WWE.com's view on Championship reigns

I think a longer reign is usually better than 2 or 3 short reigns that last < 1 month to 2 and half months.

Of course someone can have a long reign and barely defend their belt and someone can have a short reign but be a fighting champ who defends nearly ever week on TV/PPV.

I think it is good that WWE seems to be giving the main belts longer reigns.

I know I really hated how the WWE/WHT were in 'hot potato mode' during 09-10...

For me it's how long they hold it. I remember back in 04/05 when JBL was WWE champ every pay per view I wanted to see him lose the title, and when he finally did to Cena at Wrestlemania, it was awesome. If wrestlers have the belt for a long time, it builds a lot of suspense.

Longer title reigns only mean something when they are defended regularly, in a decisive manner.

By this, I mean real wins, not DQs, schmoz or anything resulting in an undecisive finish.

Length means far more than frequency, but honestly, even having length on your side these days doesn't make you credible.

All of WWE's Champions are essentially paper right now, even CM Punk. They've put no faith in any of them to carry the company, or even main event a Pay-Per-View. The titles are secondary to whatever is happening with John Cena or John Laurinaitis. They mean virtually nothing.

As for the poll itself, well from a kayfabe point of view I can't decide, both are impressive.

As for long reigns vs 'hot potato' with the Titles. I'm on the fence with that too. I don't mind a period with multiple Title changes every now and then because it keeps it unpredictable; otherwise every time anyone won a belt we'd all be like (and many actually do this on here) 'He'll keep it until around [insert month or PPV] and drop it to ______.' Plus, it seems unrealistic if everyone who wins a belt manages to hold on to it for at least 3-6 months (or even more) every time.

On the other hand, there have been times when it is just overdone and from a booking perspective rather than a kayfabe perspective, we as fans get to thinking 'What was even the point of _____ winning just to lose the belt the next night?'

So that's my 2 cents. You have to have a variety of lengths of Title runs IMO.

EDIT: I also actually think it's more important to make sure the World Titles are only won by an elite group of Superstars who are good enough. Sounds obvious enough, but WWE really messed that up when they gave World Titles to guys like Great Khali, not to mention Sheamus and Miz far too soon, and others.

Longer reigns by far. The fact Edge won 12-13 world titles in only 5 years is a joke IMO. Of all his reigns, maybe two or three were memorable. Punks current WWE Title reign is far more memorable IMO than any or Edge's reigns, except for maybe his first when he cashed in MITB.

Waits for hockey bro to come in and say "wwe championships are worthless, it's all scripted and doesn't mean anything"

For me it's length.

What, no love for Ric Flair being a 16 time world champion?