PDA

View Full Version : two minute title reign



Unpopular1
08-15-2011, 11:42 AM
Ok, I'm reposting this forum because the other one was removed for some unknown reason. If you responded to it, please repost. Recently, WWE has been having people hold the titles for about a month or less. The only ones that are keeping it longer are the huge names. What do you think about that? Does it help or hurt their storylines?

King Scrapper
08-15-2011, 12:14 PM
It hurts their story lines and i think it hurts and devalues the business as a whole. Champions today, are not as special as they once were. All the titles now are like Las Vegas prostitutes. Good for one night cheap thrills, but then passed on to the next person night after night, or in this case, PPV after PPV.

Enforcer23
08-15-2011, 12:15 PM
It hurts their story lines and i think it hurts and devalues the business as a whole. Champions today, are not as special as they once were. All the titles now are like Las Vegas prostitutes. Good for one night cheap thrills, but then passed on to the next person night after night, or in this case, PPV after PPV.

yeah agree wwe is doing some good things right now BUT they need to figure out ways to make the wwe title mean soemthing

Fan4Now
08-15-2011, 12:25 PM
Nothing new! Others usually get the title for just a minute unless your name is Cena or Orton. I believe WWE gives it to others just so fans don't bitch. I think if they could, the way they act they'd keep it on Cena & Orton 24/7!! Christian was probably given it back just until the next ppv last night b/c hardcore old school fans were pissed & that makes Orton sad that everybody don't love him & Punk probably had it for him wanting to leave although & I HOPE NOT!!! I think Punk's steam may be starting to fade. Typical. Promise a guy good treatment then once the ink dries: "Oh well! Your stuck!" The way things went down last night esp in Punk/Cena. I see NO GOOD coming from it for Punk anyway. He was a heel everyone hated, came back tweener, sold his shirts like crazy, got some cred, then wrestled WWE's posterboy & won with a shady victory. Not his fault but then got attacked by Nash & Del Rio wins to most likely tour Mexico with the Title then I imagine back to Cena for 4-6 months. Even if Punk wins it back. It shows they only keep it on him for a short while. On paper this = TNA! Not a shot at TNA but when they frequent title changes. PPL BITCH! So bitch now!

Y2Jryder
08-15-2011, 12:26 PM
If this goes on and on someone will get as many titles as flair. what a shame

steveorton
08-15-2011, 12:29 PM
It hurts their story lines and i think it hurts and devalues the business as a whole. Champions today, are not as special as they once were. All the titles now are like Las Vegas prostitutes. Good for one night cheap thrills, but then passed on to the next person night after night, or in this case, PPV after PPV.

This and I for one wanted Punk to have a long reign with the title before he lost it but I think its all part of the storyline, and ADR as champ, thats just wrong I don't like the guy I find him quite boring, he has been in the WWE a year or somethign and already has the most prestigious price in the business, something is wrong, I'm jus sayin...

Dude573
08-15-2011, 01:05 PM
I think they only gave Christian the world title a second time in an attempt to appease the fans that felt betrayed that he lost it after 2 days. Randy winning it again was rather predictable sadly. Though I don't think its the end of the world, Barrett, Rhodes, Mark Henry and Rtruth(appearing on smackdown a lot nowadays), all could be next inline for an opportunity.

thejman93
08-15-2011, 01:10 PM
For storylines in general I think quick title changes suck but it works for this RAW storyline IMO.

Murphdogg4
08-15-2011, 01:18 PM
I'm a fan of long title reigns, but back in the atttitude days everyone on here pines for titles were rarely held longer then a month or two

maar13
08-16-2011, 11:43 AM
I like longer title reigns, some time short reigns work for the sake of a storyline but not all the time. Is like what happened at Summerslam, OK Punk got only a months champion, I can get it. I have no real problem ADR cashing in, but I hop at least that this really helps him and he doesn't end up like The Miz, who's stuck really plunged with most casual fans, The IWC loves the guy but after the longest WWE reign in years, right now he just seems like an after though.

Is like the feud of Orton and Christian, yes the matches were great but was what the point of Christian losing most of them and then having a one month title reign? How that benefits Christian or even Smackdown in the long run? Yes a lot would say "WWE doesn't like Christian", but if you want Smackdown to survive, Orton needs someone that can be like an evil equal, just Like Cena sued to have on Edge, Orton later and Batista, In the End John defeated most of them (except for Edge, he left with the WHC to Smackdown after Backlash 2009) but they were looked as his equals.

On Smackdown, pretty much everyone is hopefull Christian was looked like that for Orton, but get real (I should too), there is no equal for him there, not even Sheamus unless they really keep him away from him for a while, which is likely because he is a face now, but there is none there that can right now step up t him, then they give his current foe the title to make believe he can be the one to put Orton in Peril, but in the end the only thing they do is diminish the title prestige.

Is like Edge last 2 title reigns, it should have being only one but they wanted so bad to sell the story with Ziggler than they give him a title reing of 11 minutes. what for? It didn't actually helped either Dolph or Edge for that matter and it only diminhsed the title quality.

Juvenile Junkie
08-16-2011, 12:45 PM
Vince Russo works as WWE head booker

HCollins-TNA1
08-16-2011, 12:59 PM
Ok, I'm reposting this forum because the other one was removed for some unknown reason. If you responded to it, please repost. Recently, WWE has been having people hold the titles for about a month or less. The only ones that are keeping it longer are the huge names. What do you think about that? Does it help or hurt their storylines?

Hadn't CM Punk made history... having 2 of the shortest WWE title reigns ever... one lasting supposedly 24 hours, then came back and was still champ...The other lasting 2 minutes or so..
He did shake things up with how title reigns goes..

maar13
08-16-2011, 07:01 PM
Hadn't CM Punk made history... having 2 of the shortest WWE title reigns ever... one lasting supposedly 24 hours, then came back and was still champ...The other lasting 2 minutes or so..
He did shake things up with how title reigns goes..

Not really, if they counted he was still champion that one lasted 28 days, and apparently they are counting the whole thing as one because of the way it is listed at WWE.com

tshizzy34
08-19-2011, 05:04 AM
The holder doesn't need to hold the belt for like 9 straight months, but the whole 2 day or 2 week thing is a waste of time imo

Juvenile Junkie
08-19-2011, 05:46 AM
if this had been TNA,the Cenation would have been ripping TNA to shreds,but because its WWE,the Cenation aproove

Robareid
08-19-2011, 05:54 AM
I really think title should be counted in number of victories. So for example Punk would be a 2 time WWE champ but Someone like Cena would be closish to 50 but Flair would be in the hundreds. Would actually show something rather than 5 time or whatever champion