From jeff on 2/8/08 3:45 PM

I would have to say Mr. Kennedy because Jeff Hardy already had his title shot even though it would be nice to give him the title. Mr. Kennedy right now is the only heel I like right now because he doesn't cheat to win his matches and is a very good wrestler this guy is the future of the WWE.

From DaneBramage on 2/8/08 4:56 PM

Ric Flair. He's the greatest wrestler of all time, it would be nice to see him get another run with the belt, however short, before he retires.

From JamesP on 2/8/08 5:41 PM

Kennedy.

From Goldberg619 on 2/8/08 5:52 PM

Kennedy because he never got his title shot from his money in the bank briefcase because Edge won it off him.

From ROHjuggalo on 2/8/08 6:45 PM

I want Jeff Hardy to get the title at mania if he can win the chamber.

From SRHking on 2/8/08 6:52 PM

fuck kennedy

From 92tombstone92 on 2/8/08 6:59 PM

i agree with SRHking fuck kennedy he hasn't been in any good matches lately royal rumble doesn't count cause that match sucked too but i'm gonna pick someone whos not even on the list whos probably the best heel raw has got JBL

From JamesP on 2/8/08 7:10 PM

He's had 3 good matches and a squash match.

From theminister on 2/8/08 7:39 PM

Forgot about JBL. He is a great heel.

I'd like to see Kennedy run with the IC title before the big gold. Hardy at least has done that.

I'm surprised there have been no HBK's. I thought someone would want the Show Stopper to get another run at the gold.

From NFresh6 on 2/8/08 7:57 PM

HHH or HBK

From sexyrj6321 on 2/8/08 11:07 PM

it wud have to b HBK.

From DepthCharge on 2/8/08 11:21 PM

jericho as a heel

From Flamingo on 2/8/08 11:36 PM

Triple H was not on the list and he does not need to be champion. My vote goes to Jeff Hardy because he's had many title reigns, but not the WWE championship and he's been busting his ass for that company for a long time. He deserves it.

From JamesP on 2/8/08 11:46 PM

Unfortunately, however, with SUPER-CRAP-ROID-MAN & HUNTOR THE BAR-BURY-AN in the company, they'll be on top. It's a shame, really.

From Treilond on 2/9/08 12:18 AM

I would have to say HBK, he would make it more interesting, Kennedy would just win with someone fucking themeselves up, not win farely, I don't want to see that shit

From theone86 on 2/9/08 10:47 PM

How about all of them? I keep saying how WWE should have some pretty quick Title reigns to make it seem like a competition and not just one guy holding the belt for a few months, then handing it off to someone else to do the same. These guys are all at main event level. I saw Mr. Kennedy's match against Michaels on Raw and I thought that match was killer. The only person I have doubts about is Jeff, and he's impressing me a lot lately too. I don't see why all of them can't have at least a short run with the title in 08.

From theminister on 2/10/08 9:52 AM

theone86, don't you think that would water down the title picture? We're already in February, so if all 5 of those guys were to hold the title this year we'd have to have a title change like every other pay per view. I personally think that would be overkill.

I think a title reign needs to be at least 3 or 4 months long and have at least 2 or 3 pay per view defenses to make it legit. Otherwise you get to be like Kane who held it for one day. He's called a world champ but it's hardly considered legit.

I agree that all of them deserve to be champs. But I'm not sure making them all champs this year would be good.

From 92tombstone92 on 2/10/08 12:19 PM

Well since ur on the Kane subject Smackdown needs to give him a world title shot hes been long over due for one and he'd prob be one of the best champions Smackdown would ever have

From sexyrj6321 on 2/10/08 11:51 PM

TRU. KANE REALLY DESERVES IT, BUT UNTIL Taker wants it(if we r talking about the WHC). If we r talking about the WWE title, then i have to keep my first choice, which is the showstoppa, HBK!

From theminister on 2/11/08 3:17 PM

I think Kane should have had a longer run with the belt back when he won it in 1998 and he definitely should have had a second crack at it. Everyone else in the attitude era was given at least two title runs. Why not Kane?

From theone86 on 2/11/08 5:02 PM

Alright, maybe there's not enough time to get them all reigns, but I definitely think we need shorter reigns interspersed. Look at booking during the attitude era:

Michaels-4 months
Austin-3 months
Kane-1 day
Austin-5 months
Rock-2 months
Mankind-2 weeks
Rock-1 week
Mankind-2 weeks
Rock-1 month
Austin-2 months
Taker-1 month
Austin-2 months
Mankind-1 day
Triple H-1 month
Mc Mahon-1 week
Triple H-2 months
Big Show-2 months
Triple H-3 months
Rock-1 month, 3 weeks
Triple H-1 month
Rock-4 months
Angle-4 months
Rock-2 months
Austin-5 months, 3 weeks
Angle-2 weeks
Austin-2 months
Jericho-3 months
Triple H-1 month
Hogan-1 month
Taker-2 months
Rock-1 month
Lesnar-3 months
Big Show-1 month
Angle-3 months
Brock-4 months
Angle-2 months
Brock-5 months
Eddie-4 months

And that's where my golden age of Title booking ends. Over a period of seven years and seven months you had 38 different Title changes. No one held the Title for more than 5 months, it made it seem like there was a lot of competition, and you had multiple contenders for teh Title at any given time. The big names like Austin, Rock, Taker, and Triple H got the runs of a few months, but people like Mankind and Kane were placed in so as to not make it seem like it's ALWAYS going to be one of the top names against another one. The other thing is that the champs were in action more back then. They would wrestle almost every week, and would usually have at least one Title defence in between Pay-per-view matches. But most importantly, there was variety. It's not just, "let's build one contender to a big match at the PPV, then start all over following the same exact formula next month." Titles can change hands at TV shows, and when it happens people go nuts. That can build to an even better PPV match, possibly with another competitor. When Titles change hands it makes it seem like these guys really want it, and that there's some genuine competition going on for it. Look at the period after that:

JBL-10 months
John Cena-8 months
Edge-3 weeks
John Cena-5 months
RVD-1 month
Edge-2 months
John Cena-1 month
Orton (with a quick loss to Triple H, and another quick win over Triple H the same night)-4 months and counting.

In a period of about three years and four months we have only 9. We're on pace to have about half as many Title changes in this period. And you know, everyone complains about Triple H having the Title for too long, or about Angle dominating TNA for too long, but most of Triple H's reigns only lasted four months during his Raw domination, and Angle's only had the Title for four months. I say short runs are a good thing. That's not saying that everyone has to have a short one, but what about giving Jeff or Kennedy two or four week runs? Then you can divy the rest of the time out between Michaels, Jericho and Flair. Say Orton keeps the Title until Mania, you have nine months left. You could give Flair a three or four month run, Michaels a three month run, and have Jericho go back and forth with Kennedy with a couple of two week runs. Then you could give Jeff a very short run where he gest a win over Michaels, but Michaels quickly regains the top spot. That way Jeff gets the chance to prove himself, and Michaels still gets the longer run. I'm definitely in favor of three to four months being on the relatively long end of Title reigns.

From theone86 on 2/11/08 5:14 PM

And the booking wasn't all attitude era. The last AE reign was Austin's 5th which lasted into Invasion, and ended with Kurt Angle's second. Invasion ended with Chris Jericho's first, and post-Invasion, pre-Cena ended with JBL (I count JBL as part of the Cena era because he was the first person since Nash to hold the Title for such a long period, which preceeded similar Title reigns by Cena). So anyways, three eras have half the amount of Title changes as one. It just seems disporportionate to me.

From theminister on 2/12/08 10:37 AM

I hear what you're saying. There certainly is a place for quicker title reigns. But super short title reigns are mostly an abberation.

In 1999, you had 12 title changes and 7 different champions. That is the most in history!!!

Other than that during the Attitude Era you never had the title change hand more than 7 times. From 1998 through 2003 if you remove 1999 from the equation, the title changed hands an average of 5 times per year . That's an average of 2 plus months per title reign. And the champions that the AE is most closely associated with all had at least 1 reign of at least 4 months long, (Austin, Rock, HHH and Angle).

There's nothing wrong with shorter title reigns as long as they're not too short. Just my humble opinion.

