How Long Must a Title Reign Last To "Count" In Your Eyes?

[Big Papa Santo]

During Today's WWE The major titles are like hot potatoes, think of it this way, ADR has already been a 2X WWE champion.... that's right ladies and gentlemen in the span of 2 months he has already won the title 2 times. So in my eye's even though they are legitimate title reigns, they don't necessarily "Count" for me, because for a title reign to count for myself, they must defend the title at least 3 times and retain it, and hold on to it for at least 3 months, EX: Mark Henry's WHC reign is a credible title reign because he has beaten some of Smackdowns top tier talent to retain it. But in your eyes how long must a reign last in the WWE to "Count"?

 

[Jessie Lynn DivaGirl]

I'd say about three or four months. If the title changes week by week, it shouldn't count for any of those putzes. The WWE and WHC titles used to mean something, you had to earn them. Now John Cena is always champ, and if not him then someoone who loses it in a matter of weeks TO John Cena. -.-

 

[Vega]

0 seconds. I think the problem with recognising title reigns is that the number of won titles means so much to certain fans. It doesn't matter, really. If anything, successful title defenses (not at throwaway house shows) should matter, not the length itself.

 

[Big Papa Santo]

I'd say about three or four months. If the title changes week by week, it shouldn't count for any of those putzes. The WWE and WHC titles used to mean something, you had to earn them. Now John Cena is always champ, and if not him then someoone who loses it in a matter of weeks TO John Cena. -.-

A perfect example of this topic. Ric Flair has 16 world title reigns, all of which were hard-fought and credible which his why he deserves to be a 16X world champion. John Cena on the other hand has had 11 world title reigns, in half the time that it took Flair to do it, and half of them were lost in over a month.

 

["The Instant Classic"]

Quality is key. I was taught when I first joined wrestling fandom, the number of title defenses and quality of reign makes a champion. Christian was champion only 2 days his first go 'round and his title reign was more relevant than the Great Khali's reign. It's all about what you do with it.

 

[Azane]

I count Daniel Bryan as a World Champion now.

I'm serious, the second the announce says "NEW WORLD CHAMPION" you reigned, even if it gets overturned, he literally held the title for nearly 30 seconds.

Dolph Ziggler is a world champion according to WWE, and as much as I physically hate them posting that, I respect it to a point.

Kane's 1st reign, seemed like WWE creative decided they booked it wrong and turned it around 1 day, but being a former world champion gave Kane good credibility no matter how badly he was jobbed out for the next 12(?) years, until he had a reign that was pretty strong.

Arbitrary numbers don't cut it for me, I can't say "This # counts, that # doesn't" because there have been some really good short reigns, and there have been some awful year long reigns.

1 thing about Mark Henry's title reign being legit to you, you realize 2 ppvs in a row he's retained from technicalities, not winning, right? That doesn't make the reign seem weaker, just because he's "defended" it?

 

[Ellye]

[QUOTE="The Instant Classic";3562213]Quality is key.[/QUOTE]This is it, really.

It's not how long or how many times you're champion. It's what you do with that opportunity that counts.

A title might last months and be completely forgettable, while others might last days and be at least somewhat memorable.

For it to "count", for me, it just needs to happen - no matter how long it lasted. Dolph Ziggler is indeed a former World Heavyweight Champion, for me, for example.

 

[TheGreatLegend]

I consider a 3-4 month title reign or longer as a credible Title reign.
WWE should stop hotshotting the title because all it does is lessen the prestige of the title. And BTW Title reign should also be memorable and the champion should have its moments that people can remember.

 

[Coco]

A perfect example of this topic. Ric Flair has 16 world title reigns, all of which were hard-fought and credible which his why he deserves to be a 16X world champion. John Cena on the other hand has had 11 world title reigns, in half the time that it took Flair to do it, and half of them were lost in over a month.

That's all well and good, but you're completely wrong. In 1999, Flair was champion three times -- Once for a little less than a month, once for just one week, and once for less than a day. At the end of 1995 and beginning of 1996, Flair held the belt again for less than a month. Flair's second WWE Championship reign lasted a little over a month and pales in comparison to your average Cena reign. Hell, some of Flair's "legendary" NWA title reigns were short of or just over two months. By your own standards, a lot of Ric Flair's reigns don't count in your eyes. Basically, you've done a good job glorifying the past while being utterly ignorant to the reality of the situation. And since I don't want to look as foolish as you, I'll admit that the length of title reigns doesn't matter to me. They all count. Hell, I'm easily bored so Yokozuna's first WWE Championship reign is my favourite of all time.

