The Piledriver Report 06.10.09: Long-Term World Champion vs. Short-Term Titleholder

Posted by Ronny Sarnecky on 06.10.2009

After hearing that the WWE had four World title changes on their Extreme Rules pay per view, “The Piledriver Report” took a look at the short length of recent World title changes in the WWE. This week, we look at the benefits of the long-term World Champion vs. the advantages of the short-term World titleholder.

This past Sunday night, the WWE had all of their major singles titles change hands, with the World Heavyweight championship exchanging hands twice! Since the Survivor Series, the WWE World title changed hands six times. Since June 1st, 2008, the World Heavyweight championship had new owners on eleven different occasions. If you want to count the ECW title as a World title, then add another five title switched since June 29th of last year. Added together, you have 22 World title changes in the WWE during the last year. If you don't count the ECW title, the two big belts changed hands seventeen times.

Since September 2008, one of the WWE World championships changed hands at least once a month, with the only exceptions being March and May of this year. During that time period, these two World titles changed hands fifteen times, that averages out to more then 2 title changes per month. With all of these title changes in such a short period of time, the question needs to be asked, "are all of these title switches good or bad for the industry?"

Here I go back down memory lane. I remember in the mid-eighties when Hulk Hogan was in the middle of his first WWF World title reign. The big complaint at the time was that Hulk Hogan was hogging the title. With guys like Roddy Piper, Ricky Steamboat, Paul Orndorff, Jimmy Snuka, Sgt. Slaughter, Ted DiBiase, and Rick Rude on the roster, the belt needed to get passed around to guys that were just as deserving of a World title run as Hulk Hogan.

It would get annoying watching a Hogan match, because you knew that the Hulkster would never leave the ring without the title around his waist. Sure, Hogan would lose by disqualification or by count out, but you knew that Howard Finkel would never shout "The winner and NEW World Wrestling Federation Heavyweight Champion…." throughout Hulk Hogan's first reign. When Andre finally beat Hulk Hogan, it was a breath of fresh air. There was finally some new blood on the top of the WWF mountain, especially after Randy Savage won the belt in the World title tournament at WrestleMania IV.

Before Hulk Hogan, Bob Backlund had a title reign that lasted over five years. Bruno Sammartino enjoyed two title reigns that lasted ten and a half years. In the company's first twenty-five years, the WWWF/WWF World title changed hands eleven times. Five of the WWWF/WWF's first twelve World champions held the title for an estimated eleven weeks. That means the remaining seven title holder's held World championship gold for over twenty-four years and nine months.

After experiencing both long term title reigns and short term championship runs, I have been left to ask which direction is better? Should the WWE go back to the days of the long title reigns, or should they continue the trend of short title reigns?

Both have their advantages, and both have their negatives. The idea of having a long term multi-year World champion brings stability to the company. When you have a wrestler, like Bruno Sammartino or Hulk Hogan, holding the World title for five years, you know who the face of the company is. For better or worse, these men are given the reigns of the company, and are expected to carry the organization as its flag bearer wrestler. When you think of the WWF in the sixties and seventies, you immediately think of Bruno Sammartino. When you think about the WWF of the eighties, Hulk Hogan is the name that comes to mind. These are the franchise players of the WWF during those eras.

In today's WWE, with so many title changes, the company no longer relies on one wrestler to carry the load. The WWE is carried more on the brand name "World Wrestling Entertainment" then it is on one specific wrestler. Since 2000, whom would you call the franchise player of the WWE? While most may say Triple H, an argument can easily be made for the Undertaker, Edge, Steve Austin, The Rock, Shawn Michaels, or John Cena has the wrestler who was relied on most to carry the company this decade.

Having the WWE rely on its brand name, and several wrestlers, as opposed to just one performer does have its advantages. If their World champion gets injured, the company doesn't have to struggle to come up with another wrestler to take over. When Triple H tore his quad, you had a number of reliable wrestlers that were competent enough to carry the load.

Having short-term title reigns gives more wrestlers a shot to have a run at the World title. When Steve Austin won the WWF World title for the first time, he was looked at as the man that would lead the WWF into the "Attitude Era." If the WWF still had the old school attitude on title changes, would wrestlers like The Rock, Mick Foley, Kurt Angle, and even Triple H have held the WWF World title during the Monday Night War years?

