Should a Champion's Greatness be measured by title wins or days holding the title?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Snowman, May 30, 2012.

  1. brought it up earlier and it's a great discussion topic.

    Is it more prestigious to be a Triple H, who held the WWE/World Title 13 times, or a Bruno Sammartino who only held the belt twice, but kept it for 4,040 days.

  2. Title defenses/days held.

    Not wrestling but to use an example from MMA: GSP/Silva holding the belt for years at a time >> Randy Couture winning 5 belts and defending them a total of once or twice
  3. Sammartino's.
  4. Obviously, it should be the number of days that you held the title. Being a 13-time champion makes you a 13-time loser. It's possible for someone who has only held the belt twice to have had it more days than someone who has held it 13 times, and yet they can also say they only lost it twice. It should also somewhat depend on who you successfully defended your title against.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. I think it's long reigns. A long reign means that you were the best for a long time and no one could take you down. When you have many short reigns, you kept losing the title. But both are prestigious in my opinion.
  6. isnt ric faair a 23 time world champion?
  7. There's controversy over his number of title wins. WWE says 16 and it's officially accepted as 16, but I've heard 21 or something like that around. Not sure.
  8. My Thoughts

    Of course it'll be the number of days. If you're a 13-time champion, it means that you lost the title 13 times too. Anyone who thinks HHH>Bruno must be killed by Zombies.