SERIOUSLY enough with the title changes

[clifford]

Look, I enjoy quite a lot of the WWE at the moment, but the constant title changes are top of my list of the worst things in the WWE today (just ahead of Michael Cole and Jerry Lawler);

The WWE title has changed hands SEVEN times since January. 7 times in just 10 months. The longest streak of successful PPV title defences in one reign is just THREE, with Orton retaining at the Bash, NIght of Champions, and Summerslam (None of them cleanly may I add).

The World title has changed hands EIGHT times in the same period. Longest streak of successful defences on PPV? ONE. Yep, no one has defended the World title successfully two PPV's in a row this year.

15 title changes in 10 months is just too much. There's keeping us on our toes and then there's this. Gawd.

[Y2M]

Not to mention that the titles are rotating between Cena, Orton, HHH, Punk and Taker. At this point, I'd welcome Hornswoggle as WWE champion.

[Jimmy]

I agree. Changing the WWE and World Titles every PPV is ridiculous.

[derrtaysouth95]

If they would throw someone new into the mix on occassion I wouldn't mind the constant title changes.

Actually....yes I would. It kills the credibility of the title and the wrestlers if they cna't hold on to the belt for long and the melt just gets tossed around like a prop.

[MasonK565]

I have to agree, I want some sort of stability.

[MAGGLE]

I seriously miss Cenas 1 year title reign

[MasonK565]

Oct 4, 2009 21:31:19 GMT -5 MAGGLE said:

I seriously miss Cenas 1 year title reign

Seconded

[Ragnal]

Oct 4, 2009 21:27:04 GMT -5 @derrtaysouth95 said:

If they would throw someone new into the mix on occassion I wouldn't mind the constant title changes.

Actually....yes I would. It kills the credibility of the title and the wrestlers if they cna't hold on to the belt for long and the melt just gets tossed around like a prop.

Which, really, in the eyes of the promoter, is what it is.

But no, the constant changes are getting annoying, and it's getting near breaking the record of changes that occurred in 1999. It'd be nice if one new guy was elevated this year to at least becoming a man eventer, but even that's failed to happen.

[Solid Stryk-Dizzle]

Oct 4, 2009 21:31:19 GMT -5 MAGGLE said:

I seriously miss Cenas 1 year title reign

This. When a title change was a huge deal.

[clifford]

Oct 4, 2009 21:31:19 GMT -5 MAGGLE said:

I seriously miss Cenas 1 year title reign

Absolutely, right? Say what you want about staleness but that was a good reign with plenty of different challengers and feuds. And it was a big deal when he lost it.

I mean, look at Orton right now. Did they really need to give Cena the title for THREE WEEKS, or earlier in the year, to Batista, FOR ONE NIGHT?!?! Take those reigns out and Orton has a credible near six month reign. Pus whoever beats him (next) would have had a big win? Imagine if someone like MVP beat Orton and did what Cena, Batista and HHH couldn't? It would elevate him so much more than just winning it out of the blue.

I mean come ten years time you'll have 26 time WWE champ Randy Orton, 37 time WWE champ John Cena, 126 time WWE champ Edge, and its just not right.

[mrjl]

Oct 4, 2009 21:27:04 GMT -5 @derrtaysouth95 said:

If they would throw someone new into the mix on occassion I wouldn't mind the constant title changes.

Actually....yes I would. It kills the credibility of the title and the wrestlers if they cna't hold on to the belt for long and the melt just gets tossed around like a prop.

does it really kill the credability. Seems more like parity which professional sports leagues covet.

For someone to get a title shot he should be good enough to beat the champ. If he never does then that shows he isn't good enough to beat the champ, so theoretically he didn't deserve those title shots. It shows all the top guys are about equal.

[Cyno]

Oct 4, 2009 21:31:19 GMT -5 MAGGLE said:

I seriously miss Cenas 1 year title reign

Hate to say it, but so do I. Cena had two really long title reigns. When the title finally changed, it was a huge deal. Though I think the second one (the year long one) ended on forfeit, because of Cena's first big injury?

Granted, I think Orton would've won that one anyway, but yeah. Enough with the constant title changes. Why can't a guy hold on to the belt for four or five months before it changes?

[Jimmy]

I think a big part of it to is the 'rematch clause' which I've never really cared for. I don't recall it being enforced as mandatory until sometime in the early 00's and it just seems like a way for the writers to be lazy. When a challenger beats a champion I want to see the new champion face someone else, not the same guy again and again.

[VengeanceGOD]

Oct 4, 2009 21:31:19 GMT -5 MAGGLE said:

I seriously miss Cenas 1 year title reign

45thed.

I bitched a ton during that reign, but when Edge won it, the roof blew off the friggin' world. Sure, he only held it for a month, but it meant something when he won. Meanwhile, this year Jeff Hardy finally got to the main event full time, and neither of his reigns meant a thing.

[mcmahonfan85]

Oct 4, 2009 21:16:56 GMT -5 Y2M said:

Not to mention that the titles are rotating between Cena, Orton, HHH, Punk and Taker.

you left out Edge and Jeff Hardy. also the Undertaker shouldn't be included since tonight was the first time he's held either of the titles since spring of last year

[Chainsaw]

I'm going to throw this out there.

Yoshi Tatsu: Unified ECW, World, and WWE champion.

[mrjl]

Oct 4, 2009 21:43:41 GMT -5 Jimmy said:

I think a big part of it to is the 'rematch clause' which I've never really cared for. I don't recall it being enforced as mandatory until sometime in the early 00's and it just seems like a way for the writers to be lazy. When a challenger beats a champion I want to see the new champion face someone else, not the same guy again and again.

I think it was most of the time.

I know that's how Flair got so many of his reigns. Hogan's first was supposedly cause Backlund was hurt and he subbed in the rematch. Savage kept wreslting Dibiase. They actually made an excuse to keep Warrior/Hogan from happening again.

It's just that back when the rematches occured of house shows. But then so did most of the title changes.

[Jimmy]

Oct 4, 2009 21:55:39 GMT -5 mrjl said:

Oct 4, 2009 21:43:41 GMT -5 Jimmy said:

I think a big part of it to is the 'rematch clause' which I've never really cared for. I don't recall it being enforced as mandatory until sometime in the early 00's and it just seems like a way for the writers to be lazy. When a challenger beats a champion I want to see the new champion face someone else, not the same guy again and again.

I think it was most of the time.

I know that's how Flair got so many of his reigns. Hogan's first was supposedly cause Backlund was hurt and he subbed in the rematch. Savage kept wreslting Dibiase. They actually made an excuse to keep Warrior/Hogan from happening again.

It's just that back when the rematches occured of house shows. But then so did most of the title changes.

Well I guess I should clarify and saw I don't necessarily have a problem with the two guys facing again, but I feel far too often it is at the next PPV and then they face AGAIN at the next PPV and etc. I don't think the guy with the rematch clause always needs to be the first to get a title shot.

[Dr. T is an alien]

It is to a point that I usually do not know who the Raw champ is anyways. At least I used to know these things when title changes were a big deal.

Isn't it strange that the ECW title has changed 4 times this year but seems to be booked solidly while Raw, with twice as many hours available, is a mess?

[Dub H]

Oct 4, 2009 22:00:39 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

It is to a point that I usually do not know who the Raw champ is anyways. At least I used to know these things when title changes were a big deal.

Isn't it strange that the ECW title has changed 4 times this year but seems to be booked solidly while Raw, with twice as many hours available, is a mess?

If ECW would be booked like RAW,it probaly would have 0.3 rating