World Champions?

[straight_edge76]

I was watching Smackdown this past week and I got to wondering, when it comes to World Champions which is a better way to go about establishing guys a main eventers and as a credible world champion? A longer drawn out run with the World Title or a shorter which more often then not just gets stale. Or a shorter reign just to see how well someone can get over carrying a World Title?

If you look at Sheamus' run with the WWE championship, it wasn't particularly long but it also wasn't a short 2-3 week reign that I was sure it was goinng to be, but he never really looked strong as a champion. He had a pretty easy time getting heat but he never imo looked like nearly as strong of a champion as many of us would have liked.

But on the flipside their were John Cena's long runs with the title as well. In which you could basically predict the formula of each feud, contender is named, built up to look as if they were going to beat Cena, dominate Cena all throughout the match only for him to come from behind and come out on top every single time. Which makes Cena look like a strong champion, but a predictable stale one at the same time. I by no means am making this a Cena bash thread because I am not one of those blind Cena haters but he was imo the perfect example of a long reigning, stale champion.

So this brings up my question, which type of World Title runs do you all think are more effective in keeping the product fresh? Long, dominant runs with the titles or titles changing hands every few months or in some cases, weeks?

 

[xtremebadass]

I think a shorter title run is better. It gives fans a little taste of what they can look forward to for future reigns instead of jamming a long first reign down people's throats. Look at Edge's first title reign, most people were begging for more after he lost it. Look how he turned out lol

 

[The Rated R CMStar]

I liked Sheamus title reign. He was a low midcarder by the time his feud with Cena started and now he's a credible uppermidcard, who provided some fresh air into the main event for a nice chunk of time

 

[-TJ-]

Agreed with CMS. His title reign established him.

 

[LadyHotrod]

I was watching Smackdown this past week and I got to wondering, when it comes to World Champions which is a better way to go about establishing guys a main eventers and as a credible world champion? A longer drawn out run with the World Title or a shorter which more often then not just gets stale. Or a shorter reign just to see how well someone can get over carrying a World Title?

If you look at Sheamus' run with the WWE championship, it wasn't particularly long but it also wasn't a short 2-3 week reign that I was sure it was goinng to be, but he never really looked strong as a champion. He had a pretty easy time getting heat but he never imo looked like nearly as strong of a champion as many of us would have liked.

But on the flipside their were John Cena's long runs with the title as well. In which you could basically predict the formula of each feud, contender is named, built up to look as if they were going to beat Cena, dominate Cena all throughout the match only for him to come from behind and come out on top every single time. Which makes Cena look like a strong champion, but a predictable stale one at the same time. I by no means am making this a Cena bash thread because I am not one of those blind Cena haters but he was imo the perfect example of a long reigning, stale champion.

So this brings up my question, which type of World Title runs do you all think are more effective in keeping the product fresh? Long, dominant runs with the titles or titles changing hands every few months or in some cases, weeks?

Long title runs get boring but short ones are kinda stupid. Seeing the belt get passed around often gets lame and you start to lose track of who's even champ, but a long title run can get so boring and you just want something fresh. I think if they can find a happy medium, that would help.

At the same time, though, a long title run is great when they can still keep things exciting. If they made awesome feud after awesome feud, I wouldn't give a shit how long a guy held the title.

 

[kimball99]

Sheamus' title reign bombed horribly. I almost feel bad for the guy, but I really can't see him becoming champ for awhile.

I think, at least for heels, longer reigns are needed. Having one cheat his way to his victories and always screw the faces always seems to be a good way to get some heat, and to add meaning once the said heel finally drops it. Like the JBL reign from a few years back.

As for faces, it all depends on who it is. Having John Cena have long reigns is gonna make the company money, having the Undertaker with the belt for a long while, wouldn't. Also too, give a face a short reign and see how much the crowd digs it. Any wrestler needs to be tested as a main eventer, and this is usually a good way for Vince and co. to see who has a chance.

 

[LadyHotrod]

It's a shame because Sheamus is a pretty good heel but they didn't do enough with him. For a long time, he was just walking out with the belt and 'looking mean', it was so stupid. Such a waste of time.

 

[noumenon]

I don't think it has anything to do with the length in many cases, but how it's booked. Sheamus was booked to look like a "lucky" champion, but at the same time we were supposed to believe he was some sort of dominant beast. The whole reign just seemed like one big contradiction. I suppose it was a decent reign for someone who was still being questioned as the whether or not he could hold a title. I think perhaps a year down the line with some character development he'll be ready for another reign.
Then on the other hand you've got a guy like CM Punk who was more than ready to step up and hold the WHC. He was once again booked to look extremely weak against Taker and his reign was a pretty sad one at that. However I suppose if you've got the credibility to be champion it's not going to diminish because of one shitty reign. I'm sure not too many people would question putting the title back on Punk.

