Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2013 22:33:36 GMT -5
... with a combined amount of time with the title adding up to less than a day.
It's all that buddying up with Kane. Kane did that to him. I wonder if the WWE games will consider him in the stats page to have the title for two weeks total, like how 13 says Ziggler had it for one.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Sept 16, 2013 22:39:52 GMT -5
I wish WWE wouldn't even recognize these title reigns.
If you can't hold the title for more than a day, you fail.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Sept 16, 2013 22:41:28 GMT -5
... with a combined amount of time with the title adding up to less than a day. It's all that buddying up with Kane. Kane did that to him. I wonder if the WWE games will consider him in the stats page to have the title for two weeks total, like how 13 says Ziggler had it for one. I think you could argue that Ziggler technically won it on a Friday, when Edge used the banned spear on Smackdown, and then lost it on the next Friday, amounting to a 7 day reign in kayfabe/tv-airing time, even if he wasn't awarded the title until that following Friday.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Sept 16, 2013 22:44:04 GMT -5
He might as well have not even won last night.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 11,003
|
Post by Sparkybob on Sept 16, 2013 22:50:13 GMT -5
It doesn't really bother me. Once you get the first one, I don't really care after that.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Sept 16, 2013 22:52:05 GMT -5
Kane's reign is still longer
|
|
Chuck Conry
Dennis Stamp
zombies DON'T Run
Posts: 3,829
|
Post by Chuck Conry on Sept 16, 2013 23:14:54 GMT -5
I remember when the title use to change every single month..This isn't soo bad..yet.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Sept 16, 2013 23:30:10 GMT -5
He might as well have not even won last night. Or at Summerslam. Every time he wins, it becomes less and less impressive, especially when you know something bad is looming on the horizon. It's not the number of titles you hold, it's the length you hold them for. Most of the guys who have held the title a dozen times or more, I don't remember much about most of their reigns. It's like a monarchy...no one gives a shit about king for a day. I remember when the title use to change every single month..This isn't soo bad..yet. Yeah, those times sucked. This is the 4th exchange in the span of slightly over a month.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Sept 16, 2013 23:31:26 GMT -5
Two time champion and he's held both for an accumulative five minutes onscreen. F*** off, WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Sept 16, 2013 23:32:26 GMT -5
I don't mind it. He beat Cena and Orton clean and he's showing he can win The Big One.
But he won't get screwed a third time. Because that would turn people off for sure.
|
|
|
Post by kamero00 on Sept 17, 2013 0:03:39 GMT -5
My only issue with it, is how do we know if/when he wins it again, it will be for real??
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Sept 17, 2013 0:21:00 GMT -5
Next Month is the Judgement Day finish.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Sept 17, 2013 3:06:46 GMT -5
So...ruined forever, then?
|
|
AdamAFL was sooooo wrong
Hank Scorpio
note to all: he's a pants-less heathen
I Survived The Impact Spoilers 7/22/15-7/30/15
Posts: 7,164
|
Post by AdamAFL was sooooo wrong on Sept 17, 2013 7:10:50 GMT -5
The title changes just have to be an important part of the story for me to be okay with them. If you become like WCW and just change the title every week for the hell of it then it's stupid. But if it tells a story - like Bryan/Orton/Cena has and like Mankind/Rocky did back in the day - then I'm okay with it. The title is just a prop, it should be used to further a storyline - and that's what is happening. Sometimes a long reign is a good thing but sometimes a couple of quick title changes really help the story. So I'm not really too upset that he is a 2-time Champ with less than a day's reign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 7:20:52 GMT -5
I absolutely despise when they keep really short title reigns in the title's history. In my opinion, Daniel Bryan's victory should have been overturned, or at the very least stricken from the books.
It just looks goofy when he's now a 2x WWE Champion but, like OP said, has held the belt just one day. Maybe it's because I'm a numbers guy, but it really bugs me that Rey Mysterio is technically a former WWE Champion despite only holding the title for 90 minutes. Or that Dolph Ziggler was technically World Heavyweight Champion in 2011 for all of about 10 minutes. It's just stupid and devalues the belt.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard Gerard on Sept 17, 2013 7:30:40 GMT -5
Thing is, and it's no justification, but it's never really emphasized when it comes to a guy's legacy. How many times has Kane been listed, or referenced within the show, as a former champion and never referencing he nabbed it on a fluke, and held it for 24 hours? History'll dictate that Bryan is a 2-time champion, and even if it does come up, if he's a face, it'll be dismissed as him having been screwed.
Still, it's quite jarring we're only 7-months removed from 'title-as-centerpiece' with Punk's reign, and they've gone back to flip-flop. It was my guessing that Punk's 434-reign was an audience readjustment to longer reigns, similar to HHH's run with the WHC in the opening-half of the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Sept 17, 2013 7:45:55 GMT -5
I despise short reigns.
I'd have much preferred if Triple H just struck Bryan's win off the record so it never counted.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Sept 17, 2013 9:05:41 GMT -5
For the short reign haters here, you win a championship match, you win a championship title. Timeframe is irrelevant, as it should be. Think of MITB cash-ins and archiving the winners. It's too complicated to randomly discredit wins just because it didn't pass a time threshold. And as somebody else said, they're telling a story anyway. The title has peaks and valleys, too. You can't always have 434 day reigns or you'll go insane.
|
|
BigBadZ
Grimlock
The Rumors Are All True
Posts: 13,923
|
Post by BigBadZ on Sept 17, 2013 9:21:56 GMT -5
For the short reign haters here, you win a championship match, you win a championship title. Timeframe is irrelevant, as it should be. Think of MITB cash-ins and archiving the winners. It's too complicated to randomly discredit wins just because it didn't pass a time threshold. And as somebody else said, they're telling a story anyway. The title has peaks and valleys, too. You can't always have 434 day reigns or you'll go insane. 24 hours shouldn't be that far of a stretch. To me, these 5-10 minute "reigns" are no different than championship scramble matches where they count every pinfall or submission to become a tally mark as champion. I think at WM 2000 they counted every title change in the hardcore battle royal to add to their championship reigns. The MitB cash-ins are great but I think they ruin a whole lot of first World/WWE championship wins. For Bryan, he won his first WWE championship and then lost it moments later and we don't get the genuine reaction from him. Kind of the same for the person cashing in to win their first World/WWE because they didn't "earn" it, but then again, my favorite moments have been from cash in winners. Edge in 2005 and Ziggler in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Sept 17, 2013 9:27:13 GMT -5
For the short reign haters here, you win a championship match, you win a championship title. Timeframe is irrelevant, as it should be. Think of MITB cash-ins and archiving the winners. It's too complicated to randomly discredit wins just because it didn't pass a time threshold. And as somebody else said, they're telling a story anyway. The title has peaks and valleys, too. You can't always have 434 day reigns or you'll go insane. 24 hours shouldn't be that far of a stretch. To me, these 5-10 minute "reigns" are no different than championship scramble matches where they count every pinfall or submission to become a tally mark as champion. I think at WM 2000 they counted every title change in the hardcore battle royal to add to their championship reigns. The MitB cash-ins are great but I think they ruin a whole lot of first World/WWE championship wins. For Bryan, he won his first WWE championship and then lost it moments later and we don't get the genuine reaction from him. Kind of the same for the person cashing in to win their first World/WWE because they didn't "earn" it, but then again, my favorite moments have been from cash in winners. Edge in 2005 and Ziggler in 2013. I can agree with you on the Hardcore belt since that was all goofy matches and transitions for the most part. So I can get that being silly to throw on the record. But still, a win is a win. As for the MITB winners, they did earn it because that's what the contract states that they won fair and square.
|
|