SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Oct 05 2009 01:00 am

So in the old days, World champions held their belts for years. From 1963 until the late 80s there were only a handful of WWE champions. Bruno Sammartino had the belt from 1963 until 1971! (8 Years!) then it was Pedro Morales for 2 years, before going back to Sammartino for another 4 years. Then Billy Graham for a year, then Bob Backlund for almost 4 years. Then Hogan gets the belt for 4 years. Then they started moving the belt about once a year. (There were a few other champions, but they were placeholders. Back in the old days, a face would never wrestle another face. So when WWF wanted to hand the belt to a new champion, they would have a heel win the belt, and hold it for a few days or weeks, and then have them drop it to the next chosen face of the company.)

After the events of tonight, and yet 2 more World title changes, I got to thinking.

Is it really better to pass the top belts around every few months, or was it better to have an established champion who held the belt for a long time, so when the belt did change hands is was something special and really meant something?

I know they have tried to have long term champions since then, (JBL did hold the belt for about a year.) but I don't think the crowd hated the title NOT changing hands as often, I just think they didn't like who held it. I mean, a long term heel champion will start drawing the wrong kind of heat if he has the belt to long. (JBL, HHH in the early 2000s, etc.)

Which do you guys prefer? A new champion every 2 - 3 PPVs, or long term champions?

Posted: Oct 05 2009 01:13 am

Well, overall I completely prefer long term. It gives the title weight, and actually makes it mean something when the title is finally passed on. Otherwise its just a Macguffin for characters to squabble over, and has no meaning outside of that.

Joined: Oct 12 2007 Posts: 821

Too be fair, the WWE didn't have four shows on a week back in those days.

Personally, I like long title reigns. It build credibility, makes the titles more important, and is all around more entertaining. The problem is, back in the old days you would be incredibly lucky to see multiple shows a month. Long reigns were more feasible back then. Now, you have no one interesting enough to hold the interest of the fan more than a couple months, plus a show to put on every week? It just doesn't work anymore, which is sad.

Posted: Oct 05 2009 08:54 am

The longer the better, Batista's as well as many other, 1 day regins just cheapen the belts in my opinion.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 05 2009 10:27 am

The long reigns of ye olden days were so fans could get used to the person holding a belt. There's advantages to it (stability, one big guy you can build the company around), but there's disadvantages (what's the fun if you -know- Hulk Hogan is always gonna win?).

Television lets title changes get announced and the wrestlers get out there that much quicker, so less lag time between reigns is okay.

And while it's only slightly related, I loved the insane nature of the "defended 24-7" Hardcore Title that lead to some rapid-fire title changes, some very interesting "matches" in cool locations, and some atrocities that I dare not speak of.

Posted: Oct 05 2009 11:15 am

People don't have the attention span for a long title reign any more, and it's not what they want for some reason. Hell, when Undertaker was introduced back in the 80's, it took a full year for anyone to even knock him off his feet, which happened when Hogan got him to drop to one knee. (I believe he then got back up and won the match, but I forget). The WWE doesn't have the patience for anything that cool anymore.

Posted: Oct 05 2009 12:13 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

And while it's only slightly related, I loved the insane nature of the "defended 24-7" Hardcore Title that lead to some rapid-fire title changes, some very interesting "matches" in cool locations, and some atrocities that I dare not speak of.

I agree. That was a different kind of case though, in that it was the whole *point* of the belt. If the belt itself has a gimmick like that, it can hardly cheapen it to follow through.

Posted: Oct 05 2009 12:17 pm

The 24-7 thing wore thin pretty quick though. It was a cute gimmick and I liked it at first, but it got pretty tiring after a while.

Posted: Oct 05 2009 01:13 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

The 24-7 thing wore thin pretty quick though. It was a cute gimmick and I liked it at first, but it got pretty tiring after a while.

