PDA

View Full Version : Why does the IWC seem to think long title reigns equals prestige for title?



URATOOL
12-09-2011, 04:32 PM
I don't see that long reigns have to equal prestige and short reigns have to equal less prestige.

I'll tell you simply why. Because it depends who has the belt for me, more than how often it changes hands.

I remember Lex Lugars WCW title reign of 91-92. It seemed to go on for ever (about 8 months). He rarely defended it and when he did it was never a clean win. I remember praying that Sting would take the title off of him and being disappointed several times. It just became a stale title and the US title and Tag Titles had the fans popping far more.

I'd rather see a decent feud between two guys (or maybe a 3 way feud) that involved the belt being won (by the face) and then cheated away (by the heel) a few times. If done in the right way, with the right passion, it could become a title that people REALLY REALLY want to have. A title people battle for. Cause lets face it, that's what it should be.

AreYaSerious
12-09-2011, 04:39 PM
So the title changing hands every week is what you want to see?

K2Jelly
12-09-2011, 04:40 PM
So the title changing hands every week is what you want to see?

No. I don't think you read his OP carefully enough.

URATOOL
12-09-2011, 04:42 PM
So the title changing hands every week is what you want to see?

No. But you'd know that if you'd read more than the title.


No. I don't think you read his OP carefully enough.

Exactly.

Yano88
12-09-2011, 04:43 PM
Not every week but let's take, for example, a period of 5 ppvs.

A feud built correctly can be gold switching the title bewteen good and evil.

One of the best feud that Cena had in his career was with Edge and see how many times the switched the title beteween themselves. (even though it wasnt a 5 ppv period.)

Asherdelampyr
12-09-2011, 04:45 PM
I don't see that long reigns have to equal prestige and short reigns have to equal less prestige.

I'll tell you simply why. Because it depends who has the belt for me, more than how often it changes hands.

I remember Lex Lugars WCW title reign of 91-92. It seemed to go on for ever (about 8 months). He rarely defended it and when he did it was never a clean win. I remember praying that Sting would take the title off of him and being disappointed several times. It just became a stale title and the US title and Tag Titles had the fans popping far more.

I'd rather see a decent feud between two guys (or maybe a 3 way feud) that involved the belt being won (by the face) and then cheated away (by the heel) a few times. If done in the right way, with the right passion, it could become a title that people REALLY REALLY want to have. A title people battle for. Cause lets face it, that's what it should be.

I like the bolded idea, to me it has always been more about who is going for it, and how often the title is being successfully defended. rather than title length. so I feel that Booker T trying to get the IC belt from Rhodes adds value to it, and if a current main event guy like Orton started going for it, that would add even more prestige to it.

Good Feuds also certainly help, where they are passing it back and forth, especially if that is the basis for the feud.

SilverGhost
12-09-2011, 04:45 PM
I don't see that long reigns have to equal prestige and short reigns have to equal less prestige.

Matter of opinion but it works wonders at other places. Hot potatoing the title is ok but not every single time.

[OUOTE]I'll tell you simply why. Because it depends who has the belt for me, more than how often it changes hands.[/QUOTE]

True but repetition of hot potatoing will be equally as boring as having a non-exciting long reign.


I remember Lex Lugars WCW title reign of 91-92. It seemed to go on for ever (about 8 months). He rarely defended it and when he did it was never a clean win. I remember praying that Sting would take the title off of him and being disappointed several times. It just became a stale title and the US title and Tag Titles had the fans popping far more.

WCW!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OEDU7yrTTQ

If handled right, long reigns does make it better. The bolded part proves that it works but again it has to be handled right. For example, in Japan the man to beat is Hiroshi Tanahashi(the current IWGP Heavyweight Champion) and he has held it for a year and it was handled right because the amount of challengers he got and the matches they did brought prestige to the title.(Though I hate how he is being booked but that is another story.)


I'd rather see a decent feud between two guys (or maybe a 3 way feud) that involved the belt being won (by the face) and then cheated away (by the heel) a few times. If done in the right way, with the right passion, it could become a title that people REALLY REALLY want to have. A title people battle for. Cause lets face it, that's what it should be.

Basically hot potatoing but I would agree if handled right.

