Title Reigns: Do They Have Meaning?

[Kizzani]

So I was looking in any sport a player or team is always considered the best by the amount of titles they have held or streaks winning those titles. That would John Cena is the all-time greatest WWE champion ever, personally I think this is incorrect but the numbers are just that numbers.

John Cena has 3 title reigns in a 5 month span.
Randy Orton has 3 title reigns in 7 months span.

So has the WWE title lost it meaning?

 

[mikde_]

I dont think it's lost its meaning. Sure it has been tossed around more waists than melina lately but i think the original plan was for ADR to hold longer but he just didnt cut it so they gave it back to the biggest money maker. No problem with me.

Most titles have very little meaning these days but lately WWE have really been trying to make them mean more and sure they have made some mistakes but if they keep going the way they are then by Royal Rumble we should have noted champs all round. Fingers Crossed.

 

[Derf]

Every single wrestler in the world aims to become the WWE Champion, and for that reason alone the title has great meaning. There can only ever be one true champion, that man is the man on top of the world, regardless of how long they have been with the company, or how long they've been champion. It's the greatest honor to be the champ, so of course they have meaning.

 

[Strife3]

Lately, as in since the pg era has started title holding is just another word for Flavor of the Month or in this case Wrestler of the Month. Im really seeing the title as a Employee of the Month kind of thing.

 

[IHW]

i believe Cena and Orton are the biggest draws and thats why they get the titles. Thats just while the wwe can build up new talent and sooner or later the titles will mean something again.

 

[Derf]

So with that Logic John Cena is the Greatest wrestler of ALL time

Obviously not, but the WWE Title is the greatest wrestling title of ALL time, and whoever holds it is going to be viewed in a great light, regardless of if it's a multi time champ like Cena or a 4 week run like ADR.

 

[johnseamann]

The actual number of title reigns is meaningless. Say WWE decides they want to keep two wrestlers in the title picture for a long time. One way to do it would be to make wrestler A lose to wrestler B in alternating PPV's, which means than any of these two guys could get as many titles as there are PPV's in a short amount of time. I think it is more important to count how long each of the reigns are, and not how many of them are won. Sure, Cena is now an 11-time World Champion, but that also means he's lost the belt in 10 different occasions.

 

[GrandSword]

I've always considered days as Champion to be your best indicator.

For example I think Mankind is a 3 time WWE Champion, but his combined days are about 8 days... something like that. Where Bruno and Hulk have an enormous amount of days as Champion therfore they are the greatest of ALL time if that's what the argument is about.

 

[Foshinzo]

Has it lost it's meaning? I don't think so. I mean, it symbolizes that at some point, you were considered the best in that company, the premiere company in wrestling history. Now, reigns like Kane's 1-day run and Rey's now infamous 1-hour run have tainted what that means, Vince McMahon holding the title for a week, and I think even these pointless runs like ADR's was demean it, too. But, it still means that you were the best among the key players. Guys like Hogan, HBK, Rock, and Austin, among countless other icons, gave their best matches fighting over that belt, and you can't deny that that still means a lot in the wrestling busniess.

However, that title alone, the WWE Championship, not just the WHC (that's still the same WHC that David Arquette held onto,) has lost a lot of its value with lazy booking and mistake champions. ADR's recent run killed me, because we're just going to look back and wonder, "why?" It was just a waste of time and such a dumb reason to put someone's name in the record books. You used to have to be a big deal to hold that belt. Say what you want about Hogan, but the fact that, for the most part, only like, 5 guys other than him got to hold it after 84' (I'm too lazy to double check that fact,) added so much prestige to that belt. In order to get it, you had to fight for it. You believed that the WWF Championship meant you were a real champion; you were a fighter and you clawed your way to the top. Legends like Sgt. Slaughter, who is considered the weakest of the champions during this period, made you believe that the title was something to be coveted. Even though Andre himself only held it long enough to hand it to Ted DiBiase, you still see his name on the records and know that it was legit, because he was definitely an icon and he fought to get it. Even though Kane only held it for a day, you see Kane's name on the record and know that he was still legit and a key player, during that time. When you see ADR's name and remember that he just got a throw-away run for a month and then dropped it back to Cena, you'll get mad and remember that no, he didn't deserve that.

There were guys 5-10 years ago that kept the prestige going. Angle was a legit wrestler and you had to really fight that guy to beat him. Brock Lesnar was a great champion for the same reason. Also, remember when Eddie beat Brock to win his first and only title? Had anyone in the history of wrestling fought harder to get that title, kayfabe and in his real life? We're talking about ADR having his name on a stone that Owen, Piper, and Perfect all three couldn't get their names on. That definitely cheapens the value of that belt. Among top stars, Batista, Orton, and of course Cena just passed that belt back and forth too much. HHH has had too many runs.

I guess what my argument comes down to is this: it just changes hands too much. When you look at the title history of the belt, you can make a big observation quick:

Before Cena took the belt back, the first champion was Buddy Rodgers, who had one run, and the last champion was Alberto Del Rio, who held the belt for just as long and has had just as many runs. Is ADR on the same level as Buddy Rodgers? ...I'm not even going to dignify that with a sarcastic response. Too many people get a turn, and that cheapens it.

 

[whoopin' ass]

being the champ is still important but the number of reigns is pretty meaningless now. look at 2 guys - triple h and edge. triple h is a 13 time world champ over about a decade, edge 11 over about 6 years. now these are just world title runs - they both held other titles during that time too. plus some of those runs were pretty short - wasn't edge's first run like 2 weeks long? wasn't one of triple h's only a few hours(at a ppv vs orton)? plus he was awarded the world title from bishoff and that counts too. so really the number of runs doesn't count for much since some of those were just to build their number. but being champ is still important since it still means you are the top guy in the business. there will always be guys who don't really deserve the title who win it but for the most part, they are still important. however, having both the wwe title and the world title has watered things down a bit. would mark henry ever been made champ if there was only 1 title? not making any comment about his ability but if there was only 1 top title, there would be too many other guys infront of him and he would have never been made champ. so in that respect, title reigns are a little less important than they were 15 years ago but they still count for something. now if you are talking tag titles, that is a whole different story.

 

[HollywoodLuthias]

John Cena is a 12 time champ

World Heavyweight Championship (2 times)
WWE Championship (10 times, current)

Titles in WWE haven't had any meaning since 2004 when Eddie and Benoit won at WM 20. After Cena & Batista won the WWE & World Titles in 2005 and they let Cena turn the belt into spinner that's when the value of championships went down the toilet.

 

[whoopin' ass]

John Cena is a 12 time champ

World Heavyweight Championship (2 times)
WWE Championship (10 times, current)

Titles in WWE haven't had any meaning since 2004 when Eddie and Benoit won at WM 20. After Cena & Batista won the WWE & World Titles in 2005 and they let Cena turn the belt into spinner that's when the value of championships went down the toilet.

i thought it was funny too - "the only man to hold the wwe title 10 times". and....? because wwe feels he is too big a star to stick on smackdown with the world title, he wins the wwe title 10 times. big deal. i think it is a bigger deal to have a kurt angle or edge who made a career out of winning both(i.e going where they were needed no matter what show it was) than having cena win the wwe title 10 times because he is almost always on Raw with the wwe title.

 

[legendkillerbsal]

I THINK MARK HENRY'S TITLE REIGN WILL HAVE MEANING. IF THEY HAVE HIM HOLD IT FOR A LONG TIME THEN IT'LL GIVE IT MEANING. THE WAY HE'S GOING IT LOOKS GOOD CUZ HE'S JUST TAKING OUT EVERYBODY.

 

[Jackal960]

The number of championship wins have increased abnormally in the past 10-15 years. When you have too many contenders who all have a history that you think they all deserve to be in the picture, it is no problem. You take it out from Rock and give it to HHH. Get it from Brock give it to Angle. Get it from Taker give it to Edge. As long as they are all credible this won't cause an issue.

Today, there are times that titles are given to wrestlers for them to shine and become more credible. Even for the contenders it seems the same. I think it should be the other way around. For example, I would rather have Shaemus try to get the title again and again, and do anything to earn it first, and then get the title. However it seems like you can just win a contender match and become a title holder out of nowhere. R-Truth was in lower midcard when he decided he deserved a shot at the title, and earned an opportunity straight away. I understand this was an opportunity for him to shine, which he used rather well, but it seems like a shortcut without enough buildup. As I said, I would rather have someone to be built up first and then try everything to be in the title picture for a while, and ultimately win the title. This will add prestige to the title. When you give the belt to a wrestler with not enough build up, you are giving him the spotlight to shine, but if it doesn't go well, you eventually make him lose to an established no-risk guy like Cena or Orton. CM Punk, Swagger, Shaemus, Del Rio all got the titles before you think they did something credible enough for being champions. Shortly after they lost the title to more veteran guys, which includes Orton and Cena.

 

[FlairFan2003]

The downside to the era of monthly PPV and weekly live TV is titles change hands more frequently, I do think the fact that guys like Cena and Orton keep getting the belt is impressive, it shows the company has more faith in them as drawing cards and main eventers, although I admitt I'm not as impressed with 11 titles spanning maybe two years worth of time (I don't know if that's accurate, correct me if not close) as opposed to 11 titles spanning 17 years of time like Hogan and Flair. Hogan's 1st run lasted roughly 5 years, Flair's 1st and 3rd runs lasted over 2 years each, his 4'th, 5'th, and 6'th each lasted between a year and year and a half. His 7'th run lasted 7 months, his 11'th run lasted 8 months. Hogan's next two runs each lasted over a year, plus he had runs in WCW that lasted between a year to a year and half.

Now I do think that Hogan and Flair would not have had multiple reigns lasting well over a years time in this era, the need to change things comes at a much faster pace, they likely would have been like Triple H, multiple runs in the 6 -9 month range, just loing enough that it truly becomes a big deal when they lose. I'm not sure Cena and Orton would have been good enough in the previous era to have multiple reigns over a year each, Triple H and HBK were though in my opinion.

Bottom line, you will probably never see two people who draw as much money, main event as long, and hold the title as long as Hogan and Flair ever again, the way the industry is broadcast demands a faster paced product. So yes, I do think the work Cena and Orton have done is impressive, it shows they are consistently the top dogs of their titme. When they each have 25 title runs we can look back and compare them to Hogan and Flair and a few others and see where we think they rank.

 

[4realpeoples]

The title reigns do have meaning. It doesn't matter if its the WWE Championship or the World Heavyweight Championship. Those title have meaning in the WWE. Most professional wrestlers (in the US and Canada) want to hold one of those two titles. With that, those two titles already have meaning.

The length of those reigns also has meaning. Successful and good champions need to have extended championship reigns. For me, the magic length of a lengthy reign in this era is about 3.5 months (or about 110 days). If you can't do that, your championship "run" means nothing in my eyes. Of course we need the occasional transitional champion but there needs to be good reigns outweighing the transitional reigns otherwise the meaning of that title goes down. And we've had a lot of transitional champions lately (see Christian, Alberto Del Rio, Randy Orton, John Cena, etc.). You want the titles to mean more? Instead of having 10 champions per year, cut it down to 3 or 4 champions per year.

Multiple reigns means something. It means you were able to become the best that many times. Somebody is always going to get that title next so multiple reigns is okay with me... as long as their reigns hold some meaning. Hogan is a 10-time World Champion but one of his reigns was 4 years long. And Cena is a 12-time World Champion with his longest reign at 1 year. Length means more than multiple reigns. Hot-potato needs to stop and let somebody hold the title for 6 months.

 

[Headman]

Title reigns have meaning if you do something meaningful during your title reign. Cena's previous title reign was important to the "Summer of Punk" which was a very successful angle so I'd say that it had meaning, as did Punk's 1st reign. His 2nd one, not so much.

ADR's reign seemed meaningless except I'm pretty sure it was intended to hot shot the belt onto Rey and ended up putting the belt back on Cena. So ADR is a classic transitional champion.

I don't think the number of reigns are too significant, but what a champion does with the title while he has it determines the importants of the reign.

 

[XXJJ]

Who holds the title is still a big deal. You still get the constant whining and bitching from fans with whoever the champion is. So it still means something.

The quality of matches and feuds will determine if your title reign was memorable or not.

 

[Dagger Dias]

The title reigns that do not last long are the ones that have little to no meaning. Sometimes someone might get rewarded with a brief title reign after putting in a lot of hard work for the federation. It gives the wrestler another accomplishment to brag about, but it doesn't help the prestige of the title. The longer a reign lasts, the bigger of a deal it is when someone ends it. Look at Cena's year long title reign in 2006-2007. Orton ending it established him as a permanent main eventer, and his subsequent reign lasted a long time too. Miz's reign last year lasted a while, and although I'm not a big fan of the guy, it was good for the title. Faces were lining up to be the one to defeat him.

The champion(s) should be the very best in his/her/their respective division(s). It's a little different in WWE than in other organizations. Someone who might not be the best in the ring like Batista can still get world title runs due to how over he is and how good he is at making the fans want to buy a PPV match. Cena in particular is great at that. The only division where there is a problem with the belt or title reigns meaning anything is the divas. They keep putting the Divas Championship on barbie princesses who can't wrestle. Beth and Natalya need to be the focal point of the division. The fans don't even care anymore. WWE clearly doesn't, so why should we?

Title reigns do matter, but only when they last long enough for the champion to have been able to get in at least one title defense. I prefer long title reigns due to it making the belt seem more important when more and more people are wanting to dethrone the current champion. If a title remains on the same person for longer than one PPV to the next then I am generally happy, I would prefer reigns lasting months though. Those title reigns matter far more in the long run.