Lesnar's Had the Title for quite a while

[Corkscrewed]

Lesnar has held the title since September 18, 2003. That's over four months ago. He'll probably keep it through Wrestlemania, so that would be six months. If he keeps it until the next SD! PPV after WM, which I believe is Judgment Day, that would give him an amazing eight month reign (which is pretty impressive and would be one of the longest reigns in the past few years). He's definitely keeping the belt going into No Way out, which would give him a guaranteed five month reign.

Yeah, it may be obvious to you, but I just kinda realized that.

HOWEVER, it doesn't seem like he's had it forever, at least not for me. What about all of you?

IMO, it doesn't feel like Lesnar's buried every single opponent he's defended the belt again. They've at least kept the main event scene pretty interesting, and it just feels different than when Triple H held the title forever. He's making the belt more prestigious this way (and not just because he's had it for a while, but because of HOW he's had it).


Thoughts? Do you agree, or do you think that Lesnar in fact HAS pulled a Triple H and held the title for a long time, making it worthless (ala Big Show)?

[Cactus Sid]

I don't think Lesnar has as much backstage pull as Triple H, also, the other problem on the Smackdown side is that very few people are actually at the Main Event level to be able to take it off him for a decent run. The only real people would have been Benoit, Angle and Taker (Guerrero and Cena aren't quite there) but Angle/Lesnar has been done to death, Lesnar/Taker likewise, and Benoit's off to Raw now, so I can only assume its the lack of opponents which mean he's got the belt.

[Kane Knight]

Yeah, he's had it for a long time, but it's looked good.

[loopydate]

I agree. It doesn't feel like it's been that long. It could be because he hasn't monopolized SmackDown. There has been great development in feuds (Eddie/Chavo, Rey/Noble, Cena/Show, Bashams/everybody else) that had nothing to do with him whereas RAW has been about Triple H or Triple H's friends (even when Trips himself wasn't even on the show). The only notable exception on RAW is the Trish/Jericho/Christian/Lita story.

See, this is how you book a lengthy title run.

[Rob]

He should lose it in July or August to Eddy G

[Kane Knight]

I agree. It doesn't feel like it's been that long. It could be because he hasn't monopolized SmackDown. There has been great development in feuds (Eddie/Chavo, Rey/Noble, Cena/Show, Bashams/everybody else) that had nothing to do with him whereas RAW has been about Triple H or Triple H's friends (even when Trips himself wasn't even on the show). The only notable exception on RAW is the Trish/Jericho/Christian/Lita story.

See, this is how you book a lengthy title run.

I agree.

If it was the Brock show, people would be furious. It's not. It's Smackdown!, where Brock is a longstanding champion.

[Corkscrewed]

I thought so. Glad to see people agree with me. :D

Take that, Trips! (or should I say, Fatty!)

[Head]

I dunno, I'm not really sure if I feel that shorter title reigns make the belt look weaker. I think it could just make the competition for the belt look harder. Granted, I'm not talking about week long title reigns, but 1-2 month reigns.

Not that I really would enjoy having the WWE Title being the Superbowl of wrestling, but more frequent changes definatly does make the belt look stronger IMO, it's just bad for building up individual wrestlers.

[Kane Knight]

I dunno, I'm not really sure if I feel that shorter title reigns make the belt look weaker. I think it could just make the competition for the belt look harder. Granted, I'm not talking about week long title reigns, but 1-2 month reigns.

Not that I really would enjoy having the WWE Title being the Superbowl of wrestling, but more frequent changes definatly does make the belt look stronger IMO, it's just bad for building up individual wrestlers.

The belt has no inherrent strength to itself. The only strength is in the competition. If the title scene is weak, the title appears weak.

[AareDub]

I guess maybe I'm one of the only one that thinks this, but I'm so tired of seeing that belt on Lesnar. It feels like he's had it for so long. If you go back to when this one started he had only been without it for a month or two before he got it back. It feels to me like almost a solid year without a change on the SD side of things.

I do, however, agree that it makes the belt look stronger. It's going to make the person who beats him look damn good.

[Head]

The belt has no inherrent strength to itself. The only strength is in the competition. If the title scene is weak, the title appears weak.I personally view many title change as the competition being stronger, to the point where it is very hard for anybody to step up and really dominate everybody.

For example, if the Yankees win the World Series every year, in my opinion that lessens the value of the championship, since it is clear that there is no real competition for it. Now when another team steps up and wins it from the Yankees, I see that as that team really stepping up and making a name for themselves, but not until the champsionship is is somthing that the competition is so hard that nobody could win it for 2 years in a row does the World Series really regain it's strength IMO.

Again, not that I like short title reigns or anything, as I would rather see one wrestler dominate for longer periods of time to build them up, but I do see them as making the title look stronger.

