Title Reigns in WWE

**Right Angle** · 11-29-2005, 04:49 PM

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.

11-29-2005, 04:49 PM	#1
Right Angle Newbie deluxe Posts: 10	Title Reigns in WWE 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.