[hpgraphics117]

Hogan and Bischoff are doing again with the world title. If you go back and look at the dying days of WCW, you will see the title change hands constantly. The only thing TNA has not had is the many "vacated" titles that WCW had. However, there has been at least one instance with RVD. It's not just the fact of how often the titles have changed hands, but it's also how it has changed hands.

RVD wins on a night where he had already faced Hardy against A.J.

RVD is stripped and title vacated.

Hardy wins title at BFG in a rehash of the Hogan heel turn.

Anderson wins at a PPV after wrestling Matt Morgan in an unscheduled match.

Hardy regains the title at the very next PPV in a huge botch.

Sting gets the title slung on him simply because WWE created such a buzz around Sting in a "surprise" return.

Where is the epicness that should be associated with the most important title in TNA? For that matter, the only title that still has any prestige in TNA is the tag titles, but that division now has it's own weaknesses.

Do you guys see the same problem? I'm still a fan of TNA, but I find myself caring less and less with the randomness that has befallen the company.

 

[Roler42]

i do see the same problem buddy...

people around this section will just tellyou that you're not appreciating and that everything is perfectly fine and... in the very russo style tell you that "you're overthinking it"

 

[Stinger Fan]

The sad thing is TNA wasn't known for this kind of crap until Hogan and Bischoff showed up. Since they joined the title has been changed 6 times while before that they averaged 2-3 a year!

2007 had 4 changes but Angle held the best 3 times , Sting once but held it for 2 days. Basicalyl Angle held the belt since May(when it first showed up) until April of 08

2008 had 2 changes Samoa Joe beat out Angle which he held it until October where Sting would beat him.The belt again wouldn't change until May of 09

2009 the belt changed 3 times Foley beats Sting in May and held the belt until June and lost to Angle. He then holds it Until Aj beats him in September.Thats when things all start to fall apart.

2010 of course AJ loses the belt to RVD in April, he vacates it in August, the belt is awarded in October to Jeff Hardy.He holds it until January 2011 to Anderson then he drops it back to Hardy in Febuary then he drops it to Sting in late Febuary

So lets take a look,2011 already has had 3 different champions. In one year of the Hogan Bischoff era there have been 6 championship reigns.Sting wont hold it for very long either,so who knows how many champions we will see more in 2011.

 

[SHIRLEY]

The only thing TNA has not had is the many "vacated" titles that WCW had.

Every single title was vacated, at least once, last year. There were tournaments for all of them. The only exception was the Global title and that was on Rob Terry for ages and then renamed. Which is a fate worse than being vacated.

 

[BGLWrestlingGod]

I have no problem with any of the title changes in 2010. RVD winning was a nice surprise, and vacating was silly but at least in ended in three of the best fighting to win it. The truth is, they should have kept it on AJ until Slammiversary 2010, because he was just starting to find his stride as a heel, but oh well.

Anderson winning was nice, but it was inevitable that Hardy would win it back soon. And I'm not against Sting winning it, either, I just wish it wasn't three weeks after Hardy won it back in the first place. My only hope is that Hardy wins back from Sting and gets a lengthy heel title run, like JBL or HHH in 2003.

 

[faceface]

At first I assumed the problem was with Hardy's trial dates, since they clearly wanted him to have a lengthy run. Now, however, I'd mostly attribute it to restlessness. They don't know what they want to do, so they're just fucking about, capitalising on whatever opportunity turns up at any given moment.

Sting may not be the best guy to hold the belt right now, but I'd actually prefer the reign last at least a few months to give the belt some stability. If it ends up back on Hardy at the next PPV it will have been nothing more than yet another wasted venture, even if Hardy is the more logical champion overall.

Either way, it screws up the far more interesting feud that should have been built between Hardy and Styles coming off Fortune's turn.

 

[PauseMenuNotWanted]

The real issue is that they wanted Meth Hardy to have the belt for a while, then drop it at Lockdown. Of course, that all changed thanks to the court issues, so we got a poor Anderson reign (it should have been much longer), back to Hardy and now Sting has it. It's getting a joke now since they're going down an old road, called WCW.

I don't care who gets it next time as long as it's not the usual method of "because you were a big star in WWE, here's the belt". If people in the organisation think that Matt Morgan would fit the title, why not give it to him? As long as it's not RVD or Matt Hardy. Even AJ Styles deserves the belt over the Sympathy Title that is absent.

 

[CubbyBr]

This is such a stupid, annoying, and constant complaint of the IWC. Who cares if the belt changes hands? It adds excitement and is more realistic that the belt can change on any given night.

 

[Roler42]

This is such a stupid, annoying, and constant complaint of the IWC. Who cares if the belt changes hands? It adds excitement and is more realistic that the belt can change on any given night.

soon you'll be so excited when the title changes hands every week

flash news: the more the title changes hands=the less value it gets

 

[CubbyBr]

I do.

Deal with. Or don't watch.

 

[Roler42]

I do.

Deal with. Or don't watch.

u mad?

 

[Amber B]

I do.

Deal with. Or don't watch.

This is just getting silly.

What kind of argument is that? I can't watch the show because I think it's silly that the title changes hands every week as if it's the Hardcore title? It's ok for people to say that it doesn't make sense the same way that it's ok for you to think it's exciting.

