The WWE Championship

[Tequila Dave]

Hey guys! This is my first threat, so please go easy on me.

Since Wrestlemania 21 in April of 2005, the WWE Title has changed hands roughly 22 times. Out of these 22 title changes, only five have been a result of a clean win in a standard singles match, these are:

1. Wrestlemania 26: John Cena beat Batista for the belt

2. Elimination Chamber 2010: Batista defeated John Cena for the belt (it is noteworthy that John Cena had just fought in an Elimination Chamber match, and the match was over in 30 seconds)

3. No Mercy 2007: Triple H defeated Randy Orton for the belt (it is noteworthy that later than night, the belt was won back by Randy Orton in a Last Man Standing match)

4. Royal Rumble 2006: John Cena went over Edge

5. New Years Revolution 2006: Edge defeated Cena (it is noteworthy that John Cena had just fought in an Elimination Chamber match, the match was over in less than two minutes)

Out of these victories, two were questionable and one was diminished by a title change less than an hour later. The other 17 title changes since Wrestlemania 21 have occurred as a result of a gimmick match, a multi-man match, or cheating.

Question 1: Would you like to you see more title changes happen as a result of standard single matches? Why or why not?

It’s no secret that the WWE Championship changes hands a lot more than it used to. Between November 2008 and November 2009 there were ten separate title reigns. Also, since Wrestlemania 21, ten of twenty-five title reigns have lasted less than a month.

Question 2: Do you like short title reigns and quick title changes? Do you think they add excitement to the title scene, or cause the title to loose prestige?

From February 2004 to January 2006 there were four WWE Champions, all of which had never won a world title before (Eddie Guerrero, JBL, John Cena and Edge) Since then, only three other wrestlers have been able to win the belt without having won it (or the WH Championship) before. These are: Rob Van Dam (whose reign lasted 22 days), Jeff Hardy (who never successfully defended his belt) and Sheamus. Every other champion since then has not been new to a world title.

Also, since October 2007, there have been 19 title reigns between only seven wrestlers. Of these seven wrestlers, only Randy Orton, Triple H, John Cena and Sheamus have defended the belt successfully during their reigns.

Question 3: Are you getting tired of seeing the same people winning the title? Or do you think the WWE are finding ways to keep the reigns fresh? Would you prefer to see new people winning and holding onto the belt? If so, who?

Recently, it seems as though the majority of feuds over the WWE Championship, result in a title change. Lets go back to Survivor Series 2008. Edge had just won the belt from Triple H in a triple threat. He went on to loose it to Jeff Hardy at the next PPV, only to regain it at the PPV after that. Then, Edge lost the championship to Triple H three weeks later in an Elimination Chamber. Soon after, Royal Rumble winner Randy Orton and Triple H began a feud over the WWE Championship. Orton eventually won the belt and feuded with Batista immediately after. Batista won the gold, but had to drop it because of an injury. Randy Orton then regained the gold and continued his feud with Triple H. He then feuded with John Cena, which ultimately saw Cena win the belt after two title changes. John Cena then feuded with Dx which saw no title change before Cena lost the belt to Sheamus at TLC. Sheamus then feuded with Orton but managed to retain, only to loose the belt to John Cena in an Elimination Chamber after. Cena then went on to feud with Batista, and though he ultimately ended up with the belt, the title changed hands twice in the feud. However, after his feud with Batista was wrapped up, he lost the belt to Sheamus at Fatal 4 Way.

Question 4: Do you think the fact that most feuds see title changes makes things too predictable? Or do you think it adds to feuds and highlights the fact there isn’t too much of a gap between the main eventers?

Sorry it was so long guys, but I’d really like to know your opinions! Also, I apologise if I’ve made any mistakes, please tell me if you notice anything.

As I said this is my first thread, so any tips/advice would be welcomed!

 

[Hazardous]

Question 1: Would you like to you see more title changes happen as a result of standard single matches? Why or why not?

As long as it is done right, and plays into that storyline, then I don't care HOW the belt changes hands. Example would be Jericho winning in the Hell in a Cell when HBK kicked 'Taker. Wrong belt I know, just an example of a title change working into the story line.

Question 2: Do you like short title reigns and quick title changes? Do you think they add excitement to the title scene, or cause the title to loose prestige?

Damage has been done there. Really there is no right answer here, because for as many people who say short, others want longer ones. I personally think 4-6 months is about right.

