Who from the 70s and 80 would have got world title runs ...

[JerryvonKramer]

Jack Swagger has been champ? Really? I give up.

[jdw]

Basically everyone of note would have gotten world title reigns.

You say this but who really would have got runs after 1985? Let's just stick with WWF for now:

 

Greg Valentine NO

Would already have gotten a turn around opposite Backlund, if not getting a turn around in Mid-Atlantic opposite Flair (former partners angle, which they did over the US Title anyway).

 

Tito Santana NO

Since he was IC champ, it's a possibility. It's hard to say just how much Hogan would have dominated if things were booked 00's style.

 

Roddy Piper MAYBE

Of course he would have gotten one.

 

King Kong Bundy NO

Of course he would have gotten one leading into WM II.

 

 

Junkyard Dog NO

Probably would have gotten one from Flair defending in Wattsland.

 

 

Bob Orton NO

Davey Boy Smith NO

The Dynamite Kid NO

These aren't singles wrestlers of note.

 

Paul Orndorf MAYBE

Of course he would have gotten one. Biggest Hogan feud of the era, of course Hogan would have dropped it in 00 style booking.

 

 

Don Muraco MAYBE

Would have gotten have won the title in one of his two feuds with Backlund.

 

 

Adrian Adonis NO

For all our love of him, not really a singles wrestler of note. Yes, he did headline MSG. So did Bobby Duncam. None of us are saying that everyone who headlines a PPV or an MSG gets the title.

 

 

Jake Roberts NO

Not really a top level WWF singles wrestler. A "star" for sure, and well loved. But look up the times that he challenge for the WWF title. You need to be in the mix.

 

Hercules NO

Not a singles wrestler of note.

 

Rick Martel NO

He was a World Champ.

 

Tom Zenk NO

Jim Neidhart NO

Brutus Beefcake NO

None of these guys are singles wrestlers of note.

 

Butch Reed HIGHLY VERY SLIGHT POSSIBILITY

If Watts was desperate to create a new JYD, he might have been able to lobby an NWA booked like the 00's that one of Flair's 4-5 title turn arounds in a year happened in Wattsland to Reed.

 

In the WWF, he wasn't a singles wrestler of note.

 

 

Honky Tonk Man NO

Depends on how far Vince wanted to go with the gimmick. The problem remains that it was Hogan dominating through that 1984-89 period, so you're not going to do as many title changes say happened *this* year in the WWF. You're more likely to have 2-3. HTM might not fit into that.

 

On the other hand... HTM in a modern era booking would be mixed into the picture with Savage rather than how long the Savage-DiBiase ran around the country. HTM *might* take the title from Savage to tie into their prior feud, and to have a blow off on one of the lesser PPVs. Could see it. Not highly likely, but possible. Vince did love the gimmick.

 

Ron Bass NO

One Man Gang NO

Neither were singles wrestlers of note. OMG did get his run opposite of Hogan, but it wasn't up there with Bossman or Kamala, let along Savage and Orndorff.

 

Ken Patera MAYBE

Would have gotten the title earlier against either Bruno or Backlund or possibly both.

 

Rick Rude NO

Did end up getting a world title in WCW. Probably would have gotten one in WCW a hell of a lot earlier if WCW was booked 00s style. He was one of the lead heels in the company from start to finish of his run.

 

In the WWF, he already had lifting the IC off Warrior when they ran their WWF Title feud. He also got programmed fairly soon with Warrior, and I wouldn't expect in 00's style booking for Warrior to quickly lose the title. But something like the SummerSlam cage match if pushed off for later in the year... that works better if Warrior is the one chasing the belt after Rude did something so evil that they needed the cage matches. I'd say that given modern style booking that it's very likely that he would have gotten it from Warrior.

 

 

Bam Bam Bigelow HIGHLY DOUBTFUL

Never really was stable enough in his push in the 80s to get it.

 

In the 90s, he may have gotten the belt from Bret if they needed to elevate that feud to run on several PPV's. Things massively change when you're running monthly PPVs, _and_ the top star is on every card usually in a singles. The WWF hadn't gotten to the IYH era by the time of Bret vs Bam Bam, and it's worth remembering that early on the WWF champ didn't always appear on them, and at times got tossed into tag matches. The WWF also took a while to get into Bounce The Title Around Mode (i.e. where they reached the point in Austin's first stretch of anchoring the promotion even he didn't hold the title in lengthy fashions)

 

If the WWF was booking 00s style when Bam Bam vs Bret happened... might have seen Bam Bam get it.

