Too many title reigns?

[Father:_Polley]

We seem to be in an era where belts are traded on a near quarterly basis in order to keep the main event scene 'Fresh' and prevent feuds from becoming stale and one-sided. But is this cheapening the achievements of those involved?

Looking back into the records, Bob Backlund held the belt for almost 6 years before dropping the title to Iron Sheik in late 1983. Now given the complaints which were voiced regarding Cena's reign, could the modern fan have coped with that reign?

However, does the continual switching of titles eg Hardcore Title, HHH/Orton scenario of late make these reigns less valuable than their 70s/80s counterparts?

For my view, there is no doubt that we as fans like things to move quickly. We need something to keep us amused. There is no doubt that the likes of Kane's 1 day reign, Orton's win/loss/win night and other pointless reigns, while good at keeping fans entertained, really did not serve any other purpose. That being said, I think Cena's reign as champion in my eyes is similar to that of Backland - namely it was long, but served it's purpose well and showed how far is too long in terms of holding a belt

 

[Monkey_Mania]

I do not think so. You have to remember, as we grow up our tastes change. We can no longer stomach a long title reign. We also now have more wrestlers who can carry the promotion than back in the day. Now we have shorter attention spans, wrestlers get stale when they hold the title for too long.

I guess it depends on the era. Back in the 70's and 80's Longer title reigns meant a lot more. People only remember Stan Stasiak as the guy that held the title for a week, only to lost it to Sammartino. Not a great title reign back then. Todays standards a week title reign is not good either. But a two month reign is the norm. So it depends on the era, it also depends on your preferences too.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Well, I don't think you can really compare say, the Backlund-reign era, or Hogan's 4 year run in the 80ies, with today's wrestling scene. You have to consider that in those days, when the "secrets" of pro wrestling weren't as exposed as they are today and a lot more people still believed (or could more easily be made believe) that wrestling is "real", having a dominant wrestler defend his title over a very long period of time was a means to establish this contender as an "acknowledged athlete" because he could beat all of his opponents and thus was "the best"; back then storylines were basically non-present, and those that were were very basic ones.

Today, the soap-opera aspect of wrestling is much more in the center of attention, and people will just not care for a champion only because he is champion, but because he is involved in interesting feuds and angles. Only defeating opponent after opponent doesn't do anymore these days. Of course, every once in awhile you can run the angle where a dislikable heel (won't work with faces anymore today, see Cena) has the title for a long time and just can't be beaten (what WWE used in a modified way for Khali basically - he had neither storyline nor athletic ability going for him, but his sheer size instead). It is not as important anymore that one single wrestler is "the best" (especially with the brand split and their multiple top titles), but it is the stories and the charisma of the ME guys that make their feuds work.

So I'd say no; long reigns like that wouldn't work, as ultimately, after some time of having seem one and the same guy as champion for months and months, his feuds have to grow stale and people will want a new face and fresh storylines.

 

[huwtimbrell38]

long title reigns need a deep pool of good challengers to keep the title feuds fresh...also the feuds actually need to be good with the title actually under threat so the fans believe there is a chance the title could change.
for a truly long title reign to be succesful nowadays i think that the brand split would have to end, therefore having more challengers and potential good feuds. with the brand split there are maybe 3 realistic options for a title challenger, but with the split being ended this would obviously double aswell as adding any superstars they wanted to push to main event level therefore giving the champion ample feuds to keep his title reign fresh and interesting

 

[Sparky]

Long title reigns can be pulled off, It just has to be a heel holding the title. If a heel is holding the title there is so many possibilitys as how he can win, He can be in the same fued for a couple of months Cheating every time and winning cleanley in the last match. If its a face holding the title for long periods of time they only win one way just like cena "overcoming the odds" or in a few cases DQ on the other persons side.

Long title reidns nowdays are boring but thats only becouse they build the wrestler to be a superheroe when infact he isnt. I agree that back in the old days it was better to have the title for long periods of time but times have changed. People nowdays want Short titles so the Fueds stay fresh. In the olden days people would pay lots of money to see the same matches every year but not now.

its either our taste has changed or the fact that nowdays wrestlers are to predictable and cant come up with a fresh match up and fall back on the same thing. It doesnt affect the title in anyway how long people hold the title. Things happen to make them lose it weather it is a suspension Injury or they was a paprer Champion.

