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.
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.