lots of title reigns or one long title reign?

[RBH]

this is the question. it is sililar to one asked earlier but different. Do you like it when a guy has won the world title once in his career and held it for about lets say 9 months (not to name any names, cough JBL) or do you like it when guys have won multiple titles and held it for an average of about 1-2 months (Undertaker, except for 1997)....what makes a champ more legitamate? Having 6 world title reigns? or having 1 long world title reign?

 

[Lil Wes]

Lots.

Attitude Era style. Makes the show more unpredictable and entertaining.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Middle of the ground, with what you said.

Instead of 10 reigns that only last 2 months....or 2 reigns that last 10 months....I'd rather have 5 reigns that last 4 months.

Keeping someone reigning too long makes it boring (cough*Cena*cough), but when the championship changes hands way too often, then it devalues it, making it seem like everyone in on equal par. I hate how Triple H is now a 12-time world champion, but one of his title reigns was less than 24 hours. How's that a reign when you win the belt, defend it once, and then lose it in under 5 hours? That's how we'll end up with people that have 1138 title reigns under their name, but they've only been in the business for 3 years lol.

More importantly, give me a face champion I want to root for to continue winning, or a heel champion I want to root for to lose.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Lots.

Attitude Era style. Makes the show more unpredictable and entertaining.

I totally disagree. The titles are not as important when they switch hands hands all the time, a new champion is not a big deal, and so ratings, fan interest, etc sour because the titles have no stability, therefore they are worthless. I think Vince Russo proved this.

Still, this question is hard to answer. Undertaker for example for a variety of reasons has never really had a long, eventful title run but he has had multiple runs (mostly short, 1-2 month range). HHH doesn't have a John Cena like never ending title reign to his credit but most of his runs have lasted 3-6 months, maybe more, and have been very eventful. Cena may have had a better individual reign (admit it, like him or not he moves lots of merchandise and he was good in matches against Edge, Kurt Angle, and Shawn Michaels) but HHH would get my nod as the better overall champion.

Dusty Rhodes had three reigns but each was exceedingly short. None of them was remarkable for anything other than the fact that he won the belt. He was a great wrestler, one of the best entertainers of all time, but he was not a great champion.

Ultimatley to hold the belt for any length of time many things have to happen, some of them out of a wrestler's control. You can be at the whim of promoters who make irrational decissions (like when Eric Bischoff had The Giant win the WCW title from Ric Flair because he missed a show in Arkansas, even though Monday Nitro was doing well in the ratings with him as champ, his feud pitting him and Elizabeth against Randy Savage was popular, and he almost never missed shows), injuries play a key role (Undertaker's last title run ended prematurely due to injury), and you have to have good opponents. No matter how good you are if the fans don't care about who you are facing you will not deliver numbers as champion.

All in all it's hard to hold a major title and defend it on a regular basis for a long period of time. This is much more impressive than short reigns where someone wins one week and loses the next.

 

[Lil Wes]

Meh, you have a point but I don't give a shit, because it's my opinion on what I think is more entertaining.

These borefests long reigns have never drew like the Attitude Era unpredictability. Outside of Hogan obviously.

 

[Papa Shango]

I don't see anything wrong with a long title reign once in awhile, because whaen you've had a few decent length reigns in a row, it kind of makes an abrupt end to a reign that more surprising. I think about a four-to-five month reign is good. I also really think it depends on who's holding the title. When HHH holds it 8 months, it gets stale. But JBL's reign as champion, I thought was very well done. With the whole corrupt rich guy gimmick, it made it easy to understand that how he could hold on to the title for so long. He bought protection, he started a strong stable, and it was believeable. Cena I think would be a better champion with shorter title reigns. He's a good champ, noone can deny that, but keep things moving along.

 

[Starchild]

I generally like the 4 month or so reigns. I hate that Edge's first 2 reigns were a combined 3 months. It makes it more believable that someone holds it for a little while and then loses it, only to have to chase it again. Also if it's too short, then you get a build up and wind up with someone like Jeff Jarrett having 10 reigns like he has. I mean, he was a guy I loved to hate but the man has almost twice as many reigns as the Undertaker and Bret Hart...he isn't even in their league.Kane's 24-hour reign and HHH's 2-hour reigns were a complete joke. Why the hell even put it on them if they are gonna lose it that quick?
Only the contrary, I do like the occasional long title reign. Every few years or so it's nice to see someone really hold on to it for a solid 9-12 months. It shows that there is value to the title and gives the opportunity for alot of guys to chase the champion (i.e., in Cena's case...Edge, Umaga, Khali, Lashley, Orton, HHH, etc.) so it makes for alot of feud possibilities as opposed to a 2 month reign where the guy who held it before wins it back.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

A mixture of both. I don't care if somebody has a long reign so long as the matches are half decent. But the occasional couple of short reigns doesn't bother me. Unless it's just a bump Triple H closer to 16 reign like at No Mercy.