9 Time Champion?

[TheAnswer]

^^ Ok but that was two different companies. The Rock wasn't going on Nitro just to get a quick reign so he could feud with Diamond Dallas page etc.

Now, the belt is just there as an excuse to put someone in a feud.

 

[Lady Redfield]

^^ Ok but that was two different companies. The Rock wasn't going on Nitro just to get a quick reign so he could feud with Diamond Dallas page etc.

Now, the belt is just there as an excuse to put someone in a feud.

The belts are just basically props, anyways. Even if someone new does win, it's just basically 'cool, someone new is holding the toy'.

It's just IMO but the belts meant something back when I was a kid and thought wrestling was real. The belts all lost credibility once I found out wrestling was fake and the belt goes to whoever they have scripted as winning in their storylines.

 

[TheAnswer]

Exactly, the belt is just for a way to get feuds and to try to get people over.

The Creative Team needs to get "creative" and starts new feuds for reasons other than the belt.

 

[xtremebadass]

Exactly, the belt is just for a way to get feuds and to try to get people over.

The Creative Team needs to get "creative" and starts new feuds for reasons other than the belt.

Yes. WWE tries way too hard on their main event title feuds and puts little to no effort into side rivalries and matches.

HBK and Taker was really the only non main event match/feud that has meant something in years. Everything else is just bleh, like Bret vs. Vince lol

 

[Lady Redfield]

Exactly, the belt is just for a way to get feuds and to try to get people over.

The Creative Team needs to get "creative" and starts new feuds for reasons other than the belt.

Now you're just asking too much, lol.

 

[Charismatic Edge]

The belts are just basically props, anyways. Even if someone new does win, it's just basically 'cool, someone new is holding the toy'.

It's just IMO but the belts meant something back when I was a kid and thought wrestling was real. The belts all lost credibility once I found out wrestling was fake and the belt goes to whoever they have scripted as winning in their storylines.

Part of that comes from having two championships. I still think they need to unify them. Back to back title matches in most ppvs get a little old.

 

[Lady Redfield]

They should really cut down on the PPVs overall so the titles don't change hands once a month and feuds can be properly built up. Just the big PPVs should stay and all these other ones should go.

 

[He who knows more than Nation]

WWE has had problems creating a long title reign. It's happening with too much frequency and saying you're a multi-time champ doesn't mean anything if you keep winning it on a monthly or weekly basis. WCW did this in 2000 and they looked even worse for doing it.

There's a huge difference from having ten reigns in a year and having ten reigns in a month and putting the strap on non wrestlers like Russo and David Arquette.

It doesn't really have anything to do with that. Look at how the WWF used to be, and tell me, did a greater variety of guys get title reigns? No. The reigns were just longer, thus they didn't amass a great number of reigns at such a rate.

Hey, I said Cena/Batista would be great. :\

Oh yah?? Well I was first.

 

[Charismatic Edge]

Ric Flair has the moniker of 16 time world champion. There's only 2 that are memorable to me. After he beat Harley Race in 1983, Ron Garvin in 87 and Steamboat in 89.

During all of those reigns he consistently had great matches and great feuds. So, if he was only a 3 time champion he would still be considered on the greatest.

 

[...god...]

I believe Batista is still with Smackdown and hes been on Raw every week.

No. After you win the title of another brand by whatever means, you're on that brand. See: Edge last year, and more importantly, the MitB winner.

 

[straight_edge76]

Ric Flair has the moniker of 16 time world champion. There's only 2 that are memorable to me. After he beat Harley Race in 1983, Ron Garvin in 87 and Steamboat in 89.

During all of those reigns he consistently had great matches and great feuds. So, if he was only a 3 time champion he would still be considered on the greatest.

I actually heard that Flair won something like 20 world titles throughout his entire carrer.

I honestly could see Cena getting 18-20 Reigns tbh. I mean is just hitting his early 30's.

 

[TheAnswer]

No. After you win the title of another brand by whatever means, you're on that brand. See: Edge last year, and more importantly, the MitB winner.

Thats the problem with the brand extension now. From 2002-2005 people were never hopping from show to show. So if there a Smackdown guy he shouldn't win Raw's World Championship.