Do We Need / Want A Lengthy Title Run ??

[ztwhite]

It's been several years since a WWE Heavyweight Champ held either title belt for longer than six months.

Believe it or not, since 1998, no one has held the WWE Championship belt for more than a year.

Kevin Nash (Diesel) from 11/26/94 to 11/19/95.
JBL from 6/27/04 to 04/03/05.
John Cena twice from 04/03/05 to 01/08/06 and 09/17/06 to 10/07/07 (barely missed a year long reign).

Back in the day, several men held the belt for several years at a time - Bruno Sammartino, Pedro Morales, Bob Backlund and Hulk Hogan.

Since the WCW Heavyweight title was rechristened the World Heavyweight Championship in 2002, no one has held that belt for longer than nine months.

HHH from 12/15/02 to 09/21/03.
Batista from 04/03/05 to 01/10/06.

So should Vince actually put the strap on one guy and run with it for a lengthy amount of time - ala Hogan in the 80's ???

If you say "yes", what benefit would it provide for the individual carrying the belt and more importantly for the WWE fans ??

If you say "no", why ?? What makes the title roulette we've seen since Andre beat Hogan in 1988 so great (even though Andre had the title stripped immediately and the belt was vacated) ??

 

[HBK-aholic]

Years? Not a chance in hell. People dislike title reigns to last 6 months in the day and age of younger fans, years would never work. People would get bored, people would complain, people would hate the person carrying the belt (bad if that wrestler is indeed a face).

Personally, I wouldn't mind too much as long as it was booked to be interesting. With long title reigns there's a danger of repetitiveness, which you could argue is always a danger, but moreso in this situation. It'd take a lot for creative to keep people interested in the character. If they could do that I don't see a problem with a long reign.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I do want a lengthy title run maybe from six months to a year but it has to be the right person that's doing it. The last good one was Orton and that wasn't too long ago but I don't know if I can handle another one. Cena had for a year and everybody got sick of it so I don't think they're going down that route. HHH had a eight-month reign in 2008 which was one of the most forgettable in history so nobody would care this time around. Batista won't have the belt long in fear of injury and that excludes Edge as well.

My option is CM Punk. It's great that he is on Smackdown because there are plenty choices for him to feud with rather than RAW. He has held the title for almost two months now and it seems that he will beat Jeff Hardy and move on to a feud with Morrison. That can him occupy till around October and then a match with Mysterio, Jericho, or a returning Taker can occupy him till the end of the year. It could be a possibility that he holds the title until Wrestlemania 26 and loses it against Morrison if Jericho doesn't get his hands on the title before then.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

People were shitting over Cena's year long reign. Don't know why myself. I'm not a fan of the man but it was very good.

You don't need lengthy runs. But with having two world titles it's perfectly acceptable to have one that switches regularly and one that's on the same guy for a long period of time.

Considering Raw only has three men who will be getting that belt over the next year, I'd say keep it on Orton for at least a year.

 

[Only watchh wwe for taker]

you kind of forgot cena's year long reign from unforgiven 2006 to No mercy 2007 when he stripped of the wwe championship because of injury
I would quite like a Taker title run longer than a month, or HBK. CM Punk needs a long run to prove himself as a main eventer. Orton i can't be arsed with as he either feuds with cena, triple h or both

 

[Blade]

A year long title reign is a bad idea. Wrestling is different from 20 years ago. We don't just cheer for the good guys and boo the bad guys anymore. We cheer for who we like and boo who we're sick of. We as an audience simply do not have the the patience or attention span to care about a year long title reign. As I said, we'd get sick of them. Happened to John Cena. Happened to Batista. And if Hulk Hogan was having his 4 year long reign today, we'd probably get sick of him too.

But I do think a 6 month title reign would be good. These days, title reigns are so short that no one really considers them "good" reigns. People consider Orton's late 2007- early 2008 reign his best. It's also coincidentally, his longest.

I'd like to see Punk have a good long reign, 6 or 7 months. Until Royal Rumble or something. If he spends months on end defeating the best on Smackdown, he will be considered a credible main eventer for the rest of his career. If Orton hadn't had that 5 month reign, would we consider him credible as a main eventer? Probably not. But because we know what he is capable of, we accept him as a champion in the hopes that he will perhaps have another good, long reign.

