How do you define a "meaningful" title reign?

[Ferbian]

so i've heard quite some complains in the past about "oh another title change.. will it ever stop and will we ever see a long reign again?" thinking a little about the situation myself, i've come to a idea for a thread.

what is a meaningful length for a title-reign? what is acceptable to you that makes you want to see the title change hands?

will a specific number 1 contender make you want the title to change hands quicker even if the champion hasn't held it as long as you see idle for a reigns length?

what is too long? (as for example, was randy ortons 90 days wwe title reign too long? was john cena's first wwe title reign too long? or was it hulk hogan's 7 bloody years of hugging the title a little too long for you?)

just gonna go ahead and answer my own questions, to give my own opinion plus add some length to this thread

to me a title reigns length is meaningful as long as its worth watching, if it gets boring and you loose excitement in the champions contenders, the length has been past its due.. and should most likely be ended for the wrestler to move on to do other things.

about the specific number 1 contender, i guess it really needs a specific person, personally me being a triple H, shawn and jericho fan, i wouldn't really be complaining too much if any of these 3 wrestlers took the title off someone that hasn't held it for the length that i see appropriate.

to me, an idle length of a title reign is really a matter of who's holding the title i guess, because personally i hate seeing cena holding the title for too long, and no i'm not a cena hater, i just don't want him holding the title for too long, but personally i wouldn't mind seeing jericho for example hold onto a wwe title reign for a little over 100-200 days perhaps, especially cause he could use a long reign as single competition champion

anyway - your thoughts?

 

[Southwind]

I don't think there is a certain "ideal" length title reigns should shoot for. It should be strictly circumstantial, and the workers, and feud that is on tap should be the determining factor, of the length, of a particular title reign. The WWE should use title reigns to better workers feuds, and the overall product, "handicapping" the ideal length of a title reign would only hurt the company.

 

[Lee]

Exactly it needs to keep you enterained, that's the point of WWE isn't it? I'd rather someone have it for a month and defend it on Raw four times and then lose at PPV then someone keep it for three months but only defend it at three PPVS. length shouldn't have anything to do with it, but you do need a balance. Sheamus isn't pushed down throats as a champion and that keeps us intruiged, Cena when he wqas champ we all knew every fricking show and people got annoyed at it. I'm not saying Sheamus' is more meaningful than Cena, I'm just saying that each occasion is different.

 

[Suneeboy]

There are a couple of things that make a “meaningful” title reign. Length can be a factor, but doesn’t necessarily have to be if the below factors are in place.

1) Did the champion draw?
2) Were the angles the champion was involved in interesting?
3) Did the title reign put the champion, challenger(s), and the person who took the title away over?

A title reign is only meaningful if those 3 components are in place if you ask me. If they are not, you have a shit title reign. Not entertaining after the initial win, shit feuds, sub-par matches, and no one gets put over as legit. CM Punk’s 1st reign is the most recent that I can think of as a shit reign.

 

[Ferbian]

I'd rather someone have it for a month and defend it on Raw four times and then lose at PPV then someone keep it for three months but only defend it at three PPVS.

yeah definatly, personally i would say i enjoyed kofi and the miz's reigns as US champions thus far, because their fighting champions, they put the title on the line alot, so does christian, and these are 3 great reigns currently in wwe, all thou i must say to a certain degree that i enjoyed the reign jeri-show had as unified champions, but thats probably because i saw them as a great mix, and because i enjoyed getting to see more jericho in wwe than just having him on smackdown
considering now all we get is dx that doesn't even bother to appear on smackdown.. which is a damn shame!

 

[lghikas]

To me a meaningful title reign is one that has several feuds which are over the belt, just look at the last couple IC reigns and the US title. The IC has had some great feuds over it...Rey/Dolph Rey/Jericho Morrison/Drew MacIntyre. For me a good reign isn't just being a fighting champion as Kofi was. All he did when he was US champ was seemingly fight in random match ups, and they were often 3..4..5 way matches. That just doesn't do anything for me. I much rather watch 1v1 match where two guys "hate" each other and are just duking it out.

Key Things: Story and Feuds over just being a fighting champion and taking on random opponents.

 

[Big Time]

It depends. For a face, its a little easier because as a good guy, I want to see him defent a title relatively cleanly, at the very least not DQ himself to gkeep the title. Also important, he has to be a belivable champion, entertaining, as well as face belivable challengers.

For heels, Im not huge on the whole cowardly heel gimmick, I prefer the version that actually defends his title cleanly, but cheats in every way he can to get the win, and only resorts to DQing himself as the very last resort. Should also not hide from challengers

 

[Dagger Dias]

A title reign can be "meaningful" for many reasons. A wrestler that I wanted to see win a title does win that title, that can make a reign meaningful. Another example is when a title reign that changes my opinion of a wrestler from negative to positive, that's also meaningful. That's only where it begins though. After that it depends on how well they play their role of heel/face, how good their matches and promos are as champion, a good number of successful title reigns, and then the longer he/she holds onto the title after that point, the more meaningful that reign becomes in my opinion. Those are all things I look for in what makes a title reign "meaningful" because the most meaningful title reigns in my opinion been above average in all of the above.