Everyone puts hate on cena but....

Well i think this whole 7 title reigns for Edge is completly stupid. It kinda makes the titles worthless. Now the things is though, is that Edge has been a mid-carder for half of his carrer. He didn't even win a major title untill '05.

Cena though got one in a matter of 3 years. And then had a very very long title reign. Now Cena can put on some decent matches, but he's nothing compared to Edge.

I remember when Edge first won the title, it was Godly. But then he started winning them more frequently and it lost it's spark. I mean 7 reigns in a matter of a few years is stupid.

i'd agree, but i'm biased as i hate edge. but yea, i feel he went from midcarding to main event status dramatically fast. when people find out edge is champ, they think "like edge from edge and christian? the small guys?"

Okay, Cena won the belt 3 years into his WWE career, and really it was believeable, he was the new top guy. Look at Edge in the first 3 years in his WWE career, did he connect with the fans like Cena did?? No. As a matter of fact i doubt anyone even remembers what Edge was doing 3 years into his career. He definantly wasn't ready to main event.

Edge was teaming with Christian and they were on top of the Tag Team division for what was, in my opinion, the best period for tag team wrestling ever.

And they totally reeked of awesomeness.

Then your problem isn't really with Edge, is it? It's with the frequency of title changes nowadays.

Rock had three WWF title reigns in late 98/early 99 that lasted a few weeks. Mick Foley's three WWF title reigns were all tiny.

It's hilarious that people get so caught up in wrestlers "deserving" a certain number of title reigns and really have no criteria for it. Someone even said something along the lines of "It's criminal that Edge has more title reigns than Taker" which is outright laughable. Edge's character is all about exploiting opportunity, then getting his comeuppance. It lends itself perfectly well to short title reigns.

If Edge had one title reign that lasted nine months and ended with him losing by DQ and count out all the time (like Flair back in the day) people would complain. Cena had a title reign that lasted a year, people complained. Is it so difficult to just stop getting bothered about unimportant, stupid crap and enjoy wrestling?

Perhaps you haven't come across this word before, but look it up: Opinion.



Perhaps some people have actually watched wrestling since then and aren't just going off TLC matches from eight or nine years ago?

I would say yes and no. Title reigns really don't mean sht anymore. Remember when RVD was ECW Television champ for like 2 years straight? No one ever beat him for the title, he had to forfeit the title when he got injured. The dude was undefeated yet nowadays long title reigns like that don't mean sht. If someone holds a title belt for x amount of time, it isn't as impressive nowadays compared to how many times a wrestler has won a particular belt. So theoretically, a wrestler with 7 relatively short title reigns is more appealing now then a guy who's only won the belt 5 times and had 5 decent 3 to 6 month title reigns. Edge is d3f deserving of being the 7 time world champion but at the same time, 2 or 3 of his reigns were really short-lived. When he cashed in his Money In The Bank briefcase at New Years Revolution, I almost cried it was so awesome. He had that briefcase for almost a full year before he used. I actually forgot he had it. When he won the title that night, it was most d3f an amazing moment but that one title reign was very short-lived. Almost embarrassing in a way. My opinion, Edge totally deserves the 7 time champ status, he's d3f earned and we know the guy can extract heat from the fans. That's really what it's all about. If you can get that heat from the fans, sooner or later, the WWE is going to put a belt on you to get even MORE heat.