Throughout the course of this blog, the greatest champions
throughout the history of the WWE will be discussed and hopefully identified.
Of course, all opinions are simply those of TheWrestleReview and reflect the
views identified in theWWE PPV reviews
on the site, and obviously all opinions are subjective.
However, some opinions carry more weight than others, and
those weighty opinions are usually the ones that come from considered views and
are well formed. So here goes, how do you decide what makes one champion better
than another? Lets try and put together some criteria...
Length Of Title
Reign(s) - Obviously the longer you hold a title the more successful you
have been (sorry Mountie, your chances of being named greatest Intercontinental
Champion are slim, blame Rowdy Roddy Piper and for that one - read the Royal Rumble1992 Review for more info), however this is cannot be the only
criteria as if that were the case then Bruno Sammartino would be the greatest
(a possibility) and nobody would every have the chance to dethrone him due to
the current and evolving nature of the industry, not only that, nobody would
even come remotely close. And so length of reign alone cannot be the only
deciding factor.
Quality Of Title
Matches - Some matches are better than others, and the better ones
undoubtedly feature superior wrestlers. Better wrestlers make better champions.
Bret Hart had classic Intercontinental Title matches with Mr Perfect
(Summerslam 1991), Roddy Piper (Wrestlemania 8) and The British Bulldog
(Summerslam 1992). Road Dogg Jesse James had none.
Quality Of Opponents
- Some wrestlers pride themselves on becoming "fighting champions",
taking on all challengers regardless of the threat to their title reign. The
higher the quality of opponents while holding a title, the better the champion.
There will unquestionably be other intangible factors in the deciding of who can be named "the best".
Please feel free to make your opinion heard!
@wrestle__review
No comments:
Post a Comment