|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Jul 12, 2014 10:44:58 GMT -5
I hate that Trips likes long title reigns. I like short title reigns that keep things unpredictable. With long title reigns you know a title won't change unless it's a blockbuster match so the other title matches doesn't intrest as much. I like where you never know when titles will change. I hate year long reigns. They're boring as . I agree, I like a fresh product, people holding titles for months gets boring how do you expect to make someone appear as a credible champion if they only hold it for like 3 weeks?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 11:53:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 11:24:50 GMT -5
I'm sure Brian Kendrick had one of their favorite title reigns of all time.
|
|
|
Post by Yambag Jones on Jul 12, 2014 12:15:08 GMT -5
I'm good with them not doing it. I'm sure it'll happen if RAW's numbers dip significantly.
|
|
|
Post by kazoosandstreamers on Jul 12, 2014 12:21:49 GMT -5
I get why they do it, but I like a nice shock here and there. So, I wouldn't be mind seeing a title change on Raw again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 11:53:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 12:37:25 GMT -5
I agree, I like a fresh product, people holding titles for months gets boring how do you expect to make someone appear as a credible champion if they only hold it for like 3 weeks? not that short but a couple of months is long enough to me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 11:53:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 12:39:11 GMT -5
I agree, I like a fresh product, people holding titles for months gets boring So what, you want them changed every few weeks? Guys holding the belts for long periods of time (if booked well) adds prestige and makes the titles important. Frequently changing the titles just to change them ruins the credibility of the titles...kind of like what's happened to every title the WWE has. the length of a title reign doesn't matter very much as long as the champion is booked right and looks credible. If for example wwe randomly booked somebody like ryback as champion it doesn't matter how long the reign is as he wasn't credible to start
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 11:53:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 12:40:25 GMT -5
it did once but cena won it back the same night so your children can go to bed with a smile on there chubby faces
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 11:53:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 15:40:37 GMT -5
I like when the WWE/World title changes hands on Raw occasionally just because it adds to the unpredictable nature of the show which is often missing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 11:53:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 18:06:39 GMT -5
Wrestling fans - the ever complaing cycle. I like long reigns. I don't like long reigns. Every guy I think has talent should be champion. Push Indy guys. I hate Cena. I love Indy guys. Cena sucks. Push new stars. I hate Reigns. Push Rollins. Rollins can't talk. Why isn't Macho in the HOF? I hate part timers. CM Sucks. Punk please come back. Three hour Raws are too long. Omg I watch Indy wrestling. Omg CM Punk omg. Push Bryan. Triple H buried everybody.
On a serious note, I really can't answer. Why does a lot of things not happen in WWE anymore?
|
|
|
Post by theoutlaw1999 on Jul 12, 2014 18:45:26 GMT -5
During the Monday Night Wars it was relevant because they had to create shock title changes to keep Raw's ratings high but now there is really no point.
|
|
|
Post by ~ Cymru ~ on Jul 12, 2014 19:15:19 GMT -5
I hate that Trips likes long title reigns. I like short title reigns that keep things unpredictable. With long title reigns you know a title won't change unless it's a blockbuster match so the other title matches doesn't intrest as much. I like where you never know when titles will change. I hate year long reigns. They're boring as . I like long title reigns it makes the belt worth more if its harder for someone to take it, having the belt fly from person to person on a bi-monthly basis devalues the belt. As for the title not changing on raw its a money thing, I like the idea of the belts changing on raw as it adds unpredictablility whenever there's a title match we all know the champion will retain (via dq usually) but it makes for a bigger omg moment if the challenger should win albeit very rare.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jul 12, 2014 19:20:56 GMT -5
I agree, I like a fresh product, people holding titles for months gets boring So what, you want them changed every few weeks? Guys holding the belts for long periods of time (if booked well) adds prestige and makes the titles important. Frequently changing the titles just to change them ruins the credibility of the titles...kind of like what's happened to every title the WWE has. Look how upset people got when Daniel Bryan got screwed out of the title through 2013 - if the title wasn't important, people wouldn't get so upset.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 11:53:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 20:10:17 GMT -5
