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

[Pedigree1]

three to four months sounds right to me. Its all about what you do with the belt are you over with the crowd whether good or bad? Are you in a hot feud? Make each title reign different than the last one!! But whether you hold it for 7 years or 7 seconds a reign is a reign

 

[Olnumber59]

Andre The Giant's controversial title rein comes to mind, I guess WWE recognized it years later but IMO he won the match and deserves it no matter if he tried "selling it" or not. Dolph's reign should count as well because he was awarded it by an authority figure in the WWE. So I guess what I'm saying is as long as the WWE acknowledges it then I guess I do too. It is time for Dolph to win it again and have a lengthy run with it. He consistently puts on the best matches every week and he has look. Punk vs. Dolph WM28!!!

 

[Dagger Dias]

In my opinion if WWE/TNA/ROH (or whatever federation the title win happened in) recognizes it, then even if it lasts less than a minute it still counts because the wrestler either won or was awarded a title reign. It happened, therefore it counts. Granted long title reigns filled with successful title retentions are far superior to "gift" title reigns, but that doesn't stop short title reigns from counting as official title reigns.

Take Randy Orton at No Mercy 2007 for example. Vince awarded Orton with a WWE Championship reign at the start of the show. He lost it to Triple H within minutes, then won it back from Triple H at the end of the show to start a title reign that lasted a whole schoolyear. Both reigns "count" even though they took place the same night and one barely lasted at all, because WWE recognize them as having happened. So as long as the federation where the title was won/awarded counts it then so do I.

 

[Kermit]

In my opinion if WWE/TNA/ROH (or whatever federation the title win happened in) recognizes it, then even if it lasts less than a minute it still counts because the wrestler either won or was awarded a title reign. It happened, therefore it counts. Granted long title reigns filled with successful title retentions are far superior to "gift" title reigns, but that doesn't stop short title reigns from counting as official title reigns.

By this definition, you would accept Dolph Ziggler's World Heavyweight Championship title reign? Michael Cole often mentions it on broadcasting and I believe that the WWWE fully recognizes it. Situations like this is where it get's flaky for me. I would agree with your definition if reign's like Ziggler's are omitted.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

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.

Yes John Cena has held the title more times than The Miz, but that also means he lost the title more times than him. He's a 10-time title loser while Miz is only 1-time. The Miz didn't go through 10 different 16 day reigns to achieve his 160 total. He did it in only one. And John Cena has far too many small reigns that lasted less than 30 days which damage his prestige as champion.

So yes, I do think The Miz is a better WWE Champion than John Cena.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Wrestling moves at a faster pace story wise now than it did, even back in the 80's when we had WrestleMania, Starrcade, Sat Nite Main Event and weekly two hours programs on TBS. The advent of monthly PPV events combined with the weekly live television programs means most fueds do not last as long as they did in the previous era. It's really the lasting legacy of Monday Nitro, they pushed the envelope with regards to main event stars battling on free TV, the need for more surprising heel turns, unforseen finishes, etc. WWE had to do the same things to compete and by the 1999 the audience had come to expect that faster paced moving forward quicker idea, you can't arbitrarily turn back the clock now, especially when viewership is already down.

Back in the 80's and early 90's, I would have said an impressive title reign needed to last at least 7-9 months, someone who comes in and holds a title for a month or two like Ricky Steamboat, both as IC Champ and as NWA Champ, is just a caretaker, or story device, he's not a credibile champion. Randy Savage held the WWE title for a year and had high profile fueds with Ted DiBiase and Ultimate Warrior before losing to Hulk Hogan. That was a credible, impressive reign for that time. Certainly Flair's reigns, almost all of which lasted over a year each back then, were impressive, especially considering how many big matches he survived during those runs.

Today, I think if a champion maintains a title for 5-7 months then they are impressive, because the pressure to maintain TV ratings and PPV buys is so great that the company must really feel that you can carry the load to let you wear gold for half a year. A guy who maintains a title for 2-3 months really isnt anything great, he's another storyline device, a different flavor for a short time before we go back to who we believe is the real money maker.

