Longest Serving Champions: Best representatives for their decades?

[Prax]

I was just answering a question in the WWE trivia thread and it got me thinking. Take a look at the following... a list of the longest serving champions of each decade for WWWF/WWF/WWE. Do you think they best represent their decade for WWE?

- 1960's: Bruno Sammartino. He held the championship for a whopping 7 years and 8 months between 1963 to 1971. He beat Buddy Rodgers in 48 seconds and even beat Lou Thesz, which must've been a great honor for any wrestler. He was ridiculously popular and I have to say he best represented the 1960s for WWE, by far.

- 1970's: Bruno Sammartino. Once again, Sammartino. Boy, now that I think about it, I might start to think Sammartino was the greatest thing to ever happen to WWE/F, the most popular, the best ever. It's arguable and it's a subject for another thread. here he held the title for three and a half years from 1973 to 1977. Again, he was ridiculously popular and defeated all of the greats of the decade before losing the belt to Billy Graham. No question here we was the best the 70s had to offer, although he had a little more competition as he was getting older, and best represented the 70s.

- 1980's: Hulk Hogan. I think this one is fairly straight forward as well. Hogan did a tremendous amount of good things for the business in the 80s and a portion of the 90s before he started doing some bad things for the business in the recent past and today. He held the title for about four years from 1984 to 1988, and beat the best that the 80s had to offer, and had some of the most memorable feuds of the time. Most of us wouldn't be wrestling fans if it wasn't for hogan, and I don't think any of us can deny that.

- 1990's: Diesel. Wow, really? Nash held the title for just about a year, through most of 1995, and there's no denying he was the real deal back then, and one of the greatest big men of all time. he made his gimmick work. But does he best represent the decade that saw the likes of Steve Austin, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Randy Savage, etc etc, all in their prime? Not only that but I see several other names that could've held this honor in lieu of Diesel instead that would be a better representative. To Be fair, the 90s were a craps shoot in wrestling, there was a major change when the attitude era came about and so much competition that it was almost necessary that the title should've changed hands a little more often. It's actually impressive that Diesel held the title for a year, and almost as impressive that Yokozuna and the Ultimate Warrior both had 9 month reigns in the 90s, considering all of this, but in hindsight there could've been a better choice for this honor. Diesel DOES NOT represent the 90s better than some of his former co-workers.

- 2000's: JBL/John Cena. I put both in here because I'm too lazy to count the days and both had 9 month reigns. Cena had 2 actually, and his latest one should should easily pass JBL's for the longest one of the decade. If JBL were to keep this record it would certainly be a testament to WWE to be able to build a star such as JBL from the inside and keep him on top of the business for long enough to hold such a record, but he wouldn't best represent the decade. Does Cena best represent this decade? I think he does. he's been the face of the company for a couple of years now and has gotten a lot of females interested in the product, as well as a lot of kids, which is always important for the wrestling business (we all became fans as kids). Now whether you like it or not, I think this is the case. The decade isn't over yet, and someone like Triple H could very well end up holding the record, and that would be equally or even more representative (or better yet Edge), but it looks like it's going to be Cena as of right now and I'm ok with that, because he DOES best represent this decade, although the 2000's were more or less of a craps shoot as well with all the champs there have been and all the changes.

The future - Who will be the longest serving champ/champs of the future be? Obviously MVP and Kennedy have very bright futures ahead of them, but for all we know Cena could hold the honor once again next decade and be the next Sammartino (in terms of popularity/title reigns). Only time will tell, and for all we know we have yet to meet that man, or he might be someone completely unexpected. What do you think?


What do you think of this list even? Do you think it best represents the face of WWE over the past 40+ years?

Who would you have liked to see hold these honors instead?

YOU BE THE JUDGE

 

[Shocky]

I think your 60-80's are pretty spot on, and I can't see anyone arguing those facts.

With the 90's, Diesel was the main guy they were pushing as part of the "new Generation" push. Hence, this is why he was stuck with the belt and had such memorable matchups with Mable, yippie. I could see this being a representitive of how bad the WWE actually got.

I disagree with John Cena whole heartedly. This is where the WWE deserves to get it's bashing concerning children. We all became fans when we were kids, because the WWE was properly promoted to kids. We had shows on saturday and sunday mornings, not monday nights from 9-11. There is too much questionable content to be catering to children, my opinion, but that's how I feel.

Cena represents everything that is wrong with wrestling the last 3 years. He is shit in the ring, marginal on the mic, and despised by most fans.

Triple H best represents this decade. He has a combined nearly 200 days longer with world titles then John Cena, he is an 8 time champion this decade alone. He has one 5 WWE and 5 World championships, all since August of 1999. He is married to the bosses daughter. When this decade is remembered, it will be for Triple H.

 

[Prax]

I meant longest SINGLE world title runs, I should've specified that, but I take your points to heart.

Obviously my opinion of Cena, as you know, isn't as aggressive as yours, but I do agree that Triple H SHOULD represent this decade over anyone else, and that's why I'm hoping he wins the title off Cena and holds it until 2011, seriously.

By the way, what about Bob Backlund? Anyone else feel like he got lost in the shuffle? He had a "five year" title run, other than that "interruption" that happened a couple of times. Does anyone else really see him as a representative for anything?

 

[Shocky]

Ok, single title reigns, I gotcha.

The problem with Backlund is, Vince McMahon Jr. Vince Jr. didn't want him as champion, but kept him as champion to please his father. I think Bob Backlund could go down as a representative of the 70's, but a chunk of his title reign was in the early part of the 80's as well, he falls on the decade border line.

 

[DerekMay]

I believe the 90's should go to Austin. That's when Wrestling hit mainstream. He was the Highest Drawing Champion wrestling has ever seen. He had the best gimmick, which people could connect too. 90's belong to Austin bar-none

 

[Prax]

I believe the 90's should go to Austin. That's when Wrestling hit mainstream. He was the Highest Drawing Champion wrestling has ever seen. He had the best gimmick, which people could connect too. 90's belong to Austin bar-none

But yet they wouldn't entrust him with a long enough title reign to show it in the record books. He became popular in 1997, and he only needed a year to do it. Maybe it was just in his character that he needed to be fucked with all the time by McMahon, maybe they couldn't give him the long reign because of that, I dunno, I just felt they could've had a a better choice for long-term champion, even if it wasn't Austin.

HBK might've had that honor if it wasn't for the back injury, but then again they had the chance to give him the year long reign, yet they had Sid take it off him for a month for pretty much no reason.

Even going back to the early nineties, a longer reign for the Warrior would've worked, he only needed three more months to do it. Or even flair, it would've been interesting to do that considering he was coming over with the WCW title.

Maybe I'm just nitpicking. Maybe I see it as being a bigger issue than it is. But the longer your title reign is, the more you're considered the face of the company. Which leads me to believe the Diesel reign might've been a mistake. I dunno.

 

[Skillz]

The longest serving champion of a decade should be measured by the overall cumulative lengths of the reigns they had, not by the longest single reign. There is no way that Diesel and JBL represent their decades the best.

In the 90's:

Hogan - overall held the title for about 15 months
Warrior - held the title for 10 months
Hart - overall held the title for about 20 months
Diesel - held the title for 12 months
HBK - overall held the title for about 12 months
Austin - overall held the title for about 10 months

Going by this more accurate way of seeing who was the longest serving champion of the 90's, it was actually Bret Hart (with 20 months as champion) who was champion longer than anyone else, not Diesel. Hart is definitely a much better representative of the WWE in the 90's than Diesel.

When you think of great matches in the 90's you think of Hogan/Warrior, Savage/Warrior, Hart/Perfect, Savage/Flair, Hart/Bulldog, B Hart/O Hart, HBK/Razor, Hart/HBK, HBK/Mankind, Hart/Austin, HBK/Taker, HBK/Austin, Taker/Mankind.

And when you think of great feuds in the 90's you think of Savage/Warrior, Hogan/Slaughter, Savage/Roberts, Savage/Flair, Hart/Lawler, B Hart/O Hart, Hart/HBK, Hart/Austin, HBK/Taker, Austin/HBK+DX+Tyson, Taker/Kane, Austin/McMahon, Austin/Rock.

The two names that always come up are Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels. When looking at who best represented their decade, you have to also look at who had the best matches and feuds, and in the case of the 90's, Hart and HBK were without a doubt the best. Therefore they are the best representatives for that decade. It's hard to say who was better, but I'd give the slight edge to Hart because he was a better champion in my opinion.

 

[Prax]

See the problem I have with measuring cumulative reigns is that, yes, those wrestlers were entrusted with numerous title reigns, but why couldn't they hold the title for a long time like Sammartino or Hogan did in the 60s, 70s and 80s? Sammartino and Hogan had title reigns that lasted years because they could draw for that long. Austin could obviously draw, as could Bret, but was there fear among top management guys that they couldn't draw continuously over an extended period of time?

Yokozuna's 9 month title reign came after Hart's first title reign. Why didn't WWE entrust Bret with the title during that period. Maybe he was injured and I don't know about it, maybe WWE felt he wasn't ready enough. But isn't that in itself a reason not to consider cumulative title reigns?

Austin.... why didn't he have a lengthy title reign? Was WWE afraid the novelty of Austin 3:16 would wear off if he consistently held the title?

Do yo see what I'm getting at? Sammartino and Hogan were the faces of their respective decades because they could consistently draw. Diesel apparently drew consistently for a year, so did Yokozuna and the Warrior. Why can't we say that Bret or Austin consistently drew as champions over periods of time as long as the aforementioned champs?

Cena lost the title to edge in the middle of his reign because fans wanted a change. The ratings spiked. People were sick of Triple H as champion, so they gave short reigns to HBK and Goldberg. The same could be said about the 90s, in my opinion.

 

[Skillz]

See the problem I have with measuring cumulative reigns is that, yes, those wrestlers were entrusted with numerous title reigns, but why couldn't they hold the title for a long time like Sammartino or Hogan did in the 60s, 70s and 80s? Sammartino and Hogan had title reigns that lasted years because they could draw for that long. Austin could obviously draw, as could Bret, but was there fear among top management guys that they couldn't draw continuously over an extended period of time?

When Hart became champion, and from the early 90's onwards, things had started to change and title reigns were becoming shorter. Long gone were the days of multi year title reigns that Sammartino and Hogan had in the 70's and 80's. As the 90's went on, wrestling fans were getting more and more impatient and were starting to prefer shorter title reigns, the WWE was evolving. And by the late 90's, when Austin was champion, he had short title reigns not because of fear that he couldn't draw continuously over a long period of time, it was more to keep the product unpredictable and exciting. Also, Hart's first two title reigns were 6 months and 8 months, which for the 90's was pretty long.

Yokozuna's 9 month title reign came after Hart's first title reign. Why didn't WWE entrust Bret with the title during that period. Maybe he was injured and I don't know about it, maybe WWE felt he wasn't ready enough. But isn't that in itself a reason not to consider cumulative title reigns?

Well, Hart lost the title at WM9 because of Hogan's backstage politics, so Hogan selfishly got the title instead of Hart keeping it. It was supposed to be Hart/Hogan at Summerslam 1993 in a passing of the torch match but Hogan didn't want to do the job. I guess McMahon decided to put the belt on Yoko for a while so that when he finally got defeated for it, it would add greater significance for the guy who would eventually dethrone him. (Similar to why JBL was champion for so long).

Austin.... why didn't he have a lengthy title reign? Was WWE afraid the novelty of Austin 3:16 would wear off if he consistently held the title?

During the attitude era (from around 98-01) when Austin was the top star in the business, wrestling fans had become so impatient. It would have been impossible to have long title reigns, and still keep the unpredictability that the WWE had during this time. So they kept taking the belt off Austin and making him win it back again to keep the fans entertained. Ratings were best during this period, so obviously the shorter title reigns were successful for WWE at that time.

Do yo see what I'm getting at? Sammartino and Hogan were the faces of their respective decades because they could consistently draw. Diesel apparently drew consistently for a year, so did Yokozuna and the Warrior. Why can't we say that Bret or Austin consistently drew as champions over periods of time as long as the aforementioned champs?

I do see your point, however, Diesel was only champion for a year because McMahon was trying to create the next Hulk Hogan. When he finally realized Diesel was no good as champion, the title went back to the guy who would guarantee giving credibility back to the title, Bret Hart.

 

[Shocky]

I guess the only theory I would have with the long title reigns would be, it served a purpose for the time.

First of all, you have to realize that the business has changed dramatically in the last forty years. With territories, there was no threat of another federation coming in and taking your fan base away. You could pretty much get away with anything you wanted, with out reprecussion from the fan base, because where else was the fan base going to go.

With Bruno's insanely long title reigns, there are several factors. 1. Longer attention spans. People weren't as high maintenance and demanding of instant change as they are now. There were no alternatives, so it was what you expected.

2. Dynasty was the name of the game in the 60's. You had UCLA, the Celtics, the Yankees, all of these teams known for its dynastic qualities. When a person was champ, it was hard to knock them off. Bruno's title reign could have been as simple as art imitating life. It's what people expected, so they didn't demand change.

When you get to Hogan in the 80's, you are starting off with a whole new fan base and direction. The AWA didn't listen to its fanbase with Hogan, and this is why we talk about the AWA in past tense. Hogan was something that probably can never be explained or duplicated. People craved Hulk Hogan. Sure his matches were shit, but there was something so damn likable about the guy that you got very upset when he lost.

The NWA and WWF titles were it in the late 80's. You had Flair and Hogan with very long title reigns and they were in competition. The difference though is, the 80's, the NWA and WWF stayed away from each others home regions. The WWF catered to the midwest, northeast and pacific coast, where the NWA stayed in the south and south east.

Then you get to the 90's and we all know what happens next. Direct competition causes you to think on the fly. Expansion to multiple television shows a week caused over exposure. People got bored very fast with the same guy as champ. In the 60-70's, you may have seen the wrestlers on TV for one hour a week, and maybe tour your city once a year. Getting into the 90's, you start getting to a pay per view amonth, and two hours of television a week. Over exposure and the speeding up of storylines causes the rapid fire title changes.

WCW was okay with Hogan having a title reign, the man drew ratings, like him or not. The WWE was on the verge of extinction, so that's why the belt swapped back and forth so much. They had to find the guy that fit to compete with WCW, and it worked with Austin.

I think Austin didn't get the long title reign, because that character doesn't work as a champion. Austin's character needed to be held down and to be the underdog. That's why people love stone Cold, he's the every day man getting held down by his greedy boss.

And now you get into this decade. The WWE can get away with long title reigns again, simply because, where as a fan are you going to turn. JBL's long title reign is garbage. He was a transitional champion because of the hole created by Brock Lesnar. John Cena's long title reigns are probably more deserved. In the end though Cena's title reigns probably would have been shorter if someone else could step up and take the mantle from him.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

A few excellent points about the overall culture of professional wrestling over the last few decades. I have a few reasons to add as well.

I think a MAJOR reason you do not see as many long-title reigns has a lot to do with what happened in the 90's when Monday Night Raw debuted. Remember, on Saturday and Sunday shows like "Superstars" and "Wrestling Challenge" most matches were the big stars getting squashes against jobbers. Maybe you'd see Jim Brunzell hit a cool move on Rick Martel on his way to being squashed, but a squash nonetheless. When Vince took that time slot for RAW, he started to realize that for fans to tune in and ratings to ensue, he had to pit stars against each other regularly.

As the stars of the 90's popped up, so did WCW. As a result, fans came to arenas to see particular superstars. If those stars were not there, the fans were upset. That is also what happens when you take a show from the Manhattan Center and bring it to MSG. The point? FANS WANTED TO SEE TITLE MATCHES!

With the creation of so much more competition, WWE also went from 4 pay per views to 12 and 13. Greater opportunity for title changes.

Hulk Hogan didn't wrestle on the "small shows." He showed up for the pay per views, bodyslammed the big guy, hit the leg drop, and posed for the crowd. Fans are smarter now. A long reigning champ is regarded as Vince "shoving someone down our throats." Stars have gotten watered down, since the underdog bit with Austin got over so well that Cena now wins against Umaga and Khali in handicap matches.

You will never see another Sammartino title reign, no doubt. At this point, a 1-year title reign is impressive, and Cena, HHH, and Edge are the ones capable of it.

 

[ACTAFOOL]

i think austin didnt have a long title run im guessing because the 90s-2000 was a period of fast news u know, everything changed fast, and with so many wrestlers it would be difficult to not change the champion for years, also, austin wasnt the only favorite, he had to compete with the rock and hart... not easy... while im not sure about the 80s and less because i wasnt around at that time, but im guessing hogan WAS wrestling at that time, right?

anyway, i dont know how hogan could have such a long title run, honestly if i were watching at the time, i would just stop watching, i cant take cena having the belt for 9 months, imagine years, not even including the fact that hogan had a worst move set than cena, wich is really hard =/

about your list though, i would agree with most, exept for the 90s, with i belive should be austin, true he didnt have a LONG title run, like past wrestlers, but for his time, it was long, now days its pretty much impossible for someone to hold the title for more than a year, cena is almost at the end of the road (yayy), but if u remember the 90s, u remember stone cold, he had classic feuds, and his gimmick connected to all, he was the face of wwf, not only did he have classic mathces but classic moments in general, he might not have been the most talented at the time, but was the face of wrestling in my opinion...

2000 i agree could be cena by how things are going, though theres still time to triple H take it, like u said, and i hope he does, this guy has been through pretty much every type of match wwe has, and is just way better than cena in the ring and on the mic, even though hes much older... anyways, the only decade a disagree would be the 90s, cuz i dont look at it as only longest title run, u have to include how was wrestling at the time and everything else

 

[tarp]

Am I misunderstanding this post! Is this WWE only because if not what about Flair in the 80's. His second title reigns was for almost two years and all together about six years of the 80's. I agree with most of the other posts. HHH has to be included though in the 2000's!

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I definitely agree with Sammartino being named. It's hard to argue with someone that held a world title for a grand total of around 12 years, with his first being the longest, unbroken and undisputed world title reign in the history of the business.

As much as I hate to say it, Hulk Hogan also deserves props for his run during the 1980s. I guess the stars were properly aligned when it came to him. Hulk Hogan to me stands for both the good and the bad in pro wrestling. The Hulk Hogan gimmick is like a comic book character come to life. It's as if someone combined Superman and Captain America and just said here you go. The character was ultra-patriotic, always did the right thing to such a degree that it almost made you wanna puke, promoted children as being the future and all, even promoted Christian values to a degree, though it was nothing over the top. Basically, everything that a 1980s Regan era conservative would eat up. It did help drag pro wrestling into the mainstream once more. The bad, however, was there was little to Hulk Hogan beyond the two-dimensional gimmick character. He also wasn't all that great in the ring either. He had a total of maybe 3 moves in his arsenal, well 4 if you count him throwing the right hand. It showed that, in wrestling, charisma will get you further than in ring talent, unfortunately.

For the 1990s, I'd have to disagree entirely. If I had to pick a wrestler that best represented the WWF during the 1990s, I'd have to pick Bret Hart. I wasn't a huge fan of his character, but I loved watching him in the ring. Wrestling was more than just a means of achieving wealth and fame, though I'm not knocking wealth and fame or anything. However, wrestling is a Hart family legacy. It's literally is the family business. It's hard to argue with a guy that ate, slept, lived, and breathed the business the way he did. I know some feel that Triple H was best suited during this time. I like the guy in the ring, I like listening to him talk. He was a pretty big star before he and Stephanie McMahon got together. However, his career literally zoomed into orbit after he started banging the boss' daughter and that's something that I can't ignore. I'll never deny that he doesn't have talent, but he used his influence to stay in the spotlight, carry the strap, and put himself in the big matches for too long and for too often. During the first half of this decade, you had to get the jaws of life to pry the strap away from him.

In the 2000s, I dunno really. If I had to give it to anybody, I'd have to at least consider Triple H to be among the top ones, even if I don't completely agree with or believe that he got there purely on good old fashioned talent and hard work. John Cena, I dunno. I just never really cared much for the guy. It really all stemmed from that rapper angle that he had going. Reminded me so much of Marky Mark in the early 90s that it wasn't even funny. He had a similar physique, though Cena is much bigger, and even sounded like him when he talked. Cena's looks is one reason why he's recieved such a big push over the past 3 years or so. Vince likes for his top guys to have these bodybuilder-ish physiques. The more comic bookish a wrestler looks in terms of size and cut, the more he likes the thought of pushing them.