Enough is enough: Stop doing world title switch every 3 weeks

[gd]

I don't really thinks its a huge deal with all of the title switches. Sure, it is usaully rather stupid and really devalues the titles, but it isn't all bad. At least the WWE is able to keep us on our toes with all of these title changes. If you are watching a PPV, you literally have no idea what to expect. It's much more realistic that way. Also, title changes are usually at least semi-exciting, even if it is given to the same guy. There is some about a new champion that is so much better than a defending champion.

I think the bigger problem is the 3 week periods between PPVs. Almost every period between PPVs is 3 weeks, which gives us no time to build up feuds, so we are stuck with a feud going over 3 PPVs with the exact same people. No one wants to see Cena/Orton for 4 straight PPVs, regardless of how good and popular they are.

 

[Southwind]

Okay I was stunned by Orton's victory last night but the D-man brings up some valid points. Little kids are different they like the unstable nature of the situation we like routine we want only one champion for a good amount of time as older more mature humans.

Think about it kids 8-12 years old are off the wall always moving around the way the WWE is doing there title switches can be called nothing short of brilliant. They know their current market and are nailing it down.

The only issue here is that no new stars can be created like this when JBL had his fantastic run as champ for 10 months the WWE knew whoever beat him would be a star.
John Cena beat him and we know the rest long reigns should be ended by new stars while short transitional reigns should be ended by established stars.

 

[Dysturbed]

I think that in order for title feuds to last longer with the same two opponents WWE feels like the titles have to be switched. As annoying as I agree that it is at time, it actually makes sense imo. The next ppv will be the fourth in a row with Orton vs. Cena. (Actually the fifth if you count the triple threat with HHH) If Orton retained his title the entire time against the same person, especially someone like Cena I don’t know how well that would go over. The obvious solution would be to have just given both guys different opponents instead of keeping the fued going and trading the title but as redundant as the same people competing against each other is, at least it gives us something else to look forward to in the future when they do move on from each other.

Think about it kids 8-12 years old are off the wall always moving around the way the WWE is doing there title switches can be called nothing short of brilliant. They know their current market and are nailing it down.

Obviously younger kids aren't going to have logic behind their wants and desires like a teenager and adult but at the same time kids learn a lot by being conditioned to think and act a certain way. If the titles stop being passed around as much, as some point kids will probably become used to that as well and not be as concerned if switches aren't so often.

 

[Phoenix]

To add on the epic posts made by D-Man and others. I fail to see why people complain so much when there has been past examples of multiple title changes back in the day and people never complain about them now as much as they do with today.

Example One:
Survivor Series 98-Wrestlemania XV
The World Title has been vacated and a new tournament starts which ends up with Rock winning the belt. Between SS98 and the Raw following the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the belt changed hands 5 times between The Rock and Mankind and eventually a 6th exchange went to Austin. That's 6 changes in the space of about 4 months between 3 guys and it was greatly booked for the story, it wasn't about the title, it was about the rivalry and the belt played a role there.

Example Two:
Backlash 2000-Fully Loaded 2000
This is the prime example of what the Cena/Orton feud emulates, the rivalry of Rock and Triple H in 2000. In the space of 4 months they exchanged the belt 3 times over 3 PPVs because both men were booked to be as strong as the other, they had wins over each other and neither lost momentum from dropping the belt. Ironically this had an Iron Man match involved in the mix of things and the feud didn't even finish, they still had two matches further on afterwards. But this is how Cena and Orton are being booked, they're getting a rub off of each other that it's not about the title, it's saying that these two are THE men of the company and we will remind you that we can have each of them lose per month to show these two are the best and neither is going to lose momentum having been through I Quit Matches, Hell in a Cell and now an Iron Match Match

Example 3:
Wrestlemania X8-Summerslam 2002
Ok this one saw the most title changes between 6 people in less than 6 months. In this order Jericho-Triple H-Hulk Hogan-Undertaker-The Rock-Brock Lesnar, they all head the Undisputed Championship and with the exception of Undertaker during this period (excluding Jericho and Lesnar as they were the end/start of their reigns), no one held the belt for more than a month. Why? Because they had to adjust to the ratings going up and down, the unpredictability gave WWE a spark to keep watching as a new champion could come at any given moment. Much like WWE of today, they need the ratings to come in, so giving new championship reigns helps them find who brings in the figures they need, which is why the belts are changing hands.