I don't get this section at all.

 

[ellis the guru]

I agree the title changes too much, a perfect example for me is when the WWE put the title on JBL he was champion for a long time, it grew and grew and people wanted to see him get his ass kicked on every ppv and tv show but hed always just escape, i think if they put the belt on a good solid heel in TNA and made it last 6-8 months it could be a great program, but i think bischoff,hogan and russo wont allow that

 

["The Tauntician"]

I still say it's Hardy's court bullshit that's causing these quick title changes. If it wasn't for that, Hardy could've had a decent 4-month reign before dropping it to Sting like he did last week.

 

[skidawgz]

soon you'll be so excited when the title changes hands every week

flash news: the more the title changes hands=the less value it gets

so does the WWE title have more value when Cena has it?
honestly, I had a problem with what was done with the KO champ, with Tara and Angelina holding it like a week, but that was OBVIOUSLY crap booking. The champ in the box gimmick was all shit.

Hardy lost a belt looking like a sucker when Anderson beat him. Everything else has been a solid booked match.
Hardy has been less lazy in the ring, Anderson has been more interesting in the ring, RVD is trying harder to not be lazy, and Sting is not wrestling in a t-shirt with 75% of the match not being outside.
I was pretty excited over every title change. You can disagree but at long as no one is squashed or booked overly poorly, its fine if it changes hands.

 

[Miguel De Juan]

If changes anymore times this year, I am going to stop caring as it won't even be a surprise.

 

[skidawgz]

This is just getting silly.

What kind of argument is that? I can't watch the show because I think it's silly that the title changes hands every week as if it's the Hardcore title? It's ok for people to say that it doesn't make sense the same way that it's ok for you to think it's exciting.

I don't get this section at all.

He feels people bitch too much, and so do you. You two just have different gripes on the material thats safe to complain about.

I think people whine too much about the show too, some posts say "I am so done with this crap" then they are back trolling again next show. People won't ignore forum trolls and people don't ignore shows they have problems with.

 

[baseballplayah63]

I do.

Deal with. Or don't watch.

Wow of course even when the OP clearly states he's a TNA fan you marks come in here and whine like a little bitch about any criticism of TNA. I always never understood why people trashed this board and talked about how horrible it was, but with people like you I am slowly starting to see why. You can't debate anything without a mark complaining and calling you a "hater". Do you realize how boring a board would be if there was no differing opinions and everyone thought TNA was perfect? Wouldn't be much to discuss now would there?

I guess we should all conform to your method of thinking. "ZOMG TNA IZ AWESUM DEY WILL KILL DA WWE VINCE IS DA DEVIL TNA IZ SOO MUCH BETTR AND AN ALTURNATIV TNA TNA TNA!!!!111". Would that kind of posting please you more?

 

[Riddle101]

Lol at people thinking 6 title changes is a bad thing. In one year 6 title changes are actually quite good. It keeps the champions fresh because the wrestler holding it can lose it before his title reign becomes boring and people start complaining. But even so, 6 title changes is not a bad thing. I mean if you look at WWF in 2000 when the title changed hands between The Rock and Triple H about 4 times or something in a span of a few months, then Kurt Angle won the title and managed to hold it for a good while before the title came back to The Rock and finally Stone Cold won it off of Rock at Wresltmania. If you count the title changes it comes to about 7. not sure if it's that the right total but my point is that 2000 has somethign like 7 title changes in the year and that was arguably their hottest period.

Hell in this last year we've had, Chris Jericho drop the WWE title to Jack Swagger, Swagger drop the WWE title to Rey Mysterio, Rey dropped the title to Kane, Kane dropped the title to Edge, Edge lost the title for about an hour to Dolph Ziggler who lost the title to Edge again, and Edge might lose the title at Mania as well. So including Mania it will be 8 title changes as well but if Edge dosen't lose it will be 7.

Again TNA aren't doing any worse, yes they've had 6 title changes in the year but at the same time, look at the amount of time those title were held for and defended and you will see that the TNA Title is kept in good order.

 

[Roler42]

so does the WWE title have more value when Cena has it?
honestly, I had a problem with what was done with the KO champ, with Tara and Angelina holding it like a week, but that was OBVIOUSLY crap booking. The champ in the box gimmick was all shit.

Hardy lost a belt looking like a sucker when Anderson beat him. Everything else has been a solid booked match.
Hardy has been less lazy in the ring, Anderson has been more interesting in the ring, RVD is trying harder to not be lazy, and Sting is not wrestling in a t-shirt with 75% of the match not being outside.
I was pretty excited over every title change. You can disagree but at long as no one is squashed or booked overly poorly, its fine if it changes hands.

well if you ask me, the wwe title isn't worth too much after 2009 and part of 2010 where they horribly failed to put the wwe title over, and they're not helping either by booking miz as an afterthought because it means the title is the same

if you ask me, hardy looked worse last week in the way sting squashed him, i wouldn't have minded the squash if hardy at least had held the title a little longer

right now i can only hope this title reign is something more than just an "incentive" to keep sting loyal to TNA, just give him proper booking and a decent reign, that's all i want