|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Feb 10, 2011 13:17:54 GMT -5
Just something I've been mulling over. People say rapid title changes and short reigns devalue the belts. And I can see why. But can they do the opposite?
I mean, mostly I'm imagining a heated feud between two wrestlers of both chasing after a title, with the belt switching between them alot not because it's a cheap trophy, but because the two competitors are equal both in skill and in ambition in wanting the belt.
Could that work?
|
|
|
|
Post by craigdanbeaton on Feb 10, 2011 13:20:59 GMT -5
Definetly not  ¬_¬ |
|
Brood Lone Wolf Funker
Ozymandius
Got fined anyway.
Possibly a Moose
James Franco is the white Donald Glover
Posts: 62,166 
|
Post by Brood Lone Wolf Funker on Feb 10, 2011 14:06:12 GMT -5
I got edge over big time with that win over cena when he first cashed in the money in the bank. that short reign of cena really helped establish edges career
|
|
|
|
Post by Metalheadbanger Man on Feb 10, 2011 14:12:05 GMT -5
In an intense feud for a title like Mankind/Rock was, it worked. Added a nice dimension to it that neither could retain the belt.
However in something like 2000 WCW, when the World Title seemed to change hands every week just to generate some interest, and to try and spike the ratings...it was terrible. It seemed like the belt went from Flair to Nash to Jarrett to Arquette to DDP to Jarrett to Booker to Jarrett to Booker to Nash etc etc, without much rhyme or reason other than "Hey, in WCW the World title changes hands on free TV! All the time! Come watch our wacky show!"
|
|
zeez
Patti Mayonnaise
Yeah. That's right.
Posts: 32,702
|
Post by zeez on Feb 10, 2011 14:13:18 GMT -5
I don't think it works. They did it with The Rock and Triple H in 2000 and it got a little annoying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 10, 2011 14:24:00 GMT -5
I think it's a lot harder to devalue a belt than people think. A long world title run, to me, does a lot more for the wrestler than it does the title. If the champion's reign is brief, they still have that "former world champion" distinction. As far as Swagger's fallen, he's still got that going for him.
A rare instance of devaluing would probably be when a non-wrestler gets lucky and wins a championship (David Arquette), or if the belt were somehow belittled within the show's script. But so long as wrestlers desire a belt it'll have substance, so I don't mind quick title changes when they're done right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Feb 10, 2011 14:26:02 GMT -5
In an intense feud for a title like Mankind/Rock was, it worked. Added a nice dimension to it that neither could retain the belt. This. This is exactly what I was thinking of when I made the thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2011 14:34:15 GMT -5
I think it could also work if you did something with a group of guys, say six of them, who are constantly winning the titles from each other in heated competition over the course of the year as build to something like an Armageddon Cell or Elimination Chamber driven by the idea of there needing to be some big blowoff to wrap up all of their issues and restore a bit of stability to the gold.
|
|
Madagascar Fred
El Dandy
TAFKA roidzilla and SUFFERIN' SUCCOTASH SON!
Posts: 8,784
|
Post by Madagascar Fred on Feb 10, 2011 14:35:41 GMT -5
In an intense feud for a title like Mankind/Rock was, it worked. Added a nice dimension to it that neither could retain the belt. This. This is exactly what I was thinking of when I made the thread. yeah I agree also I liked the constant (not necessarily "rapid-fire") TV title changes in WCW in late-97/1998 with Booker, Martel, Disco, Saturn...they really gave "their all" just to obtain the title and they got more over because of it |
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Feb 10, 2011 17:08:02 GMT -5
Maybe every once in a blue moon when it's something that makes sense and means something, but other than that all it would really do is devalue the title in my opinion.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Feb 10, 2011 20:23:43 GMT -5
I guess
|
|
|
|
Post by Thurman Merman on Feb 11, 2011 2:18:28 GMT -5
Sure it worked wonders for the Hardcore and Intercontinental titles
|
|
|
|
Post by alabastergrim on Feb 11, 2011 2:20:46 GMT -5
I think the idea of 80s style long title reigns is antiquated. People give the Attitude Era crap for their title changes but my theory is this, if you defend a title a lot, you're more likely to lose it. I personally like this. I think people constantly fighting for a title proves its worth so yes, I think this can definitely work.
|
|
Tiger Maskooo
Samurai Cop
I cant hear you over the sound of how much im tiger masking
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by Tiger Maskooo on Feb 11, 2011 2:30:47 GMT -5
Yes.
I thought Triple h vs the rock was an example of it. It was the bastard angry young man heel whos feelings of getting no respect,insecurity and jealous created a near volcanic directionless anger that was near a force of nature vs an equal force of momentum and electricity. And the belt was the ONLY way that one could detirmine who was finally the best,because they were so evenly matched that the question was whos going to get it in the end.
Also the changes between edge and christian,the dudleys and the hardys if anything added to the tag title at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimhelwigsdisciple on Feb 11, 2011 17:29:47 GMT -5
Absolutely...in "real" sports...the winner can be any team or any individual at any given time. I think that it adds a level of realism to wrestling to know that the belt can change at any time.
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Feb 11, 2011 17:40:33 GMT -5
Just something I've been mulling over. People say rapid title changes and short reigns devalue the belts. And I can see why. But can they do the opposite? I mean, mostly I'm imagining a heated feud between two wrestlers of both chasing after a title, with the belt switching between them alot not because it's a cheap trophy, but because the two competitors are equal both in skill and in ambition in wanting the belt. Could that work? I have no problem with rapid title changes actually. I kind of prefer it to long reigns because it makes the matches less predictable. Don't get me wrong, sometimes the champion needs to have a nice solid 6 month title reign or something, but it doesn't have to happen every single time. |
|
Fiddleford H. McGucket
El Dandy
My Mind's been gone for 30-odd years! Can't Break what's already broken!
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by Fiddleford H. McGucket on Feb 11, 2011 17:41:14 GMT -5
Yeah it can work.....just keep it simple though. Just 2 (possibly 3) men (or Teams) putting on quality matches every week without screwy finishes or the like. Only use a screwy finish if you HAVE to (Unforseen Outside events, legit injury, etc).
You have 2 people "Trading" the title back and forth because the 2 of them BOTH have the natural ability to warrent a championship, and any given night either of them can win, you can have some compelling matches. I honestly don't see (unless it's BLATANTLY obvious that 1 person's putting on a quality match and the other guy is the proverbial "Broom" ) how the belt wouldn't GAIN value by having these 2 future legends battle so fiercely for it.
|
|
