Does the number of titles matter?

John Cena is now on 12 World Titles.
It's only a matter of time now before he breaks the record that Ric Flair holds of 16.

My question is...Should we care?

Cena's latest World Title victory has former WWE Superstar Chavo Guerrero steamed as the third-generation grappler has vowed to stop watching professional wrestling if he breaks Naitch's legendary record.

He stated Monday night on Twitter, "If Cena brakes the great Ric Flair's 16 time champ record, I will never watch wrestling again. I call a boycott of Cena matches if he does!"

Guerrero also asked his Twitter followers, "How many of u are tired of John Cena being champion? Don't get all excited, it's just a question." He wrote moments later, "Wow...it's an overwhelming "tired of Cena" response! It's not me, it's all the fans. I could literally retweet hundreds of tired responses!"

Guerrero continued, "Now, my opinion...Cena is better than me on the mike,but I could out wrestle Cena with my eyes closed and 1 hand tied behind my back! Truth!

"Some are saying that Cena is a great athlete. Really? C'mon. Are u blind? I know Cena & I could beat him in any sport except weight lifting!

"Golf, basketball, bowling, a race, tennis, horseshoes, hitting a baseball pitch, catching a football...anything!!!!

"Lol...some1 just said Cena is a better athlete than Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior! Lol are u retarded? No offense to a challenge person."

Source rajah.com

Title changes mean less so the number is far less important. It seems systematic of a booking system that seems unable to build interest, suspense or viewing figures without regular title changes and where even 10 years ago you would probably have 3 or 4 title changes per year you now seem to have more like 5 or 6 per main title belt.

However, it probably is still pertinent to consider the length of time that someone holds the title and the length of their "main event" run. In years gone by there was far less access to wrestling so performers could maintain the same gimmick for decades without it being stale.

The prime example would be comparing Hogan and Cena. People complain about Cena's stale gimmick because it is generally over exposed, yet Hogan ran his from the early 80's until the formation of the NWO.

As such it is probably now easier to gain a title reign but definitely harder to maintain a position within a top level company for a long period of time.

Also, while people bemoan the two titles in the WWE it is really no different to WWE and WCW running titles in each organisation.

"Also, while people bemoan the two titles in the WWE it is really no different to WWE and WCW running titles in each organisation."

Your have to run that comment past me again, they were separate companys so by right each had a world title, plus the roster would be doubled as it was again two companys.

You are right in the sense that everything is over exposed now a days and that includes wrestling - Ratings, sales etc all matters today where as 20 years ago it was the best man to lead the company on top because you could really develop and build a storyline.

No, it's impossible to argue that Cena with 10 WWE titles makes him more credible than Hogan who got 6 WWF/E straps in a much tougher time

The Ultimate Warrior's one World Title win, reign and loss was more memorable than all Orton's reigns put together

the-gaffer wrote:The Ultimate Warrior's one World Title win, reign and loss was more memorable than all Orton's reigns put together

Hell even Ted Dibase's non-reign was a lot more memorable then any of Orton or Cena

Gaffer - why was Hogan's era a tougher time? Yes it was harder to get to the top because existing stars could protect their spots, but that longevity meant that once their their position was secure!

I also think that there is a definite element of rose tinted lenses going on. Looking back from your childhood may mean that more Warrior moments stand out to you but it would also be difficult to argue that Orton isn't the "better" wrestler in terms of technique etc.

bret - certainly there are fewer wrestlers within promotions, but this is because of the choice of the WWE to run light on talent. Also, with the sport being more globalised there is a much larger talent pool to choose from and therefore those who are chosen have to be better than they would have in a previous generation due to competitors from far more areas and regions seeking careers in the industry.

There is a drive to make the WWE global meaning that the guy(s) who are leading the company have to be able to appeal to a much wider audience and demographic, things that wrestlers of 20 years ago didn't necessarily need to do.

Why was it tougher? Mainly because the main man only Wrestled on TV about 8-10 times per year, the WWF in the 80s weren't under so much pressure to keep the public interested, these days with so many PPV's it's a lot easier and a cheaper tactic to simply drop a title to keep a feud interesting, it wasn't that easy in the 80s, also it was a lot harder to become a made man in that era than it is nowadays, so much harder, though thats obvious

the-gaffer wrote:Why was it tougher? Mainly because the main man only Wrestled on TV about 8-10 times per year, the WWF in the 80s weren't under so much pressure to keep the public interested, these days with so many PPV's it's a lot easier and a cheaper tactic to simply drop a title to keep a feud interesting, it wasn't that easy in the 80s, also it was a lot harder to become a made man in that era than it is nowadays, so much harder, though thats obvious

But, presumably, if the main man didn't have to wrestle as much then they also didn't have to be as good? There was less spotlight for their technique to be highlighted, less of an obsession with their character development etc. Nowadays individuals have to work far harder, do more in and out of the ring and have to keep fresher and more interesting characters.

