World Title Reigns
What's your preference pertaining to duration of world title reigns?
Are you OK with world titles (also including the "Universal" championship) changing hands every month or two? Is this better for garnering attention and drawing fans? Or would you rather it be like the old days, where some champions would hold the belt for years at a time? Does this legitimize the championship and its holder even more? What are the variables that influence your preferences? |
Basically on a case by case basis. If the storyline warrants a short title reign than so be it.
|
Quote:
Even if not, would you prefer it anyway? |
All Reigns should be Roman Reigns.
|
I don't think in this day and age that even a year long reign can be sustained without the champion turning face/heel in the middle of their reign to shake things up.
We can have a good number of months, though. Nothing against short reigns though, if the story calls for it. I think every year going into Wrestlemania they should try to have a champ who has got some months on his reign. That way there is some "drama" and "tension" to either wanting to see them lose, or wanting to see them beat "their biggest challenge yet"....... Which is why I am not a fan of both the WWE Title and the Universal Title going into this year's Wrestlemania by dudes who will have held them a month...... Whereas John Cena/AJ Styles at Royal Rumble was a "moment" and "special" not just because of Cena's 16th win, but also the end of AJ's reign of months/first reign. Would have been an excellent Wrestlemania match/moment if they could have stretched the feud some more. |
Quote:
|
For the most part I would say a year but I am only talking about the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. I wipe my ass with the Universal title.
|
Heels = long
Faces = short |
Quote:
(Transitional champions aside.) |
It depends on who the champion is and what the story you are trying to tell is. Sami Zayn was all about the chase in NXT. When he finally won that belt, there wasn't much left to tell, so him dropping the belt to Owens wasn't at all bad. Neville's reign was good, but started to get a bit long in the tooth. He pretty much dropped it when it was right. Balor's might have gone on too long. Edge's first WWE Title reign may have been too short. You just have to have your finger on the pulse and know intuitively when to call it.
|
The era that people associate with the peak of the business had very short title reigns.
My thought is every storyline is unique. There shouldn't be a "rule" when it comes to title lengths. |
There should be no rule of thumb. Is x champ hot? Is y chalenger hot? How will x losing to y affect the gate? how will x losing to y affect the credibility of x? etc
|
Quote:
|
It's just hard to do long title reignso in today's time. New Day had a long one and they made the tag division look weak. They ant travel to another territory and face someone New and keep tho he fresh. I've always judged a champion more on his defenses than the length of the title run though. Like Ambrose was the US champion for a while during Shield but hardly ever defended it. AJ Styles had a appropriate run although I think he should have held it until EC. 100 days is a good run in today's time but there are always going to be transitional guys and like some have said it a feel thing and how hot the guy is at any given time.
|
3-4 months would probably be the sweet spot since its just enough time for the champ's reign to be established and have a few high profile ppv matches. Then either extend or cut it short for storyline needs and/or reception of the reign.
|
There should be no rule of thumb. That being said, the more it changes hands, the less special it is when it does change hands and the less title matches matter. So the changes should be carefully thought out and not just done for the fuck of it on a monthly basis because it's the only way they can think of to extend a feud.
|
I was just looking at this the other day. CM Punk has a top ten world title reign ( smackdown title ) of all time. I think it was 437 days. Pretty wild to think about that.
|
It obviously depends on the storyline but I do get annoyed by short reigns. I like the shorter for faces longer for heels thought.
|
Definitely agreed that long title reigns work better on heels. That allows you to build up the faces to see if they can finally be the one to knock off the champ (great way to sell lots of tickets), only to have the champ retain the title in dirty fashion. Then it's back to the drawing board - build up another face! That's classic storylining.
Thus, I am a fan of extensive reigns. Quote:
|
Quote:
...As long as you don't build up the best, most credible, unbeatable heel champion in years and then end his reign by having another heel beat a different guy to take the title off on him... |
Quote:
|
The belt is cheapened if it's not held for at least 3.5 years. That's why Hogan is the best champ in the era that matters, from 85-last week.
|
The best worker in the company should always be around the belt, either chasing or retaining. Generally speaking, heel reigns should be longer than face reigns but there are always exceptions to the rule.....
I am a firm believer in longer World title reigns than the quick changes all the time, for secondary titles its less important.... |
Quote:
|
The best worker in the company revolving around the belt is a good recipe to follow. I think it would have helped Cena and the WWE Title if Shawn Michaels were "the man" for a longer stretch of time during his 2002-2010 run.
|
Quote:
Proof that merch sales = championships. :-\ |
There is no set length a reign should last it just lasts as long as the story is good.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Punk turned heel on Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
|
I think it's more important to limit the number of former champions than it is to police the length of reigns
|
Generally a few months. Styles's reign was a good length, and Owens will be ripe when he drops it to Goldberg. Transitional champions will always be a thing, and when it comes to something like Cena's recent run they're okay. 24 hour reigns are pretty lame, and minutes-long reigns are generally stupid, with your occasional MiTB cash-in (ie - Bryan beating Big Show = good, Orton beating Bryan = bad.) If your establish that reigns will ALWAYS be at least so long you risk losing interest from the audience. I don't think establishing consistent reigns of over 6 months will go over well. And quite frankly Punk's year plus run wore on me after about 10 months (fucking ungrateful bastard.)
|
Also, given the differences in hown the business works, Styles' titlem run is pretty much comparable to Savage's one year run. Things move so much more quickly now that people would likely be put off by that kind of run these days.
|
This last Cena reign is a great example of how annoyingg they can be. No point at all in him winning that only to drop it in the chamber. Why not have AJ lose it at EC to Bray instead of putting Cena over? No sense, no need, un necessary
|
Quote:
Seems like everyone involved is better off based on how it all played out. |
Bray Wyatt should be champion for the next 13 years.
Seriously though I find longer reigns to be more suited to heels. Lesnar could have never lost the title a couple years ago and I'd still be cool with him as champ (ignoring everything that's happened to him since he lost it obviously). Heels are willing to go further and use more extreme measures to win so it makes sense for them to reign longer than a face who typically plays by the rules all the time. Guys who sit on the edge of the heel/face line are especially suited for long reigns; the crowd loves the antihero these days. In general, id like 3 to 6 months for faces, 8 to 12 for a heel. If someone catches fire during their reign then maybe run it over a year and see how far you can take it. The right guy with a good 18 month reign could set them up with a long term star for years and years to come. |
On a side note to this, the women's titles change hands way too often. They need a credible long term champion Pronto to give their titles some prestige. It could have been charlotte, but as often as she flip flops the title around I don't know how credible people would find it if she suddenly started never losing. She'd have to rely on Dana again and I'm hoping that the events earlier aren't signaling that happening again. I HATE Charlotte as a character but damn she's good and she could be the one. Being realistic....even though it's awful....Nia Jax could do a lot for the division if they let her have the title for a decent length reign.
On smackdown.....I don't know what they do for a credible long term champ atm. Well, other than Asuka. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Week 2-26: She farts a lot. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®