-
Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here
What's more important..
- Thread starter timmy872
- Start date
Neither. An eventful reign is more important.
People hated Cena's year long title reign. There was nothing wrong with it other than he didn't have much that really defined it. Good and ok matches all year round, but the only defining match from that reign was probably the match in which he won the belt and possibly the HBK match in London.
But then you've got a reign like Rob Van Dam's WWE championship & ECW title reigns. Short, but memorable. I'm not saying it was better, but I think people will still bring it up in years to come. How RVD was a fucking idiot for getting busted whilst holding two titles. It shit like that along with memorable matches and angles that define a title reign and make them better. Not the length.
After all, the best/more memorable Bret Hart title reign was his final WWF Championship one. It wasn't his matches with The Patriot that people talk about.
People hated Cena's year long title reign. There was nothing wrong with it other than he didn't have much that really defined it. Good and ok matches all year round, but the only defining match from that reign was probably the match in which he won the belt and possibly the HBK match in London.
But then you've got a reign like Rob Van Dam's WWE championship & ECW title reigns. Short, but memorable. I'm not saying it was better, but I think people will still bring it up in years to come. How RVD was a fucking idiot for getting busted whilst holding two titles. It shit like that along with memorable matches and angles that define a title reign and make them better. Not the length.
After all, the best/more memorable Bret Hart title reign was his final WWF Championship one. It wasn't his matches with The Patriot that people talk about.
HBK-aholic
Shawn Michaels ❤
Neither is that important, it's about the quality of your matches. You can be the champion for a year but if you're matches are boring I'm not going to give a damn.
Looking at the amount of reigns someone had in a company when evaluating their wuality as a wrestler would be silly also. HBK, for example, hasn't had a huge amount of reigns yet he's known for being able to have a good match with anyone and always putting on a great match at Wrestlemania. Title reigns don't mean that much at all.
Looking at the amount of reigns someone had in a company when evaluating their wuality as a wrestler would be silly also. HBK, for example, hasn't had a huge amount of reigns yet he's known for being able to have a good match with anyone and always putting on a great match at Wrestlemania. Title reigns don't mean that much at all.
Shawn Michaels final WWE Championship reign is a brilliant example. It's memorable because of how it started and because of how it ended, having a back injury also makes it memorable as well.
But it's a good example because the match quality isn't actually important in that case. All the matches he had were good, but they take second place to what bookended the reign.
But it's a good example because the match quality isn't actually important in that case. All the matches he had were good, but they take second place to what bookended the reign.
Poop Master Flex
Mid-Card Championship Winner
I don't think either make a great champion. Things like popularity, match quality, charisma and how a person carries the title means more than any length of title reigns.
For example, I would have to say Shawn Michaels is a greater champ than HHH because of the way he carried himself, his opponents and the company as a whole while having many great matches (2 with bulldog, vader, mankind). If Shawn wasn't there in '96, I really wonder if the WWE would of made it through those rough years (96-97).
Any reign HHH has had in the last 7 years (even though some of them were good reigns) you could of replaced him with alot of other guys and it wouldn't of mattered too much (RVD, Booker T, Michaels, Benoit, Guererro, Taker all could have replaced HHH and the company wouldn't of suffered one bit).
For example, I would have to say Shawn Michaels is a greater champ than HHH because of the way he carried himself, his opponents and the company as a whole while having many great matches (2 with bulldog, vader, mankind). If Shawn wasn't there in '96, I really wonder if the WWE would of made it through those rough years (96-97).
Any reign HHH has had in the last 7 years (even though some of them were good reigns) you could of replaced him with alot of other guys and it wouldn't of mattered too much (RVD, Booker T, Michaels, Benoit, Guererro, Taker all could have replaced HHH and the company wouldn't of suffered one bit).
I wouldn't say either of them are that important, as people have given the reasons above. I think it's what the person does in the reign thats key to the crediblity of it. For example Kurt Angles regins as WWE champion will probably be more remembered than Eddie Guererros because Angle faced much bigger stars in The Rock,Brock Lesner,SCSA etc were as Eddie faced Kurt and JBL.
Having said that though I think in 20 years time people will look back at people like HHH's current 13 title reigns and Edge's current 9 regins the same way we now look at Ric Flairs 16, we see it as his legacy, when they mention Ric everybody thinks about his 16 championships, and I think it will be the same for Edge and HHH in 20+ years time.
Having said that though I think in 20 years time people will look back at people like HHH's current 13 title reigns and Edge's current 9 regins the same way we now look at Ric Flairs 16, we see it as his legacy, when they mention Ric everybody thinks about his 16 championships, and I think it will be the same for Edge and HHH in 20+ years time.
Ryanhitman316
Pre-Show Stalwart
I will prefer the long title reigns than multiple title reigns. The reason being is because in a multiple title reigns it shows that the wrestler lost the title X of many times. Whereas, in a long title reigns it shows how long the wrestler hold the title and defended throughout the months or years.
