Do The amount of world title you have make you better?

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

I was with my little cousins a few days ago and the conversation got to "Who is better"
I said Bruno Sammartino
My Cousin said John Cena
When I asked him why he said, "Cena has had more world titles." I just laughed

I then said:

Is David Arquette better than Chris Masters because he has held a world title?
Is Edge better than Bret Hart because of the world title reigns?

So does it really matter how many world titles you have held?

 

[falconsault]

I don't know about everyone else, but I've always viewed the champion as the best in the business at that current time.

The number of reigns have never been important to me as I feel that the length of each individual reign is what is more important. Like with Bruno holding the title for 2,803 consecutive days, that would say to me that for seven years, eight months, and a day Bruno Sammartino was the best in the business. This is how I've always viewed it.

 

[Lee]

I would rather John Cena's 1 year reign which he lost due to forefeit where he was defending the belt two/three times a month than Sammartino's eight year reign as champion, where he would defend two/three times a year.

TImes have changed, there is no way you would have an eight year champion in this day and age. The way I see is how many times the championship has been defended, that's a better thing that the time of a champion or the amount of reigns. For a sixteen time champion, you have also lost sixteen times, that sucks.

 

[falconsault]

So Lee, you're saying it's the amount of successful defenses then? I can follow that. It makes sense, how about the calibur of the opponent as well? Saying Cena is a great champion because he successfully defended his title against Hornswaggle 17 times isn't actually that much of an accomplishment is it?

I guess I didn't actually think about the amount of defenses, I just assumed that if someone was champion for a year or longer that they were defending the title constantly. But you are right, the times have changed, we don't get hour long matches anymore like they used to do and we get drastically shorter title reigns. So the standard for who's better based on title reigns has to change along with that.

 

[Lee]

So Lee, you're saying it's the amount of successful defenses then? I can follow that. It makes sense, how about the calibur of the opponent as well? Saying Cena is a great champion because he successfully defended his title against Hornswaggle 17 times isn't actually that much of an accomplishment is it?

But realistically, in order to get a title shot, you need to be damned good (aside from that time the brooklyn brawler did...)

I guess I didn't actually think about the amount of defenses, I just assumed that if someone was champion for a year or longer that they were defending the title constantly.

Well yeah, back in the day you would hardly get a title defense, now it's a few times a month.

But I see what you're saying at being top of the business, but then injuries come into play. Take Batista for example, he was injured, stripped of title sorted. But I am pretty sure Sammartino would have been inured in his eight year stint, but was to keep the belt. We're in a different era now where different things make who is the best; The Great Khali has one reign, but Curt Hennig never won the belt, does that mean Khali is better then Hennig? No way, but I think it all needs to be looked at individually, reigns, average length, how many defenses etc will all make you a great champion.

 

[falconsault]

But realistically, in order to get a title shot, you need to be damned good (aside from that time the brooklyn brawler did...)

That's very true, and maybe I used a terrible example there. Let's say Cena beats Bret Hart 5 times but beats Mick Foley 12 times, which one of these actually makes Cena a better champion? His wins over Hart or his wins over Foley?

Well yeah, back in the day you would hardly get a title defense, now it's a few times a month.

But I see what you're saying at being top of the business, but then injuries come into play. Take Batista for example, he was injured, stripped of title sorted. But I am pretty sure Sammartino would have been inured in his eight year stint, but was to keep the belt. We're in a different era now where different things make who is the best; The Great Khali has one reign, but Curt Hennig never won the belt, does that mean Khali is better then Hennig? No way, but I think it all needs to be looked at individually, reigns, average length, how many defenses etc will all make you a great champion.

You're absolutely right, I'm fairly certain that if Sammartino was injured during his eight year reign that he just kept the title. A few years ago, I remember I think it was Scott Stiener was injured when they won the tag team titles. After finding out that Scott wasn't going to be able to defend his half of the titles in 30 days, the Stiener brothers were stripped of the title. Now a days, individuals are stripped of the title somewhat instantly.

You've made an excellent point in that it should all be looked at individually.

 

[Loveless]

If you count the heavyweight belt then titles are a stupid way to judge someone's career, to be honest I discount it entirely because it's clearly a secondary belt given to people who aren't the main event or as a way to keep others happy.
It wasn't until recently that I found Batista has never been WWE champion. Heavyweight champion 4 times but never the WWE, because that's the main belt and he's clearly a sack of crap. You only need to look at the title history to see the difference in quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_Champions

The prestige of the WWE belt actually holds up pretty well, even if HHH is trying to make a mockery of it.

