Is Cena's title reign as bad as Flair's?

[Threadkiller [Classic]]

For a ten-year stretch of time, Ric Flair was world champion nearly non-stop. Or at least, that's how I remembered it from my childhood. And I often thought that during the times he wasn't champion, he was always the top contender.

Can someone refresh my memory? Because I'm reasonably certain that from 81-89, Ric Flair had a stranglehold on the world title. That's not to say that he would never lose, but it just seemed like he was omnipresent in the title picture.

Was he really champion as often as I remember? And if so, was it warranted?

[Cranjis McBasketball]

People love Flair. People hate Cena.

You tell me.

[Grotto]

Flair had the belt off and on through the 80's. And yes...he did deserve it.

He would lose it to Dusty...and then get it back. He would lose it to Harley Race....and then get it back. He would lose it to Sting...and then get it back. Etc...etc...etc.

He was the man.

[Mr. Mediocre]

A. Flair was a heel, so it's okay that people booed the crap out of him for holding the title for so long. That's not supposed to happen with a face run.

B. Flair was a heel who cheated his way to long title reigns. Cena wins his matches clean and destroys opponents.

C. When Flair DID lose, it was a big deal that turned his opponent into a credible star. See Sting. When Cena lost the title the first two times, they ruined Edge by giving it right back to Cena three weeks later and RVD ruined himself but was probably not going to get that big bump up to the big leagues.

Forgot this one:

D. Flair got the shit kicked out of him in matches...or at least he made it look that way. Cena is booked like Superman.

[Arthur Digby Stamp]

Well, it's hard to say. Cena's the #1 guy in the #1 promotion in the world.

Flair was the #1 guy in a company that wasn't even #1 in this country. So it's hard to make a comparison.

[Rocky Van Heineken]

Flair is talented.

Cena is not.

[Threadkiller [Classic]]

grotto said:

Flair had the belt off and on through the 80's. And yes...he did deserve it.

I have no doubt that he deserved it, I was just wondering if the length/dominance of Flair's reigns were called for. Weren't there other heels who could have run with the ball, like Nikita Koloff? Or even when Flair was a face, weren't there others who could have done as well of a job, like Magnum TA?

This is NOT meant to be a Flair bashing thread. I absolutely adore Ric Flair, mainly on the good will of how awesome his 80s run was. I just want to compare reigns. Is there anywhere I can get statistics on Flair's respective runs in the 80s?

[Mr. Mediocre]

I don't believe there's anything wrong with a lengthy or dominant reign....if it's booked right.

Flair's was.

Samoa Joe's was.

Danielson's was.

Hogan's is debatable. I'll say was because of the circumstances of WWF going national and needing that recongized top guy.

Cena's has not been. Not even close.

[General Zod]

Flair's run was warranted.

Cena's run is a joke, and an insult to people's intelligence.

You gotta remember, while we are talking about two completely different eras of pro wrestling, the perceptions held by the majority fanbase is what makes the company money.

Back then, it was more interesting watching other people chase Flair for the title. Nowadays, there's nobody built up strong enough anymore to give solid chase, thus making the bait interesting. It's the responsibility of the champion to make the challengers look good so that they still pose a credible threat. You can take 3 guesses as to how well SuperCena is doing in that department.

In those respects, Cena couldn't lace up Flair's boots.

Yes, yes, I know. Part of the fault must also lie on the shoulders of Vince McMahon and the WWE for not creating viable threats to Cena's title. But as the champion, we should be led to (seriously) believe that Cena has a shot of losing the belt.

It's why I never order PPV's anymore. What's the point, really?

Honestly??

Cena's not going to lose the belt, people. And when he does, it'll only be for a month, tops.

Again, BIG difference between Cena's ... *cough* ..."reign", and Flair's title runs.

It's a matter of credibility. Not longevity.

[kwydjebo]

It all comes down to money.
Who, as champ, will draw more?

Flair, with his stellar Promos, and rich history of classic matches being chased by opponents who the fans are hoping will finally beat that bleached blonde Son of a gun.
Flair was one of those guys you loved to hate.
Plus as mentioned, when he did lose, it was a big deal for whoever beat him and, from what I understand, he wasn't shy about jobbing to rising stars (Sting, Luger, Windham) because he knew that more strong opponents made the company strong, and provided a much more secure future.

