Who's the greatest WWE Champion of all time?

[Highelf]

there was a documentry about andrea in which hogan said andrea was better than him, and that he had no idea how to handle the fight between them (in which andrea was allready sick and broken).

Hogan is the face of wwe, slightly above taker, hitman, shawn, macho and the rock. But in rl - no one could take on andrea.

Vince said the problem was once they'll give the belt to andrea - fans will lose interest cause how can anyone take it back? Then came a persona big enough like hogan to do just that and the rest is history.

- - - updated - - -



those two are my favorite, hitman slightly a head for coolness (but undertaker is superrior even at 50). But like i said, gotta go with andrea and hogan.

andre! No a!

- - - Updated - - -

Getting in bed with managment was his schtick. I remember him being ass kicked on regular basis back in the 90's when he still called himself Hunter Hirst Helmsley...

But he wasn't champ then. He was basically the whipping boy for what the Kliq did.

[Bae]

Id love to say the Undertaker but he never needed the title to be big or elevated. A lot didnt tbh.

Stone Cold has to take it though on drawing power alone. Wrestling was never as big as it was when he was around, even in the 80s. Hogan did give wrestling mainstream appeal and without him wrestling wouldnt have been as big but we can go so far back with that. If Andre didnt make it big, Hogan never would have, If bruno never, then andre wouldnt etc etc.

Bret Hart was a great champion also. There was just something about him and his work that made him such a good champion. When i was younger long matches bored me, being a kid obviously i couldnt appreciate it, but Bret Harts matches were the first time i ever took notice and wanted the match to go longer, and that was usually when he was a WWF champion, despite the fact my favourites back then were Mr Perfect and The Undertaker, i wasnt really ever into Bret, but ill never forget how he made me take notice when no one else did, even HBK.

But it all depends what this is in terms of.

Who pleased the most Fans? - Hogan
Who was the most interesting? - Austin
Who was the best Wrestler and made you root for him? Bret
Who had the most meaningful reign? - Could be many of those listed.

[un_known]

i voted for Austin, in terms of ring presence, popularity, attitude, even nearly 20 years after his last match, not one former WWE champion can make the crowd erupt as much as Austin can even by him showing up, the whole attitude era which shifted the way people see sports entertainment was headed by Austin at the forefront and ironically ended when Austin teamed up with Vince.

[Vilendor]

Calling these actors "champion" is insulting to everyone who legitimately ever won anything

[leorana]

i voted for Austin, in terms of ring presence, popularity, attitude, even nearly 20 years after his last match, not one former WWE champion can make the crowd erupt as much as Austin can even by him showing up.

Undertaker's dimming lights and entry music disagree

- - - Updated - - -

Calling these actors "champion" is insulting to everyone who legitimately ever won anything

Sure. Most of it is fake, but you can't fake the piledrivers and body slams of 150kg plus people.

These guys are pro athletes while mainly being performers. Injuries and deaths are also quite real

[un_known]

Undertaker's dimming lights and entry music disagree

for the initial pop cheer yeah, but to let it continue until his whole entrance was finished? Austin has him beat hands down

- - - Updated - - -

Calling these actors "champion" is insulting to everyone who legitimately ever won anything

actors usually have stunt doubles doing the heavy lifting for them, don't see any of that happening when they perform moves that can break bones and cripple people

[Kyphael]

Calling these actors "champion" is insulting to everyone who legitimately ever won anything

If you don't like pro wrestling, that's fine, but running it down with the lowest common denominator insult that "it's fake" is trite and seventh grade-level ignorant. If you hate wrestling because it's acted, then you must hate movies where the good guys don't actually win anything because it's "fake", or even professional boxing where boxers have been paid to take the dive. We all know it's simulated combat and entertainment with larger than life characters. That's the point of it.

[Bae]

Calling these actors "champion" is insulting to everyone who legitimately ever won anything

They've won over the hearts and minds of millions of people throughout the years, if it insults you, then maybe you should toughen up a bit snowflake.

[Craaazyyy]

If you don't like pro wrestling, that's fine, but running it down with the lowest common denominator insult that "it's fake" is trite and seventh grade-level ignorant. If you hate wrestling because it's acted, then you must hate movies where the good guys don't actually win anything because it's "fake", or even professional boxing where boxers have been paid to take the dive. We all know it's simulated combat and entertainment with larger than life characters. That's the point of it.

well there is a huge difference between acting in movies and professional wrestling. In movies regardless of whether the awards are objective or not they're being given for the performance after the movie, while in WWE the champion is decided beforehand.. I'm not saying that wrestling can't be fun and that these wrestlers aren't great at what they do, but your comparison was just stupid

[Misuteri]

Calling these actors "champion" is insulting to everyone who legitimately ever won anything

You go back into the era of Bruno Sammartino, Lou Thesz, Killer Kowalski and more than a few others they were legit shooters. I don’t mean that they weren’t professionals doing a job but they were more than capable of beating any man and would stretch you in ways that are unimaginable pain wise.