So yeah, I think young guys and first time champions should be given long reigns. That's the best way to make stars out of them.
Established guys shouldn't have extremely long reigns, cause people will get sick of them easier than a young, fresh main eventer.

 

[ztwhite]

you kind of forgot cena's year long reign from unforgiven 2006 to No mercy 2007 when he stripped of the wwe championship because of injury
I would quite like a Taker title run longer than a month, or HBK. CM Punk needs a long run to prove himself as a main eventer. Orton i can't be arsed with as he either feuds with cena, triple h or both

I'm usually not one for pointing out someone else's errors, but I believe i did my homework on this topic and if you'll refer to the original posting, Cena's '06 to '07 title reign is clearly marked in bold print as his second lengthy title run with the words (barely missed a year long reign).

 

[Scott Barton]

A year long title reign is a bad idea. Wrestling is different from 20 years ago. We don't just cheer for the good guys and boo the bad guys anymore. We cheer for who we like and boo who we're sick of. We as an audience simply do not have the the patience or attention span to care about a year long title reign. As I said, we'd get sick of them. Happened to John Cena. Happened to Batista. And if Hulk Hogan was having his 4 year long reign today, we'd probably get sick of him too.

But I do think a 6 month title reign would be good. These days, title reigns are so short that no one really considers them "good" reigns. People consider Orton's late 2007- early 2008 reign his best. It's also coincidentally, his longest.

I'd like to see Punk have a good long reign, 6 or 7 months. Until Royal Rumble or something. If he spends months on end defeating the best on Smackdown, he will be considered a credible main eventer for the rest of his career. If Orton hadn't had that 5 month reign, would we consider him credible as a main eventer? Probably not. But because we know what he is capable of, we accept him as a champion in the hopes that he will perhaps have another good, long reign.

So yeah, I think young guys and first time champions should be given long reigns. That's the best way to make stars out of them.
Established guys shouldn't have extremely long reigns, cause people will get sick of them easier than a young, fresh main eventer.

Yeah to add on to this point wrestling was promoted very different, its not like today you have 4 wwe shows a week and what 14 ppvs a year. Back in the Bruno Sammartino, Bob Backlund, Hulk Hogan era, there were very little tv shows and if they were they were wrestler/jobber matches. Infact in Hulk Hogans near 4 year title reign there were only 3 ppvs and the specials (Saturday Nights Main Event) were very infrequent too. Of course back in those days a title would change hands on a house show like it was the norm and the titles were defended less sporadically then todays. A 3 year reign today would never work, a Cena esque reign from 06-07 would probably work but then again who cares because there is always another world title to fall back on which makes any single title reign or wrestler holding that title less of a draw and meaningless really

I never understood why they cant do with the tag titles (those who hold it go on any brand) to the wwe title, because there should only be one world champion in my opinion

 

[Doomsday Device]

Interesting topic, and Ive thought about this before.

Ok, I think the reason they added the World Heavyweight Title and also made the WWE Championship a hot potato is that since Vince aqcuired WCW he obviously had more people for him to manage and hence this meant the line for a WWE title reign would be a looong one.

Lets look for example WWE in the 90's:

Lets say Bret won the WWE title at WM X in March, and lost it at Survivor Series 94 in Nov, thats 8 months.

Michaels won the belt at WM 12 in March and lost it at Survivor Series 96, thats also 8 months.

What Im trying to say is back in the day when a WWE superstar won the main belt, it was almost expected that it would be held by the same guy at least 6 to 8 months.

Now, in 2002 and on, theres double the amount of talent to manage. And I think creative likes to stir things up by changing champions often, the idea is not bad because it keeps the viewer tuned, but it can get frustrating because you dont see that title winner have a decent run for at least 2 or 3 months.

People were shitting over Cena's year long reign. Don't know why myself. I'm not a fan of the man but it was very good.

This is an easy one, Cena had the belt for most of 2005, this is a guy who may have drawing power but wrestling ability I give him one star out of five. People were seeing the same thing over and over from him on Raw and pay per views and people (not everyone, but a decent percentage) got upset with this.

