Wrestling Forum banner

what does everyone prefer?

1K views 21 replies 21 participants last post by  spikingspud 
#1 ·
longer, drawn out wwe title reigns etc this year where there will only 3 be champions
or shorter reigns etc wwe 2000 where We title changed hands multiple times and there was an air of unpredictability every time the title was defended?

am not talking a wcw 2000 style clusterfuck but more frequent title changes would gp some way in helping the ratings an breaking the monotonous shows we're getting imo

doesnt just have to be the wwe title can involve others aswell

thoughts?
 
#4 ·
A mixture. A long Title reign can be good if its booked well and most importantly the belt is one someone genuinely charismatic (note: Indy charisma isn't the same thing). But shorter reigns keep things exciting and unexpected. Angle, HHH, Austin, Rock, Taker, Foley, HBK, etc. were trading the WWF Title around nonstop and it kept things exciting and fresh. Last really good long Title reign was JBL's.
 
#5 ·
Depends on the talent. I prefer variation. I enjoyed Punks title reign for nearly two years. Because just like the streak, people like stats. Hence why the AE is my fav era from pro wrestling ever. YOu even had title changing on Raws. One of my fav Raw moments, when Mankind beat Rock on the main event of Raw. You would only see that on PPVS these days, even then.
 
#6 ·
Definitely variation, also depends on the person too though, also I think this year we'll see 4, Reigns will more than likely beat Sheamus at TLC, in any given year I wouldn't want to see any more than 6 changes, it shouldn't be a hot potatoe that changes every month
 
#8 ·
mix bag of nuts for me. have a few relatively short reigns PPV to PPV and a few lasting a few months. i miss seeing world title changes on a Raw like to see a couple a year maybe even through in one for Smackdown get the fans buzzing even a little about that show again. Smackdown was once a great show back in the day lol. might give the ratings a little boost here there
 
#9 ·
The obvious answer like so many above me said...variation. Think about it like this. Having Punk as champion for 434 days was awesome and the right way to go, but having Del Bore-o as champion for 434 days would make any sane man want to blow his brains out.
 
#10 ·
I don't mind long reigns but don't do year-long reigns. The title must change hands during a given year so that people believe there are thing at stake when they watch the PPV.

It would have been better for example even if WWE was high on Rollins that he would have stayed the man but losing the belt and regaining it a couple of times. It would have given the title scene a fresh life and at the same time it would have shown Seth's resilience. Sort of like what happened in the 80s with Ric Flair or in the late 90s with Rock.

If say Ambrose and RR and Cesaro would have won the belt during this period, the fans of these wrestlers would have been pleased somewhat cause you don't have your tongue sticking out waiting for when they will become Champ and also for the WWE it's a good experiment to see if these guys can actually carry the belt. The plan is still Seth but you shake it up a bit and he gets it back anyway.

Also in my opinion it makes for a more energetic show where anything can happen. Rather than the rigid "same guy always have the belt". The Brock and Seth runs in recent years has been one of the worst example of long title reigns. They did everything wrong to make the show long, boring, lifeless.
 
#12 ·
I guess it depends for the long title reigns, it's good if the champion has loads of different and interesting challengers so it doesn't get boring.

If you have too many short title reigns, then the title seems worthless.

So I think a mix of long and short reigns is good.
 
#13 ·
Not a fan of hot potatoing the title. Especially cashing in MITB on a new champion. It's played out at this point.

But long reigns, it depends on the champion. And I honestly think long reigns are better with heel champions, as long as they are good promo guys and have a couple of solid rivals to feud with in that span.
 
#15 ·
Variation is probably best, but I prefer shorter reigns. It makes it more exciting and its more realistic, considering how often the champions put their titles on the line nowadays. In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, champions fought a lot less often. Now that theres 3 hour Raws, Smackdowns, a PPV every month, overseas tours, etc. it's more likely that a champion would lose quicker than they would have in 1985.

Giant reigns should only be utilized for unstoppable forces.
 
#19 ·
Twins. I prefer twins. Especially twins whose ages combined are still less than mine.

I don't care how long or short the title reign is, as long as for once they put it on somebody who will actually give it some credibility. Rollins carrying the WHC for as long as he did was an absolute travesty of a mockery of a sham of a travesty. Of a sham. The whole money in the bank concept has killed whatever value that belt ever had.
 
#21 ·
Mix it up, but mainly short. It's hard to book a long one properly, even Punk, who is charismatic as hell, during his 434 days reign wasn't a on top of his game all the time.
 
#22 ·
If the character is talented enough to hold a variety of changes throughout the long reign (similar to what Punk had done) then its justified but if its a never-ending repetition it'll get old fast. A yo-yo interchange between 2 rivals would be as exciting as it adds competitive legitimacy to their feud.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top