Does Revisionist History Even Matter?

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Does it matter WWE will a lot of the time pretend things never happened or lie about what did happen?

Would the build for Hulk vs Andre have been better if they acknowledged they fought before? Or that Andre had lost in the past 15 years?

Does history always have to be told in every instance? Or is it ok to ignore the past to promote what is happening now?

Like how Triple H vs. Taker at this past Mania was built? Ignoring the previous Mania match, concentrating on the Streak and HBK saying "can't win" to Hunter?

A wrestling story can be anything, as long as you promote it right.

So, what do you people feel?

[Feyrhausen]

Kayfabe revisionist history is fine, as long as it builds the story well. It's when WWE tries to do it in real life that it sucks. Like "We took wrestling out of the smokey bingo halls." Wrestling had been in stadiums and arenas for decades before Vince Jr. took over. Sadly I think Vince Jr. and Steph actually believe their revisionist history by this point.

[The Dark Order Inferno]

It really depends on the subject of the revisionism and the extent, if it's just keyfabe to build up an angle like claiming no-one has ever slammed Andre/Yoko before then that's fine, but when you have things like the attitude that wrestling was nothing, a few hundred people in smoky bingo halls before Vince jr, that companies that changed wrestling were never any good, or when you go through spells diminishing people who were stars (Hogan, Warrior, Hart) just because they're on the outs with the company then you have a problem.

George Santayana said 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' and that's a real problem when you see wrestling companies making the same mistakes they made, the same mistakes WCW made, erasing people from history that they could make money from and so on.

["Playboy" Don Douglas]

Dec 23, 2011 9:25:35 GMT -5 The Dark Order Inferno said:

George Santayana said 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' and that's a real problem when you see wrestling companies making the same mistakes they made, the same mistakes WCW made, erasing people from history that they could make money from and so on.

To paraphrase Tony Soprano, "Who listens to prizefighters?"

I basically agree with what's been said. A little bit of kayfabe revisionism can be alright, though I'm a big fan of consistency.

Real life revisionism is sad, annoying, pathetic...take your pick.

[saintpat]

The first Undertaker-Triple H meeting at WM never happened.

And HHH ended the streak.

Is that so hard to understand?

[rapidfire187]

It's not really good or bad. It's just annoying if you're a long time fan and you instantly know that they're full of shit.

Stuff like, claiming that Undertaker has beaten 18 other people at Wrestlemania even though two of his matches were repeats. One was a tag match so it would really be 17. And it's still 17 now, though they'll claim he's beaten 19 people going into this years Mania.

It feels like WWE does very little to reward long time fans, and sometimes seems to actively insult their memory.