 

 

Ted DiBiase YES

Of course.

 

Big Bossman NO

I think there's a possibility. The WWF ran the feud before Hogan got the belt back from Savage, with some drag over after Mania. That was a period where Hogan couldn't have dropped the title. But think about this:

 

Hogan was programed with Savage through _October_. His first match with Bad News didn't happen until the second half of October, unless I'm missing an isolated matches or two. He also started his feud with Perfect around that time.

 

That never happens now. It's hard to tell if they would have frontloaded Hogan-Savage (i.e. book them together leading into Mania with Mania the blow off) or if they would have backloaded it as they did (Savage dropping the title then challenging around the horn after). If it was frontloaded, which is more modern, then they would have had Bossman in the que for sometime after the Savage feud. Given they did a three match series, and the thing drew quite well, it's possible that after the first "PPV" drew well and they saw how hot it was, they might have had Bossman take the title in the second and done the cage match for Hogan to win it back.

 

Not impossible. Again, remember how often Austin was without the title.

 

Dino Bravo NO

 

Probably not.

 

 

Bad News Brown NO

Possible. He was run against both Savage and Hogan. Vince and/or Pat much have liked pushing him.

 

 

The Barbarian NO

The Warlord NO

Not singles wrestlers of note.

 

Mr. Perfect NO

Won a world title before he came to the WWF.

 

Arn Anderson NO

Tully Blanchard NO

Not singles wrestlers of note in the WWF.

 

 

Jim Duggan NO

Possible. One could see Vince going the Mick Foley route with him.

 

On the other hand, if Watts had a close tie to an 00s-style NWA Booking Office in the 80s, it's possible that when Duggan got hot in Wattsland that he would have gotten Flair to drop the title to him. One could see Flair-Duggan as the singles main event of the first Crockett Cup and some stip that would help draw. Still could have run the Dusty-Flair title turn around in July-Aug: that's plenty of time from the April Crockett Cup.

 

Haku NO

Not a singles wrestler of note in the WWF.

 

 

I could go on and on. Only Dibiase seems to be a definite YES.

I would disagree with that. If so, then the 80s WWF wouldn't have been booked like an 00s promotion. What's the point of the thread?

 

John

[Al]

I'd be interested in what a WWE (one major company) roster would've looked like in say, 1981. It would've been massively stacked.

[jdw]

If you booked the major top WWF faces from the 70s and 80s the same way as Cena has been booked (face wins title, face succesfully defends title next month, then looses it to next challenger following month), then anyone who worked a more than two month program opposite Bruno, Morales, Backlund, Hogan would have held the title.

 

Heels like Steele, Kowalski, Patera, Hansen, Snuka, Duncum, King Curtis Iaukea, Don Leo Jonathon, Maivia, Patterson, Valentine, Orndorf, Bossman, Rude, Roberts,Piper, Bundy, etc. all get title runs. No way Tenta doesn't get a title run after injuring Hogan. Putski gets a face run of a couple months in 70s. Not sure if face Maivia or Monsoon get title run. JYD gets one. Beefacke gets one. Khan-Andre is set up by Khan having title.

I wouldn't go quite that extreme. Things have gotten insane in the last several years as:

 

* the promotion chases its tail trying to find The Next Big Thing

* they have two World Titles

 

Things kind of have gone batshit from roughly 2009 on forward. Not saying they didn't do quick turn arounds before that, but you also had:

 

04/01/01 - 09/23/01 Austin (9/11 break up as it wasn't planned)

12/15/02 - 09/21/03 Trip

09/16/03 - 02/15/04 Brock

06/27/04 - 04/03/05 Bradshaw

09/12/04 - 04/05/05 Trip (including helped up)

04/03/05 - 01/10/06 Batista (injury stopped)

04/03/05 - 01/08/06 Cena

09/17/06 - 10/02/07 Cena (injury stopped)

10/07/07 - 04/27/08 Orton

04/27/08 - 11/25/08 Trip

 

Of course that's with two belts rather than one, and split promotions. But in a sense treat Raw as 80's WWF and SmackDown as 80s NWA where guys the anchor guys (Hogan and Flair) may not be changing promotions as often as the top WWE guys have. I think if Trip and Cena had been forced to stay in one promotion through that entire period, and with less movement even of guys like Batista, Brock, Orton, Taker and Edge (how much did Savage and Dusty move between the WWF and NWA from 1984-89?), then you'd probably see that's true "00 style booking" isn't close to what we're seeing in 2009-2011.

 

Add on top of it: Hogan and Bruno were more over than Cena, and didn't need to "chance". In fact, look at that long Cena dominance:

 

04/03/05 - 01/08/06 Cena (won at Mania)

01/08/05 - 01/29/06 Edge (won at NY Rev)

01/29/06 - 06/11/06 Cena (won at Rumble)

06/11/06 - 07/03/06 RVD (won at ECW ONS II)

07/03/06 - 09/17/06 Edge (won on Raw)

09/17/06 - 10/02/07 Cena (won at Unforgiven)

 

An injury stopped Cena's reign. Someone who recalls WWE modern history better than I do can probably indicate when Cena was going to drop the title, and if it was going to be at the PPV later that week.

 

Point: right in the middle of the 00s WWE booking was a 2.5 year streak where the hottest WWE face of the second half of the decade dominated the title with three "long" reigns by 00 standards, and two that were quite long even by the standards of the second half of the 90s.

 

Cena _wasn't_ chasing the belt for 2.5 years. He chased Edge twice in it, and that's all.

 

That also overlaps a lot of Batista's dominance of the other title.

 

I think Flair would have been droping the title left and right. Hogan... that's a different beast. I think he would have been booked closer to 2005-2007 Cena. They would have had him drop the title 2-3 times a year, and possibly go off on longer runs with it like Cena did in 9/06 - 10/07. Someone like Orndorff with a feud like that would no doubt of won. Piper as hot as he was? They would have flipped them around. Others like OMG would never have gotten the title.

 

Bruno would have been booked the same way.

 

My guess is that Backlund would have started strong holding it for close to a year, and that in 1979 they would have been looking for a title change to spice things up. It's impossible in hindsight to ponder an exact who/when since clearly something as big as the WWF Title means they could have brought someone in specifically for it. If forced to play with who actually challenged, then the time would probably be Patterson's challenges starting in July 1979.

 

Stopping back, it also would be possible to go with something I tossed out earlier: Peter Maivia's heel turn results in Maivia getting the title. Their first match was 11/20/78. That's far enough from the 02/20/78 title win to make it look like a "long" first reign by Bob in a modern sense. The feud got blown off on 01/22/79, which in turn would work into Bob holding it until a summer turn around with Patterson. Keep the title turn around with Inoki in Japan, then work one with Patera early in 1980. Maybe something like this:

 

02/20/78 Backlund over Graham

11/20/78 Maivia over Backlund

01/22/79 Backlund over Maivia

07/30/79 Patterson over Backlund (second match)

09/24/79 Backlund over Patterson

11/30/79 Inoki over Backlund

12/06/79 Backlund over Inoki

02/18/80 Patera over Backlund (second match)

05/19/80 Backlund over Patera

 

You could work an injury angle in the second Backlund-Patterson that would allow Bruno to challenge on the MSG in between. The second Patera-Backlund makes a little more sense as Patera goes off on his feud with Patterson, but if Ken is winning the title it doesn't make sense for him to also win the IC... so that's a little more complicated.

 

The Inoki one would still be ignored in the US, so it's really only the completion of one turn around and then another full one in the year.

 

The WWF didn't believe in the "chase" with the babyface until the last few years.

John

[Loss]

"The chase" is something I think that is used differently within wrestling than we use it on message boards. I don't think it means that babyfaces can't have long title runs. It means that in wrestling, you can make more money slow building to the heel finally getting his full comeuppance. Why do one huge show when you can do three others before you have to do that big show? The existence of the Royal Rumble in the whole Road-To-Wrestlemania mythology is an example of this.

 

Austin and Hogan didn't chase belts, as belts have never really meant all that much in the company compared to other promotions. But they have definitely chased heels for revenge, and even moreso, heel managers (Heenan, Vince, etc). Look at Wrestlemania II for an example. Hogan beating up Heenan in the post-match was the payoff, not Hogan winning the cage match against Bundy.

