Measuring a Champions Greatness

[HBKistheHOF]

WWE.com posted an article about "measuring a champions greatness" and asks the WWE Universe to vote which they think is more significant,

Length of a World title reign? or Amount of World title reigns?

While most fans these days would agree a lengthy title reign is harder to have and would therefore be more significant. I disagree.

While being the the champion or be "the guy" for a long time is great and very signifcant, I think for the WWE as a company to come back to you time and time again to be the champion is more significant and more of an honor. (ex. John Cena, Triple H and The Rock.)

Also these days a guy can have a lengthy title reign not have a single clean victory and basically just "cheat" and hang onto the title for a long time, only to lose it in a simple or cheap way. (ex. The Miz and Daniel Bryan)

So I what to know what the IWC thinks.

What is better and WHY???? Longer or More title reigns??

Also which do you think is more of an honor and more respected in the eyes of WWE corporate? For a Superstar to be "The Guy" longer or more times??

 

[HitmanRicks]

I personally hold long title reigns in higher regard than multiple title reigns. For example, Triple H may be a 13-time World Champion, but a few of those reigns lasted a few weeks. One even lasted about an hour.

Then take JBL. He only had one World Title reign, but it lasted about 8 months. He pretty much ruled Smackdown for the majority of 2004 and the beginning of 2005. Even when JBL was a mid-carder and commentator later in his career, his World Title reign is what made him legitimate. Think of who he defended his title against during that reign: Eddie Guerrero, The Undertaker, Booker T, The Big Show, John Cena, and many others.

Now of course, if a wrestler amasses many long reigns as champion, that would be the best situation, but that rarely is the case.

 

[JaylisJayP]

I personally hold long title reigns in higher regard than multiple title reigns.

I agree with this. I'll always remember the one exchange between Booker T and RVD in the locker room when Booker did his 5-time, 5-time thing and RVD looked at him and said, "You lost the WCW title 5 times?"

Overall, how do you remember the champion? Do you associate greatness with his time? Did he change what it meant to be a champion, bring something new to the role?

Those are the questions that define the greatness of a champion moreso than duration or # of times for me.

 

[Y2Jericho]

I agree with HitmanRicks on this one, JBL's single-but-lengthy reign immediately came to mind as I read the OP's thread. A long title reign establishes a fighting champion who is worthy of the title in every aspect, someone who can hold it and defend it to prove that they belong on top or can be something so infurating to watch (again, JBL's reign) that you just can't wait to see who finally takes it away from them. Either way, I see long reigns being more beneficial not just to the title holders themselves, but also those who eventually take the title off of them, John Cena being the perfect example of this and also make the title seem more desirable and a bigger prize overall.

In the eyes of corporate however, I'd have to say evidently they prefer their champs to be mutiple time champions, a quick look at the title history of Cena (12), Edge (11) and Triple H (13) more then verifies that. Long reigns simply don't seem to come around as often as they used to, which is why, atleast in my eyes, The Miz and CM Punk's reigns have been an absolute breath of fresh air.

 

[zeox70]

Both can do wonders for a career, and entitle someone to their popularity. Though I will agree that generally a lengthy reign entitles the champion to be more credible, short ones can be just as powerful - if not more.
A prime example is The Miz's six month reign, was it? In today's standards, six months is a lengthy reign. Where is Miz now? Feuding with Clay, below the US and IC Titles.
Another prime example is CM Punk's first WWE Championship reign, which lasted for two months. During a month of it, though, Rey Mysterio and John Cena were considered to be WWE Champion as well - so it's not even like he had the entire title. We all look back at that, though, and call it "The Summer of Punk," and many consider that to be what turned Punk into the upper midcard to a Main Event stay.

My opinion; though I think lengthy reigns are better for the same reasons people have posted above - it makes the champion look legit, like he's a fighter - it truly just depends on how they handle their metaphorical ball and how they pride themselves in their reign. John Cena has been champ how many times now? Some lasting for weeks, if, and he's the TOP guy. A champion is great if they make the title look meaningful, if the underdog champion can come out on top fighting, even if he loses it three weeks later.
Clean victories also makes title reigns better, making a champion better. I'm not saying just because a heel cheats his way out of a match means the reign or title defense is crap, it just solidifies their position. Down the line, however, people are going to remember Punk vs. Cena, and argue who is the better champion. No one's going to remember Miz vs. Cena at WrestleMania unless "The Rock" is brought up, too.

As far as who the higher ups see better; I say they probably think short titles reigns are better, seeing as that's what we normally get. Maybe they figured if they can give the uppercard guy the World Title for a month, let him be an underdog for a match and go over, that it'll build his credibility. I figure they don't realize that feeding him to Cena down the line only kills any of the momentum.

