The More Gold The Better; Lengthy or Monthly

[MOExecution]

I think prime examples of my title, "The More Gold The Better" would have to be John Cena and Edge! John Cena has not been in the Professional Wrestling business not even 10 years. (Will be in 2011) And since 2005 John Cena has been winning the World Championship! He won it his first time and kept it for nearly nine months and this was in 2005. In 2006 John Cena won the WWE Championship two more times. Then I believe John Cena was out for a year with his injury. He came back won the WWE World HeavyWeight Championship in 2008 and then won the title again in 2009. He then won the WWE Championship two more times in the same year. And then this year we have seen John Cena win the WWE Championship twice in 2010! That adds up to nine World Championships in less then five years.

Edge won his first two WWE Championships in the year 2006. In 2007 we saw Edge win the World HeavyWeight Championship twice. 2008 we saw Edge with the World HeavyWeight Championship once and the WWE Championship once. In 2009 We saw Edge with the WWE Championship once more, but winning the World HeavyWeight Championship two more times in the same year. His title reigns adding up to nine in less then four years!

Now the reason I chose John Cena and Edge as my examples is because throughout the last five years we have seen these two men win and lose the World Titles off and on. And here is my question for all of you... Even though John Cena and Edge won the World Titles nine times does that make them better? Over the past few years we have seen the World Titles basically thrown to everybody like it was a Hot Potato. And that can be another question... Are the World Titles credibility in Jeopardy because of it? Instead of the World Titles being the companies biggest prize instead it is used as a test for some like Sheamus or Jack Swagger to see if they can get over with the crowd. The WWE Championships are rarely kept around the waist of any superstar now for more then three months. I know what some are going to say, "WWE is PG and the little kids get bored and blah blah blah." But I just want to take you back in the past...

In 2004 JBL won the WWE Championship and held the WWE Championship for more then a year! He went on and defeated men like; Eddie Guererro, The Undertaker, Kurt Angle, The Big Show, Booker T, and more. This gave people that feeling like, "Who will be able to take this guy out?" And with his dirty antics and brawler like style of wrestling people hated JBL. I have to admit during this era is when I thought the WWE Championship was the most prestigious World Title in the company because it felt prestigious it had that feeling because it was not tossed around like a toy. Then when John Cena won the title it was a moment people will never forget because somebody FINALLY knocked the king off of his pedestal and won the big one. But what made JBL's reign so memorable is that he won it only once and left a legacy behind him that possibly would never be matched.

In 2005 you had John Cena hold onto the WWE Championship for nine months straight like previously stated. He went on and defeated guys such as JBL, Chris Jericho, Christian, Kurt Angle, and again many more. Even though people began to jeer John Cena around this time you have to admit he was dominating and was a force to be reckoned with and once again that is why when someone like Edge turned in the Money in the Bank briefcase and won the WWE Championship that is why people remember that moment because it wasn't tossed around like a ball. What made this reign of John Cena so memorable is because of the stars he beaten and how long he held the belt. But now you don't have that same shock value because we see a New World Champion almost monthly. So when are we ever again going to have a shocking title victory? Are we ever going to see another lengthy title run like JBL and John Cena had?

But tell me if you agree or disagree. Does the more Gold make you better? Do you perfer Lengthly or Monthly World Champions? Give me your thoughts!

 

[airvar]

I disagree with the notion a longer title reign = more title prestige..

I think the prestige of a title is directly influenced by who holds that title, and how much people want that title..

Example : when the Ultimate Warrior faced Hogan with the IC title, the prestige was through the roof, not because Warrior held it for so long but because it was part of the Main event, it was on the fastest rising star in the sport, and Everybody wanted a shot at it.. It meant something because big names WANTED that title.. When the best in the buisness want it, it makes it seem more valuable..

I think for a title to have prestige it just needs to have people who will do anything for that title.. Look at the WWE title right now, it has prestige because you have Orton/Cena/Edge/ Jericho/ Sheamus/ Barrett all willing to do ANYTHING to get a shot at that title and call themselves the WWE champion, the competition competing for a belt directly show's how prestigeous a belt is, not how long said belt is held..

The WWF (at the time) title meant alot when Austin/Rock/Angle/HHH were all after it, and not because they held it for insane periods of time, but because everyone wanted a shot..


Hell look at Drew McIntyre's run as IC champ, it hurt the titles value because you forgot about it.. He stopped defending it for a long while, and without any contendors or people who WANT the title, there's no reason for it to matter? If nobody want's to fight for it why does it matter?

Same goes for the Tag Titles right now, and the U.S. Championship after Miz/MVP feud, when he formed ShoMiz..

Neither one were consistantly defended, and while they are getting "long" title reign's it dosen't add to the prestige of the title, it just looks like nobody cares enough to challenge for them..

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The days of wrestlers holding championships for years on end are gone and they're not coming back. Wrestling has a much stronger presence on television than now than it did in the 70s or 80s and, even then, having title runs that lasted years were still rare. If you were to go back and look at the title history of all the various NWA championships, you'll see that the vast majority of the runs weren't lengthy. There were exceptions, of course, and it was usually the World Champions that made up the exceptions.

John Cena has had a single run as WWE Champion last more a year or more and I don't know if I've ever seen the IWC complain more during that title run. A lot of wrestling fans don't have the attention or interest for a single guy to carry a world title for years on end.

However, I do believe that title runs do need to be less frequent than they are in some ways. The WWE Championship has changed hands 4 times in 2010 and, personally, I don't think it needs to change anymore this year.

Long reigns also don't necessarily equal prestige for a title or champion. In TNA, Rob Terry held the then TNA Global Championship for 6 months and neither he or the title has gained one shread of credibility. How you tend to be booked as champion is what, for me, means the most.

 

[johnbragg]

Titles don't get credibility from long reigns. They get credibility when they are only held by the top wrestlers. Cena and Edge, or Cena and Orton, or HHH/Rock/Austin/Foley/Angle could pass the belt around every week without risking the prestige of the title.

When the title goes to a Seamus or a Swagger, that risks the credibility of the title--will the title transform the new guy into a top guy? Seamus yes, Swagger no.

What's worse is when the champion is booked to look significantly weaker than another star on the program, like when Undertaker ran over Punk in 2009 and sent him back to the midcard. Not only should the title mean something, the title "former champion" should mean something.

 

[Radical Canadian Goose]

I think that lengthier title reigns are meant to really get a champ over as a heel. Your example was JBL...back in 2004 I believe that he had just broke away from Faarooq and starting a singles career. He won the title really early in his singles run and therefore needed to draw some major heat to seem like a legitimate champ. Job well done to the WWE writing team, as I consider JBL to be one of the best champs of the past decade. Face champs can lose the title at any given time because they are already over with the crowd and won't lose any momentum. Personally I wish that Swagger would have held the belt for a long period of time, just to build some heat. I love the job being done with Sheamus, however, and I would love for him to be built as a JBL like champ, but we all know that he'll lose the belt in the Sixpack challenge, cause Vince is bored and wants to stir something up. What is ruining these long title reigns is MITB...Vince wants to build new stars and builds this match (and now a PPV) then lets these wrestlers cash in almost instantly (Swagger, Kane). The titles have lost all credibility

 

[Marcesto Del Santos Vega]

WWE is trying to build as many stars as quickly as possible by passing the title to shaemus twice already he is ready to be labeled as a top heavyweight main eventer. I personally dont look at shaemus in that way but this is a new age a new time its 2010 you cant have the same BULL that was happening around in2004-2007.


MY Blog The Legends Championship/Global/Television........


back in 2009 booker T officially announced the Legends championship since then it was renamed global which makes no sense at all isnt Global and world the same thing? its like having two world champions belts and named differently. If anything they should have kept the Global and got rid of the world heavyweight since they both pretty much have the same meaning. By renaming it the television title isnt it degrading the titles value???????? i mean WCW tv didnt mean crap and ecw's tv title was like what us title is to WWE only US titlle has twice more value. Should tna kept the legens title? replaced world heavy weight with global and neve brought in the TV title? your thoughts...........