I think that the acid test would be if you took Hulk Hogan from the 1980's and put him in the WWE now and John Cena from now and put him in the WWF in the 1980's I think that Cena would have been able to replicate the success that Hogan had now, as would Hogan in the current era. The only difference would be that we would be having this discussion commenting that things were so much better in the 1980's with Cena and that Hogan isn't as good as him!

The point about more exposure and in ring action is that it becomes more about ability, whether in ring, on the mic, with the crowd etc than it does about backstage politics. I obviously didn't watch the action of the 1980's and early 1990's but it would seem fairly certain that less performances would mean that a greater degree of a characters push would revolve around their ability to be chummy with the booker or powers that be because there wouldn't be the same opportunity for them to be shown up as out of their depth.

Nowadays it is fairly clear when someone isn't good enough or are not ready and therefore being mates with someone else is less of an influence.

It may well have been harder for new guys back then to get an opportunity though only, I imagine, because the positions of the existing competitors had more to do with their politicking than their ability.

I certainly don't think it matters if you start comparing across different eras in wrestling, Cena winning 12 in this era would have been 3 or 4. The title is thrown about so much guys are bound to rack up huge amounts of titles that's just how it is.

I would be very surprised if Cena didn't overtake Flair's 16 World titles, and I think comments like Chavo's are stupid and too clingy to the past. People have to face the facts that wrestling has changed and one of those changes if the world titles change hands a lot more often than they were in the past.

Hogan wrestled 250+ days a year and like most twice at weekends, don't let the fact they didn't give him away on TV much fool you, also, you don't have to be a great Wrestler to be the best Pro Wrestler, you simply have to allow the fans to buy into your character, Hogan from 84-90 had the American public in the palm of his hands, he could talk asses onto seats.

Nowadays the sole focus is to keep things fresh they throw so much 'Brad Pitt' at the wall, you no longer have to be a proven main event drawing talent to be a main man, Cena was a pro for how long before he got the treatment? about 2 and a half years, Hogan was a proven Draw all over Japan and America before McMahon managed to land him.

Would Cena have worked in the 80s? I think he'd have been more likeable as a character but he is far to bland to be compared to guys like Piper, Savage and Warrior, he might have made a decent heel but he'd never have made a top face.

Say what you want about guys from the past but most of them could work a good match, they all had great ring Psychology, Cena has never had that, look at how Hogan worked with Andre, him slamming him is still talked about, Cena though was AA'ing guys like Show, Khali and Henry for fun on shows like RAW and SD, no idea what so ever in how to make something feel spectacular

But the pertinent fact about Cena's title reigns is that despite them being spread over a number of different reigns, the combined length is far in excess of guys like Bret Hart, HHH, Shawn Michaels, Taker, Rock, Angle, Austin and Savage.

The only guys in front of him are Sammartino, Hogan and Backlund who reigned at a time where they were able to get away with title reigns lasting years. Regardless of the abilities of the superstars, the WWE wouldn't be able to get away with that now regardless of who the champion is (even if we recruited Warrior and Hogan from 20 yrs ago).

gaffer - it is the fault of booking and not the talent that Cena AA'ing Big Show is not thought of in the same way as Hogan with Andre.

Also, you say that Cena isn't good with ring psychology etc (and I won't disagree with you) but he is still able to draw millions of fans and then you have guys like Orton who are excellent in the ring.

Also, the issue about Cena being in the industry for two and a half years before his push is ridiculous as you are comparing the WWF of the 1980s trying to break out of the territories and being a big entity to the global behemoth that it is today. It is only natural that the route to stardom is going to be going straight to the WWE instead of going to countries like Japan.

Also, picking out one of two characters from that time is hardly conclusive proof that it was better in the olden days. Piper was great on the mic but so were Edge and CM Punk... Warrior's character caught a bubble for a period and then never cam back again and could be compared to a Goldberg but not to a Brock Lesnar.

I haven't seen enough of Randy Savage's body of work to make an informed judgment though it is also notable that you are picking characters over a huge period of time, 80's to 90's. If we did this now we would come up with a list spanning from Austin, Rock, HHH to Cena, Lesnar, Angle, Edge, Orton, Punk.

Comparisons are notoriously difficult, but it is also evident that those guys have or had a lot of ability and can be compared to the guys from the pervious era.

Hogan had it his own way for many years and was able to put bums on seats but Cena is able to sell masses of merchandise as well.

I am sure that Hogan did work a lot of shows but even if he did two house shows per city per year and 10 TV appearances the average fan would see him 12 times a year, little enough that they would be happy to come out and see the same performance over and over again. Nowadays Cena is on TV maybe twice a week plus 13 PPV's per year, the average fan may see 100 Cena matches a year meaning it is easier to get bored by his character.

