I was doing some math...

[BigDaddyCool]

There is alway the 3rd option of one guy holding on to the title for years.

[Jeritron]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyCool There is alway the 3rd option of one guy holding on to the title for years.

Which in WWE thesedays, somehow, doesn't prevent the problems. John Cena and Batista held the title for like nearly a year on their first runs. Bradshaw had the WWE title for a year before that, and Cena went on to have another year long reign.
Orton had it for a longer than average time.

Title reigns in the past few years have actually been longer than they have in more than a decade. The titles, until recently, weren't changing hands as much and new champions were less common as well.

It all comes back to the former champions hanging around. Nobody who wins the title leaves

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Jeritron Which in WWE thesedays, somehow, doesn't prevent the problems. John Cena and Batista held the title for like nearly a year on their first runs. Bradshaw had the WWE title for a year before that, and Cena went on to have another year long reign. Orton had it for a longer than average time. Title reigns in the past few years have actually been longer than they have in more than a decade. The titles, until recently, weren't changing hands as much and new champions were less common as well. It all comes back to the former champions hanging around. Nobody who wins the title leaves

The problem being a number of transition title holders in between long reigns still skews the numbers.