Clueless newbie with a clueless question

[Guest]

I watched as a kid, then was away until mid-99. As a kid I hated the fact that people like Hogan would hold the title for a year at a time, somehow managing to hold off all comers. I prefer the idea (or should it be called a fantasy?) that the caliber of talent is good enough that title reigns that only last a couple of months are believable.

 

Just wondering, why are long title reigns considered better by so many here? I've seen people state that it cheapens the belt, but to me excessively long reigns cheapen the other wrestlers. I don't mean to start a fight, I'm honestly curious about this point of view.

[Guest The Son of Sting]

Sort tittle runs cheapen the belt because if a diferent wrestler is a champ each month (like at the moment) why should you get excited when the belt does change hands.

Longer tittle runs mean when someone does lose it means that much more because they have held it for so long.

I think around four or five tittle changes a year is about the right amount.

[Guest]

Yeah but if a title run is too long and especially if the division is stale (see the tag titles) it can cheapen the titles just as much.

[Guest The Son of Sting]

Yeah but if a title run is too long and especially if the division is stale (see the tag titles) it can cheapen the titles just as much.

 

That is only because Billy and Chuck had no credible oppenents during there run.

[Guest Choken One]

It really depends on what title and who is the holder is. The longtivity of a reign can mean to things, A) The title is prestigious and hard to obtain. or b). The divison lacks depth and pretty much stays on one person(s).

 

 Look the long reign the Dudz not so long ago, it was 7 months but they had no real compotition so the reign meant shit. Back in the late 80's-Early 90's when they had 13 teams to challenge for the titles, each reign meant something if it lasted longer then 4 months.

 

Alot of people still remember RVD's 24 month TV title run more then anything else about RVD's career. Mr. Perfect's long run with the title made him look invincible and when Bret Hart beat him for it, it made Bret look like a talented and dangerous person to fight.

 

It really depends on whom it is and what title it is.

 

In my mind, there should be

 

3-5 world title changes (meaning 3-4 month reigns)

4-7 I.C Title changes (means 2 months reign)

2-6 tag title changes (means 3-5 month reigns)

4-12 European title changes (means 1 month reigns)

5-13 CW title changes (means one month reigns)

10-15 hardcore title changes (means two week reigns)

[Guest]

Yeah but if a title run is too long and especially if the division is stale (see the tag titles) it can cheapen the titles just as much.

It's all relative as to whether or not the champion can garner that much interest. Look back in the day when Savage held the IC title. It was a HUGE deal with someone (Steamboat) finally beat him for it. Same with Honky Tonk Man getting defeated by the Warrior. They had the right charisma to make the long title reigns work. Hogan did too. Not now, but back then. I remember the uproar when Andre & DiBiase stole the title from him. It was insane. He had that belt for FOUR YEARS and FINALLY someone had taken it off of him.

 

All of these hot-shot one-month reigns make me care less and less about a belt that is supposed to be the combined history of TWO World Titles. Yet, within the last two months, it's been held by three separate (and might I add HORRIBLE) wrestlers (HHH, Hogan, UT).

 

Bottom line... Longer title reigns + charisma and interest = title changes that MEAN something.

[Guest]

I'd agree with the tag division being pretty bad with the lack of teams but in virtually every other belt they have (Bar the cruiserweights, they're still bringing guys in) there is an unlimited amount of people who could be in the different divisions. There is no reason the divisions should be stale with the amount of talent they have.

 

I agree with the long title runs too because it really shows that the guys have worked to get there and are the best in the division they are.

 

I think one of the reasons that the belts have such short reigns these days is because of the ease in which guys get title shots. Half the time they're granted shots because they threaten one of the owners. They need to go back to people really earning their title shots, making the belt look more precious and also lengthening title reigns.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Sometimes, long title reigns are good. Imperative in that case though is that the champion be able to back it up. A good example would be Austin in 2001, who held the title from Wrestlemania to Vengeance with the only lapse being a two week Kurt Angle title reign. You got the feeling that Austin's character needed the belt and losing it would be the end of the world, which is what makes it a good reign.

 

On the other hand, title swapping can also be good as long as it serves a purpose. A good example of this was the Rock-HHH feud from 2000. The title went HHH-Rock-HHH-Rock over the course of several PPVs and it worked because both guys were portrayed as equals and you got the feeling that the title could change hands every time they met. A bad example would be Russo's WCW where Jarrett won the title probably a half-dozen times in the period of a month.

[Guest]

A bad example would be Russo's WCW where Jarrett won the title probably a half-dozen times in the period of a month.

Yeah I remember that... the original idea was to build him up to have 14 or 15 title reigns so he could feud with Ric Flair... which really pissed me off because it not only cheapened the title, but it was going to cheapen Flair's "14 time!" gimmick

[Guest The Son of Sting]

I always liked the long tittle runs in the 80s/early 90s, it was always big when the tittle changed hands. The tittle has never been as strong as it was in Hogans era.

 

I think one of the reasons that the belts have such short reigns these days is because of the ease in which guys get title shots. Half the time they're granted shots because they threaten one of the owners. They need to go back to people really earning their title shots, making the belt look more precious and also lengthening title reigns.

 

I really aggree with that, a guy wins one match and he becomes no1 contender.