 

[falconsault]

If you count the heavyweight belt then titles are a stupid way to judge someone's career, to be honest I discount it entirely because it's clearly a secondary belt given to people who aren't the main event or as a way to keep others happy.
It wasn't until recently that I found Batista has never been WWE champion. Heavyweight champion 4 times but never the WWE, because that's the main belt and he's clearly a sack of crap. You only need to look at the title history to see the difference in quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_Champions

The prestige of the WWE belt actually holds up pretty well, even if HHH is trying to make a mockery of it.

So we're going to compare the titles to each other? Both of them are world heavyweight championships. The WWE strap has roughly 46 years of history to it. The current WHC has about about 7 years of history to it. But the WHC is just the remodeled WCW World Heavyweight Championship. If we're going to compare them perhaps we should look at the complete history of these straps.

It may not be the WCW title in name but it's almost completely the same design that Ric Flair had, I don't look at it and see a seperate title even if the record books show that it isn't the same. Maybe some day, they'll combine the historys of the two titles, something that should've been done already.

The prestige of both of the titles holds up very well, that's even regardless of taking into account that the WHC isn't the WCW title anymore and the fact that the WCW title's history isn't combined with the WHC. Given time, it will be able to rack up equally impressive amount of names that have worn the strap around their waists. But the prestige is already there.

 

[RH23]

To me it all depends on how your reign as champ went and who that champ. Look at Edge, he's a nine time champ now but I still would say(and most would agree) that SCSA is the better of the two. Edge may have more reigns but SCSA is way more popular partially because his title reigns were better. But thats just my opinion of course.

 

[Nate DaMac]

First of all, the WHC and WWE Championship are the same fucking thing. There is no secondary title. Next, Championship belts hold NO prestige. Its a prop which is placed on a person after a match with a predetermined outcome. Some people have had more memorable reigns. I think the best ones are the ones who drew, Flair, Austin, etc. Btw, I love how your headline disses noobs, even though you are a noob. And you made a gramatical error in your title. Noob mistake.

 

[Jerichoholic1]

The answer to the question is no, no, and no. The chamionship does not tell you who is the better wrestler, or who is better on the mic. All it tells you is who Vince feels he can make the most money off of. For example, Hulk hogan was the champ for the vast majority of the 80's (mid to late) and early 90's. But Roddy piper never won it, jake the snake never won it, perfect never won it.....and they were all better than hogan at both....well perfect was a bit lacking with the promos.....but anyway, just examples. The world champ is the one who represents the company, the one who can smile best for the cameras, by no means is the champion the best wrestler....in fact, for a long time, the intercontenental champ was the best, just like jericho now. lol.

 

[Paradox100]

I really like this post. Cause this is something I'd like to talk about. No, having the title many times, doesn't mean as much as having great reigns. sure, holding the title for a couple years, wasn't uncommon the 60's and 70's. But Bruno held the title for 7 years, then 4 on his 2nd reign. John Cena held the title for a year, which was a pretty impressive reign.

I believe the guys like Bret and Shawn are the ones who had the most impressive reigns. Because, they didn't have as many reigns as the guys today do. And whenever they put the strap on these two, it was something special.

I'm not a fan of the triple H hate bandwagon, but he's held it 13 times now? If he beats Flair's record, it won't mean much. Besides the little kids who cheer for the faces, and boo the heels, know that an impressive reign is more important than the times you held it.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Not at all. I've never understood this. I mean, do you all really think Ric Flair was the best in the world? Do you think Triple H will one day be seen as the best wrestler in the business? I doubt it. It's not about the amount of title reigns, it's about what you do during that reign. And there are some people who have great matches during their title reigns but hold the belt once of twice.

You also have to realise the times have changed. Just over 10 years ago it wasn't rare to see a champion keep the belt for a year without losing it once. Now, you have people who have 4 title reigns in that same year. The longest ttle reigns recently of John Cena's was full of people complaining he'd had it too long - something you didn't see over 10 years ago.

