One Long Reign or Multiple Short Reigns?
 

As we all know, CM Punk has held the title for 419 days and counting (As of January 12th), but has only been a 2 time WWE Champion.

My question:

Is it better for a wrestlers legacy to hold a title countless times, or have one very long reign?

For a wrestler's legacy? I'd have to say long reigns.

'Cause if you look at Ric Flair, yes, he was a 16-time World Champion, but he lost it 17 times. So that really doesn't impress me.

But Punk holding on to the Championship for 400+ days, that's impressive.

Pretty much what Keith said in the middle sentence, I'm not affiliated with the rest of his post.

Think of this:

The Undertaker had 4 WWE title reigns totaling to 238 days
JBL had 1 reign, totaling at 280 days

Punk's done nothing really notable during his long reign really.

Depends. Foley held the belt a few times for like 30 days and he's revered.

long reign..... I'd actually like to see Punk challenge Undretaker at Mania and obviously lose, only to win the belt back the following night on Raw and hold it for another extended period of time.....

He's beaten the RYBACK

So does the quality of opponents defeated mean more than the number of times or length?

Quality of opponents defeated DEF > Quantity of reigns, but about = to length.

IMO.

I'd say neither. I think being "the champion" is enough to solidify their legacy.

I don't care much for the "being champ 16 times means losing it 16 times" cliches, especially in a scripted sport, meanwhile, CM Punks title reign is glorious (in my eyes), whereas I couldn't give two shits about Bruno Sammartino's reigns. I imagine the future generations of fans will feel the same way about CM Punk.

Regardless of whether it's a one-off reign that lasts a year, or 16 reigns that last a lot shorter, the true testament to a wrestlers legacy is the ability to call himself a former champion.

However, on a personal note... I'm a sucker for long title reigns. :p

It just sounds better when someone is a 5 time champion rather than hearing that they held it for a year

Either is better to have than Roman Reigns.

I just personally think you can’t really call a guy’s title reign great if he holds the belt for an extremely long time but in that time defeats a bunch of opponents who have no business being in the title scene at all.

Ric Flair is a bad example of "He won it 16 times, but lost it 17 times." since the big deal with that is he did it over 3 decades and in 4 different "eras" of wrestling. A more apt example would be Edge or Orton.

I really think it doesn't matter either way. It depends on the quality of their reign. Like mentioned earlier, Foley had an awesome reign even though he and Rock traded it back and forth for 3 months. Orton has had a shitload of short reigns like Foley, but his programs were never as memorable, so he isn't on the same level as Foley. Edge had a shitload of reigns, some long and some short, but some of them were memorable and some were forgettable. He legacy is overall very impressive, but he isn't on the level of a Foley/Austin/Taker/Flair/etc.

Like Triple H said - "The title doesn't make the champion. The champion makes the title." Ergo, it doesn't really matter how many times or how long you held it. It matters what you did with it when you had it.

But on the previous one, he put the belt in his fridge and took a photo for Twitter. That wins.

Thankfully, Taker's got a little more going for him.

But yeah, that's kinda fucked up in that framing.

Again, preeeeeetty sure he's not known for the title reigns specifically.

That feud with The Rock is a solid part of his legacy though.

Depends whos holding the belt, I thought Cena's year long reign was pretty great but Punks is pretty terrible.

Christian and Orton passed the title to each other and that was a hot feud too, so dunno.

Jbl is a wrestling GOD. Best reign on Smackdown ever

Really? I had the inverse opinion.

Its more about what happens during the reign. HHH is the best example of both. His feuds with rock and Foley, then rock again were legendary and an essentially part of his legacy and part of epic reign as champ in both longer stints and short. However, after being handed the title by bischoff the following title reign was shit because there was no one that anyone cared about to challenge him and he held it forever. Same wrestler different emotions.

If Punk had someone that could tell an equally interesting story, and be taken seriously as champion, his reign would mean more. Jericho had the best chance of this, but the combo of lazy writing and his lack of commitment ruined it. They also could've made Ryback with this feud. Ironically, goldberg in reverse. He could've broken the streak, and punk could've gone the HHH route and stopped at nothing, caring for no one, to become champion again.

I don't think quantity carries as much importance as quality with championships.

Ryback isn't ready to be World Champion or even a maquee main eventer. It is smart of WWE to keep screwing him over in these title matches to where he still looks strong and not exposing him too early by putting in a position he isn't ready for. Realistically, if Ryback won at Hell in a Cell and just kept crushing people...it'd been old by December and he'd lose everything he gained in that short time. Now, he is still hot and gaining experience and a backstory to where when he does finally lose clean, it won't be the end of the character.

Triple Threat Ladder Match (TLC)
Start to finish Elimination Chamber (EC)
Street Fight (Extreme Rules)
Triple Threat (No Way Out)
No DQ (MITB)
John Cena (NOC)
Hell In A Cell
Triple Threat w/ Cena, Ryback (Survivor Series)
TLC (RAW)

Nope. Nothing Notable.

His feud with Y2J was terrible. The last 3 matches have been more about the way Ryback was losing than him winning.

He was not the top dog in the company for at least half of his title run. Kind of ruins.

Why do you think the Jericho feud was terrible? It had good promos and awesome matches.

The Rock has been a seven-time WWE Champion but only had 297 days as champion. Punk is now 10th all time in the total number of days of champion when you combine all reigns together.

I think I have to vote for one-really long championships because it proves you were the hottest thing going for a long time. There was always somebody else the WWE wanted to take the title from The Rock to give to them. He was a short-term champion and pretty much a short-term wrestler.

It depends on how long the long reign is. I think one record-breaking long run (like Punk's current run) is better than multiple short runs, but otherwise, multiple short runs are better than one long run.

Noooo it wouldn't.

You are unique in that you love things even well after they are dead and beaten into the ground.

No, he lost it 16 times. Unless there was one time where he lost the title without actually being champion.

I'm glad someone else noticed this

HHH only won world titles because he fucked the bosses daughter. He'd be the Drew McIntyre of the Attitude Era

He was a multi-time champion long before his penis entered Stephanie (or Linda) McMahon. Nice try, though. Go troll owenbrown.

In this case i'd vote quality over quantity.

I never gave my opinion, but this seems to sum it up for me. I think a record breaking reign is better than multiple short reigns, but if the long reign is not record breaking, then go with short ones

For the sake of argument though, assume all things are equal. After all, there's no guarantee that a longer reign has better writing or booking or even matches.

True as there have been some exceptions such as King Booker and JBL.