Thread Tools

**NoyK** · 10-01-2012, 09:09 PM

It seems that WWE is bringing them back. Punk has been holding the WWE Title since Survivor Series last year, and Sheamus since Wrestlemania.

Do you think this is a good thing?

In my personal opinion, I think yes. It gives the titles more credibility and the title changes are bigger when they happen, which in return might bring in higher ratings.

What's your take on this?

Xiphias · 10-01-2012, 09:15 PM

I think the quality of the product has absoultely ZERO correlation to the length of title reigns.

- Lots of title changes due to entertaining plot twists / storylines + a boatload of stars worthy of the gold = welcome to Attitude Era. Good thing.
- Lots of title changes since the product is stale as shit and hardly anyone gets over (since the wrestlers are failures or because the writers don't give a shit), meaning that the titles are used as an artificial prop to get somebody over rather than the reward for being over = Bad thing.

- Few title changes due to title changes being unneccessary to keep the product interesting, and because the titleholder is really making the reign great = Good thing.
- Few title changes because the WWE creative team are too pussy to give anyone but a couple of stars the strap, or because nobody else is worth of the strap = Bad thing.

TL;DR irrelevant.

austin316 G.O.A.T · 10-01-2012, 09:53 PM

**JOAL.com** · 10-01-2012, 09:57 PM

I hate long title reigns that get stale and boring

But i also hate short reigns where the title is hotshotted and the loses prestige

any idea who i am?

Correct, im a smark who will never be satisfied and will always complain no matter what! hooray!

now if only we had a long short title reign, then we'd be set. also, we should win things by watching

**JeffHardyFanatic88** · 10-01-2012, 11:02 PM

I don't mind long reigns to be honest, I do get tired of constant title wins here and there so its nice to see a long championship reign. However over killing long reigns can be ridiculous too though. I remember when Trish was Women's champion for over a year. I love Trish but even I got sick of that...her reign ended nicely with the Mickie feud but Trish should never of been champion for that long to begin with, when she got injured with Viscera she should of been stripped of the title and then had her re win it when she returned.
I like Punks current reign and am happy to see a long WWE title reign, but yeah I am sure I will get sick of it eventually.

**Bullseye** · 10-01-2012, 11:58 PM

As long as they are kept interesting, then long reigns are amazing. Makes it all the more sweeter when said champion is dethroned (e.g. Austin at No Mercy 2001, Cena at RR 2006). However, when their is healthy competition and lots of contenders, short reigns are also acceptable, so long as it doesn't become like it did in 2007 iirc with Cena and Orton exchanging it back and forth for 5 months.

**scrilla** · 10-02-2012, 12:06 AM

this is the best long title reign in years so i'm good with it. obvious flaws though i.e. MEing like two PPVs lol. still as great as JBL was, i remember the majority of his matches being SHIT and BORING AS FUCK during his year long reign. same with Cena who had the only one after that I believe. Nash's was fucking shit. Savage's was probably good, but i haven't seen much of it.

Kabraxal · 10-02-2012, 12:16 AM

If they are booked properly, then I don't mind long title reigns. If Punk hadn't been pushed into the mid card this past year, it could have been a decent lengthy run. But this Cena centric product derailed any chance of such a title reign making waves.

And the fact there have been lengthy reigns done well in recent the past year and half elsewhere in the world, and even in the past decade with the WWE, shows that long reigns can work... it just takes a talented and savvy booker to understand when to have a long reign and when to let the title scene be a little chaotic. Neither are inherently bad.

**Greenlawler** · 10-02-2012, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kabraxal

If they are booked properly, then I don't mind long title reigns. If Punk hadn't been pushed into the mid card this past year, it could have been a decent lengthy run. But this Cena centric product derailed any chance of such a title reign making waves.

And the fact there have been lengthy reigns done well in recent the past year and half elsewhere in the world, and even in the past decade with the WWE, shows that long reigns can work... it just takes a talented and savvy booker to understand when to have a long reign and when to let the title scene be a little chaotic. Neither are inherently bad.

Good post, agreed.

AS long as the title run focuses on the actual title either can be great. In the attitude era the short title runs were fabulous because you had so many guys all trying to win the belt, the company revolved around the title.

Long title runs are great if the title run establishes the guy as a champion calibur wrestler.

When the title is de-emphasized and in the mid-card it is not great.

In the territory days you had both depending on what the philosphy of the company was. They all worked as long as the title was what every wrestler aimed for.

nikola123 · 10-02-2012, 12:52 AM

Long WWE title reigns would be a good thing if WWE knew how to make intresting feuds that dont involve any titles....