 

[wiKid hoRse]

i would say yes to a long runs but less defences of the belt. make it a ppv only thing and get rid of non-title match ups. make it something special. sort of what foley was saying on impact about having fewer title matches. that way someones run might actually mean something unlike kanes or even jeff hardy's first title runs.

 

[Motor City Mayhem]

WWE Cant win. If they Do put either the WWE or WHC on ANYONE for a longer extended period of time people will be pissed off saying that its getting stale and that its boring, but now people are complaining that the title runs are too short like WTF make up your mind people. Im not opne to complain about very much in WWE when it comes to there Titles. I will complain that The Cruiserweight belt should be around but whatever. But I meen Come On, if its to short you complain, if its to long you complain, just accept what WWE Does with it.

 

[CyrusTheVirus=ECW]

i would like longer title runs, to me when someone has the title it gives the title more prestige, right now it seems that titles are less prestigous and used just as props

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Lengthy title runs overall in wrestling have never been that frequent. Back in the heyday of the NWA, you'd only see a truly lengthy run with a regional championship every so often. In most cases, reigns would be a matter of weeks or a few months tops. Every so often, you'd see one last for 6 months or longer, but usually that wrestler had a LOT of stroke and/or had a financial stake in the territory itself

With world titles back in the old days, lengthy reigns were more common but those days have come and gone. I think that's due partly to the audience just not having the attention span it used to coupled with the fact that there are really no Hulk Hogans or Ric Flairs out there today. Hogan and Flair were both in the right time and place for their respective companies but the 80s were a different time. If Hogan and Flair were 30 years old today and were in the business, even they wouldn't get 1, 2 or 3 year long reigns with a world title. Lengthy title runs aren't that huge of a deal for me. A reign of several months can be perfectly fine and entertaining, As of right now, I'm enjoying CM Punk's world title reign more than I have of any championship in a long time. Maybe it's how they're booking the guy to not appear as though he's invincible that has something to do with it. The real problem I have is when they change hands a little too frequently.

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

If you ask me, I'd say that WWE really needs to consider having all the titles be held by the same person for more than just a ppv or two. We already know how WWE is scripted, but the way that WWE is having so many title changes in one ppv and then the next or two ppvs having those same titles change hands again, it makes it seem even more scripted. As if, everyone that holds on to the title shouldn't hold it for a long time, when in fact some do.

If you look at the World Heavyweight Championship on Smackdown, you'll see it being held my C.M. Punk. If/when Punk defeats Jeff Hardy at Night of Champions and Hardy does indeed leave WWE, what LEGIT main eventers would be left to challenge Punk? The Undertaker's not back yet, I'm not sure if John Morrison is 100% ready, Kane should be in the main event, but is tied down to fueding with The Great Khali, Chris Jericho is the tag team champion, but could easily go back to the main event, and Edge is currently injured. So, even though I might not like Punk too much, you'd think that he'd have a title reign that would last about 4-7 months, but do you really think that'll happen?

Look at the WWE Championship on Raw. It will likely switch between Randy Orton, Triple H, John Cena, and Batista, until WWE moves someone to the main event or we have a shocking return on Raw. Why not add Shawn Michaels and Big Show to Raw's main event, just to give it flavor... they don't even have to win the title. The WWE Championship on Randy Orton is the correct way to go, but he should hold it until maybe Royal Rumble or No Way Out, but is that likely with Triple H always in his way?

So, I want to say that we do need some lengthy title reigns, but only when it's really necessary. For example, if for some stupid reason, Triple H wins the WWE Championship this Sunday, a long title reign should not happen. However, this title reign that Randy Orton is having now, should last atleast 3 or 4 more months.

And the other titles, don't get me started. But that's a conversation for another day.

 

[JBK2008]

I really want to see CM Punk hold onto the title for a good long while. Smack Down! is so fresh with plenty of talent for him to defend the title against. He could fake injuries like he already has with Jeff, or hide behind Teddy Long or something to keep him one step ahead of the game while he's hopping on the face and heel side of the fence.

A lengthy run like up to 8 months or so can def be done if booked properly and that's a big if and all, but it can happen! Another year like run though will not happen again anytime soon if ever.