It's trial and error as it rightly put, which has been this year for WWE, they're testing the waters for what the future has right now and so far WWE is getting the responses they want. Like it or hate, this is how it's always worked, title changes brings in reasons to talk, it's exciting and brings unpredictability, much like the Iron Match. We don't know how that one is going to pan out, Cena MAY end up on Smackdown, Cena MAY win the title, it's unpredictable and most importantly, the kids love it!

 

[psykohurricane]

To add on the epic posts made by D-Man and others. I fail to see why people complain so much when there has been past examples of multiple title changes back in the day and people never complain about them now as much as they do with today.

Example One:
Survivor Series 98-Wrestlemania XV
The World Title has been vacated and a new tournament starts which ends up with Rock winning the belt. Between SS98 and the Raw following the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the belt changed hands 5 times between The Rock and Mankind and eventually a 6th exchange went to Austin. That's 6 changes in the space of about 4 months between 3 guys and it was greatly booked for the story, it wasn't about the title, it was about the rivalry and the belt played a role there.

Example Two:
Backlash 2000-Fully Loaded 2000
This is the prime example of what the Cena/Orton feud emulates, the rivalry of Rock and Triple H in 2000. In the space of 4 months they exchanged the belt 3 times over 3 PPVs because both men were booked to be as strong as the other, they had wins over each other and neither lost momentum from dropping the belt. Ironically this had an Iron Man match involved in the mix of things and the feud didn't even finish, they still had two matches further on afterwards. But this is how Cena and Orton are being booked, they're getting a rub off of each other that it's not about the title, it's saying that these two are THE men of the company and we will remind you that we can have each of them lose per month to show these two are the best and neither is going to lose momentum having been through I Quit Matches, Hell in a Cell and now an Iron Match Match

Example 3:
Wrestlemania X8-Summerslam 2002
Ok this one saw the most title changes between 6 people in less than 6 months. In this order Jericho-Triple H-Hulk Hogan-Undertaker-The Rock-Brock Lesnar, they all head the Undisputed Championship and with the exception of Undertaker during this period (excluding Jericho and Lesnar as they were the end/start of their reigns), no one held the belt for more than a month. Why? Because they had to adjust to the ratings going up and down, the unpredictability gave WWE a spark to keep watching as a new champion could come at any given moment. Much like WWE of today, they need the ratings to come in, so giving new championship reigns helps them find who brings in the figures they need, which is why the belts are changing hands.

It's trial and error as it rightly put, which has been this year for WWE, they're testing the waters for what the future has right now and so far WWE is getting the responses they want. Like it or hate, this is how it's always worked, title changes brings in reasons to talk, it's exciting and brings unpredictability, much like the Iron Match. We don't know how that one is going to pan out, Cena MAY end up on Smackdown, Cena MAY win the title, it's unpredictable and most importantly, the kids love it!

First of all i got to say that you gave some great exemples and i respect you for that but the fact of the matter is that in the past 2 years, there as been as less 30 world/wwe title changes, that's alot for one company. Everytime somebody start getting momemtum has champion, they lose the belt. It becoming to a point were to most unpredictable thing that can happen on a WWE PPV is that the champion actually retain the championship, that's what's happening right now. Let's take the next PPV has a exemple, if you look at Cena vs Orton match, the way thing have been going to last couple of years, you are expecting Cena to win this match especially since nobody see him leaving Raw, so if he loses,it will be a big surprise because nobody saw it coming, but if they stay with the pattern they are on right now, they probably are going with the predictable ending of Cena winning the belt back. Same thing Goes for The Undertaker at the next PPV. People are going to expect Taker to lose the belt to whoever he faces because that what we see every 3 weeks.

