WWE History: Do the Record Books Provide False Truths?
History, where records are held and names are marked forever so future generations can know of the tale of an extraordinary talent and person, doesn't always tell the truth. In fact, the "facts" can often be a false truth.
You must be thinking: "Are you out of your mind?!? Why would you make such a false statement?!?"
Well, it's the honest truth. Think about it; we look at history to learn about important moments or people from the past who influenced the current generation and culture of today.
This statement applies to anything and anyone, even sports entertainment.
Why? Because it's true.
When you think of champions in WWE/WWF history, who usually comes to mind? Hulk Hogan, the Rock, Stone Cold, Ric Flair, Triple H and John Cena are some of the first, and rightfully so, as these superstars have already made strong cases for why they are a part of history.
They each have created noteworthy moments that were forever engraved into the minds of the fans worldwide.
In doing so, they helped the business and industry succeed by keeping it alive through the good times and the bad. By helping the business, they were given a spot in the history books.
With a spot in history, they will forever be remembered as champions.
They helped make the business, yet when you look at the history books, you may think differently.
With champions such as Dolph Ziggler, The Great Khali and Jack Swagger, all I have to say is "really?"
The main title is supposed to show that you made it; it's a symbol and reward for hard work. Or was I misled by the WWE?
If the title is supposed to be prestigious, then why have these wrestlers been written down forever in the history books as World Heavyweight or WWE champions?
They have yet to make their iconic marks in the industry, yet they were given a chance that legends who never held it were not given. Legends such as Owen Hart, Roddy Piper, "Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase, "Mr. Perfect" Curt Hennig and Jake "The Snake" Roberts, who were never given a chance to hold the main belt have been surpassed by the likes of the Great Khali!
The main championship has been devalued over the years, yet there's another misleading statistic that lies in the false history books: number of title reigns!
There are certain names that have held the championship multiple times, such as Triple H and John Cena. Then, there are those who have only held the belt for a measly amount of times, such as Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit.
Sure you can say that they at least were given a chance to hold it once, but when you look at how people like Sheamus have already held it twice or Randy Orton has a eight reigns, it is safe to say that the belt isn't what it was worth before. That argument easily becomes worthless.
In today's society, the number of reigns seems to matter more than the actual bearer of the record.
In fact, history is not what it seems. Let's take Chris Benoit, for example. After the tragic and gruesome end to his life, the WWE has erased all mentions of the man from history.
He will now only be remembered by those who watched him in the ring and lived to create memories involving the man himself. Future generations will only know of him by tales of his life.
If future generations bother to look at history, they'll see a name exempt from the list. They'll wonder if anything or anyone even existed for that space at all.
The tale of Chris Benoit will be a sad one; no one will ever know of him unless stories are passed on about him. History will pass on a legend, just as if he never existed. The history books will lie.
There was a man by the name of Chris Benoit, and he was a rabid wolverine.
Only we will know that, we will hold the legend in our minds forever. History will not record him as an accomplished wrestler, but we will know differently.
Anything that's written in the history books is written down and will be relied upon forever as remnants of the past.
Each piece of history will be seen as an important part of what made the company into it's current state.
The history books are relied upon to show what made the company.
Problem is, history only defines accomplishments.
History does not define greatness.
History only provides a false truth.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?