How Many Times Is Too Many?

[#heel420]

Edge is an 11 time World Champion.
Randy Orton & Hulk Hogan are 12 time World Champions.
Triple H is a 13 time World Champion.
John Cena is a 14 time World Champion.
Ric Flair considers himself a 26 time World Champion.

So, in you're opinion how many World Title reigns is too many?

 

[Y 2 Jake]

If you go over 8 or so throughout the whole of your career then your title reigns become utterly meaningless as far as I'm concerned. This is based on Hogan & Bret Hart having lengthy title reigns whilst in WWE and amassing that number of reigns during their main runs, then you can have a few extra because I'm kind like that.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I'd say two. But with multiple world titles and new stories to tell the answer is infinity. But then again with stupid stipulations like Money In The Bank and cheating and guys oddly falling off turnbuckles and falling through tables the answer is definitely zero.

The world title only means as much as the story behind it. Even John Cena could have a worthwhile win and reign at this point.

 

[lil steroid meat]

It's scripted sports at the end of the day. 1 Entertaining Reign > 15 Boring Reigns.

 

[PeterSellersSTL]

5 or 6 is the ideal upper limit IMO. But yeah it's scripted and guys become champs for all sorts of reasons, so who's to tell. It's all about finding the right balance, you want fierce competition where anybody can beat anybody on any given night but you don't want the title to appear cheap with how frequent it changes hands. It all comes down to creative and booking. And which is why I'm for making MITB a once every three years PPV.

 

[Radical]

Multiple championships in real pro team sports would be awesome. They are awesome because it shows how strong a team/franchise has been over many years. Teams like the Los Angeles Lakers, New York Yankees, Detroit Red Wings, New England Patriots are well-known power-houses in their respective sports because of multiple Championship wins. But that's really the only way to be 'distinguished' in team sports is by multiple championship reigns. You can't have a longer reign as champion than any other team because each team is only Champion for 1 year. Of course, if you happen to defend the Championship successfully more than 1 year in a row you could say you're a "X number of days champion" but no one really does that in team sports. They'll just say they are "2-time or 3-time defending champions".

But, Pro Wrestling isn't really a team sport (aside from Tag Teams) so it's closest real sport relation would be UFC or Boxing. And in those sports great Champions are measured by length of their title reign (aka being undefeated as Champion for X number of days) and by how many times they have successfully defended that Championship.

That type of standard would work in Pro Wrestling as well. But there is one issue with that: Bruno Sammartino. The guy was champion for 7 years. Just an absolutely crazy long time to be champion. He would have obviously had many successful title defenses in that time as well. So even before Hulk Hogan and WWE really taking off in popularity there was no way anyone was going to pass the #1 longest reigning WWE Champion. Hulk Hogan himself only got about a 4 year run which was really good too and now CM Punk got 434 days which is pretty much as long as you can ever go in the modern era and he still wasn't really close to Hogan and Sammartinos long records.

SO, that being said. The only way in the modern era to make a Superstar seem more impressive as a Champion is piling up more times as Champion.

Based on the situation the business is in, I am okay with it.

Because at the end of the day, sure Cena is a 14 time world champion but he has been a top guy in the industry for over 10 years. The business has changed and even Cena himself given a year-long reign only happened once because you need to have a bit of ups and downs as a top guy to make certain feuds more interesting. It isn't like Cena has been ALWAYS in the WWE Championship matches. He's had many other non-title related matches and such but he often gets put back in that picture because he draws. Of course he also changed brands many times during the Brand Split and that made going for whatever the top title was a 'different' challenge. So the 14-time Champion is including World Heavyweight and WWE Titles which makes it look much more exaggerated than it should be.

And finally, as someone already said, it isn't so much about number of title reigns, it is about the number of memorable title reigns. Obviously commentators and the WWE production or creative team will use Superstars who have multiple title reigns to build them up and saying they are more important because of it even if a bunch of their title reigns were lackluster.

And it's kind of crazy too. A guy like Santino Marella has somehow won the IC and US titles and held them for a fairly long time. However, how memorable are they? For me, not very. Only thing I remember is thinking "HOW is HE champion over all these other guys?"

Or a guy like Randy Orton has 12 World Titles but certainly not all of them were memorable. Some were flip-flop reigns where he swapped with Cena or someone else. Some were just not that interesting.

On the other hand a guy like Mark Henry became World Champion for the first time a few years ago and I still remember that well. I thought it was an incredible reign and very believable and very interesting. Sadly, he got injured and the 'powers that be' ended his reign early. So only about a 3-month reign but it was still much more memorable to me than virtually all of Randy Orton's reigns, in my personal opinion.

So, answer the question specifically: How many times is too many? I would say no number is too many IF it is done right over time. If I'm not interested in a Superstar then even 1 time is too many but if I am interested in a Superstar than each time they win, I'll be happy to see it.