Wrestlefan27
Occasional Pre-Show
The title belts stopped meaning anything a long time ago in my eyes. The shift in view from wrestling as a "sport" to wrestling as entertainment killed the meaning behind the belts. Now they're just props in stories.
I will say that getting the belt means that you're character is extremely over. The world title represents the amount of cheers/heat you can draw from the fans.
I didn't even know that RVD held the World title. And when I think of Flair, the titles don't even come to mind. It's the character that comes to mind. The history. Four Horsemen. Limousine ridin' and jet flyin'. Stylin' and profilin'.
No one cares whether you win a belt. It's the characters/personas that we love.
I will say that getting the belt means that you're character is extremely over. The world title represents the amount of cheers/heat you can draw from the fans.
I didn't even know that RVD held the World title. And when I think of Flair, the titles don't even come to mind. It's the character that comes to mind. The history. Four Horsemen. Limousine ridin' and jet flyin'. Stylin' and profilin'.
No one cares whether you win a belt. It's the characters/personas that we love.
thesacredcow
Occasional Pre-Show
Neither truly matter, it's all about what you do when you have the belt. If it makes for entertaining television and great matches, that's all that counts. Generating fan interest is all that matters. If someone has the belt for a month and the arena's sold out, and the rating's are good, then they're a better champion than someone who holds the title for a year and can't draw. Length and number of reigns are insignificant in comparison to how well someone draws when they have the belt
I think if I had to be honest, for me it's a mixture of the two but what prestige they brought to the belt, the feuds they had with it. We remember title reigns for length, times and who fought over it - HBK vs. Razor, still remembered because of an iconic match (as Becca said) in a well contested rivalry. I remember Jericho's IC reigns for his feuds with Benoit over the title.
Austin being remembered as "the greatest WWE Champion" (quoted by JR) is down to the feud he had with it, Vince, Taker, Rock, Triple H, Shawn Michaels. That is why I'd remember Austin's reigns better, because the rivalry he had with Vince over the matter that he wanted the title off of Austin and we wanted him to remain champion alot longer.
Austin being remembered as "the greatest WWE Champion" (quoted by JR) is down to the feud he had with it, Vince, Taker, Rock, Triple H, Shawn Michaels. That is why I'd remember Austin's reigns better, because the rivalry he had with Vince over the matter that he wanted the title off of Austin and we wanted him to remain champion alot longer.
I think its more about how memorable the most.Although i think how long is more important then how many. For example triple H 1 the title what 13 times but he never really held it that long and that also means he lost the titl 13 times. By the end of his career hell have been champ like 30 times. They will say his 15, 20 year career is over (I dunno how long it will be) so to have that many shows they can't be that lng or memorable.
Tough question. I'll dance around a bit before answering directly. I think what brings importance to the title is the buildup to the title defense, and ultimately how the title change occurs.
This bodes well for heel champions. I always refer to HHH vs Batista at WM 21 as a great fairly recent moment that made the title seem like an absolute dream to have. It doesn't have to be a long title reign, but the title has to seem damn near impossible to get (heel or face).
Now directly to the question - I would say the amount of time you hold the championship for is more important. Edge is a 9-time world champion now, but is he not on an HBK/Undertaker/Bret Hart/Hogan/etc. level (yet).
This bodes well for heel champions. I always refer to HHH vs Batista at WM 21 as a great fairly recent moment that made the title seem like an absolute dream to have. It doesn't have to be a long title reign, but the title has to seem damn near impossible to get (heel or face).
Now directly to the question - I would say the amount of time you hold the championship for is more important. Edge is a 9-time world champion now, but is he not on an HBK/Undertaker/Bret Hart/Hogan/etc. level (yet).
Personally, if I had to pick one, I would say the longest reign rather then the amounts, at least you can say for how long you was onto of the mountain. It reallly bugs me when Flair, Triple H, Edge start bragging about the amount of reigns they had, no offenece to them, but if you won it that amount of times, it also means you lost it that many times, it's not anything to brag about.
Azrael Cain
The alternative is unthinkable.
It's the match quality and character development and growth during one's reign. The reign could last a week, but if in that one week a five star match is put on and a clear indication is shown that the character has grown somehow and has gotten better, then we're in business.
BradTheGreat
Dark Match Winner
i reckon it's a mix...
Edge he holds the strap for 2 weeks, loses it and proceeds to gain another world title that same night.
Being a 184 time World Champ = Impressive
JBL holds the title for a year, beating everyone in his path, then loses at Mania.
Being the longest reigning World Champion in SmackDown history = Impressive
and don't say how horrible JBL is or how Edge 'beetz Cena and iz badd'
i dont care. It's a freaking example people.
Edge he holds the strap for 2 weeks, loses it and proceeds to gain another world title that same night.
Being a 184 time World Champ = Impressive
JBL holds the title for a year, beating everyone in his path, then loses at Mania.
Being the longest reigning World Champion in SmackDown history = Impressive
and don't say how horrible JBL is or how Edge 'beetz Cena and iz badd'
i dont care. It's a freaking example people.
Similar threads
