In all seriousness, my favorite champion was Goldberg. I didn't follow WCW as closely as WWE as a child, so I can't comment on the greatest. I only cared about the Cruiserweights, Wolfpac, and Goldberg.
If you take out the those that held the title for less than 7 days and those that held the title after the WWE purchased WCW, it becomes less clogged. And actually, only 18 different wrestlers held the WCW title within those 10 years. Compared to the WWE, in which 20 wrestlers held the title between 1991-2001 - it doesn't actually stack up that bad. On the surface.
Where it really reads badly is the number of title changes - between 1991-2001, WWE had 49 separate WWE title changes. WCW had 63 changes [including those of the < 7 day champions] which is too much. I also think the WWE's 49 title changes was too much. The 90's was such a fast paced decade, and title changes represented this [fun fact - there were 6 WWE title changes in the 80's - SIX!!!! Seems unheard of now].
Anyway, my view - on paper, Hogan's the best. But I think Flair edges him for being a WCW original and having possibly a richer [= prestigious] history with WCW.
are defiantly contenders. Vader was an awesome monster heel champion.
I still think sadly due to harts injury wcw missed out on a big opportunity. I think the wwf would have still beaten wcw in the ratings in 2000 but with hart being the top guy I believe the year would have been at least more competitive then it was if hart had not been forced to retire.
Sting was only the WCW Champion for a COMBINED 250 days??? Holy shit. And on 6 title reigns?? That averages out to only 40 days per title reign (barely more than a month). WOW. That's crazy to me. Thought for sure he would have been champion for alot more than 250 days.
I think what pisses a lot of people off about Lesnar is that it kind of harks back to the Golden Generation-era of Hulk - where you saw less of the champion in terms of weekly events, and there was much less title movement. This Lesnar situation is unheard of since WWE started producing Raw.
We've been so used to transient title reigns. And this has weakened the top belt. This was no different to WCW in my view - the title was never weaker than when it was changing hands every week.
long title reigns and dominant champions are necessary for succes of a whole business or sport. i know a lot of people who cant really tune into ufc because the title changes too often, no successfull title defences over a long period of time, over worhy oppenents, there is never a dominant champion, so the whole sport is hard too watch.
I never would have guessed Nash was a five-time champion. In looking back, I think that "Fingerpoke of Doom" was the one that really killed that belt's credibility to where I stopped caring. I could tell you pretty much everyone who had it before then but afterwards, I think I can remember less than half of them. Too many silly-ass Russo finishes (Hogan laying down for Sting, Jarrett laying down for Hogan).
Sting.WCW felt at it's peak whenever he held the belt.I'm a huge mark for the guy thought so my opinion is a little one sided.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Wrestling Forum
23.4M posts
266.5K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.