What is more important in your opinion and why?

Is it more prestigious if a superstar has X-Amount of Reigns or if they held it the longest at X-Amount of Days?

Try to answer as a general overall and not in a matter of "Well it depends on the championship". But here are some examples:

WWE United States Championship:
Most Reigns = Ric Flair at 6 times
Longest Reign = Lex Luger at 523 days

WWE Championship:
Most Reigns = John Cena at 12 times
Longest Reign = Bruno Sammartino at 2,083 days

Length. It doesn't mean shit if you're a 20 time champion and the length of your reigns average 5 minutes.

MooseNugget wrote:

Length. It doesn't mean shit if you're a 20 time champion and the length of your reigns average 5 minutes.

This.

neither, what's important is being a champion people will remember, creating moments and leaving a lasting impression on people.

The Goldish of Bergs wrote:

neither, what's important is being a champion people will remember, creating moments and leaving a lasting impression on people.  

How about being a draw?

Length is the easy pick here. Not a very prestigious reign if you only held it for one day versus half a year.

Of course if the title feels meaningless in that half a year, that's kind of pointless to, but it does feel more meaningful when one person who has held a title for a long ass time finally loses it.

Roman Reigns are the most prestigious.

Clowning On That Beat wrote:

Roman Reigns are the most prestigious.

Yes the Roman Empirpire had a very historical reign, but we're talking about wrestling right now.

They're both important. One isn't worth much without the other.


The Honky Tonk Man was IC champ forever, but he never won it again. Shows they didn't trust him enough to give it back to him.

The Rock was WWE champion 8 times, but his average reign was 45 days. Makes him look weak because he was always losing it quickly.

It's only really prestigious if you win it multiple times, but hold it for a decent amount of time for most of them as well.

IE:
Bret Hart - WWE Title (5 Reigns, 131 day average)
Shawn Michaels - WWE Title (3 Reigns, 132 day average)
Razor Ramon - IC Title (4, 109)
Shelton Benjamin - IC Title (3, 117)

In seriousness, you guys are all wrong on this.

It can go either way obviously but GENERALLY number of reigns is more prestigious than length. Reason why: Fans remember the ones who had the most reigns and those superstars are always the legends. Length doesn't get remembered and praised nearly as much. And sometimes a forgotten / overall unaccomplished superstar had a really long title reign at some point in their career and it really didn't do much for them or the title in the grand scheme of things.

Example:

Santino Marella held the Intercontinental title only twice but one of them was for a really long time & it was a quality reign too (booking-wise / entertainment-wise). Chris Jericho held the Intercontinental title 9 times for an average of like 3 months (idk exact numbers but I know it's something like that).

Chris Jericho is the one who added prestige to the title and was a memorable, prestigious champion that added value to both the title & himself after these reigns. He's easily associated with the INC title when anyone would think of Intercontinental champion greats. He & his reigns are what's remembered, not Santino & his long reign (at least not to the extent of Y2J).

Similarly, Jericho & his reigns are remembered way more than even the longest reigning champion himself, Honky Tonk Man, as well.

Lots of reigns don't mean shit. WWE has booked some shiity long reigning champions. And Lex Luger wasn't a draw as champion for WCW.

People are not going to remember most of John Cena's reigns as World Champion. It's to the point where it doesn't matter if he passes Ric Flair's record.

Some promotions were able to have a lot of title changes but it devalued those titles. Jerry Lawler was the draw in Memphis not The Southern Heavyweight Championship.

Clowning On That Beat wrote:

Santino Marella held the Intercontinental title only twice but one of them was for a really long time & it was a quality reign too (booking-wise / entertainment-wise). Chris Jericho held the Intercontinental title 9 times for an average of like 3 months (idk exact numbers but I know it's something like that).

Chris Jericho is the one who added prestige to the title and was a memorable, prestigious champion that added value to both the title & himself after these reigns. He's easily associated with the INC title when anyone would think of Intercontinental champion greats. He & his reigns are what's remembered, not Santino & his long reign (at least not to the extent of Y2J).

I'm pretty sure Santino being a complete joke character that was never taken seriously on the main roster may have something to do with that.

^ Exactly, that's adding to my point. Even a comedy character can manage to have a long title reign. A comedy/joke character would never have 9 title reigns. Number of reigns is more prestigious.

Brother Tjero wrote:

The Rock was WWE champion 8 times, but his average reign was 45 days.

This is another reason why # of title reigns is more prestigious (even though TJ was trying to use it as a reason why it wouldn't be ).

The Rock will always be remembered for having 8 title reigns and his reigns did a lot for both the WWE title & The Rock's career. It's a big part of him being a wrestling legend and those title reigns are remembered in history no matter how short a lot of them were.

Clowning On That Beat wrote:

A comedy/joke character would never have 9 title reigns.

What about John Cena?

No one think's about Rock's WWE Title reigns. If I talk to anyone it's going to be about his promos. Look at what I said about Jerry Lawler and Memphis Wrestling.

All I know about Jerry Lawler is that he likes puppies and idk what Memphis Wrestling is

Burdur Smurf

Well it's easy. You want quality over quantity.

If we have 50 title changes in a year the title is worthless. Who cares who the champion is if we know it won't last a month? Length certainly matters, and I don't even know how many reigns Cena, HHH, etc. have. I don't really care. What I do remember is that both of them had some fucking long ass reigns with the belts at different times. When I first started actually caring about wrestling, seeing Cena end JBL's one year long reign was a huge moment for me, as an example.

See, what the problem here is, is that Burdur represents the casual fan. Burdur represents who WWE wants to appeal to, and it's Burdur's opinion that they're actually going to listen to.

WWE

And don't forget about the kids, too

What do WWE & Dead have in common?

They both cater to the kids.