What Title Reigns Are Better?

[Black Lushus 0]

self-explanitory question...set aside champion drawing power here or backstage politics...pretend each title reign has really meant something...what do you think is more important: to hold the World Title 16 times (tons of short reigns in there) or carry it once or twice for a year or longer? Everyone has heard the old debate "So, Flair has held the title 16 times, all that tells me is that he lost it 16 times." What do you all think? guys like Macho Man, Nash (as Diesel), Warrior, JBL have all held the title for a year or damn near close to...again don't take drawing power/backstage politics into consideration...meanwhile guys like HHH, Rock, Austin, Flair, Angle, etc. are all likely to hold the title 3 or 4 times within a year...which has more of an "aura" about it? I think Hogan holding it for 4 years, Backlund for 3, etc. makes a stronger champion than one who loses it and regains it over and over again...it makes it even more shocking when they FINALLY lose it and it's a huge boost for the one who finally takes it...when Lex Luger and Bret Hart are your two top faces, who do you think would normally have beaten Yokozuna after his year long reign (let's look at it from a kayfabed mark perspective)? Luger right? On paper he matches up better against Yoko...Bret wins and it makes him look so much stronger...now take Flair, he loses the belt again to whoever and it's like, oh well, he'll win it again and really it does nothing to improve the guy that beat him for the belt...

 

Discuss...

[Just John 0]

I don't think Flair's 16 title reigns is so bad, since he's been wrestling for almost 30 years. The Dudley's 18 title runs in 10, however, is atrocious. Booker T's 5 WCW title reigns isn't too great considering he got at least four of them in less than a year.

 

In general, I'd say quality over quantity when it comes to title runs.

[Slickster 0]

Good idea for a thread.

 

This is a cop-out answer, but I'd say that both can be just as effective.

 

Austin was always seen as *the* man on top from 1998-1999 and 2001 because he had so many short title reigns that fans perceived him as being able to win back the title at any time. (This perception was supported by the fact that on two separate occasions, Austin lost a PPV match and won the WWE Title the next night on RAW.) Steve Austin and Ric Flair are among the few guys who could show up on RAW this week, ask for a title shot, and immediately be regarded by the fans as a legitimate contender.

 

On the other hand, Triple H made himself synonymous with the World Heavyweight Championship for a full year during 2002 and 2003 (except for Nov-Dec 02). He made himself seem unbeatable. By the same token, Hulk Hogan's title run from 1985 until 1988 cemented his reputation as THE MAN in this business. Without that 3-year title run, Hulk Hogan's career after 1990 would have been much, much less successful (WCW dominance, the nWo, the return to WWE, etc.). However, if he had retired from the business after WM4, his legacy would still be held in very high regard due to that one impressive title run. The same also holds true for Bob Backlund. Without that ridiculously long run as WWE Champion, would he be much more than a footnote? I doubt it.

[Papacita 0]

Definitely long reigns, partially for the reasons you've mentioned. I always find that the most believable champions are those with the most number of successful, high profile title defenses (or in other words, champions who always win in big matches), and the longer the reign, the better the easier it is for you to build up bigger, more believable challengers.

[Slickster 0]

Definitely long reigns, partially for the reasons you've mentioned. I always find that the most believable champions are those with the most number of successful, high profile title defenses (or in other words, champions who always win in big matches), and the longer the reign, the better the easier it is for you to build up bigger, more believable challengers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But by being a successful champion with many title defenses, won't you have already beaten most credible challengers, making it harder to build them up? (See HHH, 2003. He almost had to lose to Goldberg because Goldberg was the only credible challenger left that HHH hadn't beaten. JBL suffered from this problem as well, albeit to a lesses extent than HHH.)

 

It worked for Hogan because he had ~5 televised title defenses annually, so you could do a whole year with him facing 2-3 challengers in various rematches. Backlund went around the horn with challengers (often going 2-3 months with each due to countout finishes and other BS endings), plus he would have shorter feuds with out-of-town talent brought up from other territories.

 

In the modern era, though, you can't have a long title reign and defend the belt frequently without damaging the credibility of every other person on the roster.

[Papacita 0]

^ Not necessarily. The main reason HHH's long reign was problematic was because for the most part, he never really allowed his competition to be perceived as being on the same level as him, and it's more the way that his challengers were portrayed that made their losses damaging, not so much the loss itself. And while I admittedly didn't see much of Bradshaw's reign, from what I can recall, he didn't have the strongest batch of challengers in the first place, so there's your problem right there. If you look at a reign like RVD's TV Title run in ECW, he always went over in the end, but you never got the sense that that his opponent couldn't get the better of him in a rematch. Same with Samoa Joe in ROH, and while I'm not calling for a return to 2 year title reigns, I feel that with a solid undercard and a champion that actually works to brings others up to his level, there's really no reason that a long reign couldn't work in the modern era.

[Ravenbomb 0]

I know he held it for a while, but how long WAS Honkey Tonk Man's IC title reign?

[Black Lushus 0]

it was 18 months, correct?

[Si82 0]

Good topic man.

 

Anyway, I personally prefere long title reigns to shorter ones. I feel they help to define an era in wrestling be they good or bad. It also give a guy a really chance to get over as, for lack of a better term, real champion. That's not to say a large number of reigns make a guy a crappy champion. Like Ric Flair, large number of reigns with some being lengthy over a long career. However, how this would work in this modern era I don't know.

[Black Lushus 0]

I know Yoko, Nash and JBL weren't draws, as already stated, but to me it makes it that much sweeter when they are finally defeated after holding on for so long...what a coincedence that Bret Hart was able to stop Yoko AND Nash's long runs...

[Cheex Incarnate 0]

I'm a long reign man, myself. Someone who has to will to hold a title for a long time will seem to have more respect for the championship versus someone who can lose it and win it at their leisure.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with Papacita's comment about JBL's array of challengers. What I most liked about JBL's reign is that literally EVERYTIME he put the title on the line one could percieve him losing it. That probably has something to do with the fact that originally, no one wanted to see him with the belt in the first place, but I digress. When he fought any of Guerrero, Taker, Big Show, Angle, or Booker (who were all the big challengers round this time) it was completely believable he'd lose. Towards Dec-Jan this feeling started to wain once it was obvious Cena was winning at Mania, but you get the idea.

 

Cheex

[Dangerous A 0]

Depends on your intents and purposes.

 

A guy who is super hot who fans percieve as a champion (think Hogan and Austin) is a guy who you want to have a long reign and you build up guys to challenge them. That is how you maximize the money drawing end of wrestling. Fans want to see these men fend off the comers for their title.

 

However, when business is not as hot and there isn't a star the likes of Austin or Hogan around, a guy like Flair is a guy to hold the belt until it's time to drop it because he has the credibility to carry the title even though he isn't a killer draw. HHH really has taken that part of Flair where, he isn't a draw, but he can credibly hold the title until it's time to drop it to the next big thing in hopes that the next big thing has drawing legs. HHH's problem is he's stale. When Flair was making his run throughout the 80's and early 90's, he wasn't nearly as stale, so it was ok.

[zyn081 0]

I think you have to mix it up a bit. I dont think you should have more than 2 seperate year-long reigns. A third would be pushing it. I also think that 1 or 2 month terms should be kept to a minimum, since your diluting your big title. If there are a lot of top talent on the roster, then I think having reigns of 5/6 months is your best bet, followed by a 3/4 month reign. I dont think the big title should change hands more than 2/3 times a year though.

[Black Lushus 0]

I guess it's kinda hard to have this debate without bringing drawing power up to some degree...

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

Yeah, depends on context. A short title reign like Piper's IC reign is memorable because he had never had gold before despite his popularity and lost the belt in one of his best ever matches. However, If belts are lost and won almost week-in week-out on Raw then they lose all credibility. The Honky Tonk Man's reign was at the time inspired and we still talk about it today, whereas no-one cares that the Dudleyz have held the tag titles of WCW, ECW and WWE because nothing was made of it.

[CanadianChris 0]

it was 18 months, correct?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

14 months, 27 days (won June 2, 1987; lost August 29, 1988).

[Guest Rrrsh]

I think Long reigns help the secondary titles more than short, multiple reigns. When you say that Jericho, RVD and Jarret are the three men who have held the IC belt the most, I think of guys WWE hasnt pushed or guys who are not good enough.

 

When it comes to The Big Titles, I say more is better. If you have multiple reigns, the company views you as a player. They want you around the top. Lots of guys who held the titles real long (90's on I mean) are one hit wonders who just had shitty contenders.

[pochorenella 0]

I personally prefer rather long-ish Title reigns, but certainly don't mind short ones if they're meaningful and/or memorable. For example, I may be in the minority here but I didn't mind Kurt Angle's 2 week reign in 2001 because I felt that Angle needed to beat Stone Cold for the belt, but I knew Austin would get it back quickly. On the other hand, reings like the one Randy Orton had with the World Title certainly didn't help him any and I felt strongly that Benoit could've held the belt for a bit longer, maybe even not lose quite that cleanly. Speaking of Benoit, his and Eddie's reign's were ok length-wise IMO, and they both had pretty memorable defenses on PPV and TV alike so, even if I was pissed when they lost, in no way do those losses dimminish the quality of their reigns.

 

Now take Shelton Benjamin's IC Title reign. While I'm a big fan of his and was quite happy that he had the longest stretch with the belt since The Rock, I was kinda dissappointed in the quality of his defenses. He had a few good matches with Jericho and a pretty good 3-way match the night after WM21, both Title defenses. You can also count a good defense vs. Christian on PPV. But then his best work was the MITB match at WM and vs. Shawn Michaels in the Gold Rush tournament and neither were defenses, so I give him an average grading for his reign even if it was rather long.

 

Speaking of long reigns, what do you guys think of Demolition's first WWF Tag Title reign? From March 27th 1988 until July 18th 1989. That's by far the longest reign in the tag ranks I can recall from any Fed. Maybe the Road Warriors on the AWA had a comparable one IIRC. Is that the longest one in recent memory? With the sad state of Tag wrestling (specially on WWE) it's highly unlikely this'll happen again soon.

 

Terrific topic, BTW.

[Steve J. Rogers 0]

I always had a problem with the "Yeah that means you are a 16 time loser" agrument as in the case of Flair, a number of times he was stripped. But I guess the guy cutting the promo isn't going to go "Yeah that means you are a six...err...ummm... eh...Okay, you are a 14 time LOSER!"

 

You want to take it kayfabed, well Ali is what a three time champ? You can't call him a "three time loser" though since he was stripped of his first title. And last I checked Ali still ranks as a consenus number one all time great in rankings of heavyweights

 

Personally, I like the Austin argument, but I'd go more with the Flair spacing as well. Basically I'd take a guy holding it off and on for a long time frame, where it looks like they dominated the field and avenged all his loses. Well untill it starts reaching "Shouldn't the guy drop out of the scene for a while" situation (i.e. Triple H currently)

 

Steve

[Guest Zarock]

I don't really think this kind of thing is an either/or thing. It really depends on the person holding the belt; for instance, one could point out that (Really bad worker) held a title for a long time, whereas (Really good performer) had lots of short ones. And vice-versa. What I think would be better worth aruging would be specific reigns and how they were handled (I.E. Benjamin's considerably long title run and batshit insanely booked loss) instead of debating polar opposites.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I generally prefer long reigns, but if a reign is completely bombing (like Orton's) then it is a good idea to get the belt off of him soon. I don't mind short reigns as much as I despise titles going back and forth 3 or 4 times between the same two guys. That's just cheapshotting to pop a buyrate/get a good rating and it cheapens the belt. If there is going to be a short reign it should be a transition between two champions that you don't want to get in the ring yet. Usually this would be a heel bridging reigns by two faces neither of which you want to turn, or vice-versa. This is less necessary in recent years because they can go heel/heel or face/face in multi-man matches and not have the problem of having a heel vs. heel main event.

[TheInsane 0]

Of course everything is based on how well a champion is doing in that specific role and stuff like that. But if I had to choose between long reigns and short reigns I would choose long reigns any day. Sure it can be done badly like some of HHH's reigns. As already stated the problem wasnt the long reign but that no one was really made to look as his equal. However I remember in horror the year 2002 (I think). Look at this bad title history (from OWW):

 

Triple H (5) 17/03/02 Toronto, ONT Wrestlemania X-8

Hulk Hogan (6) 21/04/02 Kansas City, MO Backlash

Undertaker (4) 19/05/02 Nashville, TN Judgement Day

The Rock (7) 21/07/02 Detroit, MI Vengeance 2002 Three Way

Brock Lesnar 25/08/02 New York, NY Summerslam

 

No matter how you book things that isnt what I would prefer in matter of the number of different champions over such a short time as 5 months.

[iggymcfly 0]

I actually don't mind the title changing hands a decent amount as long as it's the same guys at the top. For instance, in 1998 and 1999, the WWF title went: Austin-Kane-Austin-vacant-Rock-Foley-Rock-Foley-Rock-Austin in the span of about seven months, but it didn't hurt the title because you still knew that the guys who held the title were at the absolute pinnacle and that there were a bunch of guys on the roster that weren't in their league.

 

However, in 2002, when they were passing the title around, it seemed like any novelty act that popped a crowd could be given the biggest title in the business on a moment's notice. It was actually a surprise when the title didn't change hands on a PPV. I think the idea that anyone can win the title is a lot worse than the idea that two top guys might wrestle with different results on different nights.

 

The long title run can work if it's done so that the guy with the reign is really presented as being that much better than the rest of the roster that he's just near undefeatable. For instance, Austin in 2001 and Brock in 2002 had the aura that they were just the best wrestler in the world.

 

However, when someone like JBL gets that kind of reign, I think it actually hurts the belt more than it helps it, because everyone sees that the title reign is just a prop, and that they're only winning their matches to prop them up to an artifical level that no one believes they belong at.

[cabbageboy 0]

I think the long title run is only good if you have someone who is capable of drawing money long term and keeping the fans interested. When you have guys like Yoko, Diesel, and JBL holding the title for a long time it kills interest in the product because it is guys holding the title that no one cares about. Nash could have been better but the thing is they threw every fat fuck or giant at him to produce an awful match. The guy spent most of 1995 post WM dicking around with Sid, Mabel, etc. He never really beat Bret Hart, never beat UT, and faced Shawn once and while winning that match Michaels got more over from it than he did.

 

Yokozuna to me is the most mindboggling long term champ. Even JBL you could argue has some kind of mic skills and was at least carried to some decent matches by Eddie. But Yoko? He was shitty. No wrestling ability, zero mic skills literally...why did they leave the title on him? They had Bret, Luger, Crush, etc. Any of those guys would have been a better choice.

 

I think the best scenario at the end of the day is a mix. Seeing the same guy on top for years is tedious, but it's better if the champ will lose to someone and then regain it. As in the champ holds it for 6 months or so, loses it for a month or two, then regains.

[Crimson G 0]

I'd have to lean towards longer title reigns, simply because Booker T can call himself a five-time WCW Champion (of course, who can't?), but, in the end, I think it really depends on how the title was treated during the reign of the champion.

 

The first title I can really remember as important is the Intercontinental title. Now whether this is because I am a huge Razor Ramon mark or because I first started watching when the Heavyweight scene was Diesel vs. his opponent is unimportant because I remember that the Intercontinental title used to mean something. Razor Ramon felt like a champion and when guys like Jeff Jarrett stole the title, you knew Razor would come back to get his belt, not lose once more then be elevated to the main event or jobbed into obscurity.

 

Guys like Shawn Michaels carried the belt around with pride. Now it's more-or-less a paperweight. It's stuck on the flavor of the week in hopes of preparing him to take control of the main event one day.

 

Remember when titles used to mean something? It's embarassing that the WWF is basically an inverted pyramid now, with so many guys filling out the top-rung, but everyone on the bottom being deemed replaceable. The fact that there are so many guys on the top leads to shorter title reigns and quicker title changes (note: the fast pace of the world and the sheer amount of television time may attribute to this), but their reigns are essentially meaningless. A champion has to own his title and feel like he deserves it. Longer reigns can help that, but it only works if you have the right guy, too.

[cabbageboy 0]

For a title to mean anything though there needs to be a DIVISION. Right now what is the world title division on Raw? Cena is champ but aside from a jobber Jericho who else is making it known that "I wanna piece of the champ?" Is there a division? A list of top challengers? The IC division is even worse..I have no idea what the hell is going on. Carlito is a total joke and has been treated as a jobber in the Cena/Jericho feud. Does Shelton still want a piece of him? Who are the top contenders for the IC? Tag division: Is there one? Right now it's just the Superheroes and the Heart Throbs (who are jobbers).

 

Smackdown: Batista has the title, who are his challengers? There's just JBL, so who goes after Dave after that (hopefully they aren't retarded enough to put the title back on JBL). Motherfucking Orlando Jordan--the most useless guy on either roster--has the 2nd main title on that roster, the US title. I'm hoping Benoit squashes him at SS and brings some credibility to it, since there are at least a few challengers in Booker and Christian to work with. But it's imperative to get the title off Jordan and then hopefully release him. Tag division? Just the New LOD squashing jobbers and MNM dicking around.

 

A promotion is only as strong as its title scenes. Take a look 5 years ago when you had a world title scene with The Rock, HHH, Benoit, UT, Kane, etc. An IC division with Benoit, Angle, Jericho, etc. Tag division with at least the Hardys, E and C, Dudleys, APA, etc.

[Black Lushus 0]

another reason to end the brand split, cabbage...to me, it's not accomplishing what it was meant to do, showcase new stars while allowing current stars to still flourish...seems to me it's still the same people on top: HHH, HBK, Angle, UT...JBL and Orton were flops...Batista is going to flop...who knows what's going on with Brock...Smackdown could possibly get cancelled anyway...bah, combine the two brands, keep two two hour weekly shows and there's your world title scene right there...

 

the problem with Yoko back in 93/94 was that Vince was still behind the times with the old evil foreigner vs. US hero thing...luckily for us all, he wisened up by WM10 and let Bret get the title back...