 

[y2empleh]

Like a few before me have mentioned, wrestling has changed since the 80's. Not just referring to the amount of talent, but to the amount of TV time. There was basically no TV really back during Bruno and Backlund's reigns, just the occasional local market show. Then with Hogan's 4 year reign, you had a few saturday night main events and wrestlemania, that was it. Now there are 13 ppv's a year not to mention 6 hours of weekly wrestling tv. Having the same champion would get old after a while.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I’m not sure if I said this before, but I know I thought of it before. The reason why year long Title reigns don’t work anymore is because there is a PPV at least once a month. The last time we got a Title reign for close to 365 days was Diesel. Cena, of course, is the exception, being that he is groomed to be today’s Hulk Hogan, but point is, you will rarely see that today, because of the PPV exposure. Things happen at a rapid pace today. In 1994 and prior, there were only 4 or 5 PPVs a year. That’s 5 World Title matches a year, if that. Someone like Hulk Hogan can believably win 5 matches in a row, maybe a few Saturday Night’s Main Event Title matches, but that was it. Nowadays we have 12 (24 if you actually think about it) World Title PPV matches a year, plus the random World Title Matches on the Red, Blue and Black show, plus the amount of Main Eventers today is a bit ridiculous. There is no chance in hell, that a Champion can believably be victorious that many times in a year, no way. The only way this could work again is if it was one roster and Cena starts wearing Red and Yellow. I would love to see it, but it wouldn’t matter to me either way.

I really should read other posts besides the first one in each thread before I post. I just read what y2empleh posted. Same idea, different detail.

 

[Scott Barton]

WWE Cant win. If they Do put either the WWE or WHC on ANYONE for a longer extended period of time people will be pissed off saying that its getting stale and that its boring, but now people are complaining that the title runs are too short like WTF make up your mind people. Im not opne to complain about very much in WWE when it comes to there Titles. I will complain that The Cruiserweight belt should be around but whatever. But I meen Come On, if its to short you complain, if its to long you complain, just accept what WWE Does with it.

In all fairness though we don’t have to agree with everything the E does, and there are periods that go through long title reigns and short title reigns. To be honest I felt both world titles have been ****ed out a lot since Cyber Sunday, I mean on one hand we have had title changes unexpected and on the other there hasn’t been two straight ppvs where either title has been defended and not changed. I also believe that if a product is getting stale, its not actually the champion who is making the show stale it’s the show, not one man represents the company and is the main drawer anymore. The whole show has huge demand which is now why we see such great matches on free tv and why so many feuds get watered down by the amount of matches that occur and less superstars to fill the TV time

 

[Doomsday Device]

In my opinion, World titles shouldnt be changing every 3 weeks.

By this happening we'll never know if the title holder was tough enough to carry the ball well. If this person handled the pressures of being champion.

If a superstar has worked long and hard enough to achieve that status, dammit let him enjoy it!!

Dont yank the belt off him after a couple of weeks.

 

[Scott Barton]

At the same notion, matches that are placed last on the card are usually down to which biggest main event it is. On that basis though does either world title mean anything, surely its now about the wrestler holding it and not the title being made as more prestigious because when theres two, there cant be a differential because in my eyes there cant be two world champions of equal hierarchy yet either title isnt focussed on as the main title, both are and both have big matches. Whichever match sounds bigger gets put on last, so does that make the world title which isnt in the last slot less meaningful?

I know there are certain superstars who have held the title and havent been in last shot, Jericho used to be one for this and Edge in parts too. I just have never been able to be sold on the fact there are two champions and the fact Edge won his first world title back at New Year's Revolution in 2006 I think yet now he is a 9 time world champ? Hardly prestigious

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm usually not one for pointing out someone else's errors, but I believe i did my homework on this topic and if you'll refer to the original posting, Cena's '06 to '07 title reign is clearly marked in bold print as his second lengthy title run with the words (barely missed a year long reign).

It's a good thing you don't like to point out errors, because I love to do it...and I'll do it for you here now.

John Cena twice from 04/03/05 to 01/08/06 and 09/17/06 to 10/07/07 (barely missed a year long reign).[/B]

Explain to me how Cena carried the title from September 06 to October of 07, and that WASN'T a year long reign. You do realize that 10 comes after 9, correct, and so the tenth month comes after the ninth month.