Similarly, look at the Honkey tonk Man. He held that IC belt for over a year. Savage, Beefcake and others tried and failed. Sure Honkey was cheating like heck to win, and fans hated him, which just made them more determined to be there when he finally lost....and what a boost it was for the guy what finally beat him (Ultimate somebody or something....)

Cena is more a Hogan-esque type champ.
Hogan was the baby face good guy. He was doing it for his fans, mom America and Apple pie. If you boo Hogan the terrorists win. His opponents weren't normal wrestlers, but an assortment of monsters and supernatural forces, each of which was built up to be tougher and more unbeatable than the last, so that the fans feared the noble and righteous Hulkster hadn't a prayer....but he'd do it.....for 4 years, he countered the evil with his prayers, training and Vitamins (Much like Cena does with his Hustle, loyalty and Respect) not to mention those 24 inch pythons (which likely were more a result of the "vitamins" than the prayers). Interestingly enough, after their "Hogan" runs, many of his opponents soon left the company. (They were built as unstoppable monsters seeking only to destroy Hulk and take his belt.....being no longer unstopable, and failures to boot, the WWF seemed to lose interest in them most of the time)

["Nature Boy" Ric Moranis]

cdr said:

People love Flair. People hate Cena.

You tell me.

Correct!

rockygotfingered said:

Flair is talented.

Cena is not.

Spot on!!!!

dennisstamp316 said:

Well, it's hard to say. Cena's the #1 guy in the #1 promotion in the world.

Flair was the #1 guy in a company that wasn't even #1 in this country. So it's hard to make a comparison.

Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahha!!!!! Wow! Wow. Um...no idea how to respond to that one, other than to say...no matter how you want to define it, Flair was the world champion of the #1 company in the world (WCW and WWF).

Oh yeah...and Cena will never be as good as him in any way.

["Playboy" Don Douglas]

Here's a little data on the NWA title through the '80s

Ric Flair from Dusty Rhodes 09/17/81
Harley Race from Ric Flair 06/10/83
Ric Flair from Harley Race 11/24/83
Harley Race from Ric Flair 03/21/84
Ric Flair from Harley Race 03/23/84 (these last two were not acknowledged on TV, etc)
Kerry Von Erich from Ric Flair 05/06/84
Ric Flair from Kerry Von Erich 05/24/84
Dusty Rhodes from Ric Flair 07/26/86
Ric Flair from Dusty Rhodes 08/09/86
Ronnie Garvin from Ric Flair 09/25/87
Ric Flair from Ronnie Garvin 11/26/87
Ricky Steamboat from Ric Flair 02/20/89
Ric Flair from Ricky Steamboat 05/07/89
Sting from Ric Flair 07/07/90

So yes, Flair was always at or near the top. As others have said, it never seemed to be a problem. Flair didn't dominate his opponents. Everyone from Harley Race and Dusty Rhodes to Ricky Morton and Jimmy Garvin were made to look like legitimate threats to Flair's reign.

Flair also consistantly delivered great promos and matches. That usually helps.

[Schemer]

joeyonly said:

Here's a little data on the NWA title through the '80s

Ric Flair from Dusty Rhodes 09/17/81
Harley Race from Ric Flair 06/10/83
Ric Flair from Harley Race 11/24/83
Harley Race from Ric Flair 03/21/84
Ric Flair from Harley Race 03/23/84 (these last two were not acknowledged on TV, etc)
Kerry Von Erich from Ric Flair 05/06/84
Ric Flair from Kerry Von Erich 05/24/84
Dusty Rhodes from Ric Flair 07/26/86
Ric Flair from Dusty Rhodes 08/09/86
Ronnie Garvin from Ric Flair 09/25/87
Ric Flair from Ronnie Garvin 11/26/87
Ricky Steamboat from Ric Flair 02/20/89
Ric Flair from Ricky Steamboat 05/07/89
Sting from Ric Flair 07/07/90

So yes, Flair was always at or near the top. As others have said, it never seemed to be a problem. Flair didn't dominate his opponents. Everyone from Harley Race and Dusty Rhodes to Ricky Morton and Jimmy Garvin were made to look like legitimate threats to Flair's reign.

Flair also consistantly delivered great promos and matches. That usually helps.

