Which is more important? Number of Title Reigns, or Length?

[Slim Pickns]

Some of the B PPV's don't get such high buy rates. In my opinion, it would be a great idea for a title switch before it to get the fans more interested. The fans would tune in jus to see how they would play it out. The match may have lost credibility since it already has been seen, but it would draw massive heat. For example, the face is the champ, the RAW before the PPV the face loses the title to the heel. On the PPV the face wins it back. That would be a good way to get the fans interested.

Those short little title reigns never do anything for the champion or the championship. Remember Edge after New Years Revolution? The fans loved the switch, but after Cena won it back three weeks later, it made Edge look like a fluke. That reign was pretty pointless, it just gave Cena someone to wrestle at the Rumble, which could have been anyone.

The fans did not get bored of the reigns. Those were different times. The fans didn't think that it would be possible to have the champ defend his title every four weeks. I admit it could get boring, but it's all about the feud. If you stretch one feud throught the entire reign it will get boring, if you chop it up, and make morefeuds, it'll be intresting. And before you go back to saying that there used to be only 4 PPV's, those were different times. The fans changed, and so did the business.

The reigns in the Attitude Era were shorter, because there were more wrestlers capable of being champion. Thats why they didn't get stale. This is getting confusing because I think ultimately we both agree long title reigns are better. However, I think you are misunderstanding my posts. I agree that if someone is going to be champ for a year that they have to feud with multiple stars, thats a must. The reason I'm bringing up the four PPV's a year argument is because it made long title reigns the norm. This is what I grew up with, this is what I'm used to. I am all for long title reigns, but with a PPV every month and the short attention span of the average fan, I'm in the minority.

 

[Agrex]

Those short little title reigns never do anything for the champion or the championship. Remember Edge after New Years Revolution? The fans loved the switch, but after Cena won it back three weeks later, it made Edge look like a fluke. That reign was pretty pointless, it just gave Cena someone to wrestle at the Rumble, which could have been anyone.

Without a doubt in my mind that was avery good move by the WWE. When Edge won the title it gave him massive heat. That title win solidified him as atrue heel. During Edge's 1st title reign RAW received it's highest ratings in 5 years. Yes, it's true. You say it's pointless, but yet it gave WWE ratings, because the fans wanted to see what would happen next. In my opinion, it did not matter when Edge lost the title because he already pulled off something huge.

The reigns in the Attitude Era were shorter, because there were more wrestlers capable of being champion. Thats why they didn't get stale. This is getting confusing because I think ultimately we both agree long title reigns are better. However, I think you are misunderstanding my posts. I agree that if someone is going to be champ for a year that they have to feud with multiple stars, thats a must. The reason I'm bringing up the four PPV's a year argument is because it made long title reigns the norm. This is what I grew up with, this is what I'm used to. I am all for long title reigns, but with a PPV every month and the short attention span of the average fan, I'm in the minority.

Yeah, I guess we can both agree on that.

 

[midgensa]

I have read a lot of these and see some good arguments ... but for me it is simply WHATEVER makes sense and WHATEVER makes $$$. There are plenty of short title reigns that I think were GREAT (Edge's first led to a drawn out feud with Cena where he was also champion again later in the year). I personally did not mind Mankind's last reign (only one day), because it helped put over the desperation of Triple H to win his first title.
And there are some long reigns that have gotten a little too long I think (and no ... I dont dislike Cena's reigns). I thought Rey keeping the belt for 112 days was WAY too long. He kept getting his butt whooped on SD! but keeping the belt? And I thought Batista's long reign was a little too lengthy, but did not bother me too much.
To me it is all about what makes sense. I really have not had too many problems with most of the title reigns in the last few years.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

The trick with Championship reigns on whether they're worth being long or short, is how well the Champion at the time, is getting over with the fans.. and how much everything becomes believable, or just predictable.

John Cena's damn near 2 year Championship reign, would be the perfect example of too much, too long, and stale toward the latter portion of a year of it. It was hot when it happened, in 2005. I expected him to drop the Championship before the following Mania, which to a degree (for 3 weeks) he did.. however I didn't expect him to instantly reclaim it, then proceed to hold onto it for another several month time period.. only to drop it again, then reclaim it within 3 monthes of that. All of that, is far too much.

Then, the extreme opposite would be Edge's first World Championship reign, all of 3 weeks and dropping it back to the same guy. (Very similar, and pointless, to the Kane one night reign in 98) Whats the point of giving someone the Championship, the HEAVYWEIGHT Championship, if they're only gonna drop it back to the person they won it from, within a month? I think all that does, is hurt the person winning only to lose it, as well as cripples the legacy of the World Championship.

