Taking Issue with WWE History Books - Wrestle Newz twitter google

Taking Issue with WWE History Books

WWE
If you browse over to WWE.com at the moment, you would be informed that The Shield are now the 5th longest reigning tag team champions in WWE history. That kind of surprised me, and I was curious to see the full list. Spoiling the surprise, the long gone duo of Paul London and The Brian Kendrick clocked in at number one. But wait…growing up, a WWE/WWF fan, I know full well that teams like Demolition and The Hart Foundation had longer reigns, and they didn’t even make it on the list.

Then I had the “a ha” moment. This is one of those times where, for whatever silly reason, WWE has chosen to differentiate from the older belts. And, whether you agree with the split or not, it is a disservice to the quality teams from the past, and it allows for a really sad top 5 longest reigns. You can  argue that Team Hell No, as much as I despise the name, was a good team. The Colons have talent as well. But none of these teams should belong in a top 5 tag title reigns on the WWE site. None can hold a candle to the talents that have come before them.

What’s actually just as depressing for me is that there are a number of tag teams the WWE has enjoyed, whom held the titles but never were given a long enough reign to crack the top 10. Such teams include the Hardyz, the Dudley Boys and Edge and Christian. As strong as those three teams were, I find it amazing that none was ever considered worthy to hold the gold longer than the previously mentioned London/Kendrick team, or even the 9th team on the list of John Morrison and The Miz. There is no way you could argue (and keep a straight face) that those two teams are better than or even close to the talent of any one of the three not on the list.

Is this WWE trying to build up The Shield as an impressive modern day tag team? Perhaps. But I think they’ve managed to shine a bright light on just how largely mediocre the tag ranks have been for a long time. What I actually found sad was that, even when all the tag title reigns in company history were properly cataloged, the London/Kendrick duo still sits (barely) on the top 10 reigns. How weak was tag team wrestling at that point, that Vince and WWE writers could find no one better to hold the gold?

Yes, I understand WWE is differentiating these belts from those that the New Age Outlaws and others held. But, it just makes no sense. Especially as WWE is playing up its Hall of Fame, and how it is constantly trotting out legends. Many fans watching the product today can at least recall the Outlaws, if not Demolition and the Harts. They may not remember Mr. Fuji as a wrestler, or the brilliance that was Money, Inc. To push a list that blatantly ignores those contributions is disappointing as a fan.

I couldn’t care less about cleanliness of records for WWE’s sake. For me, its all about the legacy of the WWF/WWE tag team championship belts. Any time WWE has a top 5 list for tag team champions, and it cannot remind viewers of the tag team greatness that the company employed at one time, is not a wise move. At the end of the day, I am resigned to the notion that, quite frankly, for reasons I don’t fully understand or agree with, WWE has, for some time now, not cared near enough about the tag division. It is an afterthought. Go ahead. Take a look at the top 5 list on their own site right now. Hard to look at that list and tell me they care.

Share This on Facebook
  • Tsall13

    Honestly you’re making a big deal about nothing… long time fans of this business know the best tag teams and what they accomplished before WWE downgraded the division… all their trying to do is hype the shield more so they become more popular and welcomed in by the fake fans of this generation… real fans will always remember the best teams and will never consider their top ten as a legitimate list…

    • james clinton

      I’m sorry but WHAT?
      What exactly defines a “Fake fan”?
      If you like WWE enough to call yourself a fan it doesn’t matter whether you’re some 12 year old kid who loves Cena, an IWC smark in love with CM Punk or a longtime fan fondly reminiscing about the days when WCW was still around, the fact is that if you want to be a fan you are one.
      The only “fake fans” would be like women who show interest in wrestling because their boyfriends like it, or similar situations to that. (If this is what you meant by fake fans i apologize and you are spot on)

      And to be clear, I get what you are trying to say and its a darn shame that we can’t get a “real” top 10 list of the greatest teams rather than just who held the smackdown team belts the longest, its just that I really object to you insulting people simply because they haven’t enjoyed the product as long as you have.

      • Tsall13

        No I am not referring to Cena fans at all people can be fans of whoever they choose…. I’m referring to the people who bash the product constantly and only care for certain angles and if they don’t like it they continue to cry like little girls… I don’t acknowledge that list at all and to me London and Kendrick don’t even exist as decent champs cause they held the titles at a time when the division barely existed… WWE put that list up for one reason to hype the shield as legitimate players in the company… they purposely did the unified tag titles reign and not the original titles… everyone who knows about the real tag division that WWE showcased years ago know about the greats and just like me don’t even think about that list…

      • Joseph Douglas

        As an example, a fake fan could be a female that picks her favorite because he is ‘cute’. That to me is not a fan of wrestling.

        • Abudadein

          I picked up a fake fan at Canadian Tire the other day, thinking it was a real fan, hoping to get some cool air blowing through my office. I had no idea it was just ornamental. I thought it was a real fan, made to look like the old fashioned kind from the ’50s. Ah well, I was able to return it and purchased a pretty sweet real fan. It’s called the Air King 9880, and it’s an oscillating fan with three rotation speeds and it comes in white or black. In fact, it’s blowing my hair right now as I write this comment. Anyways, just wanted to share in case anyone is in the market for a new fan. Or, if you’re into fake fans, the old fashioned one at Canadian Tire is very fancy and makes for a nice piece of art.

    • bigfoot228

      I agree with your first point, 100%. But calling this generations fans “fake” is just tired, worn-out “old school” wrestling fan douchebaggery. If your only benchmark for a great tag-team is being great IN THE WRESTLING ERA YOU GREW UP IN, then your logic has no logic. There were great teams before you were born, just because you didnt see them doesnt diminish their accomplishments. This falls under the heading- My Era Was The Best Era nonsense. 20 years from now, todays “fake fans” wont even be acknowledging the existance of your era’s great wrestlers. Because most of them will have the same low-IQ mentality as you. Good day to you Sir.

    • JMD

      its actually not a big deal about nothing. these are THE ONLY tag titles being defended by WWE branded wrestlers on WWE TV (I am not counting NXT). the WWE ran, on its website, a top 5 tag team reigns list, and it reads as though the company has had no more competent a duo than that of London and Kendrick, when in fact, they only last as long as they did because of the abysmal state of tag wrestling at the time. but there are fans that will read that and not go “wait a minute, what about demolition? what about the samoan swat team? the killer bees? road warriors? steiners? freebirds?” yes i was just rattling off names there, but if the WWE chooses to crap on the past, they ought to stop running that opening video segment to their shows mentioning past/present/forever, or however it goes exactly.

      it would be like suddenly acting like, because they got rid of that god awful spinner belt, that some of cena’s title reigns never happened.

      i get why they ostracized benoit (i don’t particularly agree, but i get it). these current tag belts SHOULD be tied to and considered a part of the overall WWE tag title history.

      side note, considering how weak the tag ranks are now, how crazy is it that the company at one point had two sets of tag belts? insanity

  • Chelsii?

    inb4 Chris Benoit.

    • D.M.T

      Inb4 Chris Benoit? What are you talking about?

      • Chelsii?

        You wouldn’t get it child.

        • D.M.T

          Stop calling me a child Chelsii. I’m a grown man and you know it.

          • Chelsii?

            Uh huh.

          • Abudadein

            Chelsii is an insecure, self-loathing, neurotic, aggressive adolescent. Unless she is contributing something of value on here — like she did earlier on, commenting on the lineage of the tag titles — then I suggest everyone just ignore her comments. When I’m truly bothered by the belligerence and ignorance of someone, I find the most empowering thing you can do is to walk away quietly and leave them right where they are in their pathetic state. I believe Mrs. Ambrose did exactly that when she got fed up with Chelsii’s hostility, and hopefully D.M.T. will do the same.

          • Chelsii?

            “Chelsii is an insecure, self-loathing, neurotic, angry adolescent.” No, not really… the only people who would say this are the people I have no interest in being nice to. It’s funny when you say those things about me, but yet overlook the failed sentient being that is DMT most of the time.

  • Chelsii?

    Also, because Deegan clearly never bothered to research the title’s lineage.

    The current tag titles share the same lineage with the original 2002 Smackdown tag titles, not the World tag titles… which have been around since like.. the 70’s? That lineage ended when the titles were unified.

    Fact check before ‘having issue’ with the history books.

    • fj2305

      She’s absolutely right!!!

    • JMD

      the point, which you clearly missed, was that i did not care about the lineage. actually, if anything, you just proved the point of how insanely stupid it is. WWE has had tag champs since before 2002, but the belts they currently trot out should only have a lineage going back to 2002? it is, to say the least, asinine

      • Chelsii?

        Sure they could’ve merged the entire history because it would’ve made much more sense since there’s only one set of titles now. However, they didn’t and chose to stick with a lineage that’s more in line with the name of the titles (as the ‘WWE Tag Titles’ didn’t exist before 2002, only the ‘World Tag Titles’), you’re trying to make a point about a title lineage that doesn’t exist anymore. There’s nothing revisionist about it either, it’s the the correct lineage linked to the correct title, get over it.

