Do you prefer....

[TheICChampion]

Long, drawn-out feuds that last several weeks and over several PPV's or rivalries that are short and sweet, lasting up to maybe a month?

I personally tend to lean toward the short and sweet feuds, especially in this day and age. I mean, WWE in particular can't seem to keep fans' interest for very long, and it's not entirely their fault, but think about this for a second. Wyatt and Ambrose have been going since late October, and while I WAS enjoying their rivalry, I feel as though it's gone on too long now. They've had just about every variation of No DQ match except for maybe one or two, and it should have ended at TLC. Ryback vs. Rusev may be another example. Now, I will give WWE credit in the sense that we don't know who will win, and in this day and age that's a good thing. But IF Ryback does win, which will be huge, it's going to be another 3-4 weeks of buildup for another match, on top of the 6 weeks they'll have for their battle at Royal Rumble. Now, to me, 6 weeks is kind of long to build for a match, considering there's only so many times they can interfere in each other's match before fans start to tune out because they've seen it enough times to the point of getting tired of it.


But hey, maybe I'm the only one. Sure, there have been some awesome rivalries in the past such as Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose. Or Daniel Bryan vs. The Authority. It's just that I find that the longer a feud goes before they have a match or the longer the feud goes past the point where it should have ended, the harder it is for me personally to get interested or invested.

What do you guys think? Do you like seeing feuds last over several months? Or would you rather see certain rivalries, whether they be in WWE, TNA, or ROH, only go on for a month or two?

 

[rmp0012002]

Longer fueds. Gets the two together more. They can work and improve on their matches and might come up with some great action. But if the crowd isn't into it don't drag it out but also don't just kill the angle.

 

[@smarkmouth]

Well, the thing about short feuds is they don't have the lasting impact. Considering this year in WWE alone, I remember three feuds in vivid detail; Cena vs Wyatt, Bryan vs the Authority and Ambrose vs Rollins. Three long feuds that remained hot throughout the entire duration, though with varying critical success in their outcomes.

Off the top of my head, the shortest feud that I recall enjoying in length was the Shield vs Evolution, and even that lasted two months.

In regards to preference, I don't know if I can choose between the feud durations. I think it's just a question of whether or not the feud was well planned, and I think that comes down to pacing and length of feud.

 

[L@RISANO]

Long, drawn-out feuds that last several weeks and over several PPV's or rivalries that are short and sweet, lasting up to maybe a month?

I personally tend to lean toward the short and sweet feuds, especially in this day and age. I mean, WWE in particular can't seem to keep fans' interest for very long, and it's not entirely their fault, but think about this for a second. Wyatt and Ambrose have been going since late October, and while I WAS enjoying their rivalry, I feel as though it's gone on too long now. They've had just about every variation of No DQ match except for maybe one or two, and it should have ended at TLC. Ryback vs. Rusev may be another example. Now, I will give WWE credit in the sense that we don't know who will win, and in this day and age that's a good thing. But IF Ryback does win, which will be huge, it's going to be another 3-4 weeks of buildup for another match, on top of the 6 weeks they'll have for their battle at Royal Rumble. Now, to me, 6 weeks is kind of long to build for a match, considering there's only so many times they can interfere in each other's match before fans start to tune out because they've seen it enough times to the point of getting tired of it.


But hey, maybe I'm the only one. Sure, there have been some awesome rivalries in the past such as Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose. Or Daniel Bryan vs. The Authority. It's just that I find that the longer a feud goes before they have a match or the longer the feud goes past the point where it should have ended, the harder it is for me personally to get interested or invested.

What do you guys think? Do you like seeing feuds last over several months? Or would you rather see certain rivalries, whether they be in WWE, TNA, or ROH, only go on for a month or two?

The feuds you mention that were long and drawn out, all had a great backstory to feed off of and thus, once they were built well, the feud always has a brilliant ending.
That said, Rollins-Ambrose, for example, isn't finished as yet, but is merely on pause until an opportune time, and I'd argue that Reigns will also be inserted into it all when it is best, hopefully.


Short feuds are obviously easier to write and require less of a back story for it to work. However, rarely do such feuds have wholly satisfying endings bar a couple.