As for in general, I think for a truly over heel a long reign is best as it only helps to gain more heat. For an up and coming face short intermediate reigns usually work best as it's usually always more interesting to see a face chasing a title rather than holding it.

 

[Soul_of_Ruby]

Sheamus's title reign was horrid. For an example of a good heel long title reign look up Randy Orton's title reign from 2007-2008. I hated the crap out of that guy during that time, but he kept me entertained.

 

[Dr. Evo]

Long drawn out title reigns just frustrates every fan because the same guy wins every time making him look invincible. OK that's what a champion is supposed to look like beating everybody but to do it for such a long time is stupid and the same storylines are used. Maybe 4-5 month reigns are a better proposition and could be used to greater effect or possibly shorten or lengthen them but not by too much.

 

[straight_edge76]

As I think about it more and more, I think that a combonation of short and long runs are necessary to keep the product from getting super stale. At times a long run by a dominant heel, with numerous face challengers that all come up just short of winning can create quite a bit of excitement, I remember during Triple H's long runs with the WHC as heel always kept be guessing you always thought that he was going to lose the belt only for him to somehow walk out with the title.

But, not every long run is a worthwhile one. The Undertaker's last run was extremely boring. I believe if a face is going to carry the belt for a long period of time it should be a John Cena type who can not only earn the WWE a shit load of money but also adopt a 'fighting champion' role much like Cena did. No matter how much people hated Cena during his long reign back in 2007 it kept people watching, even if it was the see him lose.

 

[LadyHotrod]

Long drawn out title reigns just frustrates every fan because the same guy wins every time making him look invincible. OK that's what a champion is supposed to look like beating everybody but to do it for such a long time is stupid and the same storylines are used. Maybe 4-5 month reigns are a better proposition and could be used to greater effect or possibly shorten or lengthen them but not by too much.

Again, this depends. Hogan was champ for just under 6 years and everyone LOVED it. He was the wrestling hero, he brought huge ratings, he had good feuds during his reign. If they can make it a good reign with good feuds, it can work.

 

[Mister J]

The best world champion in years was Christian.

 

[Airfixx]

^^^^Indeed. The length of the reign played a notable part in that for me in as much as it allowed a more drawn out approach to storytelling.

As long as the guy holding the belt is good enough, then long title reigns > short reigns every time IMO. Using Christian's reign as an example, he wasn't even generally percieved to have any credible challengers (yet still ran with the proverbial 'ball')!

Unless it's a transitional reign to FURTHER a storyline(*) I see no real point in short reigns.

(*Not merely create a new title-chase storyline.)

Giving a guy the belt to get him over sucks... Well, I'd at least like to think that TALENT would get a guy there regardless.




Also, talking about building/consolidated guys with a belt..... Get a clean win over a LONG TERM champ(***) and tell me how much more beneficial THAT is!?!?!?

(***...Particularly with a face de-throning a heel.)

The quintessential modern example being Cena eventually going over JBL.

 

[MizMasta3000]

I think what Sheamus is doing now is what should have been done before winning. I think a tru credible main eventer proves himself before winning the world championship.

Example 1: John Morrison. His run with the ECW belt catapulted and secured him a future place in the world champion league. From the star of his career, he made his way up. Johnny Nitro, then the transformation into Morrison all the while showing us that he has the ability to get over as a heel as well as a face. When he was drafted to SD from ECW, he had to start over IMO. Climb the mid card ranks. His matches with Jericho, Punk, and Hardy were enough to move him up and I could've easily considered him the next World Heavyweight Champion.

Example 2: Edge. Edge is a wonderful example of this. Ever since 2002 in his feud with Kurt Angle, Edge was crawling into my list of future world champs. It's baffling to me how some oppose his face turn in these days but he was over as hell. Edge, much like Morrison, has evolved in the duration of his career. Evolution within the gimmick is key btw. He maintained a bit deranged and crazy while evolving from a gothic, to a jokester, to a snake, to an oppotunist, now as a go getter. When he got his first championship in 05, it was no question whether he was ready.

If you find yourself questioning whether a guy deserves to be champ, once their already champ, something is not right. The only time I think a monster push works is in the case of Undertaker or Brock Lesnar. Sheamus' title reign was done horribly wrong. What he is doing now is what he should have been doing from the get go. Going after the big dogs trying to prove himself. He should have added some more notches to his belt befor going after Cena. Dominating the ECW roster. Moving to RAW before getting to Christian. Dominate the RAW mid card then start attacking the top dogs letting your presence be known amongst the elites. In between get a nice win over some one credible in the squad. He should have had this going up until Wrestlemania where he could win the gold. Then, I bet no one would have questioned his rediness for the belt.

Build up is the formula. Don't give me ending Jamie Noble's career and defeating Goldust as credible notice for insertion into the title picture. At least Brock ran through basically the entire roster before getting the title at SS 02 (I'm not 100% on that one).