 

[The Future Rises]

In the WWE no matter how long the title reign lasts it counts. A good example or this is when Dolph Ziggler "won" the world title earlier this year. He only had it for 11 minutes yet the WWE still counts it.

But for me, I don't really get into a world title reign unless it was a strong one. And in order for it to be a strong one it has to have a good length. So I'd say 4 months+ does it or me.

Like I said in the WWE, however, a reign is a reign. No matter how long it lasts.

 

[closet_fan]

If you go by quality, then Hogan's initial title reign after he beat Shiek doesn't count. He barely ever defended it because there wasn't a lot of wrestling on tv, at house shows or in PPVs. He defended it, what once a month if that? It's hard for me to count house shows because I don't know how many he was at. The ones I went to, he wasn't there.

But, it is his fault that he didn't have as many chances like guys like John Cena and Orton do now?

As soon as I read this, I thought of Mark Henry. If he lost the belt at the next Smackdown or PPV, his reign will count as quality for me.

 

[Amarillo del Bosque Verde]

Any amount of time. Once they declare someone the champ, well, he or she's the champ. Dolph Ziggler. Bryan Danielson. Christian. They're all former World Champs. Just like Batista is a former World Champ.

 

[Out(ast]

their seems to be two issues being debated hear; how long should one hold the title to be considerd a proper champion? and how long of a championship rain is nessassery for a champion to be come credible.

so, i think that as soon as the announcer calls you the champ, then you are the champ, even if you are the champ for the commercial ala Jericho in 2000 or Dolph Ziggler last year.

As for Credable rains, i personally think this is subjective. When Hulk Hogan came back to the WWE and won the Undisputed championship he lent that title credibility. his rain lasted only a month before dropping the title to Undertaker at King of the Ring, i personally think that rain is creadable, not because of a momentus match, an oh my god moment or any particular amazing TV moment, in fact i cant remember any thing about it, but i do remember it. is that not what's important?

 

[NegativeFeedback]

To me, it depends on the average Length per reign. Basically, sum up the total days the wrestler has been champion and divide it by the number of title reigns. I count them this way because the number of reigns hardly means nothing if you haven't held the title for much time.

1. Bruno Sammartino (4040/2) = 2020
2. Bob Backlund (2127/2) = 1064
3. Pedro Morales (1027/1) = 1027
4. Hulk Hogan (2185/6) = 364
5. Diesel (358/1) = 358
6. Billy Graham (296/1) = 296
7. The Ultimate Warrior (293/1) = 293
8. John Bradshaw Layfield (280/1) = 280
9. Randy Savage (520/2) = 260
10. Yokozuna (280/2) = 190
11. The Miz (160/1) = 160
12. Eddie Guerrero (133/1) = 133
13. Shawn Michaels (396/3) = 132
14. Bret Hart (654/5) = 131
15. Brock Lesnar (355/3) = 118
16. John Cena (1058/10) = 106
17. Chris Jericho (98/1) = 98
18. Steve Austin (529/6) = 88
19. Sheamus (161/2) = 81
20. Kurt Angle (297/4) = 74
21. Randy Orton (420/6) = 70
22. Triple H (539/8) = 67
23. Sgt. Slaughter (64/1) = 64
24. The Undertaker (238/4) = 60
25. Ric Flair (118/2) = 59
26. Sycho Sid (97/2) = 49
27. Alberto Del Rio (84/2) = 42 (tie)
27. Jeff Hardy (42/1) = 42 (tie)
27. The Rock (297/7) = 42 (tie)
30. The Big Show (78/2) = 39
31. Edge (139/4) = 35
32. The Iron Sheik (28/1) = 28
33. CM Punk (44/2) = 22+ (Current Reign)
34. Rob Van Dam (22/1) = 22
35. Ivan Koloff (21/1) = 21
36. Batista (37/2) = 19
37. Buddy Rogers (18/1) = 18
38. Mankind (47/3) = 16
39. Stan Stasiak (9/1) = 9
40. Mr. McMahon (6/1) = 6
41. Kane (1/1) = 1
42. Rey Mysterio = Approximately 90 minutes
43. Andre the Giant = Approximately 1 minute

What I would also like to take into account is the number of title defenses which I'm sure people like John Cena have much more than guys like The Miz or Sgt. Slaughter... then again, Miz and Slaughter have less title LOSSES as well.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

their seems to be two issues being debated hear; how long should one hold the title to be considerd a proper champion? and how long of a championship rain is nessassery for a champion to be come credible.

so, i think that as soon as the announcer calls you the champ, then you are the champ, even if you are the champ for the commercial ala Jericho in 2000 or Dolph Ziggler last year.

