Didn't even know about this
---
The rhetorical nature of this question is quite evident as arguably nobody would back the credibility of multiple reigns over longer title reigns. I shall go in detail
The one name that is synonymous with long title reigns in the modern day era is John Bradshaw Layfield, a relatively unknown contender till the gimmick change. As much as Eddie Guerrero deserves credit for making him a star, his title reign did more for the main event scene on SmackDown that year than anything else. Years from now, that's probably the only thing that he'll be remembered for within the kayfabe industry.
Another example is John Cena's third title reign. I remember all the 'bitching' in the internet wrestling community during that time and I also recall fans turning on the champion on multiple occasions but what surpasses all of that are the memories of the classics that he piled up in that reign. Being constantly put under the spotlight as the invincible champion forced the man to up his game and Cena has never been better than he was that year. In the first half of 2007 alone he had the two bouts with Umaga, one of which was a standout classic and probably the best last man standing ever. Then he feuded with Michaels and put on two classics yet again with a fatal fourway and some impressive tag matches in the mix. The Khali rivalry was a real backlash but he even made that watchable. Cena vs. Lashley from the Bash and Cena vs. Orton from SummerSlam are two of my favorite matches of the year.
Long title reigns have all sorts of impact. I doubt many were alive to watch the reign of Bruno Sammartino (I wasn't.) so the merits of that eight year title reign might be lost on a few.
This is all assuming that by multiple reigns, one means the kind that Edge piles up - nine ridiculous reigns in the span of three years. That is indeed a joke. It has come to the point that when a title change involves Edge, that a vast number of people are indifferent and that's the last thing that company should aim at.
Even Ric Flair's WCW title reigns were beyond a joke but the label 'sixteen time world champion' is the kayfabe representation of how great he was in his heyday. Counting the classics with Steamboat, Funk, Von Erich, Sting, Vader etc. wouldn't strike the heart of a casual fan nearly as much as winning the world title sixteen times.
In essence my point is that both have their highs and lows, much like everything in wrestling, but the quick multiple reigns, although shocking to the crowd for a minute loses its novelty if overdone. In my (expert :side
opinion, title whoring should only be done in acute cases like 'No Way Out 09' for example.
Long reigns may bore the fans from time to time but in the end, the wrestler, the title and the era would've come out much more credible than it did going in.
---
Apologies for the lack of effort :$