What IS a Lengthy Title Reign?

[killerd105]

Ok, so ever since CM Punk has won the championship from John Cena at Money in the Bank, the WWE Title has changed hands six or seven times since then. But before that, Miz had the title for more than 5 months. The World Heavyweight championship have changed hands almost as much as the WWE title in the same course of time. Now a lot of people are saying that the titles are just a prop now and has lost its prestige and that its changings hands far too quick. People are up in arms about this. But the same people were up in arms when John Cena had his one year+ title rein and when Randy Orton had the title back in 07-08. So my question is, what is your definition of a lengthy title rein and what would the WWE have to do to make the titles prestigious again?

 

[TheyCallMeJ]

About 6 months I would say and just have a steady champ not flip flopping the title every other ppv have somebody carry the title have him beat the top stars in high profile matches one thing wwe has always done is make great video packages I remember back in like the 2000's the videos to hype the match was amazing which made the championship match feel like a big deal but it's kinda a double edge sword though the Internet fans want a long title run but if it's too long they will bitch and moan about how this person had the belt for almost a year or whatever like I said 6 months beat the top stars make the matches feel bigger (ex. Cm punk vs john cena mitb) the bulid up to a match all of these things will add prestige make the title bigger and more important

 

[keehlnate]

I'll re-quote my post from the other thread similar to this one:

With this constant changing of title reigns, WWE should NOT mention anymore how many reigns does a superstar have, e.g. John Cena is a 12 time world champion. I believe JBL have said this before, being a champion for the nth time means that you also lost the title n times. It doesn't matter how many times you've win it but it's how long you've held it and how many times you've successfully defended it.

 

[Guyzwitgunz]

Championships are used to get people over.

This is the reason why people so often complain about the reigns being to short etc. etc.. because when someone only holds the title for a few weeks it doesn't really mean anything and it doesn't make the champion even look that great. Example - Del Rio, no one really cared about the guy when he had it for four weeks, only thing they (the kids) did care about was John Cena beating him to get it back.


what is your definition of a lengthy title rein and what would the WWE have to do to make the titles prestigious again?

A lengthy title run is a run that is long enough to help bring some credibility to the champion and get them further up the scale then they were before holding the title. Example - Miz, reigned for 5 months in an attempt to get him over as a top heel in WWE. Did it work? I think it did. A two week reign is really not enough to make them look credible and is just another 'forgettable' reign that really doesn't make that much difference to that persons career and they may well just be in a non title main event storyline to get over. People remember Miz's reign and how he defeated the almighty Randy Orton several times and John Cena at WrestleMania but I think we will be quick to forget Christian holding the World Heavyweight Championship for four weeks from Money in the Bank to SummerSlam.

 

[Gunnar]

I think any amount of time over a month is a good reign, as long as it's not the wrestler's first reign, at least for World titles (ie Eddie Guerrero had his for about 4-5 months, JBL for 8 after, Cena forever after that) but the ones like Randy Orton's title reigns at No Mercy 2007, meh. But for midcard titles, anything near a month or longer is good for me.

 

[nxtgeneration]

i think a good title reign in this age is any title run where they defend the title at at least one probably two PPV's. I dont think there has been a successful WWE Title defence since MITB

 

[trashboy]

I'll re-quote my post from the other thread similar to this one:

With this constant changing of title reigns, WWE should NOT mention anymore how many reigns does a superstar have, e.g. John Cena is a 12 time world champion. I believe JBL have said this before, being a champion for the nth time means that you also lost the title n times. It doesn't matter how many times you've win it but it's how long you've held it and how many times you've successfully defended it.

LOL.. everytime i think of how many times someone held the title, i think of RVD and Booker T.. not sure what they were talking about, but Booker goes into his "I'm the 5 time WCW champion" thing and RVD responded with, "Wow. You've lost the title 5 times?" Always makes me laugh

but yeah, i hate these short title matches they're doing.. i wish someone would get the belt for at least a few months before dropping it.. and having a ppv every 2 weeks.. at least it seems that way, the belts just change hands way too often.. i miss the days of people holding onto the belt for almost a year

 

[Cena's #1 In My Heart]

The Miz's title reign was perfect. Listen to the crowd.. they defiantly tout his horn a little more now.

I would consider 4 months to be a GOOD Lengthy Title run these days.

They just got to let some people do it more. Really disappointed that CM Punk didn't get to carry the strap throughout Summerslam and maybe up until Survivor Series.

 

[crippler]

The way its has been lately 4 month is good however I would say 6 months gives the champion more credibility. Also instead of 8 or more title changes per year its only max of 2.

 

[Nate DaMac]

I'll never understand this idea that length = quality when it comes to title reigns. Sure, having a day long or week long title reign surely can't be considered a quality reign, but a 6 month reign can be just as awful.

Basically what I'm getting at is the quality of a title reign has less to do with length and more to do with title defenses and the quality of opponents in said defenses. For instance, I saw some folks mentioning Miz's nearly 6 month long reign. While yes, the length led some to boast about it's quality, but I think it has more to do with the fact that he defended the title against the 2 biggest stars in the company and beat them. (Don't give me any of your "he didn't win clean" bullshit. You shouldn't be on the internet anyway, you should be finger painting.) If his entire reign consisted of matches against mid carders like Kofi, Morrison, etc., then it would have been a shit reign regardless of how long it was. There are countless examples of US and IC Title holders over the past few years to use as an example of a lengthy shit reign.

It's not just title reigns either. Everyone wants matches to go 45 minutes to an hour and whenever they do, they instantly get lauded as great matches no matter how awful they actually were. Think about it, Savage/Steamboat from Wrestlemania 3 didn't even go a full 15 minutes and it's usually in anyone's list of the greatest wrestling matches ever. Then you have Shawn Michaels and Triple H's cell match that went for like half an hour and it was just a fucking snooze fest.

I just don't get it. Length ≠ quality.

 

[ccotreau1]

For me, it isn't so much the length of the title reign that is important, it is what they do with the champion during that title reign that is important. If they do the same stuff that the champion did when he was the challenger, than it is a pointless title reign, but if they tweak the character a bit (like they did with Alberto with his first title reign) then I will be happy. The only title length I dislike are the ones that are held for a day or 2, you can't really do anything to change the character in that time frame

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I have to agree with Nate's position when it comes to length being a factor in the quality of a champ's reign. And even if they do give wrestlers longer runs with titles, here'll come the "THEY SHULD TAKE DA BELT OFFA DIS GUY CUZ HE SUX" threads and comments. A few years back, when Cena was having lengthy runs as WWE Champion, that seemed to be all I read. It didn't seem to matter that Cena was having good, compeititve matches as champ. It didn't seem to matter than he was having interesting feuds with the likes of Edge and helped to elevate Edge to main event level. If Mark Henry holds the WHC up to WrestleMania as rumors suggest might happpen and he continues to do the same great job that he's doing right now, I guaran-friggin-tee that posters will start making those same complaints. Nate also brought up Miz's run, which lasted about 6 months. The Miz was the recepient of constant hate among the IWC despite the fact that he was having very entertaining matches, feuding with the two biggest stars in the company and accomplishing the single most important task a champion has: making the fans care about what he's doing and the title picture.

How a champion is booked is, in my view more important than how long he holds a title. I agree that it's hard to get behind a champ and take him seriously with a 2 week reign. At the same time though, just because a wrestler holds a title for a long time doesn't necessarily mean much. Look at Beer Money's last run as TNA World Tag Team Champions. Great team but their last run sucked. For the most part, TNA just had them sit on the titles and when they did defend them, they were against subpar opponents in highly forgettable matches. On the other hand, look at CM Punk's brief time as WWE Champion. He "left the company" as WWE Champion and "sat at home" during his reign and did more for the WWE Championship picture than Jeff Hardy, Mr. Anderson, Sting & Kurt Angle combined have done for the TNA WHC over the course of an entire year. Why? Because you were sitting on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happened next and surfing the internet looking for spoilers or some hint as to where the angle was going. I'm not turning this into a WWE vs. TNA thing, I'm just using it to highlight that having a long run with at title doesn't equal greatness.

If the fans don't give a shit, then having a title for a year or 6 months or whatever means nothing. While I do personally get tired of seeing Cena in the title picture at times, Cena does keep interest up. The Miz did the same thing, CM Punk's involvement is doing the same thing, Christian's involvement in the WHC picture did the same thing and Mark Henry is currently doing the same thing as World Heavyweight Champion.

 

[SickJames]

7 months is pretty lengthy to me, anything more than 6 months impresses me nowadays I guess

lengthy should be a year or more, but not now. You could say 6 months, but it's still only half a year I dont know, considering midcard belts are held like that sometimes, they arent the lengthiest of lengthy, but lengthy

Anyway in this era anything's better than 24 hours (Kane), 2 minutes (John Cena) or 10 seconds (Jeff Hardy)

 

[S.J. Maximus]

a lengthy world title reign in my eyes is at least 6 months long. It's reigns like these that truly put people over as the elite, just ask Randy Orton. Anything shorter than 2 months is stupid to me unless there's good story behind it, which is very rare. An example of good story is Jeff Hardy's 5 minute reign at Extreme Rules 2009, which then turned Punk heel and started the PWI Feud of the Year for 2009. Punk got 2 reigns out of that Hardy got 2 as well, all in the span of 4 months but the feud was hot so it all made sense for both guys. Rey winning the title last month only to lose an hour later to Cena did nothing for either man, (which most reigns under 2 months do) so was stupid imo and completely unnecessary.

As for all of the other titles in the WWE, I think 8+ months is a lengthy reign. You may look at that and think what the **** is this guy talking about but it's the subliminal message (provided by WWE) that short reigns are good that is fueling your beliefs. I don't even think there has been a 8+ month reign of any of those titles in the whole last decade, but there definitely were in the 90's and 80's when those belts were actually prestigious. Everyone complains that the belts arent prestigious and this is the way to do it, LONG REIGNS. As horrendous as Honky Tonk Man was, he made the belt look strongest when he held it for over a year and defeated just about every mid-carder there was, it really puts over the man who ends the long reign. Think about it this way, people like Mcgullicuty and Otunga held the tag titles for over 3 months (with probably 3 successful title defense) so they were already over a third of the way there. 8 months isn't as long as you think, but it's long enough to get the job done.

 

[Chess]

Simple! If you can keep the title off Cena or Orton for longer than 2-3 months then you have done exceptionally well and should be classed as one of the greats.

 

[Azane]

Generally in today's environment, more than 14 days is considered lengthy.

but in seriousness, I see 3-4 months being lengthy nowadays.

a few years ago I would of put it upto a year, but in the current climate, it's rare to see a 3 months champion.

 

[D-Man]

I'll never understand this idea that length = quality when it comes to title reigns. Sure, having a day long or week long title reign surely can't be considered a quality reign, but a 6 month reign can be just as awful.

Everything that needs to be said is right here.

If all of you internet fans would think outside of the box for two seconds, you'd realize that we are the minority of the WWE Universe. I mention this because to the majority of fans, they don't even give two seconds of thought about the "prestige" of the WWE title. All they see is that it is the promotion's top prize and ANYONE that wears it automatically gains it's legacy and prestige.

Do you think that Anderson Silva's nine successful title defenses in the UFC gave the middleweight title more prestige? Would it matter if he lost the title and won it back every other month? The answer is no. So what makes all of you think that the WWE title is any different?

Internet fans over-analyze EVERYTHING. This is just another one of those topics that they can't get enough of. To the majority, a world title is the WORLD FUCKING TITLE. It's the top honor a competitor could have in that sport's promotion. No one breaks down length of title reigns as a direct reference to how prestigious a title is. They see a world champion and treat the wearer as such... period.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

I'm not going to say a specific length of time, because that can be subjective.

A CREDIBLE title reign though should at least last through one full program with a challenger. Or if the title's going to go to the first challenger, then there should be a series of defenses against that challenger with the champion coming out ahead until the very end, with the challenger inching closer with each successive failure to capture the belt.

At the beginning of August, Alberto Del Rio had never held the WWE title. A week into October, and he's held the title as many times as Randy Savage and Ric Flair did. Yet while Savage was successful against many challengers in his first reign, and worked a long program with Flair in his second one, and Flair (who did have weak WWF title reigns), still was successful against both his main challenger (Savage) and others (notably Piper). Del Rio lost the title the first chance Cena had to get it back, and now the second time doesn't come across in any way like he's a guy that can actually hold the title.

