Views From The Turnbuckle: Dealing With WWE's Revisionist History
The WWE is obviously more committed to the recent past as opposed to the distant past, for understandable reasons, but they always seem to fail to credit the older stars in their books, their DVDs and their various lists on WWE.com. They only assess the barebones of the history and never delve into any great detail. How many times has the Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart backstage spat been talked about in the WWE's media platform? Comparatively, how many times has the real-life dispute between Lou Thesz and Buddy Rogers been covered? How many WWE fans even know that Thesz and Rogers didn't like each other? My point exactly.
I will end with some suggestions for further research towards wrestling history. Since the WWE ignores most of what happened before 1963, and revises its own history, one most look beyond that realm for good information. ECW Press, a small Canadian book-publishing company, does a phenomenal job covering wrestling in an un-biased fashion. Wrestlecraps "Death to WCW" is a great look at the rise and fall of the company, and "Wrestlecraps Book of Lists", is both funny and informative. The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame, a Canadian duo has a fantastic collection of books highlighting individuals, including the best Heels, Faces, Tag Teams and Canadians in wrestling history. Former WWE employee and Sam Muchnick disciple Larry Matysik's "50 Greatest Wrestlers of All Time" is almost anti-WWE, if you are interested in that sort of thing. Storied wrestling columnist Mike Mooneyham's biography of Vince McMahon, titled "Sex, Lies and Headlocks" is a devilish book, including details the WWE will never show you.
History is very important, so don't let the WWE control what you think. Go out there and breathe the air every once and awhile and take in some information that may not be relevant to today, but is still essential to understanding professional wrestling.
Got a news tip or correction? Send it to us by clicking here.