 

[666_The_Game_666]

No it makes you the top guy in the business when you hold the belt but it wont improve you i mean yeah Ric Flair held 16 Title reins but people probley think Hogan is better because he had like 4 year reins as the top guy

 

[tLight]

I think a lot goes to be said for a Champion who defends the title more, than one who holds the belt for an extended period of time with fewer defenses.

Lets for instance bring up Triple H in this subject, he happens to be a 13 time World Champion, has he really needed 13 different runs to prove he can be Champ? No he doesnt. Have all of his 13 reigns been good, hell no they havent. But he has had some good runs as Champion, in which he would defend the title at any point agaisnt anyone, like the time he defended it agaisnt Chris Jericho and lost it on Sunday Night Heat. This is also when Triple H was enjoyable to watch.

I think runs like that make for a better Champion, because not only do you get to see a major title defended for free, you usually get a great match, and it show cases both talents in the ring.

I believe they tried to do the same thing with CM Punk last summer, by having him defend the title almost ever week while he was champion, due to a credibility issue with him being such a small World Champion facing off with the likes of JBL, Cena ect ect... The only downside to this was, they put in in a feud with JBL, who hasnt been entertaining since his days on Smackdown, when he feuded with Eddy for the title, pre announcer status.

I think if booked right a long title reign works fine, but when its nonstop and theres nothing new or exciting to it, then its boring. A prime example of that would be Triple H's lastest few runs. They have been lack luster at best, and more of the same.

 

[tbanger]

Whoever said Batista has never held the WWE title is wrong he had it this month.

But I think its definitely subjective. Having loads of title reigns is ridiculous if you never defend it. And I get annoyed with people saying Edge is great BECAUSE of his multiple reigns. Edge is great regardless of this fact. He is definitely a great wrestler. But his gimmick of winning it at all costs, has somewhat cheapened world titles. I mean its not even winning at all costs anymore, it's being beaten up and then often inexplicably being handed the title by ridiculous interference. But enough about Edge because he is great and I'm swaying into the realms of being off-topic.

Having a very long reign is a good indicator of the quality of the champion. Winning it many times can still be a good thing if you don't often lose it quickly enough for it to cheapen the title. But multiple reigns in a short space of time is bad. And crushing the rest of the roster by holding onto it for too long and not having competitive defences is stupid as well.

 

[Greenlight13]

It would depend what the writers were thinking when they put the belt on you, it would depend how long you held the title for, it would depend on the other main eventers in the company when you have the belt.

Say you have a good wrestler and a bunch of average ones. That good wrestler would more than likely get the belt for a long time because there just simply isn't anyone else good enough to hold it. Meanwhile if you have a roster full of good wrestlers then arguably a short reign is just as impressive as a long one in the first example. Look at Kurt Angle's first reign. On the roster at that time was The Rock, Austin, Undertaker, Triple H and many others and Kurt got the belt. That shows an incredible amount of faith and trust from the creative team, they believed of that group of individuals he was the best choice to hold the belt.

Jeff Hardy's title reign does not impress me because they gave him the belt simply to shut the fans up and so they could say that they'd done it, they immediately took it back off him and gave it to their preferred champion, Edge. Edge is good because the company really truly believe in him. He is arguably their go-to-champion. Whenever there's been an issue, whenever there's been a ratings problem, whenever they need to shock the audience, Edge gets the strap and that shows the creative team's faith in his ability.

John Cena is arguably better than Bruno because he drew crowds, made money, and got ratings. How good a technical wrestler you are is subjective, how important you are to the business is measured in those 3 ways. Cena is a draw, Bruno never was.

 

[**Phenom_Cena_HHH_K.O.W**]

No..Titles dont meen your the best.

Think about it. Everyone disses John Cena because hes not the best wretler or that all he does is 5 moves. Well hes what a 5-6 time champion? Probobly by the end of his career will a what 8-9 time World Champ thats more then Brett so no Championships dont meen your the best it meens WWE wanted you as Champ for whatever reason.

Look at Edge...Hes a 9 Time Champ, 3rd ALL Time in WWE....But thats only because he called the "Ultimate Opperttunist" so his storyline is when ever he can steal a Title he will thats why he has all those title reigns so no being Champ dosnt meen your the best.

 

[DMan23]

Not at all. It's all about impact and how much popularity and/or money you bring into the company. Hulk Hogan's one title reign from 1984-1988 had more impact than Ric Flair's 16 title reigns combined. Ric Flair was the better in-ring wrestler but Hogan was a better overall professional wrestling performer, which led to huge popularity in the business and huge money for Vince McMahon.