 

Often times, terms in wrestling are used in ways that don't quite make sense. "Gimmick" is used as a catch-all for a lot of things. "Kayfabe" as I understand it is a noun, but I've heard it used as a verb. "The chase" is the same logic.

[jdw]

I agree with your point on the chase. But it has come to mean chasing the title. It's how Dave uses it, and it appears Larry M is the one he follows the lead on that.

 

Hogan-Orndorff isn't really a chase storyline. It's a feud and revenge storyline.

 

John

[Paul Jacobi]

It seems I've massively, massively underestimated the extent to which they hotshot titles now. The idea of Bossman as world champ is frankly ridiculous. Who has been the equivalent of, say, Greg Valentine in the 00s?

 

Why does Beefcake get one? That would be like Billy Gunn being champ in 1999, no? This is so far away from what I consider to be sensible booking that I almost can't process it.

I'm not sure Swagger, who's had a title run, has ever been pushed to be as important as Beefcake was when he was pushed to be his most important.

 

It's not even something to question, Swagger was probably the underpushed champion they've had in the last decade, a complete and total afterthought though the booking of Christian this year post title win gives it a run too.

[MikeCampbell]

Here's what I'm not entirely clear on. Are we just dropping the general hotshot booking down in the previous era? Or are we basically taking all of wrestling as we know it in 2011 (PPVs each month, live TV every week, all sorts of gimmick matches, etc) and moving back 30-35 years?

 

In the previous era, the WWF Champion really didn't job. I believe that Flair was really the first WWF Champion to get beat like a rented mule around the horn. I can only think of four times Hogan layed down in 1984-93 and it "counted" (Hogan would sometimes job at house shows, only for it to get reversed for Flair getting caught with knucks or Bundy wanting the five count, which Hogan would then kick out from), 2/88 to Andre, 4/90 to Warrior, 11/91 to Undertaker, and 5/93 to Yokozuna.

 

So, if we're saying that Piper, Bundy, Orndorff, Andre, DiBiase, etc. would have "definitely" gotten title runs, how are they actually getting the title from Hogan? Are we assuming that Piper is pinning Snuka to win a four way match that has Hogan and Orton involved? Is Orndorff cashing his his MITB contract on Hogan after Studd and Bundy beat him down? Or is Hogan simply more willing to do business in this new hotshot environment?

[JerryvonKramer]

I think (kayfabe) screwjobs on Hogan would be the order of the day. e.g. in that enviornment GM Jack Tunney takes a bribe from DiBiase and he's allowed to buy the belt too.

 

I mean in EACH of the cases you pointed out, apart from Warrior, Hogan only laid down after strong interference anyway:

 

2/88 vs. Andre was the evil ref angle

11/91 vs. Taker was Flair coming in with a chair and Hogan taking a Tombstone on the chair

5/93 vs. Yokozuna was a Japanese cameraman shooting his face with fire

 

Point being none of these are "clean jobs". Hogan wasn't really putting any of those guys "over" because they were all tainted wins that the Hulkamaniacs could bitch and moan about afterwards.

 

Wouldn't it just be that notched up a bit?

[MikeCampbell]

I think (kayfabe) screwjobs on Hogan would be the order of the day. e.g. in that enviornment GM Jack Tunney takes a bribe from DiBiase and he's allowed to buy the belt too.

 

I mean in EACH of the cases you pointed out, apart from Warrior, Hogan only laid down after strong interference anyway:

 

2/88 vs. Andre was the evil ref angle

11/91 vs. Taker was Flair coming in with a chair and Hogan taking a Tombstone on the chair

5/93 vs. Yokozuna was a Japanese cameraman shooting his face with fire

 

Point being none of these are "clean jobs". Hogan wasn't really putting any of those guys "over" because they were all tainted wins that the Hulkamaniacs could bitch and moan about afterwards.

 

Wouldn't it just be that notched up a bit?

I don't really think it could realistically be notched up much more. It's not a matter of Hogan's jobs being clean, I don't think any top level babyface did that many clean jobs at the time in the WWF. But the fact that Hogan's jobs were spread out with more than a year and a half in between them, and the interim between jobs featured Hogan, belt or no belt, dominating in the ring and in the storylines. So, even if Hogan is going to have long title reigns by '00's standards, there needs to be some creative ways to get the title off him, without killing his Superman aura (which was a huge reason for his appeal in those days) and without screwing him over so much that he's basically Sting before Sting with how stupid he must be to keep getting screwed like that.

 

I can see Piper getting a screwjob title win on the 2/18/85 MSG show on that aired on MTV. That was the same show that Orton hurt his arm on, so the cast is right there for how to do it. Then Hogan/Piper can headline WrestleMania for Hogan to get the title back. Or, if Vince feels like Mr. T wrestling in a must, then run the tag match and put Hogan over Piper in order to justify Hogan a rematch the next time at MSG. They actually ran MSG between 2/18 and 3/31 on 3/17, with Hogan and Piper not wrestling but doing a Piper's Pit. That would work just fine in this scenerio too, with the new champion bragging about his win and taunting the former champion leading to some sort of brawl.

[jdw]

I think what we're saying is:

 

06/28/98 Kane won WWF Title from Austin

09/27/98 Austin vacated WWF Title

05/23/99 Taker won WWF Title from Austin

 

05/21/00 Trip won WWF Title from Rock

10/22/00 Angle won WWF Title from Rock

04/01/01 Austin won WWF Title from Rock

 

Austin and Rock in those two periods were Hogan. Yet the WWF found ways to get the belt off them. Far more often than they got the belt off Hogan from 1984-89.

 

John

[JerryvonKramer]

Seriously, this thread has shocked me. Have either of the world titles ever been as meaningless as they are now?

 

The Jack Swagger run is a fucking joke.

[Matt D]

Seriously, this thread has shocked me. Have either of the world titles ever been as meaningless as they are now?

 

The Jack Swagger run is a fucking joke.

It didn't need to be. He was pushed SO well in the first half of 09. He felt like a big deal. Then he got moved to Raw which was the death knell for so many ECW guys. I think he was still redeemable after winning the title, and was a lot of fun, if not particularly effective when it came to his stuff with Show.

 

Ah well.

[Guest DWS]

At the tail-end of the 70's or early 80's, I could see Tony Atlas getting a run as a World Champ.

 

In the mid-70's, I think Spiros Arion could've done a one or two month reign as a heel champ. Maybe even have him steal the title from Bruno or Morales for a month or two.

 

I'll also back-up Snuka and Slaughter as champs, pre-1985. Those two names seem to always get tossed into possible "If not Hogan, who?" fantasy bookings.

[Al]

Billy Robinson in the AWA. Would be a definite choice if Verne had more than one title change that decade.

[Guest WillP]

Seriously, this thread has shocked me. Have either of the world titles ever been as meaningless as they are now?

It's not just the titles, it's wins and losses that are really meaningless. The obsession WWE has with downplaying the sports element of wrestling and their inability to patiently (or consistently) build to anything, means that nothing really matters. If someone totally undeserving is world champion, WWE and their audience just don't care, because the culture of the promotion is that it doesn't matter.

 

More on topic, I'd say (as has already been stated by others) that you have to look at any heel with a significant push and assume they would have gotten at least a taste of the belt. Sure, they would have dropped it back to Hogan or Warrior (or Savage), quickly, but they certainly would have had their name in the title history.

[tomk]

From a results thread at wrestling classics Cawthon says of Bruno results:

 

Now that I have a good amount of Sammartino defenses I find it odd just how many times the man was beaten - yet walked out with the title. Illegal pinfall loses (feet on the ropes, champions feet under the ropes, etc) today would never lead to the champion getting the title back. I even came across a bout against Freddie Blassie where Sammartino went for a leapfrog, Blassie ran into him below the belt, and Sammartino lost via TKO - yet kept the title.

 

Does anyone know any specifics regarding the count-out rule and whether or not it would lead to a title change? Ray Stevens beat Bruno in San Francisco and "won" the title via count-out (of course never recognized), yet I don't read about any other similar occurance after a count-out loss.

I think this is worth keeping in mind when we talk about what wins and losses mean and what adds or detracts value from belt.

[Al]

The ones that strike me are when the champion is "too bloody to continue," and yet retains the belt.

[JerryvonKramer]

Do you think Jimmy Valiant would have got a title run with 00s-style booking?