Cm punk claimed that he is the best in the world because of his lengthy reign and i disagree with that (he is so much good but not the best in my idea). for example you can look at bob backlund reign which is 2nd. his reign ended by iron sheikh in a semi squash match that much is a good reason for iron sheikh being better that bob but sheikh's reign was so short and he never became champion. so is anyone else have better reasons to disagree with me that lengthy reign is not equal to being the best.
Title Reign = Being the best, or not ?
- Thread starter mojmass
- Start date
Yes and no. Simply put that while it's more about what you do as champion than how long you are champion, that doesn't mean you can make strides as champion is short time that will leave an impact. True that Bob Backlund may have had a long reign that to many wasn't all that outstanding but Bruno Sammartino's surely was. As was Hulk Hogan's from '84 to '87. In contrast Stone Cold and The Rock also had major impact but their reigns were not so long. There's a balance to be reached. And in today's standard at the very least Punk's claim isn't some farfetched marketing campaign.
Lengthy title reigns does not make a great champion whether it be in the world title tier, midcard, tag team, or even for the female divisions. A wrestler could hold onto a belt for 2 whole years or longer, but if the quality of opponents and number of title retentions is not high then that really makes it rather pointless to have made that wrestler a champion in the first place. A shorter reign with higher quality title matches is better than a lengthy reign without the high quality title matches. Then there's the promos that the champion does while holding the belt. If he's a face, do the fans support him? If he's a heel, do the fans want to see him be defeated? The timeframe of a title reign IS important, it's just not the MOST important aspect of rating whether that champion is great or not.
Look at John Cena's year-long reign in 2006-2007 and Randy Orton's Age of Orton WWE Championship reigns. Those were excellent title reigns and can be regarded as what modern faces and heels respectively should try to be like as far as their title matches and promos as champion. The best of both worlds obviously is excellent promos and good quality feuds with each lasting a long time. However if one had to choose between the length of the title reign or what happens during it, it's easily what happens during the reign that is more important than how long it lasts. Otherwise someone could hold the belt for 4,000 days straight defending it only at Wrestlemania (or Bound For Glory over in TNA) and still claim they were the best. Hardly. Fans would get sick of it and demand change.
Look at John Cena's year-long reign in 2006-2007 and Randy Orton's Age of Orton WWE Championship reigns. Those were excellent title reigns and can be regarded as what modern faces and heels respectively should try to be like as far as their title matches and promos as champion. The best of both worlds obviously is excellent promos and good quality feuds with each lasting a long time. However if one had to choose between the length of the title reign or what happens during it, it's easily what happens during the reign that is more important than how long it lasts. Otherwise someone could hold the belt for 4,000 days straight defending it only at Wrestlemania (or Bound For Glory over in TNA) and still claim they were the best. Hardly. Fans would get sick of it and demand change.
Ricardo Del Rio
Dark Match Jobber
Punk claimed to be the best in the world, before his year long title reign. It started with the infamous shoot promo when he said he was the best wrestler in the world, and he has been the best since day one. Now his year long title reign is just a good way to back up his word. Obviously the best in the world is just a gimmick ordeal. However, if he truly believes he is the best in the world, I don't blame him. When you are a wrestler, you should always feel that you are the best and will do whatever it takes to stay the best.
Now title reigns don't always mean you are the best. It depends what you accomplish during your title reign. I feel like Punk's reign has been amazing. Other long title reigns in the past have bored me to death but Punk's has kept me on the edge of my seat. He has been entertaining the entire time, feuding with and beating, Del Rio, The Miz, Ziggler, Jericho, Bryan, Kane, Cena, Big Show, and Ryback. The past few months, it has been really interesting, because it has been unpredictable on whether he will lose the strap in the big match at the ppv.
Now title reigns don't always mean you are the best. It depends what you accomplish during your title reign. I feel like Punk's reign has been amazing. Other long title reigns in the past have bored me to death but Punk's has kept me on the edge of my seat. He has been entertaining the entire time, feuding with and beating, Del Rio, The Miz, Ziggler, Jericho, Bryan, Kane, Cena, Big Show, and Ryback. The past few months, it has been really interesting, because it has been unpredictable on whether he will lose the strap in the big match at the ppv.
I think it is more what you do with the run, but I think Punk's run has accomplished a good medium. He has the long reign going, and imo he has defended against quality opponents throughout the run. Look at Cody Rhode's IC title run. He held it for six or seven months, but rarely defended it. That run really didn't mean to much in the longrun. A lengthy run is a good bragging point for tv, but what was done during the run makes the bigger difference.