 

[DMan23]

It would depend what the writers were thinking when they put the belt on you, it would depend how long you held the title for, it would depend on the other main eventers in the company when you have the belt.

Say you have a good wrestler and a bunch of average ones. That good wrestler would more than likely get the belt for a long time because there just simply isn't anyone else good enough to hold it. Meanwhile if you have a roster full of good wrestlers then arguably a short reign is just as impressive as a long one in the first example. Look at Kurt Angle's first reign. On the roster at that time was The Rock, Austin, Undertaker, Triple H and many others and Kurt got the belt. That shows an incredible amount of faith and trust from the creative team, they believed of that group of individuals he was the best choice to hold the belt.

Jeff Hardy's title reign does not impress me because they gave him the belt simply to shut the fans up and so they could say that they'd done it, they immediately took it back off him and gave it to their preferred champion, Edge. Edge is good because the company really truly believe in him. He is arguably their go-to-champion. Whenever there's been an issue, whenever there's been a ratings problem, whenever they need to shock the audience, Edge gets the strap and that shows the creative team's faith in his ability.

John Cena is arguably better than Bruno because he drew crowds, made money, and got ratings. How good a technical wrestler you are is subjective, how important you are to the business is measured in those 3 ways. Cena is a draw, Bruno never was.

Well, you're wrong on Bruno because he sold out Madison Square Garden numerous times and drew big crowds everywhere. He just didn't have the stage or promotion Cena has today.

 

[Paradox100]

Whoever said Batista has never held the WWE title is wrong he had it this month.

But I think its definitely subjective. Having loads of title reigns is ridiculous if you never defend it. And I get annoyed with people saying Edge is great BECAUSE of his multiple reigns. Edge is great regardless of this fact. He is definitely a great wrestler. But his gimmick of winning it at all costs, has somewhat cheapened world titles. I mean its not even winning at all costs anymore, it's being beaten up and then often inexplicably being handed the title by ridiculous interference. But enough about Edge because he is great and I'm swaying into the realms of being off-topic.

Having a very long reign is a good indicator of the quality of the champion. Winning it many times can still be a good thing if you don't often lose it quickly enough for it to cheapen the title. But multiple reigns in a short space of time is bad. And crushing the rest of the roster by holding onto it for too long and not having competitive defences is stupid as well.

You hit the nail right on the head man. Edge is a great wrestler. He's done some of the best things in wrestling. He's given us "Holy Shit" moments. He's made our jaws drop, with surprising moments. But I don't see Edge as an 8 time World Champion. Even if I did, I think he's only had one or two reigns that went for more than a couple months. Plus, he wins it in the most underhanded ways. Sure, it's part of the gimmick, but he needs credibility in my opinion.

 

[Total Impact]

Quality is better than Quantity in wrestling in my opinion. I consider Hulk Hogan the greatest Champion in wrestling’s history because for all the reigns he had as a champion, the shortest run was 1 day when he was stripped of the title. Also he has11 title reigns that he won over an 18 year period in which he has beaten some of the greatest wrestlers of all time. Plus many of his title runs have lasted a year or more on multiple occasions. That is quality championship wrestling.

Unlike Ric Flair, 16 time world champion, over at 19 year championship run with many titles runs coming in the same year, which means that many of his title runs wear too close and that he was not able to hold the belt unlike Hogan.

Hell Jerry Lawler as won over 22 heavyweight titles, but that doesn’t make him great as the title runs are too short and too close to each other.

That is my biggest issue with edge. He is a 9 time champion in three years. That looks terrible as that means he can’t hold on to the belt and true champions retain their belts as they are the best.

Triple H falls into this boat as well as he is 13 time champion but he loses the belt too much to be considered great. He was on the path of being a great champion during his run wit Evolution but injuries killed that dream

So I go for length of a reign that how many times. Look at holding a championship like how you want to please a girl with sex. 20 times in a night of quick orgasms on your part with her wanting more. Or two quality hours of sex that makes her jump up walls and orgasms over and over again. I’ll rather be the 60 minute man than the 20 time minute man.

So instead of the ric flair numbers, because besides being a 16 time champion, he is a 16time loser. I would rather see long title runs as they make the wrestler look great and are great for business as John Cena year long reign should get more appreciation than it has been given.