[Kalin Johnston]

I have been watching older Wrestlemania events all day and it got me thinking...remember when it meant something to be world champion? Back in the day, we didn't have two "world champions." How does that even make sense? World Champion, champion of the world, isn't plural, so why should WWE always have two (one for each brand)? Also, remember when one man would hold the title for years at a time? Even during the attitude era most champions held the title a minimum of six months. I have just recently started watching wrestling again so I looked up the list of past champions and could not believe just how many different people have held the two titles in the last few years and how short most of the reigns are.

Thoughts?

 

[game3525]

I have said it before, they should have never separated the World title. Granted with one champion, we would see the same guys like Cena, Triple H, Orton etc on top. But it would prevent guys who aren't ready(Swagger, the Miz etc.) and the guys who flat out suck(Khali) from getting the title.

 

[reDREDD]

The concept of two World Titles does not make sense. But its needed because otherwise the only champs would be Cena/Orton.

Your post made good points until:

Even during the attitude era most champions held the title a minimum of six months

Bull-fucking-shit.

There were 12 title changes in 1999. Hardly six months each.

The last significant title reign, Cena, had the whole universe turning against him.

 

[CamillePunk]

I don't really care about the important of the world titles so much as the entertainment provided by the feuds themselves. Who cares if the world titles are changing hands if there are awesome promos being cut, great in-ring action, and overall an entertaining product? It's kayfabe, the titles are worthless, what's important is the entertainment. I care more about improving the mic work and the wrestling than whether I feel the fake titles are important enough.

 

[Hotdiggity11]

Even during the attitude era most champions held the title a minimum of six months.

Here's nostalgia clouding the reasoning of someone. From Wrestlemania 14 to Wrestlemania 17 [This is a common timeline of when the Attitude Era began and ended], not one person held the title for 6 months. In fact, the longest reign was 126 days [Barely over 4 months].

 

[pdbq]

i don't think its neccessarily the titles not meaning anything, i think it's just because they don't get mentioned as much anymore. For example, the nexus storyline last year took the spotlight away from the titles. To sum it up, i think it is more of a soap opera now with new and different storylines happening all the time. Another case to this would be that the nexus storyline got so much attention because it was Cena in the middle of it all, so it only left the likes of Orton, Sheamus and Edge for the best part of '10 on raw to go for the title, and as mentioned, the title changes nowadays are becoming more frequent so more people outside this group of superstars that are already over such as miz JoMo are competing making it seem not as prestigious as before, when before we had storylines more dedicated to the titles itself and with more bigger names to be involved.

Also, i dont think this is just the case with the WWE championship/world heavyweight championships...let me remind you of USA/intercontinental/tag team belts, remember them? I mean the other day i saw a clip of triple H winning the intercontinental championship, triple H now probably doesn't remember that belt exists for the ridicculously low competition for it. Daniel bryan and kofi kingston both aren't in matches at EC, at least defending the belts. (< not sure about kofi but nothing comes straight to mind)

I think a way to make them seem more competitive would be to get rid of one, therefore creating a whole new wave of superstars after one, increasing the numbers from cena, orton, miz, sheamus and getting rid of the smackdown belt, and the whole SD crew (edge,taker,kane,mysterio,del rio,barrett to name just a few) to fight for one belt. Would make for more intresting fueds aswell in my book

 

[Fatmanp]

In wrestling today a 6 mont hreign is too long. Look at when Cena was champion by month five everybody was sick of him. Three PPV defenses should be about right similar to Rock, HHH, Angle and Austin through 2000-2001.

 

[Mister Hands]

In wrestling today a 6 mont hreign is too long. Look at when Cena was champion by month five everybody was sick of him. Three PPV defenses should be about right similar to Rock, HHH, Angle and Austin through 2000-2001.

That would get predictable very fast. Honestly, WWE could use another staggeringly long reign. They sorta tried it with Kane, and it backfired, but that was because it was Kane. At some point, they have to establish that a new guy is just plain good enough to hold on to a title. Look what Ziggler's lengthy IC reign did for him.

 

[Hotdiggity11]

It feels like The Miz has been champion for a long time but it has only been like 3 months. Just shows how quick people want title changes these days.

 

[Kratosx23]

Yeah, I do. The world championship still meant something on February 19'th, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Eastern Standard time.

 

[MarkyMark88]

I think 3-6 months is the perfect legnth for a world title reign. then you have the occasional JBLS who hold it for longer periods of time and the rare John Cena who holds it for a year.

 

[Target 02]

Yes, they've been deterioration for many years now.

When Raw had Triple H, Cena, and Orton switching the title back and forth for years it was absolutely embarrassing.

 

[monkeytilt]

The problem is too many PPVs for the #1 guy to hold the title very long before all his feuds are exhausted. I thought Cena's superman year was great but unless there are new main eventers, the champ can only defend the title against 4 or 5 guys 2 or 3 times until no one buys the PPV because its Cena vs. Orton, AGAIN.

 

[SarcasmoBlaster]

It's not really the length of the reigns, although that's somewhat of an issue; it's just that being champion means nothing. Guys are thrust into the main event who aren't ready(Miz, Sheamus, Swagger, etc). Bigtime title matches aren't really booked toward, their just thrown out there. Pinning the world champion should mean something, but it doesn't. Now champions like Edge and Miz get pinned all the time in not title matches. Now there's THREE MITB winners a year, further devaluing what little weight they had left.

 

[ahmedjericho]

imo the world titles will ALWAYS mean something

 

[hello (:]

In wrestling today a 6 mont hreign is too long. Look at when Cena was champion by month five everybody was sick of him. Three PPV defenses should be about right similar to Rock, HHH, Angle and Austin through 2000-2001.

Yet back in the Classic Era guys like Bruno Sammartino held the title for 7 years

YES Sammartino held the WWE Title for 7 fucking years

now we get Cena for 2 weeks and the hatred begins flowing from the IWC bunghole

 

[Azuran]

Remember when Cena held the title for an entire year and everyone hated him because of that?

Seriously, people are never happy.

 

[LeapingLannyPoffo]

I don't mind the short reigns, but I do mind the two world titles. Seems ridiculous even though it has been around for almost a decade now.