Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,070 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Do you think the whole purpose of having a a champion go on a long title run is to do the above.

I imagine if you asked a lot of casual fans or worldwide fans or kid fans who the WWE Champion was they would probably say Cena based on the fact over the last 6/7 years Cena has spent a long time or multiple times as WWE champion.

And for that to change you have to put the belt on somebody and stick it to them for a long time for the ripple effect to eventually spread across the world. The longer you have the belt on somebody the more TV appearances the Champion has, the more likely merch is going to be made with said champion with the belt and eventually the word slowly spreads that there is another legitimate guy in the WWE.

I would say this effect would start immediately but would take biggest effect 3 years after that persons main title run, I think a lot of Cenas popularity was gained when he really became the top guy around 3 years ago, and all the initial ground work of long multiple title runs pays off now.

If this is the case I imagine that the first month of someones title reigns a trial run to see how they handle it and whether it goes over well with the fans, and also whether a long title run will benefit the company in the long run.

This could be reasons why Alberto Del Rio title run was so short.

Obviously a long title run is good for making superstars and I think it shows WWE's intent in making another major star by putting the belt on CM Punk for so long. CM Punks long title reign is good for legitimizing him as a top talent with all fans across the world and the good thing is he can back it up each week as a fighting champion with some great selling, mic work, phycology and promo.

But on the other hand I think long title reigns are a burden for some and an albatross around their neck take for example The Miz, he had a long title reign and I think WWE why trying to make him a legitimate top talent by putting the belt on him for so long, the problem is he could only back this up every week on the mic, and with this new worldwide spotlight on him is inability to put on a great match due to his lack of in ring ability cost him greatly, to be pushed so far so soon, it will be difficult for him to live up to those loft heights again because they gave him too much too soon rather than building up a long title reign.

My questions are.

Do you think it can be a buden for some and not for other to have lengthy title reigns?
How well do you think it does for the reputation of a superstar holding the title for a long period of time?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
390 Posts
CM punk is a mid card champion at best. If you say WWE, the only thing Casual would say is John cena. The title is a prop which should be on the top draw to legitimize it. When John cena or HHH or Rock or Lesnar are champions, the title is viewed as important part of WWE. With Punk, it becomes irrelevant.

This pathetic reign of Cm punk hasnt elevated him but instead punk has managed to drag the WWE title to the midcard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,070 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
CM punk is a mid card champion at best. If you say WWE, the only thing Casual would say is John cena. The title is a prop which should be on the top draw to legitimize it. When John cena or HHH or Rock or Lesnar are champions, the title is viewed as important part of WWE. With Punk, it becomes irrelevant.

This pathetic reign of Cm punk hasnt elevated him but instead punk has managed to drag the WWE title to the midcard.
your obsession with bringing down Punk is borring, i dont think you read the thread just the title and found an excuse to start a Punk debate.

The whole thread isn't based around Punk he is just used as an example and I dont ant this to become another Punk haters vs Punk marks.

And by your theory Cena would hold the title for the indefinitely, which would be a disaster.
 

·
a Stupid Idea from Bad Creative
Joined
·
24,745 Posts
CM punk is a mid card champion at best. If you say WWE, the only thing Casual would say is John cena. The title is a prop which should be on the top draw to legitimize it. When John cena or HHH or Rock or Lesnar are champions, the title is viewed as important part of WWE. With Punk, it becomes irrelevant.

This pathetic reign of Cm punk hasnt elevated him but instead punk has managed to drag the WWE title to the midcard.
Was going to respond to this but the description under his user name currently sums it up pretty well.

As for your questions OP. It really depends if the guy that getting the long title reign can handle it and if it is booked well or not to determine if it owuld be a "burden" as you put it.

In most cases a long title reign does wonders for a guys reputation, with some exceptions I am sure (if the reign is completely booked terribly or if the guy with the reign himself couldn't handle it) But if the WWE gives you a long title reign, like the one Punk is getting now, it shows that they have obvious faith in you as a superstar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
For some superstars being the wwe champion is a burden because once they drop it they have nothing else to do.
The Cenas and Ortons of the wwe dont feel this burden because they are as of now bigger than both major titles.

For example if Sheamus dropped the title tonight on SD then there is nothing for him to do which makes it seem like these former champions are slipping into obscurity but they are not , the fact is they arent being given the chance to have a legitimate feud with someone unless its for the title.

So for these main eventers who arent on the level of Taker , Cena , Orton and maybe now Punk all they can do is have random meaningless feuds until they get the title.

When Miz was with R-Truth feuding against Rock/Cena/HHH/Punk nobody cared about the fact that his reign wasnt great because he was still relevant. However now that he has literally nothing going for im at the moment it seems like that is because of the burden of being a former champ. However it is actually the burden of having writers who only write good stories for the uber main eventers who I mentioned above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
458 Posts
It matters on the superstar. Some need it some don't
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,044 Posts
I always felt long title reigns where better at getting heels over. IMO, heels with long title reigns play a better role as the hunted, doing any and everything to hold on to the belt.

It's somewhat of a burden for a face to have a long title reign with a lack of top heels. For example, Punk has gone thru everybody on the roster in his title reign. I personally feel he should lose the title to Jericho and go in a different direction, possibly capturing the title again as a heel.

I guess the big reason Cena is bashed so much is due to his many lengthy title reigns in which he defeated everybody and nobody aside from Edge was truly elevated.
 

·
There is no duty we so much underrate as... being
Joined
·
19,154 Posts
Well, we're in an era which doesn't see WWE create new superstars through great, patient and intricate angles and storylines. CM Punk's summer storyline became a disastrous mess; Sheamus was never even given anything resembling a long-running, important storyline for the months in which he was built-up--he simply crushed the competition and that was apparently good enough according to WWE's creative team.

Therefore, more than in a long time, giving new kids like Punk and Sheamus monster title reigns is a good idea. If you can't artfully make somebody through a great storyline--either because you can't think of anything at all or because when you do, it invariably ends up getting completely screwed up for one or a hundred different reasons--it's not an ill-advised move to simply push the living hell out of somebody by buckling the strap around them and letting them run through everybody for the better part of a year or even more. WWE needs those two guys firmly established by next Wrestlemania and it's evident that the only way in which they can doubtless achieve this is by making them the two kings of their respective brands for the time being (we won't get into matter of Cena still remaining the true face/king of Raw, we're talking about kayfabe which is what shifts the mindsets of the more casual fans) and keep them both WWE and World Heavyweight Champion for a good, long while.

This will also help the next heel star(s) WWE choose to unleash, just as Cena's first epic reign ended up being a huge deal for Edge. Wade Barrett, for example, could benefit enormously from being the guy who--after months of the champion coming out on top against everyone in sight--takes the championship away from either Punk or Sheamus around Survivor Series time, let's say.

The real burden to your star-making capabilities is hotshotting the championship and going for hot potato reigns. In some superficial ways I suppose long championship reigns can indeed be a burden, but more often than not, so long as they're fronted by the right people at the right time.
 

·
THE ONE.
Joined
·
5,323 Posts
Im not really a fan of the title run being used to get a babyface over at all. I think the idea of a heel getting a title run to legitimize them is much more beneficial and then letting the babyface chase for months, its not difficult to pin point who the crowd pops for the most when in tag matches etc to see who they want to dethrone the megaheel. the moment the babyface wins the title shold be at a point were their super over enough to not need it even if they just won it.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top