Title Reigns in WWE

[Right Angle]

I've been of the opinion now that WWE has went in the wrong direction with the way they've been handling the title reigns of Batista and John Cena.

I understand that to give them long reigns at the top will establish their credibility, and more or less cement their main event status, however here's my beef with that.

Back in 2001 or so, you had a number of guys who were in the main event title scene, the belts were changing hands on a frequent basis, and the impression you got about the main eventers on the show was that if they were on their game, they could win it.
I'm talking Austin, Rock, HHH, Angle, Jericho, Undertaker, Foley, and to a lesser extent, the likes of Kane, and other upper-mid carders.

Now during this period they had titles changing on Smackdown, RAW, and PPV's. This led to people wanting to tune in, incase they missed an episode and something happened, because it frequently did.
Nowadays, you know you can go on holiday between PPV's and know the champions will still have their titles when you come back.

This doesn't make for exciting TV.
It makes for a decline in viewing figures.

I understand that some of the names I've mentioned are exceptional talents, that don't come along very often, however, WWE can create some similar talents, and currently I don't think they're heading in the appropriate direction to have an exciting title scene.

If WWE started moving the titles around more frequently, then people might care to watch more often.

Agree/Disagree/Discuss.

And feel free to put in who you think should be a legit, realistic contender on each brand.

Oh, yeah.
Hello.:wave:

[RemyRed]

Welcome. The thing about televised title changes is that it causes the PPV buyrates to lower.

[Right Angle]

Welcome. The thing about televised title changes is that it causes the PPV buyrates to lower.

Cheers.

That all depends what they do on the PPV's for the matches, and how they build them.

However, lower viewing figures week in, week out on RAW and Smackdown don't help sell PPV's either.

[Corkscrewed]

Also, for the record, the title's only changed hands on Smackdown twice, ever. The first was when Vince pinned HHH via Austin screwjob, and that set up the Six-Pac Challenge at Unforgiven 99 (might have been No Mercy). Second was when Brock beat Angle in the Ironman Match a couple of years ago.

RAW's only had like two or three title changes in the past five years too, I think. HHH beat Big Show... can't remember the other one(s).

[Right Angle]

Also, for the record, the title's only changed hands on Smackdown twice, ever. The first was when Vince pinned HHH via Austin screwjob, and that set up the Six-Pac Challenge at Unforgiven 99 (might have been No Mercy). Second was when Brock beat Angle in the Ironman Match a couple of years ago.

RAW's only had like two or three title changes in the past five years too, I think. HHH beat Big Show... can't remember the other one(s).
Yeah......

Bugger.








*tumbleweed*

[RemyRed]

Mankind and The Rock. Has it really been so few? Back then it seemed like it could happen at anytime.

[Right Angle]

Mankind and The Rock. Has it really been so few? Back then it seemed like it could happen at anytime.
Not so much now though.:(

[Nervous Ferret]

|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------

[samichna]

WWE is retarded. They think that their number one priority is to sell their PPVs. Of course that is a huge deal, but I mean what is the point of watching their weekly show if it is predictable? If nothing exciting ever happens, then people won't watch the free TV shows, and people won't buy the PPV.

And what about the fans in attendance at the televised live events? How can you be excited when you know what (or that nothing out of the box) is going to happen?

UGH.

[Right Angle]

|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------oves ze cock?




:shifty:

[Goulet]

Mankind and The Rock. Has it really been so few? Back then it seemed like it could happen at anytime.
The last 4 title changes on Raw were...

Austin beat Angle October 8, 2001 for the belt
HHH beat Show Jan 3, 2000 for the belt
Rock beat Mankind Feb 15, 1999 to win the belt
Mankind beat Rock Jan 4, 1999 to win the belt

[addy2hotty]

The storylines aren't compelling enough for the possibility of a TV title change, they haven't been for years.

Like others have said, it used to be you had 5 or 6 guys all with geniune (in the viewers eyes) ability to win the title at any time.

Now you have 2 on Raw - Angle, HHH, and ONE on SD, Randy Orton.

The rest have either been pounded down into mid-card - Booker/Benoit/Michaels/JBL, or simply do not have the ability - Masters.

It says a lot when Big Dave has, what seems to be, a nasty injury which requires rehab and they don't know what to do with the title, so leave it on him making him look very weak in the process (destroying him various times in the build up to SS, being eliminated early at SS).

Orton will eventually win back the title on SD, mainly because theres no-one else, and Trips will win back the Raw title, again, because theres no-one else. Both of these will happen at PPV's.