I disagree, some of the best title reigns of the last 6/7 years where JBL's 10 month reign in 04/05, Cena's 13 month reign in 06/07, Orton's 7 month reign in 07/08 and Triple H's 6 month reign in 08

There is no evidence to suggest longer title reigns don't get over, it's just cheap booking to swap the straps so often

Hogan did hold the title for a number of years with out losing it in the 80s. People like Austin and Rock held the strap during the attitude era when the belt changed hands so often because of shock value.

I think half of Edges title reigns were only a month long. 3 of Ortons reigns have only been month long reigns aswell. It depends what era the straps been won in, I think it was Bruno Samartino (my spelling is wrong I know) held the belt for nearly 10years back in the 60s or 70s which would probably account for 15 spells now.

the-gaffer wrote:There is no evidence to suggest longer title reigns don't get over, it's just cheap booking to swap the straps so often

Which was partly my point that the issue isn't with the talent but with the booking.

Josh, John Cena is the top man in Pro Wrestling, he has been for about 5 years, You'll never convince me that it's bookers faults for what he does in the ring, the industries top man should have the sway to know something is stupid and to make an obvious change, you can blame an agent when a no mark like Del Rio makes a balls up, not Cena!

I think it would be interesting to see if John Cena feels he has had one too many title reigns? I wonder if he has ever said to the WWE bookers 'Hey you know what guys we can't always keep putting the strap on me'

I am sure he must get peeved with carrying the title all the time.

not anymore as its changed around so much

the-gaffer wrote:Josh, John Cena is the top man in Pro Wrestling, he has been for about 5 years, You'll never convince me that it's bookers faults for what he does in the ring, the industries top man should have the sway to know something is stupid and to make an obvious change, you can blame an agent when a no mark like Del Rio makes a balls up, not Cena!

What has he done so massively wrong? His matches are OK and certainly better when he is not injured and we have already established that the in-ring action is not the be all and end all of the pro wrestling business.

Also the issue regarding how long it took Cena isn't ridiculous, defending it however clearly is ridiculous and highlights a complete lack of understanding in the topic you're discussing.

Cena was moulded into something the WWE thinks its fans want to see, something they have attempted to condition their fans what to see, however in the 80s guys had to go out and make a name for themselves, you'd have the odd guy like Warrior who was completely WWF moulded, other guys who made it to the top had to go out and find out what worked and then win the critics over, nowdays while the territorres aren't there anymore in the most part it doesn't mean the WWE need to fast track guys to superstardom, John Cena on a personal level has done very well out of it but the business as a whole has went downhill big time, mainly because Cena isn't anywhere the level of star that Vince ever built his company around

What has he done so Wrong? Hmmmm he can't sell, he tries but he has no psychology to pull it off, he can't aplly one of the most basic submission moves possible, whens the last time his AA looked good? This is the top guy inthe industry and he can't master the most simple of basics, thats what he's done wrong

Been saying for months "john cena" is the cancer of pro wrestling business,its not his fault but the way they put him across drives me mad.

The strap is just a prop nowadays,it means less and less. Every feud Cena is in you know he will be given it,wheres the suspense of disbelief?

I'm really think Henry should be given a long reign with the whc and have a top babyface take it at mania or rr.

Personally Cena is over to the point he doesn't need the title.

Gaffer - you said before that the in ring part of the performance isn't the most important part and while it would be nice if it were better it certainly doesn't detract too much from the performance considering all elements (e.g. build up).

Also, I am led to believe that Warrior was never exactly a Bret Hart in the ring and yet he was able to capture a crowd and generate reactions despite this, much as Cena does.

Hitman - the title has always been a prop and always will be, just as every element of wrestling is designed to add to the show. There are only titles to give some structure and meaning to the show.

I dont think the title meens as much as it used to , wrestlers can be over with or without it now where as in Ric Flairs hay day the title ment more hell he coined the phrase " To be the man , you have to beat the man " being the man ment being champion .

Josh, I said being a great Wrestler has nothing to do with being a top Pro Wrestler, its about how you present your situation to the crowd, thats Ring Psychology which is absolutely vital, selling is an integriel part of that and being able to propely execute your finishing moves is every bit as important, when I said being the best actual Wrestler I took it for granted that everyone would understand what I assumed was obvious.

As for The Ultimate Warrior, he did know the art of Pro Wrestling, he was hopeless until Rick Rude and Savage got a hold of him in late 88 and early 89 but after that he improved vastly.

Look at the match he and Hogan had in 1990, it was 20 years before Cena/Batista and that one match blew all their matches out the water, why? Because they'd mastered ring psychology

God I love them comments from Chavo regarding Cena!!! Hillarious but so true!!

The only sport he could beat me in is weighting!!!