Quantity v. Quality?
 

Her's an interesting point. Do you think the number of times someone has been champion is more important or how long you are the champion? Example:

====================================

http://www.brightestyoungthings.com/...ino-medium.jpg

Bruno Sammartino held the WWE (At that time WWF.) title twice for a total of 4,040 days. His first reign lasted 8 years.

http://img3.cdn.crunchyroll.com/i/sp...51795_full.jpg

Triple H has held the WWE title 8 times for 493 days total. Roughly a year and a half.

====================================

So Triple H has won it more, but Bruno held it without loosing longer.

I'm going with length of the title reign. It's more impressive to me to hold a title once or twice and be able to defend it for a long time. Than to win and loose it over and over.

Whats more important/impressive to you? Discussion open.

Since this is a fake sport none of it really matters but...

It's just the way the business is now. Lots of belts and lots of stars equal lots of short runs instead of just a few long ones. The fact that Trips averages just about 2 months per run says a lot about how title runs are booked now.

You really can't compare stats like that because of how the business model works in pro-wrestling these days. It's like that 'physical inflation' thing I heard about that put older Baseball stats in question because so many factors were different between then and now (overall athleticism, gear, etc).

Unless the WWE treated their titles like they did way back then, or even 10 years ago, we can't realistically compare these stats.

The belt was defended less frequently back then than it is now. It's apples to oranges.

And that's a good point JH. It's a another discussion but I agree that that is the way it is these days. I also think that needs to change. I would like to see less titles and longer reigns again. It makes the whole show more believable, builds the suspense, and adds credibility to the title/champion.

Agreed, but the star comparison is not the point. Just an example of number of reigns v. length of the championship.

As Triple Naitch and Kalyx said, comparing those two doesn't really work. You'd need to compare it to someone like Hogan - it was around that point that the title was defended much more frequently and things really started heating up to today's standards. I use Hogan because I believe he's the longest reigning "modern" champion - at least a year (I think it's somewhere around 400 days, but I don't feel like looking it up).

Which matter more? Neither. It's what those men do during those runs that count, not how long they are or how many they have.

Kayfabe-wise I'd say it's quantity, which is really ass-backwards because that means they've lost x amount of times.

I agree that we can't directly compare the likes of Sanmartino or Backlund to the HHH's and Edge's of today, but the question still has validity.

Do Edge's numerous but short reigns stack up against that year + that Cena held the belt? Or JBL's single but lengthy run as champ?

http://www.derok.net/derek3/images/c...ret%20hart.jpg

Bret Hart has won the WWE title 5 times, and held it for a total of 654 days.

Beating Triple H by 161 days with less title reigns. By numbers that makes Bret a better champ than HHH to me.

Do you see my point?

I know it's a fake real sport, hell I'm a pro wrestler myself, but for the sake of kayfabe (Dose anyone believe in that anymore?), I think title length trumps number of title wins.

I agree, but there are a few outliers. Flair and HHH go against that statement due to the fact that they have had far more title reigns than almost anyone.

Again, it matters what they do.

Example:

John Cena wins the title and holds it once for 250 days straight. In that time, he has seven title matches on TV.

Shawn Michaels wins the title and holds it 150 days. In that time he has fifteen title matches.

Which one is the better of the two reigns? Clearly, from your view, it should be Cena. But realistically, Michaels had the more active defense history and thus should hold more weight over Cena's.

In retrospect I think there needs to be a good balance. A champion having a long reign solidifies them as a champion. But they need to have good opponents to defend against to keep them on top. Pro wrestling is a "sport" where your only as good as your "opponent" lets you be. And that is where the respect is in this business.

exactly what I was going to post. obviously the argument of most title reigns vs lengthy is moot because of the whole fake sport thing.

But you can bring up the question of when has the WWF World Title had the most prestige? And you'll get various answers.

I think the storylines behind the World Title run play a huge part of making said run seem important.

In my opinion, The Title has lost a lot of prestige or value over the last 7 years or so. First of all, having two World Champions kind of killed any value it had to me and second, the storylines are pretty bland and have no emotion or anything behind it. Look at this HHH/Orton storyline right now. They've had so much history behind these two and the story has been lame the last couple weeks. There's nothing to it other then two guys that hate each other. wow. The WWE has actually got me less interested in the match then when they started the storyline.

Then you go back and you take a look at Macho Man Randy Savage's reign in 88/89. That whole storyline with him and Hogan was probably booked right after Mania 4. You look at his reign back then and how it led to Wresltemania 5 and then you look at the shit today and I'm just baffled. It's not that the industry has changed so much at all. They could easily do an angle like that today. They just seem to take the easy way out and use really cheap booking with terrible scripts and acting (see last night.)

sorry if I got off track, but yea.

That is a gr8 point Xero. And I have to say it hits the nail on the head with what I'm trying to say. I respect a champion who can successfully defend his title constantly as opposed to someone who ducks opponents or will only wrestle "big matches." only to loose the title in his first of second deafens.

I loved when Benoit was the champ because it seemed like every week he went out and defended the title. He was not champ long, and he only had it once, but for about 6 months he defended the title almost every week.

It all comes back to ring/wrestling psychology these kind of little details are what makes or brakes pro wrestling.

I actually like you, so don't take this the wrong way, but...

:rofl:

WWE has gotten lazy, excellent point.

Depends on if it's primarily those two or not. They could conceivably continue it only on the PPVs and special multi-brand events.