I'd like to see a house show change more. It was cool when that would happen back in the day. It doesn't have to stick. A champ can lose the title in Chicago on a Friday and win it back in Pittsburg on Sunday. It's a nice surprise for fans.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 11:53:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 1:08:28 GMT -5
So what, you want them changed every few weeks? Guys holding the belts for long periods of time (if booked well) adds prestige and makes the titles important. Frequently changing the titles just to change them ruins the credibility of the titles...kind of like what's happened to every title the WWE has. Look how upset people got when Daniel Bryan got screwed out of the title through 2013 - if the title wasn't important, people wouldn't get so upset. And look how indifferent people were when Orton and Cena were fighting for the title. Or how indifferent people got during Punk's reign towards the end. Look at how little people cared about Rock vs. Cena. If the title was important, people would be a lot more invested in the people fighting for it. Years of hot shotting the belt have murdered its credibility. The only time people care about that belt now is when one of the guys everyone likes is fighting for it. Other than that? All people do is complain about how WWE need to rebuild the titles. Also, the title wasn't even the main thing with Bryan last year. People were mad because they wanted their guy to be the top guy and WWE were pretty much telling them, "No. You don't get to pick who the top stars are and we don't think your guy is good enough." If there was no title involved, people would still have reacted the way they did because they wanted to see Bryan succeed and the WWE was telling them to eat crap.
|
|
|
Post by Colter on Jul 14, 2014 2:39:29 GMT -5
Wrestling fans - the ever complaing cycle. I like long reigns. I don't like long reigns. Every guy I think has talent should be champion. Push Indy guys. I hate Cena. I love Indy guys. Cena sucks. Push new stars. I hate Reigns. Push Rollins. Rollins can't talk. Why isn't Macho in the HOF? I hate part timers. CM Sucks. Punk please come back. Three hour Raws are too long. Omg I watch Indy wrestling. Omg CM Punk omg. Push Bryan. Triple H buried everybody. On a serious note, I really can't answer. Why does a lot of things not happen in WWE anymore? There it is. /thread.
|
|
|
Post by Bandalero on Jul 14, 2014 11:52:36 GMT -5
I've got no problem with a title being swapped to further enhance a feud. NWA Tag teams did that regularly in the 80s and I think Austin/Rock did that with the I-C belt - in those instances, short title reigns are great.
However in general, short reigns devalue the title in the long run. Everyone wanted to see Flair get his butt kicked why? Because he always held onto that title - and still managed to be a 10-time NWA/WCW champ, but that was over a period of 15 years!
Flairs longest reigns over 400 days:
476 793 412 452 426
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jul 14, 2014 11:55:46 GMT -5
I've got no problem with a title being swapped to further enhance a feud. NWA Tag teams did that regularly in the 80s and I think Austin/Rock did that with the I-C belt - in those instances, short title reigns are great. They didn't. Stone Cold was stripped of the title and The Rock was awarded it, but never dropped it back to Austin. You might be thinking of Razor Ramon and Jeff Jarrett, or Jericho and Benoit?
|
|
|
Post by Bandalero on Jul 14, 2014 12:03:12 GMT -5
I've got no problem with a title being swapped to further enhance a feud. NWA Tag teams did that regularly in the 80s and I think Austin/Rock did that with the I-C belt - in those instances, short title reigns are great. They didn't. Stone Cold was stripped of the title and The Rock was awarded it, but never dropped it back to Austin. You might be thinking of Razor Ramon and Jeff Jarrett, or Jericho and Benoit? yeah probably, I stand corrected - didn't follow the attitude era much, but I thought Austin/Rock feuded and traded titles a few times over some months. Anyways, my point still stands - if it enhances a feud then it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jul 14, 2014 12:11:04 GMT -5
It should be a rare occurrence.
It's likely to become even more rare, because WWE needs all the allure that it can muster with regard to Pay-Per-Views. They need to make it feel like that's where special things happen, because they need to continue to drive new subscriptions and renewals to the Network.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Jul 14, 2014 12:17:06 GMT -5
just means it'll be a great surprise when it does happen (if it does).
|
|