When you look in history books, you're gonna wanna say.. wow, "_?_" held it from here until here.. thats a nice reign. You aren't gonna want to see "Edge - 3 week reign" then "Cena regains." Its stupid, pointless, and moronic. And the only reason it happened, was because they wanted the Money in the Bank to mean something.. but they didn't want Edge to have his moment that soon. So, you get a stupid decision.

Overall I think a nice Championship reign should be between 6-11 monthes. Never a year, unless the guy is just endlessly getting over with the fans. 6-11 monthes allows the Champion to go through several feuds, and be viewed as a credible Champion.

 

[tarp]

Long title reings. I am a Ric Flair fan diehard. During his early reigns they were long. The fans were always asking will this be the night Flair goes down? Fans truly cared about the matches. I think for it to work it has to be held by a heel. I know Hogans title reigns worked also but everyone knew he would hold on to the title 9 out of ten times. The same was true with Flair but he had to steal or victory alot of the times(at least that's how it was played). There would be much more excitement if we didn't know what would happen. I am a HHH fan and I think he wins the title at Wrestlemania and turns heel within a month. It will then be he and Cena facing off for a while. I hope they find a way to throw JBL in the scenairo. His title reign was great. Also a HBK/HHH feud would be nice again.

 

[scorpionz_venom]

The problem with shorter title reigns, is that it can create too many "former champs". There was a time when EVERYBODY on the Raw card was a former champ. Think about it, Angle, Austin, Taker, Kane, Big Show, HHH, Y2J. I think it cheapens the title if every wrestler had it at one time within the last couple of years. Even though most of those guys are legit champ material/main eventers, if it all happens within a span of a couple of years, it makes the belt mean less. What if Kennedy, JHardy, MVP, MHardy, Carlito, Lashley (hypothetical), Khali, Punk, Umaga, Morrison, Chavo, Shelton, Burke, and Finley were all first time champs within the next year and a half? Everybody says they want these guys over but if they all get a strap, then the belt's no more than a hot potato. That said, I will admit that long reigns can get old, but it looks better than someone being a 7-time champ in one year.

 

[astrawish]

i like short title reigns instead of long ones because then you never know who's gonna win like a good match would be chuck palumbo vs. MVP For the U.S Title Because MVP Isn't Even Defending The Title They Even put him in the elimination chamber at no way out butif they put chuck palumbo he would defend it well cause he isn't world champ material yet
if you have a myspace account click on both of these links and add me
http://myspace.com/chuck_palumbo_fanbase
http://myspace.com/eddie_guerrero_fansite_ok

 

[PhenomAJJones]

Long title reings. I am a Ric Flair fan diehard. During his early reigns they were long. The fans were always asking will this be the night Flair goes down? Fans truly cared about the matches. I think for it to work it has to be held by a heel. I know Hogans title reigns worked also but everyone knew he would hold on to the title 9 out of ten times. The same was true with Flair but he had to steal or victory alot of the times(at least that's how it was played). There would be much more excitement if we didn't know what would happen. I am a HHH fan and I think he wins the title at Wrestlemania and turns heel within a month. It will then be he and Cena facing off for a while. I hope they find a way to throw JBL in the scenairo. His title reign was great. Also a HBK/HHH feud would be nice again.

The thing bout Long title reigns is after a certain peroid of time people won't watch ur show if they are champion for 1 year cause they know that the guy is gonna win if he is champion for that long.

 

[Total Impact]

The thing bout Long title reigns is after a certain peroid of time people won't watch ur show if they are champion for 1 year cause they know that the guy is gonna win if he is champion for that long.

Not always, as you could have the Hogan/Cena effect. That is in WCW, Hogan held the belt for a year and people tuned to see him lose the belt. Same with Cena as many people to see if Edge could do it, could HBK do it, Umaga or Orton could do it. With Cena's luck he did it to himself.

 

[healyz84]

For me I like longer reigns because I think those add credibility to both the wrestler and the title. Sure it eventually becomes stale, but thats if you have those insanely long reigns. Im talking about reigns that last 8-9 months, ie someone winning at mania and holding it until survivor series or something. Short reigns are helpful too, to create suspense and unpredictability. The problem as I see it is that the ppv's, have what 12, 13, 14 ppv's a year(whatever its at now) is just too much, and as people have said it does not build feuds enough. I especially hate when they have the same title matches 2, 3, or 4 times in a row, especially when the end result is generally the same, makes it way too much predictable. I've said it all along, and of course this will never fly with the economics and vastness behind it, but the way to solve the problem is to have the end to the brand extension. Have all the wrestlers on one roster, one world title. In this way, there will be many short reigns because you will have all the top stars continuously gunning for the titles. With this you would not need as many ppv's because the television shows could be put together like a ppv, help boost ratings for sure. There could be 6 ppv's a year, with the main ones being mania, the rumble, summerslam, survivor series, and then a couple more intertwined, such as backlash(just because of its aftermath for mania) then possible a ppv in june just to have something in between backlash and summerslam. Instead of No Way Out there could be a Saturday Night Main Event which would help set up for mania. If you look at it right now, even the undercard titles, IC and US, are stuck in long reigns with people who are on the threshold of being in the main title hunt but still need the credibility. It ruins it because for one looking at the past I dunno how many ppv's, the IC title has not been defended, thus prolonging a title reign that really has no point. The IC title hasn't been defended since Umaga defended it at Summerslam, and thats ridiculous. So with a combined roster, there would be only one undercard title, and you would have a number of undercard wrestlers who could challenge for the title, thus having many title reigns with a long title reign thrown in here and there.

 

[L4L]

A long title reign is great as long as the champion puts on great match after great match with there opponents. The WWE's title matches are weak and very predictable. I would rather watch TNA world title matches cause the quality is simply better and thats why TNA is working with NJPW and a company like ROH works with NOAH and Dragon Gate cause they have wrestlers who can wrestle.

 

[rookie]

well it sort of depends. lets say this is what i would liek for the next ten years.2008:4-5 month reigns this goes until mid 2009 wher we have a miny 2 motnh reign, then have another two montyh reign and the have a long reign in 2011 for about9-15 months. thtas what i liek but to answer the question more spefically i like 4-6 months reigns because then you can always see another person hold gold

 

[Phreek]

I'm stuck in the middle on this. I like short reigns because they add a little bit more drama excitement. I thought Edge's month long title run was good. What I got out of it, was that Edge was good enough to beat Cena. It gave him a little bit more credibility. Then they went into the PPV, and you weren't exactly sure who would come out on top. It added excitement to the feud, which is a good.

 

[builder]

I think that the WWE should focus on aweasome feuds between wrestlers consistently putting on great matches as their separate main events. I.e insted of the main event of Raw always being a title based event, (save for hardy vs michaels) have a really high profile feud, with aweasome promos and attacks backstage i.e ATTITUDE ERA.

(You may not have noticed but one of the huge things different separating us from the attitude era is GOOD backstage segments. beatdowns etc, not Mcmahon talking complete SHIT.

People like Michaels Kennedy MVP Orton Cena hhh even Hardy shit most of the roster does not have to be engaged in title feuds. How about a really well written storyline with some good acting and not to much cheesey shite mixed with some really good spots and shocks.

This way the title picture could be much more varied and bring up other guys. Think about it, Kane (gets in lean shape) heel turn, takes on Taker in intense rivalary for MONTHS resulting in aweasome spots and backstage segments. Heavyweight champ being Kane.

Simple, long reiging champs balanced by the rare shocker and title change on a normal show i.e 2wice a year.

 

[fearthewrath2000]

the problem with long title reigns, is that people are such dope heads now, that they don't have any kind of attention span to look at one champion for longer than 2 or 3 months before they start losing interest. So they hafta keep the belt movin

 

[TheOneBigWill]

the problem with long title reigns, is that people are such dope heads now, that they don't have any kind of attention span to look at one champion for longer than 2 or 3 months before they start losing interest. So they hafta keep the belt movin

I hardly think its because people are "dope heads" as you've refered to them as. I think its more because today's business is tougher to be a Champion in, simply because you have to maintain the attention of the audience a lot harder.

Not because they're thicker minded, but instead because single's match after single's match gets old, quick. And your gimmick also makes a world of difference. If you don't have the look, the attitude, the charisma, the skills, and the overall ability to maintain your spot on the top.. then you don't deserve to be there for very long.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I dont think its the length of title reighns that is grating, such as the booking of them. I like long title reighns a lot, as they add prestige to a title, and its subsequent title change. But many will not enjoy them if not booked correctly. A lot of people become aggravated with John Cenas reighn, becuase most of his matches are booked in an extremely predictable, and simular fashion. You dont ever really hear anyone complain about MVPs year long US title reighn, becuase it has been highly entertaining, so much so that you dont even realize he has HAD the belt for so long. His run has been booked more interestingly, to a broad division of the fan base. I think its the booking of the matches and feuds that make a title reighn what it is, and if u can keep things entrtaining and fresh, then reighns can carry on for an extremely long time and still be good.

 

[PWAQfan]

I've gotta agree with most stuff said on here but it really depends on the wrestler and how quick speed and non-repetetive they keep a fued going or a persons style.
I'd like to see WWE get a working agreement with some other companies (from japan or mexico) and get a fighting champion taking on anyone from anywhere...that kinda stuff never gets old cause you can have little one month, two week fueds with certain international and well known wrestelrs, making it very un-predictable.

Take Dory Funk Jr. he held the AWA title (i think or NWA) for the second longest time in history and never was he boring cause alot of his fueds were loosely based around the title, but more focused around him and his ability. which is what wrestling should be about but McMahon thinks, aslong as we see the guy whos raking in most money raking in more it's fine and dandy.

 

[Unrated Superstar]

Has anybody noticed how world title reigns have gotten longer at times over the years?

Now granted, not every title reign is long now. Edge was champion for what, half a month in his first reign? Undertaker was just champion for about a month before being stripped of the title. Just a couple of examples of short ones.

But there have also been some title reigns of lengths you never would have seen during, say, the attitude era and a couple years beyond. For a good number of years, a 4-month world title reign was about as long as it got. I defy you to name one champion from the beginning of 99 (I'm pretty sure it was going the same for some time before that, but that's about when I started watching) until Austin's reign after beating the Rock at Wrestlemania 17 in 2001 that lasted for more than 3 successful pay-per-view defenses.

But since then, we've had a number of champions who lasted longer than that. Austin, Triple H, JBL, Batista, John Cena, Randy Orton, and so on.

So, which do you prefer?

Personally, I prefer shorter reigns and more title changes. I'm a sucker for a title change. There's always an electric feeling when a new champion is crowned. Besides, I think it gets stale when someone is at the top for too long, no matter who it is.

So, longer or shorter?

 

[PDecicco]

Longer. Definitely longer.

If you're good enough to win the championship, you shuld be good enough to successfully defend it.

Now some shorter reigns are good. A transitional champ is needed every so often. But I also think a transitional champ should be an established main eventer so it doesn't hurt the prestige of the belt.

If there's a new champ every time the title is defended it just makes the champions, IMO, look weak. Cena was the champ for forever and a day. Love him or hate him he was dominant as a champion and story-wise he looked like a a person worthy of being a champion.

Had he not been hurt, when a new champion was crowned it would mean a lot more because they dethroned a person who proved he was better than everyone.

(please leave personal feelings about him aside)

A new champion every few defenses makes the champions look weak, therefore decreasing the title's prestige.

 

[kevib04s]

I always felt that the short reigns during the attitude era slightly cheapened the prestige of the belt, and made the lower titles (IC, Euro) even less worthy. Before you would work your way up to the world title scene with winning the IC, where as during the attitude era you would be built after a quick world title reign.

With that said, I also dont mind short reigns if they are an extended program between two superstars like when the Rock and HHH went back and forth for the better part of a year, and what they hopefully will do with HHH and Orton.

 

[Prince Punk]

I honestly like both short and long reigns but I view it more as how the champ defends the title for instance MVP's title reign was not that special as after Matt hardy went down he didn't really defend the title as much x: If its someone who can tell a great story while holding the title and when they have a good chaser and keep things fresh it is great for them to have a long title reign and can raise the title up. but take the tag titles for instance for the longest time they were just being used as glorified jobbers to the main eventers so not only were there no tag teams over the tag titles ment very little and you could have thrown them on a diffrent team every week and no one would have cared. what im saying is, that its all about how over the person/team is and not really as much about how long the reign is that should be considered in it being short or long.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Ive always said its not quanity, but quality. This very much applies here. Long title reighns are best for the buisness, and prestige of a title, becuase it indicates superiority of the guy who is carrying it, and makes it a way bigger deal when he finally loses it. The only way this can work though, is if the feuds and matches, and angles, are kept fresh. As long as the reighn is entertaining, and stays fresh, the longer the better. The champ has to hold on to it for a long time, but yet, feel as if he COULD loose it at any given defense for the reighn to stay good, and entertaining. Long title reighns are great, as long as they can be kept entertaining.

 

[Derf]

I think length plays an important roll in this debate. i mean yeah, Ric Flair held the title 16 times, but that also means h lost it 16 times. Bad example,v I know, but an example no less. As long as the titles are being defended regularly, and to different people (no more repeating the ME of each PPV four times a year, three in a row) then I prefer length. But if people don't defend them (hence Gregory Helms & Trish Stratus's year long reigns) then good redince when they finally do lose em.

 

[Hillman]

Both have ups and downs. For long title reigns, it adds credibility to the wrestler. However, having the same champion for a long time is also bad because we fans get bored of it. For example, look at John Cena. He had a year long title reign and defended it at almost all of the PPVs. It adds to his credibility as a maineventer. However, a lot of fans complained that Cena had a long title reign and they were sick of him as champ.

Number of title reigns also adds credibility to the wrestler because he has managed to reach the pinnacle on numerous occasions. At the same time, he has fallen off the pinnacle many times. But the good part is, people remember that a wrestler has a lot of title reigns.

Everyone goes around saying "Ric Flair - 16 time World Champion." No one goes around saying "Bruno Sammartino - 7 year reign as World Champion."