Should wrestlers have less title reigns?

[ulimate123]

In todays WWE day and age we have like 7/8 title reigns for wrestlers and IMO makes the WHC and WWE titles less prestigious and makes them look nothing more than 'objects' to get people to super stardom. I mean does it look better when it reads for a certain wrestler; 2/3 title reigns or 8/13 title reigns?

 

[klunderbunker]

The title reigns make people look stronger and weaker at the same time. Ric Flair is a 16 time world's champion. Do you know what I see when I hear that? He's also lost it 16 times. Having a lot of title reigns can indeed help but it can also hurt things. Take Edge for example. Him stealing all those title reigns has made him a much better character. On the other hand, Cena having I believe 4 title reigns has made him a bigger star because the reigns have meant more. It's not about the title wins. It's about the title reigns.

 

[rowdy ruben]

i agree i would rather have 4 title reigns and have them mean something and have a good run then 8 and not have a good run. edge and cena are a great comparsion edge hasent held the title for longer then 3 months. everytime cena has been champion its been between 3-13 months long

 

[kenvin100]

It depends on the situation, Edge is the ultimate opportunist and plays the part very well..he will do just about anything to become champ, that includes sleeping with the GM of smackdown! Of course, 8 title reigns in 3yrs is a little to much in my opinion.

I do agree that the WWE should really appreciate the number of days as champion, over the number of reigns. As klunderbunker stated, 16 reigns also means 16 losses.

When these superstars do get inducted into the HOF, they should be creditted with the number of days as world champ, not the number of reigns.

 

[gateway425]

I think the title has been down graded a lot. HHH having 13 reigns is just ludacris when imo HBK is a much better wrestler and should have more reigns. Look at Jeff Hardy. His reign was piss poor just because of the way they booked him. And it doesn't look like he will get one until the middle of this year.

 

[richardleaf20]

If you look at title reigns as number of days held rather than number of reigns, Edge may never make it into the HOF based on his World title victories. Edge has been World Champion 351 days as of this posting, whereas John Cena had his 3rd WWE Title reign last 380 days alone (and a total of 877 days to date over 4 reigns)! Ric Flair himself had 3,725 days over 16 title reigns in NWA, WCW, and WWF/E. So inducting people based on number of days I think isn't such a good idea imo. More title reigns looks better on a resume only when the reigns actually mean something. For example, Kane's WWF/E title win in 1998 is pointless to count because he held it for less than 24 hours; you see what I mean? I'm just saying.

 

[DJ-LyRiX]

I think that the titles still mean something, but they do in the sense of adding to personal feuds. Look at Triple H & Randy Orton tonight. The title on the line at Wrestlemania will give Orton that added impetus to fight Hunter. Hunter wants revenge, but is still hell-bent on being champion.

The same with Edge and his title reigns. Though none of them have been particularly long, the number 8 is impressive to boast about. The classic heel "spin" to put on that is, despite losing it 7 times, he has won it 8 times. Heels distort truth, put the bias on what they want you to hear. Flair was a heel for a lot of his career and did the same thing.

So I guess what I'm saying is, it's all down to context. I think the titles have switched a little too much lately. Longer title reigns make sense on heel champs taking on all comers, so that when they do get beat, the face gets a huge pop. Same the other way round, a face keeping the title for a long time then getting beaten gives the heel loads of heat.

Someone like Edge uses the Ultimate Opportunist thing well. It fits his character. JBL did the "cheating to keep the title" thing well too. It's all about the characters, not the titles. They are props, but still mean something as the superstars fight over them!

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

As KB said, the wins don't mean squat, it's the reigns that matter. So therefore Undertaker winning the title 6 times but never having a reign that lasted more than 4-5 months makes him look like a terrible champion.

Edge is an 8 timer now right? What's his longest reign exactly? Something like 4 months as well, and that was before losing to Taker at WM, so he was destined to lose it by the time April came around anyway. He's one of these guys who looks like an awesome heel by cheating to beat the big dogs, but looks like he doesn't belong in the big leagues when he gets beaten so quickly afterward.

I mean, he hasn't had one clean title retention has he? I know he's the heel and isn't supposed to win cleanly, but compare heel Edge against heel HHH who actually BEATS his opponents regularly without always resorting to cheating.

In the last 12 months i have preferred watching Santino defend the IC title in 2 minute matches where he just falls on the guy and wins, as opposed to someone like Punk never defend the thing, chase the WWE title and lose the IC title on Raw one week to someone at random.

I'd want Kane to have a year long reign as champ and then never get another shot after losing it, then him have 8 reigns that never lasted more than 2 months.

 

[ad21k]

Theres nothing wrong with having short reigns, in fact they should be more common than lengthly title reigns. The main benefit of lengthy title reigns is that it improves the credibilityof both champion and championship i.e. it seems harder to win it. The problem with long reigns is you need someone who is both entertaining and a guaranteed draw to pull it off (Cena) , otherwise people get bored, and switch off.

 

[Blade]

Very few people will ever have a reign that lasts more than a few months, simply because of how easily it can be for wrestling fans to stop caring about wrestlers.
A wrestler would need to be VERY over to get a title reign for longer than 6 or so months. And the WWE would have to be pretty confident that the fans wouldn't get sick of him and start booing him if he's face *cough*Cena*cough*

 

[The Big Gunnzbowski]

With the attention span of wrestling fans today, numerous title reigns shouldn't come as a surprise. Do you think todays fans would watch wrestling if someone held the title for 2 years? Look at HHH... When he has the title, he's invincible. There really is no skill involved if you look at the way he holds them. You just EXPECT him to be an impossible win. The way wrestling has evolved, in my eyes, leaves no room for long title reigns. Even announcers make a big deal if someone holds the title for more than 3-5 months. It's just the way the business has evolved... I think it just needs to be accepted and embraced, until the next era begins...

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

I think that it all has to do with the wrestling fans today as opposed to the fans from before. Nowadays, there are a lot of kids that watch the WWE as opposed to before and they can't stand to see one wrestler holding the title for any longer than 3 months, unless it's someone they are able to admire, such as John Cena, C.M. Punk, Rey Mysterio, etc. So that could be one of the main reasons why WWE has so many title changes so often. There was a time when wrestlers could hold the title numerous times and still have every title reign have a lot of meaning whether the reigns were long or short, but nowadays, that is not the case. You have John Cena with 4 title reigns, all of which held a major purpose in Cena's career, same with Batista, and Triple H. Then again, you have wrestlers who hold the title multiple times just to lose it to someone shortly after, such as Edge or Chris Jericho. So, you could have a lot of title reigns and be a bad champion and you can have only one reign and be considered a great champion. It all depends on how you are booked as the champion, whether it's a dominant one, an underdog, or whatever.