What Makes a Failed Title Reign?

[Big Time]

I've heard this being said about various championship reigns, and Im a little confused about what makes them failed. For example, what makes The Ultimate Warriors world title reign failed? People seemed to enjoy his runs as Intercontinental champion for the most part. I dont like the guy one bit, but he obviously had his fans... and still do for some unknown reason. Or Diesels title reign? Both of them were fairly lengthy, and its not like they had no belivable challengers. I've heard Shawn Michaels first reign being said to be bad as well, though I cant imagine why.

So, my question is, what exactly, makes a title run a failure?

 

[Miko]

Fuck know's, it's just something people seem to say when they dont like a wrestler, the only thing that can really define a failed title reign is a lack of interest from the fans I suppose, and it's quite surprising how few there are, after all, company's do pick their champions wisely.

Booking can be some of the problem, but an interesting champion will always make it work, take Rey Mysterio, I am not a fan of the guy but he was booked to look awful as champion (then again, he is only 5'6 and I'll never believe he could beat Khali) but still people loved it. Ultimate Warrior's title reign was pretty good, and most people at the time seemed to agree. So what can you call a failed title reign?

Honestly, I dont know, I know what I like and dont like, but unlike certain strange internet folk I also accept that it's just my opinion, not a fact, I mostly think it's just people overanylising everything, on account of being so wrestling smart and all.

 

[Notorious718]

I agree with what Miko said above. If the fans don't care, the title reign automatically fails regardless of challengers a champion faces. Another factor would probably the champion's performance in matches especially title defenses. From what I've heard, a good example would be Sheamus vs Orton at the Royal Rumble. From what I've heard and clips I've seen, Sheamus gained nothing from the match besides a rub from beating Orton. Other than that, he was basically dominated and won by DQ. Off the top of my head, that's all I can come up with.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Well, I don't know if there's really any definitive answers about that. I think it's mostly just something along the lines of the opinion of fans.

For me personally, I'd probably consider a title reign a failure if having a title win either does nothing to improve the stock of the wrestler holding it and/or if a title run actually manages to lessen a wrestler's stock based upon how he's booked as champion. I think length of a title reign is a factor as well, but there have been instances in which I've seen wrestlers do more with a title reign of a month than other wrestlers that have had reigns five times that length. I'm also not really a fan of hot potato reigns either, although I personally think that hurts a championship itself more than the wrestler. CM Punk has had three hot potato reigns, yet his stock has never been higher. Still, it typically brings the value and prestige of a title down

As far as someone whose stock just hasn't really been improved with title runs, I'd say that Matt Hardy is a great example. Matt Hardy has won every championship a male wrestler can win in the WWE except a singles world title. Outside of his tag title runs with his brother Jeff, there's really been nothing memorable or of note about any of Hardy's runs with singles titles. Maybe some of that also has to do with just the general lack of charisma that plagues Matt Hardy, but it does seem rare that someone with so many different championship reigns has so little to show for it in the end.

Now, for a wrestler who seems to actually come out worse after having a title run, I think you can look at many, if not all, of the X-Division champs TNA has crowned over the past year or so. Off the top of my head, three of the best examples I personally can think of are Homicide, Samoa Joe and Amazing Red. All won the X Division title in the second half of 2009 and all were booked very very poorly while champions. In the cases of Homicide and Joe, they just looked weak during their runs. Homicide defends the title twice during his run, both times against Samoa Joe. The first match, Joe is booked as though he can take Homicide at will, as if Homicide is no real threat at all. In their second match, Homicide drops the title to Joe. During Joe's latest run, he's hardly booked to wrestle or cut promos and he drops the title to Amazing Red in a 3 minute quickie. Red's reign started out weak as only the outside interference of Lashley gave him the title, interference in which the ref sees but curiously overlooks. And, throughout Red's run, he's barely seen on TNA television or ppvs. He primarily works dark matches and on the rare occassions in which he does wrestle on iMPACT! or a ppv, the matches are random, thrown together at the last minute it seems without any build up or any real relevance.

Just my opinion.

 

[Davi323]

I would define a failed title reign as one in which one of the following things might happen (or both).

