Skip to main content

Unrelated Blog Questions

Hi Scott,
I've got a couple of unrelated blog questions.  Feel free to answer one, both, or neither.
1) Given that both Punk and Sheamus are enjoying decent title reigns in terms of length (Punk just over 9 months, Sheamus at 5 months), I would say that some prestige has been brought back to the titles, for those of us who actually enjoy the idea of them meaning something.  But it got me thinking: do you think there's a minimum length of time for a title reign to be considered "valid" or legitimate?  For example, during the time when Kane only had held the WWF title for 24 hrs in '98, it still seemed like a valid reign to me, for whatever reason. Contrast that with Tommy "My Boy" Rich's NWA title reign, which last only a few days, but which I'm sure no one took seriously.  Then you've got Dolph Ziggler's "reign," which is ludicrous even to acknowledge as actually having existed (he never even got to hold the belt, let alone wear it and be introduced as champ). Hell, Swagger held the title for 2 and a half months, which is par for the course these days, but I personally don't buy him as anything but an upper mid carder.  And the more I think about, the more I think that applies to the Miz's reign, too.


I think it's like UFC, where the length of the reign doesn't matter so much as the quality of competition faced during it.  Like it's hard to take Rashad Evans terribly seriously as a champion because he lost pretty badly in his first title defense.  Swagger didn't get to beat anyone of note, including beating a paper champion in Jericho, and lost it like a geek in a four-way.  The Miz at least won it from a tippy top guy and got to wrestle in the main event of Wrestlemania.  I'd also count winning and losing it to the same person in short order as kind of a worthless reign. So there's some complex math involved here, I'm not gonna lie. 

2)  Everyone like to play armchair booker, and rebook the InVasion, Austin's heel turn, and so forth.  But what are some angles that when you look back on them you wouldn't change a thing?  At the risk of being presumptuous, I might guess you'd include the formation/explosion of the Mega Powers, as well as Orndorff's '86 heel turn on/run against Hogan.  For things that happened during my lifetime (of when I actually have been watching), I'd say that Batista's ascension to the top and initial run against HHH from the end of '04 through '05 was perfect, as was the build-up to and execution of "them"/10-10-10 in TNA.

Yes and yes to your presumptions.  My TNA knowledge jumps from 2006 to 2011, so I have no idea what 10-10-10 was, sorry.  The Batista build was certainly great, although the whole thing with HHH vacating the title at the end of 2004 and then winning it back again was pretty silly.   

Comments

  1. Now that the WWE has a few legit tag teams, I think they should hot potato those titles around a bit. The explanation being that the teams are so good and the competition is so fierce, they all want the titles. 

    ReplyDelete
  2.  I've often wondered if a good angle where the titles are hotshotted around could be pulled off i.e that two wrestlers are so evenly matched that wheneverthey meet it could go either way.

    I'm sure Benoit and Angle could have traded the title back and forth on an almost weekly basis in 03/04 and it wouldn't have devalued the title due to the quality of both workers

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess Scott forgot that Swagger beat Orton at Extreme Rules.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rock and Foley were that way when they traded world titles back in 98-99

    ReplyDelete
  5. To me, a valid reign would be
    1) if people would remember in a couple years that you held the title (like Kane's one day reign)
    2) while champ, management and fans didn't forget about you (too many times to count)
    3) didn't lose constantly as champ (looking at you Rey)
    4) brought prestige to the title while champ (like Zack Ryder)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thus proving my point.  No one remembers that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's a good point, and it brings up an interesting (and rare, these days) dynamic. They're absolutely killing it with Team Hell No (man, I wanted it to be Team Friendship, but I like Hell No also). But you also have, as you said, a budding tag team division for the first time in years. Rhodes Scholars look like they'll be awesome and I don't care what anyone says, I like the PTPers. I don't really know if either of them can truly work but they have impressive looking offense, a good and simple gimmick, and Titus can talk.

