Is it really necessary for guys like Cena and HHH to have well over 10 world titles?

[whoopin' ass]

Biggest issue I have with anyone in the modern era having multiply title runs is that with a lot of them, the runs were very short. Who cares if you won the title a dozen times if you lost it a month after getting it? With Cena and HHH, they kept it longer as a rule but even some of their runs were short and seemed more like they just wanted to up that total.

Really, I am not that impressed by their total runs as most came when there were 2 main titles so it is a bit of a cheat. Plus I do think to some extent wwe wants to give their modern champs more runs then guys like Hogan to show how much better they are. When you get a guy like Cena with a dozen or so title runs in less than a decade, it starts to mean less.

 

[pyrusane]

I rather see Randy Orton win the title a few more times than john semen Orton is a technical wrestler and not a 5 move paper champion like semen

Considering your obviously diminished mental capacity, I don't believe that your opinion has any merit. Go eat some dirt and be a good little boy, while the adults have a conversation.

Cena deserves it. really?
Cena shouldn't be a face of this organization and he is/was worse than HHH.He won some tittles because of his gimmick,which was/is great for kids and it gives them many money.

HHH is in McMahon familly so he was pushed many time during his career.

WWE rely on the same rights as real life:connections,luck..........

I'm going to ask the same question I ask whenever I join one of these threads (and these pop up entirely too often); if not Cena and Orton, then who? If you or going to come here and say Cena didn't deserve all of those title reigns, then tell us who should have filled in the spot. Name one credible person that should have taken one or two or five of those reigns instead. If you can't do that, and present at least a passably solid argument to justify your point, then you are simply wrong.

There are a couple of reigns that theoretically Cena didn't need. The first one that comes to mind is his three minute reign at Elimination Chamber in 2010, where he won the title and then was immediately placed into a squash against Batista. Who else would you have placed it on there? Triple H or Randy Orton would just have their number increased by one instead, and giving a three minute reign to Ted Dibiasi or Kofi would have killed what little credibility they had. An argument could be made for Sheamus retaining and then losing to Batista, but that makes no sense from a storyline perspective.

The other Cena reign that could be eliminated was the one month run in 2011 between NoC and HiaC. The belt could have just stayed on Del Rio until the Cell match, where he could have lost it to Punk a month early. Or even leave it on Del Rio until Survivor Series. The only problem with that is the fact that Del Rio was nowhere close to being over as the champion, and the feud people wanted was Cena versus Punk, not Punk/ADR or Cena/ADR. Assuming we go that route, as well as Sheamus retaining in the example above, Cena drops to 13 reigns.

So, if you truly believe he doesn't deserve all of those reigns, who would you put in his place? Same with Orton, who do you replace him with and how do you book it?

 

[Planet_Velvet]

Ok, I just got in on the tail end of this convo. I think nowadays, the number of championships someone holds really doesn't mean anything. To me, Bruno's two World champinoships meant more than all of Cena's and Orton's combined. Titles change more frequently nowadays. We could blame it on the competition but I look at it as saying that strong World champions with lengthy reigns are a thing of the past (with Punk being the most recent exception). It's easier to get behind the chase than the conquest these days. No, it may not be necessary for all of the wrestlers you mentioned to have lengthy World title reigns. But in this day and age of championships that get passed around like movie rentals and pay-per-views that don't mean much, can't you see why?

 

[Mudlup50]

Okay so we complain WWE is predictable now imagine if Cena held the title for 5-10 years in a row. Everybody getting buried -.-

 

[MartialHorror]

I don't think it was necessary, but it was the only thing they could do at the time.

Roman Reigns shouldn't even be a contender, and I say this as a fan, but he is but I will totally turn against him if they make him a champion this early. He hasnt established himself as a singles competitor. Even though the story is more based around him right now, I think it's too early.

Sheamus and Del Rio have run out of steam, so they were merely padding.

Kane has become too much of a jobber and Orton burned himself out during his last reign.

Bray was the only other credible, but then they'd have to make an entirely new story. Either Bray would turn face and war with the authority, or they'd have to justify why the authority isnt interested in the belt.

Plus, Cena Vs Lesnar at Summerslam is insanely marketable. With that said, I would prefer seeing Daniel Bryan Vs Lesnar, but that likely won't happen anytime soon...*sigh*

So even though Cena as Champion is pretty bland, it was the best option they had without derailing every potential story involving these characters.