No title changes at WM vs. belts meaning something

[saintpat]

There always seems to be a general concensus that it's better if the titles don't switch hands as often as they have in the last few years because it weakens the championship.

Yet there were a lot of complaints (probably from some of the same people) that no titles changed hands at WM27.

So which is better? Making the titles move valuable by having Miz or Edge hold into them longer, or having either or both change hands at WM?

[EJS]

In theory having both not switch could be fine.

But in practice they had one of the titles be the curtain jerker and the other one take backseat to the challenger's feud with an ex-wrestler turned actor.

[Deleted]

Plus, there wasn't a MITB match, so the idea of getting a belt dwindles in importance as well.

[Shaq-Fu]

For me, the issue wasn't really the lack of title changes in itself, but that it seemed emblematic of how insignificant Wrestlemania as a whole felt. With the exception of Trips/Taker, nothing was really settled or resolved, and Mania felt more like just another notch on the bedpost rather then something special and unique.

Also, it's not an either/or thing. You can want longer title reigns in general, and still hope for a new champion or two to be crowned at Wrestlemania. I'm someone who really wants there to be trend of longer title reigns and less frequent title changes, and I was still pulling for ADR to snag the WHC.

[rapidfire187]

Apr 5, 2011 23:13:19 GMT -5 saintpat said:

There always seems to be a general concensus that it's better if the titles don't switch hands as often as they have in the last few years because it weakens the championship.

Yet there were a lot of complaints (probably from some of the same people) that no titles changed hands at WM27.

So which is better? Making the titles move valuable by having Miz or Edge hold into them longer, or having either or both change hands at WM?

Belts aren't more valuable just because someone holds on to them for a long time. It's a mixture between how often the belt is defended and the quality of the people fighting for the belt. Length of title reigns has little to do with it really.

I just hated that we had a Wrestlemania with no title changes. It was just ridiculous. Like, why would you book that? Isn't Wrestlemania supposed to be a big deal? Well, what was the big story coming out of WM? That everything is the same? Lame...

[hoganhallnash]

I think the lack of storylines coming full circle at Mania was more of an issue then no title changes, but they go along one in the same.

[thelonewolf527]

Del Rio was supposed to win the title and they changed it since they thought it was too predictable. That might mean something.

[Deleted]

Personally, I think that you should always have at least one major title change at Wrestlemania. Should've taken it off of Edge, who loses belts all the time anyway.