If they had any sense, next week on SD, they would set up a match between JBL & 'Tista. Orton interferes and costs him the title, setting up JBL. JBL has a feud with Mysterio, Batista rehabs, comes back, wins the Rumble, JBL loses the title at some point to Orton in a triple threat, Orton vs Tista at Mania.

As for Raw, when this awful title feud is over, I can only hope Edge comes back and uses his title shot and beats him. I'm no Edge fan, but think he's best suited to take it as soon as he gets back. We all THINK that he's going to use his shot at Mania, but as a heel, he won't. As for the future face-chasing-the-title on Raw, I see none.

[Loose Cannon]

go back and watch wrestling from the 70's-mid 90's and come back and try to argue long term Title holds don't work.

You bring up 2001, which is when business started to collapse because of shit booking. Not a way to argue a point.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Long title reigns can be good, but they can also be very plain. It all depends on the Champion, how they are booked, and how interesting the defenses are.

I'm going to suggest something that I haven't before, and see how it goes over. Anyway, I suggest the WWE keep the WWE Championship on John Cena until sometime around the middle of next year.

Many people are sick of Cena, many people aren't. I personally don't think he's the next big star everyone claims he is. Solid player? Sure. Next Stone Cold/Hulk Hogan? No way. But that doesn't mean he can't be used to sniff out the next big star. A lot of the fans are salivating over a title change, so when it does happen, the place is going to go nuts. I think they should have him lose the title by surprise. Cena wins an Elimination Chamber at New Year's Revolution, wins a final confrontation against Kurt Angle at the Royal Rumble, and beats Edge at WrestleMania 22.

Eventually have a shock victory on RAW. Maybe someone as low down the food chain as a recently drafted Paul London? The atmosphere after the title change would be amazing.

I don't know why, but I think Cena as the annoying guy that wins all his matches could be good. Cena marks will eat it up, smart fans are smart fans, and will always watch (we still do, what, 8 months into Cena's title reign?), so when the title finally changes hands, it will shake the foundation of everything and not just look like an abortion of the "John Cena is a Wrestling God" movement.

To be honest, something like this would need an interesting mid-card, but that's something the WWE hasn't done too well.

[mrslackalack]

Also, for the record, the title's only changed hands on Smackdown twice, ever. The first was when Vince pinned HHH via Austin screwjob, and that set up the Six-Pac Challenge at Unforgiven 99 (might have been No Mercy). Second was when Brock beat Angle in the Ironman Match a couple of years ago.

).

Dont forget Angle beating Booker for the WCW Title on Smackdown.

[46 & 2]

There have been over 200 consecutive RAW episodes without a top title change (Undisputed, WWF/E, World, etc.). It used to average out to once per year, but now it's been over 4 years.

On the other hand, In WCW in 2000 (their last full year in existence), there were 13 World Title changes between Nitro and Thunder. THUNDER, for fucksake - that'd be like the WWE title changing hands on Heat.

There has to be a delicate balance, and 200+ shows without a single one doesn't really cater to the "anything can happen" slogan.

[mrslackalack]

There have been over 200 consecutive RAW episodes without a top title change (Undisputed, WWF/E, World, etc.). It used to average out to once per year, but now it's been over 4 years.

On the other hand, In WCW in 2000 (their last full year in existence), there were 13 World Title changes between Nitro and Thunder. THUNDER, for fucksake - that'd be like the WWE title changing hands on Heat.

There has to be a delicate balance, and 200+ shows without a single one doesn't really cater to the "anything can happen" slogan.


Interesting facts :y:

[Boondock Saint]

The last 4 title changes on Raw were...

Austin beat Angle October 8, 2001 for the belt
HHH beat Show Jan 3, 2000 for the belt
Rock beat Mankind Feb 15, 1999 to win the belt
Mankind beat Rock Jan 4, 1999 to win the belt

Don't forget HHH beating Mankind the RAW after Summerslam in 99.

[Dorkchop]

This wasn't a title change, but the title was declared vacant a few months ago after Edge pinned Benoit and Benoit made Edge tap out simotaneously in a triple threat match with HHH.

I've wanted to see a good title change on Raw for years now. And I fully agree that a surprise champ would be great. Maybe they could finally give Kane a title run.

[Nowhere Man]

Don't forget HHH beating Mankind the RAW after Summerslam in 99.

And Austin beating the Undertaker in (I think) April of the same year.

[Jaton]

It does detract from the feel of "anything can happen" doesn't it?