The Length of Title Runs

[It's Damn Real!]

Anyone else feel as though they're just not long enough in modern wrestling anymore?

I'm not sure if it's just the fact that the product has more media outlets, that the fans are smarter, or that there's more talent vying for top spots in the companies these days, but for one reason or another, I tend to feel like championships in wrestling – both the WWE and TNA have simply lost their luster.

During his run in WCW, Hogan's title run lasted nearly 3-years.

Hart held the WWF Heavyweight Championship for nearly 2 years.

Austin held the title for a year and a half.

IMO, the longer a guy held a title, the more it legitimized him as a mainstay, even if he had to cheat to retain it.

Sorry to step on toes here, but the idea that titles are changing hands every other PPV these days is insulting booking, if you ask me. It makes titles props, and depreciates their value entirely.

Thoughts?

 

[johnbragg]

This discussion happens again and again, but no, I don't think that short title reigns devalue a title, as long as the title is held by top guys.

For one thing, there are more pay-per-views now, and there has to be some uncertainty about the outcome. That means that one guy can't win all the time.

Add the fact that "title matches" happen on TV now, so fans have already seen the fight between two rivals end in a couple of indecisive ways. We're conditioned that we're paying for a real resolution, even if it isn't permanent. "Dusty Finishes" are for TV, is the new reality. I remember the huge stink that we made when Undertaker refused to job clean to Brock Lesnar at the September PPV. (It set up a huge HIAC match that helped Lesnar more than just winning a regular match would have, but my point is the fan uproar).

Title switches just mean that, in kayfabe, two guys are on the same level and neither can gain a permanent advantage on the other. Cena-Orton, Punk-Hardy are both pretty much equals in the eyes of Vince McMahon. So neither guy is going to win three big matches in a row against the other.

Besides, when there is a long world title reign, we bitch about how stale it is and how SuperCena 2006/HHH 2003-04 is squashing everyone.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Besides, when there is a long world title reign, we bitch about how stale it is and how SuperCena 2006/HHH 2003-04 is squashing everyone.

My thoughts exactly... I mean, sure, back in WWF Classic days it was ok for a champion to have a long reign. Because back in the old days, we had more mid-carders than we did main eventers, so we knew the World title wasn't going to change hands that much.

And also, in this day in age, having a reign for 4 months to 8 months is considered a long reign. Think about it... people couldn't wait for Orton's second title reign to end, and he had it for seven months.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

It makes titles props, and depreciates their value entirely.

I've never thought of them as anything other than props.

There were complaints when Cena held the title for over a year and there are complaints when the titles change every month. I don't think people would care half as much if there was more variety in the champions. If Randy Orton hadn't lost his title three times this year, it still would've been a pretty uneventful reign. But if he'd lost his belt to somebody new to the main event scene, then won it back a month later, then it would've been memorable and people wouldn't be as concerned about the lineage of the titles.

Frequent title changes worked fine between The Rock & Mankind. It's just the execution that's wrong.

 

[Milkyway!]

Anyone else feel as though they're just not long enough in modern wrestling anymore?

No, the title reigns are going great. Maybe you haven't noticed but over 40%-50% of the audience is made up of Children. Now, I don't know about you, but when I was a child I was watching Seseme Street. The colors always changed, everything was always thrown in your face, it was fast paced, I didn't have the attention span to listen to anything else. Children are exactly like that today, their attention spans are almost nonexsistant to this very day. If we have year, to year and a half long reigns like Austin had, the children would lose all want to watch the show, and as this show is demographed twards children, the WWE does what the children want.

During his run in WCW, Hogan's title run lasted nearly 3-years.

Congragulations.

Hart held the WWF Heavyweight Championship for nearly 2 years.

Congrats!

Austin held the title for a year and a half.

YAY HIM!

IMO, the longer a guy held a title, the more it legitimized him as a mainstay, even if he had to cheat to retain it.

Doesn't matter what your opinion is, its not demographed twards you anymore. In the childrens opinion, that would get boring, quick.

Sorry to step on toes here, but the idea that titles are changing hands every other PPV these days is insulting booking,

lol? Thats dumb.

if you ask me.

But no one asked you, you made this thread all on your own self. For the 1,000,000,000th time.

It makes titles props, and depreciates their value entirely.

No it doesn't it makes titles fun for children.

Thoughts?

You completely missed the point of the PG era. Demographed twards CHILDREN.

 

[NSL]

Frequent title changes worked fine between The Rock & Mankind. It's just the execution that's wrong.

Jake proves yet again how wise he is...

When Rock and Mankind were tossing the belt around, their feud was intensifying, and kept us attached to our TVs, waiting to see what happened next. Recently, we saw Orton and Cena play Championship Hot Potato, and there was no reason behind it. The feud/rivalry did not get any hotter, and there was no reason to buy a PPV, knowing that the belt was changing hands. It was actually kind of sad.

I'm a fan of lengthy title reigns, but if they must be short, give us a reason to give a shit about it. I don't want to tune in for the Flavor Of The Week. I want to tune in and see the best of the best wearing gold around their waist.