Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on May 30, 2012 17:42:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on May 30, 2012 17:44:41 GMT -5
I do like that it's in character for Booker to say multiple reigns is better, given his catchphrase. I do like that guys have little touches of personality like that.
|
|
babyfootball
Don Corleone
At least as good as Ron Garvin!
Posts: 1,320
|
Post by babyfootball on May 30, 2012 17:52:12 GMT -5
"Here’s the dirty little secret about being a 10-time champion: you had to win the title 10 times."
I think they meant to say LOSE the title 10 times...
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on May 30, 2012 17:53:19 GMT -5
Really, if the wrestler engages the audience enough, it doesn't matter. JBL gave us a lot of great memories during his sole lengthy reign, as did Edge during his numerous brief ones.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,145 
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on May 30, 2012 18:00:57 GMT -5
Both are red herrings.
The proper answer is the highest number of successful title defenses.
Especially in this era of everyone getting multiple reigns.
So, you had an 8 month reign, but only successfully defended the belt 6 times.
I think I'd prefer 2 4 month reigns with 16+ successful defenses.
|
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on May 30, 2012 18:11:07 GMT -5
Kayfabe-wise, I think neither matters as much as the ratio of defenses to length of reign. Even then, one must take the quality of challengers into account. To me, the best champions are those who frequently defend their title against worthy opponents in every reign. Again, kayfabe-wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on May 30, 2012 18:14:54 GMT -5
Oops, Kitsune beat me to the punch. Still, I maintain that quality of opponents is the other piece of the puzzle.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on May 30, 2012 18:18:26 GMT -5
A long title reign is more interesting. The longer a guy holds onto a belt the more build there is to see who is going to beat him for it and when.
Multiple reigns have totally devalued the title and elimiated a great deal of interest in a title hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on May 30, 2012 18:29:38 GMT -5
A long title reign is more interesting. The longer a guy holds onto a belt the more build there is to see who is going to beat him for it and when. Multiple reigns have totally devalued the title and elimiated a great deal of interest in a title hunt. You really can't "devalue" a wrestling title given that it's pre-determined. It doesn't matter how often a title changes hands so long as the announcers treat the title change like a big deal. |
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on May 30, 2012 18:39:19 GMT -5
A long title reign is more interesting. The longer a guy holds onto a belt the more build there is to see who is going to beat him for it and when. Multiple reigns have totally devalued the title and elimiated a great deal of interest in a title hunt. You really can't "devalue" a wrestling title given that it's pre-determined. It doesn't matter how often a title changes hands so long as the announcers treat the title change like a big deal. Of course it matters. When someone wins the world title now it's like "Oh this guy won the world title" (oftetimes followed by the word "again") How many guys on the roster are multiple time champions now? And what does it matter if they win it again? |
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on May 30, 2012 18:44:08 GMT -5
You really can't "devalue" a wrestling title given that it's pre-determined. It doesn't matter how often a title changes hands so long as the announcers treat the title change like a big deal. Of course it matters. When someone wins the world title now it's like "Oh this guy won the world title" (oftetimes followed by the word "again") How many guys on the roster are multiple time champions now? And what does it matter if they win it again? All WWE needs to do is spin the kayfabe as the competition being more intense than ever. If they're working with a script, the titles will automatically have as much value as a promotion declares they do. I think if anything is hurting the belts, it's lack of hype and celebration. Poor reigns and feuds damage the champion more than their titles. |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 30, 2012 19:14:19 GMT -5
Depends who the champion is, and how over they are.
|
|
zeez
Patti Mayonnaise
Yeah. That's right.
Posts: 32,702
|
Post by zeez on May 30, 2012 19:56:21 GMT -5
Makes you wonder if Booker's WWE career would've been different if he had only won the WCW Championship once but held it for as long as all 5 of his reigns in WCW. Going around proclaiming himself as the "ONE TIME......WCW CHAMPION!" doesn't have the same ring to it, even if it was a long reign.