When a started watching wrestling in the late 80'S, you didn'T have as many PPV as we got today and the Championship reign were always longer because of it and i didn'T care because it was fun watching Hulk Hogan or Ultimate WArrior either be the champion and defeat all the challengers and when they finally lose the belt, it made a better impact because you wanted your hero to win the belt back. Right now, you don'T have the smae impact because as soon as their hero wins the belt, they lose it to the first challenger that come along.

Sure all your exemple were great but the one thing missing in all of them is the fact that when they ended the wrestler that had the belt at the end didn'T lose it for a long time, it didn'T last for over 2 years and that the problem with quick title switch right now, the fan are expecting them now because they happen so often and it prove that the WWE cannot make up there minds on who they want to represent them as champion.

On a side note i got to say that ECW is lucky that the WWE don'T cared about the brand because that way they are able to get a champion that is actually able to keep a world title for more then 3 weeks.

 

[maar130]

Come on guys don't tell me you don't smell the Title changing at Bragging rights? Just because of the stipulations, There is no way Cena will leave Raw, even if he starts shooting his next movie in December, which is 2 months away.

The last long and it was not that long reign of the WWE Championship was HHH's 12th reign fro Backlash 2008 to Survivor Series 2008.

And even kinds will see at somo point it is senseless for the Mayor belts to be moved arround that much. Hope for a Taker or Punk long reign at some point and the WWE champ after Bragging Rights, whoever that is (it smells Cena) to have it at least until Mania.

 

[FromTheSouth]

The short title reigns should go to the superstars nobody sees coming and the "crebilble" champions should have longer title reigns. The short title riegns just hurt the credibility of the championship and the person holding it. Makes no sense to have this many title switches within such a small amount of time with so few superstars.

This is a terrible idea. I'm sorry, but it is. Do you think Evan Bourne should win the title randomly and hold it for two weeks? Winning a match signifies that someone was better that night. The championship needs to mean more than that. It needs to go to one of the handful of guys who have held it in the last two years. I would love for someone to tell me who is worthy of a world title who hasn't had one.

The guys who keep winning the titles are the only ones who are ready or credible enough to win the title. I just think that whoever wins it should hold onto it longer. I would love for Randy Orton to hold it for a year or fifteen months. That way, you can get guys into the main event, albeit to lose, who haven't been there. This is what the John Cena year long reign did. Umaga got into the main event picture for a while. If Randy Orton holds the title for fifteen-eighteen months, you can give Mark Henry a couple of shots to be in the main event, you can give Kofi a chance, the whole time building DiBiase into a midcard champion and slow burning a breakup. Then, when DiBiase is ready, you make him the one who breaks the glass ceiling and gets into the main event and have him take the title from Orton. Just giving a guy a title doesn't make him credible, it makes the belt less so. If a guy goes through the ringer for his title, the belt makes him credible.

 

[Angry_Chair]

I sort of agree, but I sort of disagree too.

On the one hand, long title reigns add to the prestige of the title in question. On the other hand, televised wrestling is a very different kettle of fish to what it was 15-20 years ago, so it's no surprise that the title needs to change hands fairly regularly, to avoid the risk of going stale.

Personally, I would like to see Orton keep the title now until Wrestlemania. Have Orton's successor win the Royal Rumble, but try to pit various top babyfaces against Orton in the meantime (MVP, for instance). Maybe even save the "great" Cena vs. Orton match for Wrestemania....just like they did during the Rock/HHH feud.

 

[spiketbear]

Look on WWE.com at the title histories of the WCW Championship. The title would change at least once a month, sometimes 2-3 times a week. Pathetic. I hope WWE doesn't get like that. The WWE/World Title will mean nothing soon. Hornswoggle will win it, and it will be discontinued.