John Cena had a year long reign. I'm not really sure what you were thinking, I'm sure it was an honest case of having a blond moment, but Cena did have a year long reign.



As far as whether or not we should have a year long reign, I would say it depends on who it is, and how good the run is. Cena's 06-07 run was VERY good, I thought. We got good feuds, great matches, and the ratings reflected the strong reign. But, I wouldn't want to see CM Punk get a year long reign, because honestly he's just not that interesting yet. I have no problem with long title reigns, as long as their interesting.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

It's a good thing you don't like to point out errors, because I love to do it...and I'll do it for you here now.



Explain to me how Cena carried the title from September 06 to October of 07, and that WASN'T a year long reign. You do realize that 10 comes after 9, correct, and so the tenth month comes after the ninth month.

John Cena had a year long reign. I'm not really sure what you were thinking, I'm sure it was an honest case of having a blond moment, but Cena did have a year long reign.



As far as whether or not we should have a year long reign, I would say it depends on who it is, and how good the run is. Cena's 06-07 run was VERY good, I thought. We got good feuds, great matches, and the ratings reflected the strong reign. But, I wouldn't want to see CM Punk get a year long reign, because honestly he's just not that interesting yet. I have no problem with long title reigns, as long as their interesting.

That could be the ultimate problem though. Besides Cena, who can have a year-long reign and make it very good. Orton was the closest to me to having a year-long reign but then he lost to HHH who had a less than stellar eight-month reign. Batista almost held the title for a year before he got injured and I don't think Edge or Jericho can hold the title for that long.

We may not see a year-long reign for a while because most people will start to get sick of it like they did Cena. He put on great matches but people got tired of always seeing him overcoming the odds. Six-month title reigns would be a small step then we can progess from there.

 

[tLight]

If used correctly as with JBL and Cena a long title reign helps establish the title holder by setting them appart from the rest of the roster. These two different title reigns really made JBL and Cena. Cena had only held the US Title before going into WM to beat JBL. It was a long build up and Cena needed a long run to really break out and become the mega star he is today. When JBL held the title it was because there was really no one else on Smackdown who could. It help him get over as a heel and build Smackdown up around him. This is actually when JBL was enjoyable to watch, because he was a great heel Champion.

As far as people the likes of Batista go, he should of never wont a major title, let alone have that long of a run. He's just not interesting to watch. His promos suck, and his matches are always terrible.

Short title runs are nice, but only during transitional periods of time. Big Show and Khali are two prime examples of these types of Champs. Khali has one the title a few times but its only been for a month here and a month there. The same with Big Show, These are people who stay at the Upper Middle card, but due to their size they can instantly become a top contender Main Event player on their respective brand.

I hope CM Punk gets a nice 6-9 month title run this time because I feel it will help him establish his new heel gimmick, and it will give everyone a chance to hate him properly as a heel. I think it sucks that Hardy now has the shortest title run in the WWE, beating Kane by 23 hours and 58 minutes, but it needed to be done in order for Punk to get over.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Reigns over six months are only really good for heels. I don't think that a company can show anymore confidence in one of their face wrestlers than when they have them beat a heel who has taken on numerous other challengers and never failed to come away with the belt. For instance, when I was a kid, although I didn't like Bret Hart that much, when he beat Yokozuna for the title at WM X, I knew then that this was the WWF's top star (and that unfortunately Lex Luger would never get the WWF World Heavyweight Championship ).

So, I would love to see a lengthy reign for a heel, as I would love to see whom WWE eventually chooses as one of its top babyfaces (it's time for some change, so hopefully Punk will be that heel with the lengthy reign).

 

[King Patrick Star]

Let’s just face it. The only way we’re ever going to get a year long reign today would be if Nick Hogan buffed up and came to Raw or if Triple H becomes the owner of Raw with a Heel turn and just cheated his way through 365 days of being Champion. Who really wants to see this anyway?? I mean, it could work, only because the WWE has two World Champions, but Raw or Smackdown would indeed become boring after the first 6 months of this run.

Wait a tick, what about having, for example, Cena become WWE Champion, and then half way through the run (6 months), draft him to the Blue Show. That would, at the very least, keep it sort of fresh and no one would even notice. Oh wait, that’s what he did with the Spinner the first time…sort of.