How do you measure prestige and credibilty?

[Bernkastel]

IMO, a champion adds prestige to a title through the length of their title reign.

For example, John Cena's 2 year odyssey as champion added loads of prestige to the WWE Title. Nobody was able to defeat Cena for that title during his reign and since it went on for so long the title became much more Prestigious.

IMO, a champion adds credibility to a title when they stay active during their title reign, defending the title regularly, participating on the RAW/ SD/ ECW shows (either in matches, backstage promos, angles, etc), and spending time with fans.

For example, Beth Phoenix is adding prestige to the Womens title by being a dominant champion that can't be beat, however, Beth title reign isn't adding much credibility to the Womens title because she rarely defends it, she doesn't spend much time on RAW, and she doesn't participate in promos or angles on RAW either.

So how do you measure prestige, what must a champion do to add prestige to a title? credibility?

 

[Agrex]

Basically, long title reigns with often defenses makes the title more credible, in my opinion.

 

[Colamania]

I wouldn't be so sure about it being length. The U.S title isn't really getting prestige from MVP's reign, it's becoming a joke. It's never defended. I think it's more the person holding the title personally. Look at the World Title. Edge's reign has given it credibility, Triple H as the first champion helped it come into popularity, UT's reign sent it to new heights. So yeah, I say more the person than the length.

 

[jpfizzle]

The titles need to be built up, too many matches would kill the prestige, as would it constanly changing hands, it would be as if anyone would win it, the wwe title randy orton currently has is the most prestigous title in the whole of wwe atm, it's defended at most ppv's and triple h for example talks about how it's his life. When the rock and austin had there feud for the title in the attitude era, when the title got thrown in the river, that was a prestigious title as it seemed everyone would do anything they could to have it, they took pride in it. When jeff hardy was IC champion recently, it dident seem to affect him that much, he dident care about it as he was more intrested in the main title, therfore the IC title lost prestige. Chris Jericho has the opportunity to restore some prestige, he takes pride in it, he is has held the title more than anyone in history and he knows when he leaves this will be one thing he is remembered for, just by having the title with him on the opening segment of RAW this past monday gave the title some credibility back after jeff hardy had drained it. My most vivid memory of the European title was when Al Snow was champion, he took alot of pride in it, he jokingly came out in clothes from all the countries around europe and whilst it was funny, people wanted him to be champion because he was proud of being champion!

To some up, what gives the title prestige is how important it is for a wrestler to hold. how much a wrestler wants it and how much pride the champion has in his or her championship.

 

[Cage917r]

First of all, in order for a title to have any prestige it has to be defended, no very week, but at least at every ppv or every couple weeks on the show. If you look at the US Title with MVP, it isn't defended at every PPV and until recently it was not defended that often on the show. Which is why it isn't viewed as having very much prestige. Another thing is that if you hold a title, that should be your primary focus, not going after another title. Look at the US Title and Intercontinental Championship, Hardy had it, but for a couple months all he was trying to do was go after the WWE Title, the Intercontinental Title was basically irrelevent to him, and he held the title! MVP was recently in the Elimination Chamber trying to get a shot at the World Heavyweight championship, now he is in the MITB at Mania', not to mention he hasn't defended the US Title on a PPV in a couple of months. Now Y2J wins the Intercontinental Title, credibility right? Nope the next show he is talking about winning MITB and gets put in an Intercontinental Title match, that really has nothing to do with the title, makes the champion look weak and is used to put over a wrestler, no the title.

In order to add prestige: 1. Defend your title
2. Must be defended at PPV's
3. Title should be your main focus.

Basically when looking at these standards, the only titles with any prestige are the WWE Championship, World Heavyweight Championship and ECW Title(which really holds no prestige, but a little because on ECW it is a big deal).

 

[X]

I wouldn't be so sure about it being length. The U.S title isn't really getting prestige from MVP's reign, it's becoming a joke. It's never defended. I think it's more the person holding the title personally. Look at the World Title. Edge's reign has given it credibility, Triple H as the first champion helped it come into popularity, UT's reign sent it to new heights. So yeah, I say more the person than the length.

Son, what do you mean the US Title is never defended? It's been defended the last 3 consecutive Smackdowns in a row!

Personally, theres really only one way you add prestige to a title; you have to be a big enough name to bring prestige to that title. I remember the very, very short time that Hulk Hogan held the Undisputed title in 2002 how all of a sudden the title seemed to be a legit World title to me again, instead of the bastard offspring produced at the Vengeance 2001 PPV.

 

[Bernkastel]

so prestige is more about how big a draw you are than how long you held the title?

 

[X]

No it's about how good of a wrestler you are. Didn't Gillberg hold the Light Heavyweight title for like a year? Was that presitigious?

 

[Bernkastel]

I don't know? was it

 

[Uncle Sam]

Yes. Yes it was. I think he might still have it, actually...

 

[Bernkastel]

No it's about how good of a wrestler you are. Didn't Gillberg hold the Light Heavyweight title for like a year? Was that presitigious?

then how do add credibility? by being popular?

 

[MattMoses]

I think for a title to gain in prestige, it needs to be two things. Firstly, the belt needs solid matches and feuds behind it. The belt really can't gain prestige if the champion is having piss-poor matches with every defense. Secondly, the length of a title reign could also be considered a factor in gaining the belt prestige, if the defendant is giving us solid matches and entertaining feuds.

Ric Flair would be a good example. While being the NWA champion throughout the 80's, he would defend the title regularly, against a variety of opponents in different companies, more often than not putting on decent to amazing matchups, while having somewhat long reigns (I'd call 5+ months acceptable).

John Cena would be another good example. He held the belt for a long time, while having some great matches with a variety of opponents. Admittedly, it did get a little tiring when John retained his title every month, but I'd say it definately gained in prestige during his reign.

 

[Capt. Charisma]

Long title reigns are only prestigous/credible though when there are 1)Legit challangers and 2)Good Matches. Cena's reign wasn't the worse, but at times it lacked the two of these so although it added some prestige it wasn't really a great memorable title reign like say Flair's, Backlund's, Savage's, or Hogan's. Austin's was better than Cena's but even that wasn't a truley special reign.

 

[X]

Long title reigns are only prestigous/credible though when there are 1)Legit challangers and 2)Good Matches. Cena's reign wasn't the worse, but at times it lacked the two of these so although it added some prestige it wasn't really a great memorable title reign like say Flair's, Backlund's, Savage's, or Hogan's. Austin's was better than Cena's but even that wasn't a truley special reign.

...Whaaaa?! Austin's title reigns weren't memorable? Are you kidding me? Name me a more popular champion then Austin besides Hulk Hogan. There isn't any one else. Are you trying to say that the majority of the Attitude era wasn't special? When wrestling was doing it's best business ever? And the wrestling product was at it's very best?

People who bash on Austin are almost as bad as people who bash on the Rock. They know 100% that they are wrong, and that both are beloved by some 99% of wrestling fans, but somehow want to make it out to sound as though they were nothing special.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

It depends on the status of the title before that wrestler has it,and how it was treated.

Cena Year Long Title Reign: Prestigious. Quality matches, frequently defended. Champion made to look strong.

Helms Year Long Title Reign: Worthless. Good matchs, but nothing other than filler. Defended on occasion, squashed by the ''real'' wrestlers at any oppertunity.