 

[PeterSellersSTL]

but how easy/difficult is it to get 14 reigns right each time? 14 title reigns to me just seems like "we can't come up with anything(anyone) better". If you can get 5 or 6 reigns with at least half of them being memorable that's good enough. It only gets more difficult the higher that number goes. It just doesn't seem possible to have 7 memorable reigns in today's WWE. 2 memorable title reigns, 5 or 6 reigns, 2 Wrestlemania main events is a HOF career to me. And if WWE is serious about adding depth to their roster then hopefully they curb this going forward. I think unifying the titles helps and raising the profile of the IC belt. Also guys need to be able to drop down and compete for the IC belt. Establishing the IC champ as a #1 contender for the big title would help too. Maybe you don't hhave to hold the IC belt but it wouldn't hurt to have to go through him to be the #1 contender.

 

[liquidprinter]

As John Cena kicks off his twelve WWE Championship (and fifteenth run at the top, when we factor in his three previous runs holding only the big gold belt), let's look at both sides of a WWE landscape wherein we can't see the guy holding both top titles.

 

[fairyanna]

I like 4 only because I think in the case of Stables, more is better. I loved that the Four Horsemen, New World Order, D-Generation X, Evolution, and the Main Event Mafia, among a few others, had a World Champion, a Mid-Card Champion, and Tag Team Champions together under one Stable. I just feel that 3 Man Stables are missing that one SuperStar who could raise them to the standard set by the 5 greatest Stables of all time. 3 is good, but 4 is better.

 

[WillyRoss]

I think it just depends on the situation. Harley Race is an 8 time champion and I'm pretty sure at least the majority of reigns were done well. While Edge is an 11 time champion and I would be surpised if the combined length is over a year (I could be completely wrong about that, but either way his title runs were usualy very short). I don't think there is a limit on how many times someone should be champions, it just so happens that most of the guys with lots of runs have many meaningless runs along the way.

 

[capnwillie]

Ric Flair is a one-of-a-kind situation. It took him the span of his entire career to accumulate 16 *recognized* World championship reigns. If you look at his opposition over that entire span, you have names like Harley Race, Dusty Rhodes and Ricky Steamboat on the list as the guys who he won the belt(s) from. If you add to that some other wrestlers he defended against it's an even more impressive stat. He won a lot of them during eras where 60-minute draws were commonplace and if you pissed off the wrong folks, they'd shoot on you and take your spot with no hesitation. It was tough to win a world championship ONCE let alone 16+ times.

Booking Cena to become a 16-time champion pales ridiculously in comparison. It seems forced in even a best case scenario. You really have to look at how Cena has come by some of his reigns as well. Most of his title wins came in matches against Randy Orton... which is no knock on Randy but there is far less diversity in Cena's title win history. And a win over The Miz who had no business being a world champion. More than anything, Cena's been able to run up the numbers mostly because of the WWE's inability or refusal to build and elevate new talent during a down period in the industry. Flair was swimming with sharks. Even Triple H had much greater challenges in gaining multiple title wins as he was arguably the number 3 guy behind two of the most successful guys in the history of the business.

This is why I have no issue with Lesnar holding the title and not defending it once a month or more. It's giving WWE time to see who's really "ready" for it, instead of playing hot potato or just giving it back to Cena or Orton. Because that's exactly where we'd be right now otherwise.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

It's fake so it doesn't matter.

I obviously don't like it when they randomly pass the Title around without any clear direction, but there is no set number of Title reigns that is too many. John Cena almost has 15 reigns and he is a great World Champion. There are a lot of guys with less that I definitely couldn't say the same about. At the end of the day, the angle does matter more than the belt.

The brand split era artificially inflated the number of total title reigns that guys had. Now that we are back down to one belt, you are gonna see that trend reversed somewhat. During the brand split we saw a lot of midcarders get the World Title thrown on them way too soon, that won't happen nearly as much with one World Title, if at all.

 

[rmp0012002]

Flair will always be the greatest but he, and Harley to a point, were the NWA's Cena. People just never rose to a champions level and some champions like Garvin and Sting just didn't really go over with the fans so they had to go back to Flair.
I didn't add up all the reigns but close to 40(?) changes in the last ten years is crazy and it's what made their belts crap and useless. Longer reigns less times. It seemed like WCW changed champions every week or couple weeks so maybe that's where WWE learned that from.
Guys like Cena and Orton are your top guys and they can still be huge without being involved in the title picture. That is Vince and HHH's poor booking because they've never groomed other people to fill those top spots or are in such fear of someone failing as champ and making themselves look bad.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Flair will always be the greatest but he, and Harley to a point, were the NWA's Cena. People just never rose to a champions level and some champions like Garvin and Sting just didn't really go over with the fans so they had to go back to Flair.

Have to address this. Yes, Garvin was a poor choice and that is exactly why he only had a short reign - fans didn't accept him as good enough and for good reason, he'd never held a position higher than midcard in his career (and he was 42 at that stage).

Sting was a completely different kettle of fish - the NWA preferred heel champions like Race and Flair for a very simple reason: the territories. Thus, the heel World Champion would role into an area and take on the hometown hero in a series and then move onto the next area. While Vince McMahon Jnr's WWF put the territories out of business, the NWA and then WCW still maintained the heel champion dynamic with the babyfaces only getting short reigns.


As to the question asked, the wrestling model has changed from Flair's pomp. Televised world title matches generally only happened at PPVs (with free TV used to build the feud for the belt) and while there was the occasional 'house show' title change, these were few and far between. Today, on top of 13 PPVs per year, we have also only returned to one world champ in the WWe very recently and world title bouts on RAW and SD over the years have been quite plentiful.

As such, I don't mind multiple reigns and don't think numbers really matter. What defines a wrestler's legacy is the character. We've had many multiple time world champions whose legacies will be forgotten in ten years while guys like Roddy Piper, Ted DiBiase and Arn Anderson will still be remembered.

 

[rmp0012002]

I'm old school, having become a fan in the late 70's but having a heel champion is the desired situation. Having the heel hold the belt for long times pumps up the faces trying to beat him but once the underdog has won the angle deflates. Only two faces have gone over and stayed there were Sammartino and Cena. The only problem in Cena's case is that he has to keep losing the belt to then regain it.
Brock is a good champion but his problem is he doesn't wrestle very often and can even skip PPV's. The best example of a great wrestler that got over and stayed over without the belt was Shawn Michaels who was champion just 4 times. He did some of his best work just in feuds or as IC champ. I don't think all his WWE titles, including Tag equal a dozen.

 

[Michael J. Fox]

Anything above 10 is obnoxious. The way I see it, if you won it 10+ times you've lost it 10+ times. Having a few long title reigns is way better than losing/winning it every 3 months or so. Shows you can defend it and retain it.

I agree though with most, it's sewn into the fabric of the story. Or random.

 

[fairyanna]

I like 4 only because I think in the case of Stables, more is better. I loved that the Four Horsemen, New World Order, D-Generation X, Evolution, and the Main Event Mafia, among a few others, had a World Champion, a Mid-Card Champion, and Tag Team Champions together under one Stable. I just feel that 3 Man Stables are missing that one SuperStar who could raise them to the standard set by the 5 greatest Stables of all time. 3 is good, but 4 is better.






____________________________________

 

[FlairFan2003]

Basically you look at how long someone was a legit op tier main event star and that means more than actual title reigns. Hogan was that guy for most of the 80s and 90s and so was Flair, and incredible run of nearly 20 years for both when there were few if any other stars who could sell matches and PPVs as well as them.

Guys who had even 10 year runs (or close) is rare and impressive, such as Cena & Brett Hart.

Bottom line, you don't keep the main title, the main feuds, and the biggest matches if you don't draw and the company doesn't need you.

Edge and Orton have a lot of reigns but neither one has 10-15 year run at or near the top of the card consistently like HHH, Hart, or Cena have had and not even close to Hogan & Flair. They may each have more reigns than Hart for instance but Hart was a Top 2 or 3 guy longer, and likely would have stayed that way even longer if not for injury (granted, you could say the same thing for Edge, injuries derailed him when he was at his peak and the company talent roster was depleting fast with the losses of HBK, Taker, HHH, & Flair as regular performers).

When I look at Edge & Orton I see good performers who were major contributors but who did not dominate the top of the card as long as Cena, Race, Sammartino, even Hart regardless of having more title reigns.

If Cena breaks Flair's official record of 16 reigns he will have to main event for another 7 or 8 years before he can even be compared to Flair's longevity (one of the top draws as a full time performer 1981-2000, as well as his part time stints in the 2000s in which he had numerous high profile feuds that were at or near the top of the card). Cena right now has had a very nice run 2006 on but he isn't even in Sammarrtino's class yet in terms of longevity as a Top Tier Guy (1963-77 with some high profile matches and feuds in a more limited role after that). Hogan's run was bigger in popularity and almost as long in longevity as Flair so If Cena doesn't compare to Flair he wont be in Hogan's league.

Is there a point where it is too much ?? The audience dictates that, when the company doesn't think you bring in the money they need (or the think someone else can bring in more) then you no longer get to be "That Guy".....therefore I don't think you can put a limit on longevity, your success with the audience determines that. The Fans speak, plain & simple.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Have to address this. Yes, Garvin was a poor choice and that is exactly why he only had a short reign - fans didn't accept him as good enough and for good reason, he'd never held a position higher than midcard in his career (and he was 42 at that stage).