I understand some fans are upset as Cena, never a really popular guy with the Internet crowd, eclipses Hogan & Triple H and gets closer to Flair's record. They argue Cena has never been as popular as Hogan, as good a wrestler & promo guy as Triple H, and is not the entertainer or Iconic figure Flair was. They also get upset because he's had multiple runs that lasted in the 2-3 month range, seeing it like a quarterback who pads his stats by compleing short passes when his team is hoplessly behind and the opposition is playing all their back ups.

To that I say Cena is the most popular guy in the company - period - he is the one guy they know can draw a crowd, pop a TV rating, he's not Hogan-like in his main stream good guy appeal but he is recognized and popular. He'll never out perform Flair but he has had on occassion dleivered some very good performances in big matches vs HHH, Orton, & Edge. Ultimately, even if he does surpass Hogan & Flair and get to 17 titles, everyone will know he is not as big a star as those two historically, but he is a big star, the biggest one today. Remember, Brett Favre hold the NFL records for career completions, yards, and touchdowns, yet when people debate who the greatest quarterbacks of all time were he is never mentioned as much as Montana, Marino, Elway, Unitas - over the last decade Tom Brady & Peyton Manning have joined that debate, more so than Favre. He may hold records, and there is no doubt he was great player, a great talent, and had a great deal of success, but records alone don't mean you are the GREATEST - We can still accept Cena's accomplishments and success without thinking he is somehow better than Hogan & Flair (and maybe Triple H since he's high on that title count list) just like football fans accept and honor Favre's accomplishments without seriously thinking he was better than Montana, et all

 

[Dagger Dias]

By this definition, you would accept Dolph Ziggler's World Heavyweight Championship title reign? Michael Cole often mentions it on broadcasting and I believe that the WWWE fully recognizes it. Situations like this is where it get's flaky for me. I would agree with your definition if reign's like Ziggler's are omitted.

I count that one as well. Even though the situations under which he won the title were rather complicated and stupid, he still held the World Heavyweight Championship and WWE recognizes it. That reign is part of why Ziggler didn't fade into obscurity upon getting drafted to Raw because he showed up as a former World Champion, which raises your credibility quite a bit. I agree with you that it's an issue worth addressing. The case could be argued in either direction whether that should be recognized or not. I can see why some say it should not count, but I do agree with WWE that Dolph won his first World Championship that night. The title win happened in their federation, if they recognize it then I do too. The man definitely deserves a real reign though, that's for sure!

 

[jacdnwarrior]

In the past, it wasn't the number but the length of time. I mean Bruno Sammartino held WWF championship for what, 11 years ? Hogan held it for a few years, Savage held it for a least a year. Now we have people who are champions a number of times for very short durations of time, and their reigns seem to be so forgettable.
I really can't say which of Orton's nine (i think) or Cena's ten ( i think) reigns mean more to me.


I think it's a number of things. Quality does count, so does duration. A one day reign isn't worth shit to me because it gives me absolutely no time to see whether or not I think the reign is worthy of me supporting or hating. I think any reign that lasts less than 3 to 6 months or 3 to six ppv defenses isn't really worth doing. WWE might do things differently as the money to be lost (or made) if they stay too long or short with a performer as champ can be huge and obviously will affect any decision.

 

[CH David]

I really hope the question was meant to be how long until the reign matters overall for the star in question. If it was to make it count in the record books, well that's a silly question. Jeff Hardy won the title against Edge at Extreme Rules, then lost to Punk within minutes. That counted towards him in the books.

I remember once NorCal talked about why reigns were shorter now than they were back in the day. Why guys like Hogan, Flair and so on and so forth could hold a title for a year and nobody cared. They weren't on tv as often, certainly not at least once a week for millions to see. They would do house shows all the time in different cities and wrestle roughly the same match every night. Big things were saved for the PPVs or SNME or what have you.

Now the champions wrestle likely every week. When you have to face someone each week, you're gonna be banged up and to keep the title for upwards of six months to a year is a rough go. Every month a challenger for your title? Things happen and it's logical that you won't keep it. Not to mention the insanely short attention span of wrestling fans, a new champ has to come about otherwise the fans, likely internet fans, will bitch.

Now how do you make a title reign mean something? Make it an interesting feud with the champ coming out on top. Simple as. Everyone wants a fighting champ, but who cares if the opponent is a new guy with no story other than I want the belt. People care about Cena's reigns because he is a polarizing figure and people want to see him wrestle, win/loss hopes are another story.