Short Title Reigns

Okay, this is something I've had a MAJOR issue with since John Cena had to vacate the WWE Championship in 2007. Since then, we've been doomed to constant short, meaningless world championship reigns in the WWE with the exception of Randy Orton and Triple H in 2007-2008. I put this in the general wrestling forum because this could really apply to any company that decides to do this, but considering TNA and WWE are the only two major mainstream companies right now (and the only companies I follow for that matter), and TNA actually lets guys have title reigns that last more than a couple months, I'll just discuss what's been going on in the WWE for the past couple years.

Since John Cena's year long title reign ended, there have been seventeen WWE Championship reigns. From what I counted, five of them lasted more than two months. Five out of seventeen. That's 29% of all the title reigns between late 2007 and now have lasted longer than two months. That's pathetic.

Now let's look at the World Heavyweight Championship. In 2002, Triple H was awarded the belt, then it changed hands twice. In 2003, the championship changed hands twice again. In 2004, the title changed hands three times. In 2005, the title changed hands twice for a third time. In 2006, the title changed hands four times. In 2007, the title changed hands a whopping five times. If you think that's bad, in 2008, the title changed hands seven times. And as for the worst one yet, just last year, the title changed hands eight times.

This is evidence that the WWE doesn't know how to develop champions anymore. It's slowly and slowly gotten worse over the years, and it eventually skyrocketed in 2009 and got so bad, that the wrestlers are now essentially playing Hot Potato with something that's supposed to be considered the richest prize in your profession. Remember when winning the WWE or World Championship meant something? Remember when being World Champion meant more than carrying around a stupid little prop everywhere you go? Remember back in the good old days when champions were allowed to develop, grow, and establish themselves as main eventers? Remember when being champion a couple of times in your career was an achievement?

Take a look at CM Punk for example. He's a four time world champion in the WWE. He's won the ECW Championship once, and the World Heavyweight Championship three times. He's been on television for not even four years yet and he's already a four time world champion. The sad part is, he's not even considered a true main eventer by most people because of the terrible booking when he was champion. When he won the World Championship for the first time, he was treated like a midcarder still. His feuds were pushed aside for the Batista/Cena feud, and he didn't even get to compete in the match where he lost his title. His second title run looked promising, but he looked like a fucking chump, losing every match except that one triple threat match on Raw, then he lost the belt in July and regained it the next month. His next title reign wasn't any better in the slightest. He had a great steel cage match with Jeff Hardy on Smackdown, but then was placed in a very abysmal feud with the Undertaker, culminating in a very mediocre Hell in a Cell match where he lost the belt after not even two months.

It's ridiculous how the belts can be tossed around the way they are. If the WWE is going for suspense and excitement, they blew that a long time ago. Now, being a world champion doesn't mean jack shit because the belts change hands every month. So what are your views on short title reigns? Are you with me in that you believe that the champions need to be booked strong, or are you leaning more towards shock value, in that you prefer the belts to change hands all the time?

What is up with you and discussions today?

I think that longer reigns would be great. I do think that the best thing to happen at this point, is to give somebody a really long reign, maybe two years... and then have the title change hands as if it was the Hardcore Title.