Dmbfantomas
Bald Billy was Better
It is a lot about what you did, and how meaningful it truly was.
Look at JBL's time as world champ. He held the belt for 280 days...making him the longest reigning transitional champion ever. JBL wasn't an Era, like Cena has been, Punk is right now, Orton was before, etc. JBL got us from Angle/Brock and got us to Cena. Meanwhile, look at Foley's reigns. Short as hell (I don't even want to count his one day run), but they MEANT something. The title was needed for the feud, and Rock & Mankind really made it worth something. They put the belt over by making it so important to them. They were willing to ruin their bodies for it.
Look at JBL's time as world champ. He held the belt for 280 days...making him the longest reigning transitional champion ever. JBL wasn't an Era, like Cena has been, Punk is right now, Orton was before, etc. JBL got us from Angle/Brock and got us to Cena. Meanwhile, look at Foley's reigns. Short as hell (I don't even want to count his one day run), but they MEANT something. The title was needed for the feud, and Rock & Mankind really made it worth something. They put the belt over by making it so important to them. They were willing to ruin their bodies for it.
Mustang Sally
Sells seashells by the seashore
Purists must have enjoyed Bob Backlund's five-year title run. Pro wrestling was so different in that era from what it is today that there's almost no comparing the two. There was no glitz and glamour to Backlund's reign; he just did grind-it-out, technical wrestling every month, facing the top challenger and always managing to come out with the belt still around his waist.....but all this occurred in an era when the fans in attendance had the patience to watch two guys work a match, rather than hitting a few high-impact spots and going home.
I enjoy wrestling as story-telling and wish I could have seen Backlund in his prime. My Dad told me the guy was exciting in the workmanlike approach he took to his job, which is something that equates to nothing we see today.
I enjoy wrestling as story-telling and wish I could have seen Backlund in his prime. My Dad told me the guy was exciting in the workmanlike approach he took to his job, which is something that equates to nothing we see today.
Jack-Hammer
YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
I've said this many times. The true measure of a person as champion is whether or not they're able to make/keep fans interested in their run as champion. If you're unable to do that, then not much of anything else matters.
Is CM Punk the "best in the world?" He probably is to some people just as Backlund was or Hogan was or Flair was. Having a title doesn't automatically make you the best. There've been a lot of lackluster World Championship reigns in wrestling. Same goes with "legit" sports like boxing or MMA. There've been and currently are a lot of lackluster champs in those sports. Sometimes it's because they simply choked as champ by not being able to retain their titles in fights. In pro wrestling, where the outcome is fixed, it's all about fan interest. A wrestler has to be able to get fans to want to see him as champ.
Is CM Punk the "best in the world?" He probably is to some people just as Backlund was or Hogan was or Flair was. Having a title doesn't automatically make you the best. There've been a lot of lackluster World Championship reigns in wrestling. Same goes with "legit" sports like boxing or MMA. There've been and currently are a lot of lackluster champs in those sports. Sometimes it's because they simply choked as champ by not being able to retain their titles in fights. In pro wrestling, where the outcome is fixed, it's all about fan interest. A wrestler has to be able to get fans to want to see him as champ.
AndThat'sTheBottomLine
I am the
I wouldn't call it a semi squash match because Backlund never submitted to the camel clutch his manager tossed in the towel.
Anyway, I don't believe the title makes you the best it's what happens during your reign and whether or not you draw interest as champion. Punk has done that so it's not as far fetched as some would believe.
Lowdown
Ooh baby I like it roooaaaaw!
Having the championship doesn't make you the best in your respective promotion. A good example of this would be the Miz and his title reign. While it could be argue that he is an average wrestler or middle of the road, he was far from the best talent on the roster at that point. Hell the same could be said about guys like Mick Foley, Chris Benoit, and Booker T. The thing is, most champs bring something to the table; it could be looks, wrestling skills, charisma, etc. I won't throw out who I felt were the "best" when they were champ. But I'm a believer that more often than not that the fans have an effect on who potential champs are.
MrMojoRisin
Championship Contender
First off... was the Sheik better than Backlund? Despite being so similar in style... you really couldn't be talking about two more polar opposites. In a shoot fight? Well I'd have paid to see that in those guys primes. Those were both two guys you just didn't want to mess with.
As for the title reign making someone greater... the best being the champ... ect... the answer is no... with a but.
