Which is more important? Number of Title Reigns, or Length?

[Shocky]

Another great debate. Which is the most important to you as a fan. What makes a bigger impression, The Rock being a 7 time WWE Champion, a 2 time WCW Champion, a total of 9 world titles, or John Cena holding the belt for a year, and more then two years during a 2 1/2 year time span?

On one hand, you have the number of lengths, like a Ric Flair. 16 time or 17 time, depending on what JR was drinking the night before. But many tend to forget that Flair had year long title reigns. Same with Hogan. I think Hogan is something around an 11 or 12 time world champion, (depending on AWA recognition, maybe more), but do more people remember him for his first title run that began in 1984 and ended in 1988.

I have a hard time deciding this one myself. On one hand, look at a guy like Edge. A 4 time World Champion as compared to a John Cena, a 3 Time World champion. Edge has more title reigns, but does anyone think he is a better champion then Cena, due to Cena's lengthy title reign?

For me, I think at face value to new fans, telling people that Flair is a 16 time world champion makes a good impression. Or even better, teh Rock is a seven time WWE champion, the only seven time holder (Until Triple H wins 15). At first impression, it makes people think the Rock is great, but then when you look at his title reigns, you realize they were crap.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Kcorthe]

Interesting topic.

I myself feel that a champion should be evaluated based on what he does with the title during his reign.

Another thing we all need to consider is that the times have changed.

Think about this:
In 1997-2003, a 4-month Title reign was considered lengthy. Hardly anyone ever held the Title for more than 4 months. As a matter of fact, between November 1996 and April 2003, the longest WWE Title reign was 5 1/2 months, and that reign belonged to "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, who held the belt from April 1, 2001 - September 23, 2001.

So you really have to be leniant towards the title holders of those years (The Attitude Era, really) because in those days, long title reigns were very rare. What is long then and long now, is entirely different.

So yes, The Rock is a 7-Time WWE Champion, and yes all but one of his reigns was less than two months. But when you include the fact that he held all of his titles during The Attitude Era, he didn't so bad at all.

But, to answer the question:
Long title reigns vs. Number of Titles, in general.

It depends on what is done with the title during the reign. If someone holds the belt for 8 months and only defends it 8 times, vs. someone who holds the title for 2 months and defends it 6 times, I would have to go with the 2-month reign.

So its really not a question that can be answered fully, in my opinion.

 

[beetle717]

neither matters much, it's the memorable aspects of the champs personality that will shine through. Nobody remembers a great Bret Hart Promo because there weren't many that one could honestly call great, it was all spectacular ring work. Just like everyone remembers at least one Rock Promo because he was just awesome in that area. in my examples made sense yay for me if not maybe someone else could give it a shot.

 

[Slyfox696]

It depends on what aspect we are looking at. If we are looking at a wrestler in the middle of his career, there is no doubt length of title reigns are more important. But, when people start to get nostalgic and discussing the "greats", things like 7 time WWF champion become much more important for The Rock. Nevermind the fact that most of his title reigns lasted less than 6 months. He won it a bunch of times.

I think for credibility of a belt, longer reigns are better, as evidenced by John Cena's run. It truly defines what a champion is about. A champion is supposed to be someone who is clearly better than everyone else, and the belt represents the very best. And, when John Cena holds the belt for a year, it shows that he is THE very best. And when someone does finally beat the champion, it only makes THAT person look bigger.

 

[beetle717]

I never thought about it like that slyfox, I think you are right, especially in Cena's case.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I rarely look at how many championships a wrestler has had as a big indication on their career. Hell, if I can remember something they did that gives me more of an impression of them. Over recent years the WWE title has become to mean a small amount. Before I used to look at who holds the championship as the best wrestler in the business. Often you can't do that anymore.

When it comes to the careers of a lot of legends, they haven't had as many title reigns as they deserve. Also due to the time a lot of those guys were wrestling, 'short' title reigns were common, however they were looked at to be long in those days. However these were also the time you could see the championship around someone's waist and just KNOW they were the best.

