View RSS Feed

knox

Does too many title reigns ruin a wrestler's credibility?

Rate this Entry
Hey guys Knox here hoping all is well with the great EWN community. I'm blogging today on major title reigns today in the WWE and if overbooking one or two guys to the major titles ruin their credibility as far as fan support.

I would have to say that it indeed does and eventually the fans will get bored with you in which a perfect example would be John Cena & Randy Orton.

Number of title runs of stars from the past
I'm going to name some great stars of yesterday that are probably ages better than 10 time WWE Champ John Cena & 9 time WWE Champ Randy Orton.

Shawn Michaels: 4-Time WWE/World Champion
Stone Cold Steve Austin: 6-Time WWE/World Champion
The Undertaker: 7-Time WWE/World Champion
Bret Hart: 5-Time WWE Champion
Chris Jericho: 5-Time WWE/World Champion

Those names about are some of the greatest of all times and not one of them have held the belt 10 times or more. They were guys whom remained relevant and were booked in angles not always involving the WWE Title. They remained fresh and definitely kept their propularity with the fans because of this.

Today's WWE Champions:
Now tell me this isn't overbooking.

John Cena: 10-Time WWE/World Champion
Randy Orton: 9-Time WWE/World Champion
Edge (Retired): 10-Time WWE/World Champion

Now hear me out. Edge is my favorite wrestler of all time but no way in hell has himself, Cena & Orton made the kind of impact the guys I mentioned above have made. Why is it that they have 10 title reigns but nothing too exciting to show for?

Steve Austin vs John Cena
Steve Austin hasn't wrestled in about 8 years but I can name 30 memorable moments of his career. Cena still wrestles and I can barely name 3 memorable moments because its all the same thing over and over again.

Most I can really remember is Cena's feud with Randy Orton & The Nexus. Those are two memorable things that stick out in the 6 years he's been around in the main event scene.

The WWE's problem?:
How to push a guy and keep him relevant without throwing a title belt on him. That's what the WWE is trying to do.

Back in the day Austin, HBK & Taker didn't need a belt just to put them over with the fans. The product was 90 times better and there was more of a variety of great stars and the mid card was stacked.

Now a days its like Vince is constantly throwing the belt on Cena & Orton just to prove their dominance but what does that really prove? It proves that WWE are becoming afraid to put the ball in someonelse's hands.

Cena & Orton's Downfall:
The fans are truly losing interest in these two. I mean I love Cena but I can certainly see why people boo Cena. He's always holding the belt and he's pretty much been doing the same cheesy thing forever. How much is enough?

Orton is just known to eventually bury anyone who steps in his way so watching him in any feud is just pointless. He buried Cody Rhodes, Christian but shockingly he didn't bury Mark Henry and maybe that's a step in the right direction.

Either way, the fans are getting annoyed. Hell, The Rock & Stone Cold have fought 3 or 4 times at Wrestlemania and no one ever got bored with that feud or with these guys.

The way people boo Cena is so unheard of for a babyface. I mean does that not tell them that something has to change?

How do you book new main eventers if eventually they'll end up being buried by Cena or Orton?

Brief WWE Title runs?
Every time we think its a new guy about to fully break into the main event scene they eventually get pushed back. Here are some brief title runs since 2004.

Jack Swagger, Kane, Rey Mysterio, Sheamus, The Miz Alberto Del Rio. These are former WWE/World Champions that the WWE never truly allowed to reach their full peak because they panicked and eventually end up throwing the belts back on Cena & Orton.

What the WWE needs to do?
They need to invest in looking for that next breed of future WWE champions right now. If Cena or Orton was to get hurt the WWE would be in trouble because Punk can't do it on his own.

The WWE needs to start really pushing Dolph Ziggler, Cody Rhodes, Kofi Kingston, The Miz, Daniel Bryan, Drew McCintyre, Wade Barrett, Ted Dibiase Jr. & Alex Riley. These are your future main eventers of tomorrow.

See those guys above are the new era. Listen to that variety of stars and the large number. Its no reason why any of them should hog the title and have 10 World Title runs. The most any of those guys should have is 6 and not all of them.

I see Dolph Ziggler & Daniel Bryan as the future faces of the company and the other guys are the bonafide main eventers that will be beside them. That's why the Attitude Era was so successful. It wasn't just 2 or 3 guys being shoved down our throats, it was a variety of guys.

The writing is a issue as well. I think Vince needs more edgy writers or maybe Vince is the real problem. Either way, something needs to happen.

Conclusion:
I hope you all enjoyed this and I hope I'm not the only one sick of the same two guys holding the title. Personally I feel its better ways to push these guys than involving the belt. The more memorable feuds in WWE histroy were beautifully worked feuds not even involving a championship belt. Thanks guys & be safe.