That also goes for long reigns as well. There are times to have short reigns and there are times that there should be longer reigns.

URATOOL
12-09-2011, 04:52 PM
Blah blah blah (not meant disrespectably, but you answer was to long to quote all of).

My point is that the IWC seems, mostly, to have a black and white attitude to reigns lengths. It seems to be SHORT = BAD and LONG = GOOD. I'm just saying a good reign is a good reign and a bad one is a bad one. Regardless of length.

AreYaSerious
12-09-2011, 04:52 PM
Matter of opinion but it works wonders at other places. Hot potatoing the title is ok but not every single time.

[OUOTE]I'll tell you simply why. Because it depends who has the belt for me, more than how often it changes hands.

True but repetition of hot potatoing will be equally as boring as having a non-exciting long reign.



WCW!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OEDU7yrTTQ

If handled right, long reigns does make it better. The bolded part proves that it works but again it has to be handled right. For example, in Japan the man to beat is Hiroshi Tanahashi(the current IWGP Heavyweight Champion) and he has held it for a year and it was handled right because the amount of challengers he got and the matches they did brought prestige to the title.(Though I hate how he is being booked but that is another story.)



Basically hot potatoing but I would agree if handled right.

That also goes for long reigns as well. There are times to have short reigns and there are times that there should be longer reigns.[/QUOTE]


All I was saying was this. I'm tired of seeing it switching hands every single PPV. I did read it the OP and I want the title to stay with one person. Not getting a new holder every ppv. The hot potato game makes a title look like a prop. The championships should be treated more then a prop. I feel that they way titles build prestige is when somebody treats a championship like the championship.

Dr. Death
12-09-2011, 04:54 PM
The reason these World Titles lost the prestige is because they are usually treated as props. It's just a "prop" that is used to get the next person over to say "he's the World Champion!", which in reality has been lacking the needed prestige to making the World Champion believable. It all comes down to booking and building a match, angle or feud to its strongest potential. The World Champion doesn't have to have a long reign for it to become prestigious. It can be a short title reign and still be able to become prestigious, but it just needs to be handled right. The match between the two, (or three or more), competitors vying for either the WHC or the WWE Title would have to become competitive, tell a story and an overall good match. Of course this is just my opinion on this subject.

SilverGhost
12-09-2011, 04:55 PM
My point is that the IWC seems, mostly, to have a black and white attitude to reigns lengths. It seems to be SHORT = BAD and LONG = GOOD. I'm just saying a good reign is a good reign and a bad one is a bad one. Regardless of length.

Of course both ways can be good IF HANDLED RIGHT.

Should have read the quote lol

URATOOL
12-09-2011, 05:01 PM
The reason these World Titles lost the prestige is because they are usually treated as props. It's just a "prop" that is used to get the next person over to say "he's the World Champion!", which in reality has been lacking the needed prestige to making the World Champion believable. It all comes down to booking and building a match, angle or feud to its strongest potential. The World Champion doesn't have to have a long reign for it to become prestigious. It can be a short title reign and still be able to become prestigious, but it just needs to be handled right. The match between the two, (or three or more), competitors vying for either the WHC or the WWE Title would have to become competitive, tell a story and an overall good match. Of course this is just my opinion on this subject.

This is what I'm saying (pretty much).

URATOOL
12-09-2011, 05:02 PM
Of course both ways can be good IF HANDLED RIGHT.

Should have read the quote lol

I did read it. It was just to long to quote back at you. I think the Long, short, good, bad crap is just a lazy IWC point of view.

SilverGhost
12-09-2011, 05:06 PM
I did read it. It was just to long to quote back at you. I think the Long, short, good, bad crap is just a lazy IWC point of view.

Lol well IWC is hard to please. *whispers* They are probably butthurt...:p

URATOOL
12-09-2011, 05:08 PM
Lol well IWC is hard to please. *whispers* They are butthurt...:p

Corrected for you.

SilverGhost
12-09-2011, 05:13 PM
Corrected for you.

Not all of the IWC has a Collins mentality :mad:

NickAW1990
12-09-2011, 05:18 PM
In a change from seemingly normal opinions I am of the view that simply the championship matches are what give the belt prestige. If the matches are good, believable and make a crowd come out of their seats then the championship is seen as important but if the matches are lackluster then the belt loses a lot of importance.

