Orders From Triple H: Longer Title Reigns

[Jack-Hammer]

According to a report I read a while ago, F4WOnline.com reports that Triple H has handed down a new edict calling for longer title runs. It's been a common and sometimes justified complaint among internet fans especially that titles change hands too often and reigns don't last long enough. It's being reported that Triple H intends to change that, or has already initiated the change. This edict is a reason why neither the WWE or World Championship changed hands at the MITB ppv.

The article didn't say if this was going to apply to all titles and, if so, if the new order will be put into effect simultaneously. As of today, the title picture in WWE looks like this:

WWE Champion: CM Punk - 241 Days

World Heavyweight Champion: Sheamus - 108 Days

WWE Intercontinental Champion: Christian - 59 Days

WWE United States Champion: Santino Marella - 135 Days

WWE Tag Team Champions: Kofi Kingston & R-Truth - 79 Days

WWE Divas Champion: Layla - 80 Days

The WWE obviously has faith in Punk or the title would've been long taken from him and he's done a great job in my eyes. Same with Sheamus, and it doesn't hurt that Triple H has been a fan of his from the beginning. I might be wrong, but I look for Punk's run to go to at least the 1 year mark and I see Sheamus finishing out this year as champ.

When it comes to the mid-card titles, it's more up in the air. Christian is an all around highly talented wrestler. I think he could be a consistent main eventer but he's probably going to be mostly a mid-card to upper mid-card staple primarily. Again, I might be completely wrong on this, but I expect Christian to drop the title this Monday and it won't surprise me if it's to Daniel Bryan. Fans voted to have an IC title match on Raw this Monday and Bryan & AJ are scheduled to be part of the Peep Show this Friday on SD!. I don't read spoilers so I dunno what happened at the tapings last night, but I won't be surprised if Christian does or says something to get under Bryan's skin, thereby setting up a match between the two. It might seem like a demotion for Bryan to be IC champ but it's not really when you think on it. If Triple H's edict goes into effect with Bryan, then Bryan could have a strong run with the title before dropping it to, possibly, a new talent on the roster before possibly heading back up into the World Heavyweight or WWE Championship scenes. Then again, Christian might face someone else this Monday and have a long run with the title before dropping it to someone. As for Santino, it's all up in the air at this point. While I'm not a fan of Santino as US champ, I understand why he's had it for 4.5 months. He's over. Santino is someone that could drop it at anytime.

As for the tag titles, again, I'm not really sure where this goes right now. The WWE had an opportunity to take the titles off Kofi & Truth this past Monday but they didn't. According to a Tweet from Rosa Mendes, Epico & Primo are going to face them for the tag titles on Raw this Monday. The PTPs are still in things and it's been a while since we had a legit threeway feud for the tag titles. It's nice to see the tag title picture actually have some life to it after so long. R-Truth was out for a while injured so I guess WWE likes the pairing as they haven't taken the titles from him & Kofi.

When it comes to the Divas Championship, I don't look for Layla to drop it anytime soon. A real reason for that is because there's not really any competition for her. She's soundly beaten Beth Phoenix already, Kelly Kelly is gone & might not be coming back, nobody knows what the deal with Kharma is, the Bella Twins are gone. The only one left really is AJ and, to be honest, making her Divas Champion right now might be viewed as something of a demotion. She's spent the past few months playing a significant role in the WWE Championship feud and now she's embarking in a new direction with Daniel Bryan. On top of that, Layla has a lot of heart. Say what you want about the Divas, but Layla's a pretty tough chick when you get right down to it and she's a legit pro. She's always tried her best and worked hard at whatever WWE's had for her. It might not have always been great, but she's given it all she's had. She worked hard to improve herself in the ring and she's actually pretty damn good. Her knee injury was severe enough that, I'm assuming, most Divas would've just hung it up but she toughed it out.

Personally, I'm happy about this. I'm not saying that this will automatically grant renewed prestige to every title, but I like the thought of titles not dropping once every couple of months. If nothing else, it just makes the champion and championship look better, at least on the surface.

