Thread Tools

MCote900 · 10-20-2012, 02:07 PM

I truly believe that there needs to be a mix....I agree that longer reigns give the title and the champion more credibility but you also need short title reigns....without the short title reigns the longer ones aren't as impressive....CM Punk's title reign is impressive mainly because its length is a rarity these days....

CM Punk has been champion for almost 340 days....that wouldnt have been as impressive if the former champion held it for like 320, then the guy before him held it for 330, and then the guy before that held it for like 280....ect....

They fact that we havent had a 300+ day reign of a WWE champion since Cena's 2007 reign makes CM Punk's reign impressive....

So short reigns can be as important as long reigns and are necessary for the titles image as well...Its like they always say: "Its easier to get to the top than stay at the top."

**James1o1o** · 10-20-2012, 02:24 PM

What I don't like about the WHC, is the fact they have had Sheamus vs Del Rio in some form of match every single PPV since Over the Limit.

Wrestling02370 · 10-20-2012, 02:54 PM

Ive been loving the longer title reigns

Sarcasm1 · 10-20-2012, 02:58 PM

Its only good if its entertaining. Sheamus title reign does not fit that category.

**SoupBro** · 10-20-2012, 03:57 PM

Its great as long as ur superstar is champ though to most on here. You hear about how awful Punks reign was but during this whole time he has put on some amazing matches with Cena,Ziggler, Bryan and even one with Mark Henry. Ppl are so used to short reigns tbey get tired of longer ones.

Ive enjoyed both reigns of Punk and Sheamus moreso Punks because of the challengers and stories he's been. felt in the millions of matches Sheamus had with Del Rio he should have atleast lost once. It was like Orton and Christian, all amazing matches but Randy going over in everyone wasnt great.

WashingtonD · 10-20-2012, 07:51 PM

The problem with long reigns is it creates only one star, a la Hulk Hogan in the 80's/90's and CM Punk right now. Ignore the fact Cena is already a huge name, who else on the "Raw brand" (if it even exists anymore) is anywhere near CM Punk right now (in a kayfabe sense)?

I prefer an "Attitude Era" approach, in where you have 2-3 top guys feuding with the belt (Rock, Austin, Triple H), then you have the 2nd tier who can pick up the belt on occasions (Mankind, Big Show etc.).

It creates more stars, meaning I will want to watch the whole show, rather than just the main event segments.

**WOOLCOCK** · 10-20-2012, 08:16 PM

They're slowly working harder to establish their champions as dominators in each division, e.g Bryan and Kane picking up wins against combinations of uppercard workers as well as established teams, Cesaro working short enough matches that establish his dominance whilst still serving a purpose in not being a total squash etc.

The problem is though neither Sheamus or Punk have been put in a position where their title programs have been treated as well as they should be. Between Sheamus having a sterile program with Del Rio and his character becoming overbearingly cheesy and cartoony compared to the initial face turn in July of 2011, and Punk forced to play second fiddle to Cena's feuds neither title still really feels as special as it should do, which is a shame because both Sheamus and Punk from an in ring perspective have done really well to carry themselves as credible champions fending off challenge after challenge. Sheamus has had the Bryan matches, the Ziggler matches, the Jericho SD match, the Tensai mini series, the Del Rio feud wasn't stellar but the matches were by no means horrible, just average. Even the Barret program has produced some very stellar TV matches and Punk has had some really top notch matches in his run, even if 90% of the feuds have been poorly written and booked to get the audience to care.

I guess what I'm saying is that WWE is taking a step in the right direction by making their champions have established reigns instead of hot-shotting the belt from person to person. However, in order for championship reigns to truly become special, more thought has to go not just into the booking and writing of the characters and feuds, but also in establishing contenders for eventual matches. This is most pressing for Cesaro and Bryan/Kane. Cesaro's matches on Raw have been really well booked in making him look dominant and a class above each opponent whilst still being competitive enough that they're not a bogstandard squash. However WWE also need to be booking the likes of Kidd, Gabriel, Christian (upon return), Dibiase and other lowercard babyfaces better so that fans can get invested in each of them and then build to an eventual Cesaro title match. If they don't work better at establishing possible contenders, then Cesaro is merely having good matches with guys the audience have little reason to believe as a biable threat, and therefore it'll lessen whatever impact and momentum he could build for himself.

Cena's reign from September 06-October 07 and Batista's reign from April 05-January 06 are how you book long reigns which actually serve a purpose in developing the prestige of the champion and the title. Cena's feuds against Umaga, HBK, Orton, Lashley and Khali were booked well enough that you got invested in the program and match, and the title was firmly established as the centre of the feud: added to that the love/hate divide in the Cena character as well as WWE's resolve to make him the star attraction of the show, and the title has never looked as good as it has done during that reign.

Punk, Sheamus, Cesaro and Bryan/Kane can all do their bit to produce good matches, good performances and good segments but until creative and the commentators do a better job at working on the challengers and getting the wrestlers over its not looking likely that any of the champions will breach that glass ceiling and truly elevate their championships, regardless of how well each is performing.

austin316 G.O.A.T · 10-20-2012, 08:23 PM

Long title reigns make title prestigious

Shawn Morrison · 10-21-2012, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoupMan Prime

Its great as long as ur superstar is champ though to most on here. You hear about how awful Punks reign was but during this whole time he has put on some amazing matches with Cena,Ziggler, Bryan and even one with Mark Henry. Ppl are so used to short reigns tbey get tired of longer ones.

Ive enjoyed both reigns of Punk and Sheamus moreso Punks because of the challengers and stories he's been. felt in the millions of matches Sheamus had with Del Rio he should have atleast lost once. It was like Orton and Christian, all amazing matches but Randy going over in everyone wasnt great.

dont really think Sheamus/Del-Rio is comparable to Orton/Christian at all. Christian did win back the title once with Orton, also pinned him quite a few times on the weekly shows. In Sheamus's situation he couldn't lose because had had to have a long title reign. But thats not the point. Orton/Christian was really entertaining, their matches were entertaining/great quality (Much better than Del-Rio/Sheamus), also their feud was much much better and made Smackdown entertaining to watch even after Edge's retirement, and it had a great conclusion in the no holds barred match at Summerslam. Del Rio/Sheamus however was boring as f*ck, not a single week i enjoyed their feud, both of them have bland gimmicks and everyone wanted so many different opponents for Sheamus, not a single person asked for Del-Rio. In the Orton/Christian feud people actually wanted to see Christian go for the title and it was the best duo for a feud, isn't exactly the same case with Sheamus/Del-Rio.

Defei · 10-21-2012, 08:16 PM

They need better heels/faces as opponents.