Bruno said in an interview that him beating Buddy Rogers for the WWWF championship was a shoot which lasted 40 something seconds. Buddy didn’t want to do business as requested by Vince McMahon Sr. & Toots Mondt wished. Bruno put him in a back breaker and GG.

You have no idea how real the history of professional wrestling actually is and unfortunately many of today’s wrestlers don’t either.

[Kyphael]

well there is a huge difference between acting in movies and professional wrestling. In movies regardless of whether the awards are objective or not they're being given for the performance after the movie, while in WWE the champion is decided beforehand.. I'm not saying that wrestling can't be fun and that these wrestlers aren't great at what they do, but your comparison was just stupid

I never said wrestling titles were comparable to the Oscars or golden globes. I said being WWE Champion is comparable to being a box office draw. The more money you make, the more movie roles you get, the more accolades you garner, and the awards follow. The Oscars are its own separate beast, often criticized by the mentality of a clique-like academy that votes objectively. Champions in wrestling are often determined by who is most marketable, meaning how much money they will bring in to the business, and second by what makes sense to the story. Sammartino, Hogan, Austin, Rock, and Cena were all cash cows, so they were champions based on how much money they were making the WWE, no different than a movie actor who makes a ton of money and becomes a household name due to his/her performance and ability to put butts in seats. It's all about the money. The WWE Title is like being the top billed actor in the number one movie at the box office. If the MCU had a Champion, it'd be Robert Downey Jr.

[gutnbrg]

There was a documentry about Andrea in which Hogan said Andrea was better than him, and that he had no idea how to handle the fight between them (in which Andrea was allready sick and broken).

Hogan is the face of WWE, slightly above taker, hitman, shawn, macho and the rock. But in RL - no one could take on Andrea.

Vince said the problem was once they'll give the belt to Andrea - fans will lose interest cause how can anyone take it back? Then came a persona big enough like Hogan to do just that and the rest is history.

- - - Updated - - -



Those two are my favorite, hitman slightly a head for coolness (but undertaker is superrior even at 50). But like I said, gotta go with Andrea and Hogan.

i respect ur opinion. Obviously Hulk Hogan is the Michael Jordan of wrestling and one of my favs too, but the early 90s was my prime time when it came to wwf and the excellence of execution holds a special place in my heart.

[jellmoo]

I break it down as who was the person that carried the business in their generation. So for me it's down to:

Bruno
Hogan
Stone Cold
Cena

Each of them was the one that made the most money for the business, brought the most fans to the gate, and helped bring the company notoriety. Their runs are so incredibly different, and the landscape was so different that it can be hard pressed to compare them. If push came to shove and I had to pick one, it would probably be Hogan. He led the company when it went from a territory to a global phenomenon that radically changed the way the business worked. And while his matches in WWE weren't anything special, he could actually wrestle. Check out some of his matches from Japan. Hogan vs Muta is a really good match.

[Kyphael]

I break it down as who was the person that carried the business in their generation. So for me it's down to:

Bruno
Hogan
Stone Cold
Cena

Each of them was the one that made the most money for the business, brought the most fans to the gate, and helped bring the company notoriety. Their runs are so incredibly different, and the landscape was so different that it can be hard pressed to compare them. If push came to shove and I had to pick one, it would probably be Hogan. He led the company when it went from a territory to a global phenomenon that radically changed the way the business worked. And while his matches in WWE weren't anything special, he could actually wrestle. Check out some of his matches from Japan. Hogan vs Muta is a really good match.

In many ways, that's a pretty good Mount Rushmore of WWE, and I agree about Hogan. Most people don't realize the WWE changes performers. If you're a good wrestler, but you become their top guy, they turn you into a character and limit your move set to make you more marketable. Even if Hogan had an arsenal of various wrestling maneuvers before he got to WWE, the moment he stepped in WWE, sell a beating, hulk up, punch, punch, punch, big boot and leg drop became his move set. It doesn't mean he wasn't a good pro wrestler, it's what the company expected and wanted of him, and he was making 10 times more money doing a simple routine than using 20 different moves and suplexes.

Look at Brock Lesnar. He's a decorated amateur wrestler. He probably has one of the deepest arsenals in professional wrestling history, having clinics with Eddie Guerrero and Kurt Angle. What does he do nowadays? 15 German suplexes and an F5.

[jackofwind]

I never said wrestling titles were comparable to the Oscars or golden globes. I said being WWE Champion is comparable to being a box office draw. The more money you make, the more movie roles you get, the more accolades you garner, and the awards follow. The Oscars are its own separate beast, often criticized by the mentality of a clique-like academy that votes objectively. Champions in wrestling are often determined by who is most marketable, meaning how much money they will bring in to the business, and second by what makes sense to the story. Sammartino, Hogan, Austin, Rock, and Cena were all cash cows, so they were champions based on how much money they were making the WWE, no different than a movie actor who makes a ton of money and becomes a household name due to his/her performance and ability to put butts in seats. It's all about the money. The WWE Title is like being the top billed actor in the number one movie at the box office. If the MCU had a Champion, it'd be Robert Downey Jr.

I disagree that holding the title of Champion simply means being the biggest draw when the entire premise of WWE is that it's a pseudo-sports event where someone wins and someone loses. Movies are movies and no one is expected to believe they are real, but the entire conceit of WWE is that it's still an actual competition. WWE that doesn't operate under the conceit that it's a sports simply doesn't exist and doesn't succeed.

You couldn't call a WWE Champion such if they never won a belt, even if they brought in the most money for the company in all of its history. In sports and simulated sports being a champion requires winning, which is inherently different from just being the highest-paid actor in a film franchise (which is not a sports competition).

[leorana]

i respect ur opinion. Obviously Hulk Hogan is the Michael Jordan of wrestling and one of my favs too, but the early 90s was my prime time when it came to wwf and the excellence of execution holds a special place in my heart.

Bret was near perfect champ...with 2 exceptions...

A) towel match vs. Owen hart

B) the last championship he won by "playing dead" vs. Diesel .

P.s.

I LOVE Bret, when that guy tackled him on his hall of fame ceremony - I wanted to kill that guy myself

[Kyphael]

I disagree that holding the title of Champion simply means being the biggest draw when the entire premise of WWE is that it's a pseudo-sports event where someone wins and someone loses. Movies are movies and no one is expected to believe they are real, but the entire conceit of WWE is that it's still an actual competition. WWE that doesn't operate under the conceit that it's a sports simply doesn't exist and doesn't succeed.

You couldn't call a WWE Champion such if they never won a belt, even if they brought in the most money for the company in all of its history. In sports and simulated sports being a champion requires winning, which is inherently different from just being the highest-paid actor in a film franchise (which is not a sports competition).

WWE is simulated combat, but the titles and top spots are determined predominantly by who makes the company the most money. Vince even hates the word "wrestling" and prefers to say "entertainment." If you watch Beyond The Mat and follow media interviews with the man, he always says "we're an entertainment company. We make movies." They create characters and use the titles and story lines to make their wrestling characters marketable. Funko Pops, action figures (ring sold separately), match cards featuring said characters people want to see, not just the main event, but also supporting characters, all make up a show that plays out like a movie. Wins and losses are only important as story-telling tools. It's good vs. evil and good guy wins at the end. Sometimes the bad guy wins, but ultimately, the good guy normally triumphs by the end of the night.

It's no different than watching Infinity War. You go to watch a battle between good and evil, with characters involved in inter-woven story lines all leading to a final act. Wrestlemania is no different; the culmination of an year's worth of story lines is more important than who wins or loses. Sometimes you can lose and still go out on top (like Stone Cold at Wrestlemania 19), but the end of the journey is more important than wins and losses. Winning matters in movies too, though. Thanos' defeat was instrumental to the final act of Endgame as much as Lesnar's defeat. It's good vanquishing evil.

[Eldar45]

This is like asking whos the greatest powerpuff girl.....

Buttercup

Next question.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The best there is, the best there was, the best there there ever will be. Brett “The Hitman” Hart.

[jellmoo]

In many ways, that's a pretty good Mount Rushmore of WWE, and I agree about Hogan. Most people don't realize the WWE changes performers. If you're a good wrestler, but you become their top guy, they turn you into a character and limit your move set to make you more marketable. Even if Hogan had an arsenal of various wrestling maneuvers before he got to WWE, the moment he stepped in WWE, sell a beating, hulk up, punch, punch, punch, big boot and leg drop became his move set. It doesn't mean he wasn't a good pro wrestler, it's what the company expected and wanted of him, and he was making 10 times more money doing a simple routine than using 20 different moves and suplexes.

Look at Brock Lesnar. He's a decorated amateur wrestler. He probably has one of the deepest arsenals in professional wrestling history, having clinics with Eddie Guerrero and Kurt Angle. What does he do nowadays? 15 German suplexes and an F5.

Yup. One of Hogan's best qualities was how he sold. The man sold really, really well. He spent a good 90% of his matches selling the offense of the other guy. Sure, he'd hulk up and win in the end, but he made his opponent look like a beast and had the crowd in the palm of his hand the entire time. Of course, by like the mid nineties or so, injuries and time also limited what he could do in the ring.

And Lesnar is a great wrestler. Lesnar vs Angle is one of my favourite matches of all time. His gimmick now is german supplexes and F5s, sure, but in the day he was great. But ultimately the company is going to get what it needs and I guess they feel like the need the beastly suplex city type of Lesnar. Which is a bit of a shame, really...