Title Reigns

[clifford]

While it seems that long title reigns have made a come back this last year or so, I must say I've always prefered the shorter ones. They always kept the fans on their toes.

[maxx420]

Difficult to say.
I actually enjoyed Jeff Jarrett's near year-long reign as NWA Champion & Samoa Joe's 21-month stint as ROH Champion, but was horrendously cheesed off with Triple H in 2003 (but that wasn't particularly long).

Mind you, I am sick of Cena & Batista's title reigns & I don't even watch WWE...

I'll have to think about this a bit more.

[TheThreadKiller]

Say what you want, I tuned in every week to see how HHH kept his freakin' belt, and I do the same for Cena and Dave.

[s2k]

Long title reigns + 15 PPV's a year = BAD.

Long title reigns worked before because of the the lack of pay-per-views. If the WWE used the '80's and early '90's schedule of programming, guys like Cena would really benefit. Not only would this title reign seem shorter, but he'd also appear on TV a lot less, making his appearances more special.

At this point, either shorten the title reigns to maintain interest (since no one seems to be close to becoming an Austin or Hogan) or keep the long title reigns and lower the PPV total (preferably). Unfortunately, more PPV's equals more money, and that's what the WWE wants obviously.

[vitamink]

It depends. Batista's long reign has actually been quite good, but Cena's has dragged on. HHH's was horrid. JBL's was good. I suppose I prefer shorter reigns, but nothing too crazy. 4 or 5 title changes a year is perfectly fine, but the same guy every week and on every PPV can get boring real quick.

[Jiren]

fror this moment in time

Short > long

Too much exposure on the champ with a raw/SD every week and 15 PPV'S makes us sick of seeing him with the title unless good matches are performed more often than not.

[Loki]

It depends on who's the champion and on the booking of the title reign.

Nowadays a year reign is regarded as "long", while it was usual back in the 80s.

To have a successful long reing (around the 1year mark) a champion needs to be consistently over with the crowd and have interesting feuds.

With the right man holding the gold, good long reigns are still possible. I'm aware we can't have multiple years reigns, like in the 70s, or even a 4 year reign like Hogan's first. PPVs and weekly shows require a more dynamic, fast paced (rushed?) approach, so it's normal to have shorter runs.

On the other hand, passing the belt around like a joint, while keeping things "unpredictable" and "fresh" will devaluate the title. What's the purpose of two months reigns? Transitional champion after transitional champ waiting for the right guy to show up?

A good exemple is IMO, World Title in 2004:

- Triple H lost to Benoit, and it was refreshing and it was an accomplishment for Benoit.
- Benoit lost to Orton, and that came out of nothing
- Triple H quickly recaptured the belt, obliterating Orton
- The title was vacated
- Triple H won back the title in the EC, kickstarting Batista's turn.

So the 3 title changes in 2004 were basically useless. Benoit got his well deserved 15 minutes of fame at WrestleMania, but had to job to WWE's-next-big-thing Randy Orton, who promplty bombed and they had to put the belt back on Triple H.

WWE could have easily switched the belt between Cena and Angle, but why? Just to make things more confusing?

As long as the champion looks vulnerable (either face or heel) and the challenger is a credible threat and the feuds are BALANCED, a title reign can last for a while. Of course two secondary-future contenders/champs are needed.

A good balance between years long reigns and the title change frenzy of the late 90s...

[clifford]

Some good points. Someone mentioned how even though their reigns are the exact same lenght, they find Batista's better while Cena's much more stale.

Look at Cena's feuds since WM 21:
V JBL (twice): we all knew JBL wasn't gettin it back
V Christian (once): at no stage in this feud did anyone think Christian would get the title
V Jericho(three times): same as Christian, but a bit more credible given his past achievements
V Angle (ive lost count how many times theyve squared off for the title): Long Drawn out feud and again, Angle's never looked like taking the belt off Cena

In contrast, Batista's feuds:
V HHH: a lot of ppl though Trips might take the belt back at Backlash, even more thought so at Vengeance
V Edge: just the one title defence, kept the HHH rivalry fresh as it wasnt Batista/HHH for 4 months straight
V JBL: short and sweet feud with some good brawl matches
V Eddie: had the makings of a great fued, but of course did not play out
V Big Show/Kane: not really for title, maybe fact that tutle hasnt been focus of SD the last month has helped Batista's title reign better

[SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts]

I think a short reign. if its a feud where 2 guys are losing to eachother unexpectadly, that could be good. If its just Triple H beating Steiner 3 striaght PPVs ill pass.