Long feuds can be planned out and have satisfying endings(Bryan vs Authority), but sometimes, if something comes up, it all goes down the drain.
Take the Daniel Bryan injury, for instance, which probably ruined Bray Wyatt's momentum and plans, since they had Cena go over him to prepare for Lesnar instead of Bryan.
Take Roman Reigns' injury which completely ruined a great Reigns vs the Authority angle that would most probably had been finished by the Rumble with Reigns going over HHH and then moving onto Lesnar via a Rumble win...

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I obviously enjoy a long feud but only if there is a reason for there to be one. Look, not all feuds have to be epic, just like not every episode of a TV show need not be mindblowing. TV shows slowly build towards a finale, and that's why in the middle you have what people call "meat and potatoes" episodes.

It's the same thing with wrestling. A long, epic feud will happen when there is an opportune moment for it. Till that happens, you need to put short feuds to run the TV show. So, I'd say that both types have their place under the sun.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Ideally, I think most feuds should last in the 3 or 4 month range. If they're shorter, they often just don't have the interest built up or the story necessary to make things memorable or noteworthy. They usually don't have a lasting impact. They can result in some good matches, sure, and that can be enough sometimes if a feud just doesn't have that particular oomph to it. If they're longer than that, they run the risk of becoming stale, repetitive and boring.

For instance, I personally think Dean Ambrose & Bray Wyatt have had a pretty good feud. It's been going on for a few months now and I think the Royal Rumble is the perfect time to put the kibosh on things. Both men have won matches, they've been physical matches, but it's getting really close to the time for them to both move onto something else.

 

[L@RISANO]

Ideally, I think most feuds should last in the 3 or 4 month range. If they're shorter, they often just don't have the interest built up or the story necessary to make things memorable or noteworthy. They usually don't have a lasting impact. They can result in some good matches, sure, and that can be enough sometimes if a feud just doesn't have that particular oomph to it. If they're longer than that, they run the risk of becoming stale, repetitive and boring.

For instance, I personally think Dean Ambrose & Bray Wyatt have had a pretty good feud. It's been going on for a few months now and I think the Royal Rumble is the perfect time to put the kibosh on things. Both men have won matches, they've been physical matches, but it's getting really close to the time for them to both move onto something else.

Meh, I got interested in that feud at Survivor Series, but as time has gone on, I feel that the writers have become stagnant as it has just been gimmick match after gimmick match, and hasn't really helped other guys.

A feud going on for what will be 3 straight PPVs, should really have kicked onto another level and not be at the point where the viewer thinks... **** it! I don't even care who wins this feud anymore, it would be better if these guys just move on...and that is exactly where the Ambrose-Wyatt feud after having such promise coming out of Survivor Series and even going into TLC. Since then

 

[Darkshadow1234]

I always prefer, long - drawn out feuds.
Short feuds don't last long and just lazy TBH.

Whatever happen to feuds back in the Golden age era and AE.
They had some great feuds back then.
They were well written and drawn out.

Nowadays, feuds dont last long at all.

But now, feuds dont really mean anything anymore. Especially long drawn out feuds.

Short feuds rarely drew interest.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It depends on what wrestlers are involved. If the feud is between wrestlers who have the mic skills and the in-ring ability to make me keep wanting to see more, then by all means let's see a lengthy angle. If they suck and the feud is boring after the first PPV match, it's time to end it. Dean Ambrose VS Seth Rollins ended too soon. I could have watched that for many more months without getting tired of it. Same goes for Shawn Michaels VS Chris Jericho back in 2008. Those two legends could have kept that feud going a whole year without it getting old. Then we have stuff like Mark Henry as an "American Hero" challenging Rusev. or Big Show VS Erick Rowan. Feuds like that are stupid. One PPV cycle is enough. I prefer lengthy feuds by talented wrestlers and short feuds by the ones who suck.

 

[Daggdag]

Longer fueds are good only when you have writers and wrestlers who can keep it fresh. You don't want to see the same matches and angles over and over and over. I think 3 months is as long as a feud should get. It's rare to see a good feud longer than that they get repetitive and boring.

Take Aces & Eights as an example. It was good at first, but went on too long and got boring.

 

[WillyRoss]

I think with the current set up in WWE, long feuds tend to get old fast. If all that is going to happen in a feud is one guy wins the first then the other wins the second then a rubber match, I would rather have feuds end in a month.