Unrelated Blog Questions

Hi Scott,
I've got a couple of unrelated blog questions.  Feel free to answer one, both, or neither.
1) Given that both Punk and Sheamus are enjoying decent title reigns in terms of length (Punk just over 9 months, Sheamus at 5 months), I would say that some prestige has been brought back to the titles, for those of us who actually enjoy the idea of them meaning something.  But it got me thinking: do you think there's a minimum length of time for a title reign to be considered "valid" or legitimate?  For example, during the time when Kane only had held the WWF title for 24 hrs in '98, it still seemed like a valid reign to me, for whatever reason. Contrast that with Tommy "My Boy" Rich's NWA title reign, which last only a few days, but which I'm sure no one took seriously.  Then you've got Dolph Ziggler's "reign," which is ludicrous even to acknowledge as actually having existed (he never even got to hold the belt, let alone wear it and be introduced as champ). Hell, Swagger held the title for 2 and a half months, which is par for the course these days, but I personally don't buy him as anything but an upper mid carder.  And the more I think about, the more I think that applies to the Miz's reign, too.

I think it's like UFC, where the length of the reign doesn't matter so much as the quality of competition faced during it.  Like it's hard to take Rashad Evans terribly seriously as a champion because he lost pretty badly in his first title defense.  Swagger didn't get to beat anyone of note, including beating a paper champion in Jericho, and lost it like a geek in a four-way.  The Miz at least won it from a tippy top guy and got to wrestle in the main event of Wrestlemania.  I'd also count winning and losing it to the same person in short order as kind of a worthless reign. So there's some complex math involved here, I'm not gonna lie. 

2)  Everyone like to play armchair booker, and rebook the InVasion, Austin's heel turn, and so forth.  But what are some angles that when you look back on them you wouldn't change a thing?  At the risk of being presumptuous, I might guess you'd include the formation/explosion of the Mega Powers, as well as Orndorff's '86 heel turn on/run against Hogan.  For things that happened during my lifetime (of when I actually have been watching), I'd say that Batista's ascension to the top and initial run against HHH from the end of '04 through '05 was perfect, as was the build-up to and execution of "them"/10-10-10 in TNA.

Yes and yes to your presumptions.  My TNA knowledge jumps from 2006 to 2011, so I have no idea what 10-10-10 was, sorry.  The Batista build was certainly great, although the whole thing with HHH vacating the title at the end of 2004 and then winning it back again was pretty silly.