WWE Champions

Speaking of Hogan, am I the only one who's noticed he isn't on this quiz.

You probably are.

@stockie-- he is. Last won in 2002.

okay, and? That only means that it's possible there were even more than 8 different champions in those 2 years if one of the champions gained the title again at a later date.

Meh. Ripping on wrestling for being fake is long past being stale. No, they don't "win" legitimately because the outcomes are pre-ordained, but that doesn't mean it's not an accomplishment. Being selected to be the champ means you've risen to the top of the industry, which, as in most any other industry, requires skill. The champ is almost always the most popular good guy or the biggest villain. The wrestlers get there through having a lot of charisma and skilled performances. They develop personas, work on their microphone skills, engineer new moves and new trademarks. It might in fact be like an Academy Award. But if you want a list of the most exciting performers in wrestling's history, most of them are on this list, with the exception of the 80s, when nobody but Hulk Hogan held the belt. A lot of fun wrestlers from that era (Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Ricky the Dragon Steamboat, to name a few) never got to hold the title because it was all Hulk all the time.

Tomtrific, do you also find it difficult to talk about "winning" in the context of sports movies? Those are aren't legitimate competitions either, yet I never see anyone talking about how The Mighty Ducks is fake because they weren't really playing hockey, or that the Rocky movies are fake because Sylvester Stallone isn't really knocking people out. Pro wrestling is a story just like any other, except that it happens to take the form of a scripted show about defeating opponents in a sort of combat art competition.

you and me both, its like they have taken the Greatest Superstars of the last 15 years and replaced them with nobody

Cena's popular for several reasons: 1. he's super popular with kids and casual fans, 2. he's been WWE's top guy since 2005, so a lot of people who've grown up loving him are still watching, 3. WWE won't let anyone else rise to that level of popularity - when someone starts getting bigger than Cena, they cut that person's momentum off at the knees and make them look weak. Basically, WWE doesn't want anyone to be better than Cena.

Ugh... just noticed my circular reasoning in the previous post... "he's popular because he's popular with kids and casual fans." Too late to edit, so let me just rephrase that part. Cena is popular with kids because he's portrayed like a superhero and younger kids don't care about stuff like whether he can sell, or getting sick of him winning all the time. Presumably casual fans are much the same.

I know it's all totally laughably fake, but, doesn't it make more sense to actually have one or two or a handful of champions that realistically would hold on to the title because they were better wrestlers? Rather than what it seems like they're doing now which is just giving out belts to pretty much everyone. Sort of like trophies in little league sports.

I mean compare the number of names from the 80s (2) to the number from the 2000s (12) or just 2010-2015 (also 12, in half the time).

Eh, if you watch regularly then it doesn't seem like it's being hotshotted to "everyone" as much as it is. You did see it get thrown around to a lot of people in the 90s (1999 had twelve different champs if I remember), but it's not as bad today. CM Punk had a 400+ day reign from 2011-13, and Lesnar recently held the title for well over half a year. They really don't just dish it out to anyone.

Plus the title is defended MUCH more often now than it used to be. The WWE champ defends at least once a month and has since the mid 90s, whereas champs like Hogan would only be on TV at about the same rate, and defending the title on only rare occasions. As a fan, I like it better this way, as it keeps the stories moving and the title scene relatively fresh.

A lot of comments, I know, but I wanted to clarify that '99 had 12 different title changes, not 12 different people holding the belt.

"Plus the title is defended MUCH more often now than it used to be. The WWE champ defends at least once a month and has since the mid 90s,"

Except when Brock Lesnar is champ and gets to take three months off in a row, anyway...

In the really old days before it was televised they would defend it weekly as part of a touring show, wouldn't they?

Probably, but the title almost NEVER changed hands at non-televised events, at least since WWF/WWE has had regular weekly television. It may have been done once or twice for shock value or when they needed to move the title off of someone due to injury, but even then it was likely one of the lesser championships rather than the main title.

Right. That reinforces my point... more events... but less titles changing hands.

They still do just as many non-televised shows as they ever did, including international tours now. But titles generally don't change hands, nor storylines advance, so they're basically "non-canon" unless a specific exception is made.

WWE's rigorous touring schedule has a lot to do with the unhealthy lifestyles a lot of wrestlers have led over the years, as well as caused several people to quit the industry or at least move to a smaller company that doesn't tour as much. Not wanting to go through the tour schedule is a big reason Brock Lesnar left in 2004 and got his ridiculous part-time contract when he returned.

Yay!

Thanks!

Thanks!