Well, they kind of beat it into the ground. If they had had those matches happen a bit less frequently, might it have worked better for you? (Not that that makes a ton of sense either; if the guy is fair game 24/7 it makes sense he would have a constant parade of people trying to kick his ass. But since this is the same company that asks us to believe that Rey Mysterio can pin someone like Big Show just because he's fast and agile, I don't see how toning down the amount of matches would be a huge deal.)

Posted: Oct 05 2009 01:33 pm

I enjoyed hardcore matches that were more akin to the one Christian and Dreamer had a month or two back.

Anyways, I'm guessing Knyte posted this due to disappointment with the HiaC PPV? Overall, I thought it was meh and the Taker/Punk match was just wrong on every level. It was hard for me to watch an up-and-coming wrestler that I enjoy take on an icon I've loved since the early 90's fight in an unspecial match AS THE OPENER! THE FUCKING OPENER!? YOU DON'T FUCKING DO THAT GOD DAMMIT!

Posted: Oct 05 2009 02:00 pm

Ba'al wrote:

I enjoyed hardcore matches that were more akin to the one Christian and Dreamer had a month or two back.

Anyways, I'm guessing Knyte posted this due to disappointment with the HiaC PPV? Overall, I thought it was meh and the Taker/Punk match was just wrong on every level. It was hard for me to watch an up-and-coming wrestler that I enjoy take on an icon I've loved since the early 90's fight in an unspecial match AS THE OPENER! THE FUCKING OPENER!? YOU DON'T FUCKING DO THAT GOD DAMMIT!

It really shows you that Raw is the favorite son, and Smackdown is the red-headed stepchild.

(And, I guess that makes ECW the adopted third-world kid that they got just to be hip and look like they are caring people, but really just did it for the publicity.*)

*I'm talking Madonna here and not Jolie, I believe Jolie actully does care.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 05 2009 03:22 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

The 24-7 thing wore thin pretty quick though. It was a cute gimmick and I liked it at first, but it got pretty tiring after a while.

I completely agree with this. It was fun until they ran it into the ground...or maybe I just always liked Crash Holly's character. And then when they tried to make it "legit" by giving it to Steve Blackman...yeah, I like the guy, but honestly?

Posted: Oct 05 2009 04:46 pm

SoldierHawk wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

The 24-7 thing wore thin pretty quick though. It was a cute gimmick and I liked it at first, but it got pretty tiring after a while.

Well, they kind of beat it into the ground. If they had had those matches happen a bit less frequently, might it have worked better for you? (Not that that makes a ton of sense either; if the guy is fair game 24/7 it makes sense he would have a constant parade of people trying to kick his ass. But since this is the same company that asks us to believe that Rey Mysterio can pin someone like Big Show just because he's fast and agile, I don't see how toning down the amount of matches would be a huge deal.)

They needed to do it less, because it got too old too fast. They were dedicating like 30% of the show at least to it t one point, and it was disrupting other matches and stuff.

#edit: Oh yeah, also the whole thing made no sense. One guy says he's going to defend it 24-7. That doesn't change the rules for the belt, just for his reign. Once someone else won, that should really have been the end of it.

Posted: Oct 05 2009 07:57 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

#edit: Oh yeah, also the whole thing made no sense. One guy says he's going to defend it 24-7. That doesn't change the rules for the belt, just for his reign. Once someone else won, that should really have been the end of it.

Well, that's if you use real-world logic. In wrestling land it kind of makes sense, because no titleholder after that one would want to look weaker.

Hey, it makes sense in my head, ok? Razz

Posted: Oct 05 2009 11:08 pm

SoldierHawk wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

#edit: Oh yeah, also the whole thing made no sense. One guy says he's going to defend it 24-7. That doesn't change the rules for the belt, just for his reign. Once someone else won, that should really have been the end of it.

Well, that's if you use real-world logic. In wrestling land it kind of makes sense, because no titleholder after that one would want to look weaker.

Hey, it makes sense in my head, ok? Razz

Were many people REALLY afraid of looking weaker than Crash Holly?

Posted: Oct 05 2009 11:57 pm

Honestly, I don't want to see title reigns that last longer than 6 months. There have been dozens of guys who should have been world champion but never were. And long title reigns just mean that there will be more guys who don't get that belt.

Basically, I feel the WWE can't have it both ways. Back in the day, there were five PPVs: Summerslam, Survivor Series, The Royal Rumble, King of the Ring, and Wrestlemania. And of those five, KOR, the Rumble, and Survivor Series, did not traditionally have a Heavyweight Title match. The only times the title was seriously defended were at Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and on Saturday Night's Main Event. Because of this, it was easier to keep the belts on guys longer. But when you have monthly PPVs and you have the SAME FUCKING MATCH-UPS on television every week, it becomes boring if you don't change the belts more often. And it costs them money. If CM Punk wins the title on September's PPV, no one's going to buy the October PPV unless the undercard is good, because Punk is going to retain.

Speaking of October PPVs, WWE needs to start using the Halloween Havoc brand name for its October PPVs.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 06 2009 07:39 am

Quote:

Were many people REALLY afraid of looking weaker than Crash Holly?

No shame in losing to a Super-Heavyweight weighing in at WELL over 400 pounds. Very Happy

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

UsaSatsui wrote:

Quote:

Were many people REALLY afraid of looking weaker than Crash Holly?

No shame in losing to a Super-Heavyweight weighing in at WELL over 400 pounds. Very Happy

God I miss that man.

Posted: Oct 06 2009 11:29 am

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

SoldierHawk wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

#edit: Oh yeah, also the whole thing made no sense. One guy says he's going to defend it 24-7. That doesn't change the rules for the belt, just for his reign. Once someone else won, that should really have been the end of it.

Well, that's if you use real-world logic. In wrestling land it kind of makes sense, because no titleholder after that one would want to look weaker.

Hey, it makes sense in my head, ok? Razz

Were many people REALLY afraid of looking weaker than Crash Holly?

Irl, no of course not. In Wrestlingland, anytime anyone makes you look weak, its the end of the world, at least for that week until you can get revenge later.

Syd makes a good point about sharing the title wealth around too, although I still think longer reigns make it more effective when someone finally does take it away. I mean, if it gets passed around every couple months, then yeah a deserving guy might hold the title, but its a meaningless reign. Better to give such a person a good IC reign, or something of the kind imho.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 06 2009 12:36 pm

I haven't watched wrestling in a while, but I remember about the time I stopped watching, HHH had a very long extended reign. And eventually, it got very boring.

Posted: Oct 06 2009 12:52 pm

That got boring for a couple reasons:
1. HHH is boring
2. HHH rarely defended the title against people who weren't total jobbers
3. HHH spent a minimum of 30 minutes on the mic in each 2 hour episode of RAW. Also, that's 2 hours minus commercials, so he was on the mic for 20 minutes of each 90ish minute episode.
4. This was the same time that all of HHH's matches were being ended with a sledgehammer, which is boring. Nothing says quality title fight like being DQ'ed.
If you want someone to have an extended title reign it needs to be either someone charismatic like Hogan or The Rock, or someone who is extremely imposing like oldschool Undertaker.

Posted: Oct 06 2009 12:55 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

That got boring for a couple reasons:
1. HHH is boring
2. HHH rarely defended the title against people who weren't total jobbers
3. HHH spent a minimum of 30 minutes on the mic in each 2 hour episode of RAW. Also, that's 2 hours minus commercials, so he was on the mic for 20 minutes of each 90ish minute episode.
4. This was the same time that all of HHH's matches were being ended with a sledgehammer, which is boring. Nothing says quality title fight like being DQ'ed.
If you want someone to have an extended title reign it needs to be either someone charismatic like Hogan or The Rock, or someone who is extremely imposing like oldschool Undertaker.

QF-effing-T. God I loathed that reign. The only time HHH is ever entertaining to me is when he's running any kind of program with HBK. (That feud they had back in...'02, I think it was, where HBK was attacked by HHH in the parking lot, came back to wrestling at Summerslam, and eventually won the title in the first Elemination Chamber, was absolutely epic imho. And it made HHH look great.)

Posted: Oct 06 2009 01:19 pm

I had a typo cause I meant he was on the mic for 30 minutes of each 90 minute show. Anyway, the only time HHH was ever entertaining was his very Wrestlemania match against Ultimate Warrior. He hit Ultimate Warrior with the pedigree like 10 seconds into the match, and Ultimate Warrior just completed no sold the move, which is awesome, and pinned HHH like 20 seconds later. I suppose HHH was entertaining back in original DX, but that's about it.
Also, the pedigree is fucking TERRIBLE. Back when he did it to Ultimate Warrior it looked great. It looked like you could hurt someone with it. By the time he was champion, my friends and I just referred to the move as "9.8 meters per second squared" (I think we call several moves that name, actually, but definitely the pedigree). There's nothing impressive about it at all, you just fall like 2 feet. My absolute least favorite way for a match to end, even worse than the sledgehammer, was when HHH would land the pedigree on someone, then the kicked out, then he would immediately hit them with the second, anti-climactic pedigree for the win. This happened a LOT.

Ugh, I fucking hate HHH. No wonder I stopped watching wrestling, since it was just the HHH show. I gotta say, though, the elimination chamber was a really cool match idea. I miss being able to watch every wrestling PPV for free like I could my first 3 years in Miami.

Posted: Oct 06 2009 01:20 pm

Jeebus made me think about what I wouldn't give for a good monster heel again.

They ruined Kane, Big Show, & Kalhi.

They need a new monster. To come in. Lay waste to everyone (Much like Brock in WWE & Goldburg in WCW did,) and take the title. Then you could have a months long, if not year long storyline in which everyone tries to beat him. Faces & Heels alike, challenging him at every PPV only to lose clean. Then finally at Wrestlemania, have him finally get bested in a drawn out and very close call fashion.

This way.

A> The title means something. The best man has it, and everyone is trying to take him down.

B> Multiple people get into the title shot. (Perhaps, even set it up so the monster doesn't speak. Have a good manager as his spokeman. Have an open challenge laid out, that everyone can have one shot at him, but if they lose, they don't get another shot at the title until he loses it. The goal of the Monster and Manager is to best everyone in the WWE and prove he is the best ever, and is unstoppable. If he beats everyone, then he will retire as champion, never having been beat, something no one has ever done. (Shane McMahan winning & then retiring the European belt doesn't count.)

C> From week to week, have the Monster have non-title matches against low and mid carders, where he mops the floor with them. This will establish him a strong heel, and more unbeatable. Also, when he wins in under five minutes every show, and then a someone takes him for 20+ minutes plus in a PPV, it will push the challenger regardless of if they win.

I swear if I ever win a $200 Million+ Powerball I am either going to start my own Fed, or buy out TNA.

Posted: Oct 06 2009 01:36 pm

I hate Lesnar. Goldberg was awesome because he was imposing, strong, and decent on the mic. Lesnar was just some giant moron who would scream "Here comes the pain!" in a girly voice before matches. Lesnar had no business being champion, and he's better off at UFC. So aside from using him as an example, I like where your head's at.

I gotta say though, I'd like rankings. The whole money in the bank think, which I can't believe they're still doing, is fucking retarded. It was a stupid gimmick the first time, and it's a stupid gimmick like 5 years later. They should have some sort of actual ladder system so there's a clear #1 contender, and the IC Champion should still be able to vacate the IC belt for a title shot. I think something like this, where there's actually some amount of rhyme or reason to the title shots, also helps bring meaning to the belt. With a ladder system, you know what someone had to go through to earn the title shot. Sure there can still be grudge matches and titles can be placed on the line, but the champ shouldn't be defending the belt against random assholes in a pitiful attempt to put him over.