So Daniel Bryan is a Two-Time WWE Champion...

[AdamAFL was sooooo wrong]

Sept 17, 2013 7:20:52 GMT -5 @burngun said:

I absolutely despise when they keep really short title reigns in the title's history. In my opinion, Daniel Bryan's victory should have been overturned, or at the very least stricken from the books.

It just looks goofy when he's now a 2x WWE Champion but, like OP said, has held the belt just one day. Maybe it's because I'm a numbers guy, but it really bugs me that Rey Mysterio is technically a former WWE Champion despite only holding the title for 90 minutes. Or that Dolph Ziggler was technically World Heavyweight Champion in 2011 for all of about 10 minutes. It's just stupid and devalues the belt.

I understand you being against the Bryan one a little bit (although it doesn't bother me) it seems to me that if Triple H (as he does in the storyline) has announced that cheating is involved then he should have struck the result from records and given the title back to Orton. As I said previously it doesn't bother me particularly because it advances the storyline but I can understand your point on this one

But the 90 minutes reign I disagree with, you can say that you wish they didn't book it like that which is fine but if (as in Mysterio's situation) you defeat someone legitimately and then lose to someone legitimately then that is the essence of a title reign in ANY sport (boxing, MMA, wrestling etc.). So saying they shouldn't acknowledge reigns of less than a day as someone suggested earlier seems ridiculous to me. It's treated as a shoot so they should treat the title history as a shoot too.

EDIT:

Also someone said it's like counting pinfall's/submission's in a scramble match? I disagree. That match is based on who won the last fall. The title isn't decided until the clock ends at the end of the match. People who are "champions" during that thing are kind of like people leading in an Ironman match for a title, it doesn't mean they're the champion at that point, it means they will be if everything stays the same when the match ends. A short reign has been won in a legitimate title match and should be treated as a legitimate reign regardless of length. Counting every title change in that Hardcore match (if they did, it's a long time ago and I can't remember) was stupid, but that's the Hardcore title, it's not exactly relevant.

[cabbageboy]

I don't think this whole angle is devaluing the title, quite the opposite. I think if anything it is devaluing Bryan on some level, or at least the fans' trust in WWE to simply give him the title once and for all. It's becoming the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

[BigBadZ]

Sept 17, 2013 9:27:13 GMT -5 Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal said:

Sept 17, 2013 9:21:56 GMT -5 BigBadZ said:

24 hours shouldn't be that far of a stretch. To me, these 5-10 minute "reigns" are no different than championship scramble matches where they count every pinfall or submission to become a tally mark as champion. I think at WM 2000 they counted every title change in the hardcore battle royal to add to their championship reigns.

The MitB cash-ins are great but I think they ruin a whole lot of first World/WWE championship wins. For Bryan, he won his first WWE championship and then lost it moments later and we don't get the genuine reaction from him. Kind of the same for the person cashing in to win their first World/WWE because they didn't "earn" it, but then again, my favorite moments have been from cash in winners. Edge in 2005 and Ziggler in 2013.

I can agree with you on the Hardcore belt since that was all goofy matches and transitions for the most part. So I can get that being silly to throw on the record. But still, a win is a win.

As for the MITB winners, they did earn it because that's what the contract states that they won fair and square.

Oh totally and I should've clarified, but I am speaking more so on first time wins. It takes away the raw (no pun intended) emotion. They can be 400 time champion, I just love seeing their first one because it really takes over. The subsequent title wins just don't look the same to me.

[Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal]

Sept 17, 2013 9:46:33 GMT -5 BigBadZ said:

Oh totally and I should've clarified, but I am speaking more so on first time wins. It takes away the raw (no pun intended) emotion. They can be 400 time champion, I just love seeing their first one because it really takes over. The subsequent title wins just don't look the same to me.

I hope that WWE proves you wrong on Bryan's third title win because I would like to think that win will be very meaningful when he defies the most odds, captures the belt without controversy and is declared the undisputed champion.

That's my hope anyway. For my own sanity. :/

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

I wouldn't consider him a two-time champion, even. I'd say he's a one time champion. Second one doesn't count, the title was held up.