General Chit-Chat Thread - No Spoilers

[Comrade Khan]

I'm saying if a legend.

idk, can any of those legends wrestle for 6+ months? big ask no?

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

Maybe it's just me but I do kinda prefer long reigns.

 

[Comrade Khan]

Maybe it's just me but I do kinda prefer long reigns.

i like variety. long reigns mean more if its hard to do

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

Reigns that are at least longer than 10 months are a-ok by me and at least establish that the champions are credible for the most part. Kinda adds to believability that it is difficult to win the title.

 

[Comrade Khan]

so you gotta throw some stuff in there that makes it seem like they can lose whenever. but also, maybe thats more my style of booking

 

[John McHenry]

My pick would be Cody. I just think that's not the way it's going to go. And I'd like Sami too but I don't know where they go with the belt after he and KO I guess but if he wins that feud?

 

[Wiseman]

Sami/gunther

 

[Comrade Khan]

My pick would be Cody. I just think that's not the way it's going to go. And I'd like Sami too but I don't know where they go with the belt after he and KO I guess but if he wins that feud?

ya or Jey Uso

 

[Wiseman]

Sami/Seth

 

[CakeWalker]

if a title has prestige

 

[Wiseman]

Could be anything really.

 

[Comrade Khan]

but it all depends right

 

[CakeWalker]

the length of reign isnt always critical

 

[Wiseman]

As long as Reigns if removed from tv for that time period, it opens up anyone to challenge Sami.

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

so you gotta throw some stuff in there that makes it seem like they can lose whenever. but also, maybe thats more my style of booking

That was legit the style of the 60s and 70s tbf. You had long reigns interspersed with shorter reigns from folks who may have been paper champions, but they also defeated the fucking guys with long reigns, so they were still as legitimate as they come.