if someone can get the title for 5 months or more in this day and age then they are doing something right. these year long title reigns..... not crazy bout them, prefer the reigns where every 3 - 6 months someone new has the title, it definitely keeps it fresher and lets face people want it to be fresh. plus if cena was to not hold the title for a year or so when he won it again more people may actually be excited about it instead of him holding it every few months. same with orton im sick of him being shoved down our throats as super orton. get him away from the title for a few years then when he won it again people wouldnt mind it, they would be excited. and thats what the wwe needs, they need people to be excited, and interested, if its the same crap all the time people stop watching and ratings drop. but thats just my own opinion.
-
Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here
What IS a Lengthy Title Reign?
- Thread starter killerd105
- Start date
I title reign is lengthy when you think the title holder has become stale, when he doesn't offer anything new with the title.
Once the belt is given to a wrestler it should stay with him as long as he can make something out of it. Of course the wrestler should be given a chance, a reign like Kane's in 90's won't count. In that regard, Although only for a couple of months, Swagger's title reign was unnecessary and lengthy for him since he didn't do much with it, but Hogan's title reign in 80's was not too long because that was a necessity at the time. Cena's title reign in 07 was lengthy because after a while it became stale, started to become more of a superman character when it was unnecessary, but even so he still kept the title. So basically, it depends on the circumstances. Another example: You may argue JBL's title was lengthy but each month we were all waiting for someone to kick his butts, and that kept us interested. It served it's purpose because when he finally lost I was the happiest guy on Earth for a moment. A reign can be long, but as long as it is not stale and it serves a purpose, the months and sometimes years are not lengthy enough.
Once the belt is given to a wrestler it should stay with him as long as he can make something out of it. Of course the wrestler should be given a chance, a reign like Kane's in 90's won't count. In that regard, Although only for a couple of months, Swagger's title reign was unnecessary and lengthy for him since he didn't do much with it, but Hogan's title reign in 80's was not too long because that was a necessity at the time. Cena's title reign in 07 was lengthy because after a while it became stale, started to become more of a superman character when it was unnecessary, but even so he still kept the title. So basically, it depends on the circumstances. Another example: You may argue JBL's title was lengthy but each month we were all waiting for someone to kick his butts, and that kept us interested. It served it's purpose because when he finally lost I was the happiest guy on Earth for a moment. A reign can be long, but as long as it is not stale and it serves a purpose, the months and sometimes years are not lengthy enough.
supergav67
Pre-Show Stalwart
While they can be annoying ,short title reigns are just the nature of the modern beast.PPVs are where the WWE make more money,hopefully, & all storylines should lead or be tied up to them.Not their fault entirely but How many PPVs were on during the reign of Bruno (73-77),Backland (78-83) or even Hulk (84-88).Two shows a week,4 years,same champ,,in an internet,twitter & myspace era,.,Could you handle that Cena fans or non fans ?
It boils down to how you perceive a good title reign ! I agree while Ric says he,s the 21 time champion,& we go Wow,,or Woooo!,it covers up the fact he lost it about 20 times.In modern thinking,he,s either not very good,or very careless.(kidding),while JBL held it in the modern era for nearly a year,on paper,he,s won it only once.
WWEs ever changing title picture IS also due to their belated attempts to find new megastars.which they shoulda done years ag
ther wrestlers got an occassional look in but you knew the attitude title picture would be H,Rock,Austin,Angle with maybe,Y2J, Show,Taker & Foley.They were in EverY PPV Title match & we WANTED to see them in every title match,thats the bottom line.As Y2J says "Is it MY fault vince never picked someone else".
Outside the world picture,if a superstar or Diva holds their title for a few months ,you think nobody gives a shit about that title anymore.Especially if it gets defended on a non PPV show.
I think we,re getting conditioned to the short reigns.The space beetween Elimination Chamber & ,WM ,to me, seamed an eternity,how many different ways CaN you say,"Im gonna beat you,in 4 weeks time" While the FortnighT beetween NoC & HiaC seemed half thought & greedy.How can you build up an event four shows after the last!
We all agree what AinT a good title run.A day after a PPV.You KnoW who Im talking about.Thats just an insult to the paying fans at home & in the arena,not to mention the guy himself whether he,s kayfabe pissed off or seriously not bothered about it or vice versa!
It boils down to how you perceive a good title reign ! I agree while Ric says he,s the 21 time champion,& we go Wow,,or Woooo!,it covers up the fact he lost it about 20 times.In modern thinking,he,s either not very good,or very careless.(kidding),while JBL held it in the modern era for nearly a year,on paper,he,s won it only once.
WWEs ever changing title picture IS also due to their belated attempts to find new megastars.which they shoulda done years ag
ther wrestlers got an occassional look in but you knew the attitude title picture would be H,Rock,Austin,Angle with maybe,Y2J, Show,Taker & Foley.They were in EverY PPV Title match & we WANTED to see them in every title match,thats the bottom line.As Y2J says "Is it MY fault vince never picked someone else".Outside the world picture,if a superstar or Diva holds their title for a few months ,you think nobody gives a shit about that title anymore.Especially if it gets defended on a non PPV show.
I think we,re getting conditioned to the short reigns.The space beetween Elimination Chamber & ,WM ,to me, seamed an eternity,how many different ways CaN you say,"Im gonna beat you,in 4 weeks time" While the FortnighT beetween NoC & HiaC seemed half thought & greedy.How can you build up an event four shows after the last!
We all agree what AinT a good title run.A day after a PPV.You KnoW who Im talking about.Thats just an insult to the paying fans at home & in the arena,not to mention the guy himself whether he,s kayfabe pissed off or seriously not bothered about it or vice versa!
Mustang Sally
Sells seashells by the seashore
The frequent title changes are for the casual wrestling fan, i.e.; the fan who enjoys watching the product but isn't interested in the intricacies of the sport. He/she enjoys sitting in front of TV on Mondays and Fridays watching, yet doesn't follow wrestling the way we do. He has little patience for long, scientific wrestling matches that tell a story......and even less patience for long title reigns.
Yes, Bruno Sammartino held the title for eight years and Bob Backlund for five. There's no way to compare that to today's era, but consider: When Bruno was champion, he wrestled only a few times a month, if that. His energies were focused mostly on the house shows, particularly the ones that took place at Madison Square Garden. From what I've been told, the Felt Forum section of the Garden would sell out it's 19,000 seats every month and those seats would be occupied mainly by people who enjoyed the spectacle of a 20-minute time limit draw. Title changes? Forget it! When they occurred, they were doubly exciting because they were so rare. Compare that to today's champions. who have to be on camera and in the ring much, much more than Bruno or Backlund.
Today's casual wrestling fan doesn't have the patience to watch matches that last over ten minutes, wants to see as many title matches as he can....... and wants title changes. WWE has to satisfy that fan because there are many more of them than there are of people like us who populate wrestling forums and talk about it at length, often sounding like this: "This is what I think and anyone who doesn't agree is an f'n moron!" If Vince and his people look at wrestling boards, that's the kind of thing they see. How seriously do you think they're going to take it?
Yeah, Vince has to satisfy a lot of different folks to keep his product popular. If the majority likes to see frequent title changes, they're going to see them.
Yes, Bruno Sammartino held the title for eight years and Bob Backlund for five. There's no way to compare that to today's era, but consider: When Bruno was champion, he wrestled only a few times a month, if that. His energies were focused mostly on the house shows, particularly the ones that took place at Madison Square Garden. From what I've been told, the Felt Forum section of the Garden would sell out it's 19,000 seats every month and those seats would be occupied mainly by people who enjoyed the spectacle of a 20-minute time limit draw. Title changes? Forget it! When they occurred, they were doubly exciting because they were so rare. Compare that to today's champions. who have to be on camera and in the ring much, much more than Bruno or Backlund.
Today's casual wrestling fan doesn't have the patience to watch matches that last over ten minutes, wants to see as many title matches as he can....... and wants title changes. WWE has to satisfy that fan because there are many more of them than there are of people like us who populate wrestling forums and talk about it at length, often sounding like this: "This is what I think and anyone who doesn't agree is an f'n moron!" If Vince and his people look at wrestling boards, that's the kind of thing they see. How seriously do you think they're going to take it?
Yeah, Vince has to satisfy a lot of different folks to keep his product popular. If the majority likes to see frequent title changes, they're going to see them.
CleverName51
Little Jimmy
4-7 months works for me, that's long enough for the champion to win the title, settle the feud with the previous champion, build up his next feud and drop the title with a long emotional storyline.
Put it this way: would Batista and Cena's respective title wins at WM21 have meant as much if HHH and JBL hadn't dominated their respective title pictures?
To me, champions need to create the moment for the next title winner. A heel champion needs to do 2 things: 1 make the crowd hate him so much that they want to see him get beaten and 2: make sure he seems to always have an out so the face can overcome some obstacle.
A face champion needs 2 things: 1: the respect of the audience for his virtues and good character, 2: the ability to seem sympathetic when he's down for the count.
In doing so, if a face champion loses to a heel, the audience immediately should want to see someone stand up to the new champion and they should feel like celebrating when a Face finally goes over a heel.
To create these moments and emotions, you need to draw out the story for the right amount of time.
Watching John Cena take 3 weeks to get a title back doesn't work...but if John Cena took a 4-6 months of chasing the title, working 2-3 month stints in secondary feuds before beginning his chase....then things would seem a whole lot different (And Cena would only be a 4-5 time champion instead of 12)
Put it this way: would Batista and Cena's respective title wins at WM21 have meant as much if HHH and JBL hadn't dominated their respective title pictures?
To me, champions need to create the moment for the next title winner. A heel champion needs to do 2 things: 1 make the crowd hate him so much that they want to see him get beaten and 2: make sure he seems to always have an out so the face can overcome some obstacle.
A face champion needs 2 things: 1: the respect of the audience for his virtues and good character, 2: the ability to seem sympathetic when he's down for the count.
In doing so, if a face champion loses to a heel, the audience immediately should want to see someone stand up to the new champion and they should feel like celebrating when a Face finally goes over a heel.
To create these moments and emotions, you need to draw out the story for the right amount of time.
Watching John Cena take 3 weeks to get a title back doesn't work...but if John Cena took a 4-6 months of chasing the title, working 2-3 month stints in secondary feuds before beginning his chase....then things would seem a whole lot different (And Cena would only be a 4-5 time champion instead of 12)
Similar threads