[Erik Majorwitz]

Luther Reigns should have changed his first name to Title.

Semper Fi,
Erik Majorwitz

[Rick Mad]

It really depends if I like the guy and if there are enough challengers. For example, I could have been happy to see Benoit's reign last a few more months, but I'd like Cena to lose it. I'm generally apathetic about Batista's situation, he hasn't done anything interesting with the belt since ... well, ...

[Joe]

I prefer longer reigns, but both types can be good. It really just depends on who the champion is and who his challengers are.

In regards to Loki's comments about the title changes of 2004:

While Orton's title reign was certainly nothing to get excited about, I thought he won the belt to erase Brock Lesnar's record of being youngest World champion and not because he was the "next big thing."

[Jake Robert's Dealer!!!]

They need to get the belt off Batista ASAP. He is injured and cannot defend it. With the Rumble coming up I think it would be a wise idea to drop the belt instead of using it as a prop.

[Clothesline From Hell]

It depends. JBL's reign was godly. Im a Batista mark, so I'm enjoying his title reign. Cena sucks the sweat off a dead mans balls, and his reign needs to END SOON!

[THRJamesAngelo]

Short and interesting, but not too short.

I thinking maybe some title changes during the big 4 PPVs, maybe once or twice more.

[darthpipes]

I like longer championship reigns although I think it's time for Cena to drop the titles. Keeping the belt on him is doing him no favors at the moment.

[BrianZane]

Long title reigns only worked back when there were fewer PPVs and less national competition. Titles changed hands frequently in both the WWF and WCW during the Attitude Era because there needed to be something to keep the fans tuned in. Now that there is less competition in general (and no direct competition since TNA isn't on Mondays), it makes sense for title reigns to last longer, but the fact that they go through so many PPVs a year now, it counters that logic.

[kingoftheindies]

long title reigns can be good depending on how they are booked.

Triple H's reigns the last couple years have been too repetitive. Most of the time it's fight the guy and beat him/lose title, fight him again lose/regain title, fight him a 3rd time but this time in Hell in a Cell.

Although I was not a big fan of JBL as champ, I thought he had a good run.

THe only real problem I have with Cena as champ is they have overbooked him. His Jericho feud was nothing to right home about, and the Angle feud has not progressed.
They also don't properly book some of his oppenents. Christian was always a mid carder, and literally got put in the main event out of the blue (granted he deserved a push, but it was more or less a way to get Jericho envolved). And look at the Elimination Chamber. Neither Carlito or Masters is ready to constantly be in the Main Event. Everybody knows Kane will not win the title so that leaves either HBK (who has not really been envolved in the world title picture) or Angle.

The WWE ran into a similar problem with Lesnar. First they had him feud with Taker (which accomplished nothing). Then they had him job to the Big Show (granted Show was a transistional champion, but just a week earlier he was jobbing to the likes of Spike Dudley and Jeff Hardy). After he got the title back from Angle(which was the only good feud Lesnar was in at the time), he had to fight Cena (who was still teaming up with the likes of Rodney Mack and Bull Buchannon)

Batista had a good run in champ, but they really need to get the belt off of him now, mainly because he is injured (I will give the WWE some slack though. Eddie's death gave them no choice put to keep the title on Batista. Every other main guy on Smackdown is already involved in something (when I say everybody I mean Orton,Taker, and Benoit)

Some title reigns are good short just to see how fans react to the super star. Look no further than the Rock when he was Rocky Maivia. His IC title reign was (relatively) short because the fans didn't buy into his gimmick.

As for World Title reigns, Randy Orton's was good short for two reasons. 1)He wasn't a good face (even when he first came into the WWE). Orton was getting good reactions for being a legend killer, and turning him face killed that persona. and 2)At the time he still wasn't ready to become a main eventer. He had a good IC title reign, but he really didn't have any build up to be a mian eventer. Internet fans knew that Orton was being booked to win the world title, but the booking was done incorrectly.(He won a Battle Royal 2 weeks before Summer Slam, so there was no real hype for the main event).

I'm not a big fan of Batista as a face(I think he makes an awesome heel), but atleast there was a build up to Batista eventually leaving Evolution and going for the Triple H's title. (which is why his title reign has lasted so long)

[VinceNeil1981]

I like a man to have the belt for a long period of time, meaning he might even lose it for a month, but get it back right away.