That's why I don't think the World Title lost prestige when Christian and Orton feuded over it. Yes Christian only held the belt for three days but he had two great title matches in those three days, making it seem that the wrestlers were will pull out all the stops to win the respective match, which makes it important in my opinion.

URATOOL
12-09-2011, 05:21 PM
Not all of the IWC has a Collins mentality :mad:

Ok. You're right. Everyone except you and I.

SilverGhost
12-09-2011, 05:24 PM
Ok. You're right. Everyone except you and I.

http://wonderpodonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/284755_200947343297550_199940370064914_560726_8367 993_n.jpg

URATOOL
12-09-2011, 05:32 PM
http://wonderpodonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/284755_200947343297550_199940370064914_560726_8367 993_n.jpg

You can be Sting. I'm not into make up.

jethro
12-09-2011, 06:00 PM
I used to apply this kind of mindset on WWE because long meaningful title reigns still happen in some other wrestling promotions.

In WWE Henry has been successfully defend his title though against Orton,Big Show and Daniel Bryan,3 different opponent which surprises me,I believe at TLC will be Henry fifth(V1-Orton,V2-Big Show,V3-Big Show,V4-Bryan) defend.

jabroni
12-09-2011, 07:34 PM
i think its because when a wrestler become unbeatable or hard to beat, earning a win for the title makes the viewer or the audience believe getting the title is hard to come by. changing the who holds the title every week just seems like its easy to obtain. obviously in real sports this isnt the case, i.e. nfl, nba, ufc, but we re not talkin a real sport are we?

URATOOL
12-09-2011, 08:04 PM
i think its because when a wrestler become unbeatable or hard to beat, earning a win for the title makes the viewer or the audience believe getting the title is hard to come by. changing the who holds the title every week just seems like its easy to obtain. obviously in real sports this isnt the case, i.e. nfl, nba, ufc, but we re not talkin a real sport are we?

And another poster stumbles into the thread, reads half of it, does understand the point and blurts out a reply. *shakes head*

jabroni
12-09-2011, 08:23 PM
my bad, man. i guess i should have read further. im asuming your saying it depends upon the wrestlers involved? in that case im sure it work out if they could work out chemistry and writers are on point, which is a little lacking.

hankamania83
12-09-2011, 09:07 PM
I think it should be 'whats believable'....for instance if Daniel Bryan wins the strap, then its believable that he wont be able to keep it long. Cena winning the title means he should keep it longer because he represents the WWE, and his character paints him out to be a good fighter.

I for one hate when titles change hands {more so the two top titles} Wrestling has changed so much, being a champion meant something prior to the attitude era, now its just 'whatever works this month.' I hate the fact that Cena has 10 plus title reigns and his career is only half over, and Rick Flair has 17 title reigns, and he had one of- if not thee most prestigious careers in history.
I think ''Hot Potatoing'' the belts lessen the value of the straps in MOST cases, perfect example why give ADR the belt for him to lose it, then win it back? its pointless!
They give Sheamus two pointless title reigns at the start of his WWE career, and IMO they devalued him. {I love him as a face though}
Sorry to the Edge Heads, but IMO Edge's main event reign is over rated because of all the pointless title transactions.

IMO, winning too many titles can taint a wrestler's legacy, because it show's they weren't good enough to hang on to it.

The Brown One
12-10-2011, 04:16 AM
I get what you're trying to say URATOOL, but do you really trust the WWE to handle that idea well? The idea of playing hot potato with the title without having it lose prestige that is. I don't. When Mysterio won the WWE title ON RAW, that wasn't the best of booking. That worsened with Cena winning the title THE EXACT SAME NIGHT. That wasn't a good way to handle a hot potato title reign. They just put the belt back on Cena. They did the same thing with ADR and Cena. Now they're probably going to do the same thing with Punk and The Miz.

I think what makes a title prestigious is a number of thing - having the right talent hold it, booking them well, having them defend the title regularly, taking on several competitors (sometimes at once if handled right), and having a title reign of at least a couple of months. If the title switches hands every 2nd PPV, and isn't handled right, as we've seen in the WWE this year, that devalues the title.