Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 68 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
681 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This has been on my mind for a long time, when I watch Wrestling from the 85 - 95 timeslot and the 95 - 05 timeslot it makes me think. Are current Title reigns getting out of hand ?

Guys like Rowdy Piper, Dusty Rhodes, Lex Luger, Ted Dibiase Sr, Owen Hart, Razor Ramon, The British Bulldogg and other guys like them never won "The big one". But yet the Superstars of today who are boring and don't have any talent like Jack Swagger and Kane getting the strap.

Randy Orton, Edge and Triple H and John Cena all getting the belt like once every month with the help of each other and the older guys like Undertaker and Shawn Michaels to put them over. Don't get me wrong I am all for Triple H putting someone over to take the belt from him but when Shawn Michaels who didn't win the Title since 2002 until 2010 is just a joke.

So now since 2005, John Cena, Edge, Triple H and Randy Orton have all had 38 Title reigns so do you think these guys are all getting the belt to much ?
 

·
Really?
Joined
·
184 Posts
Times have changed, the World Titles don't mean as much now as they used to. I think partially it is due to the fact that there aren't enough championships at the moment. I mean, besides the World Titles there is the IC and US Championships, that's it. Guys like The Miz have held the US title enough so the next step of course is the WWE Championship. It's not like when we used to have for example the European Championship and the Hardcore Championship.

I'm a fan of it to be honest, I like seeing fresher talent getting a run at the big one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Titles don't mean dick today.Just look at some of the former WHCs like Khali or Swagger or Edge hitting the big one like 6 times that one year.And then remember that Bruno Sammartino reigned for like 8 years straight or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
960 Posts
There are two now, so half everyone's reigns and that's what they would have in the previous era.

0.5 counts as 0 not 1 though. So Swagger wouldn't have been world champ if there was only 1 world title.
 

·
The human torch was denied a bank loan.
Joined
·
7,576 Posts
Let's see, WWF Title in 1999:

The Rock
Mankind
The Rock
Austin
Taker
Austin
Mankind
HHH
McMahon
HHH
Big Show

Then in 2000:

HHH
Rock
HHH
Rock
Angle

In 2002 the Undisputed Title changed hands 5 times in 6 months. Then again in November to Show, then in December to Angle. JBL and HHH's reigns in 2003 and 2004 were special, but it has been like this since the Attitude Era.

Also, English Dragon brings up a good point. There are two world titles now, so the chances of someone becoming a champ are bigger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
Titles don't mean dick today.Just look at some of the former WHCs like Khali or Swagger or Edge hitting the big one like 6 times that one year.And then remember that Bruno Sammartino reigned for like 8 years straight or something.
The title did change hands too much at some points and it shouldn't change hands as often as it sometimes does, but then again, i don't want to see a multi year title reign. Imagine seeing orton or cena reign for 8 years, the crowd would turn on them both eventually if that were to happen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
The title did change hands too much at some points and it shouldn't change hands as often as it sometimes does, but then again, i don't want to see a multi year title reign. Imagine seeing orton or cena reign for 8 years, the crowd would turn on them both eventually if that were to happen
Please,are you trying to give me nightmares? :D
 

·
#TEAMFIT
Joined
·
7,953 Posts
Let's see, WWF Title in 1999:

The Rock
Mankind
The Rock
Austin
Taker
Austin
Mankind
HHH
McMahon
HHH
Big Show
Russo.

Then in 2000:

HHH
Rock
HHH
Rock
Angle
Russo was gone.

In 2002 the Undisputed Title changed hands 5 times in 6 months. Then again in November to Show, then in December to Angle. JBL and HHH's reigns in 2003 and 2004 were special, but it has been like this since the Attitude Era.
Well the times have changed and it should no longer go unnoticed. Its not the Monday Night Wars anymore. Hot shot booking no longer works because The Attitude Era pretty much desensitized everyone to it. Title Reigns need to go back to basics and be longer and more meaningful. Short title reigns is what's hurting the WWE and one of the reasons they can't make stars. When a new guy wins it nobody gives a shit.
 

·
My name is 905 and I've just become alive
Joined
·
5,111 Posts
Wrestling has simply moved on. Back in the day, there wasn't this many hours of TV to fill per week. The champion certainly wasn't on television once a week. Lengthy reigns would bore the crap out of the audience.
I miss when the titles meant something, and I prefer the old way because I grew up with it. That said, it isn't going back so I have to enjoy what I get or quit watching.
 

·
#TEAMFIT
Joined
·
7,953 Posts
Wrestling has simply moved on. Back in the day, there wasn't this many hours of TV to fill per week. The champion certainly wasn't on television once a week. Lengthy reigns would bore the crap out of the audience.
I miss when the titles meant something, and I prefer the old way because I grew up with it. That said, it isn't going back so I have to enjoy what I get or quit watching.
I really don't know where this belief came from. I've never seen one report or a ratings listing where it showed a slow but sure decline of viewers, ticket sales, etc. just because a wrestler had the belt for too long. I think people underestimate the patience of people nowadays and a long title reign would be a breath of fresh air for alot of people.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
In 2002 the Undisputed Title changed hands 5 times in 6 months. Then again in November to Show, then in December to Angle. JBL and HHH's reigns in 2003 and 2004 were special, but it has been like this since the Attitude Era.
not special, but different but then again serving excrement instead of actual food at a buffet is different but its still shit.

both were reptitive boring cheap lazy undeserving and an insult to anyone who takes pride in this profession all around

title reigns may have been like this since 1999 but at least the show as a whole was still interesting and varied enough to make up for it, no promotion worth its salt rely soley on the mian event, everyone should be allowed to shine on the show, allowed to at least try and steal the show so that everyone gives effort

but it was never this bad and in a time where wrestling needs longer title reigns to get credibility back, its hard but not impossible
 

·
Celestial Messiah
Joined
·
33,587 Posts
Times change. This is the ADD generation. Last time we had a long reign the entire crowd turned on the guy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
681 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Times change. This is the ADD generation. Last time we had a long reign the entire crowd turned on the guy.
I take it you are talking about the John Cena reign from 2006 - 2007? Im all for a long Title reign if its someone like The Miz and have a angle where he just about scrapes home everytime he defends the Title...Pritty much just like he has been doing since he got the Belt.

Like you said last time we had a long reign the entire crowd turned on the guy. It would be better or would only work if it was a heel. For the crowd to turn on.
 

·
My name is 905 and I've just become alive
Joined
·
5,111 Posts
I really don't know where this belief came from. I've never seen one report or a ratings listing where it showed a slow but sure decline of viewers, ticket sales, etc. just because a wrestler had the belt for too long. I think people underestimate the patience of people nowadays and a long title reign would be a breath of fresh air for alot of people.
I don't have much evidence to back my opinion, and I actually hope that you are right. I would, personally, love to see much longer title reigns.
I do notice a ton of bitching on this board about whoever is champion and how the title needs to change hands because the reign is getting stale and boring. It's happened with almost every recent RAW title reign.
Also, it would be very difficult for the writers. Take a cowardly heel champion like Miz for example. In the old days, he probably would only defend the title on television 4 times a year or so. It's much easier to have him weasel his way to shady victories that many times than at 12 PPV's and, inevitably, a few times on RAW as well. Do you see how WWE creative struggles to come with original stuff now? Imagine them trying to keep that situation interesting for a year or more...I don't have much faith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
ITS ALL MONEY IN THE BANKS FAULT
 

·
#TEAMFIT
Joined
·
7,953 Posts
I don't have much evidence to back my opinion, and I actually hope that you are right. I would, personally, love to see much longer title reigns.
I do notice a ton of bitching on this board about whoever is champion and how the title needs to change hands because the reign is getting stale and boring. It's happened with almost every recent RAW title reign.
Also, it would be very difficult for the writers. Take a cowardly heel champion like Miz for example. In the old days, he probably would only defend the title on television 4 times a year or so. It's much easier to have him weasel his way to shady victories that many times than at 12 PPV's and, inevitably, a few times on RAW as well. Do you see how WWE creative struggles to come with original stuff now? Imagine them trying to keep that situation interesting for a year or more...I don't have much faith.
Well your gonna get bitching because of all the different people on the forum. And since people are usually more vocal when they don't like something, its almost bound for that to happen.

You know the fans have gotten smarter but at the same time creative should also get smarter. I actually think it would HELP creative if they were to book less title changes because they wouldn't have to worry so much about who to pass the title to next and so on. It would allow them to get away with more simple endings and force them to rely more on the match being good(which is better for the us the wrestling fan) instead of some over-booked ending.

One of the WWEs most talked about problems is the 12+ ppvs like you said. I know nothing about the WWE financially but wouldn't it be better to have less PPVs, with more build up and so on? I mean 45 dollars per PPV is FAR too expensive imo and if they were to do 8 or so really good ones at that price, I bet more people would have the money to buy it and what not. Not only that but we'd get LESS title defenses(which makes it easier on creative), longer feuds(which allows the story-lines and characters to build properly), and since the wrestlers are having less title defenses the title reigns won't seem as long since they aren't always defending it every 3 weeks. It seems like a win/win for everyone the way I see. Again I don't know the WWEs financials so maybe the 12+ a year gimmick themed PPVs makes them more money.
 

·
Shitting On The Bastards Below
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
The belt is nothing more than a prop in storylines now
 

·
My name is 905 and I've just become alive
Joined
·
5,111 Posts
Well your gonna get bitching because of all the different people on the forum. And since people are usually more vocal when they don't like something, its almost bound for that to happen.

You know the fans have gotten smarter but at the same time creative should also get smarter. I actually think it would HELP creative if they were to book less title changes because they wouldn't have to worry so much about who to pass the title to next and so on. It would allow them to get away with more simple endings and force them to rely more on the match being good(which is better for the us the wrestling fan) instead of some over-booked ending.

One of the WWEs most talked about problems is the 12+ ppvs like you said. I know nothing about the WWE financially but wouldn't it be better to have less PPVs, with more build up and so on? I mean 45 dollars per PPV is FAR too expensive imo and if they were to do 8 or so really good ones at that price, I bet more people would have the money to buy it and what not. Not only that but we'd get LESS title defenses(which makes it easier on creative), longer feuds(which allows the story-lines and characters to build properly), and since the wrestlers are having less title defenses the title reigns won't seem as long since they aren't always defending it every 3 weeks. It seems like a win/win for everyone the way I see. Again I don't know the WWEs financials so maybe the 12+ a year gimmick themed PPVs makes them more money.
I think you've nailed the issue here. As much as I would like longer title reigns, feuds that are given months to develop properly, and less PPV's, the WWE is likely doing what (at least in Corporate's opinion) will make them the most money.
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top