The answer to the question depends on who you ask. I would imagine for most causal fans that number of reigns would seem to be more important as a guy that was a 10 ten champion instantly stands out in your mind more than a 2 time champion even if those two reigns encompassed the same length of time as those two reigns. If you ask more knowledgeable fans, I would think it doesn't matter as long as the reigns were enjoyable and memorable.
Personally, I like longer reigns. I'm a fight fan as much as I'm a wrestling fan and in other combat sports you're not really champion until you defend the title so it 's a lot more impressive having a champion that has defended successfully against a lot of opponents over a long period of time vs. having a champion with multiple reigns but very few title defenses during any of those reigns. As impressive as Ric Flair's 16 (or however many) title reigns he's had, Bruno Sammartino was champion for 11 years. 11 years you guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 30, 2012 19:58:04 GMT -5
Really, if the wrestler engages the audience enough, it doesn't matter. JBL gave us a lot of great memories during his sole lengthy reign, as did Edge during his numerous brief ones. Pretty much. You can make an argument for either seem logical, but it all comes down to the talent. Long reigns show the guy is the best in the company and beating him is a bigger deal. Short reigns show that the main event scene is a lot more competitive and there are several people who could win it at any time. If played right, neither would "devalue" the title. |
|
The Doctor
Dennis Stamp
New teeth. That's weird.
Posts: 4,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Doctor on May 30, 2012 21:09:04 GMT -5
I am on the side of multiple title reigns, I think. Especially in Pro Wrestling. In kayfabe, but also in real life, it shows you can keep coming back and you can stay competitive and relevant enough to keep earning titles. Not to mention a wrestler with multiple title reigns often has a few long reigns to their name. John Cena is a good example of that.
I'd choose Ric Flair's championship history over Bruno Sammartino's, that's the best way I can put it.
This also stems from the fact that I don't think a title gains value based on quality of the title reign etc. The only things that gives a title value or detracts from it is how it is sold to us. If every wrestler wants it and it is presented as being a big deal then it's valuable.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on May 30, 2012 21:12:55 GMT -5
I'd rather have one title reign for 6 months over 10 title reigns that mean absolutely nothing, especially since you drop the belt after a few weeks. Almost every title reigns I've enjoyed came from a long term wrestler who was able to have multiple feuds over the belts with multiple people.
Hogan's 1st reign
Michaels' 1st reign
JBL's only reign
Cena's 3rd reign
Those are a few of my favorites.
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on May 30, 2012 22:10:35 GMT -5
I'll take one long reign over many smaller reigns any day.
|
|
|
|
Post by CubsFan71 on May 31, 2012 11:10:10 GMT -5
A long title reign is more interesting. The longer a guy holds onto a belt the more build there is to see who is going to beat him for it and when. Multiple reigns have totally devalued the title and elimiated a great deal of interest in a title hunt. You really can't "devalue" a wrestling title given that it's pre-determined. It doesn't matter how often a title changes hands so long as the announcers treat the title change like a big deal. Thats just it. The titles aren't treated like a big deal anymore. I grew up watching wrestling in the 80s. Mainly the NWA and the WWF. Both organizations treated everytitle change like a big deal. The NWA built there world title as the most prestigious title in wrestling; and you believed it. Hell the NWA made a big deal over the TV Title changing hands. The WWF built their champ Hogan as a champion that couln't be beat. So when you watched him defend you wondered "is this the guy to finally beat Hogan?" Even the WWFs smaller title the IC championship was built as something special then. Long reigns and great fueds happened over that title. So yeah they need to bring back the lengthy title reign adn they're on the right track with CM Punk. |
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on May 31, 2012 11:13:03 GMT -5
Well that's the issue with multiple reigns. It also means you've lost the title just as many times.
A longer reign with multiple successful defences looks better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 31, 2012 11:30:12 GMT -5
Well that's the issue with multiple reigns. It also means you've lost the title just as many times. A longer reign with multiple successful defences looks better. But you could also frame it as "you were on top when it was a very competitive main event scene" vs "you were on top when there was very little competition." From a storytelling standpoint, both should work fine. It's just that WWE isn't terribly good at making it the biggest thing in the company. |
|
helped $lim jinx NXT. Woops