As for Credable rains, i personally think this is subjective. When Hulk Hogan came back to the WWE and won the Undisputed championship he lent that title credibility. his rain lasted only a month before dropping the title to Undertaker at King of the Ring, i personally think that rain is creadable, not because of a momentus match, an oh my god moment or any particular amazing TV moment, in fact i cant remember any thing about it, but i do remember it. is that not what's important?

I'm a fanboy so I remember every single WWE title reign, World title reign, Intercontinental title reign, US title reign, Tag title reign... you get my point. But I do know that there were a lot of those reigns that sucked. Dolph Ziggler for example. Or all of Rey Mysterio's... WWE doesn't really know how to book a proper champion.

 

[Big Papa Santo]

When I say "Count" I mean its prestige, for example Andre The Giant's reign even though it happened and will forever be credited to him, wasn't that Prestigious since he lost the title in 1 Minute. But Sammartino's title reign is the most prestigious in history since it lasted a couple of years.

 

[RD_21]

It's not how long, but who has he faced and beat. CM Punk title reign when he got the title from Hardy had been lackluster in my opinion. He needed to beat Taker (not clean I know) once more to really be credible and make us believe wow they trust Punk but they got the title off him (mainly because he said what about Cena when he was asked why he wasn't in a suit).

So it has less to do with how long the title reign last and more to do with who did the champion beat clean or not. When Miz beat Cena at Wrestlemania it really did it. When Henry beat Orton a couple of time and Show it really did it. ADR couldn't beat someone clean or cheap to save his life and he lost all his momentum anyway after Mania when he didn't won like everyone expected him to.

 

[The Champ]

To me, it depends on the average Length per reign. Basically, sum up the total days the wrestler has been champion and divide it by the number of title reigns. I count them this way because the number of reigns hardly means nothing if you haven't held the title for much time.

1. Bruno Sammartino (4040/2) = 2020
2. Bob Backlund (2127/2) = 1064
3. Pedro Morales (1027/1) = 1027
4. Hulk Hogan (2185/6) = 364
5. Diesel (358/1) = 358
6. Billy Graham (296/1) = 296
7. The Ultimate Warrior (293/1) = 293
8. John Bradshaw Layfield (280/1) = 280
9. Randy Savage (520/2) = 260
10. Yokozuna (280/2) = 190
11. The Miz (160/1) = 160
12. Eddie Guerrero (133/1) = 133
13. Shawn Michaels (396/3) = 132
14. Bret Hart (654/5) = 131
15. Brock Lesnar (355/3) = 118
16. John Cena (1058/10) = 106
17. Chris Jericho (98/1) = 98
18. Steve Austin (529/6) = 88
19. Sheamus (161/2) = 81
20. Kurt Angle (297/4) = 74
21. Randy Orton (420/6) = 70
22. Triple H (539/8) = 67
23. Sgt. Slaughter (64/1) = 64
24. The Undertaker (238/4) = 60
25. Ric Flair (118/2) = 59
26. Sycho Sid (97/2) = 49
27. Alberto Del Rio (84/2) = 42 (tie)
27. Jeff Hardy (42/1) = 42 (tie)
27. The Rock (297/7) = 42 (tie)
30. The Big Show (78/2) = 39
31. Edge (139/4) = 35
32. The Iron Sheik (28/1) = 28
33. CM Punk (44/2) = 22+ (Current Reign)
34. Rob Van Dam (22/1) = 22
35. Ivan Koloff (21/1) = 21
36. Batista (37/2) = 19
37. Buddy Rogers (18/1) = 18
38. Mankind (47/3) = 16
39. Stan Stasiak (9/1) = 9
40. Mr. McMahon (6/1) = 6
41. Kane (1/1) = 1
42. Rey Mysterio = Approximately 90 minutes
43. Andre the Giant = Approximately 1 minute

What I would also like to take into account is the number of title defenses which I'm sure people like John Cena have much more than guys like The Miz or Sgt. Slaughter... then again, Miz and Slaughter have less title LOSSES as well.