 

[DexVendetta88]

For me long title reigns trumps multiple title reigns in my book. When I looked at this topic, the first thing that came to mind is the old adage "quality over quantity". Long title reigns I always seem to find more memorable because it made the champion look like he can overcome any obstacle thrown at him, and this works for both heels and faces but both obviously have different approaches in overcoming those obstacles. Multiple title reigns on the other hand, especially now in the era where the WWE has 2 world championships to claim in a way lowers the prestige since it becomes easy to become a multiple time world champion within a matter of a few years unlike before where you would have to really work for the one world championship in the promotion. Also, when it comes to multiple world championship reigns how many of them made the champion really overcome the obstacles in defending it whenever they held it?

 

[asiatic7]

I think a long substantial reign really defines a champions worth to a company. Bruno Sammartino had the longest reign of all time. Hogan defined his era with a long run too. Both men carried the titles well and lived up to the promotions expectations. When Bret Hart won the WWE championship five times, back then it seemed like nobody would ever surpass it (WWE, not NWA with Flair and Race). Now we live in an era where belts get pass around so many times, you forget how they ended up on the shoulder of the current holder (hey that rhymes!).

What is more significant, Brets five Championships, HHH's 13 or Sammartinos 2 reigns over more than 15 years?

Edge won them so much, I forget when and how and who he beat because he won them in such a short amount of time...

At least Flair won 16 Throughout 20 years.....

 

[MCMG]

In the future and we look back at an era we will remember the men with the most title reigns. The likes of Edge, Cena, HHH, Orton are more memorable then guys with one long title reign. Having several title reigns ensures that you are in the main-event for a long time and people will remember you for longer.

Also, there is the fact that winning the belt itself is a memorable moment so that sticks with the audience longer. However, having a belt for 10 months could be two thing. Either you are very good and a terrific champion or that there is no competition worthy of holding the belt.

Personally, I would say that multiple title reigns is a better way to measure a champ.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Can't it be both?

Several reigns are better for the most part than one long one, depending on the exact length and the quality of the matches where the title is put on the line. I'm against the idea of having a large number of short and/or transitional reigns just to increase the number of times a wrestler has held a belt. However, I definitely am more impressed by someone like Edge or Triple H bragging about their long list of title reigns than I am by someone like JBL talking about one long reign. I like a mix of both length and number. However if I had to pick between one of the two, then just as I stated above it would be number of reigns because in most cases that is more impressive to me.

 

[Foshinzo]

If you consider numbers as legitimate, then ADR is on the same level as Savage.

Numbers don't mean anything. Randy Orton once picked up two, "reigns," in one night. Only one of those should count.

Discount the short reigns, and then look at numbers. Triple H would probably lose more than a couple reigns, but we would then be able to decide better where we rank him. ADR would pretty much lose both reigns, which is fine by me. In my book, Dolph Ziggler still hasn't been a champion, though the WWE's books declare differently.

Some short reigns should be legitimate, though, if the performer did enough in their career to have earned it. I think Kane's one day run should be counted because he's had a legendary career. It's still one of the most pointless runs, ever, but he deserves to have his name in the books. Rey's two hour run should be counted, too. Sure, it was even more pointless than Kane's run, but he's a legend and he deserves to have his name in the records.

Other short runs like Punk's first run made him a star and provided us with some of the best television we've seen out of the WWE in years, and therefore should be counted as one of the better runs.

Still, I think most short runs shouldn't factor into someone's history; it's just bad booking, not talent. Trips isn't a 13x champion, in my opinion. He just had too much say in the story and WWE hasn't had great booking for a few years, now. Also, just because Edge is a 10x champion doesn't mean at all that he's twice as great as Bret was.

Numbers, especially in the last decade, only serve to distort the truth. If a run lasts less than a month, I don't think you should consider it. Lists are pointless anyway, but we should at least water down these insane numbers if we want them to have some truth to them.

 

[ultramattman]

The best measuring stick is probably the total number of days spent holding the title. Don't worry about how many individual runs that's broken into, or how long someone holds the title consecutively. Those get warped by storylines. But if you add up the amount of time a guy spends holding the belt, things more or less even out.

Not counting the early days when Sammartino would hold the title for ten years or whatever. That's just a different era, like how pitchers would win 40 games in a season in the early days of baseball.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Its hard to say because the business model is different. In the 70s & 80s I would length of reign first, number of reigns second. Back then you didnt have live weekly TV with main event caliber matches or monthly PPVs. A champion had to sell more on the road than TV because few top level matches aired on TV. Guys like Flair, Race, & Bruno had long reigns, proving they sold tickets all over, and multiple reigns proving the company kept coming back to them because no one else moved tickets as well consitently.

By the mid 90s WCW was forcing changes in promotional philosophy introducing monthly PPVs & airing more top level matches on weekly TV, especially on Nitro. This meant storylines & feuds moved faster and subsequently titles changed hands faster. These days a 6-8 month reign is like a 12-15 month run in the 80s. A champ for 6-8 months probably wrestles on over 25 RAWs or SDs and main events at least 6 PPVs, at least one, maybe two of the Mega Four (WM, RR, S-Sam, S-Series). Thats a pretty good run, especially since they still have to draw on the road too.

Edge never really had a defining long run, Cena & HHH have, that combined with the total number of reigns I believe makes them the best champions of the past decade.