In the old school days style of booking, the list of Hall of Famers that never held the WWWF/WWF World title reads like a "Who's Who" of professional wrestling. Gorilla Monsoon, Stan Hansen, Killer Kowalski, Don Muraco, Dusty Rhodes, Greg Valentine, Tatsumi Fujinami, Ken Patera, Jimmy Snuka, Pat Patterson, the Masked Superstar, Spiros Arion, Tony Atlas, Blackjack Mulligan, Big John Studd, Ernie Ladd, Bob Orton Jr., Jesse Ventura, Davif Schultz, Roddy Piper, Ricky Steamboat, Paul Orndorff, Ted DiBiase, and Rick Rude are all men who easily could have and should have had a run with the title.

With long title reigns come the eventually title loss. When the title finally changes hands, if it's a heel victory, you get stunned silence, or even riotous conditions. If a babyface captures the title, there is a huge pop from the crowd. Either way, the fans know that they have witnessed history. They were a part of some thing special, part of an event that they will never forget. I still remember being at WrestleMania X, and witnessing my first live WWF World title change. Man, it felt like I was part of one of the most historic moments in the company's history, if not professional wrestling history.

Today, there are so many title changes, that whenever one of the World titles changes hands, you are almost immune to the change. The only time a World title switch seems special today is when it is the wrestler's first time capturing one of the big belts. Besides that, the belt is used more like a prop used to further advance storylines, then as a symbol of who the company feels is the best person to lead the company.

When Hulk Hogan won his third WWF World title, it felt like a huge accomplishment. After all, he finally broke the record he shared with Bruno Sammartino for having the most WWWF/WWF title reigns. On the other hand, Edge is a nine-time former World champion. He held the WWE World championship four-time, and the World Heavyweight championship five times. His total time as champion is just over one year. Nine separate reigns in less then a year and a half! "Superstar" Billy Graham held the WWWF World title in a single for almost ten months. He was the longest reigning heel World champion in the company's first quarter of a century of existence. Graham's reign took place in an era when the McMahon's did not believe in a heel holding the World title for a long term period. In this day, the heel World champion was used as nothing more then a transitional champion.

Today, Edge is arguably the top heel in the company. Edge is the top performer on the SmackDown! brand. When you think of Edge, you think of the heel World champion that every performer on SmackDown! has been gunning after for years. Then you look at the record books, and it shows that Edge isn't exactly Harley Race in terms of being a long-term heel champion. Edge's longest title reign was three and a half months, between December 16th, 2007 until March 30th, 2008. When you compare Harley's eight World title reigns to Edge's nine, which one is more impressive to you?

Looking back at both forms of World title booking, what is the best option for the WWE to choose. For my tastes, I prefer that the WWE have their World titles change hands once every eight to twelve months. The eight to twelve month time span is a long enough time frame, which will give the fans a semi-long term champion that they can look at as being the face of the RAW and SmackDown! brands. The distance between title changes will bring back the "special" feeling that fans used to feel whenever a World title changed hands. Finally, the World title picture will not be dominated by one wrestler, like in the Bruno to Hogan years, nor will it be dominated by a several wrestlers each holding the strap for a month at a time. Sure, each World title may only see one title change in a one year's time period. Even if the champions the WWE gives us is Triple H and John Cena, when the belt comes off them, we will get a huge main event star born. As opposed to the half hearted Rey Mysterio title run a few years ago, or the CM Punk push last year.

Professional wrestling runs in cycles. It is good for a few years, then it goes downhill for a few. At the same time, World title lengths seem to go through cycles. There were the long-term reigns of Bruno-Backlund-Hogan. There were the semi-long term reigns of Bret-Shawn-Austin-Triple H. Today, we have the shorter reigns of Edge, Batista, Jeff Hardy, John Cena, and Randy Orton to live with. What road will the WWE take in the future for their World title reigns? Only time will tell. Hopefully, they will take my advice and go the eight to twelve month route. Then, when we hear the words, "The winner and NEW World Champion……" it will mean something once again.