|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 15, 2014 1:19:55 GMT -5
In modern combat sports, & by modern I refer to the last 120 years, the championships have been contested under a format designed to force the champion to defend his title in individual bouts, as opposed to a championship to be fought for by two individuals or teams after successfully climbing a tournament bracket over the duration of the sport's season.
This leads to a significantly different, dynamic surrounding the championships & defining their prestige, Professional Wrestling is no exception. While not a sport, but
a theatrical portrayal there of, the championships serve a fundamental purpose of designating the top protagonist/antagonist in the story.
Let us focus on the core concept of championships in Professional Wrestling. Specifically the primary title(s) used in WWE over the last decade.
The legitimacy of an interchangeable, championship tenure is derived from the quality of the challengers & the duration that this quality is maintained.
This is construed by modern promotions advocating the number of tenures as an accomplishment in itself to the point of distorting the perspective of the fans.
In certain cases, multiple title runs is a reflection of that wrestlers consistency, despite the occasional fluke or simply being outdone during their career. For example: Bruno Sammartino(Kayfabe)
Other careers filled with multiple tenures are not so concrete. John Cena, Randy Orton, Edge, & Triple H are the primary culprits.
These four men together have possessed 40+ reigns as primary champions in WWE. This statistic would make any fan believe that in Kayfabe terms, this quartet of competitors were better than any other. This is not the case.
Many of these reigns were short lived, if not transitional reigns by design, but various runs were heavily impressive, if not cornerstone periods in WWE's history.
So my question is simple. How do you define the Kayfabe prestige of a character's championship reign/history?
|
|
Falconsinclair
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 24, 2012 9:16:24 GMT -5
Posts: 803 
|
Post by Falconsinclair on Feb 15, 2014 1:34:26 GMT -5
I think a lot of the title changes have to do with the nature of the WWE's Television & Travel Schedule.
I for one will always hold Bruno's initial title reign as the standard bearer in terms of what makes a champion. Sadly in today's day and age we will never see another 8 year reign at the top of the business
|
|
|
|
Post by jayrod2009 on Feb 15, 2014 19:36:42 GMT -5
I think a lot of the title changes have to do with the nature of the WWE's Television & Travel Schedule. I for one will always hold Bruno's initial title reign as the standard bearer in terms of what makes a champion. Sadly in today's day and age we will never see another 8 year reign at the top of the business Theres a reason for that. It would get old. Punk's year reign was old after 9 months.. It became predictable, like Takers Mania matches. Bruno also competed once a month. Todays stars compete 3+ days a week. At that schedule, Bruno's reign was like a year at best. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Feb 15, 2014 20:00:13 GMT -5
These four men together have possessed 40+ reigns as primary champions in WWE. This statistic would make any fan believe that in Kayfabe terms, this quarter of competitors were better than any other. This is not the case. Many of these reigns were short lived, if not transitional reigns by design, but various runs were heavily impressive, if not cornerstone periods in WWE's history. So my question is simple. How do you define the Kayfabe prestige of a character's championship reign/history?  Also, I define the quality of a title reign by the strength of title defense matches, his importance in the industry, and the quality of his character. Some long title reigns sucked (see: Cena's year-long reign) and some short ones were great (HBK's 2002 reign). |
|
|
|
Post by @Sweetbob on Feb 15, 2014 20:09:33 GMT -5
'The chase' is always better television.
That's the reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Feb 15, 2014 21:59:28 GMT -5
I'm not totally sure what you're getting at (which is often the case when things get long-winded), but I'd say Daniel Bryan's WWE Championship reigns are a combined like 18 hours and he's the most beloved wrestler in the company. I'd say the best way of putting it is that for the past 10-15 or so years, the championship has become merely a prop for people to fight over. Just because you're the "champion," it doesn't mean you're the best or most popular character/wrestler/person in the company, and even when that does happen to be the case (i.e. Punk's reign, at least at the start), it doesn't mean you will actually be the showcased star of the show.
|
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Feb 15, 2014 22:26:10 GMT -5
The championship has become completely devalued in of itself. There have been 6 title changes this year. There were 6 title changes in the decade of the 1980s combined. I think it is a mixture of additional programming and fans not having any patience whatsoever. Not a knock on wrestling fans, but its our culture. We live in an era of instant gratification. I also think the MITB briefcase complete devalues the title.
The prestige from the title used to be being larger than life. Whoever had the title was the man, unquestionably. Every match the champion was in was an event. Now the prestige is basically more TV time for the champion. Just comparing champions from varying decades, the title is defended a lot more on free tv than in other eras.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Richius on Feb 15, 2014 22:46:18 GMT -5
If you're talking about the kayfabe value of the championship, then I think a comparison to UFC provides a valid answer. There have been many multiple time champions who also had one or zero successful title defenses. Others have only won one title but held it for years through many defenses. Now, of these champions, who are the ones talked about as the greatest? The ones who had single reigns that lasted years like Silva and GSP. No disrespect to multiple time champions like Couture or others, but in the discussion of greatest UFC Champions it comes down to the guys who not only won the title but then successfully defended it multiple times.
If you take that comparison over to pro wrestling, it means that a Sammartino or Hogan or even Punk who had fewer reigns that lasted for long periods are better than the Rock, Austin, or HHH who had multiple reigns but most were very short. Mick Foley likes to joke that he was a multiple time champion yet he held the title for less than 30 days total adding to the argument that days as champ > number of reigns. Flair is of course the greatest because he had the most reigns and some of the longest of the last 35 years.
This is all from a kayfabe perspective of course.
|
|
Chief
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 21, 2008 15:36:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,849
|
Post by Chief on Feb 16, 2014 0:03:07 GMT -5
Wrestling is a completely different animal then it was 20 years ago.
The main events we see weekly now would be SAVED for PPV back then.
With that and the sheer quantity of non squash matches they put out every week, it causes a downwards spiral in which everything has suffered over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 16, 2014 20:53:25 GMT -5
In kayfabe terms, the only real measurements that define someone's championship prestige are the number of title reigns and/or the length of those reigns. CM Punk having the longest title reign in 25 years is a huge deal. Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, The Rock, John Cena breaking the title reigns records were all huge deals.
In reality, it's the quality of a reign that defines it. How good were the stories, the rivalries, the matches that that champion had.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:09:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 3:55:51 GMT -5
I'm not totally sure what you're getting at (which is often the case when things get long-winded), but I'd say Daniel Bryan's WWE Championship reigns are a combined like 18 hours and he's the most beloved wrestler in the company. I'd say the best way of putting it is that for the past 10-15 or so years, the championship has become merely a prop for people to fight over. Just because you're the "champion," it doesn't mean you're the best or most popular character/wrestler/person in the company, and even when that does happen to be the case (i.e. Punk's reign, at least at the start), it doesn't mean you will actually be the showcased star of the show. excellent post |
|