In fact, I don't know WHY they don't do that. It would be a pretty good change of pace.

The Savage thing was not a year long worth of Hogan vs Savage first of all. They built it along to where it eventually became Hogan vs Savage. Savage didn't turn completely untl a month before Mania. I disagree completely with you that they couldn't build an angle like that. It's called not being lazy and having patience. Hell, Bischoff did it in 97 with Sting with 2 hours of TV a week and 12 PPV's a year. Almost 10 years after Savage and Hogan. Bret Hart's feud with HBK in 97 was a couple of months of them going back and forth with them finally wrestling at Survivor Series. Again, 12 PPV's a year, TV every week

Yes, bad acting has occured throughout wrestling, but it's gotten out of control the past couple years and I find it hillarious on how the WWE actually hires actors and actresses for these terrible skits.

They hot shot everything these days. They've showed signs of the old greatness with angles like Batista/HHH in '05, Jericho/Christian/Trish in that same year I believe, even Orton/HHH in '04 before they fucked it up. And there's probably been a handful more, but mostly they just rush through everything with some half assed story behind it and with like 85 rematches and tag team bouts with the main wrestlers.

I keep going back to Orton/HHH today because it's recent, but I've seen HHH basically beat the shit out of Orton multiple times now. I've seen Orton run from HHH multiple times now. Yea, he might of got a shot or two in, but HHH basically came out looking ultra cool last night. Why do I even want to see an Orton/HHH match now? I've seen them brawl multiple times now. at least these two haven't been in tag matches galore with one another, but the anticipation of wanting to see the big match keeps getting smaller for me personally.

The Big Show/Edge storyline had a nice little curveball in it last night. that's the kind of booking I like

Sounds like a whole new topic. But I gotta say we are hitting some excellent points. We seem to have gone from the Attitude Era to the the ADD era. WTF over? Can WWE stop with all the short feud's and build something up? You need kindling to start a fire.

The same thing has happened with WWE's in ring performances. It seems like more and more WWE pushes fast matches with no ring psychology.

<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bS8U7CEFCqY&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bS8U7CEFCqY&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>

<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aWripZNqN0A&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aWripZNqN0A&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>

<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GGZxZbb1KB8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GGZxZbb1KB8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>

See what I mean? that's how a match should be.
Every once there is a gr8 match on RAW/ECW or SD but all to often we get sloppy performances by.

Remember the RVD v. Christan IC title ladder match a few years ago. That was phenomenal. But then again a lot of Christians work is. And RVD, well that's RVD for ya.

P.S. I just really wanted an excuse to showcase the Bret v. Benoit match too. F'n amazing!

Taz and RVD in Old ECW: Champions. Not only did they have it a long time, they happily defended their titles to whoever stepped up. One angle saw Taz invited Masato Tanaka all the way from Japan to face him. And RVD couldn't wait to take on Jerry Lynn and Sabu - who were both legit challengers to the ECW TV Title.

What I'm getting at is WWE, somewhere along the way, let story override title prestige. They're not won over but stolen, and lusted upon by guys who the story points out doesn't deserve the title. WWE is telling us the titles mean shit more than am employee of the month prop. So if you're a heel and win, you stole it. If you're a face and you win, who cares, you beat a coward who didn't deserve it anyway.

This goes to a bigger argument that WWE has very little credible bad guys who become weak looking champions. This may help story in the 'people like seeing bad guys get it' sense, but it hurts the title in the end.

Yes, yes, the two year ECW TV title reign of RVD was amazing. WWE should of repeated that with the RVD WWE/ECW champ angle.

RVD is a wrestler that brings out the best of the people he works with, and can put on gr8 match, after gr8 match. WWE really misused him if you ask me. RVD, RVD, RV....

RVD was misused...BIG TIME. With a move set like that man's got...you have got to be kidding me. How often do yo see a guy who weighs 240ish fly the way that he does?

You give a good face a strap and let him hold the title for a while and fans love it. You give a good heel the title and let him hold it for a while and fans will want him lose it more and more after he wins.

It gives the title more validity and makes it worth more (to fans maybe), and it is good business. People will tune it to watch their favorite face win and they will tune in to watch their most hated heel loose.

LONGER TITLE REINS FOR ALL!!!

The people decide who the best are. The complete package, in the ring etc. I don't mean like cheering kids, I mean people who respect the sport and how it is booked etc.

Look at half of the "professional" top 100 lists. They're full of shit. Like they have seen something completely different. You'll always have arguments, but in general, people on say, here, have more sense for their "best ever legends" than the Hall of Fame says are legends.

Also, I don't think u can compare the old days until now. Even Attitude till now. Attitude happened at the right time. It got so big cos of that. and with the fans need at the time to see something different, the title changed all the time it seemed. now there's a bit of credibility back to it. But 8 years? People wouldn't watch it these days. It's week in week out nowadays remember. Not territories.

It's definitely about quality, but that doesn't neccesarily mean length either.

In the era of Bruno, and many others before Hogan, title reigns were longer. That's just the way it was. That doesn't neccesarily make them a better champion.

Stone Cold's longest reign was under a year, but that doesn't make those who held the belt longer better champions.

So I say neither when it comes to judging number of reigns versus length. Those are both quantitative values. You've neglected to include quality properly. So the first post of the thread is self defeating since it seems to be quantity vs quantity. They're just quantities of different types.

In a round about way we have gotten to the real point of my discussion in this thread, and for that I'm satisfied.