Who had the better reign: Cena in 2006-2007 or Orton in 2007-2008?

[Dagger Dias]

In 2006-2008 we saw two extremely long WWE Championship reigns, one by each of the two current top guys John Cena and Randy Orton. In this thread I will revisit each for those who forgot or did not watch at that time, and then ask you which one you thought was the best. A poll will also be provided.

John Cena defeated Edge in a TLC match in September of 2006 to win his 3rd WWE Championship. This title reign lasted an epic 380 days and ended up being the longest run with this championship since Hulk Hogan in 1984 when he held it 1,474 days. Cena feuded with Edge for the rest of the fall. In the spring he faced Umaga who was on a winning streak until they fed him to Cena. Then Shawn Michaels stole the show with Cena in the main event of Wrestlemania 23. Michaels, Edge, and Randy Orton entered a Fatal Fourway feud with Cena. They lost. Next was a feud with The Great Khali. This lasted a couple of months. Night of Champions that year saw Cena retain against Mick Foley, Bobby Lashley, Randy Orton, and King Booker in a 5 man match. This was followed by a short feud with Bobby Lashley, this was where a lot of people thought he was finally going to lose. Cena won yet again and then came the feud with Randy Orton who was determined to defeat him. Cena retained at Summerslam but then an injury in October 2007 after an onscreen attack by Mr Kennedy, Orton RKO'ed Cena through a table just before their rematch and the real life injury from these two scripted attacks forced Cena to vacate the title.

The second WWE Championship reign we will be looking at in this thread began soon afterwards. Randy Orton was awarded a WWE Championship reign by Vince at No Mercy 2007, which ended almost immediately afterwards by Triple H. The main event saw Trips losing to Orton in a Last Man Standing match. The Age of Orton had begun. The next night on Raw a shocking comeback by Shawn Michaels started Orton's first feud during this reign. That lasted a few months. Chris Jericho made his official return to WWE and was put in a feud with Orton at this time, he lost as well. The next challenger was Jeff Hardy, who broke into the main event but also lost. Cena made his surprise return at the Royal Rumble and won it. He and Triple H faced Orton at Wrestlemania 24 but Orton retained once again. Trips finally ended the reign in April of 2008 starting a lengthy title run of his own.

So which of these two title reigns did you like more and why?

I personally liked Cena's better because the odds were increasingly against him more with each match yet he kept on retaining. You never see title reigns like that one anymore. It helped establish him as THE top guy of WWE and some of the guys he faced were elevated. Orton in particular has been a permanent main eventer ever since he ended the title reign. I liked Orton's reign a lot too but Cena's sticks out as being a little better to me. These were the two best WWE Championship reigns in years. We need more title runs like these two.

 

[JWGunslinger]

Anyone who knows me knows i'm an Orton mark, but on this one there is no doubt that Cena's massive reign was much more impressive than The Age of Orton(though Orton's was still awesome). The reason is pretty simple, as Dagger mentioned above Cena's competition kept getting tougher as he went on and the odds kept getting more stacked against him but he continued to rise above it all and remain champion. Also Cena was able to keep his belt against that tough competition for a longer period of time than Orton's 203 day reign. So without a doubt between these two excellent reigns that were without a doubt the two best we've seen in years, I must give the nod to Cena for a truely amazing reign of dominance.

 

[LSN80]

This is an excellent question, and there are distinct arguments to be made for both. As big of an Orton mark that JW is, Im just as big a mark for Cena. There is one hell of an argument to be made for Orton, and Id love to see someone make it. There's going to be several holes in my aargument for Cena, and Id love for someone to point them out. I still believe Cena had the better reign, but it's so close.

The way in which Cena won and retained the title was far more impressive then Randy Orton. While Orton won the title in a LMS match in HHH's third match of the night at No Mercy 2007 and was getting DQ'd to retain the title against HBK, Chris Jericho, and John Cena himself, John Cena won the title in Edge's match in Edge's hometown, in a TLC match in Toronto. He then went on to retain twice more against, including in a cage match. He then went on to retain the title against Umaga twice, in a single's match at New Years Revolution, and a brutal LMS match at the Royal Rumble. He then defeated HBK by submission at WM 23, retained the title in a Fatal Four Way with Edge, Orton, and HBK at Backlash, and then Khali in a single's match at Vengeance, and a Falls Count Anywhere match at Extreme Rules. He then turned his attention to Bobby Lashley, who he beat with an FU off the ropes. He then kept the title with a win over Orton himself at Summerslam, won a triple threat on Raw with Khali and Umaga, and retained the title for a third time against Orton at Unforgiven, and only failed to defend the title against Orton at No Mercy 07 because he was injured.

While it was a rough way to end a title, reign, he had definitive, clean victories over legends, up and comers, and legitimately built monsters. Orton defended mostly against upper-mid-card men where his title never seemed legitimately in jeopardy. When his championship looked in jeopady, he simply get himself DQ'd. Its impossible to identify someone as having a "great reign" when most of their title retentions were marred by disqualifications or absurd stipulations, such as HBK's superkick being banned.

That's not the only way to judge a title reign, however. Where Cena had a true advantage in both match quality and how he defended the title, Orton's feuds and their personal nature exceeded anything Cena did. Orton won the title against HHH, which was a rivalry dating back to their days in Evolution. He then retained twice against HBK, who he had put on the shelf by punting him. Jericho wasn't personal in nature, but Jeff Hardy at the Rumble was. Hardy had won a No.1 Contender's match at Armageddon, and the stakes were made high when Orton punted Matt Hardy in the head. He then went to take on Cena at No Way Out, which was personal in the same way it was with HBK- Orton had put Cena on the shelf with a vicious attack. He then went on to Wrestlemania(there's an argunment in there Ill let someone else touch ) and fought Cena and HHH, with well-documented rivalries as previously discussed.

Orton's title reign cemented him as a main eventer. Cena was already there by the time he had his year long reign. Most of his matches weren't personal until his match with Orton at Unforgiven, and Edge because of their history. But there never felt like there was a time Orton's title was truly in jeopardy until WM 24, which to his credit, he won. Cena's title felt in jeopardy in many of his matches, and yet he retained clean every time. Given the quality of matches, the length of reign and way in which he retained, I have to give the slight nod to Cena. But Id love for someone to come along and play Devil's Advocate here, because there are arguments out there for Orton that I didn't touch.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

Although Cena's reign is clearly the most impressive (380 > 203) I think Orton's reign did much more for Orton than Cena's reign did for Cena, thus making Orton's reign more efficient. According to Vince Russo, the belt is merely a prop used to get the stars over but I think most of us would agree that the belt should be given to the top guy in the company to show casual fans who THE man is. Orton was given the belt via the Russo Rule, he was on the brink of main event stardom but need that one big push. By the end of his reign, Orton was the top heel in the company, which he remained to be until the fans eventually turned him face. He's been in the main event since his reign more than Cena has, only leaving the title hunt for minor feuds with Kofi, Batista, and Legacy (meanwhile Cena has feuded with JBL, Big Show, Miz, Nexus, and more in non-title feuds).

Before Cena's reign he was top face, and after he was the top face. Before Orton's reign he was a good heel, after he was the top heel. Orton hasn't left the spotlight since, so I'd say his reign was more efficient, more effective, and overall more significant to the current times than Cena's legendary 380-day title reign.

 

[rko57]

While very good points on both ends, and me being an Orton fan, I'm going with Orton, but for reasons nobody has mentioned yet.

What nobody has mentioned is the fact that Cena had already had a very long title reign just months prior to his longest one, when he first won the WWE Championship, he was Champion all the way from WrestleMania 21 to New Years Revolution, a 10 month reign. He then won the title again a few weeks later, lost it 5 months later to RVD, and then went to take it from Edge a couple months after that. Cena had been champion for awhile and so his 380 day reign felt a little stale to me as he was winning every match and it was during this reign he became "Super Cena"

Don't get me wrong, I do not hate Cena like most people, but I did get tired of him being champion for 27 outta 30 months. For Orton, the Age of Orton cemented Orton as a main eventer and for me was one of my favorite times watching Orton wrestle. For me it's Orton, but it is a close one and I completely understand why people choose Cena's reign

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Orton's reign was just dull to me. The only interesting to me during that reign was JBL returning to action. If Orton was that cocky guy just one year prior, I believe it would have gone better. I think you know where I'm going with this.