I've been pondering whether or not long title reigns are good or bad. How long is long? Well, too me 9 months- 12 months is long, especially now when wrestling is on nearly every night of the week. Whether it is WWE, TNA, ROH, or New Japan. Wrestling is nearly always on; and when you add the internet. It IS always on.
A long title reign does solidify the talent's spot in history, but is it good in the present? As of this post the NEW DAY in WWE, are champions and have been for over a year. Not that they don't deserve to be champions, but what about the rest of the division? Are THEY not worthy of a title run?
Same could be said for the WWE Women's division when Charlotte had her first reign. Or when Jay Lethal was ROH champion for more than a year. Does no one else get to hold the belt? Can no one else put asses in seats? I don't believe so.
After awhile it feels a little stale. The matches themselves can be great, but if I'm 90% sure what is going to be the outcome. I'm not really sucked in. It's not as interesting after a certain point.
Don't get me wrong; Playing hot potato with the titles is not good either. 1-2 days or 1-2 weeks title reigns...? Yeah, no thanks. IT would keep it exciting, but it doesn't make the talent look strong if the company had so little faith in him/her that they would give him/her a title "reign"for a short period of time. Injuries aside of course.
There should be a balance and for me, a good title reign should be 3-6 months. I think that keeps the product fresh and interesting and if the stars line up right. You could have 4 different champions in 1 year, instead of just one. 4 is great than 1, at least that's what they taught me in school :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment