had a long push or main event guys who were going to help put those guys over. The tag titles were used for up and comers as well. You used to get the push then the title. Now you usually get the title to get a push and it has devalued the lesser titles but I think the main event titles are still fairly strong
     
    #13
  14. Jenna.

    Jenna. Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    27
    I honestly believe they should scrap the two title thing for each show. I think that contributes a lot to why titles aren't important nowadays. There was a time where the WWE championship was the holy grail. It was the number #1 prize to have. Then they bring the WCW heavyweight title over or world heavyweight title whatever you want to call it, and it just cheapened the WWE title. Now guys aren't chasing after one title. It's either or. You don't see that in other sports. I mean yeah there might be division titles, and conference/league titles, but there's ONE world title players want.

    How much more epic would it be if you had the WWE title and you had Punk, Cena, Jericho, Orton, Bryan, Sheamus, etc chasing after it? The numerous of matches and story lines that could be tied to it if there was a chase for one title. You had a wider variety of heels and faces and I think you wouldn't see guys like Cena and Orton win the title often in such short spans.

    Also the design of the WWE title needs to be changed already. I know it's been said, but enough is enough. Even Cena who designed the current look wants a change. It just doesn't look prestigious. At least the Heavyweight title looks like an actual championship belt worth chasing after. Unfortunately it's viewed as "the second best belt."
     
    #14
  15. pumpkinking8987

    pumpkinking8987 PuMPKiNKiNG

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    3
    I completely agree. Since smackdown and raw superstars are on both shows now i think it should go back to having the 1 real champion. If you are the champion you would have to be at both shows. You would lose a title match at each PPV but you could easily fill that spot with a contender match. That would also create more time for the lesser titles.

    I am sick as hell of having so many multiple time champions as well.... how many time is orton gonna be the champ before he retires, i will set the over/under at 30.
     
    #15
  16. Mark Gallows

    Mark Gallows Dark Match Winner

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    12
    Of course Titles should be important, they should be the main focus of any wrestling programme. I'll steal a line from Kevin Sullivan here, "the whole point of the show is we slay dragons to get the golden chalice, if the chalice means nothing, why are we slaying dragons?" If the guys aren't going after the belt, if their main goal is not to "be the man" then the whole show is stupid, then you've just got a bunch of meatheads beating each other for no reason.
    Of course it's "fake entertainment" but so is The Soprano's, so is Sons of Anarchy, but do those shows act like it's fake, or do they maintain their own contextual reality so the audience can suspend their disbelife and enjoy the show? When Chris and Paulie are stuck in the woods in Pine Barrens, did Chris ever smile to the camera? What if Paulie started cutting a promo on David Chase? It would be stupid as shit, so why does WWE do it most weeks?

    One little case 'n' point for y'all then I'm done, Daniel Bryan is a wrestler, he's employed by the WWE, the biggest "sports entertainment" company in the world. To be a wrestler it's implied he can physically handle himself, even when babyface he's still a submission expert and professional fighter. Imagine this was UFC and Joe Rogan started burying Nick Diaz like Cole buried Bryan, would Diaz let it slide, or would he beat the shit out of Rogan? Or atleast challenge him? Exactly.
     
    #16
  17. iwinulose

    iwinulose HEAT ATTRACTER!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    27
    The titles aren't overly relevant which is hurting the company to some extent, I mean at one time to hold the title meant to be the top dog you would see the title change hands (don't quote me on this) but roughly 2-4 times a year (sometimes a guy would hold it for a year or more), but they would defend the title on a regular basis, it wouldn't just be at a PPV they would defend it on live shows, taped shows, and PPV's. The fans would be more interested because of the quality of the feuds (and because of the guy's feuding), and the fact that they are wondering *is this the night he loses the title!?* The titles had the WOW factor. Now aday's that isn't the case, it's unfortunate because they have lost a lot of steam.
     
    #17
  18. Dagger Dias

    Dagger Dias Natural 20
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,862
    Likes Received:
    4,183
    I detest the mindset of the titles just being props. They are championships that reflect who the best in the federation (or the best in a division) is at that moment. Sure kayfabe comes into play, but if the titles were truly just props then anybody and I mean ANYBODY could win them. David Arquette and Vince Russo would win them again (luckily this is not WCW) or some random production guy no fan has ever heard of could win them. No, that is not how it works. Instead we see the very best emerge with the titles, kayfabe or not. The titles are crucial to the product and incredibly important. They give the wrestlers a reason to be out there in the first place.

    Now as for the quality VS quantity issue.... Both of them are important. Guys like Cena, Orton, and Trips have held numerous world titles and many of those reigns were lengthy. It's important to have longer reigns, but I personally think having multiple reins is more impressive than only having one, no matter how long it lasted. Look at Edge. Most of his reigns were short, but he still went down in history as an 11 time World Champion. It's important to have lengthy AND numerous title reigns due to it being more impressive in the long run.
     