[Rob]

The belt has no inherrent strength to itself. The only strength is in the competition. If the title scene is weak, the title appears weak.

Don't really agree with that. Bret Hart was the world champion during a time he barely had competition but that belt was never weak. Ditto for Shawn Michaels. I can remember many a time the WWF/E title looked weak when Austin had it and had like 10 credible challengers for title and it looked weak though.

[MVP]

The WWE title has more credibility around Lesnar's waist than anyone else right now besides Kurt Angle. Like Cactus Sid said, there are very few people who can give the title a long run besides him on the Smackdown roster.

[The CyNick]

I think Brock's reign hasn't seemed that long because on SD they have put the Heavyweight Title on the backburner.

Brock won it from Kurt when it was still the focal point of the show. Then, in October he defended against Taker on a PPV that was really headlined by Steph and Vince. Then in November at SS, the champion was in the opening match in a 10 man tag, another PPV headlined by Vince.

They had the deal with Benoit at SS and then on TV, which put the title back on the front page, but then they went to the fued with Holly, and once again the title seemed to be seocndary, this time to the Eddie-Chavo fued.

Also, complicating matters was the fact that Brock hasn't been 100%, so he hasn't been able to defend it all the time.

I would expect that the title will once again be the main focus of the show with NWO, Mania and beyond.

[Corkscrewed]

^ And hopefull the US title will get more attention too.

[Savio]

I thought he was sussposed to lose to eddie?

[Corkscrewed]

Why would he lose to Eddie? He's scheduled to face Eddie, but not to lose.

[Savio]

So he can face goldberg.

[Corkscrewed]

And he can't face Goldberg as the champion?

[Savio]

No its a law.

[Corkscrewed]

It's supposed to be Eddie vs Angle at Wrestlemania. And right now, as I'm watching the final part of this rumble, this is a really great way to start out the feud with a bang.

Eddie COULD beat Brock, but there's really not enough history to warrant Eddie winning "all of the sudden," since it'd be viewed as a fluke win.

[Kane Knight]

I personally view many title change as the competition being stronger, to the point where it is very hard for anybody to step up and really dominate everybody.

For example, if the Yankees win the World Series every year, in my opinion that lessens the value of the championship, since it is clear that there is no real competition for it. Now when another team steps up and wins it from the Yankees, I see that as that team really stepping up and making a name for themselves, but not until the champsionship is is somthing that the competition is so hard that nobody could win it for 2 years in a row does the World Series really regain it's strength IMO.

Again, not that I like short title reigns or anything, as I would rather see one wrestler dominate for longer periods of time to build them up, but I do see them as making the title look stronger.

I agree. If there's not valid competition, a sport is boring. If the competition is weak, I kinda tune it out.

Now, if it's because of the quality of the teams, a close race is mad exciting, and makes it look good.

If the teams are weak, competition is kinda pointless.

Wrestling has its roots in sports, so it's natural if people are more interested in an intense competition. the title's only as strong as the interest it can maintain.

[John la Rock]

I say he should lose it to Angle the Smackdown after Wrestlemania XX. and Kurt should lose the title to Guerrero at Summerslam

[Sephiroth]

I say he should lose it to Angle the Smackdown after Wrestlemania XX. and Kurt should lose the title to Guerrero at Summerslam

I agree with that :y:

[RGWhat316]

True that it doesn't seem that Brock has had the title a long time this reign, but looking back on 2003, only him and Angle held the title on the SmackDown side. Angle (Armageddon, Dec '02-Wrestlemania XIX, March '03), Lesnar (Wrestlemania, March '03-Vengeance, July '03), back to Angle (Vengeance, July '03-SmackDown, September '03), and back to Brock again (September '03-current). So even though there have been plenty of title defenses, the title really hasn't changed much.

[Corkscrewed]

Yeah. Well, basically, my point is:

Unlike Raw, where Triple H made a long title reign look boring and bad, Lesnar has made his look good. Or rather, Lesnar's long reign has been made good.

[Kane Knight]

Yeah. Well, basically, my point is:

Unlike Raw, where Triple H made a long title reign look boring and bad, Lesnar has made his look good. Or rather, Lesnar's long reign has been made good.

Yeah. And it's not totally Lesnar, but also the competition and booking.

People haven't noticed Lesnar has had the title for so long because it is, at the very least, interesting.

People count the days Trips is champion because it's lame, boring, and predictable.

You know that saying, "Time flies when you're having fun?"

Smackdown's fun.

[Corkscrewed]

Agreed. I'm definitely a SD! fan. I mean, even though Raw has been nice lately, there are some storylines that seem a little disorganized.

Overall, though, I think the WWE is rebounding from their recent lows and doing better. :y: