FORUM HOME > TNM > Discussion
Title credibility?

abbazabbaPosted on 02/22/05 at 08:25:46

Hey guys.. I'm in the middle of running a TNM circuit from the early nineties WWF era (ala ianclark on the circ boards) and was just wondering your opinion on how long you give championships to wrestlers to establish credibility.

Mainly, I'm talking about the world title. In my league, the title changed at WM6 (4/00), a June card, then at Summerslam (8/00). I know there are no rules to this, but now I feel that my champ has to hold onto the gold for a while just to get it built up to the "greatest of 'em all" respectability it once had.

So I guess my question is how long you think a world title reign could be to be established as credible. Any other comments would be appreciated.
CarlzillaPosted on 02/22/05 at 08:29:23

At least 4 months, at most a little more than 1 year.

Anything less than that destroys credibility while anything more than that and the fans start to not care.

These are just my opinions though.
Snabbit888Posted on 02/22/05 at 08:36:18

I'm of the "the longer, the better" school of thought.  But it has to be coupled with credible title defenses.  A 6-month title reign with the title being defended against the top challengers frequently will have more credibility than a year long title reign where the belt is rarely defended against inferior competition.
rey619Posted on 02/22/05 at 10:54:56

Also, it is damned hard to have champions keep their belts for long in unbooked feds. And lesser titles should maybe change hands more often than the major title.
americamamushiPosted on 02/22/05 at 14:02:54

And lesser titles should maybe change hands more often than the major title
Although there is something to be said for a long (for exmaple) Intercontinental title reign too.  If you have a credible reign with the IC belts, I believe that we're back in a time that it can make you quite a credible threat for the world title if they want to put you in that direction.  

Also, I think a little bit of hotshotting of a title is ok here and there and in small doses.  It can give you a sort of "Anything can happen" feel that can persist during a long title reign as well.  They should be the exception and not the norm though.
91Posted on 02/22/05 at 19:39:58

After having a quick look, I have, on average, three and a half world title changes a year. I normally aim for a maximum of three, but for storylines sakes, this can obviously change (one year I had six, another year I had just the one).

Since I'm with Snabbitt on the "longer the better" theory, I'd say a typical reign should be between at the higher end of a three to six month scale with shorter ones only for storyline purposes and longer ones either to put someone over huge or if that someone is simply the best choice of champion (either if they're your biggest star ala Hogan 84-88 or just your only star).
cerberosPosted on 02/22/05 at 21:09:45

I think it depends on why they changed hands.  If it changes hands just to change hand then it is bad.  Also depends on if you are booking the fed.  Now when I ran my WWE Smackdown fed I had planned on having Kurt Angle keep the title for atleast a year.  The key there is you have to have reasonable contenders.  I planned on a three month feud with Shawn Michaels and atleast a month feud with Eddie Guerrero and John Cena.  You can't have a long champion and have them feuding with guys like Hurricane and Simon Dean (nothing against either of them).   Also I think it depends on how often you run shows.  If you are doing a "WWE Styles" fed.  If you are running four or five shows a week or if you are only running one show a month.  Just my two cents worth, but I like long title reigns much more then short ones.

Geno
Critic of the DawnPosted on 02/23/05 at 15:56:41

Longer is better.  For those who think that a title reign of over a year would get dull, Samoa Joe's title reign in Ring of Honor lasted approximately 21 months, and resulted in the belt becoming extremely prestigious in the eyes of the fans.  Every time a credible challenger (Homicide, CM Punk, American Dragon, AJ Styles, Paul London, etc) would contend for the title, there were people who were SURE that this would be the time that Joe dropped the belt.  But each time, Joe came out on top.  Finally, after nearly 2 years as champion, Joe lost the belt to Austin Aries, which put him over huge as a legit main eventer who can match anyone in the company.  The fans almost unanimously agree that Aries has an extremely tough act to follow due to Joe's title reign being so damn good.

Unfortunately, it's hard to do that sort of thing when running an unbooked fed as I usually do.  Champions have the unfortunate habit of dropping their titles when you want them to least, and there isn't much you can do about it other than manipulating pushes.

Interesting topic.

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
Rick GarrardPosted on 02/24/05 at 01:39:57

Title credibility: def. see Arquette, David (also see WCW World Champion)  ;)

Actually I am in favor of lengthy reigns when the situation dictates it, or when there are very few credible threats to said champion.  However, when you have 2 or 3 guys that are evenly matched in the eyes of your audience (think Rock vs Austin), then it's fine to hotshot the title back and forth a couple of times.  The situation of how you want your champion viewed should also help determine how often the title changes hands.

Then of course there is the how the title is referred to and how the belt is actually handled by the champion themself.  Dragging a belt on the ground like the Rock means to me that he thinks the WWE Title was worthless.  Wearing the title titles on your waist ala La Resistance or Triple H, means they respect what it stands for even if it is some inexpensive prop in the grand scheme of things.  It small things like that that can add or detract from a perceived credibility.

You'll notice in my circuits, I rarely mention a championship title without referring to it's whole name or by referring to the wrestler that has that title with the word "Champion" in front of their name.  

I'm a big believer in small details can help make or break you, mainly cause of WCW's horrendous TV production values during the nWo era, that everyone was hailing as "cool" when in fact, it was production shortcuts and laziness.  If you go back and pick any old random Nitro from that time, you'll undoubtedly see some cable puller in the aisleway during at least one ring intro and on occasion you may even see one cross the entry way behind the wrestler on the wrestler's way to the ring.  That's what has always made WWF/E's TV a more well polished product that WCW.  ECW with Paul Heyman at the reigns even got the fact that small stuff worked and worked well.
YunPosted on 02/26/05 at 05:49:21

I gotta go on record as disagreeing with CotD. I thought Joe's title reign was extremely boring, coupled with the fact that I never thought he deserved the title in the first place (if Punk and Homicide were the "MVPs" they why weren't they the champs?) There was no drama involved, no ambiguity. Every match, except maybe the Joe/Punk series, was a foregone conclusion. Whether Gabe likes it or not, pro-wrestling is not a sport in the same way as, say, football. There is no competition. Pro-wrestling as a sport is more like figure skating... choreographed with the drama and intrigue coming from outside the match itself... specifically the possibility that the Champ might lose, which was not present in the case of Joe.

My view on the whole thing is that it's best to have two or three guys (Austin, Rock, and Triple H in the early 00's are a good example) who are considered equals, but all head and shoulders above the rest of the company. Then it's OK to hotshot the title as long as it's within that limited group. It adds drama to the World Title picture. A good title reign lasts about three to six months, depending on the number of viable champions.
Critic of the DawnPosted on 02/27/05 at 15:30:48

All I know is that every time Joe defended against a credible opponent (American Dragon, Homicide, CM Punk, etc.) the message boards on their official website were full of people arguing over whether he was going to drop it.  And of the title defenses I saw live (against Doug Williams, and against American Dragon - much moreso for Dragon because he's further up the card), Joe looked just vulnerable enough that you thought that maybe - just maybe this was going to be the time that he lost the belt.  His match against Dragon was incredibly hot for that reason.

I don't mind that you disagree, though.  It was a very oldschool title reign, and you just don't see that sort of thing very often these days.  I can just imagine how bored you would have been with Bruno Sammartino's title reign back in the '70s...  what was it, 7 years long? ;D

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
TerryFunkaPosted on 02/27/05 at 20:09:12

well the thing with joes reign is that unlike an hhh reign hhh loses and regains it which makes it even less valubale.While we had Joe who would go and defend his title in other places which brought more prestige to the title.
YunPosted on 03/01/05 at 07:53:17

On 02/27/05 at 15:30:48, Critic of the Dawn wrote:All I know is that every time Joe defended against a credible opponent (American Dragon, Homicide, CM Punk, etc.) the message boards on their official website were full of people arguing over whether he was going to drop it.  And of the title defenses I saw live (against Doug Williams, and against American Dragon - much moreso for Dragon because he's further up the card), Joe looked just vulnerable enough that you thought that maybe - just maybe this was going to be the time that he lost the belt.  His match against Dragon was incredibly hot for that reason.

I don't mind that you disagree, though.  It was a very oldschool title reign, and you just don't see that sort of thing very often these days.  I can just imagine how bored you would have been with Bruno Sammartino's title reign back in the '70s...  what was it, 7 years long? ;D

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
Well, first of all, you have to admit that the ROH message boards don't exactly represent the average wrestling fan  ;D

In quote-unquote "real" sports everyone hates a dominant champion. People hate the Lakers, people hate the Patriots, they hated the Cowboys in the early nineties, they hated the Braves in the mid nineties, hell they STILL hate the Yankees even though they're not dominant anymore. I guess I've just made the case for a long heel reign, and I suppose from a "Sports-Entertainment" standpoint it does makes sense.

But what I really disagree with is you saying Joe looked vulnerable. The man no-sells so much he makes The Undertaker look like he has a glass jaw... especially against Homicide, who's been humiliated so many times I'm starting to wonder if he doesn't have real life heat with Joe.

Terry: The fact the Triple H loses occasionally makes the competition more realistic. In fact I think it's Triple H's actions when he doesn't have the belt that raises its worth. That HHH spends all his time trying to avoid defending the title and focuses all of his energy on getting it back when he doesn't have it means that the title is more important than the man holding it, which is the way it should be.

My favorite example of my point in "real" sports is the UFC Light Heavyweight Division. Randy Couture, Chuck Liddell, Tito Ortiz... any one of these three could be champion, and that's what makes their matches exciting, but anyone else in the division has little to no hope of beating them, which is why the title means something. If anything Couture's dominance is making the division less interesting.

If nobody can beat the champ it gets the champ over, not the belt, as the belt's worth is dependent on the worth of the division, not the individual. What good it it to be the best if the competition isn't worthy?
americamamushiPosted on 03/01/05 at 08:09:46

Ah, people may hate those teams... unless they're fans of those teams, in which case they are probably quite content. ;)

As for Joe no selling I'll assume it's because he works something close to, if not strong style, which many American fans don't understand.  I can't say for sure because I've never seen ROH in action or Joe in action.
YunPosted on 03/01/05 at 08:17:14

On 03/01/05 at 08:09:46, americamamushi wrote:Ah, people may hate those teams... unless they're fans of those teams, in which case they are probably quite content. ;)

As for Joe no selling I'll assume it's because he works something close to, if not strong style, which many American fans don't understand.  I can't say for sure because I've never seen ROH in action or Joe in action.
Well, yeah, I was a Cowboys fan in the early nineties, but the point still stands  ;)

And I have no problem admitting that I HATE Strong Style. The art of "working" is being lost as more and more marks are brought up to think stiff is a virtue. To paraphrase Lance Storm: Of course their matches look good... 75% of what they do is real!
americamamushiPosted on 03/01/05 at 08:36:23

That's one of the big problems with working strong style in America, the misunderstanding that Strong Style is all about working stiff.  Sure, they tend to work a bit stiffer, but it's about so much more than that.  The most important thing about strong style wrestling... or even Japanese junior wrestling or joshi wrestling, it the wrestler's fighting spirit.  That's what the whole no selling thing is about.  It's not just no selling for the sake of no selling.:)
YunPosted on 03/01/05 at 12:16:50

I presume you're talking about Tanaka Masato-style "working through the pain" no-selling in this case, then. If this is correct then that is very much not what Samoa Joe does. Samoa Joe's no-selling is of the "I'm gonna get beat up on for five/ten minutes then hit one move which the other guy is gonna sell like he got shot while I show no ill effects whatsoever" variety.

I actually have no problem with the first type of no-selling, since it is a form of selling in its own way. I'm just selectively old-school in the sense that I consider excessively stiff work as indicitave of a lack of talent.

(Wow this thread got derailed...)
Critic of the DawnPosted on 03/01/05 at 15:34:40

Oh, so you mean it's standard big man no-selling, then.  Perhaps because Joe is the biggest guy on the ROH roster, and outweighs nearly everyone by 50-60 pounds.  

I see what you're saying, but from what I've observed, his selling is proportionate to the level of opponent he's facing.  If he's fighting a Trent Acid, for example, there's no reason he shouldn't shrug off a lot of his offense - Acid isn't in the Champion's league, and everyone knew it.  In his title match against Dragon, on the other hand, Joe spent a majority of the match limping because Dragon was working his legs to try to take his knees and kicks out of the equation.  And, for the most part, it worked.

As for being such a dominant and long reigning champion only giving credibility to the champion and not the title, I'd have to disagree.  Austin Aries has been elevated from an upper midcarder to a legitimate main eventer.  In the next few weeks, the ROH Title is going to be defended in Switzerland, Austria, and probably Canada in addition to the US.  If Joe was the only one put over by his title reign, they would have brought Joe in.  Instead, they want the ROH Champion because it means something.

As for your point about ROH message boards not being filled with your everyday fan, yes, that's probably true.  But ROH is still a niche promotion that targets that audience for the most part.  It's slowly expanding out of that niche, but because it's still there, the people on the board probably are representative of a large proportion of ROH's fans.  And that whole argument really fails to address why I believe a PWInisder poll a few months ago ranked the ROH Title as the second most prestigious in the US (after RAW's World Heavyweight Title).

So... yeah.  I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
americamamushiPosted on 03/01/05 at 18:09:32

On 03/01/05 at 12:16:50, Yun wrote:(Wow this thread got derailed...)
don't they all ;)
Rick GarrardPosted on 03/02/05 at 01:45:31

So it's ROH's fault that WWE RAW matches have gone from 3 minute spotfests to actual house show like 15 to 20 minute matches as of late, and even the return of the squash match to get over newer talents?

I think I should either thank them or kick them in the shins ala Dude Love.
CrplsPosted on 03/02/05 at 02:34:08

That's one of the big problems with working strong style in America, the misunderstanding that Strong Style is all about working stiff.
You mean... GROUND AND POUND~!


But seriously, I'm fully on board with Yun's no-talent argument for stiffness. It doesn't take talent to hit someone. Give me two wrestlers who can make it look like they're working stiff, but actually aren't. That's talent.

On the other hand, I'm completely ok with some no-selling.
YunPosted on 03/02/05 at 16:35:24

On 03/01/05 at 15:34:40, Critic of the Dawn wrote:I see what you're saying, but from what I've observed, his selling is proportionate to the level of opponent he's facing.  If he's fighting a Trent Acid, for example, there's no reason he shouldn't shrug off a lot of his offense - Acid isn't in the Champion's league, and everyone knew it.  In his title match against Dragon, on the other hand, Joe spent a majority of the match limping because Dragon was working his legs to try to take his knees and kicks out of the equation.  And, for the most part, it worked.

As for being such a dominant and long reigning champion only giving credibility to the champion and not the title, I'd have to disagree.  Austin Aries has been elevated from an upper midcarder to a legitimate main eventer.  In the next few weeks, the ROH Title is going to be defended in Switzerland, Austria, and probably Canada in addition to the US.  If Joe was the only one put over by his title reign, they would have brought Joe in.  Instead, they want the ROH Champion because it means something.

As for your point about ROH message boards not being filled with your everyday fan, yes, that's probably true.  But ROH is still a niche promotion that targets that audience for the most part.  It's slowly expanding out of that niche, but because it's still there, the people on the board probably are representative of a large proportion of ROH's fans.  And that whole argument really fails to address why I believe a PWInisder poll a few months ago ranked the ROH Title as the second most prestigious in the US (after RAW's World Heavyweight Title).

So... yeah.  I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
The no-selling issue is mainly evident in his matches against Homicide, who any ROH fan will tell you is a more than worthy contender. As for Acid... consider the classic match Triple H had with Taka Michinoku a few years ago. Everyone knew the WWF would never put the belt on Taka, but Triple H made people believe that there was a chance, however slim, that they really meant it when they said "anything can happen."

As for the prestige of the belts: consider the competition The NWA Title is in the death grip of WWF cast-off Jeff Jarrett who defends it against WWE midcarders (Jeff Hardy) old men past their prime (DDP, Kevin Nash) and the worst American Wrestler in history (Monty Brown)!

The WWE (Smackdown) Title is also in the hands of a midcarder who, with the exception of Kurt Angle and the Undertaker, has no credible main eventers to challenge (I like Eddie Guerrero as much as the next guy, but his reign as Champion didn't exactly set the world on fire, ditto for AJ Styles and the NWA belt.)

Both cases fit what I was saying ealier: The quality of competition is just as, if not more, important than the quality of the Champion. Why is the World Heavyweight Title number one? Partially because of Triple H, yes, but Chris Benoit, Edge, Shawn Michaels, Batista, and to a lesser extent Randy Orton and Chris Jericho all play an important role in making the title mean what it does to the business. JBL and Jeff Jarrett's reigns are more than four times as long as Triple H's current, yet Helmsley is still considered the greatest of the three, not because he never lost, but because of who he had to beat to get the belt back.

And that was my first point in a nutshell. I believe that a title reign of over, say, nine months effectively makes the challengers look weak by comparison. Also consider the effect it has on later champions: consider, in this very thread, how many words we've written about Samoa Joe compared to Austin Aries (who I maintain is the better of the two, but that's a personal taste issue.) Consider that until Hulk Hogan some 14 years later, every WWWF/WWF champion always had that asterisk by their reign saying "They're still not as good as Bruno," and then the belt never broke out of Hogan's shadow until Steve Austin in 1998.

We can agree to disagree. I still think a long title reign does a better job of getting the champion over instead of getting the title over.
TerryFunkaPosted on 03/02/05 at 22:54:12

if you want your world title to be credible give it to Mae Young for 16 years
Snabbit888Posted on 03/02/05 at 22:55:16

On 03/02/05 at 22:54:12, TerryFunka wrote:if you want your world title to be credible give it to Mae Young for 16 years
You should do standup.