 

[klunderbunker]

This can be good but it can also be bad.

Looking at Punk for example: he's beaten everyone in this reign not named John Cena. When he finally loses the thing, it's going to mean something because he's gotten established as champion. When Del Rio took the title from Cena last year in like three weeks, it didn't mean much because Cena had juts gotten the thing a few weeks before. Punk is going on nine months now with the belt and he's beaten almost everyone. When someone beats him, it'll be a big moment.

On the other hand, you have someone like Roode in TNA. Now this is my opinion and I know it's not popular, but Roode's title reign dragged for me. He said the same things over and over, and while it was entertaining, it got repetitive. There were moments where the title could and likely should have changed hands before then, but the reign kept going. It certainly wasn't a terrible reign that made me beg for the title to change, but it needed more to it.

Longer title reigns can be good or bad, but it's more good than bad I think, as long as the reign isn't awful like say Justin Credible in the year 2000 with the ECW Title.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Santino Marella has been US Champion for 135 days ? Wow. And he has only defended it once.

Most people don't even remember or care who are the Tag-Team Champions.

Long title reigns are good and all but champions must be worthy of that championship too. For Example - If they keep Santino Marella as US Champion for 2 years, will that make the US Championship prestigious ? Nope.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Santino Marella has been US Champion for 135 days ? Wow. And he has only defended it once.

Most people don't even remember or care who are the Tag-Team Champions.

Long title reigns are good and all but champions must be worthy of that championship too. For Example - If they keep Santino Marella as US Champion for 2 years, will that make the US Championship prestigious ? Nope.

Santino has had 4 title defenses at least that I know of.

You're actually sort of right for a change, though. Having long reigns won't really mean anything if they're not treated as important. Santino is the United States Champion, but when's the last time anyone has even mentioned that on TV? When's the last time Santino has even mentioned it? Santino being champion is not a bad thing, he's an excellent performer. He could be a great champion, even in his comedy gimmick, if they just made it seem like a big deal.

Punk and Sheamus' reign has been great, the best reigns since Miz's reign of last year. I can't really comment much on Christian since I haven't seen much of him, what with not watching Smackdown. Layla's still Diva's Champion?

I'm actually getting into this tag team title situation though. AW is a decent talker unlike pretty much anyone else involved so he alone is bringing in my attention. Kofi and Truth work well together and those other 2 teams are bringing it. I want to see them develop a story every week and not just hot shot the titles onto a new team and break up the champions which seems to be the WWE formula. Tag Team wrestling means shit to me so I don't care if they resurrect the division or whatever, but if they're putting on entertaining programs, I'm all for it.

There's a part of me that thinks Triple H is hip to the way the IWC thinks these days and he leaks these reports onto the web so we think we're getting what we want. He's not changing anything major, there's nothing wrong with the important aspects of the show. He just leaks these little meaningless things that only us nerds care about so we'll be happy. No casual fans care about the length of title reigns.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I legit marked out for this announcement.

WWE definitely need to have longer title reigns because it helps the belts seem more important. Look at John Cena's 2006-2007 reign that lasted over a year, or Randy Orton's Age of Orton reign that followed it. Those helped establish them as THE top guys of the federation. Reigns as long as that can help the midcard titles, the tag team division, and even the divas. The main problem is going to be proper booking and if the champions get enough retentions that make them look strong in the process. The champion has more credibility with each title defense, and the guys trying to defeat him can be booked to look like true threats so it would benefit each of them too.

They would also need to pick their champions carefully, otherwise we could get stuck with someone who sucks in a lengthy reign. The only thing worse than a ton of short meaningless reigns is a lengthy low quality reign. I personally would want to see each belt receive reigns that go beyond 100 days. A year may be asking for too much of the midcard or tag team belts, but with the world titles and the right guys (Punk, Sheamus, perhaps Bryan) then a year long title reign or even longer could do wonders for those involved. If they pick the right diva it could really help their division as well. Someone like Beth or Natalya would be my choices there.