 

Tittle matches should be keept for PPVs imo.

[Guest Black Tiger]

One of the things I like about Puro is that titles are rarely defended so a title match means so much more. Koji Kanemoto held the IWGP Jr Heavyweight title from June of 1995-January of 1996 and lost his title in his thrid defense. Yugi Nagata has been IWGP Champion for almost two months now and he's only had one defense.

 

With guys defending titles on RAW Smackdown! and PPV's all the time and seeing new champions crowned so often, it cheapens the title since it gives the champions the image of being good enough to win it, but not good enough to keep it.

[Guest Andy]

It's not just the length of the reign; it's the amount of times that they defend it.

 

Matt Hardy held the European belt for quite some time last year, but it was very rarely defended, so what's the point?

 

In the same way, Undertaker held the Hardcore belt for quite some time last year/ this year, but it was very rarely defended (I know he was injured) and it all ended up cheapening the belt.

 

Thanks,

 

Andy

[Guest dreamer420]

I would like to see the Undisputed title only defended at pay per views.  Every Raw and Smackdown doesn't need  a title defence.  Maybe if they took the proper steps now, then they might be able to put a little meaning on that title.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Although I'd agree that there is some prestige in a fairly long (not too long... a year tops) title reign, I also believe that a champion should have to defend the title a lot to prove their "worth".  Unfortunately, there's no way to do that without the dreaded "giving away title shots", but what else is a champion supposed to do? Non-title matches just make it look like he/she doesn't have the testicular fortitude to put their title on the line.  Not to mention it's the first sign to my cynical self that the champion is going to job.

 

A long title reign is all right with me if they can defend a lot and consistently put on new and interesting matches.  RVD's 24-month TV title reign is mentioned a lot in topics like this, but, not having seen a lot of ECW, if RVD was anything like the RVD I watch now with the IC belt, it must have gotten REALLY old after a while.  24 months of Rolling Thunder? That's enough to drive any man mad...

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

"A long title reign is all right with me if they can defend a lot and consistently put on new and interesting matches.  RVD's 24-month TV title reign is mentioned a lot in topics like this, but, not having seen a lot of ECW, if RVD was anything like the RVD I watch now with the IC belt, it must have gotten REALLY old after a while.  24 months of Rolling Thunder? That's enough to drive any man mad... "

 

Although he wasn't nearly as good...he was the most over guy in the company.

 

FAns ate it up.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

A long title run  can bring credibility to a belt or cause it to get stale.

 

It all depends on three things:

 

The Quality Of The Champion

The Quality Of The Challengers

The Quality Of The Booking

 

If those three things are present than a long title run is normally good. however if you have a champ like say...Hogan, who wrestles the same match over and over again, never really bringing anything new to the table than a long title reign can kill not only the Champion's heat but the belts cred.

[Guest]

I think, if booked correctly, a series of short title reigns could also make a belt look better... think of Chris Benoit and Jericho having great matches, month after month for the Undisputed Title... maybe Benoit takes it off Jericho, only for Jericho to work his but off and get it back the next month, then a month later it switches again, a series of hard fought, close matches could garner some interest and make each show exciting..

[Guest]

I personally like 3-4 month Undisputed title reigns... longer if the guy is SUPER hot and their are enough credible challengers to make it interesting.  1 month reigns are okay with me if there is a purpose to it... like setting up a larger angle.  I also think there should be #1 contender matches here and there.  As far as the other belts I think the Euro title should be on whoever is over the most at the moment that isn't the level of IC or Undisputed.  IC title would be good for a 1-2 month program with someone, but it needs to vary on the feuds.  I enjoy Eddie vs. RVD but I am almost burnt out for now.  Come back to it in a few months and I will be all over it again.

[Guest Steve J. Rogers]

Look at it this way:

 

The only real sports comparision is boxing.  Guys who have had long (several years) reigns like Ali, Frazier, Louis (thats Joe) Marciano (The Real Rock) Tyson, ect are considered the greatest of all time.  Also depends on who they fought as well.

 

Quick, who is the champ right now?  Right.  Cause the title has been mostly won and lost virtually every other fight, between a paper champ Rahman, an over the hill Holyfied and an overrated Lennox Lewis.  The only guy in the divison that fans care about is a derranged pyscopath in Tyson and he DOESN'T have a title around his waist.

 

As I said, opponents have to bring something to the table as well.  Ali in the 70's had Frazier, Foreman, Norton, and later on Larry Holmes.  Marciano had Wolcott, Patterson, ect, Dempsey had Tunney, and so on.  Credible champions are made by their opponents, especially those who pose a threat to the title.  Sure a reign can be littered with Tomato Cans and Bums of the Month but every once in a while there has to be a great bout in there.

 

Of course the flip side of that is the other good thing about a long reign.  You can say, "Yeah, I may NOT be the greatest, but I beat everyone I was supposed to beat, and thats all I have to do when I step in to that ring."  

 

Granted in wrestling you don't go out and beat your opponent because you know going in who is going to win, and it pretty much common knowledge now that the matches are in fact predetermined, and granted that fact may cloud fans' judgements when it comes to long and short reigns, but it still should be considered impressive, especially if the matches are on a great quality level.

 

Steve