posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:12 PM
WWE.com has updated their title history section, which they are relaunching. Originally, they just had the history of the Intercontinental title but
now they have the history of the WWE Title as well as the WWE (Smackdown!) Tag Team Titles. All histories have pictures of each title holder with the
belt at the time they held it.
However, with the publishing of the WWE Title history, two very interesting notes arise.
The first concerns the way WWE chooses to refer to Hulk Hogan. In the WWE Title history, the icon of sports entertainment is never referred to as Hulk
Hogan, but rather Hollywood Hogan. The reason for concern about this is that Hogan did not take the Hollywood part of his name until he jumped ship to
WCW, yet all of his title reigns, especially his one in 1984, refers to him as Hollywood Hogan, and not Hulk Hogan.
For those who don't know, Marvel Comincs and WWE have been fighting for claims to the "Hulk" name for years, and by this, it seems that WWE has
finally caved to Marvel.
The second note revolves around WWE's reluctancy to reveal actual history of the title. With the creation of the IC Title history, WWE released a lot
more information about its creation and history than ever before. Many took this as a sign that WWE would start to release more information on the
history of all their titles, not just the IC Title. With the release of the WWE Title history, it looks like WWE isn't going to be releasing much
information about their titles. Instead of giving the readers the complete history, WWE continues to shroud the creation of the title and its first
champion, Buddy Rogers. Instead of explaining the situation with the NWA, WWE continues to push the bogus "Rio De Janerio tournament" story that they
used for practically every title in the early days of the WWWF/WWF/WWE. To go with this, WWE refuses to recognize that Antonio Inoki ever won the
For those who do not know, Inoki won the title from Backlund on the 30th of November in 1979 in Japan. Backlund won the title back almost a week
later, but due to interference, the title was returned to Inoki who refused to take it. Backlund defeated a local jobber to win the belt back in
America. After all this, WWE wiped out this history and refused the whole fact that Inoki ever won the title. In the old Title History section of WWE
(which was around in 2001), WWE was at the time recognizing the change. Many are boggled as to why WWE would refuse to acredit Inoki now, as they
already have; but with the coming shows in Japan, many say that perhaps some bad dealings, meetings, or situations have been going on between Inoki
and Vince, and Vince is just punishing Inoki by doing this.
It would not be the first time Vince and WWE has wiped someone out of WWE history as a means of punishment, so do not rule it out.