Detrimental Title Reigns

[klunderbunker]

So I was watching TLC today and the announcers mentioned that Randy Orton is a 6 time world champion. John Cena is an 8 time world champion. I don't think anyone is arguing that either guy is old even though both are veterans. Now it's long since been established that title changes happen far more often in modern wrestling and so on so I'm not arguing they're not changing etc. As I was watching today, I found it difficult to take Orton seriously. The amount of reigns he had at such a young age made him seem to be a joke to me. Yes having that many title reigns is impressive and all, but hearing him be called a six time champion made him seem weaker to me somehow.

Am I alone in this? Does anyone else think that having more title reigns makes a wrestler look weaker?

Note: I am not asking if you think titles change more often than they used to or anything like that. I'm asking about the amount of title reigns having an effect on wrestlers or not.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Yea it kind of does now that you say it. I have a really hard time believing Edge is a 9 time champion, yes he won it 9 times but he has also lost it 9 times so it makes him look weak. If anything it makes the title look weaker and the guys look mediocre (spelling?) especially when you have guys with reigns that last one day or even shorter compared to Hogan's 4 year reign or Bruno's 7 or 8 year reign, like Cena's reign after the Elimination Chamber match or Jeff Hardy's after TLC, I think it makes the old school guys like Hogan look much stronger than their counterparts of today.

 

[Mr.Superstar]

Well just for the record John Cena became a 8 time world champion at Elimination chamber which was after TLC so I guess the announcers were wrong again.

Now to the qusetion. Well if the superstar had mostly long or decent reigns then no. For example Hulk Hogan was a 6 time WWE champion and his total WWE reign length was 2,185 days. Or john cena 6 time WWE champion and total reign length 864 days and that's pretty good knowing that were in a different era of wrestling. But then you have people like Edge. Who is a 4 time WWE champion and his total reign length is 139 days.

So if you are a multi time world champion but you have mostly succesful title reigns that doesn't make you look weak at all.

 

[Undertaker the 5th]

It doesn't make them look weak because it is so normal now a days that some people don't even take notice of that. John Cena has lost the title, but he always looks good because he rarely loses cleanly. Someone said that Edge has lost the title 9 times. I think I recall him relinquishing the title because of injury which led to the ring of the Great Khali so he hasn't "lost" it 9 times.

I actually think it seems like they are trying to make them look stronger. If you notice every time they say HHH is a 14, or however many titles he has, time champion it looks as if they were trying to sell him as a monster or something.

 

[Davi323]

It depends on the length of the reigns. As Mr. Superstar pointed out. Why? Because this comment

Am I alone in this? Does anyone else think that having more title reigns makes a wrestler look weaker?

Note: I am not asking if you think titles change more often than they used to or anything like that. I'm asking about the amount of title reigns having an effect on wrestlers or not.

could be construed as giving legitimacy to the idea that the Great Khali, Kane, and Sheamus were stronger champions than Orton, Triple H, Cena, or the Undertaker, because they don't have multiple championships. It isn't the number of reigns that matter, its the quality of the reigns.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I think it sounds impressive to hear that someone is a multi-time world champion. How does hearing that Cena is an 8 time world champion not sound impressive? Or Edge being a 9 time world champion? or Trips being a 13 time world champion? The common argument that I always hear is "Yes but if Cena's an 8 time world champion then that means he lost the title 8 times".... That's only one side of the argument.

I've always thought that having more title reigns makes a wrestler look stronger because it shows how many times he was the champion on his particular brand, whether that be Raw or Smackdown. So Cena's lost the championship 8 times, big deal. Like I said before.... there's a second side to that argument. On 8 different occasions he was the top guy of his brand. So to me, hearing bigger numbers for someone's amount of world title reigns is almost always going to impress me.

 

[Total Impact]

The one thing I hate about today's wrestling is the too many titles runs by champions. I hate the fact that Cena, Edge, HHH, Orton, Batista have too many runs as champion as it makes them look weak & the title look weak. Champions are to be dominate & hold on to the belt, not drop it like its a piece of paper and pick it back up. I remember when Cena had the belt for a year & I loved that as it made Cena look great, but people want to be Ric Flair & hold the belt 40 times which is stupid & I hate it.

I have no idea why the WWE is using the world title as props again because I hated this during the attitude ear when Kane won the belt & then Rock-Mankind went through a hot potato month with the belt. It makes the title look weak. I mean Edge has held the belt 9 times & soon to be 10 times, that is crap.

It all about quality, not quantity. Thats why I considered Hogan the greatest Champion, as he for a few monor drops in his career, held the belt for a long period of time which got the belt over & the man who beat him over.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

This is the very reason why I created spreadsheets on Microsoft Excel to look at not just # of title reigns and # of days as champion, but "average days per reign." (Yes, I'm a dork - but I'm a corporate dork.) When you see that the Hardy Boyz were 8- or 9- time WWE Tag Champs, it's impressive because teams like the Hart Foundation or Legion of Doom were considered great for having 3 reigns. But when I noticed that an average Hardy Boyz title reign lasted less than a month, I wasn't impressed anymore.

Whether a title reign is meaningful or not depends on a few factors:

1. Where / When / How did they win the title? Did they main event Wrestlemania? Or did they accept an open challenge on Raw? Was there interference? Was it at a house show?

2. Where / When / How did they lose the title? Same as above.

3. Who did they beat / who beat them? Do you take Roddy Piper's IC Title reign down a notch because he beat The Mountie? Is Ultimate Warrior's reign more significant because he beat Hogan clean? Do we forget that Andre was WWF Champion because he ended up stripped of the title? Do we disqualify two of HHH / Orton's reigns because of the night they hot-potatoed the title?

