Youngest Heavyweight Champion

[tazmaster]

Recently The One made a great post (http://www.tpww.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18833) explaining the history behind the various titles of both brands in the WWE. If I understood it correctly, the RAW heavyweight title is actually the one that carries the WCW/Crockett Productions/etc... lineage.

With that in mind, I am somewhat irritated over the current promotion of Randy Orton as "The youngest" heavyweight title holder in the history of the sport at the age of 24.

The Giant/Big Show won the WCW heavyweight title at the age of 24 in April of 1996. This made him (at that time) the youngest heavyweight champ of either WWE or WCW.

Even if I missunderstood The One's post and the RAW championship is not the WCW title, it is still a complete fabrication to call Randy Orton the youngest heavyweight champion in history. So what's the point behind this besides being yet another opportunity for the WWE to pretend that WCW never existed?

BTW - 1st post.Yay. :shifty:

[mike616]

hi! :wave: I see your point but there is a theory that Vince pushed Orton to take that claim to fame from Brock. :roll:

[Rock Bottom]

Dumb theory.

[Volchok]

vince is talking about he's the youngest to hold the world title in the company both Raw and Smackdown not just for the title.. in the WWE alone he is..

[tazmaster]

I see what you guys are saying, but when WWE took over WCW they also got the history of it's title... a history that has Paul Wight winning the title at the age of 24. A title that is now the heavyweight title on RAW. A title that the WWE claims Brock was the youngest to hold.

Brock never was the youngest in the first place. He never held that "claim to fame". Not legitimately anyway. But the sad fact is that Vince's desire to obliterate his competition didn't end with buying it.

And just as a reminder, it isn't Vince saying that Orton is the youngest in the company... It's part of Orton's persona now. Just earlier on RAW I heard the King say it too many times to count... "the youngest in the history of this business". Maybe some will take "this business" to mean the WWE. I have always taken that phrase to mean the "business" of wrestling.

Does this change my life? No. As I said, It irritates me. It's not that big of a deal, but one I felt like venting here and seeing whether anyone agreed with me or not.

[Kane Knight]

They inherreted the history, then chose to disregard it. Got it?

[tazmaster]

They inherreted the history, then chose to disregard it. Got it?

Ermmm... that's exactly what I am saying. So, yeah, I got it.

[Kane Knight]

I see what you guys are saying, but when WWE took over WCW they also got the history of it's title... a history that has Paul Wight winning the title at the age of 24. A title that is now the heavyweight title on RAW. A title that the WWE claims Brock was the youngest to hold.

Brock never was the youngest in the first place. He never held that "claim to fame". Not legitimately anyway. But the sad fact is that Vince's desire to obliterate his competition didn't end with buying it.

And just as a reminder, it isn't Vince saying that Orton is the youngest in the company... It's part of Orton's persona now. Just earlier on RAW I heard the King say it too many times to count... "the youngest in the history of this business". Maybe some will take "this business" to mean the WWE. I have always taken that phrase to mean the "business" of wrestling.

Does this change my life? No. As I said, It irritates me. It's not that big of a deal, but one I felt like venting here and seeing whether anyone agreed with me or not.
Hold up a second.

I bet there's some fifteen year old who's won a title too, somewhere, in a backyard or some shit, but it doesn't really change much.

The WWF/E has never been in the business of being open to other "brands." They are and always have been the focal point of their shows because...Get this...giving props to other promotions really doesn't sell tickets and PPVs. Go figure. WCW was assimilate d into the WWE, but it's the WWE, not WCW.

[Kane Knight]

Ermmm... that's exactly what I am saying. So, yeah, I got it.
You're treating this like it's new or surprising.

The WWE has never been ashamed of editing history. They've never been bashful of ignoring the accomplishments others have put forth. It's a story, not a serious sport.

[tazmaster]

ECW gets name drops quite frequently and I seem to remember a DVD called "The Monday Night War". But all that aside, I don't mean to seem ranting about it. It just bothers me. I'm sure it won't be the last time. Lol.

[Head]

Just because the Big Show was also 24 when he first won the title doesn't mean he was younger than Orton.

[KaliKot]

Yeah...but he was younger than brock

There goes the pain...and the claim

[deathtrap]

welcome

[Thriller]

Recently The One made a great post (http://www.tpww.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18833) explaining the history behind the various titles of both brands in the WWE. If I understood it correctly, the RAW heavyweight title is actually the one that carries the WCW/Crockett Productions/etc... lineage.

With that in mind, I am somewhat irritated over the current promotion of Randy Orton as "The youngest" heavyweight title holder in the history of the sport at the age of 24.

The Giant/Big Show won the WCW heavyweight title at the age of 24 in April of 1996. This made him (at that time) the youngest heavyweight champ of either WWE or WCW.

Even if I missunderstood The One's post and the RAW championship is not the WCW title, it is still a complete fabrication to call Randy Orton the youngest heavyweight champion in history. So what's the point behind this besides being yet another opportunity for the WWE to pretend that WCW never existed?

BTW - 1st post.Yay. :shifty:
They also claimed Orton to be the longest IC champ in 7 years which is untrue as that title belongs to The Rock.But its called building a character

[The Duck]

If I remember correctly, when Brock won the belt the phrase "youngest WWE champion ever" was used, not "youngest World Heavyweight Champion in the history of the business." If anyway wants to they could check out Randy and Big Show's respective date of birth's, though I'm sure (like others have said) that WWE has disregarded that bit of information....

Ah fuck it....I'm gonna go find out their date of births...

[The Duck]

Paul Wight was born on February 8th, 1972. By winning the belt on the 22nd April, 1996, Show was 24 years and 74 days old.

Randy Orton was born on April 1st, 1980. By winning the belt on the 15th August, 2004, Orton was 24 years and 137 days old.

Damn....that is quite annoying!

[The Duck]

Argh, Show won the belt orginally on 29th October, 1995 before being stripped. If you count THAT as a reign....

[Y2Ant]

Also, remember that Brock won the SD Title, not the RAW one :o

(so technically Brock is still the youngest WWE champion of all time I guess)

[Xero]

Also, remember that Brock won the SD Title, not the RAW one :o

(so technically Brock is still the youngest WWE champion of all time I guess)
Actually, he won the Undisputed title, before it became the SD! title... Although he did go straight to SD!, it was still the Undisputed title...

Do they count the Undisputed Title as the WWE title or is it another title alltogether? Since it was merged with the WCW title and all...

[Y2Ant]

If I had to guess i'd say a seperate one :o

[ColdwaVer]

Titles are wierd.

The way I see it, the World title does share the history of the WCW title, but at the same time, when announcers and wrestlers in WWE refer to the youngest world champion ever, they mean the youngest champion to be crowned by their organization. So in that sense it doesn't matter if a six-year-old won the title when it was the WCW title, Orton is still the youngest World champion to be crowned by WWE.

[FourFifty]

<font color=cyan>Brock Lesnar is the X-Pac of young champions... oh crap, wrong thread.

[Kane Knight]

ECW gets name drops quite frequently and I seem to remember a DVD called "The Monday Night War". But all that aside, I don't mean to seem ranting about it. It just bothers me. I'm sure it won't be the last time. Lol.
They drop them now, and they don't go in depth into the history of either. Have you noticed THAT, too?

Monday Night Wars comes up because it sells well.

[Kane Knight]

Actually, he won the Undisputed title, before it became the SD! title... Although he did go straight to SD!, it was still the Undisputed title...

Do they count the Undisputed Title as the WWE title or is it another title alltogether? Since it was merged with the WCW title and all...
The undisputed title would, in theory, ahve the title histories of both.

HOWEVER, because they were booking him as the youngest WWE champion ever, it still holds true, whether the WCW championship was part of it or not.

Still, this is such a minor nuance in a show famous for FLAGRANT continuity errors.

[The One]

Bottom line...RAW, SmackDown, the entire WWE...they have NO problem with bending, changing, or all out editing the past to fit what they want. Case and point...how many times in 2000 to 2003 did we hear about Benoit being the WCW Champion and leaving the company as the undefeated champion...then in 2004...suddenly he has never held a World Title in any organization...fact: Vince & Co care nothing about history, only about what will draw right NOW...