You see this debate constantly regardless of promotion as to how often the world champion should defend their championship.

What are your thoughts?

As a rule, once per month.

However, if you're at a Roman Reigns or Brock Lesnar level, then I can live with once every three months otherwise you diminish the value of the reign.

In WWE, at minimum, at the Big 4 PPVs. WWE can carry itself without needing the Undisputed Champion at the helm. Throw in a Women's main event, or now tha Tag Team Titles and you'll be OK. The WWE Championship has been firmly established as a special attraction.

Anyone less, (AEW, TNA..) the World Championship should be defended every month at the least and the Champion should be working every other week. MJF has been Champion 145 days and has wrestled 3 times since, like WTF. Is he he Roman Reigns?

In the interest of cementing credibility and in a social media world, where likes/clicks/views/engagement is everything - making that title seen and more importantly, seen as being important should be at the forefront of every show.

I like to stick with the 30 day rule, but I guess a lot depends on the promotion and the champion.

World Title: once a month

Second tier titles: Once every other week

And the Television Title "my favorite title" every night those tv cameras are on.

I would say every PPV with a rare occasion on TV/house show for the biggest belt in the promotion. 

The belt holder doesn't need any hype, they have the belt. The challenger is the one who needs the time, the matches(No.1 contendership) to get themselves in the picture to be believed by the audience. The match for the title should be treated like a massive deal if done correctly and it should emphasize how much of a grind it is to even be in that position to challenge for the belt.

Apr 14, 2023 15:46:53 GMT Big Pete said:

As a rule, once per month.

However, if you're at a Roman Reigns or Brock Lesnar level, then I can live with once every three months otherwise you diminish the value of the reign.

The other argument is the less wrestling and activity with the belt diminishes the value of the reign, because then it is considered as padding for the sake of via inactivity. 

Apr 15, 2023 12:31:42 GMT Blindy said:

Apr 14, 2023 15:46:53 GMT Big Pete said:

As a rule, once per month.

However, if you're at a Roman Reigns or Brock Lesnar level, then I can live with once every three months otherwise you diminish the value of the reign.

The other argument is the less wrestling and activity with the belt diminishes the value of the reign, because then it is considered as padding for the sake of via inactivity. 

The problem is you're not going to have 12 opponents at that level, and 4 weeks isn't going to sell them.

Cut it down to 4-6 opponents with 8-12 weeks build and you've got box office.

Apr 15, 2023 12:54:38 GMT Big Pete said:

Apr 15, 2023 12:31:42 GMT Blindy said:

The other argument is the less wrestling and activity with the belt diminishes the value of the reign, because then it is considered as padding for the sake of via inactivity. 

The problem is you're not going to have 12 opponents at that level, and 4 weeks isn't going to sell them.

Cut it down to 4-6 opponents with 8-12 weeks build and you've got box office.

You can get creative with stipulations like triple threat or fatal four ways. I agree there needs to be a better point of emphasis on the no.1 contender earning the right and make them believable to actually win the whole chabang. 

It's why the midcard titles should be used to propel someone to the next level once they lose or if you have a thing like WWE Draft, you rotate the challengers between brands to keep it fresh. 

Apr 15, 2023 13:08:34 GMT Blindy said:

Apr 15, 2023 12:54:38 GMT Big Pete said:

The problem is you're not going to have 12 opponents at that level, and 4 weeks isn't going to sell them.

Cut it down to 4-6 opponents with 8-12 weeks build and you've got box office.

You can get creative with stipulations like triple threat or fatal four ways. I agree there needs to be a better point of emphasis on the no.1 contender earning the right and make them believable to actually win the whole chabang. 

It's why the midcard titles should be used to propel someone to the next level once they lose or if you have a thing like WWE Draft, you rotate the challengers between brands to keep it fresh. 

Even then, you don't want to do too many three-ways or four-ways otherwise it just looks sloppy and indecisive.

With that said, the Roman/Brock reigns should be the exception and not the rule.

Apr 15, 2023 12:54:38 GMT Big Pete said:

Apr 15, 2023 12:31:42 GMT Blindy said:

The other argument is the less wrestling and activity with the belt diminishes the value of the reign, because then it is considered as padding for the sake of via inactivity. 

The problem is you're not going to have 12 opponents at that level, and 4 weeks isn't going to sell them.

Cut it down to 4-6 opponents with 8-12 weeks build and you've got box office.

Does every opponent need to be top tier, or be a part of the storyline?  I remember mid 80's Flair randomly defending the World Title on Saturday Night against Sam Houston.  

Apr 15, 2023 13:32:54 GMT bodyslam said:

Apr 15, 2023 12:54:38 GMT Big Pete said:

The problem is you're not going to have 12 opponents at that level, and 4 weeks isn't going to sell them.

Cut it down to 4-6 opponents with 8-12 weeks build and you've got box office.

Does every opponent need to be top tier, or be a part of the storyline?  I remember mid 80's Flair randomly defending the World Title on Saturday Night against Sam Houston.  

If I'm thinking of the right match (12th of November 85) it wasn't for the title.

Apr 15, 2023 13:25:21 GMT Big Pete said:

Apr 15, 2023 13:08:34 GMT Blindy said:

You can get creative with stipulations like triple threat or fatal four ways. I agree there needs to be a better point of emphasis on the no.1 contender earning the right and make them believable to actually win the whole chabang. 

It's why the midcard titles should be used to propel someone to the next level once they lose or if you have a thing like WWE Draft, you rotate the challengers between brands to keep it fresh. 

Even then, you don't want to do too many three-ways or four-ways otherwise it just looks sloppy and indecisive.

With that said, the Roman/Brock reigns should be the exception and not the rule.

It pains me greatly that this isn’t written the other way around :lol:

Apr 15, 2023 15:09:04 GMT Big Pete said:

Apr 15, 2023 13:32:54 GMT bodyslam said:

Does every opponent need to be top tier, or be a part of the storyline?  I remember mid 80's Flair randomly defending the World Title on Saturday Night against Sam Houston.  

If I'm thinking of the right match (12th of November 85) it wasn't for the title.

12th of November 85 wasn't even a Saturday night.  Just a quick glace I see the two wrestled in may of 85 and I have no clue if it was for the title or not I just assume it was.

Apr 15, 2023 17:14:05 GMT bodyslam said:

Apr 15, 2023 15:09:04 GMT Big Pete said:

If I'm thinking of the right match (12th of November 85) it wasn't for the title.

12th of November 85 wasn't even a Saturday night.  Just a quick glace I see the two wrestled in may of 85 and I have no clue if it was for the title or not I just assume it was.

That was when the match was taped.

It was for the 16th of November edition of Worldwide, which was on a Saturday.

Otherwise the only other televised match with Sam Houston was in 1991.

Apr 15, 2023 17:27:03 GMT Big Pete said:

Apr 15, 2023 17:14:05 GMT bodyslam said:

12th of November 85 wasn't even a Saturday night.  Just a quick glace I see the two wrestled in may of 85 and I have no clue if it was for the title or not I just assume it was.

That was when the match was taped.

It was for the 16th of November edition of Worldwide, which was on a Saturday.

Otherwise the only other televised match with Sam Houston was in 1991.

maybe so but I don't see it or maybe some websites got their results mixed up. Most likely the one I'm looking at.  Its all good.

Apr 15, 2023 18:21:38 GMT bodyslam said:

Apr 15, 2023 17:27:03 GMT Big Pete said:

That was when the match was taped.

It was for the 16th of November edition of Worldwide, which was on a Saturday.

Otherwise the only other televised match with Sam Houston was in 1991.

maybe so but I don't see it or maybe some websites got their results mixed up. Most likely the one I'm looking at.  Its all good.

Yeah CageMatch let me down, I know exactly what match you're talking about now.

I think the important thing is simply to be a part of the show, have programs and meaning if you aren't actively defending the title. With monthly PPVs/Supershows they should at minimum keep up the charade of the "30 day rule" but I can give a pass if the title isn't defended for good reason... maybe they're involved in a feud that's requiring a big multi-man match or perhaps a different title has the temporarily spotlight. My issue and why I've always leaned into filler defenses is sometimes if the champ isn't defending... they sometimes have no place on the show and then you're like what's the point? It's a weird balance that I sometimes think less is more with titles. Maybe if they didn't have 100 on each brand it wouldn't be as jarring.

30 days. House shows count.