Are you a fan of Short Title Reigns or Longer Title Reigns?

I like a good title reign. Length is subjective. Case in point, JBL's year long run as champion was terrible. People backpedal and say it wasn't and I don't know why, but it was definitely booked terribly and it wasn't because JBL wasn't capable of maintaining healthy heel heat. The Cabinet sucked, and it was a big part of his reign. He was also just beginning to figure out who he was as a heel toward the first half of the run. If you were to put the belt on him today for four months I think the reign would be better and a lot more memorable because creative understands the character now and so does he.

Now with that being said, I think emphasis has been placed too highly on how many times a title's held, opposed to how long. Ric Flair's 16 reigns were impressive because some of them lasted 6 months to a year. Nobody has that kind of draw anymore.

BA: I think all promotions need to take a good look in the mirror and realize that titles aren't props to people, or at least they didn't used to be.

longer title reigns with good storylines and a good champion is good. And by this the title can get more respect.

Short title reigns hurt the title when they are done often

Longer reigns have more challengers on who will defeats the current champion.

BQ: Maybe.

i say longer title reigns because it help us to have great storylines

Longer. The more the title changes hands, the less prestigious it becomes.