[deadman18]

Do you like a long reign or a short reign? When I say short reign, I mean like 60 to 100 day reigns.

 

[Jupiter Jack Daniels]

For me, it depends on who is the champion.

I don't mind long title reigns for heels but for faces, I rather it be kind of short.

 

[KO Bossy]

As long as its a quality title reign, it doesn't matter to me.

 

[TempestH]

I don't mind short reigns, unless the same guy keeps losing and winning the title back a la Edge.

 

[Felpent]

Long reigns once in a while with a great worker as champion is cool but every title reign as a lengthy one would be unbearable.

 

[Ghost Lantern]

I like the idea of major world champions having long reigns.

the minor titles should be short reigns.

The WWE devalues it's title letting guys get "heat drawing" reigns.

 

[450clash12x]

i only prefer a long reign when the champion loses the title and puts over a talent, instead of a guy like punk losing it to cen

 

[austin316 G.O.A.T]

Long reigns once in a while with a great worker as champion is cool but every title reign as a lengthy one would be unbearable.

But if every reign was about 5-6 months,The only champions would be Cena,Punk and maybe Big Show on Raw

That's sounds good to me


Long reigns make stars credible

Punk may have been over-shadowed initially but now he is quite relevant and has displaced Orton as the second biggest star

 

[Jupiter Jack Daniels]

Just like in the other thread, long reigns don't make credible champions without credible opponents.

Why do you think Diesel in 1995 was a bust?

 

[bobslack1982]

Long reigns are ok, but in the era of 13 PPV events a year, it's an awful decision.

We've had 3 PPVs in a row where the only title change (I can think of) was The Miz v Christian. The US title gets lost in a dark match for crying out loud, and Santino had held that for months.

Eventually people will get bored of seeing the same champion holding on to the belt at every PPV and stop buying.


Sent from my iPod touch using VS Free

 

[Mr.Cricket]

World titles- Long reign.

Midcard titles- Short reign.

 

[TheRainKing]

It all depends on the quality of wrestlers to be honest. As long as the people who are exchanging the belt frequently are worthy champions then its all good.

 

[TripleG]

It depends on who is holding the belt and what the circumstances are.

Iron Sheik needed to be a short reign champion because he needed to be the transition from Backlund to Hogan.

CM Punk was a great option for a long term reign because he's the all around best performer at the moment and it allowed for a lot of fresh matches & feuds along the way. Bobby Roode was also a great option for a long term reign for TNA because it is just easier to drive the storylines if the heel is running with the belt and you have faces to chase him.

A long title reign though can be a killer. Cena's 2007 title reign actually made me quit on Raw until that reign was over. There was no story. It was just the same thing ever month. Heel beats him up, they have the PPV match, five moves of doom, and Cena wins! Hold up belt and play music! It was pretty much just that for a year and by April 07 I had enough.

 

[ffocus]

its not 1988 anymore when you're champ for 400 days. punks title reign is boring and he should drop the title at NoC or HiaC.

 

[TKOK]

I got kinda tired of the title changing hands every 3 months so i don't mind a guy like punk having a long reign.