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.
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.
