Are Titles Important? And If So,...

[justtxyank]

the likes of Greg The Hammer Valentine, Don Murroco, Tito Santana, Ken Patera

Comparatively speaking, most of those guys were shit

Eee gads!

Even during Hogan's runs as WWF Champion during the 80s [snip] He had his share of [snip] lackluster opponents like the Big Boss Man[snip, Bad News Brown

Aaaaaahhh!

These quotes are blasphemous!

To answer the question, titles haven't mattered since Triple H's last big run. It must deeply pain Triple H. He was angling to pass Flair's title record and now titles mean nothing to anyone. LOL

Wrestling is better when fans care about the title holders. Today WWE sells ppvs because of the name WWE almost exclusively. There was a time when a title being defended is what drove ratings and ppv buys. Now title defenses are a dime a dozen and nobody is going to get excited to watch a show or a ppv just to see the title on the line.

 

[alberts35]

As a long time fan, I think the titles got watered down terribly during the attitude era, allowing for some guys to have title reigns in the teens, but it is better now. I was impressed Bryan held his title for as long as he did, true heel stuff there. I do think they should go back to 5 PPV per year though. RAW is becoming almost better than a PPV each week, and once it goes to 3 hours, the PPV every 3 or 4 weeks almost comes off like a desperate money grab by the company. It can survive without the "lower PPV's" that still cost the same amount of $. Add your MITB match to one of the big 5. Add your elim chamber matches to the Survivor Series....these PPV cards would be great with tremendous build up if it wasn't only a 4 week thing every time...