Question 3: Are you getting tired of seeing the same people winning the title? Or do you think the WWE are finding ways to keep the reigns fresh? Would you prefer to see new people winning and holding onto the belt? If so, who?

Again, no 1 answer as people are going to be split. You have the people screaming for a Hardy/Christian title run. I like the way it is now, maybe add a few guys here and there when others drop out.

Question 4: Do you think the fact that most feuds see title changes makes things too predictable? Or do you think it adds to feuds and highlights the fact there isn’t too much of a gap between the main eventers?

Not all though. Sheamus/Orton, Swagger/Show, Anyone vs Sheamus 1 on 1. Just to name a few. There are still a few here and there where you don't think it'll happen and then it does. Like Sheamus beating Cena. Or kane winning MITB and then cashing in on Rey that night. No one knows for sure how night of champions will go. Even if they guess right, they didn't 100% know for sure.

 

[tjkyle316197]

I think that it would be more proficient and realistic for superstars to take their matches more seriously(management should write that way, of course). I think if a person is hungry enough, as each and EVERY star should be in that situation, than they could beat anybody. From Triple Threats to Elimination Chambers and MITB matches it serves a purpose to bury the not-there-yet, while still giving those mid-carders a chance to show they can handle themselves against the big dogs. But I think more singles should happen, definitely, and that 3-ways and forward should be limited. Singles wins serve a greater purpose, like a Sheamus win over Triple H.

I do also think that in MMA you have weight classes while in WWE you have cruiserweights against super heavyweights in the main event of Summerslam with the annoying chatter of 'World Champion' instead of World Heavyweight Champion. But to give Rey a short title reign, its better than not at all. I do have to argue that guys like Sheamus and Swagger getting longer reigns than that of the established stars on their brand makes little to no sense except their hunger outdoes their elders hunger for championship reigns, though I'd think you'd try harder to point it out(like in having Sheamus have at least 1 or 2 clean wins).

I personally think that everyone should be showing in their promos how bad they want a title shot and that alone would bring more prestige to the belt. You have Christian and Hardy, both former World Champions(ECW and TNA count in my eyes, even if they aren't near as prestigious), both say they want title shots before MITB, they lose and thats that, no one says anymore. Not one promo from deserving guys like said Christian/Matt Hardy, or Rhodes, McIntyre, Kofi, and Dolph, or even CM Punk. Idk, I'm acting as if WWE should change their whole product, lol. Just seems like people wanting and getting title shots here and there is enough in any company. A well-structured business would alternate so the fans can adhere to each champion(not to say short runs would be the way to go, to me they make sense 3/10 times. A champion should always have a few good defenses, even if they're on RAW).

If I were a WWE writer, I'd assume the role of an audience member at every show. Because WWE Management never notices how boring they get. At times I wonder if they even watch their creations come to life. I do think, that with the feuds they give us, short reigns make sense for a short program, not always, but as an example-as already noted; in the Cena-Orton feud they had 2-3 straight title changes, though it made sense because they were gimmick matches. And each one told a story.

 

[MOExecution]

Question 1: Would you like to you see more title changes happen as a result of standard single matches? Why or why not?
Yes, I would actually love that because we see so many match these days end in a DQ or doesn't finish clean. Fatal Four Way, Money in the Bank, and SummerSlam all ended with The Nexus interfering or ending via DQ. And it's not only WWE it's all of Professional Wrestling. We rarely have any #1 Contendership Matches for the World Titles anymore or any title at that. We rarely have just an all out good match without any DQ or run ins anymore. And I think it ruins the prestige of the belt and the title holder because these matches end so unclean. And it ruins the element of surprise as well. It was a point where interfering in matches was a BIG deal! It was a point where DQ's actually made you cowardous (still is, but not with much effect). It was a point where DQ's actually got you A LOT of heat and was used to made a statement. Now it's WAY different and in my opinion it's just not as fun or exciting anymore. So I would love to see more singles matches/titles matches end clean.

Question 2: Do you like short title reigns and quick title changes? Do you think they add excitement to the title scene, or cause the title to loose prestige?
I already made a thread about this question, but I will still share my views on the matter. I actually would like LONGER title reigns instead of these short and quick title reigns. Like explained above. It was a point where winning the WWE Championship actually was an achievement now it's just a test for the younger guys. And I think by changing the title so many times it is losing prestige in my opinion. Just because they are more title changes and more people on a list of champions doesn't mean that is holds more credibility. I actually thought it would be vice versa. The less champions would make the title more prestigious and more of a achievement when won. I remember watching SmackDown every week just to see if somebody would FINALLY dethrone JBL and when it happened I remember thinking FINALLY! And it was interesting to see John Cena defend the title against new people. So quicker and short title reigns doesn't make the title picture more exciting or the title more prestigious just the complete opposite.

