Surprising no one, Roman Reigns beat LA Knight at Crown Jewel, ensuring his historic run as Undisputed Champion in WWE continues. Now 1,163 days long, only three people in WWE history have ever had longer World Title reigns than The Tribal Chief. Hulk Hogan, Bob Backlund, and Bruno Sammartino who is the proud owner of two of the top five longest reigns in WWE history. However, when acknowledging those stats at Crown Jewel, Michael Cole didn't mention Backlund.
What About Bob?
As Reigns stepped between the ropes, Cole said there are only two people in WWE history who can boast longer stints with a World Title than Reigns: Hogan and Sammartino. That immediately sparked a lively conversation on social media as fans questioned why WWE would suddenly decide Backlund's reign doesn't count. Some chalked it up to a simple mistake on Cole's part, which is certainly possible. However, there's a history to Backlund's reign that may mean it wasn't a mistake at all.
RELATED: Bob Backlund Has The Longest WWE Title Reign That Nobody Talks About
During a tour of Japan in 1979 during which WWE Superstars competed against their New Japan counterparts, Hall of Famer Antonio Inoki beat Backlund for the WWE Title in controversial fashion. Backlund beat Inoki in a rematch the following week and since there was no internet and the match wasn't televised in the US, WWE pretended the title switch never happened. It has kept up that facade for more than 40 years, claiming Backlund didn't lose the title until he was beaten by The Iron Sheik four years later.
Simple Mistake, Or Is There More To This?
One theory stemming from Crown Jewel is that WWE has finally decided to acknowledge Inoki's reign following his passing. Certainly possible, but there's a loophole in that explanation. Even if WWE is only counting Backlund's run from the point he won the championship back from Inoki, it was still longer than Reigns' time with the title, lasting 1,470 days. Fans have also pointed to other brief untelevised title vacations by Backlund that would mean his run was shorter than Roman's.
I'm torn on how I feel about what might be going on here. Since there has only been one example, that I know of, of WWE seemingly ignoring Backlund's historic run so far, I'm going to lean on this being a mistake by Cole, or by whoever fed him that fact at Crown Jewel if that's what happened. If Backlund's name is omitted again, I'm guessing WWE is bending the math in Reigns' favor so they can slot him higher up on the longest-reigning champions list.