-the wrestler who gets the title fails to generate a bigger reaction out of the crowd than they did before. Sheamus would be an example of this, From the RAW crowds, the response he got was more apathy than anything else. Nobody cared about him. Giving him the belt didn't make the fans like him or hate him any more than they already did. Basically, did anyone care that Sheamus was champion, or did you think, thats great, but he is dead as soon as "so and so" gets a hold of him. If you think to yourself that if Wrestler X, the champion, were to ever face Wrestler Y, and that Wrestler X really has very little chance of keeping his title, its probably a failed title reign, because Wrestler X hasn't established that he can beat anyone, at any time.

-similiar to crowd reaction, what did the wrestler do with the title reign? Did they grab the bull by the horns, proverbially, or did they fail to do anything significant with it? Some guys, once given the belt, take it and run with it, and maximize the opportunity given them. They reach the highest mountain, and refuse to go back down. Randy Orton was nothing but a mid-carder, until he got his first title...Since then, he has been a permanent main eventer. He took it, and ran with it. Some guys don't. Sheamus is a good example of this too. After being the WWE champ, now that a "main eventer" has the belt again, is there any doubt that we will soon be seeing Sheamus drop back down to the mid-card level, where he belongs, as soon as the rumored HHH match at Wrestlemania happens? Trips is giving him his shot, and then he goes back to feuding with Kofi, MVP and the Miz. This almost happened to CM Punk too, but he seems more established as a main eventer this time around, with feuds against better wrestlers, and more TV exposure, and it doesn't look like he will fade back into obscurity.

 

[Chrome]

Failed title regins are business talk for: Not being able to draw a dime.

Take WCW for an example.. there most profitable year was 1998. (you can look it up)

That year Hogan was champ for the majority of the year..

in 1999 recorded as WCW's lowest grossing profit margine of all time. (you can look it up)

What was different from 1998 to 1999?

Well in 1999 Hulk Hogan was barely on TV (part of the Russo era) People like Booker T, Jeff Jarrett, Stiener were world champ out of no where.. and they could not draw half of what a Hogan, Flair, Stone Cold, Triple H, Undertaker or Rock would Draw.. (Hell the only one that came close in WCW was the often injured furing this time Bill Goldberg) The facts and numbers don't lie..

But what is a failed Champ is exactly that.. heck some say that Bob Backlaund had a failed title regin back in the day because he would only draw if the card was stacked. He himself was not the reason people when to see the venue. Where as Bruno Sammantino was an attraction that people would go see.

I remember Vince McMahon saying that Chris Jerichos FIRST World title regin (when he beat Rock and Austin) was failed because he was pushed to soon and not able to draw. (Low PPV buy rates)

So those are just some example.. also keep in mind this has nothing to do with the wrestler the entertainer.. but more of a dollar for dollar evaluation of the wrestlers worth, not there work rate etc..

 

[maar130]

Well I thing it depends of the eye of the Beholder.

For me is when a title run fail it's purpose, and that also reflects into buyrates and popularity of the champion and his counterparts, meaning the challengers.

I mean, for me if Jericho first Title run as undisputed champion (vecause his first run was as the WCW champion when he defeated the Rock at No mercy) was not a failure in it entirey, why? because it served it purpose, booking aside, we all know and Vince knows this too that he was only looking for a Cannon foder (meaning a weak champion) for HHH to defeat in his big comeback, so Jericho served his purpose as a champion and They all new they were going to have ups and downs with him as champion against guys like The Rock and Steve Austin.

Like also another two title reigns that were failures were Kurt's Angle first title run and Rey Mysterio title run, and believe me I a a fan of both but their firsst rus were big failures.

With Kurt Angle yes, he was over, but not ready for that belt at all, since he got it he always played second man to the other supestars, never had any credibility as champion during that first reing, it was so, than since none seemed to fill he would draw at Mania that they decided to go with the remach between Austin and the Rock, how can you see that? the way the Rock got the strap from Kurt a month before Wrestlemania and if not there were no plans for him to main event the show at all.

With Rey well, the way it was booked was really bad since he only got a buch of wins and most oft the time lost to all main eventers, even people started to boo Rey at some point, since he faced Kurt and tapped to him before Wrestlemania it was entitled to fail. With all subsequent matches between Kurt and Rey, Rey was never able to defeat Kurt one on one and in a big match situation never looked like a real treat. They wanted to use the story of the Underdog, well that work when the underdog actually wins, not when he is considered a glorified jobber to the stars with a belt on his shoulder.