 

[bko]

Another factor you could throw into the argument is back in the day they had a fraction of the TV time they have now, now if we look at Cena's title reign that would of equaled a couple of years worth back in the day in terms of Tv time. Plus the feuds are too short and grow stale faster these days, or the WWE just want to get onto the next feud as quick as possible, when you have a great built up feuds people think "hey think hey this guy could really take the title", heck quite a few people were pulling for Jeff to beat Orton last year, and no I am not talking about you smarks out there. Final thought, I do have to say my attention span decrease for title reigns when I found the internet, because I knew what direction WWE were going in, so it took the factor of the unknown and the element of surprise out.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Great thread Polley.

I've said this before on these boards - something tumultuous happened in the mid-90's along with the 2nd boom of professional wrestling. Sure - the Hollywood Hogan and Stone Cold eras were a huge part of things, but when WCW rolled the dice to go to 12 pay per views, followed by WWE eventually going to 13, PLUS the high TV ratings resulting in 2nd and even 3rd shows each week, the wrestling companies saturated us with professional wrestling. Furthermore, the envelope was pushed so much, and we were shocked so often, it now takes more and mors to accomplish the same thing. The attention span of the average professional wrestling fan has dwindled down significantly, so much so, that I watch Wednesday Night's on MSG for "MSG Wrestling Classics" and see crowd plays, nerve holds, etc, and I know that today's fans would start a "boring" chant within 5 minutes.

In the days of Bob Backlund and Bruno Sammartino, TV matches were few and far between, house shows were an event, and title defenses were an honor. Bret Hart defending his WWF Title at EVERY pay per view and then once a month on TV was the definition of a "fighting champion." Now, CM Punk defends the WHC every single week and still gets no respect.

I think wrestling fans are intelligent enough to look back on the reigns of the Backlunds and Sammartinos of the world fondly, but since kayfabe is a commonly known term in today's wrestling community, fans see a 9-month title reign and insist that a particular wrestler is beng "shoved down our throats." We need constant stimulation. Yes, folks, the W.W.E. has A.D.D.

 

[Rusty]

I don't really think there are too many title reigns. It used to be much worse. Back in the attitude era I remember titles being passed around almost every week. Now titles are mainly won on pay per view especially the big belts. If anything I think there are too many pointless long titles reigns. An example of this is the Cody Rhodes and Hardcore Holly 6 month long title reign. It just wasn't needed. Nobody cared about these two when they were tag champs and they were barely given t.v time. They rarely defended the titles and they were just boring in general. It was just pointless. Nobody benefitted from it.

Look at M.V.P's 11 month U.S title reign. While he most probably held the title for so long because himself and Matt Hardy were injured at different stages of their long fued, I don't believe he should have held the title for that long. He didn't defend it very much either. It doesn't make him look better, and it certainly doesn't give the title more credibility as it was rarely defended.

I think the problem is that titles are not defended often and when they are defended, the challengers are usually the favourites to win. The US, IC and both Tag Team belts are rarely defended on ppv. But even worse, they aren't even defended much on free t.v. So I don't think we see too many title reigns, but I think we don't see enough title defences and title matches especially on t.v.

 

[klunderbunker]

I think that what's put on today is fine. Things move at such a more rapid pace now. Back in the late 70s/early 80s with Backlund, there was next to no television around and the shows moved around a lot. You might get to see him less than 10 times a year. Now, the champion could be on television 4 times a week: Raw, SD, ECW, PPV. There's the internet, magazines, etc. The main gripe about Cena's reign was that he was repetitive as hell. This may be true, this may not be true, but that was the main complaint. Back in Backlund's reign, I'm sure he had a moveset he was very repetitive with, but the difference is that then there was time in between his matches to forget about it. It was the exact same thing that happened to Ric Flair in the 80s. Flair was the NWA world champion for years on end sometimes. He did the same thing every night in and night out, but you'd only see him once or twice a year. He never got old because it was a rare treat. He goes on television and people started to see that it was the same thing so he needed to switch up the title scene and that's when Sting, Luger and Vader came in as different characters with different styles. It's about exposure to me, and very little else.

 

[DeadmanInc.]

Back in the 80's there weren't as many shows as there are today (correct me if I'm wrong, I wasn't alive then ). That's why those insanely long title reigns worked out because fans didn't see much of the champion and wrestling in general. Not only that, Hogan was the face of WWF so it made sense for him to hold on to the belt as long as possible.

Prior to the brand extension there were two shows every week and then a PPV every month. On top of that there are the live house shows. The title scene had to keep changing constantly to keep people interested in the product. Even today where there's 3 different brands we still get to see WWE every week and on PPV every month.