The champion isn't always the best in the company. Many times, the champion is just the guy that needs the title in order to get over... because he simply isn't a draw without it. Then there's other guys who never need a title because people will pay to see them no matter what. One guy that needed the title would be the Miz in 2009/2010. No one was going to buy a ticket just to see the Miz by himself, or buy him at the top of the card just on his own. But put the belt on him, and you can book him stronger and people will get it. A guy that never needed a title was Jake Roberts. He'd wear regional titles in his territory days, but once he went national with the WWF, he was never a champion... yet he was one of the biggest draws they had for years.
The 'but' comes in when you see what guys do with their reigns when they get a shot. Now a lot of that has to do with booking, and there is only so much anyone can do when they're saddled with bad booking. Sting is probably one of the best examples of this. He's worked at the top of the card for a quarter of a century. He's a multi time champion. But actually go back and look at some of his title reigns, and tell me how memorable they were. He's a great talent (a little lazy, but can compensate for that by being such a great talent), and he was always booked as a strong challenger... but as champ he seemed stagnant. It was almost as if the bookers just felt that his popularity would carry his title reigns, and they took their foot off the gas for him as soon as the title was around his waist. He still manages though, to make each of those reigns better than they should have been on the back of who he was.
A guy like Foley on the other hand, only ever got a taste of being champ... but man did he make the most of that taste. He had a great story though, which he had written with his own work over the years, and he conveyed that story to the public better than anyone else could have. The guy conveyed it so well, that him winning the title was the turning point in the Monday Night Wars, because as soon as Shiavone (sp) told the Nitro audience that Mankind was winning the WWF belt, everyone turned the channel to see it.
You can look at Foley's first title reign (a transitional reign like countless other ones), and argue that it was more memorable than Stings first title reign as the standardbearer for his company. Does that make Foley better than Sting? Not in and of itself... but it does show how much booking plays a part in the quality of a reign... the rest of course being how well the champion carries out the booking.
So in closing I guess... no a title reign doesn't make someone the best. There's just far too many variables to look at it so black and white.
As for the title reign making someone greater... the best being the champ... ect... the answer is no... with a but.
The champion isn't always the best in the company. Many times, the champion is just the guy that needs the title in order to get over... because he simply isn't a draw without it. Then there's other guys who never need a title because people will pay to see them no matter what. One guy that needed the title would be the Miz in 2009/2010. No one was going to buy a ticket just to see the Miz by himself, or buy him at the top of the card just on his own. But put the belt on him, and you can book him stronger and people will get it. A guy that never needed a title was Jake Roberts. He'd wear regional titles in his territory days, but once he went national with the WWF, he was never a champion... yet he was one of the biggest draws they had for years.
The 'but' comes in when you see what guys do with their reigns when they get a shot. Now a lot of that has to do with booking, and there is only so much anyone can do when they're saddled with bad booking. Sting is probably one of the best examples of this. He's worked at the top of the card for a quarter of a century. He's a multi time champion. But actually go back and look at some of his title reigns, and tell me how memorable they were. He's a great talent (a little lazy, but can compensate for that by being such a great talent), and he was always booked as a strong challenger... but as champ he seemed stagnant. It was almost as if the bookers just felt that his popularity would carry his title reigns, and they took their foot off the gas for him as soon as the title was around his waist. He still manages though, to make each of those reigns better than they should have been on the back of who he was.
A guy like Foley on the other hand, only ever got a taste of being champ... but man did he make the most of that taste. He had a great story though, which he had written with his own work over the years, and he conveyed that story to the public better than anyone else could have. The guy conveyed it so well, that him winning the title was the turning point in the Monday Night Wars, because as soon as Shiavone (sp) told the Nitro audience that Mankind was winning the WWF belt, everyone turned the channel to see it.
You can look at Foley's first title reign (a transitional reign like countless other ones), and argue that it was more memorable than Stings first title reign as the standardbearer for his company. Does that make Foley better than Sting? Not in and of itself... but it does show how much booking plays a part in the quality of a reign... the rest of course being how well the champion carries out the booking.
So in closing I guess... no a title reign doesn't make someone the best. There's just far too many variables to look at it so black and white.
Texas Tornado
Occasional Pre-Show
Pro wrestling was obviously not the same as it was in 1984. The Iron Sheik rarely defended his title to my knowledge. CM Punk defends his title almost every month. Again, looking at it from a kayfabe point of view, CM Punk is up there amongst the legends as far as title reigns go. Dont know too much about Backlunds title run.
I'm not sure if anyone will agree with me, I still feel that no matter how long the title reign may be, the truth is, it's not much of a significance unless the champions had the right to change the design of their belt.
Stone cold had his own smoking skull, Edge had his Rated R belt, hell even Miz had his "M" belt (Although it was kinda lame)
Cody Rhodes changed his belt back to the classic design during his run, in fact, Cena had freaking spinning belt for both USA title belt and WWE Championship belt.
Truth is, no matter how long CM Punk can hold on to the title, everyone will always know the fact the current WWE Championship belt is Cena's design and that showed how much the company viewed Cena as compared to CM Punk no matter how long the reign may be.
Stone cold had his own smoking skull, Edge had his Rated R belt, hell even Miz had his "M" belt (Although it was kinda lame)
Cody Rhodes changed his belt back to the classic design during his run, in fact, Cena had freaking spinning belt for both USA title belt and WWE Championship belt.
Truth is, no matter how long CM Punk can hold on to the title, everyone will always know the fact the current WWE Championship belt is Cena's design and that showed how much the company viewed Cena as compared to CM Punk no matter how long the reign may be.
Strong Style X
Occasional Pre-Show
"The best in the world" is a statement mostly based off of opinion. From a kayfabe standpoint, it's impossible to say who the true best in the world is because of the sheer amount of world championships in wrestling and no cross-promoting of rosters. So what does that leave? A technical standpoint to some, others charisma, some people prefer good mic workers. But that's all merely opinion.
Now to the question of does a championship reign make you the best? It depends on the company, really. In WWE, the championship doesn't exactly have the prestige that I believe it should. That prestige of being "the best". But it's WWE, and I'll face the facts that WWE is and always has been a company that does not appeal to me 100%. The championship was created and crowned onto someone during a fictional bout in Brazil, after all. Whereas in a company like NJPW, the title is USUALLY given to the top guys on the roster. Which in Japan usually means you're one of the top technicians and ultimately because of that: you're over. Tanahashi was a record breaking IWGP defense holder last year, as he was/is New Japan's top draw for the past few years. He earned it. For the sake of my argument though, I'll use CM Punk for my example. Punk is without a doubt ONE of the top guys in WWE, but let's face it... he's played second string to a lot of people during his title run. He didn't main event WM last year either, despite being champion. That alone should say enough. To be the best in the wrestling BUSINESS (not just some mark's wet dream fantasy bookings), means that you are the top draw for that company. So in WWE's case? No, championships do not mean you're the best. If that was the case, Cena would have been more involved with the championship this year. Therefor, the length of the reign doesn't really matter either.
Now to the question of does a championship reign make you the best? It depends on the company, really. In WWE, the championship doesn't exactly have the prestige that I believe it should. That prestige of being "the best". But it's WWE, and I'll face the facts that WWE is and always has been a company that does not appeal to me 100%. The championship was created and crowned onto someone during a fictional bout in Brazil, after all. Whereas in a company like NJPW, the title is USUALLY given to the top guys on the roster. Which in Japan usually means you're one of the top technicians and ultimately because of that: you're over. Tanahashi was a record breaking IWGP defense holder last year, as he was/is New Japan's top draw for the past few years. He earned it. For the sake of my argument though, I'll use CM Punk for my example. Punk is without a doubt ONE of the top guys in WWE, but let's face it... he's played second string to a lot of people during his title run. He didn't main event WM last year either, despite being champion. That alone should say enough. To be the best in the wrestling BUSINESS (not just some mark's wet dream fantasy bookings), means that you are the top draw for that company. So in WWE's case? No, championships do not mean you're the best. If that was the case, Cena would have been more involved with the championship this year. Therefor, the length of the reign doesn't really matter either.
However if one had to choose between the length of the title reign or what happens during it, it's easily what happens during the reign that is more important than how long it lasts. Otherwise someone could hold the belt for 4,000 days straight defending it only at Wrestlemania and still claim they were the best. Hardly. Fans would get sick of it and demand change.
"Title Reign = Being the best, or not ?"
I just wanted to say, it should, but unfortunately today that isn't the case.
The champions in your company should be the very best superstars in the company, but unfortunately today that just isn't how things are. And that's part of today's problem. Nobody's over, and in turn the belts have lost a hell of a lot of credibility over the years. And that's just not good.
I just wanted to say, it should, but unfortunately today that isn't the case.
The champions in your company should be the very best superstars in the company, but unfortunately today that just isn't how things are. And that's part of today's problem. Nobody's over, and in turn the belts have lost a hell of a lot of credibility over the years. And that's just not good.