The whole short reign concept to me seems to come from this idea that a loss equals a burial, so creating an atmosphere where there's more parity takes the sting out of that. What seems to be lost here, is that there is an art to losing in wrestling, and a good worker can not only put themselves over while losing, but can make someone while beating them. When Bret Hart wasn't a champ, he would lose all the time. Especially before he even got into the title picture. Hogan opponents in the 80's could draw anywhere after being taken down by the leg drop. Guys need to remember that.

 

[tcapri87]

Personally, I think a lengthy title reign right around 100 days. When looking at a list of champions and the number of days each person held it, triple digits seem to jump out. Granted, that isn't the only thing that goes into a title reign. but just to reply to the OP, that is what I define as a nice long reign.
You have to look at the length of time someone held a title, not the number of times they won it. For example, Bruno Sammartino held the WWF title over 4000 days, almost double anyone else. He only had 2 title reigns. John Cena has held the title a little over 1000 days. No where close. Not even close to Hulk Hogan's 2100 days of holding the title.
Also, Bret Hart held the title 5 times for about 650 days and Steve Austin held the title 6 times for 530 days. Not even close to the number of times Cena has won the title. I still consider them higher on the all time echelon of wrestling talent.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I would say that 100+ days would be a lengthy title reign because it would have been long enough to last through multiple title defenses by that point. However, long reigns will not restore prestige alone. The champion should have a long reign AND emerge victorious in at least one feud with a couple of title defenses. Long but boring title reigns where nothing happens are not much better than reigns lasting a day or two.

 

[relentless1]

i think a good title reign is calibrated by time held and quality of the reign, goldberg to me was a really credible world champ, he only had the belt for about 5 months but he defended the title on pretty much every monday nitro, he took on all comers, IMO they should have more champs like that, overcoming the odds every week, by contrast kevin nash had the wwf title for almost a year in the mid 90s but alot of ppl think his reign wasnt very good and that has alot to do with his challengers (mabel anyone??) aside from HBK and bret hart there wasnt any memorable moments in his reign so that year was rather unmemorable. what im getting at here is the same that others have been saying on this topic. I personally think there should be more 6-8 month title reigns in this day and age but if u want to bring prestige back to the belts you really have to have credible champions defending against credible challengers, build up some monster heels, whats been done with mark henry is perfect, have more of what we have seen with him, clean finishes to matches, have all the superstars outspoken on how its the biggest prize and thatt the reason they got into wrestling in the first place was to be the champ... thats how you make the world titles seem worth it again.

 

[The American Legend]

In today's WWE, a lengthy title reign is anything over 4 months. It also helps to have good quality opponents, and solid defenses. I would much rather prefer 6 months to be considered lengthy, but I just don't think that realistic in today's wrestling business. So I'm settling with 4 months

 

[EastCoastFan]

Nowadays, 6 months is an eternity as champion. With two weekly prime-time TV shows and monthly pay-per-views plus the internet, if they keep a title on someone for more than 4-6 months, fans get sick of them.

 

[Dusty Roids]

I don;t care that the title switched hands so often last months. It all had legitimate reasons why. Maybe not the last Cena title win. But I think it made ADR more of a threat now since he won it back. Anyway I think the title wins will slow down after a while. It has been a hectic time and they needed this kind of unpredictablility to keep it inetresting. Don't want to refer the attititude era because I am not that guy, but back then the title changed hand way more often than now.

 

[SaveUsCMPunk]

Lengthy title reign = Stone Cold Steve Austin's title reign from Wrestlemania X-7 to Unforgiven 2001.

He held the WWF (at the time) championship for around 5 1/2 months. Longer than that if you don't count Kurt Angle's 15 day reign. Plus, both Raw and Smackdown were pretty entertaining back then. (Yes, there are people that enjoyed the Invasion angle.) Then, of course, you had JBL's reign of nearly a year on Smackdown from '04-'05, but Smackdown was pretty dull back then, IMO. I mean, the JBL character was good, but a lot of Smackdown was forgettable back then. John Cena and Batista both had lengthy title reigns during their initial runs. Then, of course, you had Cena's "Way too long" run as WWE champion from '06-'07 and Orton's reign from '07-'08.

To be honest, I actually consider a 3 month reign a decent length for a title reign. Miz and Chris Jericho ('01-'02) both got those. WWE needs to keep the WWE title reign on Del Rio and the WHC on Mark Henry until at least December. (Preferably the Royal Rumble.) That would make the titles look much better.