From JamesP on 2/12/08 3:45 PM

WCW has the distinct "honor" of most world title changes in a single year. It changed hands 22 times in 2000.

From theone86 on 2/12/08 6:21 PM

^Now that's too much. I don't mind longer Title reigns, I just think it's all too apparant that they're all just about 5-6 months long, unless your name is Cena or Batista. The thing I like most about the booking at that time was the fact that there were always like 4 guys who were in a position to challenge. I like what they've got on Raw right now with Kennedy, Jeff, Michaels, JBL, and Jericho all in the mix. I do think they could afford to send one huge name to Smackdown, but I think recently Mysterio and Edge have been tearing it up. I'd just like to see Finlay elevated to the main event.

But anyways, I think reigns should be kept within 1-5 months, and that it's important not to get into a pattern. I like seeing a couple of 1 or 2 months reigns thrown in there. If it's executed right it doesn't take away legitimacy, it gives it more. It stimulates the idea of competition. I like seeing a lot of people in a position to challenge, I like seeing a reign get cut off by an upset a couple of months in every once in a while. I definitely think they should at least ressurect the idea of Raw Title matches.

I don't know that we should go back to the 99 format. Kane definitely should've had the title for longer, but I liked Rock and Mankind's fued. I think if the situation was right it would be a good idea for WWE to have a series of handoffs, but that it shouldn't turn into a regular thing. I think in the context of one big fued between a newcomer and a vet it would work, but if they started to go back to it and make it a habit it would make the Title seem watered down. And also it makes reigns seem longer when you defend them once or twice between PPV's. That used to be an easier thing to do when there was just one Title, because instead of four shows between PPVs you had eight. I think if they went back to one World Title not only would it make it easier to book better main event fueds, but it would give more room to build up the other Titles. Of course, there is still a TON of main event talent, but that might make it a better situation.

From theone86 on 2/12/08 6:22 PM

oh, and Cena's last reign was 13 months, not 1.

From cptcharisma1157 on 2/12/08 8:51 PM

A lot of good points theone, i don't think anyone is gonna try to argue that wrestling is in a better state now than when we were in the attitude era. And i liked where u decided to cut that era off, a lot of people don't consider the whole wcw invasion a part of the attitude era, but i think wrestling started going down hill in about 2003, with Lesnar leaving and being replaced with Cena. Long title reigns are boring. I don't mind a 9 month title reign every few years, but Cena's having multiple year long title reigns.

What they need to do right now is give Kane a couple months to hold the title, he deserves it. Let the titles flip around between guys like the Hardys, Edge, Kennedy, and maybe toss a world title reign to an underrapreciated guy like Regal or Finlay. WWE needs diversity, and that's why it was entertaining again when Cena got hurt. Orton won the title lost it to Trip, and then won it back in a day. A plethora of guys challenged him, pitting many a superstar in the main event. Now we're just gonna see Cena hold the title for another year, working feuds with probably 2 guys, each spanning about 5 months.

From Gemini523 on 2/13/08 12:49 PM

I agree with Dane Bramage, let Flair get one more title run before he retires. After that let Jeff have the title, he's really upped his game over the past year and proven he can go toe-to-toe with the best. He's beaten Triple H and Umaga and that's not easy for someone his size.

From theminister on 2/14/08 12:01 PM

I think we can all agree 2 to 5 months is probably an ideal title reign. I'd add that an occasional reign of 6 months to a year can happen if the situation calls for it (ie: a transitional period for the company or major injuries to top stars). Over a year is certainly overkill. JBL had a nearly year long run in 2004-2005, to have Cena run with the belt for over a year from 2006-2007 was way too soon and probably unneccessary.

All that being said, it looks like Orton's reign should be finished right about now!!!

From JamesP on 2/14/08 6:39 PM

Multiple long-term reigns are boring. For the past 5 years, we've seen 7 long term reigns. That's unacceptable. While we shouldn't see a title change every 2 months, they should have more frequent changes. It makes things far more exciting.

From 92tombstone92 on 2/14/08 6:55 PM

Honestly i would love to see JBL hold the WWE championship again but on RAW and a make another cabinet instead of Orlando have Mr. Kennedy instead of Basham Brothers Lance Cade and Trevor Murdock