Submit "Does too many title reigns ruin a wrestler's credibility?" to Digg Submit "Does too many title reigns ruin a wrestler's credibility?" to del.icio.us Submit "Does too many title reigns ruin a wrestler's credibility?" to StumbleUpon Submit "Does too many title reigns ruin a wrestler's credibility?" to Google

Updated 12-03-2011 at 04:06 PM by knox

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
  1. toobeastly33's Avatar
    totally agree man. I am one of those who boo cena, but in all honesty i love the guy im just bored with him and its getting the same with orton (and im from STL) My worry is that they will do the same with punk and start giving him the belt constantly.

    The fact of the matter is that the belts really dont mean anything any more. NONE of them. When is the last time the IC belt was even defended, i hardly remember it even exsits and the Rhodes has it. Same goes for the U.S. belt. They are doing a little more with it but still i dont think its helping build Ziggler like it should.

    Another great blog man
  2. eboy's Avatar
    great blog bro agree with every word.

    i hate to see when Fresh World champs aren't given a fair run i mean Beniots run of 2004 apart from the 2 triple threats with HHH & HBk he wasn't given a credible oppponant
  3. Tall's Avatar
    Totally agree. I thought WWE were taking a step in the right direction with Cena in 06/07 when he had the title for over a year but then at No Mercy there were 3 title changes, utterly ruining the work Cena had done.

    The problem is that WWE have made it so the belts mean main event. Rivalries make main eventers. CM Punk/Triple H at NOC is an example of a good match/good rivalry with a belt. Ziggler for instance might not win the title for a year but if they book him against guys like Orton/Punk/Cena and let him win at some PPVs against them it would make him look like a main eventer. Jericho and Benoit didn't win the titles for years but looked like main eventers because of competitive feuds with the likes of Triple/Rock.
  4. Dubs's Avatar
    Actually, Austin won 6 world titles starting in 1998 and ending in 2001, plus the year he was gone, Austin won all of his titles in about two and a half years, or about 2.4 world Titles a year. The same can be said for The Rock who won his first in late 98 and his last in 2002. He’s a nine time champion over a four year span, or about 2.25 a year. By comparison, Cena has won 10 world titles in roughly 6 years (factoring out injury time) or approximately 2 a year. Orton is a 9 time champion, winning his first in 2004, which puts him at about 1.3 titles a year. So Austin didn't exactly "keep away" from the WWE Title most of the time, proving my point that this isn't a new thing of "always" putting the WWE Title on Cena and Orton when the same could be said for Stone Cold as-well as The Rock who had the WWE Title most of the time.

    And three memorable moments you could name from Cena? I can name more then three:

    *Taking Kurt Angle to his limit as a rookie
    * Memorable raps
    *Beating The Big Show at Wrestlemaina 20
    *Beating JBL for the WWE Title at Wrestlemaina 21
    *Hostile environment at ECW One Night Stand against RVD
    * AA Edge off the ladder and onto tables

    I can name more but i'll leave it at that. And to answer your question, many WWE Title reigns does not ruin a wrestler's credibility. It depends on how well that wrestler carries the Title more then anything.
    Updated 12-03-2011 at 04:15 PM by Dubs
  5. JoePublic's Avatar
    I agree with much of what you say. One of the glaring problems to me is that there are two 'World' titles. No wonder there have been some awful and forgettable champions. At any one time one of the two champions should be in a long reign shouldn't they?

    A long title reign does add value if it is on the right person, the problem is that I honestly think the WWE sling mud and see what sticks, if a new champion doesn't get over then they drop the title. If many of the roster have held a World title then it makes the person holding it seem less exclusive, and their achievement is lessened because of it.

    Every title change should mean something and be booked to be a climax or exciting twist in an established story. Effectively the WWE is reaping what is has sowed or in this case what is hasn't.

    Just because someone wears a belt doesn't make them a 'champion'.
  6. JoePublic's Avatar
    "So Austin and The Rock didn't exactly "keep away" from the WWE Title most of the time, proving my point that this isn't a new thing of "always" putting the WWE Title on Cena and Orton when the same could be said for Stone Cold and The Rock who had the WWE Title most of the time."

    The difference being that wrestling and those characters were super hot and super over.
  7. Dubs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePublic
    "So Austin and The Rock didn't exactly "keep away" from the WWE Title most of the time, proving my point that this isn't a new thing of "always" putting the WWE Title on Cena and Orton when the same could be said for Stone Cold and The Rock who had the WWE Title most of the time."

    The difference being that wrestling and those characters were super hot and super over.
    Not the point. My point was simply based on the claim that Austin was booked in angles not always involving the WWE Title, not who was super over as WWE Champs.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

© 2011 eWrestlingNews, All Rights Reserved.