|
Post by angryfan on Oct 28, 2013 15:57:41 GMT -5
Yeah but there is way more nationally weekly televised television coverage and PPV's now then back then. So it's easier to have a longer title reign when you have less appearances to make and make yourself seem less stale Well, with some people appearing only once a week, it shouldn't be an issue. If anything it again makes Flair's reigns that much more impressive since at least half of them came before weekly programming. Also, not saying that Cena or Orton wouldn't be, but Flair won his world titles every place he went. No matter the organization, he was "the man". I can't say the same for either Cena or Orton when they've been doing the same thing for the last 8 years straight. I'm no fan of his gimmick, but I think Cena being the person he seems to be, would manage to get over enough to win titles where he went. It wouldn't be overnight, but it would happen. Orton...well, if he wasn't a "third generation superstar" nobody would touch him, especially WWE. Seriously, with Linda running for office and everything being about PR and doing things for the troops, would they take in somebody who was a convicted felon for desertion, then keep him after two failed wellness strikes?
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Oct 28, 2013 20:44:34 GMT -5
The number of World title reigns guys get in such short order these days is absurd. Edge had over 10 in the span of 4 years. Alberto Del Rio has 4. Daniel Bryan already has 3 and his 4th probably isn’t far away. also doesn't help that they had that period where every midcarder they wanted to get over would get some paper WHC reign or 3 in hopes of getting the guy over. so you have a belt that has not only been held by Del Rio multiple times, but also guys who flopped like Jack Swagger. you should only give a title to a guy whose already over, not a guy who you want to get over.
|
|