WWE Hall of Famer Jim Ross has said in a recent Q&A that he prefers to see superstars having long title reigns, rather than winning the same championship on multiple occasions.
Answered questions on his own website, the former WWE commentator was asked if he prefer to see superstars with multiple title reigns or longer title reigns.
His answer was the latter because of reasons that every single member of the WWE Universe can agree with.
SIGN UP NOW
Want to become a GMS writer? Sign up now and submit a 250-word test article: http://gms.to/haveyoursay4
He said: "I think that long runs as a champion is more impressive than winning and losing a title multiple times. It seems to me that it's more challenging to hold a title over a long haul than to hold it a few weeks/months at a time before winning and losing it over and over again."
Too many times in the past there has been occasions where the main championships in the WWE have changed hands too frequently. Nevertheless, sometimes that's the best way to work a situation in the WWE.
However, there has been occasions where a superstar has held a title for a long period of time, but has not defended it. One of the most notable ones was the Dean Ambrose United States Championship reign, and the title lost some credibility for it.
Also, if the title is defended too often, it loses credibility that way too. There has to be an equal balance.
Cena brought back the credibility of the United States Championship during his title reign with the open challenges on multiple occasions, and it provided an opportunity for superstars to be in the limelight, but that can be stopped for the time being. Maybe bring it back after WrestleMania.
Overall, the title situation in the WWE is good, with all titles being defended and held for a suitable amount of time depending on the superstar holding it. Hopefully, the WWE doesn't mess this one up.