Triple H's new directive

[HeatherSays]

It's a good idea, the longer the title is held the more prestigious changes appear. I'd choose a different cast but the script is very good.

Yeah, I mean people like Cena have held the title what like 11 times? Remember when Booker T being the 5 time champ was impressive? That's because they didn't play hot potato with the belts back then.

 

[seabs]

Tbh title reigns have never impressed me based upon number, Rock was a 7 time champion from 98 to 2002, Austin was 6 in the same time span. Then you had guys like Trips holding the belt multiple times in a similar time span. I'd rather they went back to the 80's mould heels and faces had long reigns, which made it feel special when changes happened. Also cut the amount of PPVs / defences a guy defends the belt 13 times if he holds it for 1 year. Why not have the WWE title main event one PPV, then be off with the WHC being defended bar Summerslam and WM when both are defended? Also the odd short change I'm cool with if it's a surprise, such as Punk cashing in after Hardy had won.

 

[Leo C]

Yeah, I mean people like Cena have held the title what like 11 times? Remember when Booker T being the 5 time champ was impressive? That's because they didn't play hot potato with the belts back then.

They did play hot potato with the belt a lot in 2000 WCW.

 

[HeatherSays]

They did play hot potato with the belt a lot in 2000 WCW.

Yeah, well it is hard to judge WCW during its end for quality.

 

[Crayo]

Tbh title reigns have never impressed me based upon number, Rock was a 7 time champion from 98 to 2002, Austin was 6 in the same time span. Then you had guys like Trips holding the belt multiple times in a similar time span. I'd rather they went back to the 80's mould heels and faces had long reigns, which made it feel special when changes happened. Also cut the amount of PPVs / defences a guy defends the belt 13 times if he holds it for 1 year. Why not have the WWE title main event one PPV, then be off with the WHC being defended bar Summerslam and WM when both are defended? Also the odd short change I'm cool with if it's a surprise, such as Punk cashing in after Hardy had won.

That's a good idea but they need to draw buys. Without changing the product and actually investing in different interesting storylines for each division then it won't happen.

 

[Leo C]

Yeah, well it is hard to judge WCW during its end for quality.

But wasn't around that period that Booker won his World Titles? I'm sure he won them in 2000 or 2001.

 

[seabs]

But wasn't around that period that Booker won his World Titles? I'm sure he won them in 2000 or 2001.

Yeah he won his first at BATB 2000 and was a 5 time champ coming into Invasion.

 

[Leo C]

Yeah he won his first at BATB 2000 and was a 5 time champ coming into Invasion.

So he did win them during the "play hot potato with the world title and don't leave actors and bookers out" era, right?

 

[seabs]

Yep.

 

[Lockard 23]

Yeah, Booker T. won four of those world titles through an only 8 month period (July 2000-March 2001.)

I'd also like to add that it's not always about how long someone has had the belt, but who exactly they defend it and retain it against. It's possible to have a long reign that is still quite boring and unimpressive.

 

[Snowman1]

I can't believe this. Triple H? Good for business? Doing something productive?
I'm speechless.

I guess WWE is taking a page from TNA here. They see how they made Aries into a huge star, Tessmacher, love her or hate her, as the biggest woman's star we've seen in a while (not much of an accomplishment) and whoever beats Devon should get a nice rub as well. The long reigns have been paying off big time down in Orlando, and it's only fitting that WWE follows suit. They haven't made a big star since Cena, and ironically that was after JBL held the belt for a year.

This. Is. Absolutely. Fantastic.

 

[Asskicker]

Hey an idea by HHH that didn't have to benefit himself :dawg:

 

[HeatherSays]

Okay so Booker was a bad example

 

[mark_htfc]

I'm actually 100% behind this, I think that having people hold titles for longer can only be a good thing, as at least this way, as others have said, when someone knew wins it will mean more, rather than having someone hold it for a short space of time and change hands again.

While I wanted Bryan to win at MITB, I can see the reasonings behind it, and after seeing this I actually don't feel all that disappointed by Punk keeping it. Good bit of business imo.

 

[Leo C]

Okay so Booker was a bad example

But I understood your point nonetheless. :burns: