WWE Championship: Feuds = Title Changes

[Tequila Dave]

A lot of people on this forum complain about short title reigns. While I admit that this irks me considerably too, I feel as though a lot of people forget that frequent title changes aren’t a new thing. For example, look at November 1998 to November 1999 when the belt changed hands 13 times. But that’s the Attitude Era, so it’s okay…right?

I digress. I want to use this thread to focus on the thing that is starting to really get to me about the WWE Championship – even more so than the three week reigns – the fact that almost every feud for the belt results in one (or more) title change. Think about it. It all began in 2008 when Edge inserted himself into a Triple Threat match for the WWE Championship – winning the match and ending Triple H’s 210 day reign. (You can skip the following paragraphs if you know what I'm talking about. Or if you don't like reading.)

He went on to feud with Hardy, losing and regaining the belt in a matter of months. He then lost it to Triple H in an Elimination Chamber. Mr. Nose began an intense feud with Orton, eventually leading to a title change at Backlash. After clashing at Judgement Day, Orton would lose the belt to Batista at Extreme Rules.

Two days later, Batista got injured (surprise, surprise) and Orton became champion again. He continued his feud with Triple H for a couple of months before Cena got thrown into the fray. It was then Cena vs. Orton time, and the two passed the belt back and forth like it was an unwanted baby.

Cena emerged victorious, and after a minifeud with Dx, ended up losing the belt to newcomer Sheamus at TLC. Sheamus managed to make one successful PPV defence against Orton before losing the belt back to Cena at Elimination Chamber. That didn’t last long, as immediately after Batista was granted a match and regained the belt. This didn’t last long either, as Cena took it back at Wrestlemania and won a lengthy feud. A month after this was over with, he lost the belt back to Sheamus.

After getting rid of Cena, Sheamus had a number of clashes with Orton and lost the coveted WWE Championship. Orton would fend off Wade Barrett for two months before The Miz cashed in his Money in the Bank and started his 160 reign – during which he concluded his saga with Orton, defended against Jerry Lawler twice, and tied horns with Cena – who he eventually lost the belt to.

Cena would finish his story with the Miz, defend against R Truth, before the whole CM Punk thing began at the beginning of the Summer. Then things got real messy.

Anyway, I’m trying to point out the predictable nature of the Championship recently. Pretty much every feud = a title change. I’m not saying this is a new thing, I’m just bringing it to your attention because…well, because I have nothing better to do.

Is this something that you’ve noticed too?
What are your thoughts on this?
Why do you think WWE is doing this?

 

[a0161613]

This isn't new or eye-catching because it's been the case for a long time now.

I think it's a very lazy approach to booking. I guess it's a massive indictment of the lack of depth caused by the brand split. Unfortunately it's the current approach of using the title as a prop and it is endemic. It's not restricted to WWE because TNA do it too - the post BFG shows were an example of that.

I think the best example of this doesn't involve the title but the MitB briefcase. When Mr Kennedy won it and got injured soon after, the briefcase was taken from him and given to Edge who won the belt from Taker. Kennedy then found out his injury wasn't as serious as suspected and his angle would be unaffected.

I'm not sure whether I would call it predictable, maybe short-sighted would be more accurate. But it's more deep-rooted than just the title. Take Del Rio for example, a hot and interesting new character gets hot-shotted to an unexpected Rumble win, doesn't win the belt on two possible opportunities and then goes on to use the MitB briefcase when his heat has significantly dissipated.

I do think it is a little sad that at least one of the current talent roster is likely to surpass Ric Flairs record. Not because of ability but because of how often the belt is switched.

 

[RicoLen]

Time is relative I guess. I consider this a new thing still. And it's actually better now than it was.

From 1996-99 you had HHH, Austin, Taker, Foley, The Rock, HBK, Sid, Hitman, Kane & Big Show. 10 Champions

10 years earlier from 86-89 you had Andre, Hogan, & Savage.

10 years before that you had Bruno Sammartino, Billy Graham, & Bob Backlund.

From 1966-69 you had only Sammartino.

From 2006-09 you had Edge, Cena, RVD, Orton, HHH, Jeff Hardy, Batista, Sheamus. Only 8. That's less than the Attitude era.

I think the reason they do it is because people get pissed off these days when you don't have a clean victory during a pay-per-view match. Invariably you get a huge outcry among the fans every time a title match ends in a DQ or a count-out, which is completely stupid because that is how you keep a feud going, historically speaking. If you get a clean victory the feud is over, X-person won the match and Y-person needs to move on and start over again.

Obviously there's another equally large contributor to why this happens these days, and it's because there are now several times more pay-per-view events each year than there were before. With more events come a need to speed up storyline development and high profile opportunities to do something memorable with the title.

However, as this thread demonstrates it's come back to bite them in the ass. More and more people are jaded towards the last 15 years of hot-potato after having seen such an emphasis in respect to those champions that came prior and the long and prestigious title reigns they had.

It seems like with as many championship titles as they have, they should be able to get away with having the WWE title at the very least only trade places once a year on average. I know critics will say something along the lines of why buy a PPV if the title's not going to change place, but we're only talking about one title, the most important one with the most prestige, and I think it would do that title a world of good to stop being traded around so often. Besides that the more title defenses a champion has the better the champion looks as well. Better to defend 15 times before dropping the title and then not getting it again for a few years, than to win it 15 times only to lose it on your first defense... at least that my opinion.

