TPWW Forums  

Go Back   TPWW Forums > w r e s t l i n g > wrestling forum
Reload this Page Lesnar's Had the Title for quite a while
Register Members List Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-29-2004, 06:43 PM   #1
Head
Shocker
 
Head's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,124
Head is pretty cool (5,000+)Head is pretty cool (5,000+)Head is pretty cool (5,000+)Head is pretty cool (5,000+)
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.
Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2004, 07:06 PM   #2
Kane Knight
Ron Paul 4 EVA
 
Kane Knight's Avatar
 
Posts: 152,467
Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Kane Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2004, 07:27 PM   #3
Head
Shocker
 
Head's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,124
Head is pretty cool (5,000+)Head is pretty cool (5,000+)Head is pretty cool (5,000+)Head is pretty cool (5,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane Knight
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.
Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2004, 01:58 AM   #4
Kane Knight
Ron Paul 4 EVA
 
Kane Knight's Avatar
 
Posts: 152,467
Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head
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.
Kane Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2004, 03:21 AM   #5
John la Rock
That's how I roll!!!
 
Posts: 4,437
John la Rock is pretty cool (5,000+)John la Rock is pretty cool (5,000+)John la Rock is pretty cool (5,000+)John la Rock is pretty cool (5,000+)
I say he should lose it to Angle the Smackdown after Wrestlemania XX. and Kurt should lose the title to Guerrero at Summerslam
John la Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2004, 04:45 AM   #6
Sephiroth
Your All Puppets
 
Sephiroth's Avatar
 
Posts: 7,585
Sephiroth puts the "bang" in Bangladesh (30,000+)Sephiroth puts the "bang" in Bangladesh (30,000+)Sephiroth puts the "bang" in Bangladesh (30,000+)Sephiroth puts the "bang" in Bangladesh (30,000+)Sephiroth puts the "bang" in Bangladesh (30,000+)Sephiroth puts the "bang" in Bangladesh (30,000+)Sephiroth puts the "bang" in Bangladesh (30,000+)Sephiroth puts the "bang" in Bangladesh (30,000+)Sephiroth puts the "bang" in Bangladesh (30,000+)
Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
I agree with that
Sephiroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2004, 07:43 PM   #7
RGWhat316
YesYesYes!
 
RGWhat316's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,163
RGWhat316 is a chill bro (7,500+)RGWhat316 is a chill bro (7,500+)RGWhat316 is a chill bro (7,500+)RGWhat316 is a chill bro (7,500+)RGWhat316 is a chill bro (7,500+)
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.
RGWhat316 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2004, 07:28 PM   #8
Rob
Part time poster
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Posts: 22,963
Rob has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Rob has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Rob has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Rob has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Rob has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Rob has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Rob has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Rob has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Rob has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Rob has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane Knight
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.
Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Hybrid Mode Hybrid Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:55 AM.

Forums Home - TPWW - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin®