A Measure of Championship Greatness

[IrishCanadian25]

Ok, so the discussion is flying by fast and furious about Edge having won 8 World Championships in only 3 years. Impressive vs Devaluating are the two sides I seem to see forming. And it begged an interesting question.

The last long championship reign belonged to John Cena, at which fans accused WWE of forcing Cena "down fans throats." But those same IWC fans seem to regard short, frequent title changes as ridiculous, and an insult to the title. My good friend Lee, obviously frustrated, asks what the hell all of you want.

Well, maybe I can help, along side my penchant for Microsoft Excel.

I created a spreadsheet involving the 7 recognized World Heavyweight Wrestling Championships in pro wrestling history: NWA, AWA, WCW, ECW (original), WWE, World Heavyweight, and TNA. What we are looking for is a hard measure of what makes a wrestler a great champion.

Criteria One - # of Title Reigns

Only six men have held 10+ World Championships. Ric Flair (16), Triple H (13), Hulk Hogan (12), Verne Gagne (10), Jeff Jarrett (10), and Sting (10).

Including these six men, a total of 18 men have held 5 or more World Titles. Aside from the six listed above, the other twelve are: The Rock (9), Harley Race (8), Kurt Angle (8), Edge (8), Bret Hart (7), Randy Savage (6), Steve Austin (6), Kevin Nash (6), Booker T (6), The Undertaker (6), Maurice Vachon (5), and Chris Jericho (5).

Criteria Two - Total Days as Champion

In terms of total days as champion, the top ten are: Verne Gagne (4,690), Bruno Sammartino (4,040), Lou Thesz (3,749), Ric Flair (3,500), Hulk Hogan (3,362), Nick Bockwinkle (2,990), Bob Backlund (2,138), Harley Race (1,801), Dory Funk Jr. (1,563), and Gene Kiniski (1,159).

Of those ten names, only four of them - Gagne, Flair, Hogan, and Race - also appear on the 5+ reign list.

Criteria Three - Average Length per Title Reign

In the case of someone like a Bob Backlund, this statistic may not tell the story. Backlund totalled 2,138 days as WWF Champ, but one reign was 2,137 days, and the other was 1 day. But that's the exception - not the rule.

27 men average 200+ days per World Championship Reign. Of those 27, a whopping 13 of them only held one World Title. Six of those 27 men have held three or more: Lou Thesz (3 reigns, averaging 1,250 days each), Nick Bockwinkel (4 reigns, averaging 747.5 days each), Harley Race (8 reigns, averaging 225 days each), Verne Gagne (10 reigns, averaging 469 days each), Hulk Hogan (12 reigns, averaging 280 days each), and Ric Flair (16 reigns, averaging 219 days each).

Criteria Four - Championship Reigns with Different Promotions

Of course, how hard is it for one man who has creative booking control over a company, or who is the only real face of a company, to have a few really long reigns? Well, hard, but not as hard as it is for a guy to string together multiple impressive title runs with a few different titles in different companies.

Thesz, Bockwinkle, Gagne, and Race held ALL of their titles with only one promotion - AWA or NWA. But of the wrestlers with 5 or more title reigns, nine of them have accomplished a title reign with 2 or more promotions. Flair (WWF, NWA, WCW), Hogan (WWF, WCW), Jarrett (WCW, NWA), Sting (NWA, WCW, TNA), Angle (WWE, TNA), Hart (WWE, WCW), Booker T (WWE, WCW), Savage (WWE, WCW), and Nash (WWE, WCW).

Putting it ALL TOGETHER-

So, what's your criteria for a legitimate title reign or a legitimate champion for that matter. I figure, if you want to look at the criteria I just put together: 5 title reigns, averaging at least 200 days per reign, with a minimum of two different promotions.

With that criteria, you're left with only two men: Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan.

So why be so quick to judge? By the way, if you let me know your criteria, I'll try to give you YOUR list...

 

[MattMoses]

I have never used the criteria of title reigns to judge the legitimacy of a champion. Jeff Jarrett? Who the hell remembers or cares about any of his ten world title reigns? The same goes for Edge. Great, he's an opportunist, it's his gimmick. We get that. But the fact that half of those reigns were less than a month in total, sometimes not being defended once until actually losing it doesn't strike me as a great champion. People may defend him all they like, but Edge isn't a great champion.

To some degree, using the criteria of total number of days as champion per single title run could be used to determine the legitimacy of a champion. It shows that the company trusts you as top dog to run longer than the average champion with the strap. Now, depending on how great your matches, feuds and build-up's were during those reigns is what would really deem a championship reign great or not.

The way I see it, the belt needs solid feuds, matches and build-up behind it. Of course, this is depending on who the champion is, how great of a worker he is, and the talent he currently has to work with. Obviously, John Cena is a prime example of what a great champion is. His third reign epitomised, to me, what a great champion is. He defending the title every month, sometimes on a weekly basis, with a variety of very different opponents, backed with great feuds and build-ups. Most of which paid off with great matches, often exceeding peoples expectations. He took people like Umaga, Lashley, Edge and Khali to the greatest matches of their careers. To me, Cena's third title reign defines what a great champion is.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Edge is now an 8-time world champion. Honestly, I had no problem with his first 5 reigns. It is only his last three reigns (and how he has been booked since coming back from his time off at Survivor Series 2008) that I have a problem with. So, I guess my only criterion would be that a champion shouldn't have three different reigns in the span of three months.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with for this, IrishCanadian25. Everyone knows you are the master of research here.

 

[Pimpin]

Edge is now an 8 time world champion. That's great cause I like Edge. I was cool with his first 5 reigns but reigns number 6 & 7 were just poorly booked. Now I ain't gonna judge his current reign yet cause we won't know til later on if it's gonna be great or not. Ok back to the topic I think that a credible champion shouldn't have 3 world title reigns in a span of 3 months cause it devalues the championship. The longer the reign(not too long to when i'm bored to death), the more prestige the title gets in my opinion.

 

[klunderbunker]

No problem at all with those two men, however, there is yet again the factor of the different eras. Consider Hogan and Flair. No one will argue that Flair's biggest time was in the mid 1980s, and Hogan's biggest time was around the same time if not a bit later. back then, there was no weekly national television, there was no monthly PPV. The Champion wrestled on national television 4-5 times a year at best. Now, there's a chance for the champion to wrestle 4 times a week when a PPV is on. Things move so much faster now that a 5 month title reign is epic. Flair had 5 reigns that went over a year each and one that went two years. Hogan had his huge run of four years plus several other lengthy ones, including one that went 364 days. Now, that would never work. I think that to consider a legit champion, you have to consider the eras they're in. Guys like Hogan and Flair can't be compared to champions of today. The playing field simply isn't equal.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

You see, that's something I'd considered as well, KB. But then I am reminded of Shadowmancer's signature, about how the old school NWA guys used to "work 360 shoots a year" at various territories and house shows. Sure, they worked the same match night in, night out, and the title was only in danger on certain nights. But damn, the champions today work maybe half the schedule that the Flair's and Race's of the world used to work - how does that factor for you?

 

[klunderbunker]

Well to me it's as you just said: they were the same matches. Most of those matches were never seen by the general public. You could see the champion once or twice a year in the glory days of the NWA which is what made it so much more special. I think that in answer to your question, I would factor it in as another reason why you can't compare the modern champions to the older champions. Today, the title simply doesn't mean as much because it changes hands so often.


Take John Cena for example. Now no one with any intelligence can tell you he's not one of the best in the sport today. That's a known fact. He had the longest title reign since i would think Hogan's initial heel reign in WCW. He defended the championship on a regular basis, he's had a decent number of reigns, and his reigns are fairly long. He is being built as a modern day Hulk Hogan. That being said, the odds of him ever going to TNA or another company that might rise up is incredibly unlikely. Does that mean he's not a legitimate champion? I can hardly see how he could be seen as not legitimate. That's why I think the formula needs to be modified a bit. There's too many differences in today's business.

 

[HBK-aholic]

With that criteria, you're left with only two men: Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan.

It figures. You obviously spent a lot of time on this, and the criteria was good. With one exception. I'm at a loss to understand why "Two different promotions" matters in the slightest. One man could give his all in the WWE but never have been in WCW, or vice versa. Why should that affect his success in any way? It doesn't show that he's better, you could argue it makes him worse, even.

 

[klunderbunker]

It figures. You obviously spent a lot of time on this, and the criteria was good. With one exception. I'm at a loss to understand why "Two different promotions" matters in the slightest. One man could give his all in the WWE but never have been in WCW, or vice versa. Why should that affect his success in any way? It doesn't show that he's better, you could argue it makes him worse, even.

Very true. Being champion in another company doesn't mean you've wrestled well in that company. Look at Rey Mysterio for example. Now I don't think anyone can argue that he's physically as good now as he was in WCW, or as exciting. He was given the WHC because of his previous work. It tells me that he didn't deserve to be WHC and only did because of his past, not his work at the tiem.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Terrific point. I highlighted the "more than one promotion" peice because of the names Gagne, Bockwinkel, and Thesz.

Well, not so much Thesz. The man was as legit as they get.

But it's no secret that Bockwinkel and Gagne, as great as they both were, booked for the AWA. I just didn't see how we could look at those two on the list and not say "well, of course they had multiple long title reigns, they could write themselves into the history books."

It's far harder to pull that off with more than one promotion, especially with the WCW vs WWF wars.

And HBK-aholic, if you're making that case because your boy has been a WWF mainstay, that's fine. But he wasn't part of the discussion, because his average length of reign was 106 days.

 

[Father:_Polley]

It's awkward because when you have the likes of Cena and HHH holding the title but defending it at least once a month but never holding it for more than say a year (during which time people complain they're killing wrestling), it's not a true representation of someone like Bruno Sammartino who held his belt for 12 years, yet may have defended the belt on a similar number of occassions as Cena.

I'm going to exaggerate a little, but in theory with TV not being an option for fans, Bruno could have kept wrestling one match every show while WWE was on the road, and fans wouldn't see it. Cena couldn't get away with running Cena/HBK and winning the same match every day for a year. The feud would have to end sooner and the number of feuds before change was needed. Effectively, TV shortened the reigns to keep it interesting. Flair sold across the board, as does Angle.

Personally, I don't think it's possible to truely correspond reigns into tangible stats so you can say 'They're the best because...'.

Success across the board is the main one for me. Gagne may have held his belt the longest... but he happened to own a company, which helped. Edge's short reigns cheapen him, and at the same time the contrast between Backlund's lengths make him appear a flop champion.

To me, the success of a champion is personal and must be decided on on a case-by-case basis

 

[IrishCanadian25]

To me, the success of a champion is personal and must be decided on on a case-by-case basis

Case by case isn't working.

People hate Cena, claiming he's being "shoved down our throats."

People hate Edge, because he can't hold the title for more than a couple months.

People hate Hogan, claiming he was only champ because he held people down.

People hate Triple H, because he's only getting these reigns to pass Flair and because he's the onwer's son in law.

Clearly we have to turn to the numbers to solve this.

Ladies and Gentleman, you are witnessing the formation of the "ICCS." "Irish-Canadian Championship Series."

 

[Starchild]

I am gonna side with KB on this debate. Comparing the reigns of Flair and Hogan (particularly their early reigns) to that of Cena is like comparing apples to oranges. The business is totally different now what with being on a national scale, the laundry list of gimmick matches there are which take a toll on the body, and the sheer number of main-event guys there are at a given time. Of course Hogan and Flair were going to hold the title most of the time...there weren't to many others that could and certainly none that could do a better job.

In my opinion, Cena's reign is what a championship reign should be..at least a face reign. He had matches all the time, interesting stories, and faced several different people. I don't really understand why people complain about that reign so much other than the fact that it was Cena who most didn't like at the time and many still don't. I saw one thing in a post that was very true...that reign brought the best matches out of Umaga, Khali, Lashley, and Edge (as a singles star up to that point since the '08 Taker matches were some of his best). How can you say he isn't entertaining and a good champion when most of his big matches were good and he brought the best out of quite a number of opponents?
Anyway, these days we aren't going to see that year long reign very often if ever again, but a solid 5-6 month reign with the same type of results as Cena's would be a great one I think.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Terrific point. I highlighted the "more than one promotion" peice because of the names Gagne, Bockwinkel, and Thesz.

Well, not so much Thesz. The man was as legit as they get.

But it's no secret that Bockwinkel and Gagne, as great as they both were, booked for the AWA. I just didn't see how we could look at those two on the list and not say "well, of course they had multiple long title reigns, they could write themselves into the history books."

It's far harder to pull that off with more than one promotion, especially with the WCW vs WWF wars.

I see your point, but I still don't think it makes a difference. What if John Cena was only champion in WWE at the end of his career? But at the same time, he aced all the other categories? I think holding a title in one company for a long length of time can be just as tricky as holding it in 2. You have to be something really special to be called upon repeatedly for long periods of time.

And HBK-aholic, if you're making that case because your boy has been a WWF mainstay, that's fine. But he wasn't part of the discussion, because his average length of reign was 106 days.

Nothing to do with Shawn - title reigns don't do him justice, never have, never will, and I think most people agree. Whether it's because he's 'above' the belt, or simply because he's a better wrestler without it, he was never the greatest champion. Shawn's the reason I don't think you can 'measure greatness' based on title reigns, it comes down to so much more than that.

 

[Queers and Steers]

the most important things for a champion to me are match quality and the probability of that person winning the title match they are in. so by those criterias i guess mines would be hbk and flair and HHH and cena. oh and i love the element of suprise and Edge is infamous for that!

 

[Father:_Polley]

Case by case isn't working.

People hate Cena, claiming he's being "shoved down our throats."

People hate Edge, because he can't hold the title for more than a couple months.

People hate Hogan, claiming he was only champ because he held people down.

People hate Triple H, because he's only getting these reigns to pass Flair and because he's the onwer's son in law.

Clearly we have to turn to the numbers to solve this.

Ladies and Gentleman, you are witnessing the formation of the "ICCS." "Irish-Canadian Championship Series."

And you forgot 'People hate Flair because he was awful and got by on his past'

So... by definition both champions that the 'numbers' have shown to have met your own criteria fail to meet criteria. I could point out that by that case the numbers don't work either.

An impressive set of statistics is not the makings of a Champion. Fact is, a few high intensity, action filled reigns are better than one LOOOOONNNNGGG reign where the same match is wrestled every night to a different crowd.

Hate him all you want, but Cena defended that built a lot against a lot of different guys in a lot of different matches. To me, that puts him above most others

 

[Shocky]

It's difficult to judge as it is a completely subjective topic.

Lou Thesz was a three time world champion, something completely unheard of and probably abhored by the purest of the times.

Harley Race comes along, and becomes a seven (eight) time world champion, and low and behold, the purest probably have a problem with the title being hot potatoed back and forth and Race winning all those championships.

Look out, here comes this guy Ric Flair and, what??? 16 time recognized world champion, holy shit, what the fuck are people thinking. Guys like Hogan and The Rock with their huge numbers of champoinships have nothign on this guy.

And now, that number looks to be shattered by the likes of a Triple H with 13, or an Edge with 8, and only ten years into the b usiness.

What does htis all mean, I don't know. The world changes, the business changes, hell sports change. What once was the definition of greatness is now the definition of boring. Simply put, the average wrestling fan now adays in this microwave oven fast food instant gratification society that we live in now don't want to see long title reigns. The purest will be pissed that those title reigns of an Edge devalue the title (but how Edge gets singled out and a guy like the Rock gets a free pass is beyond me), while others simply think it's amazing that they can pull that off.

Personally, you have the blend the two some how, but you also have to factor in the times and how they have changed. What was once popular (Long title Reigns, I'm talkign multiple years) won't work now. It simply is a thing of the past at this point.

Multiple title reigns could also be attributed to something else, the competition has leveled off and is amazing. The top guy sar epretty much equal and the era of the one, dominant superstar is over. Guys are bigger, stronger and faster then ever before. No longer do you have the One Giant, the One meat Head, or the One technician, essentially the guys at the top of the business now all accelerate in every field, and specialize in one field. For the most part, guys are all of the same strength, speed and size. The competition is tougher, so of course it would be harder for a champion to retain.

 

[Legendary_Undertaker]

OMG I had no idea how brilliant you were until now. your criteria was almost flawless. without a doubt Hogan and Flair would fit the criteria of a legit champion anyway you look at this but my only problem is the multi promotion criteria you suggested.

IMO i don't think multi promotions should be included in your thesis simpily beause a wrestler could be a nobody in one company and a bonified star in another

Take for example The Undertaker. Back in WCW he wrestled under a couple different names (mean Mark, Texas red) but never amounted to anything special unless you count the sky scrapers tag team. However the moment he entered WWF/E he became one of their biggest stars as well as a multi-time champion and as remained in his spot for 19 years. And the same could be said for Steve Austin. Were these men not legit champions because for where they achieved success.

I think the different promotions criteria should only apply if that particular wrestler uses the same name/gimmick in more than one company.

I'm sorry if I missunderstood anything you said in your post.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Thank you for the compliment. I am rather brilliant.

You didn't misread anything, I don't think. I expect that the issue people will have with this system is the multiple promotions peice, and I get that. But think of it along these lines - to be a World Champion in more than one promotion, you have to get over with different fans (the WWF and WCW fans were different fans, remember), different booking teams, and different executives. Vince McMahon could hold a grudge against a wrestler who wasn't originally WWF.

To acheive world championship status with two different promotions is affirmation that the individual, NOT THE GIMMICK, is so valuable to the promotion that they will make that wrestler their figurehead.

Take your Undertaker example. You're absolutely right, he's a WWF/E legend, but was a nobody in WCW. How much of 'Taker's legendary success is the mixture of a great worker with the PERFECT gimmick? It isn't Mark Callous who is great - it's The Undertaker.