It's also confusing when comparing in ring ability between wrestlers. Look at Triple H and Shawn Michaels. They are both great wrestlers, and I would never be able to say HHH was better than HBK, but the comparison of title reigns seems to show that.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

C.A., great thread topic. kcorthe brings up a good point that I would like to elaborate on, about the times changing and what it means for wrestling.

Yes, in the attitude era, a year-long reign was unheard of, and as a result John Cena is now the victim of thr shortened attention span of fans. Hell, in the 70's and 80's, 12 months + was considered commonplace.

Also, in the recent seeding post for the Wrestlezone Tournament, I commented on Jerry Lawler being a 30-time AWA Southern Heavyweight Champion. 30 times, I feel works against Lawler because he lost the title 30 times.

One thing I think matters is being a FIGHTING CHAMPION. As much as Sly Fox comes to Hulk Hogan's aid, let's face one fact - Hogan didn't wrestle or defend the title on the schedule that today's champions do. I think Bret Hart was among the first true "fighting champions", but the Cena's, Edge's, and Orton's of the world defend their belts at more pay per views (12 now as opposed to 4 in Hogan's heyday) and more shows (RAW is like a mini-PPV where the old Monday Night show was a lot of superstars vs jobbers with one main event).

Competition plays a major part too. Bob Backlund held the WWF title for 8 years, but how many top contenders came his way? With the death of the territory system and the advent of major, oligopolous players in the Pro Wrestling industry, there is far more consolidated talent. Thus, more high quality title contenders.

 

[Agrex]

At first the number of title reigns makes the bigger, better impression. But once your realise that (for example) all the wrestlers 8 reigns together come up to half a yer it's not as impressive. That makes Cena a better champion than let's say The Rock, who held the belt 7 times. This theory doesn't count for every reign as the earleir ones were very long (i.e 8 years, 4 years), but that's because they didin't have to defend the title as many times as today's champions. Also like IC25 made a great point, if someone was a 7-time champ that means he lost the beslt 7 times.

So when it comes down to importance it's about the length of title reigns, but when it's about first impression it's about the number of title reigns.

 

[Slyfox696]

One thing I think matters is being a FIGHTING CHAMPION. As much as Sly Fox comes to Hulk Hogan's aid, let's face one fact - Hogan didn't wrestle or defend the title on the schedule that today's champions do. I think Bret Hart was among the first true "fighting champions", but the Cena's, Edge's, and Orton's of the world defend their belts at more pay per views (12 now as opposed to 4 in Hogan's heyday) and more shows (RAW is like a mini-PPV where the old Monday Night show was a lot of superstars vs jobbers with one main event).

Well, that's untrue.

Hogan wrestled all the time at house shows and big shows. They just weren't always on TV or PPV. It's not like Hogan wrestled 6 times a year. He wrestled all the time, especially during the 80s. And, since so much revenue for a company came from the shows they would hold, Hogan was required to be there to draw the fans. So, to say he wasn't a fighting champion is not really looking hard enough. It's comparing two different eras.

Competition plays a major part too. Bob Backlund held the WWF title for 8 years, but how many top contenders came his way? With the death of the territory system and the advent of major, oligopolous players in the Pro Wrestling industry, there is far more consolidated talent. Thus, more high quality title contenders.

There are just as many top contenders then as there are now. You just don't know their names, just like 30 years from now, people won't remember The Great Khali's and the Umagas of the world.

 

[fearthereaper]

I agree with some on this forum. you have to look at the change in times. Back when "rasslin" was attempting to be a legit competition, a champion defending his belt would add prestige to his title. Whereas now, it's all about revenue so major title defenses occur mainly at pay-per-views. Why give the fans title matches like The Rock vs Stone Cold (the first time, not including the next bazillion times) for free when you can charge them $50 to sit at home and watch it? I personally don't think titles mean anything anymore. They are just variables in storylines. You can make a case, though...that Ric Flair may have had 17 world title reigns...which means he lost it 17 times. On the other hand, If John Cena holds the title for a year, but only defends it against Randy Orton at every single PPV, he only defended it against one person. If I beat up my friend once a month, that doesn't make me the best fighter in the world...that makes me better than him

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Well, that's untrue.

Hogan wrestled all the time at house shows and big shows. They just weren't always on TV or PPV. It's not like Hogan wrestled 6 times a year. He wrestled all the time, especially during the 80s. And, since so much revenue for a company came from the shows they would hold, Hogan was required to be there to draw the fans. So, to say he wasn't a fighting champion is not really looking hard enough. It's comparing two different eras.

No, it's not untrue champ. I've read a few accounts, and I don't think you attended every single house show to see Hogan wrestle. Even if he did show up for the occasional tag team match (which even you can admit he did a lot then) at a house show he didn't defend the title nearly as much as the champions today do. The landscape has changed.

Plus, there is far greater pressure to perform on TV than a house show. Millions of people see TV matches so you have to go all out. House shows are seen by 5000 - 10000 people and then are forgotten. Cena, Orton, etc - they perform on EVERY TV SHOW that they are champion. Hogan's TV appearances were FAR more sparse! He'd wrestle major events, and even then not always in title matches.

That's not a knock on Hogan, Sly, it's a difference in eras, and you are damn right I'm comparing the two for the purposes of this thread.

 

[Lashley07]

Vince McMahon has been known to preffer long title reigns these days, but what do you guys think?

I preffer short title reigns, around the 4 - 5 month mark, with a few long ones added in there to make it less predictable.

These long title reigns get boring after a while, and during the attitude era there was a real chance of the title changing hands during every title match. Now there usually isnt, and I can't even remember the last time the WWE Title changed hands on WWE RAW.

Basically, what do you guys think? Would it make it more interesting to have shorter title reigns with a few long ones added in?

 

["RAVEN"]

I think the way you said is exactly how the reigns should be. Except without Cena being the only one having ridiculously long reigns. Although, I like that the WWE title doesnt change hands on RAW. It gives it a little more prestige only being defended at PPV's.

 

[Slim Pickns]

I personally prefer long title reigns because it make the title switch more exciting. The problem is that the WWE has a PPV every month and every one has a World Title match.

Back in the late 80's early 90's there were only four PPV's a year (Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series). Storylines would run for months without the people involved having a tag match every week. They would use promos, backstage segments, or squash matches to keep fans interested. If the two did get in the ring together before a match it was on Saturday Night's Main Event and was a tag match. This is why title reigns and storylines could go for a year without getting stale. Macho Man vs Hogan was built from one Wrestlemania to the next and never came close to getting stale. Hogan and Andre fueded from WrestleMania III to Survivor Series the next year, and it even overlapped with the Macho feud.

Wrestling will always be about making money. A PPV every month could each get half the buys of each of the big four from 88-92 and the WWE would be making more money. With the exception of John Cena, no one has held the title for a year because that would mean they have to retain the belt at least 12 times in stead of three or four.

 

["RAVEN"]

I don't think those type of title reigns translate well today. There's too many contenders to have year long feuds, and keep them entertaining. Which is why it isn't working good for Cena to have similar reigns, although his feuds are shorter.

 

[miamicanes460]

The problem with the WWE is that people don't really want to watch Raw or Smackdown, because it is so predictable whenever there's a title match.

Who wants to see a title match with no credibility? If Orton is facing Triple H for the title tonight or something of that nature, why watch? You know who is going to win and how, so there's no point to main event title matches.


WE DO NEED TO START HAVING THE TITLE CHANGE HANDS ON RAW!

I know that I'd watch with absolutely glued eyes if I knew the title was on the line and it could change hands. The biggest pop I've ever heard was Jericho winning the WWF title on Raw against HHH in 2000. It was the first Raw after Wrestlemania, and HHH was smack dab in the middle of a big feud with The Rock. Jericho won out of nowhere, and it made that show the most exciting Raw I've ever seen. I remember scrambling everywhere to find a phone to call my friends and tell them to turn on Raw and watch. It was a very exciting change.

I also remember a match where Angle wrestled Stone Cold for the WWE title, in which I really thought that Stone Cold could beat Angle for that title. That made it exciting. I'd love to see that happen again. The problem is that the title can't change hands for extended periods of time and ruin storylines. I agree that the PPV is the time for the major battle to go down, so it is tough to let the title change hands on a Raw/Smackdown.

Jericho's title reign was perfect. He was very over with the fans (Hardy now) and he was not at all expected to win the title. The Rock was in a feud with Triple H, who was untouchable (randy orton lately). I'd say to let Hardy win somehow with maybe a screwjob when Cena screws Orton or something of that nature. To see Hardy beat Orton for the title would just bring the roof off of the WWE, and make it exciting again. I'm not saying that we need to keep the belt on Hardy, but hell, make it exciting. Make Orton beat him later that night or the next week on Raw again. Whatever, but keep it interesting.

I absolutely can't stand long "face" superstar title reigns, but I don't mind long title reigns that involve "heel" superstars. I hope Orton beats HHH and Cena at the PPV and really legitimizes his reign as champion.

 

[Aaronx]

Personally i would like shorter title reigns. When the title reign is shorter the PPV's and title matches get less predictable. When you have a 9 or 10 month title reign you almost know he's going to win that PPV's big title match, or the match on Raw or whatever the case may be. It's not until you see someone getting a huge push and doing squashes and things of the sort to get their popularity that you know they might have a chance to take the strap. And shorter title reigns = better ratings. This is because many people don't want something predictable out of a wrestling show, they like to be on the edge of their seat trying to anticipate what's going to happen next. They really wouldn't know if someones going to come out with a suprise finisher or a big turning point in the match will happen. But they'll know exactly what to expect with someone who has the belt for an absurd amount of time.

 

[Father:_Polley]

i think short because it's become too much of a long reign trend. mvp has held title for ages, jbl and cena all held for a long time. plus there hasn't been a good screwjob for the titles since santino debuted.

i know they usually invent some weird rule to get the title back the nxt wk, but at least it's different and the short reigns keep you guessing.

the titles havent really changed on raw or smackdown in a while either which would help ratings for ppvs rather than a sneak attack the show before the ppv.

final point...why does wwe insist on 4week rivalries. i like a good slow build up with a few surprises along the way. at least then it leaves you guessing who's going to win rather than building up a contender quickly and they disappear again for 5 months after the ppv

 

[Agrex]

Both type or reigns have their pros and cons. The long title reigns give the title more credibility as its not passed around that much. The short title reigns are more interesting because they can change hands at anytime (i.e RAW).

If I had to choose it would be the long type of reigns. The long reigns give the title and wrestler more credibility. Sure it's less interesting, but then the title has no credibility. The harcore title have like 10 minute reigns, and it was not a title with alot of credibility.

Though the idea of having alot of short reigns, with some long reigns is great, if used properly. For example, don't have a wrestler hold the title for 13months when it gets stale. The wrestler has to have the ability/skill to never go stale. That's hard to find.

Another point to take under consideration is how often the title is defended. For example, if the title reign is long, and the title is never defended the title will lose crediblity, and interest. If the reign is long with the champ defending it on many PPV's, on RAW, and other things that will be more interesting, as the title could change more often.

 

[Slim Pickns]

Both type or reigns have their pros and cons. The long title reigns give the title more credibility as its not passed around that much. The short title reigns are more interesting because they can change hands at anytime (i.e RAW).

Except that with a PPV every four weeks or so, the title change will more than likely occur there. If they do a RAW title change, it would throw off there PPV that would be at the most, four weeks away.

Though the idea of having alot of short reigns, with some long reigns is great, if used properly. For example, don't have a wrestler hold the title for 13months when it gets stale. The wrestler has to have the ability/skill to never go stale. That's hard to find..

No matter what, people are going to accuse a champ of getting stale. There were so many fans who couldn't wait to see Orton take the belt off of Cena, and now those same people are whining that Orton still has it. The average viewers attention span isn't championship friendly.

Another point to take under consideration is how often the title is defended. For example, if the title reign is long, and the title is never defended the title will lose crediblity, and interest. If the reign is long with the champ defending it on many PPV's, on RAW, and other things that will be more interesting, as the title could change more often.