        • puckdinah1

          again, you missed the point. by not linking things, it actually kind of is revisionist history. hence, the whole article.

          by your stance, i will guess you are a younger fan, but this position by WWE should anger fans to a degree. if they pulled this with the WWF/WWE belt, either when they re-branded to WWE, or retired any one of the theme belts, and then just kept that history as separate, don’t you think that would be a wee bit fishy?

          thats his whole point. WWE had no real reason to not link the titles, regardless of name or belt.

          its somewhat insulting to me, as a fan, to not just have one complete soup to nuts lineage in play. IMHO, to limit the history of these belts to such a small sample of WWE tag history cheapens these belts further than the generally lackluster state of the WWE tag ranks, for the most part, over that same period.

    • Sean Patrick

      PREACH

  • cubfan4life

    Since when does holding a title equal accomplishment. Does anyone honestly think any less of Roddy Piper, Jerry Lawler, or Ricky “the dragon” Steamboat just because they never held a world title? Do we all think that The Great Khali or The Miz is better than those 3 men because they did? No. Its the memories that they gave us in the ring that defines them. Not how many times or how many days they held a title.

    • JMD

      i absolutely agree that the titles don’t make the wrestlers matter-sometimes it helps validate to an extent, but i know many wrestlers i’ve enjoyed over the years who never got the big gold-piper for one, as you mentioned.

      if anything, thats the other side of the coin here, as to how insane the list is. we all know many other, more talented teams, yet because of the dearth of tag talent and WWE management not connecting the old world tag belts with these new ones, somehow we are supposed to be impressed that this list means much of anything.

  • Sting’s Dad

    ‘As strong as those three teams were, I find it amazing that none was ever considered worthy to hold the gold longer than the previously mentioned London/Kendrick team’

    I have to say that you should note; the only reason that London and Kendrick held the titles as long as they did was because WWE had a total of approximately five tag teams on the entire roster at that stage. Cade & Murdoch, Deuce & Domino and Regal & Taylor (or Burchill). The only other teams in the division at that time were flops like The Heartthrobs and The Dicks.

  • Moh.T

    @tsall13:disqus
    This is NOT making a big deal about nothing, it IS a huge deal
    for 2 main reasons
    The first reason, which is superior in its importance is that every kid out there, every new generation, is going to start believing that Paul London & Brian Kendrick were the best tag team ever, which is by no means true, I’d be surprised if they made to the 100’s. Anyways, articles like that manipulates every child’s mind, and thanks to the ignorance of the past history of pro wrestling, like what happened at Raw with most people NOT KNOWING WHO BOB BACKLUND IS, offends everything these great people had done to the business. Without them, there would be no CM Punk, no Cena, no Daniel Bryan and no WWE. (I referred to these 3 because they are the most popular superstars NOWADAYS, I meant to not mention the likes of Undertaker, Michaels, and Stone Cold). So, WWE must work hard on raising awareness about the great, rich history it has, and more importantly, work harder on making history nowadays. I get disgusted by the “fake” Historical moments done by the WWE these days, like Kaitlyn spearing AJ Lee cracking #4 on the Top 10 Spears video, or Paul Heyman’s kiss to Ryback. Make REAL history.
    The second reason is that they did not mention that this only refers to the “new” titles, which disrespects all the old great men and women in the business, and as I said, manipulate young kids’ brains.

    • Joseph Douglas

      I agree. For some reason they largely decide to ignore the history of their own company. I have been a fan since 1984 and am disgusted by their lists. They should want to show the kids watching today what it was like before the current roster and show appreciation for the guys that made most of them WANT to become wrestlers.

  • Joseph_Rocha

    It does not surprise me that much for The Shield’s sake…there is still not a real tag team division in WWE…

  • fj2305

    As it goes for the WORLD TAG TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP the Demolition holds the longest title reign with 478 days and since the Belts were officially retired by the WWE after creating the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship and the current WWE TAG TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP is the successor of the SmackDown Tag Titles and the old world tag team belts.

  • Jacob’s Verbal Fist

    Nothing in wrestling sickens me more than WWE revisionist history.

  • JH

    I also can’t stand this, it’d be so much better for the older fans and equally as impactful a claim to make just by saying ‘the 5th longest reign in the last decade’ or something like that. Just like how they acknowledge punk’s title reign as the longest of the ‘modern era’ I absolutely hate when they blatantly ignore history because technically it’s not the same titles.

Follow Wrestle Newz