Even Kevin Nash - as "Vinny Vegas" in WCW, he was a nobody, but as Diesel he acheived a higher status. He kept that status, even as "Kevin Nash." Gotta give him credit there.

Ric Flair was Ric Flair in the NWA, WCW, and WWF/E, and he accomplished World Championships that lasted and meant a lot with territory systems in place all the way up to Pay Per View and syndicated TV. Hogan ushed in the Wrestlemania era, and survived the riskiest heel turn in industry history.

If you take the "Multiple Promotions" criteria out of the mix, we have: Hogan, Flair, Race, Gagne, and Bockwinkel.

Drop the average days per reign from 200+ to 150+, and you add Maurice Vachon.

Dropping it to 100+ gives you Bret Hart and Jeff Jarrett.

 

[Legendary_Undertaker]

A wrestling Scholar and math wiz?? I'm impressed. You shut me down!! But I can see no fault in your logic. Being champion in multiple promotions would be alot harder to accomplish than just being a legend in one. Its just like being a rookie all over again. without a doubt dealing with a different group of people would produce a silghtly different outcome.

 

[Lee]

I personally do not believe that a title reign should be measured in terms of length, but rather in terms of title defenses.

For example, someone could have held the title back in the day for 3 years, yet defended it 10 times. Yet someone like John Cena could have held the title for 3 months, yet defended it 10 times.

What's my point? My point is that it's not the time held that matters, but instead the amount of times it was defended.

Regarding cutting it on more than one promotion; I couldn't have agreed more, whilst that does not devalue guys who stayed with one promotion, a true test of greatness is seeing if you could do the same somewhere else.

Also with regards to reigns...to me being an 8 time champion really doesn't say to me "Yeah this guy was great because he won this belt 8 times" it actually says to me "dude this guy lost the belt 8 times"

 

[NSL]

I have no problem with the criteria you listed, IC. Hogan and Flair were exactly the two that came to mind when I saw the thread name, and as I was reading the criteria. As KB said though, there is room for adjustment. If a wrestler is only a champion in one company, but dominates their show (or brand in WWE's case), then they belong among the great champions.

Hogan and Flair had ideal average title reigns in my eyes. They had long reigns, short reigns, and everything in between. They had longevity in their careers, so the high number of titles would be expected. Edge's singles career is relatively short when compared to those, and so his 8 title reigns are a joke to me, as well as the length of most of them.

Triple H's title reigns are another good example. I don't know specifics on them, but him winning never bothered me. He didn't just debut and go on to win 13 titles. He started as a mid-carder. proved himself, and eventually got his titles, even before marrying a McMahon.

As far as today's champions, I've liked Cena's reigns, and the number of times he's held the belt. I'd agree he was "shoved down our throats", but I think the problem was his media spotlight, not his time as champ. He was all over WWE TV, commercials, movies, and then music. I liked when Benoit and Guerrero were champ, because it was booked properly, and they won and lost the titles in great matches. I also liked The Rock's and Stone Cold's time as champs, even if you take away The Rock and Mick Foley handing the belt back and forth like it was infected.

Guys like Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and The Undertaker I love as champions. But, if I look back on their careers as a whole, Bret and Shawn are great performers, but they're great overall champions, as opposed to being great WWE or World Heavyweight Champions. Undertaker will always be a favorite of mine, and I'll always be a fan of his, but he's more of a great character and performer, than champion on any level.

I'd have no problem with Edge as a champion, if a few things were different. If the last 3+ months didn't happen, and if his reigns lasted longer. Him winning the belt as a fluke is necessary to build him as a heel, I get that. But, if he loses the belt 30-40 days later, he's a fluke. If he keeps this belt until at least Summerslam or Survivor Series, I'd consider this his only quality title run.

I don't have exact criteria, but I'd like to see longer reigns, and more than one feud per reign. It's gotten to where we know the belt will change hands at the end of a feud, instead of the champion looking credible by retaining.

 

[KillBill]

Theres too many opportunities to win the title now. Hogan may have defended it less, but thats what made the matches great, you looked forward to it, there was great buildup. Theres at least 12 ppv's a year, plus all the shows in between. It sux how guys can win the title 8 times in 3 years, thats rediculous. I makes greats like hogan, austin, and rock, look different. If Edge wins more titles than those guys, theres a problem. There was only 1 title back, then, so I thought it was good to defend it often, but with 2 titles now, it waters stuff down. And I'm not trying to take anything away from edge, hes good, but damn, hes won the title in the past 3 years more than the 3 greats i listed above. And hes not half as great as them...yet.