What's more important. Long title reigns or.?

Question

How long the title reigns are? I mean they make such a big deal out of how many titles someones had, shouldn't they they be making a big deal out of how long the reigns are.

Answer 1

is that the smae thing long title reigns and how long they are  

Answer 2

Yeah reign because anyone can get lucky and win the title. the way you earn real respect is how long you hold it. Thats why it matter so much to CM Punk

Answer 3

To me it always should be the length of the title rein. Saying that you've held a title for a certain amount of days is waaaaaaayyy more credible than saying "I've held a title 10x". Because when you think about it when that's said (and say that this person isn't currently holding a title) 10x isn't just how many times they've won, but lost as well! So it's always best to have a lower amount of a title held with a long rein rather than the oppisite way.  

Answer 4

no because the reigns are like a a year and a half the most

Answer 5

How many titles someone has had. People begin to hate you if you have a long title reign (Cena). Ric Flair is known for being a 16 time world champion. Hes not known for being a year long champion.

Answer 6

The length of the title reign is more important. It makes the champion look

dominant and also adds more prestige and value to the belt if he has it for over half a year, making title changes more of a big deal.

With fans today though having ADD, they can't have someone be champion that long because they would constantly be complaining. This is thanks in part to everyone's favorite time the Attitude Era in which the title seemingly changed hands every month.

So in closing yes I think that the length of the title reign is more important.