|
Post by Bubble Lead on Oct 4, 2009 22:43:07 GMT -5
So Cena holds the title for more than a year, and we beg for more frequent title changes. Now the title starts changing hands more than Batista changes condoms, and we now want more Cena-like title reigns. Yup, Vince has officially f***ed up our minds. Its not so much the length or frequency of them that gets me as much as the pointlessness of a lot of them. For example: Cenas last title win. If he was just going to lose it back to Orton that quickly, what is the freakin point?
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Oct 4, 2009 22:43:12 GMT -5
I cannot believe people are wishing for Cena's reign of dull again. I would rather 804 title changes between now and Monday than to go through that hell again. WWE just cannot seem to long runs right.
If they were to go for that, I'd much prefer a Triple H 03 styled run where the opponents look good before the champ wins, not getting killed everytime the look at the champ.
|
|
DanKirby
ALF
I have oysters in my bed
Posts: 1,128
|
Post by DanKirby on Oct 4, 2009 22:48:49 GMT -5
This is the fifth PPV in the last year or so where both world titles have changed hands (SvS08, NWO09, Backlash 09, ER09, HiaC09). Before that, it hadn't happened since Wrestlemania 21.
|
|
Rick Mad
Grimlock
Rick Mad Champion
Posts: 14,613
|
Post by Rick Mad on Oct 4, 2009 22:51:01 GMT -5
I know a lot of people hated the Cena run, myself included, but at least I can say I was excited when he lost it. And if Cena is always in the Title hunt anyway, and I'm going to get two or three Cena vs Orton matches in a row no matter what, I'd prefer if they didn't switch the belts around because then once the Title does change hands there is a payoff to it..
|
|
|
Post by robferatu on Oct 4, 2009 23:08:05 GMT -5
The funny thing about Cena's year long title reign is that was around the time I joined this board. And the one thing I remember most was people constantly bitchy about how his year long title reign was six months too long.
With that said, I hate the title changing hands every month, but I don't want year long runs either. I'd like a nice medium.
|
|
|
Post by TheJaredAnderson on Oct 4, 2009 23:21:49 GMT -5
I personally don't have a problem with it. It just goes to show people are always gonna have something to complain about. When Cena had it so long everyone was so tired of it and complained he had it too long, now it gets shot around a few times and its going around too much. Remember 99? That looked like "wow, theres a lot of good dudes wrestling so of course the title is gonna switch hands a lot because they are all that good." Now i'm not defending the Batista one night reign or Cena having the latest reign or even the crazy amount of changes in the attitude era but these guys like Cena and Orton aren't exactly coming out and electrifying the audience every night so why not shuffle things up to keep it fresh(er)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2009 23:24:08 GMT -5
A lot of people are segmenting this down to where you have to have either year-long runs or month-long ones.
Why not more four or five month reigns? That's nothing hugely lengthy, but at the same time it's not blink and you miss it either.
|
|
CM Dazz
King Koopa
Chuck
Posts: 10,475
|
Post by CM Dazz on Oct 4, 2009 23:25:14 GMT -5
Another thread I don't have to read to agree with. It's getting damn silly. When I read the results and saw that Orton was the New Champion, I couldn't really even remember seeing Cena with the belt. That right there is pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by TheJaredAnderson on Oct 4, 2009 23:27:48 GMT -5
Another thread I don't have to read to agree with. It's getting damn silly. When I read the results and saw that Orton was the New Champion, I couldn't really even remember seeing Cena with the belt. That right there is pathetic. See Cena did his job, you can't see him.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Oct 4, 2009 23:32:26 GMT -5
The number one thing that WWE has to do to get the audience back into caring is to protect their championship belts like it means everything. If the belt is changing hands like a hot potato with no rhyme or reason, its showing that they look at the belt as just a prop. If the WWE looks at it that way, so will the audience. Why did Punk and Hardy switch the belt back and forth? Why did Orton drop the belt to Cena for a couple weeks? Its ridiculous. The system is broken. They are reaching into the bag of tricks of gimmick match PPVs and frequent title changes to justify the ridiculous amounts of PPVs a year. Its not working. WWE has to reinvent the wheel as far as how they are booking this.
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Oct 5, 2009 0:07:21 GMT -5
You guys think it's bad now.
Wait until RAW where Orton will reveal that he broke his toe from punting Cena's skull, which will require him to drop the belt. Cena will then beat Jericho for the belt later that night.
Then he'll lose it to Triple H next week.
|
|
Ragnal
Game Genie
Yanno what they say: All toasters toast El Dandy
Posts: 8,677,836
|
Post by Ragnal on Oct 5, 2009 0:16:56 GMT -5
This is what we get when we have 4 weekly wrestling shows & 12+ PPVs each year. Overexposure runs rampant. This. Its not so much the 4 weekly shows that take anything away (as they usually have nothing to do with one another) but 12 PPV's a year is just too many. If the WWE were to just cut that if half and have 6 PPVs a year it'd be okay. You'd have two months to build up feuds and storylines. If someone wins a belt at a PPV then holds it for two more PPVs before losing it, that's a four month title reign. I just think it'd be so much easier on the booking team if they didn't have to worry about shaking things up at a PPV every single month. 3 weeks is just not enough time to create a solid feud. 12 PPVs wouldn't be bad if they were split like they were prior to 2007. But since then it seems they're trying to get through everything possible while squeezing all three shows in at once.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2009 0:21:02 GMT -5
Honestly? There are two title changes I'd love to see any day now - namely, Kofi dropping the US title and Jericho & Big Show losing the tag titles. I pretty much pray to the Atheist God every time either title's defended for a title change.
|
|
Dean-o
Grimlock
Haha we're having fun Maggle!
Posts: 13,865
|
Post by Dean-o on Oct 5, 2009 0:21:34 GMT -5
Can't believe I am saying this, but the United Tag Team titles mean the most to me at the point. Jericho & Big Show have done wonders for the division.
Wait a minute...did I just say the TAG TEAM titles are the most important belt in the company to me right now?
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Oct 5, 2009 0:22:23 GMT -5
First the gimmick matches and now the title hot shotting. WWE at this point is creeping dangerously close to late WCW territory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2009 0:27:41 GMT -5
First the gimmick matches and now the title hot shotting. WWE at this point is creeping dangerously close to late WCW territory. Ignoring, of course, that with the vastly exaggerated gimmick-themed PPVs aside gimmick matches are probably rarer in today's WWE than ever.
|
|
MolotovMocktail
Grimlock
Home of the 5-time, 5-time, 5-time, 5-time 5-time Super Bowl Champion 49ers-and Wrestlemania 31
Posts: 13,975
|
Post by MolotovMocktail on Oct 5, 2009 0:45:04 GMT -5
Long title reigns worked back when there were 4 ppv's a year. And even then, the champs were either in team matches at Survivor Series or were in the Rumble in the very early days, and even 3 of the first 4 Summerslams had tag matches for main events. So aside from Wrestlemania and the occasional SNME, the title was only defended on occasion, and when it was, there was a very real chance it would change hands. Booking reigns this long with a ppv every month just telegraphs the show beforehand. This may cheapen the value of the belt, but it shows that anything can happen.
If champions need long title reigns for the belts to mean something, WWE either needs to cut back on the number of ppv's it runs, or not have a title match at every one. And the champ does not come on the show every week, except maybe to cut a promo. Hogan may have had stranglehold reigns, but they weren't giving away his matches every week, often against the very guy he was set to defend against at the next ppv.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Oct 5, 2009 1:16:46 GMT -5
I dont blame the number of PPVs, title belts, whatever...
Just the bad booking of the titles this year. Stuff like Hardy winning the belt only to lose it a month later, Cena winning the belt only to lose it a month later, Batista winning the belt while injured and having to vacate it the next night.
Just crap. None of those ever had to happen.
Just have the title change hands when it makes sense to. Not just to swerve fans.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,304
|
Post by The Ichi on Oct 5, 2009 1:25:20 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm just sick of Randy Orton. The guy's incaple of having an interesting title run, and I don't see this time being any different. At least with Cena you have reaction - the fans wanna see him win, the haters badly wanna see him lose.
|
|
|
Post by Threadkiller [Classic] on Oct 5, 2009 2:29:09 GMT -5
WWE needs desperately to return to split-branded PPVs. This way, you have more time for each brand to build significant storylines, tri-branded PPVs mean more (Night of Champions, for instance, would seem like more of a big deal than it does now - I mean, the entire concept is nullified by the fact that anywhere from 5-6 matches out of a 7-8 match card are title matches), your midcard has a chance to shine by having legit feuds get PPV attention, and titles go back to having some semblance of meaning given that title reigns will likely be longer (given that they seem to be getting away from title changes on free TV, outside of the Intercontinental title match between Rey and Morrison last month). Hell, they should even take a page from TNA's playbook from their monthly PPV infancy: Not every PPV had a world title match, some simply had a major grudge tag match involving the world champion. It seemed like, back then, they did this for every other PPV. One month a tag match, another month a world title match. Occasionally the X-division title would go on last. And so on and so forth.
WWE should do this. They could probably even get a decent (see also: same as all the others) buyrate out of a PPV surrounded by a gimmick match to determine the #1 contender for the world title (like the Royal Rumble, but not a battle royale. Some kind of elimination match or tournament or scramble or six-pack cell match, whatever). I think if they varied the PPV schedule, it would keep the creative team from having to rush things and getting burned out, and helps more talent to get on PPV and, hence, get them a bigger paycheck. Who knows, maybe a star performance in one of the midcard matches might surreptitiously ignite your next big thing.
|
|