    #18
  19. LoudClearVoice

    LoudClearVoice Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,678
    Likes Received:
    233
    The real problem that I see with the two "main" titles (WWE title and World title) is that several characters have become "bigger" or "more important" than the championships themselves. Look, we all know that wrestling is scripted BUT the top championship should mean something. It should mean that you are the best or the top guy in the company or you just beat the best to win the title. Nowadays, Cena is bigger than the title. He main events PPVs WITHOUT THE BELT. Same goes for guys not on the regular roster: Rock, Undertaker, Triple H, etc. I'd even argue to some extent, Orton is almost bigger than the belts. This is what has made the championship belts into props. When you have multiple PPVs in a row where your championship matches aren't the main event. I'm not faulting any of the aforementioned guys. It's more so on creative for letting things get out of control and there's also a level of inevitability. Since Cena is the top draw in the company, you don't need to keep the belt on him. Same goes for the others.

    As for the midcard belts, the issue is really just the storylines. The belts would be more relevant and important if they were defended regularly and the guys showed they cared about the belt as part of the feud, not just feuding with the other guy. With the IC belt, I think they're starting to get it back to where it's important and relevant but the U.S. title is well... a joke.
     
    #19
  20. Reflection

    Reflection is a happier and wiser man

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    371
    Yes, titles are important. In every sport, there is a prize, to get which, the game is played. In pro-wrestling, championship titles are the prize. If they are removed, there will be nothing to fight for.
     
    #20
  21. Reflection

    Reflection is a happier and wiser man

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    371
    Replying to the second part of your question went right out of my mind...
    In my opinion, multiple reigns mean more than long reigns, but only when you have about 10+ title reigns.
    For example, the guy that holds the record for the longest WWE reign (Rowdy piper or Bob backlund, I can't remember. And Bobby Roode on the other side) are great undoubtedly, but people with a bagfull of title reigns like John Cena or Triple-H hold more importance to the general audience, including me.
    The reason for that I think, is similar to the case when you study something... Consider that you study 10 hours continuous, and on the other side, on 10 different occasions- the second one will work better in getting the matter in your head. Similarly, the more the number of reigns, the more noticeable a wrestler's career becomes.
     
    #21
  22. Workrate

    Workrate Getting Noticed By Management

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    43
    It depends who you're asking.

    Are titles important to the people whose job it is to make the company money? Because their answer is probably no. They realize that if they book The Rock versus John Cena in a non-title match, it will probably make them more money than CM Punk versus Chris Jericho or Sheamus versus Daniel Bryan for a world title.

    If you ask fans, then yeah, titles are very important. Read these boards. I don't think I've read a single comment where someone says "who cares about the belts? Give me more Rocky!" Even fans who like guys like The Rock and Brock Lesnar are concerned about the direction of the titles. That's why there is thread after thread about restoring credibility to the Intercontinental and United States title, or bringing back the Cruiserweight Championship, or reestablishing a tag team division. Fans care about the belts.

    I'm not sure what wrestlers would say. I imagine they'd say titles are more important, CM Punk, for instance, would almost assuredly say that. But there are other guys who may be less passionate for the "professional wrestling" aspect of it who are in it for the money. Just like you don't expect the guy in the next cubicle to be passionate for accounting, there are guys who do what they do because its a job (maybe they got into it for other reasons, but that's besides the point). To those guys, they might be on board with what's going to make the company more money with the theory being that the more flush with cash the company is, the more likely it is they'll be able to get some of it themselves.
     
    #22
  23. The Fabulous Rougeau's

    The Fabulous Rougeau's Championship Contender

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    166
    The only title that means anything are the WWE and World Titles. The guys who hold thoes still get major airtime for their programs to play out.

    Guys who hold anything other then those titles just don't get enough time to make their programs count or mean anything.
     
    #23
  24. Hero_kidstackz

    Hero_kidstackz Dark Match Winner

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    5
    I had a talk wwith my peers about this and i said that the quanity of some people john cena most noticebly bothers me over about a decade or two years ric flair has gained 16 world title reigns in about a year maybe two john cena will gain 8 thats half what took ric a decade i think the wwe universe is happy with the quick changes because now a days the universe get bored way to quickly hulk would never been wwe champion for a year and some change today because people would have got tired after 4 months. Titles dont matter there just storyline props reigns now dont matter because wwe tries to use the shock factor. Randy became a 2 or 3 time wwe champ in one night john cena gain and drop the title more times than you pee in a week
     
    #24
  25. stephen619

    stephen619 New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Titles nowadays are irrelevent you have people now like cena and orton who have won numerous amount of wwe or world titles between them, throw popularity,ability or lack of talent on the active roster i let you decide where as you have true greats of the past like hbk (4 time champ) and bret hart ( 5 time champ) where it was actually an accomplishment to win a world title threw ability and hard work. so does that mean cena is better than hbk because he's won more world titles i dont think so.nowadays youll find the best wrestlers on the rooster arent holding a title because there is no emphasis on being champ anymore if there was they would have less titles and better feuds for each belt.
     
    #25

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"