 

[Marcesto Del Santos Vega]

Sorry I left out one thing........ the legends title could have worked as the top tite belt

1) could refer the champ as lets say Kurt Angle the Legends Champ which means heavyweight

2) or the TNA Global champ could have worked as well think about it when you think of Heavyweight champ do you think of the top TNA guy or WWE?

your right WWE so tna should have kept the global title as top belt and legends the second rate belt! I am so smart...

 

[Ducey13]

I prefer the lengthy title reigns as opposed to quicker title changes. It defitinally build the champion as a force when he holds onto a belt from 6months to a year. At the time I hated Triple H 9 month title reign, but in retrospect (NOT a Triple H fan at ALL!) it was good because we hadn't seen a title reign like that in a long long time. It opened the door for JBL's 9month reign and Cena's year long run.

I do think WWE will eventually get back to this but not for a few years. It comes and goes in cycles.

As far as being a 9X or 13X champion......its is kinda cheap. Ric Flair's record of 16X should NEVER be broken. And I thought it never would be years ago. But now it looks like not only Triple H will surpass it but Cena and maybe Orton as well. (I don't think Edge will get there because of injuries slowing him down)

At the end of your Career, if you can say you were a 9 or 10X world Champion, that should be a HUGE accomplishment. I mean Hogan is a 12X and Flair at 16X, these guys wrestled for over 20yrs! So to be a 9X in less then 10 is disappointing. The problem is how many times can fans get excited about watching John Cena or Randy Orton winning a world title?

I'm going to defend Edge alittle here. His gimmick is being the ultimate opportunist, so winning the title multiple time through various deception means works for his character (Flair = Dirtiest Player in the Game?)

 

[Tenebrous]

Random note: the World title and the Intercontinental title are the same title but named differently.

As for my argument, I see both sides of the coin here. I know the days of selling WWE as legitimate sport is long in the rear view mirror, but I think the point of the constant title changes is to create parity--any superstar can be defeated on any night.

The downside, in the eyes of the IWC, is that a title loses value. Take the Orton/Cena feud from SummerSlam-Bragging Rights '09. In a span of 4 PPVs, the WWE title switched hands three times. One could say that Orton and Cena are so even matched that either could walk out with the title or conversely, booking got lazy. People complained about the rivalry because they headlined 5 straight PPVs, feuded so often, and that neither kept the title long during the feud.


I don't mind champions being chased (JBL, Cena, Edge) but champions having the title too long isn't believable either (Cena 2006, Batista 2005-2006). Titles need balance is order maintain a level of interest and prestige.

 

[Ming]

The title reigns a wrestler has aren't important (in my opinion) unless they are lengthy runs with some good clean defences. When wrestler's like Cena or Edge are just playing catch with the World Title and are losing it and winning it monthly then that just reminds that there aren't any good title reigns anymore, which I think is just a mistake WWE keep making. When WWE rack up the amount of titles a wrestler like Edge has after that it's just a cheap way of making them sound like legends.

 

[stevejeckel]

gold doesnt matter for shit when people are picked for hall of fame. some people held one or none title belts yet they are in the HOF. so the answer is NO!

 

[Dhays9]

I think for prestige the title should be head for atleast 3 ppvs (equals to about three months) defend in between then and have the champ win cleanly.

The main thing is the champ needs to win and win while defending the title or else it just doesn' look credible at all.

 

[wushady]

I think a long reign could add prestige to a title if the champion defends it regularly. If it's not defended often it's just a prop for someone to carry around. Having a guy with credibility holding the title is very important as well. If the champion is weak then the title looks weak.

I think having a title for a descent amount of time makes the champion and the title more important and prestigious respectfully. When the title is passed back and forth it makes the title look less prestigious.