You just tried to argue that Miz is more of a WWE Champion than John Cena, Triple H, Steve Austin, and The Rock.

What a flawed system. If anything, you should simply be adding up the days and not dividing them by anything. If Cena's only held it for over a thousand days, that has to "count" more than 160, right?

As for the original question, any amount of time. The length doesn't matter, it counts. We can get into debates about the game of WWE Hot Potato and which reigns shouldn't have happened and which should have been longer, but the bottom line is that they're all official reigns.

 

[Quazi]

I would count someone as a champion when they have atleast 5-6 successful title reign's. Or they have stayed champion for more than 6 month's. Being a champion has lost it's meaning cause the title change's hand frequently now a day's. I hope wwe keep's punk champion till next year's summerslam.

 

[Viggo]

A good title reign goes for at least two months, with the champion wining the rematch clause match, and then successfully getting through at least one more feud. I hate how most of the champs these days inevitably drop the title to the next person in line.

Also, being an umpteen time champ just means you LOST the belt umpteen times.

For me, it's the number of successful TELEVISED title defenses, I'd say at least 4, and whether the wrestler can carry that belt with prestige.

 

[Out(ast]

I would count someone as a champion when they have atleast 5-6 successful title reign's. Or they have stayed champion for more than 6 month's. Being a champion has lost it's meaning cause the title change's hand frequently now a day's. I hope wwe keep's punk champion till next year's summerslam.

Their is obviusly a reason for hot potatoing the title. As much as I love Punk, the E wont keep him as champ till Summer Slam next year. The TV audiance is fickle, they need new constintaly to keep them intrested. Punk, unless he where to suddenly turn heel from no weare wouldnt be enuff to keep the kiddies interested for that length of time.

 

[Mr. HD]

So, based on these arguments, who on this forum would count Benoit's title reign when he won it from The Rock in Fully Loaded 2000, only for Foley to restart the match, and have Benoit walk right back in the ring to lose it back to him. Would that count?

 

[JohnOldSnake4]

I think as long as a champion successfully retains their title on Pay Per view once, then the reign "counts", though at least 5-6 months are needed to give a title reign proper credibility in my mind.

 

[The Champ]

Some of these standards are ridiculous. The logic of "X person must be champion for X number of months or have the title X many times to count" is absolutely ludicrous in every possible way. That's the equivalent of saying a sports championship (like the 2008 Giants, for instance) doesn't count if it's considered a "fluke."

Shawn Michaels was only champion four times. Does Quazi not count him as being a champion, because he didn't have five or six "successful title reigns"? What constitutes a "successful reign" anyway? I could say that Rey Mysterio's reign was successful, because it resulted in probably the greatest match on Raw this year. Who is anyone here to say he wasn't WWE Champion?

I think a better way to phrase the question would be "What would you consider a worthwhile title reign?" Because like it or not, all these reigns count. Christian's first reign counts, even though it lasted five/two days. Dolph Ziggler's reign counts, even though he never won it and he lost his first title defense. The way it's worded now, you're all coming off like you have some superior definition of a title reign. Mine, and WWE's, are that they had the title. And that's how it should be.

So, based on these arguments, who on this forum would count Benoit's title reign when he won it from The Rock in Fully Loaded 2000, only for Foley to restart the match, and have Benoit walk right back in the ring to lose it back to him. Would that count?

You clearly don't understand the difference between a restart and a brand new match. A restart is throwing out the match entirely, which is the same reason why Daniel Bryan's reign doesn't count.

 

[ScruffDog]

I have a big problem with title reign's in the WWE today. Like everyone's already stated; the title changes hands to often, and they make a big deal about how many title reigns a person has. They say Del Rio is a two time champ; like his two titles are on the same level as MacoMan's, or Sammartino's. What should be important isn't the number of times you've held the title, but how long you've held it, and how interesting of a champ you've been.

Also you can't just "count" a reign based on how long you've held it.

Ex: Edge won his 6th Heavyweight title and held it for 58days. He was then stripped of the title and then won it back the same night for this 7th title reign. He then held that for another 56 days. Even though Edge held the title for enough time according to several on this thread, I don't see these as two different reign's.

Cena falls into the same trap. He holds the title for a long time, but he losses it to someone and then gets it back in a few days. He's an 11 time champ, not because his reigns aren't legit, but because the people they have him drop the title too aren't.