 

[robinkom]

One way or another, this decision had to happen. It's a very old-school and more traditional method that was a common theme of classic wrestling. It's only one part of the equation though. The guys holding the straps have to really be able to run with it. That's a lot harder these days when the majority of the young guys on the WWE roster never really learned to work the stick or ad-lib a promo; The writers give them scripts and they recite their lines back to the camera with all the robotic emotion of a toaster oven.

 

[Starchild]

This is good news in my book. Triple H gets alot of hate in the wrestling community, but reports that have surfaced since he moved into his executive role seem to indicate that he will thrive in that position. He has an excellent mind for the business and when he's not putting himself over just for the sake of doing it, Trips is one of the greats.

We heard several months ago how he wanted to revamp developmental and the tag division and I think we are starting to see that pay off now. The problems WWE has didn't come about overnight and they won't be fixed that quickly either, but we're heading in the right direction I think.

This story about the long title reigns seems like another idea that could pay off well. On occasion, transitional champions or surprisingly short title reigns are needed and exciting to see. But when a title, especially a world title, changes hands 4-5 times in a few months you have a problem. The title is devalued and it makes the title holder seem weak. I have really enjoyed the several month long reigns of guys like Bryan and Christian, and the longer reigns of Mark Henry, Cody Rhodes, and especially CM Punk. If you really want to establish stars, I think keeping the title on them for extended periods where they have successful defenses in quality matches and programs is the way to go.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I don't buy this for a second. Title longevity is nice and all but at the end of the day you are going to put the belt on the guy that is going to make you the most money in the short and long run. Punk's reign has been long on time but short of meaningful. His opponents so far have reaked of not ready or over the hill opponents. His match with Cena is the first time in a long time I have felt he title reign is actually threatened.

Maybe I am giving him too much credit, but there is no way HHH really said this unless he's just trying to tickle the IWC's ballsack, just like Punk saying he really wishes JR could call his Raw 1,000 title match.

Hogwash, I say, hogwash!

 

[Workrate]

There's not necessarily anything wrong with a scattered short title reign. In fact, they can be quite effective. The problem is when you treat every title like a game of hot potato, giving everyone on the roster a champion's resume and confusing the audience by bouncing belts from person to person.

The reason this is so relevant now is because, at least the consensus seems to feel, the WWE doesn't really have an abundance of championship caliber talent. Or, should I say, not enough talent to justify the shorter reigns.

Personally, I've liked most of HHH's ideas -- or at least the ones that have been reported that I'm buying into as truth -- so far. Here's the thing: you can complain that he "hogs the spotlight" or whatever you want until you're blue in the face, but the indisputable reality is that nearly every major star in the history of wrestling behaved the same way. But it certainly appears that HHH has a mind for the business and a respect for tradition, which is something that longer title reigns (and a greater attention to the tag team division and eyeing female wrestlers and athletes over young models) attests to.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

The WWE obviously has faith in Punk

That's why he's a midcard champ now right? Hasn't main evented a PPV since he won the title.

I don't buy this for a second. Title longevity is nice and all but at the end of the day you are going to put the belt on the guy that is going to make you the most money in the short and long run.

Indeed, I don't really buy this report at all.

 

[Ryberg]

The only problem is longer title reins shouldn't also equate to less title defenses.

Cody (when he held it) and Christian who holds the IC Now never defend it.

Santino's US Championship is more like the Cobra sock around him and really hasn't been a belt in YEARS.

Layla was the DIVA champion is a joke. ANOTHER DIVA who never defends it but carries it around.

I can't remember the last time the tag team titles actually meant anything.

The only two people who defend their belts are Punk and Sheamus.

Personally I'd love if they got rid of the US Championship and tag titles in place of a Cruiserweight belt where we can watch people like Shelly defend the belt weekly. It could be WWE's version of the X-Division.