Sting was a completely different kettle of fish - the NWA preferred heel champions like Race and Flair for a very simple reason: the territories. Thus, the heel World Champion would role into an area and take on the hometown hero in a series and then move onto the next area. While Vince McMahon Jnr's WWF put the territories out of business, the NWA and then WCW still maintained the heel champion dynamic with the babyfaces only getting short reigns.


As to the question asked, the wrestling model has changed from Flair's pomp. Televised world title matches generally only happened at PPVs (with free TV used to build the feud for the belt) and while there was the occasional 'house show' title change, these were few and far between. Today, on top of 13 PPVs per year, we have also only returned to one world champ in the WWe very recently and world title bouts on RAW and SD over the years have been quite plentiful.

As such, I don't mind multiple reigns and don't think numbers really matter. What defines a wrestler's legacy is the character. We've had many multiple time world champions whose legacies will be forgotten in ten years while guys like Roddy Piper, Ted DiBiase and Arn Anderson will still be remembered.

Flair & Hogan accumulated a large number of title reigns (with several lasting 6 months or longer) over a very large period of time, proving their viability as top star main eventers. Flair held the Title either in WCW or WWE every year from 1981-1996 and had additional runs in 99 & 2000. Hogan held the belt in either WWE or WCW every year from 83-99 and had a token WWE reign in 2002. We will probably never see anyone who can stay that popular as compared to everyone else on the roster that long ever again. Cena has been the top guy pretty much since 2006 so he needs to remain WWE's go to guy for another 6-8 years before he can reach Hogan or Flair level. Possible, but I wouldn't count on it.

The Ron Garvin thing was storyline driven....Garvin had been a "company guy" for a long time and the NWA wanted Flair (after more than 13 months as champ) to chase the title heading into Starrcade (on the 5 year aniv of the event, which originally was built around Flair chasing Harley Race). Luger was a heel at the time and being groomed as the heir apparent to Flair, he wasn't ready yet and they didn't want to damage him by having a hastily thrown together face turn, title run, and subsequent loss. Dusty Rhodes wouldn't lose cleanly to Flair and he had a title run a year earlier. The company had already played Flair-Whyndam for all it was worth earlier in the year. Ron Garvin as a straight forward, hard working common man (compared to Flair's country club, jet setting, partier) seemed a better contrast than Jimmy Garvin (a flamboyant, outspoken, Flair Jr like character) so he was chosen, he got his lone reign for his years of hard work, they protected Luger for the future, and Garvin (unlike Dusty) was in no position to object to losing cleanly at Starrcade.

It was similar to WWE having St Slaughter's heel turn and WWE title win, they protected Ultimate Warrior with a clear screw job finish to drop the belt, gave Slaughter, one of wrestling hardest working characters for a decade a lone reign as champ and allowed him headline their biggest show of the year but he was in no position to object at the end to putting over Hogan in a crowd pleasing (if predictable) finish.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Have to address this. Yes, Garvin was a poor choice and that is exactly why he only had a short reign - fans didn't accept him as good enough and for good reason, he'd never held a position higher than midcard in his career (and he was 42 at that stage).

Sting was a completely different kettle of fish - the NWA preferred heel champions like Race and Flair for a very simple reason: the territories. Thus, the heel World Champion would role into an area and take on the hometown hero in a series and then move onto the next area. While Vince McMahon Jnr's WWF put the territories out of business, the NWA and then WCW still maintained the heel champion dynamic with the babyfaces only getting short reigns.


As to the question asked, the wrestling model has changed from Flair's pomp. Televised world title matches generally only happened at PPVs (with free TV used to build the feud for the belt) and while there was the occasional 'house show' title change, these were few and far between. Today, on top of 13 PPVs per year, we have also only returned to one world champ in the WWe very recently and world title bouts on RAW and SD over the years have been quite plentiful.

As such, I don't mind multiple reigns and don't think numbers really matter. What defines a wrestler's legacy is the character. We've had many multiple time world champions whose legacies will be forgotten in ten years while guys like Roddy Piper, Ted DiBiase and Arn Anderson will still be remembered.

Sting was CLEARLY set up to be the long term champion, WCW's version of Hulk Hogan, in 1990, but the subsequent lousy booking hurt his credibility. WCW was clearly looking for someone other than Flair to be champ (especially after Flair angered Jim Herd and WCW Mgt by refusing to lose the title to Luger when Sting was injured, insisting they wait till Sting returned and give him the belt because he deserved it and they put too much time into his coronation to give up because he needed a few months off for a knee injury, which of course got him kicked off the booking committee) but when Sting (who was champ for almost 7 months) didn't click they went back to Flair because he was guaranteed money. They did seem to want Sting to be successful, they just booked him horribly post title win and he wasn't as bullet proof as Flair who could survive and get over some lousy feuds and opponents because he had been a top guy much longer and had more built in credibility with the audience.