Question 3: Are you getting tired of seeing the same people winning the title? Or do you think the WWE are finding ways to keep the reigns fresh? Would you prefer to see new people winning and holding onto the belt? If so, who?
Yes, I am getting tired of seeing the same people win the title. When Sheamus won the WWE Championship I was shocked and happy that a new face was in the picture now, but I was sort of pissed because he won it so early and he didn't quite deserve it yet. WWE are not finding ways of keeping the feuds fresh because even then it may be a different story, but we still see the same match and it's still just the same people. And yeah, I would prefer to see new people holding the title; The Miz, Daniel Bryan, Wade Barrett, John Morrison, and Evan Bourne just to name a few. But I wouldn't want them to have a Jack Swagger or Sheamus push, but a slow push to the top.

Question 4: Do you think the fact that most feuds see title changes makes things too predictable? Or do you think it adds to feuds and highlights the fact there isn’t too much of a gap between the main eventers?
Yes, because if Sheamus got into a match with John Cena and won we would not doubt see John Cena get another shot and Cena win the title again. If there is a new feud for the WWE Championship you can guarantee the title is going to change hand at one point or another. And yeah, obviously it would add to a feud, but like explained above it really wouldn't be a shocker like it would be if it wouldn't change hands so much.

 

[mvalley]

Question 1: Would you like to you see more title changes happen as a result of standard single matches? Why or why not?

I feel it is time for another long, six to twelve month reign. These short title reigns do little for both the title, and the wrestlers. In addition, a lengthy title reign will also aid that wrestler who needs that extra push by not only winning the title but ending the champ's lengthy reign. Had Cena not been injured, Orton would have gotten the duke as the guy who ended one of the longest reigns in twenty years.

Question 2: Do you like short title reigns and quick title changes? Do you think they add excitement to the title scene, or cause the title to loose prestige?

I think they can serve their purpose. Jeff Hardy winning was a perfect example. The WWE couldn't afford to invest too lengthy of a reign in Jeff given he wasn't always 100 percent committed. However, having that short reign can really add those shock value moments, or those feel-good moments.

Too many short reigns though devalue the title and those competing for it.

Question 3: Are you getting tired of seeing the same people winning the title? Or do you think the WWE are finding ways to keep the reigns fresh? Would you prefer to see new people winning and holding onto the belt? If so, who?

This one is a hard one. I do feel new blood is needed at the top. However, few wrestlers have been built to the point that they'd be accepted as world champions. If I had to go with some guys, perhaps the Miz, Daniel Bryan, and C.M Punk.

Question 4: Do you think the fact that most feuds see title changes makes things too predictable? Or do you think it adds to feuds and highlights the fact there isn’t too much of a gap between the main eventers?

I feel things are far less predictable from five or ten years ago. Five or ten years ago we had lengthy title reigns and pretty much knew when a guy was going to drop it.

 

[LigerBomb]

Question 1: Would you like to you see more title changes happen as a result of standard single matches? Why or why not?

Honestly I'm not a stickler for either scenario. My main concern is whether or not the title change makes sense within the context of the current (or when looking back, future) storyline. If WWE can do that, I'm a happy guy.

Question 2: Do you like short title reigns and quick title changes? Do you think they add excitement to the title scene, or cause the title to loose prestige?

Quality, not quantity. For example: Da' Miz has been the US champ for what seems like forever. I still think he's a worthless champ tho'. I can't wait for the title to be given to a (fingers-crossed) fighting champ like say… Daniel Bryan? Point is, much like my first answer, make the reign interesting, logical, and entertaining and I won't care how short or long the actual reign is.

Question 3: Are you getting tired of seeing the same people winning the title? Or do you think the WWE are finding ways to keep the reigns fresh? Would you prefer to see new people winning and holding onto the belt? If so, who?