I am SURE HHH is taking credit for another person's suggestion anyway. He hasn't done one good thing since he's taken over yet. Since he's run things, the WWE product has gotten worse. All so he can have his face out there and pushes for the people he's either friends with or signed. He ruined the Punk momentum after last years Summerslam, and in the process of ruining Lesnar.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Longer title reigns are harder to sell and keep interesting in this age of monthly PPVs, main event caliber matches weekly on national TV, and the internet reporting arena show results and insider info on storyline direction. In the pre monthly PPV days, wrestling TV rarely showed main event caliber matches. Your weekly USA Prime Time Wrestling would alternate a few decent mid card bouts in the mix, sometimes so would WCW Sat Nite on TBS, over all though you got squash matches with jobbers dominating both shows intermingled with lots of promos. The focus was on the house show circuit, and major supershows like SummerSlam or Great American Bash only happened a few times per year. In that environment longer title reigns worked since it took forever for many of us to see a champion on the circuit, they rarely wrestled top opponents on TV, thus making their title matches at the major shows (where they might lose) even more special.

Once Monday Nitro started airing Sting vs Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair vr Randy Savage the landscape changed. As fans we wanted, and got, to see our favs in main event matches each Monday, add in monthly PPVs and now storylines and thus title reigns had to move faster.

However, the downside is title reigns, and victories themselves, carry less importance because they happen frequently. This hurts the casual fan interest and makes events harder to market. Changing this back to something similair to the old way becomes a major challenge. You can have longer title runs but now you have to keep the title run interesting longer with a champion who still is spotlighted on every monthly PPV & wrestling almost every week against quality competition on Raw or SmackDown.

The plus side for WWE is that absent any significant competition, they can afford to slow things down storyline pace wise, the audience has nowhere to go, you've already lost over 2million weekly viewers since WrestleMania 24, over 5 million since the end of the Monday Night Wars, you've probably bottomed out. Even if it takes awhile for the audience to get used to the longer reigns and slower pace, they have no where to go. The payoff in the end if it works is better numbers around the major PPVs and more interest in title bouts at big shows because of the increased chance of a title switch, something that becomes much more special when it doesnt happen as much.

 

[ECW Sandman]

when I first read this I could not help but think of the days long ago when titles meant something, when The Honky Tonk Man was IC Champion for 64 weeks Hogan was champion for 4 years running it meant that they were the best at the time.

When John Cena or hell even HHH would lose the title and then just win it back a few weeks later it devalued the title and it made a lot of fans mad about it.

I'm just hoping that This old school long title reigns that HHH wants to do will stick around for a long long time and help build back some value to the titles just how they were back in the day because the whole switching the belt to one person then another person every month is just stupid and the fans get tired of it.plan and simple .

 

[WJDwjdWJDwjd]

Longer title reigns? Just in time for Cena to beat Punk this next Monday night!

All that aside, Punk has been a great champion. Cena just has way too much momentum going for him, and losing to Punk would kill it. Ever since that Brock Lesnar victory, Cena has been booked to look great (despite that loss to Lauranitis). All this building and destroying of talents along the way Cena has done since Lesnar is going to go to waste if he doesn't win this Monday. Raw 1000 is a must win for the face of the company. On the other hand, this is an excellent opportunity to re-elevate Punk, and the WWE Title without having to put it on Cena. A victory this Monday is a vote of confidence in CM Punk as a main event guy.

 

[CleverName51]

It's a good idea in theory: longer reigns give the titles more prestige in theory because, if properly booked, there's more build to the challenger which allows him to instantly be more credible by beating the champion

This is wear the problem comes in: When giving these champs longer reigns, you need to have the champion emphasize that he WANTS to be champion and the challenger needs to basically say, he want the title from the champion.

Case Example: Daniel Bryan and Punk just feuded over AJ, NOT the WWE title. No matter how you slice it, AJ meant more than the championship. She didn't pick a guy because he was champion (which would have been okay, as it puts over the title)

Conversely: Has Santino even had a real feud as champion? At least Zack Ryder said he WANTED to be US Champion...same with Cody and IC title...


what to do: make the Titles mean something, have the title feuds, but in order to keep the championship relevant, let's see the titles defended more, even on free tv

For instance: face champions could issue "open" challenges to mid card heels/low level faces, just to defend the belt

Heel champions, especially monster heels, could squash jobber faces just to show their dominance over others

Also: A face world champion could defend against a mid-card heel, giving the heel a rub, while the next #1 Contender does commentary to get himself over...