    So do you go the hotshotting route to reestablish that the tag team division is a real thing again and these are coveted titles that several excellent teams are fighting over (not to go all fantasy booker, but ultimately culminating in a TLC, for sure) or do you push Kane and DB to the moon with them, which could create a new megastar in DB but doesn't probably do much for the tag division in the long run?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Andre/Hogan was a perfect angle from set-up, matches including Survivor Series, and way Hogan lost the title.
    Michaels/Jericho was also a perfect angle.
    Also Michaels/Undertaker from wrestlemania 25 build up to the finish at wrestlemania 26

    ReplyDelete
  9.  I feel like this is the third time this year there's been discussion about perfect angles, start to finish.  The worst angle is Eric.  The best angle is Kurt.  Karen's somewhere in the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That last one is bogus especially Rhodes. He only defended that title THREE times in the last six months. His highest profile feud with that belt was with an announcer. Cody did jack shit with that belt. 

    ReplyDelete
  11. He brought back the classic strap, and therefore his reign will always be a glorious one in my books.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 10-10-10 was perfect?

    Abyss was kidnapping people and torturing them with a brand.  He also cut a promo while chewing on a haunch of cow.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kane's reign stands up as legit since he was THE champion, even for just one day.  Having two world titles is what really devalues the quality of the reigns, particularly the World title.  It's abundantly clear that the WWE championship is the 'real' top belt and the World title is basically just what the old IC title used to be. (The current IC and US titles are European-level and dropping.)

    Side question: who has the most reigns as champ and still feel illegitimate?  I'd say it has to be Orton....he has something like 8-9 title reigns and yet none of them ever really felt like he was 'the man.'  Even his longest reign (October 2007-April 2008) didn't totally click since he only got it due to the Cena injury and then he had a pretty lacklustre feud with Cena and HHH heading into Wrestlemania.

    ReplyDelete
  14.  Scott "I am the World!" Keith, ladies and gentlemen!

    ReplyDelete
  15. They're here.   If you want to be grammatically correct.

    ReplyDelete
  16. kinda disagree/ the age of orton reign to me was the one that made him legit in my eyes. cuz of great matches with hardy n hbk, then wm24 walkin out the 3way against cena/hhh.

    it was largely forgettable to the masses but i for one loved it.

    the other thing about that reign was he got injured as well and came back to super heat while forming legacy (which to me was the biggest misfire)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've blacked out most of 2010 TNA...that sign brings back memories, horrible, horrible memories.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This. Took it right out of my mouth.

    Scott, in your VERY NEXT SENTENCE, you give credence to Miz's title reign because, "The Miz at least won it from a tippy top guy". So we're picking and choosing which wins over Randy Orton valuate a title reign and which ones don't? Especially odd, because Swagger beat Orton semi-clean in a main event match (after beating Edge and Jericho semi-clean in a triple threat) while Miz cashed in the briefcase on him.

    You don't remember that but do remember he lost in a nondescript four-way? You're just picking and choosing which things are supposed to be remembered to fit your argument, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  19.  Just to be extra Russo-rific, "Janice" was a rib on Dixie Carter's mom for cutting their budget.

    Source: Jay Lethal. He told me personally.

    ReplyDelete
  20.  Hahaha, well, the guy above you remembered it, thus, you know, not actually proving your point.. I was thinking the same thing too when reading this, that Swagger actually beat Orton clean right away.
    I remember when that happened I thought Swagger was on his way to a meaningful reign. Him losing it when he did stuck out as seeming bizarre, because up until then it was reasonable to think that they had some decent plans for Swagger.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'd say that turning Bryan into a megastar should be one of their main priorities right now, since megastars are where the money is and plus, Bryan really is on the cusp.
    It wouldn't even have to be a super long reign either. I'd say have Hell No successfully defend the belts over the next 3 PPVs, and lose it around Rumble time. The trick being to make those matches feel like co-main events on the cards rather than the usual throwaway tag title matches. Have Hell No defend in a Cell match in October, and a ladder match in December. Have them beat Rey/Cara in a classic.
    Then when they DO drop the titles in a few months it'll mean something for the team that beats them, and it'll be plenty of time to do the break-up angle, have Bryan tap Kane out clean one-on-one, and set Bryan up with a suitable big name Mania opponent.
    Tag division is reborn, and Bryan is set up to be a star.