At any given time there are only a select few who can realistically run with the ball and really make something worthwhile out of a World/WWE title reign. More often than not WWE is pretty good at weeding those guys out and presenting them with the opportunity to make their career. For now I'm actually pleased with the Heavyweight/WWE title scene on both brands. I'd prefer CM Punk get back in the mix on SD, but I understand the Kane/Taker angle has been a long time in the making and needs the proper time. Also, Punk's a young guy and probably not even in the prime of his career; he's got the time to spare, while Taker does not.

Question 4: Do you think the fact that most feuds see title changes makes things too predictable? Or do you think it adds to feuds and highlights the fact there isn’t too much of a gap between the main eventers?

Again, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that can be applied.

As I said this is my first thread, so any tips/advice would be welcomed!

Not bad. Check your spelling. Proof read before you press submit, then read it once more afterward (just to be safe). Conversely, don't care about how you write, and care even less about the inevitable criticism that will be sure to follow. Have fun, and don't take things too seriously around here.

 

[Milkyway!]

Question 1: Would you like to you see more title changes happen as a result of standard single matches? Why or why not?

One thing you must understand is that all of this wrestling junk is staged. People don't necessarily come to WWE events to watch the wrestling. I'll be honest, unless its someone I find entirely entertaining I change the channel during matches and watch the Promos//conflicts more than anything.

Before we see more title changes in standard single matches, I would like to see more wrestlers that can simply put on a good show inside the ring. I want in-ring storytelling, I want to be able to see your personality inside of the ring, and most importantly I want to see more diverse wrestling on my television.

Question 2: Do you like short title reigns and quick title changes? Do you think they add excitement to the title scene, or cause the title to loose
prestige?

I honestly couldn't careless about title reigns. They are, and always have been nothing but props. I watch wrestling for the male soap oprah, and some dang good wrestling. Whether there's a title involved or not, I simply want to watch the show for the show is.

Honestly, very few wrestlers can be entertaining, and only chase a title with NO personal problems in the mix. We watch for the storytelling, and I can't honestly tell you the last time the story revolved around the title. Sure the title is in the mix, but more often than not it doesn't matter one way or another.

Question 3: Are you getting tired of seeing the same people winning the title? Or do you think the WWE are finding ways to keep the reigns fresh? Would you prefer to see new people winning and holding onto the belt? If so, who?

First of all the same people aren't winning the title. Look at the WWE/World Heavyweight Champions right now. Kane who hasn't held a title in nearly a decade (if I'm not mistaken) and Sheamus, a guy who has been in the WWE for 1-2 years now...

Secondly, apparently the feuds are fresh. Otherwise millions of people wouldn't tune in each week.

I honestly have no opinion on Question 4. I've been able to predict wrestling since about 3 weeks into watching it. It is staged, therefore quite easily to predict outside of random swerves. Doesn't bother me one bit.

 

[Super Strudel]

Question 1: Would you like to you see more title changes happen as a result of standard single matches? Why or why not?

I would, if for the simple fact it adds to the feel good factor of someone winning. When Austin first won the title. It says something about earning it.
Obviously you don't want a heel to win this way. But it adds to the fairytale for the face, especially a first timer.

Question 2: Do you like short title reigns and quick title changes? Do you think they add excitement to the title scene, or cause the title to loose prestige?

I've always hated short title reigns and think it does devalue a belt. There are the detractors who say the belt is only a prop. That may be true, but in a time when we are watching PG wrestling so more little kiddies can get hooked, the title needs all the prestige you can get. You want kids to keep watching? Make winning the belt seem like the most magical moment in history. Make kids day dream about one day winning that belt themselves, not playing hot potato with it.
The longer someone holds a belt, the more people will tune in to see the heel finally lose it, or the face overcome their biggest challenge so far.

Question 3: Are you getting tired of seeing the same people winning the title? Or do you think the WWE are finding ways to keep the reigns fresh? Would you prefer to see new people winning and holding onto the belt? If so, who?

I actually think the WWE has this alright at the moment, with the brand split. Smackdown has been used well (previously) to bring new main eventers in. At the moment Raw is stacked with main eventers, yet they are still finding room for a young guy like Barrett to come in and look like he's always belonged. Short reigns aside, and with the exception of Mysterio, I have not had a problem with any of the people they have put a major belt on recently.

Question 4: Do you think the fact that most feuds see title changes makes things too predictable? Or do you think it adds to feuds and highlights the fact there isn’t too much of a gap between the main eventers?

I think it detracts from fueds. Playing gold belt ping pong makes the rivals look equally weak, rather than equally strong.