Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
i ain't got no type
Joined
·
1,490 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I remember before I quit watching wrestling for a long period of time but then returned and joined here, I noticed that the WWE had the WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship thrown around quite a bit. For example, in the late 2008/early 2009 era, we had this happen:

Edge wins at SS

Jeff Hardy wins at Armageddon

Edge wins at Royal Rumble

Triple H wins at Elimination Chamber

That is 4 Title Changes at 4 PPV's in a row. Crazy imo.

Now that I see Orton has had a long title reign, I am convinced the WWE is being better with the championships and people with title reigns losing builds up a feud, so that in mind I hope that we see something explosive at the the end of Ortons reign.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,275 Posts
Ehhhh it's debateable. The tag team championships lose prestige by the day and the Ziggler seems to always face Kofi for the IC title. Now that Bryan has the title, the US title is gaining some prestige after Miz made it non exisistent.

The wwe and world titles are gaining some prestige, but with 2 belts it's just not the same anymore. They should really have more world title defenses on Raw and Smackdown, even if the winner is obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,327 Posts
In order for a title to have prestige, it needs to be defended regularly, be defended on EVERY PPV, and only be held by a handful of people during the course of a year. Having title switches every month or 2 completely devalues the belts and they are what the WWE is supposed to be all about. In my opinion, there should only be about 3 or 4 reigns per belt per year, including times when one wrestler has multiple reigns in the same year. I don't know that I would say much is being done to help the value of any title in the company.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,947 Posts
None of the title belts have any prestige. The truth is, both world championships have had MAJOR damage done to them in the last two years. Consider this: the WWE Championship changed hands in November '08, December '08, January '09, Feburary '09, April '09, June '09, vacated and crowned again in June '09, September '09, twice in October '09, December '09, twice in February '10 (at the same ppv), March '10, June '10, and September '10. The only reign since Survivor Series 2008 that had any merit was Randy Orton's, from June '09 to September. He at least defended it against HHH, Cena, and both.

The truth is, Orton should stay champion until WrestleMania or after for this title reign to restore any luster. Being champion for two months isn't enough. And if Barrett wins it, he needs to be champion until Elimination Chamber.

As for the WHC, it changed hands in September '08, October '08, twice in November '08, February '09, twice in April '09, twice in June '09, July '09, September '09, October '09, Undertaker's reign was terrible, Jericho was champ for a month, Swagger won out of nowhere and was champ for two months before losing it to Mysterio, who held it a month and lost it to Kane, who's only defended it against Mysterio and UT.

You want a good title reign? Triple H as WWE Champion from April '08 to November '08. Or hell, JBL from June '04-April '05, or Cena's epic WWE title reign from September '06 to October '07.
 

·
Student of the game? I am the f***in' Game!!
Joined
·
8,351 Posts
Its a half full half empty type deal.

Long champions can make your champion look good and as result would make the title look good. But it can also mean, there is not much competition which can also hurt that title.

All about believable contenders really.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,557 Posts
Compare 2003 which had both worlds change hands for a total 4 times total to 2009, which had a total of 20.

The lesser title changes, the better.

- Vic
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top