Long reigns today aren't entirely bad. I don't think they'll work for faces unless they are insanely over and respected. I'm sure most fans wouldn't mind a long Shawn Michaels or Undertaker championship reign given how much respect there is for these two. However, Cena's reign makes it quite clear that fans aren't looking for the next "superhero" like Hulk Hogan. Another example would be Batista's long reign as WHC. People got tired of seeing him, though not as much as Cena. That's why he isn't as over as he once was. Fans are more concerned about how a storyline advances.

A long reign would work amazingly well with heels today. The best example is JBL. No one thought he was worthy of being a WWE Champion yet he held the belt for almost a year. That turned him into one of the best heels in the company today. JBL did a great job in playing off on the heat his reign brought by calling himself a wrestling god. Another example would be HHH's long WHC reign back in 2003. Everyone knew that this long reign was because he was married to Stephanie. HHH got so much heat which made him the perfect heel at the time.

 

[D.I.S 202]

In the 70's and 80's titles would only be put on the line a handful of times a year. But as wrestling began to get more exposure on tv and monthly ppv's titles were defended more often and reigns were shorter to keep storylines fresh.Fans today don't want to see the same repetitive title reigns of guys like John Cena and ratings reflect that.

I do agree that long title rigns can still happen today and be successful only if heels hold the belt. I used to enjoy long heel reigns like Kurt Angle's and JBL's becuase every title defense was won a different way and the fans would be intersted in seeing if the favorite would finally win the belt. Also when the champion finally loses he usually puts over a up-in-coming face like JBL did with John Cena. But now wwe most of the time keeps the belt on a heel for about two months at best.

 

[GUMBO2ndcoming]

Ok, I totally agree w/the last guy. The reason you cant give someone really long title reigns anymore is because there on t.v. every week, and just like a sitcom after a couple seasons it gets old. You have to keep the title scene fresh all the time. Its like Somoa joe in TNA as much as i like joe and he's one of my favorites, his reign is starting to get old. You need to keep things rolling in order to do that you must change champs more often. The only time keeping the belt works is when its a heel and you wanna tune in every time to see if there going to drop it like when JBL was champ. I think each champ should have a substantial reign unless your a hand over guy like orton was when he beat benoit for the belt.

 

[mean_gene_roberts]

Very interesting topic. And so far everyone is right. To a point. Everything said is more of a contributing factor than a cause.

And yes I am that "old fart" who saw Bruno Sammartino on TV and once at a house show in my hometown. And reading about him or seeing old clips on youtube cannot relate the charisma of that man...I digress.

Wrestling was one of the very first regularly scheduled programs on television dating back to the 50's. And it wasn't boring by a long shot. No, the title wasn't defended each week. About once a month Baron Von Raschske or Gorilla Monsoon or Baron Secluna would come out and taunt Bruno into stepping in the ring with them, only to have their manager or partner from the back interfere and Bruno would win by DQ. Then came the interview by either opponnent, vowing to get revenge when they met Sunday night at the Pittsburgh Civic Center (now Mellon Arena), or Madison Square Garden, or the Philadelphia Spectrum or some other such Arena. And there was such an event each month in some city around the the country.

Here is one of the things that have changed. Pay-per-view. There was no such thing in the 50's or even the 70's. There was closed-circuit PPV, which was shown at certain theatres. I remember Mohammed Ali was in the first or one of the first. The way we get it now started in the 80's. And it was boxing that paved the way again.

I don't think the first wrestling PPV was until the late 80's. This changed the way the business of wrestling was performed. It went from legitimately sold-out (no Papering this. Bruno still holds the record for most sell-outs at Madison Square Garden). What once 25,000 to 100,000 arenas and stadiums become 2.5 million (2,500,000) or more world wide.

But, by going global as it did it took away what it was able to say it had...legitimatcy. Not that it wasn't acting then as now. What we call entertainment today was still largely seen as somewhat legimate. And, if Bruno Sammartino said he was the strongest, baddest, nastiest, proud son of an immigrant and he could back it up, then he was. Pretty simple.

And I'm not going to say which I prefer.

I take that back. I do prefer the longer title reign. It gives an otherwise predictable outcome that air of mystery that no longer exists. Most any of us can see the outcome of any particular match up to 3 minutes in advance if not far sooner. I think that is part of the reason for the over-all decline in popularity. The titles themselves have no meaning...no value.