You can struggle without passing the belt around like a prop no?
Yeah, but it's the same thing as those matches that have over 100 failed pinfalls due to kickouts. It's dumb in my opinion. That doesn't happen in the real world. If you look at something like the UFC, and only comparing the title hold durations, it doesn't compare to show much reality or verisimilitude.
Just because someone has a long reign doesn't mean they can't defend it every month see JBL as a prime example. Heel's with long runs make the belt look better and the babyfaces bigger when they beat them.
That gets too repetative though. Things need to be changed up actively, and you can do it other ways than just having someone hold a title for say 25 years and finally have someone beat the person for that excitement. (Exaggeration on 25 years of course)
If a boxer held a title for 5 years straight for example, and someone finally beat them, perhaps there's the tension leading up, but that's only one small period of a climax result. Then it's over again and onto the next long boring wait.
People don't look at the overall excitement, they take excitement for what it is in that current moment, who would want to wait to see if the Rock for example can beat ... For the sake of argument Brock Lesnar in a year's time from now? It may be good, but to have the same thing happen every WWE year where one person reigns for such a long time is boring because they run out of ideas eventually for the storyline, and it ends up being the same thing over and over. 1vs1 conflict, and from time to time, a brawl here and there, more tension, and then a declared 1vs1 battle at Wrestlemania for the title.