>>21424039
>2135 day reign
>901 defense
weak as fuck desu. how'd he get away from hardly defending the title

>>21424094
one defence every 2.3 days

>>21424039
W-what are you yelling at me for

I don't mind longer title reigns when you have an established roster which you believe could win it. The issue comes with runs like Romans where there was not a single credible challenger so everything just got so boring. Same guys over and over and winning in the same way. Throw the titles around a bit for a year or two have some top guys beating other top guys clean to establish that they are as good as each other then you can start having longer reigns again without it being boring/predictable.

>>21424039
How short is short and how long is long? Hot potatoing the title is stupid, like title changes every few weeks, it doesn't allow you to get invested in the reigns, the shock of the quick change is muted and every random cunt ends up with 4 or 5 title reigns when they maybe should have had just 1 in their career.
Long title reigns, like a year or more, get boring if you can tell its going to be a long title reign. There was no chance at all that Roman or Cody were going to lose their titles at any point in the first 6 months and so it was just booking matches to get us through to the important programs a few months down the road.
To answer question both have drawbacks and benefits but it just comes down to whether the reign, and eventual end of the reign, is booked well.