Title Reigns

Doesn't it annoy you how people are billed as however many time champion?

For example, HHH. He has 12 title reigns and is announced accordingly. However, he is only 12 time champion because he lost it the other week then got it back. If he hadn't lost he would be 11 time champion but that sounds crapper than 12 yet it would be more impressive if he had retained for a year and remained 11 time champion.

I know this is kinda random but nobody ever seems to mention the length of the reigns. The longest HHH has ever held the title is 118 days. There are people (Backlund, Sammartino, Morales etc) who have held the title for literally thousands of days yet have nowhere near as many title reigns.

Anybody else hate how the number of reigns is emphasised over the length of it?

I loved how Triple H was always pointing up his fingers to indicate how many title reigns he's had at that moment.
When his eleventh reign approached I said to my friend, who is a big Triple H mark: "Man, he is going to need assistance soon to show us how often he was Champ."

My friend was not as amused as I was.


The way things are going Trips is probably going down in WWE history as the Man with a Thousand Reigns.
But what I've noticed is that they are actually pointing out things like length of reigns with the minor titles. The announcers wont shut up about how soon The Miz and The Morrison will be the longest reigning Champions in the history of the Tag Team Titles, and MVP had a similar almost-record going with the US-title before Matt beat him, I think.


All in all I would say that the number of reigns is easier to appreciate, because it is instantly recocnizable as good. The length of a reign has to be extraordinarily long or exciting to be worth mentioning, I guess.

But if a reign was exceptionally long I agree that it is well worth mentioning over number of reigns. It has to do a bit with Quality over Quantity, I guess, because being Cham for the twelth time really does indicate that you have lost the championship eleven times, whereas a ten year title reign indicates that you haven't lost a single important match in that time.

IT Makes me laugh when they go on about flair being 16time champ or w/e number and in interviews he always says 20 something im like well that means you lost it 19 times silly lol

i hate how they say NEW champion for about 4 weeks, then they lose it lol.

its like mark henry isnt the new champion this week, hes just the champion.

Thing is, with Hunter now a 12 time world champ that makes him an 11 time loser already

Is he planning to be the guy who dropped the WWF/E title most times in history?

Guys like Cena and Hogan held the strap for far to long in there respective reigns (Hogan's 2nd and 3rd and Cenas last title reign)

However guys like Macho Man held the strap for a year and it was still fresh at the time, so I think it mostly depends on the guy holding the belt and what they can bring to the performance of the match

Can you imagine someone holding a title for over 2000 days now? That's never gonna happen. I just hate how so many people are judged based on how many runs with the belt they've had rather than the quality or length of the run.

Chris Jericho

# 1x Undisputed WWF Champion
# 2x WCW World Heavyweight Champion
# 8x WWE Intercontinental Champion
# 3x WWE World Tag-Team Champion
# 1x WWE European Champion
# 1x WWE Hardcore Champion

And....

WrestlerDays HeldDate WonDate Lost

Bruno Sammartino	2,803	May 17, 1963	January 18, 1971
Bob Backlund	2,135	February 20, 1978	December 26, 1983

lol

Mad innit?

2803 days.

That's about 7 and a half years.

And some people think it's dull now

Hate to sound markish but did WWWF used to be real when it was WWWF not wwf or wwe

No, it was still professional I think. A lot more people considered it a real sport though rather than entertainment.

im just going to hang myself lol

I suppose being the world champion is a sign of your worth to the company and if you are constantly given the strap then it proves you have stood the test of time

Look at The Rock, I doubt he had many long runs, in fact in his SEVEN title reigns I think we could be hard pushed to get a full year out of that!

top 22 comigned reigns

RankWrestler# Of ReignsCombined Days

1.	Bruno Sammartino	2	4,040
2.	Hulk Hogan	6	2,185
3.	Bob Backlund	2	2,138
4.	Pedro Morales	1	1,027
5.	John Cena	3	793
6.	Bret Hart	5	654
7.	Steve Austin	6	529
8.	Randy Savage	2	520
9.	Shawn Michaels	3	396
10.	Diesel	1	358
11.	Brock Lesnar	3	355
12.	Triple H	7	330+
13.	The Rock	7	297
14.	Kurt Angle	4	297
15.	Billy Graham	1	296
16.	Ultimate Warrior	1	293
17.	Yokozuna	2	281
18.	John "Bradshaw" Layfield	1	280
19.	The Undertaker	4	238
20.	Randy Orton	2	204
21.	Eddie Guerrero	1	133
22.	Ric Flair	2	118

I don't think anyone wants to hear how many times Triple H or Edge have held their titles much less the length as well. Who the hell cares? These commentators waste their damn breathe mentioning every fuckin time a champion comes out how many times they've held it. Who cares?

Maybe, but what else could commentators commentate on?

But I am with you there. The WWE pops a boner for the whole statistics-thing at the moment. I think it was at this year's Royal Rumble when they didn't even have a proper video at the beginning featuring all the storylines, but rather a video telling us that wrestlers who entered #7 had a 67% chance of winning the belt at WM.

They just do not know when to stop. If, for example, Triple H was the only guy where they mentioned how many times he has been champ it would make him exceptional. But since they mention the same stuff about every wrestler it all just ends up being statistics.

ugh...i hate hogan...

I like the statistics, its the same in every 'sport' you always hear about how many times a team has won the championship, or the cup, or how many majors a golfer or Tennis player has won, or how many titles a boxer has won, I don't see what anyones problem is with it