Now this sparked out of a post about Edge have 9 title reigns in 3 years. Now the thought about it, there is some hypocrisy about moaning about Edge's World Title reigns compared to the times when a number of wrestlers had a similiar amount of holdings of the prestigious belt in WWE.
The first person I think of is The Rock, he held the championship on 9 occasions (7 x WWE, 2 x WCW). Within the first 5 months of his first capture, he was already a 3 time World Champion and eventually it spanned out to having 8 World Titles within 3 years of winning his first belt. Now this very similiar to Edge, yet should we overlook this because he was over at the time? It's still the same amount, with 7 of his reigns being shorter than 3 months (some cases 1 month).
3 titles in 5 months
8 out of 9 Championships in 3 years
Next, naturally, is Triple H. He first won his title in 1999. In the first year of that, he held the title a futher 3 occasions, making a total of 4 in his first year, 2 more than what Edge had by the end of his first year since winning his first reign. Add an extra 2 years, yes there was an injury, but by the time Triple H was 3 years in from winning his first reign, injury aside, he had another reign and was also GIVEN the World Title shortly after Brock Lesnar was made Smackdown exclusive.
4 Titles in first year
6 out of 13 Championships in the first 3 years.
Next Stone Cold Steve Austin, he first won his title at Wrestlemania 14. By the time he won the title again at Wrestlemania 15, he was a 3 time champion. When he reached his third year (Wrestlemania X-Seven) he won his 5th title and gained a 6th later on in the year. He had all of his title reigns in the space of 4 years.
3 Titles in first year
5 out of 6 Championships in 3 years.
Few other honourable mentions:
Jeff Hardy - 3 reigns within 9 months
CM Punk - 3 reigns just over 1 year
Orton - 4 reigns in the past 2 years
Point being. I think where people go way over the top about Edge's title reigns, yes they are quite alot, but he's a reliable champion. He's had the equal amount of treatment similiar to that of people back in the attitude era and even those today. I think where it is alot for Edge to have, you need to look closer at those who had similiar reigns. You have legends of the company having near similiar amount of reigns to Edge, some in the same short amount of time but also the same amount as Edge took to win his titles.
I mean The Rock, only 2/3 of his championship runs lasted more than a month yet we consider him one of the greats, when in championship terms, he done the same amount as Edge. The same can be said of Triple H and even Hardy and Punk, the latter two have had worster reigns yet 3 of them within 13 months of combined. I think it's easier to exclude Austin because he reigns have lasted a decent amount of time when he's held the belt.
Question is, when you think of Edge's reigns, do we actually think about the other guys who've had high amount of championships and look closely at their reigns?
But do you think it's easier to focus on the championship reigns nowadays because they place more emphasis on them? It's a just thing that's bugging me abit and I wanted to know what you think? Or is it simply we're overlooking the matter that we may consider Edge one of the greats in the future?
The first person I think of is The Rock, he held the championship on 9 occasions (7 x WWE, 2 x WCW). Within the first 5 months of his first capture, he was already a 3 time World Champion and eventually it spanned out to having 8 World Titles within 3 years of winning his first belt. Now this very similiar to Edge, yet should we overlook this because he was over at the time? It's still the same amount, with 7 of his reigns being shorter than 3 months (some cases 1 month).
3 titles in 5 months
8 out of 9 Championships in 3 years
Next, naturally, is Triple H. He first won his title in 1999. In the first year of that, he held the title a futher 3 occasions, making a total of 4 in his first year, 2 more than what Edge had by the end of his first year since winning his first reign. Add an extra 2 years, yes there was an injury, but by the time Triple H was 3 years in from winning his first reign, injury aside, he had another reign and was also GIVEN the World Title shortly after Brock Lesnar was made Smackdown exclusive.
4 Titles in first year
6 out of 13 Championships in the first 3 years.
Next Stone Cold Steve Austin, he first won his title at Wrestlemania 14. By the time he won the title again at Wrestlemania 15, he was a 3 time champion. When he reached his third year (Wrestlemania X-Seven) he won his 5th title and gained a 6th later on in the year. He had all of his title reigns in the space of 4 years.
3 Titles in first year
5 out of 6 Championships in 3 years.
Few other honourable mentions:
Jeff Hardy - 3 reigns within 9 months
CM Punk - 3 reigns just over 1 year
Orton - 4 reigns in the past 2 years
Point being. I think where people go way over the top about Edge's title reigns, yes they are quite alot, but he's a reliable champion. He's had the equal amount of treatment similiar to that of people back in the attitude era and even those today. I think where it is alot for Edge to have, you need to look closer at those who had similiar reigns. You have legends of the company having near similiar amount of reigns to Edge, some in the same short amount of time but also the same amount as Edge took to win his titles.
I mean The Rock, only 2/3 of his championship runs lasted more than a month yet we consider him one of the greats, when in championship terms, he done the same amount as Edge. The same can be said of Triple H and even Hardy and Punk, the latter two have had worster reigns yet 3 of them within 13 months of combined. I think it's easier to exclude Austin because he reigns have lasted a decent amount of time when he's held the belt.
Question is, when you think of Edge's reigns, do we actually think about the other guys who've had high amount of championships and look closely at their reigns?
But do you think it's easier to focus on the championship reigns nowadays because they place more emphasis on them? It's a just thing that's bugging me abit and I wanted to know what you think? Or is it simply we're overlooking the matter that we may consider Edge one of the greats in the future?