Every so often, led a Mid-card title match main event a Raw, not always, but once in a while

 

[Radical]

Longer title reigns sound good on paper but could become a trainwreck if given to the wrong person.

I don't think you can ever say that every single title holder should have a long title reign (even though it seems as if that his what is happening in the WWE these days) because if it becomes obvious that is what is happening people will lose interest. They will go 'oh, well if he is champion now, I have to wait another 100 days or so until there is even a chance he will lose the title."

My biggest complaint about titles in general in the WWE is how they are treated. Any title except the World Championship and WWE Championship are treated as throw-away championships. They don't give you a reason to care about them. There are hardly any feuds for these mid-card titles.

The only mid-card titles gaining SOME steam are the Tag Titles now with at least 3 tag teams clearly interested in getting/retaining the Tag Titles.

But the US Title picture is non-existent. Seriously, it's a complete joke. Maybe that's why they gave the title to Santino? But really... there is ZERO development for that title. Nobody seems to want it. It honestly should have been won back by Swagger the last time he had a shot, at least then "The All American American" would have something he would probably brag about which would cause at least some face Superstar to confront him about it.

The IC Title picture has had some development this year but was put on hold after Christian won the title and then got in the MITB match.

Point is, it isn't about the length of the title reign it's about the (perceived) IMPORTANCE of the title.

If they have 5 Superstars stand up and say "I want the IC title" and the GM says "Ok, we will have a championship scramble for the title" it would immediately show that the IC title means something to some Superstars and therefore should mean something to us.

 

[Greatwhitesharkchampion]

Long title reigns have good and bad points in my opinion

Some good points would be is that it makes the title seem more prestiguos and makes the champion look more dominant. It also makes the guy who becomes the next champion look even more dominant ending such a long title reign that many people had failed to end in the past

Bad things about longer title reigns are that it can get boring seeing the same guy hold the title for so long and also a fans it means we will get to see fewer title changes and i may speak only for my self but i sure do love a good title change.

I also think longer title reigns should only apply to guys who have just reached the main event status as I would get sick of seeing already established main eventers hold the title for so long eg Orton and Cena

 

[THTRobtaylor]

This is academic while there are two of each belt... it works when there is one title up for grabs and someone has it for a long time, each defense inherently means something because there are only so many opportunities to take the belt, those who get them are instantly elevated, even if they lose. Think back to Hogan defending against Perfect or Warrior against Rude back in the day. Neither guy got the belt but they came out as stronger talents (although Rude had to go to WCW) and more credible champions when their runs with the belts came.

If this is leading up to a unification, then I am all for it, otherwise, the damage is done, the belts are mcguffins and 40% of the roster have had at least one reign.

 

[bluetree]

as long as the title aint around cena thats fine, that goofball is gonna be in the Mainevent everywhere as it is, a big long reign for cena is the last thing i want..

 

[TheGamea]

I like this HOWEVER I wish cody still had the IC bet, I may have been drinking the juice but I thought it was making the IC title relevant again...

 

[IT Factor]

As with everything in WWE these days, this idea has its strengths and weaknesses;

Strengths:
Having a champion hold the title for longer does make it seem more prestiegous. It also does wonders for establishing guys who deserve to be at that top level. Could you imagine how well guys like Sheamus, Dolph Ziggler, or Cody Rhodes would be cemented in as main eventers with long, illustrious title reigns? While Sheamus is already there, he still has quite aways to go before having a long reign. WWE seem to be hesitant to take that proverbial leap of faith in new stars. Ever since Brock Lesnar left in 2004, WWE have been scared shitless that they'll make a big name and have them quit and go elsewhere. At some point, you do have to take a gamble and risk everything to get any reward. Having these younger guys hold the title with long reigns kind of solves that problem. Imagine how lackluster guys like Austin, The Rock, or Triple H would've turned out if they'd only been given one title reign and then depushed and never given the opportunity to become the names they became. This will help in the area, although it's not a substitute for actually making a star who can maintain their spots by being great enough to carry the shows.