4. Who did they defend the title against during their reign? Doesn't Vader's WCW title reign defending against guys like Sting mean more than Hogan's first reign when he had a stretch of defenses against the likes of The Yeti? When Paul Wight had his first title reign, his only major defense was against the Big Bossman - whoops!

You cannot any longer look at someone as a 5-, 9-, or even 12-time champion. You have to take into account a much bigger picture and the changing face of the business. Besides - isn't it just a prop anyway?

 

[GIMH]

The thing is, I don't really care how many days someone held a title, and as for how many times, it's all relative isn't it. When I got into wrestling, I think Hogan was a 3-time champ, and this was the record. I think the NWA record was about 7 or 8, dunno.

Anyway, yeah you can look at days with the belt, but really, what difference does that actually make either? Hogan held the belt for 3 months in 93 but he defended it the same amount of times as Cena and Hardy in their aforementioned reigns...yeah...

Champions defend their titles on screen more often these days than they did in the old days, says captain obvious. Cena holding the built from Bragging Rights to TLC was, in terms of PPVs, the same as Hogan holding it from Mania 7 to Survivor Series. So it's only logical that guys would have more reigns.

I don't really know what my point is you know, I'm just thinking aloud without any logical flow. Basically I don't think Cena is better than Austin because he has more title reigns. It is what you do with the belt that matters. The Rock and Jericho are two of my all-time favourites but Rock was always better chasing the belt and I guess the same is true of Jericho. Triple H, as much as people might hate him, he always comes off as a great champion to me; it's something untangible but there you go.

 

[Checkmate]

For me, it is a little from column A, and a little from column B. Sometimes the more the better, other times, not so much.

When I think about active guys with multiple title reigns, a few come to mind: Triple H, John Cena, Randy Orton, and Edge. Of these, I'd say that Triple H is not hindered by these multiple reigns, John Cena is moderately, Orton is weak in comparison, and Edge is in a ridiculous situation. I'll explain further.

Triple H: He is basically getting the Flair push. Everyone knows this. His 13 title reigns have spanned the past decade (and a little change), to the point where he averages about a title reign a year. As to the quality of these reigns, it has differed. On one hand, he had perhaps the greatest heel run in recent memory in 2002-03. On the other, he held the title for only a few hours in 2007. While this fluctuation is a bit odd, I don't think Triple H suffers because of it. If anything, he has a more menacing, bloodthirsty approach to his matches because of this constant hunt for the title.

John Cena: I don't really have a problem with Cena's reigns. They normally start, last, and end well, which has pushed him to the top. As for quality, I need not mention the year long reign back in 2006-07, nor the 2005-06 run either. While the on and off trade with Orton really boosted Cena's title numbers, he is supposed to be the face of the WWE, and the top guy deserves to have the title often. I'm against the short tradeoff title reigns when they aren't booked well, so I do think Cena suffers a tad, as he is relatively young, and is likely to be in the main event for several more years. But, it comes with the territory.

Randy Orton: Orton is a confusing case. He constantly switches roles in the WWE, going from heel to face to heel to tweener. While this isn't directly related to title reigns, it does leave me a bit confused as to where to categorize him. Either way, he is often feuding with Cena or Triple H, who both outrank him significantly in title reigns. Strictly by comparison, this makes Orton look a bit weak. Fans can do math, and how are we supposed to believe a 13 time champion will have a huge problem with a 6 time champion? I know the scripted threat is there, but sometimes it just feels like each of Orton's reigns was rushed. His first was in 2004, so he essentially averages a title reign a year. However, consider that his second reign wasn't till 2007. So, five reigns in three years. A bit much when you aren't the top guy in the business.

Edge: Edge plays a pivotal role in the WWE. He is the filler top heel, the filler top face, and the ultimate transitional champion. This is a good thing for the character, but could be a bad thing for the business, depending on your point of view. Since 2006, he has become a 9 time champion, averaging roughly 2 title reigns a year. This is about double Triple H's, and double Randy Orton's. This equates to lots of short feuds, quick title changes, and weak champions. If anything, the number of title reigns of some other guys are in direct comparison to Edge's, just because of some feuds they had together. Edge's time as champion also is incredibly short, as he is always playing hot potato with a title. It has been his game since 2006, and he isn't slowing down now.

Obviously, title reigns are supposed to be significant. Some guys get a huge boost by being a champion or former champion. Triple H is a great example of this. Flair was a great example of this. On the flip side, there are guys that have had only one title reign and have received an equally large boost. Guerrero, Benoit, and some others come to mind as guys that got elevated off one title reign, with no sequels. Every title match they were in afterward brought the feel of a potential repeat title reign. Guys like Cena, Orton, or Edge lose this feeling, as they already have won the title well over five times already. We know what it looks like when they win, and we know they can and will be at the top again.

So yes, multiple title reigns can and do degrade certain characters sometimes. I don't think it is an overall thing, more like a case by case basis. Again, a little from column A, and a little from column B.

 

[LascoX]

I agree with a lot of the posters that say it depends on how it is done per the individual charictor on if it makes a wrestler look weak or not. I disagree that the title is defended more these days then it was in the old days and that is the reason for more title changes. Title matches happened fequently during the 60's , 70's and 80's when some of the longer reigns were going on. I think a large part of the reason we have more title changes these days is because of socital A.D.D. and the fast paced mentality of todays world demands it. People want change and want to see new champions. These days I think a lot of people would get bored seeing the same champion for a two year run. The more frequent changes add a level of intensity as the possibility for change is increased. It is not really a bad thing though I do sort of miss the respectable runs with the belt that stars like Bruno, Thez and Race enjoyed.