Memorable, or the amount of times you've had it?

[The Raven's Epitaph]

No, I don't mean sex. I mean Championships.

What do you think is more important? Having a memorable championship reign, or having the championship the most amount of times?

For example, we can now look at Edge. At TLC, Edge cemented himself amongst the few that have had 10 or more World Championships. But is it really that much of an accomplishment?

People such as Triple H and Ric Flair have had the strap countless times and people that haven't hit 10 reigns or more are well on their way. John Cena is up to 9, Randy Orton at 7 and Chris Jericho at 6.

I personally prefer the more memorable title reigns such as JBL's reign from The Great American Bash 2004 up until Wrestlemania 21. Despite saying that, I also think it works both ways. Whilst Triple H has had the strap 13 times, he's also had some memorable championship reigns like his monster run in 2003. He's also had some other memorable championship reigns, but for the wrong reasons. I personally thought his Smackdown WWE Championship run was awful. The best thing about it was that he jobbed to Jeff Hardy.

Without going off subject, you pretty much know the question now.

So, what do you prefer?
Memorable championship reigns, or people that have had the championship the most amount of times?

 

[nbrew2119]

As far as the amount of title reigns, I'm not too impressed with a reign, if it only last a couple weeks.

If you look back at Cena, besides his reign of over a year, and his first reign of 9 months, his longest reign is only 2 months. HHH had a 9 months reign in 2003(i think), then, his Smackdown reign was 7 months, but, not much besides. Jericho, his only long reign was his very first one, where he beat Austin and Rock in the same night. Orton has only had one long reign of 6 months, then, for the most part, the rest are short. Finally, Edge. When he headlined Wrestlemania against the Undertaker, he had a reign of 3.5 months, and the rest of the reigns are all short.

Now, dont get me wrong, when a wrestler holds the Heavyweight title 7, 8, 9, 10, or however many times, it is impressive. For me personally, I would just be impressed with the person, if they held the title for more than a commercial break.

 

[Dzone]

I'm gonna have to go with memorable title reigns, although holding 10+ title reigns may be great it's hardly useful if nobody remembers them. For example people like Triple H, yes he may have 13 or however many title reigns but he has had very memorable ones that established him as one of the best.

As nbrew stated it seems to be that all performers have a longer first title reign to establish them as championship material and then they end up having loads and it gets hard remembering the inbetweeners (lol).

Currently I'm liking Ziggler and his IC title reign because he is getting over as a heel, has had the title for quite a bit now and is performing in-ring to back it up. So what I'm getting at is that it is usually the case that you get one title reign within your first 2 years if you have proved yourself to McMahon and get a reaction. Then if you get a reaction from the crowd, it leads to a long reign to establish yourself and then once your are consistent with reaction etc but not getting enough of a reaction then it goes to the next guy in the chain; but if you are you end up on the level of Cena, Triple H and so forth.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I think in the past, when Championship belts changed hands alot less frequently and there was only ONE belt in the company, that the number of times a wrestler held the strap meant alot more than now. People like Hulk Hogan only ever held the belt 5 or 6 times, and the Undertaker has held the title more times in the last few years than he ever did back in the early 90s.

I think you have to look at how memorable a title reign in the modern era was, rather than just the number of times someone has held A (notice I said A, not THE) Heavyweight Title, because with the titles changing hands so quickly, and twice as many world titles to compete for, they simply do not mean as much and do not have to be earned to the same degree. There is not a chance in hell that Edge has had more memorable title reigns that guys like Hogan but yet he has held a world title on nearly twice as many occasions as The Hulkster, which makes Edge look better than he is.

As wrestling is not a genuine sport, and the outcome of matches are pre-determined, the number of times a wrestler holds the title means less than in a sport such as boxing, where you cannot dispute someone winning multiple world titles. That is a sign that they are the best, not a sign that the office wants them to win the title in swerve turn on their best friend. In wrestling, it is the quality of the matches that counts now, World Titles are used more as a prop to get a wrestler over, not a symbol that that person has reached the top and is the best at what they do.

Ric Flair is a 16 time world champion, but his record is memorable not for the number of times he held the title, but for how long and how good his matches were back in the day. Same for Hogan (ok, forget the great matches), but he held the title for years as he was THE MAN in the WWE. He did not lose it at Royal Rumble, to win it back at WM, to lose it at SummerSlam...he carried the belt and represented WWE as its top man. As a Champion should.

Look at Bruno Sammartino...he held the belt probably as long as Edge has been a main eventer-8 years, and had a second title reign of over 4 years. Therefore to me, those 2 title reigns totalling 12 years means more than winning 10 titles in the space of a few years. Bob Backlund is another. 3 title reigns totally over 6 years. This is when the world title meant something. To be regarded as worthy of holding that belt for so long indicates to me that you are something special, and arent just passing the belt around like a hot potato, which is happeing in the WWE now, and has been occuring since the Attitude Era. As much as I love the AE, it did lessen the credibility of the World Title, and the Brand Split destroyed it further.

I simply do not think the World Title means that much in wrestling now. I do not look at the champion and think "You are the best", I simply think who is going to win it next?

Today, it is whether the title reign is memorable or not. If you are a main eventer, you WILL get the title at some point, thats almost certain (unlike the 80s, when guys as good as Piper never got the belt), so I am looking for memorable matches, long term title reigns and carrying the belt like a real champion in order to represent the company as a credible champion, not just the number of times you have held it.

 

[neildittmar]

Nowadays, I think the number of title reigns matters much much less than the amount of time a championship is held. Reason? There is exactly one company (WWE) that is regarded as the top promotion in the U.S. and abroad. Despite being at #2, TNA is nowhere near the WWE in terms of noteriety, ratings, sales, and other critical tangibles of success. Then you have the independents and outliers... a large majority of which never gain any attention outside of an extremely localized scope.

In Flair's days, while the territory system was in full effect and there were a number of major players on the scene, the number of world title reigns meant so much more. Each title reign represented a different promoters confidence in that individual... to lead and in some aspects define the company as a whole. The more places you were "champion", the more credibility you carried... the more people knew who you were and the more you were regarded as something "special."

Today, that's just not the case. I find it borderline offensive that HHH's 9 or so "WWE-only" title reigns would be regarded as anywhere near comparable to the 20+ times Flair has held a promotions top or "world" championship. Hunter's multiple title reigns simply show that Vince/WWE creative had the confidence to put the title on him that many times. Flair's reigns show that multiple, distinct promoters all over the country thought similarly highly of the Nature Boy, since they knew he would boost attendence figures, product marketability, etc. There is simply no comparison between the two.

Because of the current landscape of pro-wrestling, length of reign is infinitely more important than number of times as champion. The attitude/nWo era of wrestling and its "anything can happen" style of TV brought us sometimes weekly title changes amongst a variety of wresters... some of which had no business carrying the banner for the company, even for a mere 3 or 7 days. That said, when WWE or TNA puts a world title around the waist of an individual for 9 months, a year, or even more, that is what shows a level of confidence in that person... similar to what the number of title reigns used to mean.

The funny thing is, notice how infrequently that actually happens anymore. We are definitely post-Attitude era, but the frequent exchanging of the promotions top belt hasn't really changed all that much. What commentary does that make about the wrestlers or the organization in general?

 

[RicSpade]

I pretty much have to agree with the person above me, see the problem now a days is that one WWE unless you were from WCW doesn't count you as a world champion, and I think thats why the amount of reigns doesn't really matter anymore. If it did think about it, Edge won the big one only in WWE 10 times, same with Triple H, John Cena, etc. To me the amount of reigns you had are more impressive when you have done it in multiple Franchises. Team 3D a 23 time world tag champion they didn't win them all in TNA they won it in ECW, WWE, Japan, WWE WCW title, and TNA that makes it more impressive.

Ric Flair is a 16 time world champion he didn't win them all in WWE he won it in WWE and WCW and traveled all over the world defending the belt. Kurt Angle I believe is now a 13 time world champion, but again he has won in WWE, TNA and Japan. So if you look at where they won the world titles at from this standpoint then yes the amount of titles won are more impressive.

The Reign of a champion however is important if its done right. Santinos reign as Intercontinental Champion was brilliant because in my mind I think how close he kept getting to the Honky Tonk Man. Hulk Hogan holding the belt for over two years and being one of the longest reigning champs in history. Bruno Sanmartino, Ric Flair, Harley Race,Goldberg, Triple H. Their longest reigns are mainly memorable because of the build for their loss. If I remember right the longest reign Triple H had was during the HHH-Steph era, WCW was all about Goldberg before he came crashing down at Srarrcade, Harley Race was a fighting champ until he lost to Flair. Flair traveled all over the world every time he held the belt.
So really its all about how you look at it, but IMHO compared to now-a-days whether your a 1 time champ or a 33 time champ if you only won it in one company you have nothing to brag about.

 

[Chill]

I was thinking about this recently in light of Edge winning it for the tenth time and I honestly think it's more favourable if you have one or two memorable title reigns as opposed to many meaningless ones which are instantly forgetable.

For example, Edge has held the belt that many times that it's hard to remember any particular one as being particularly outsanding - most of those reigns were transitional, which translates as them not being overly memorable.

Of course, some of those reigns have been more memorable than others, such as when he held it in 2008 and feuded with The Undertaker but my main point is that when a wrestler has many title reigns it becomes instantly more difficult to recall them, if even by the mere fact they've had the belt so often and in that sense all the reigns become intangled.

The same case could be made for guys like Chris Jericho or The Undertaker, neither of whom have had that one long run that they arguably deserve, despite being multiple time champions. But that's what happens when there are two world titles in one company alone and when that company likes to play hot potato with the belts then the result is useless title reigns.

Then you look at someone like JBL with his lengthly title run on Smackdown and it's memorable because he was given time to run with the belt, even Kane this year with his six month World Title reign is memorable because he was largely booked as a dominant champion with impressive promos and angles...

Overall, I'd take lesser reigns with the belt so long as they are meaningful as opposed to multiple transitional or poor title reigns.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Memorable reigns surely. At the end of the day the number of times you have won the title is a mere statistic. Wrestling is not about statistics, its about memorable moments. If winning a title X number of times meant something then Jeff Jarrett would have surely been considered a bigger superstar than Stone Cold Steve Austin.

Memorable title reigns provide us memorable moments and that is what makes for compelling television that draws in the viewers. So memorable title reigns mean more.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Memorable reigns surely. At the end of the day the number of times you have won the title is a mere statistic. Wrestling is not about statistics, its about memorable moments. If winning a title X number of times meant something then Jeff Jarrett would have surely been considered a bigger superstar than Stone Cold Steve Austin.

Nicely put. If you look at how many recognised world titles each wrestler has, then it is a disgrace that Jarrett has held more world title belts than guys like Hulk Hogan, Undertaker, Bret Hart, Stone Cold etc.

Nice when you run your own company isn't it???? Man I hated TNA when JJ was the champ, thank god he is no longer in the title picture

 

[JDX]

Memorable reigns, but it is very hard to actually do that once you someone becomes champion. Most guys are better chasing the belt unless they can make a long reign dominant. Cena did it with his first 3 then the other six were shit done for money. Of course you could say the exact same about Austin or Rock. Edge, Orton, Cena all tripled their number of titles in 2 year spans. I think the really short reigns have an edge up on long ones but only when you look at who held them. Swagger's first, Mysterio's second; no but his first, Eddie's first, Benoit's first, the boyhood dream, Orton being betrayed by Evolution, and first and foremost Foley's one day reign (these are just off the top my head if anyone else wants to ad). These were good because it was going to be a rare thing to see, something special for those around to witness it and looking in retrospect, would never be seen again.

 

[Save_us.sabin]

Definatly memorable. Memorable doesnt even mean long, look at the summer of punk title reign. Punk held it for a relativley short time in RoH title terms, but it was memorable in the defenses and promos who did. The thing WWE needs to do is have the wrestlers seem like the titles the only reason for living. The titles in wwe almost seem like a prop used to make fueds seem bette

 

[LSN80]

If you want to look at a champion as being great just due to number oof championship reigns, then you would have to rank Jerry Lawler and Jeff Jarrett among the all-time greats due to their numerous championship reigns within their own promotion(s), and look at Michelle McCool as one of the greatest Divas of all time.

One of the things that people have to consider though is that just because a title is long, that doesnt necessarily make it memorable, or in better words, remarkable. There are memorable championship reigns that are very good, such as Cena's reign in 06/07, and forgetable reigns such as HHH's championship reign on Smackdown back in 2008. Cena won the belt in a TLC match, and defended it in memorable matches such as a Steel Cage Match against Edge, a Last Man Standing match vs Umaga, at Wrestlemania 23 vs HBK, and at Summerslam vs Randy Orton, among other gems.

As for HHH, he defended the belt against Jeff Hardy 3 times, a championship Scramble match, The Great Khali, and Vladimir Kozlov. None of those matches except for one match against Hardy at No Mercy 08 were momentous, other then for them being bad matches.

Certainly, the number of title wins fails to indicate quality. Edge has had 10 championship reigns, but has never held the title for more then 3 months. He's in an elite class of title holders in terms of accomplishments, but hardly in terms of being memorable. Cena on the other hand has gotten every bit out of every championshiip reign, whether they lasted a year, or 2 months. Why do we watch as fans? For the moments. Cena capturing his first title against JBL at WM 21 was hardly a good match, but it certainly was memorable, as was his entire first title reign.

So absolutely, for me, it's about momentous occasions. Even when wrestlers talk about Wrestlemania, they dont necessarily talk about winning a "Wrestlemania Championship." They talk about having a "Wrestlemania Moment". If they can have a real "moment" at Wrestlemania, and win a championship, then obviously, thats the best of both worlds. But Shawn Micahels is 6-10 at Wrestlemania and he's likely responsible for more Wrestlemania moments then anyone in WWE history.

So the more memories a wrestler can create within their championship reign, the more it obviously means. Length, nor number of times, are as important as that. Creating moments, match quality, and the way one carries themself as a champion means the most to me.

 

[TUFFY54]

I've never been impressed with a huge number of title reigns. I think having multiple reigns as champion makes you look week. Look at it like this: To be a 10 time world champion, you had to lose the belt 9 times. Edge won his first 5 years ago. He's also been in tag teams and injured, so we can say that he's only been in the world title picture 4 years and already lost the belt 9 times! His first reign lasted 3 weeks, his second 2 months. It isn't something to brag about. Hell even Kevin Nash held onto the belt for a year.

 

[The Idiot]

The number of times doesn't mean anything...it's all about the reign.

Who can forget RVD's reign as ECW Television champion? He successfully defended that title for 2 years with memorable bouts against Jerry Lynn.

To me that is more important then winning the title 12 times that nobody ever remembers.