Weaknesses:
This will not work for every superstar, obviously. You have your title reigns of shame such as Great Khali as World Champion or how WWE made Jack Swagger World Champion and then killed his shot before it truly got off the ground. Those reigns are failures for different reasons respectively. If you stick a guy with the title and people don't wanna see them, you will have long reigns with people destined to fail anyway and whom the audience can't stand.

One weakness in having longer reigns is lack of depth in each division. Having a long-term World/WWE Champion is a great theory and one that will work if done correctly. What is the point of having a long reigning champion if there's really no contenders. Or should I say multiple contenders? The same 3-4 guys will always be the true contenders and as long as WWE refuses to actually risk making a true new star, having longer reigns won't amount to squat unless they have an equally impressive opposite chasing them consistently. We have to believe that the contenders[plural] are all jockeying for position for that prestiegious title. There's definetely a shortage and it could be a potential problem once the said champion has their long reign. Then what?

I applaud WWE for wanting to make winning the title special and symbolizing that by having longer reigns. I'm pretty sure that people will get tired of insert name here's chase by John Cena for long amounts of time. Or even the same other two or three contenders besides that for broken up spaces of months. The only way having a long term feud succeed is to make true stars and not attempts at stars. To accomplish this end, WWE have to make multiple stars and keep so many that the title defenses mean more because of having everyone gunning for the champ.


I hope this works out but, as with everything there's the equally likely chance it could fail miserably.

 

[machokingmooney]

This is good thing in my opinion. Triple H has always had a love of the old school (His 2003 title run where he pretended to be ric flair, the full sail nxt tapings) and it shows throught this. But that being said theres a right and wrong way to go about this, much as it pains me to praise TNA they made a great call putting the strap on AA. A long title reigns purpose is to make the holder look stong and to create a bigger moment for whoever takes the belt from them. So when Ziggler cashes in on Sheamus it will mean alot more than just another transitonal Cena-esque title run.

 

[Syborgg]

I don't know if it's already been said, but IF the title reigns are to be longer, they must defend the titles more. I'm not talking about the WWE/WHC because they atleast get defended at every PPV. I'm talking the Tag titles, the U.S. title and the I.C. title. We just had a MITB match where both the U.S. champ and the I.C. champ were in the same match, thus eliminating any chance that they would be defending the title on the PPV. If the roster is too weak to host 2 mid-card championships(which I think it is), then retire the U.S. Championship for the time being or maybe forever. Maybe they need to bring back the 30 day defense clause or something to that effect. I would love to see EVERY title defended at EVERY PPV, then have the "other" matches scheduled around that.

My point is, longer title reigns mean nothing if the champion doesn't defend the title.

 

[The Kliq]

Very Cool annoucement that Triple H wants title reigns to be longer and "The Guy" title reign should be long theres no problem with a short title reign if the pay off is a new future star thats gonna win it at a ppv and the company goes with him this is cool for the wwe and world titles as for the other belts i think those titles are beyond repair. The IC belt was my favorite title as a kid the best matches the beat talent held the ic title and it got them ready to hole the wwf title back in the day and now its just embarissing the U.S. belt mine as well not even exsist and the tag team belts are fucking ugly haha and there arnt any tag teams in wwe the divas belt is a joke as well i kno its a work but when your wrestling to win and carry around a giant butterfly somthing about that bothers me

 

[Paul Bunyan's Axe]

Santino Marella has been US Champion for 135 days ? Wow. And he has only defended it once.

That was my first thought when I looked in this thread. If you're not defending the title, it doesn't matter how long you have it. It's just the same as a short reign. I mean, I love Santino and all, but he shouldn't really be holding the title under his current gimmick.

Anyway, I'm all for longer title runs as long as they have the belt on the right person.