i replied to this yesterday but as soon as i hit SUBMIT, my fucking internet went off. *crosses fingers for this time*
^In today's day and age with so many wrestlers that can legitimately be champion, 6+ does get a litte repetive. But to be honest at this point I don't think Orton's title reign has been too long and it's not nearly like Cena's reign, you don't hear people bitching everytime he retains because people don't expect him to retain so him retaining is actually a bigger surprise than him losing.
sure, any reign can be good if it was booked properly regardless of how long it takes for him to lose. but what are the chances of having a good 6+ months title reign these days? exactly. triple h's reign made me hate wrestling for a while, JBL's reign was worse and cena's reign...was...just.......
no:. back to orton, i wanted the belt off of him before the rumble, i really hated the prick. but thanks to WM's build up, im starting to like the guy and i see him as a real champ now....for 2 extra months.
I don't see why Rock should be a particular yardstick. (Not a taste widely held, but personally I enjoyed his titles fueds that had frequent title changes the most anyway - Foley, HHH. ). Besides, he trancended titles more than most anyway (esp. "Peoples champ" blah).
exactly why we loved him and the attitude era...FREQUENT TITLE CHANGES. im all for it tbh. now, every champ has to bury everyone on the card until he gets unlucky enough to lose the title...its ridiculous. and i used the rock as an example not for his reigns, just wanted to to show you how it'd make me sick if a champ holds the title for too long. even if it was THE ROCK (top 5 of all time in my book).