The only reason that a title loses credibility by not being defended is because there are so many PPV's that it would be left off of. Again, look at Hogan/Savage from Wrestlemania IV to V. Savage didn't defend the belt at a single PPV, yet people couldn't wait to see Hogan vs Macho. They teamed together at Summerslam and Survivor Series and Hogan eliminated Macho in the Rumble (the Rumble match wasn't for a title match so the champion was in it). This was all great build up for a full year, it worked because there were only four PPV's.

 

[Agrex]

Except that with a PPV every four weeks or so, the title change will more than likely occur there. If they do a RAW title change, it would throw off there PPV that would be at the most, four weeks away.

That would be interesting, and new. Do you think the fans will expect the title to change hands on RAW? No. It would be a great idea. I don't think it could throw a PPV off. For example, if Edge/Batista are in a feud, and have a match at Vengeance. On the Smackdown before the PPV, Edge wins the title. That would add major heat to the match, and would not throw it off at all.

No matter what, people are going to accuse a champ of getting stale. There were so many fans who couldn't wait to see Orton take the belt off of Cena, and now those same people are whining that Orton still has it. The average viewers attention span isn't championship friendly.

I do admit that the attention span of some fans isn't that high, but I stand on my opinion. I don't think that Randy Orton has the ability to never go stalen. In my opinion, The Rock, and Austin are great examples. The fans would not get bored of them. That's why I said it's so hard to find wrestlers like that.

The only reason that a title loses credibility by not being defended is because there are so many PPV's that it would be left off of. Again, look at Hogan/Savage from Wrestlemania IV to V. Savage didn't defend the belt at a single PPV, yet people couldn't wait to see Hogan vs Macho. They teamed together at Summerslam and Survivor Series and Hogan eliminated Macho in the Rumble (the Rumble match wasn't for a title match so the champion was in it). This was all great build up for a full year, it worked because there were only four PPV's.

Those were different times. As you said before, the fans have a short attention span. Therefore the fans would get bored of a feud that lasts too long. If the reign is long, and there are many feuds during it, the champion will not become stale. That's why I said, that long reigns can be very good if done well.

 

[Slim Pickns]

That would be interesting, and new. Do you think the fans will expect the title to change hands on RAW? No. It would be a great idea. I don't think it could throw a PPV off. For example, if Edge/Batista are in a feud, and have a match at Vengeance. On the Smackdown before the PPV, Edge wins the title. That would add major heat to the match, and would not throw it off at all.

True, but the title switch would mean very little if the had a PPV match coming up. Remember when Rey Mysterio and King Booker had a match for the World Heavyweight Title on Smackdown the show before the Great American Bash? That match was pointless because the rematch was being hyped weeks before that one. I'm all for a suprise title switch now and then, but it would have to be before one of the B PPV's and involve someone not scheduled for the main event (ex- Orton is champ and is going to face Cena at No Mercy. Jeff Hardy is scheduled to face HHH. Have Hardy pull an upset over Orton and make the Hardy HHH match for the WWE Title. I'm all for this). Doing a switch before Mania would be stupid though.

I do admit that the attention span of some fans isn't that high, but I stand on my opinion. I don't think that Randy Orton has the ability to never go stalen. In my opinion, The Rock, and Austin are great examples. The fans would not get bored of them. That's why I said it's so hard to find wrestlers like that..

I don't think there's a single wrestler on the roster who wouldn't get critisized for being stale as champ after a year long reign. The fans didn't get bored of Austin and Rock, but they also passed the belt around fairly often to consider them for this argument. Them not getting stale had to do with the storylines in the attitude era, not really the title. Look at WWE then and now. Now adays you'd swear the Worl Titles were all that existed.

Those were different times. As you said before, the fans have a short attention span. Therefore the fans would get bored of a feud that lasts too long. If the reign is long, and there are many feuds during it, the champion will not become stale. That's why I said, that long reigns can be very good if done well.

Again, it goes back to a PPV every month. If a feud lasted a year in the early 90's, fans would only have to buy 4 PPV's in a year to see the long and storied feud come full circle. Today, someone would have to buy 12 PPV's to see 12 variations of a match between two guys to see it come full circle. Do you know anyone that would pay for that? How many people do you here complaining that John Cena retained the WWE Title so many times last year? He had many opponent, yet became stale to some.

As I said, I like long reigns as it keeps the Championship worth something. Those days of year long reigns are gone for good because there is just too much TV time to fill up. People can only watch Cena vs Orton, Batista vs Edge, and HHH vs HBK so many times.

 

[PhenomAJJones]

I like medium Title Reigns if u have a person be champion for 1 year it turns people off, cause they know who is gonna be champion coming out of the Pay Per View. I think you should have 4-6 month Reign cause it is long but its not too long to where people are gonna say that the champion will always win the match.

 

[Agrex]

True, but the title switch would mean very little if the had a PPV match coming up. Remember when Rey Mysterio and King Booker had a match for the World Heavyweight Title on Smackdown the show before the Great American Bash? That match was pointless because the rematch was being hyped weeks before that one. I'm all for a suprise title switch now and then, but it would have to be before one of the B PPV's and involve someone not scheduled for the main event (ex- Orton is champ and is going to face Cena at No Mercy. Jeff Hardy is scheduled to face HHH. Have Hardy pull an upset over Orton and make the Hardy HHH match for the WWE Title. I'm all for this). Doing a switch before Mania would be stupid though.

Some of the B PPV's don't get such high buy rates. In my opinion, it would be a great idea for a title switch before it to get the fans more interested. The fans would tune in jus to see how they would play it out. The match may have lost credibility since it already has been seen, but it would draw massive heat. For example, the face is the champ, the RAW before the PPV the face loses the title to the heel. On the PPV the face wins it back. That would be a good way to get the fans interested.

I don't think there's a single wrestler on the roster who wouldn't get critisized for being stale as champ after a year long reign. The fans didn't get bored of Austin and Rock, but they also passed the belt around fairly often to consider them for this argument. Them not getting stale had to do with the storylines in the attitude era, not really the title. Look at WWE then and now. Now adays you'd swear the Worl Titles were all that existed.

I agree that there isn't a single wrestler who wouldnn't get criticized. That's why I said it's so hard to find a wrestler like that. The fans won't get bored of the wrestler if he has the skill. Cena somewhat had it. He may have been boring to some, but still had a great deal of fans from his riginal fan base. Someone like Undertaker, who has alot of respect, and is very popular would not get boring. It's all about the timing.

Again, it goes back to a PPV every month. If a feud lasted a year in the early 90's, fans would only have to buy 4 PPV's in a year to see the long and storied feud come full circle. Today, someone would have to buy 12 PPV's to see 12 variations of a match between two guys to see it come full circle. Do you know anyone that would pay for that? How many people do you here complaining that John Cena retained the WWE Title so many times last year? He had many opponent, yet became stale to some.

As I said, I like long reigns as it keeps the Championship worth something. Those days of year long reigns are gone for good because there is just too much TV time to fill up. People can only watch Cena vs Orton, Batista vs Edge, and HHH vs HBK so many times.

The fans did not get bored of the reigns. Those were different times. The fans didn't think that it would be possible to have the champ defend his title every four weeks. I admit it could get boring, but it's all about the feud. If you stretch one feud throught the entire reign it will get boring, if you chop it up, and make morefeuds, it'll be intresting. And before you go back to saying that there used to be only 4 PPV's, those were different times. The fans changed, and so did the business.

 

[Total Impact]

I like long title reigns. I mean I love the fact that Cena held the WWE Championship for year as it didn't feel like he held it that long as he always had different opponents and matches and his one year reign made him a credible champion that will live on the history of wrestling. I think long reigns are good for making a title seem important, so that we a champion loses, it means something. JBL losing the gold to Cena meant something.

The problem I have with a long reign, is when the WWE doesnt focus in on how great the champion has been. I think the WWE be accident gave London/Kendrick a long reign as when it hit a year it was like wow, did they ever defend the gold, same with Helms and even MVP, the only people he put the title on the line with was Flair, Kane, and Hardy. So its only good when you have a mix of great opponents and matches, but when a guy just holds the belt because no one is there to face him a credible match then it sucks.