    Oh, and Mears, I totally agree: the perfect way to announce that the tag division is back would be to have a multi-team TLC match at Mania.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I feel sorry for you if that's what it takes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think the only reason people remember Kane is that his one day reign served as a bookend of sorts to the era of longer title reigns.  After he lost it back to Austin the era of short WWE title reigns began.  Not that there weren't a few short ones prior to that (Bret one day reign before dropping to Sid, Yoko 3 minutes, Backlund) but it became the norm rather than an aberration.  I can still to this day name every WWF champ from Buddy Rogers to Kane (and Austin taking the belt back).  But after that it is all a blur.  How many times did foley and rock flip the belt back and forth?  

    ReplyDelete
  24.  I'm the same way. I can get all the way up to about the brand split but after that I got nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This, indeed.  That Foley-Rock sequence didn't help anyone.  Rock was a three-time champion between Survivor Series and that Halftime Heat thing before Wrestlemania XV. From Survivor Series 1998 on, it just got ridiculous: Rock wins vacant title, drops it to Mankind, back to Rock, back to Mankind, back to Rock...  Austin wins at Wrestlemania, drops it to Undertaker at Over the Edge, only to win it back at Fully Loaded.  Loses to Mankind in a triple threat (with HHH).  Foley drops it on Raw 24 hrs later to HHH.  Hunter loses it to Vince McMahon, who vacates it, only to have HHH just get it back at Unforgiven's "Six-Pack Challenge".  Hunter looks to finally be the long-term heel champion, but Big Show wins it on-the-fly at Survivor Series.  HHH won it back to kick off 2000.  Madness.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ...and then got RKOd by Orton immediately after the match.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'd say Orton.

    The guy has been in the company for ten years, and they've tried pushing him as the next Rock for nine of them. I think it's time to cut their losses and start having him put over people since he's on his second strike.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Told you there was some complex math involved.  It was right there in the original post!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I thought his run in 09 was pretty legit.

    ReplyDelete
  30. and he sticks the landing!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Who called shotgun anus?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Does it involve imaginary numbers like eleventeen and thirty-twelve?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Although it technically doesn't exist per the "not on TV rule" (and not the Benoit rule), Booker T and Benoit traded the TV title a number of times back in '98 at house shows.

    Another example - perhaps to its detriment - of the evenly matched idea, however, would be Orton and Cena trading the WWE title back in '09.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Not that it's a major difference, but Austin won the title from Undertaker the night after King of the Ring 1999, so Undertaker didn't even get to July with the belt. I guess he had to win the belt to set up the rematch that would then have a bunch of stipulations added to it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think WWE acknowledging the length of Punk's reign is helping to legitimize it.  Those 9+ months kinda flew by but now, every time they mention how long he's been champion or how he's 10th or whatever longest of all-time or he's out there in the ring counting up the days he's held the title....that helps.


    It reminds fans that yeah, Punk has not only had the title for awhile, he's held it for an ABNORMALLY long time, to the point where he's starting to venture closer into the category of legends from the 70s and 80s.  He's still got Cena and a few other 90s reigns to beat.  But I think reminding fans of that at every opportunity helps add prestige to the reign.

    Might I add, I LOVE long title reigns for that exact reason.  When someone finally dethrones the champion, it feels like it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I have to agree.

    Both of those reigns were in the last year, and neither of those belts mean shit.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Wow, I totally forgot that. lol. I guess that further proves the point. Good call

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment