I mean wrestler held the titles for years not months !
and we get mad cuz Cena or Boretista held the title for a year
Cena and Boretista aren't as good as the past wrestlers but still hogan held the title for like 1200 days! and he wasn't that good
2007-07-29 03:06:33 · 11 answers · asked by Masteяs™ 6 in Sports ➔ Wrestling
I hate the fact that belts change so frequently, if a wrestler can call themselves 5 time world champion then why go for that belt again, they should choose to goto a new company and win that title. the longer someone holds onto a title the greater they seem. the more prestigious the title and if the champ is a heel the greater the anticipation of them losing it to a great.
the reason belts never used to change so often is title holders would often face off against nobodys, the idea being that they were enough of a pull to get the crowds in on their own and they did, but if you put any modern champion in the ring with a nobody they wouldn't attract a crowd, WWE has spoiled us with frequent changes and it'll be hard to get back.
2007-07-29 03:23:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The main reason is because back in the 70's, before wrestling hit it's peak again, it wasn't televised. A majority of the states didn't know who the champion was in his first year reigning because he was either touring the US or staying in his territory, there was no television to show his local matches, and more importantly, there was no internet. I'm pretty sure Ring of Honor would be the same way if there was no internet. The point is, people didn't have a chance to get sick of the champion, because they rarely saw him. That's pretty much the truth. Old timers can fill your head with the lie of "we just have a better attention span than you young whippersnappers" but the fact of the matter is, when an NWA show came to your home town from a different region, there was no telling if a new world champion was riding in with it or not, and even if it was the same champion from the last four years, and you live in, let's say, North Carolina, and this champion's from California, there's a very likely chance that he hadn't stepped foot within your state more than once in his time as champion..
Back in those days, the loyals kept up with stuff like this through dirt sheets, which were the more basic, pulpy form of the current internet wrestling community. There are still some mainstay dirt sheets out there like PWI, but wrestling magazines are a dying breed unless it has a WWE logo in the corner.
I hope this gives you some insight into the dark ages of wrestling. You have to keep in mind that wrestling stayed underground for the better part of two decades, and that it was coming up into the mainstream as some of you (the 19 to 20 year olds) were being brought into this world.
2007-07-29 10:48:58 · answer #2 · answered by Candle 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
thats a good point
Hogan was 10 x worse than Cena but only 5 times worse than Batista
but they are all boring
They should let new talent get a chance at the top titles and that 1200 day title reign was rediculous
So Batista and Cena arent as Bad as Hogan but they are still pretty boring
2007-07-29 11:27:17 · answer #3 · answered by NONAME 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Didnt Bruno Sammartino hold the title for like 3 years? I'd get really bored if that happened now! Hogan was overrated as hell. He was just the face of WWF from '80-95 and thats all he ever was.
2007-07-29 10:32:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was in the 50/60 and early 70s. Then everything changed (excpet for Hogans reign in WWF and WCW). The only time someone should hold the belt for a year is if that person wont get stale and makes it interesting.
Reigns should be 3-4 months on average.
2007-07-29 10:13:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The era of wrestling was different.
I'll put it this way. If you are used to walking a couple miles to work all your life its no big deal.......Then all the sudden you get a car. Then you get used to driving those couple miles to work. If you then go back to walking its bad. If you never had the walking stage then having to walk really sucks.
Point.......Wrestling fans today had slow pace action where matches and fueds last a lot longer. Attitude era everything got fast paced. Now they are trying to take wrestling back to pre-Attitude era. For fans who never had slow paced action it sucks. Even for fans who did it still sucks.
Just a generation thing. Like people who get mad because they have to wait a few minutes to get fast food. Years ago you would of had to wait longer than that, but it was no big deal. Microwave generation....which I'm part of.
Kennedy match at No Way Out was actually a good old school match, but new age fans can't hanlde slow pace action.
2007-07-29 11:45:38 · answer #6 · answered by mack28 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agreed and star for you its just the past wrestlers either look at Finlay William Regal Dave Taylor Shelton Benjamin Charlie Haas im suprised they havent beatin the sh1t out of Vince yet I hope they get out of the WWE soon and go to TNA they get to be Champions which they deserve
2007-07-29 10:16:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, agreed and starred!!!
i really dont like hogan!!!!
u see, there are different people in this world and u have to deal with them!!!!
2007-07-29 10:20:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I Don't Like hogan Coz He was Very over-Rated & he had the Lamest Finisher Legdrop!!!
But thanks God,I Started watching Wrestling In 2005.
2007-07-29 10:10:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hogan is a legend
2007-07-29 10:09:13 · answer #10 · answered by RandyOrtonfan84 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