 

[Azane]

The title picture for the last couple years has been a way for Vince to push Cena over Flair in the record books.

WWE has been trying to push 'young' guys into the title picture, rather than having an established main event flow (IC title being worthless anyone?)

You have guys like Sheamus, Jack Scthwagger and ADR (Not young, but new to the company) getting title runs very quickly and WWE tries to promote them through it, Sheamus being a success, Scthwagger being a failure and Alberto being a somewhat failure, but I don't think that ones for sure yet.

The Attitude Era champions were established strong main event players, nobody won the title that wasn't a champion, you had no flops, the list of Attitude champions, every single one is going to the Hall of Fame, while you can already see Swagger isn't heading that direction yet, ADR will be a footnote, and Sheamus has a long way to go to even be mentioned.

On the flip side, 1 year reigns wouldn't mean much if they were standard, the 2 most recent are JBL and John Cena's year long reigns, JBL's took a an average career tag team wrestler to being the best heel in the company, and Cena's year long reign was the point people started noticing him.

But WWE right now is using their prize, their world title as a stepping stone to make new starts, you can't blame them. Right Now WWE is hurting for talent, without giving people shots at the gold, you have Cena and Orton being shoved down your throat as the rest of the MErs retire, but giving Sheamus, Miz, ADR, etc... chances, you now have a list of competitors. Miz without MITB trying to go against Cena at Wrestlemania? Would of been half as good a story as it was with Miz going into WM as champion. Sheamus going from the new guy from ECW to WWE champion in 1 Jesse Ventura speech and 1 broken table? Made him instantly relevant to everyone who hadn't watched ECW when he was being bread.

The Youth movement used world titles to get over, it helped more than it hurt.

As far as predictability goes (I know this is the meat and potatoes of your post, I just sidetracked myself)
Wrestling is predictable, it always has been and always will be. The fun comes when it's so predictable that you get it wrong and get shocked. Punk running around with the title for the entire year? can't wait, especially since the IWC will hate him around April or so. The best way to keep yourself from getting upset over predictability is to stop predicting. You ignored the fact R-Truth didn't win the title while feuding with Cena as well as Miz and Orton's feud, but that's because it would damage the argument.

Making the WWE title change hands only yearly would just mean we'd be waiting for the year to be up, for truly dynamic title reigns, we need them to be completely random. 5 minute reigns vs 25 year reigns? sure. Trying to give them specific time and dates isn't any good for business, Creative/Vince whomever is booking the title swaps does it when they believe it's right, now just to crunch the numbers. Punk's feud might fizzle, everyone's excited now, but it's only another 2 or 3 months before everyone hates him like they did Cena, Orton etc....

 

[Tommy Terrific]

The lack of talent in the WWE is jumps out to me the most. If you think about it honestly, whos really worthy of a yer long title reign? Cena? Orton? I mean c'mon the top heel in the company is Mark Henry. The same guy who gave birth to a hand. The top heel reaction comes from Vickie Guerrero. In the words of the Miz ,"Really?" Now that could be a booking problem or it could be a lack of effort by some of the superstars.

Now Cena, Orton, top 2, clearly ahead of everyone else. Punk has added himself to that list, now lets see if he can maintain it. Now granted, the loss of Edge to injury really hurt the top tier, but it forces the booking to finally give talent a chance. Currently the only way to get talent noticed is by them winning a championship, shock tactic if you will. The internet was another way ie. Zack Ryder and Daniel Bryan, but with WWE going viral it sorta kills that buzz. The most exciting thing in WWE is clearly the MitB title change. As far as frequent title changes go, I do not mind them, as long as theres a point. Positives being the Miz, Sheamus. Negatives being Batista, Rey Mysterio (the title turning was a joke)

Have to admit that I have 90% percent success rate when it comes to guessing WWE storylines. The last time I was really shocked was the Nexus and before that, when HBK kicked Stan. LMAO!!!!! Those moments, as few as they are, make me watch every week. Things arent really that bad. As far as title changes go, I would love to see a year long reign, when warranted. Tell me who deserves it..... my point exactly.

 

[#1HEEL]

Time is relative I guess. I consider this a new thing still. And it's actually better now than it was.

From 1996-99 you had HHH, Austin, Taker, Foley, The Rock, HBK, Sid, Hitman, Kane & Big Show. 10 Champions

10 years earlier from 86-89 you had Andre, Hogan, & Savage.

10 years before that you had Bruno Sammartino, Billy Graham, & Bob Backlund.

From 1966-69 you had only Sammartino.

From 2006-09 you had Edge, Cena, RVD, Orton, HHH, Jeff Hardy, Batista, Sheamus. Only 8. That's less than the Attitude era..

And furthermore to this point, RVD held it how long? Jeff Hardy was WWE champ for like 5 minutes and Sheamus held it a month.

This era was all about Triple H, Cena, Orton & Edge (Batista too but he was WHC).

I think the World titles need to be utilised better, or even just more like the World Heavyweight Championship, but it's far less of a hot potato, each year at least 2 people get a decent length reign with that belt, and I think the last decade (post HHH) will prove that.

I think it's time to settle down with the belt. Let Punk hold it, let Ziggler have a lengthy reign, or the Miz another good one.

Stop giving to Cena for a month seriously.