Cena can do well when he's booked well... He isn't, so his popularity with smarks and male fans suffers.

Also keep in mind, Wrestling was not on television for a total of six or so hours a week as it is today... You had maybe an hour or two or a little more if you watched more than one promotion, per week.

["Playboy" Don Douglas]

mrcynic said:

Also keep in mind, Wrestling was not on television for a total of six or so hours a week as it is today... You had maybe an hour or two or a little more if you watched more than one promotion, per week.

True, but Cena's usually only on one two hour show a week. During the Flair time frame, you had World Championship Wrestling on Saturday night, which was a 2 hour show, there was the Power Hour whose length is self-explanatory, and World Wide which I think was another hour. Flair was often on every show. Now, it wasn't always those three shows through out the the entire '80s, but it's a fairly good representation.

[jamofpearls]

Like someone else said, i think it lends more towards the money side of things...but for a lil bit different reason.
How many guys had the 25,000 to put down on the belt to be able to carry it...especially at that time period. That's a lot of scratch now, but back then....astronomical amounts.

[EJS]

Honestly, it's about the booking. I can't really compare it to Flair since I didn't see that stuff back then, but I'd say Cena's has been handled pretty poorly. Even Batista's long reign pre-injury was handled much better. Batista was still very over and wasn't getting booed out of buildings.

[molson5]

You can't compare the kayfabe era to today. Nobody debated whether Flair was holding the title too much because there was no internet for those discussions to take place (and the % of smart fans was obviously much lower).

I never understood this idea that a guy wearing a belt has to "deserve" it in a wrestling sense.

Wrestling a work - it's not a real competition. When a guy's a "good" wrestler it doesn't mean he's good in a win/loss sense, it means he "looks good" wrestling. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with kayfabe success. Some baseball players might have a pretty swing that's nice to watch, but they still can't hit.

In a kayfabe sense, a guy might have the smoothest wrestling moves ever, but that doesn't necessarily mean he can beat anyone (again, talking kayfabe).

Since wrestling's a work, different promotions have different criterias for their world champions. For the WWE, the majority of their fans could care less about ring work. So ring work doesn't draw. So why make title decisions based on ring work?

Instead, they're trying to create stars. In the WWE's product, stars sell PPVs more than anything else. They're trying to build and maintain a consistent mega-star that they can always bank on (and a guy they can rely on to not get into legal trouble, or OD).

This has been the philosphy of both Vince Jr. and Vince Sr since the 50s. Have one reliable, mega-over face star that you can build your promotion around. Mid-South and the NWA had a completely different philosophy. (And note which company eventually won the wrestling war in the North America).

Maybe Cena's not the ideal guy for that role (though I think he's done well - not Hogan or Austin or Sammartino well, but but better than Diesel or Bob Backlund or even Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels to the extent that they were tried as top babyface).

[Randy Orton's Bitch]

Dont ever compare Cena to Flair. He'll never come close.Flair won most of his world titles by actually putting on legendary matches when you just didnt get the belt cause you had a popular gimmick.

[molson5]

pieman said:

Dont ever compare Cena to Flair. He'll never come close.Flair won most of his world titles by actually putting on legendary matches when you just didnt get the belt cause you had a popular gimmick.

No, he won most of his world titles because the NWA felt that they could make the most money having faces chase him - Because he was charismatic and compelling in every way - from how he talked to what he did in the ring.

If Flair was in his prime now, he'd be hugely over, but he'd have new challenges he never had to deal with in the 80s - overexposure, cynical fans, lack of leverage with other territories, bookers and promoters who didn't feel like they needed to kiss his ass and do what he said.

[Randy Orton's Bitch]

molson5 said:

pieman said:

Dont ever compare Cena to Flair. He'll never come close.Flair won most of his world titles by actually putting on legendary matches when you just didnt get the belt cause you had a popular gimmick.

No, he won most of his world titles because the NWA felt that they could make the most money having faces chase him - Because he was charismatic and compelling in every way - from how he talked to what he did in the ring.

If Flair was in his prime now, he'd be hugely over, but he'd have new challenges he never had to deal with in the 80s - overexposure, cynical fans, lack of leverage with other territories, bookers and promoters who didn't feel like they needed to kiss his ass and do what he said.

Ok. I'll give you that. But, Flair didnt need overexposure.