Worst Title Run In History....

[asiatic7]

Hello folks, my last thread asked, "Who you thought was the least likely to obtain World Champion status". If you haven't commented yet, feel free to do so.

This time around, I'm asking you guys who you thought had the worst run as World Champion (WWE Champion, WHC, WCW Champion, TNA, NWA etc.)? It can be from any era, any company. Another question I'd like to throw in there to make this topic interesting is, who you thought never deserved the honor?

When I look at a guy like The Great Khali, I think his title run was terrible and pointless. Probably the worst champion in the history of that title, even considering where he stands today in WWE.

The Miz is someone I thought never deserved to be WWE Champion. I just didn't understand why he ever was. When I think of heels that would have made great champions (Million Dollar Man and Mr. Perfect come to mind), It makes me wonder what the hell did the Miz do to stand out...

The Ultimate Warrior in hindsight was good for business (I guess), but the lack of appreciation he had for his peers, history, tradition and the company he worked for makes me feel he was undeserving. Those are just a few brief thoughts from my perspective, but I encourage you guys to elaborate more on your answers. Have fun...

 

[LascoX]

For me it would be David Arquette's run with the belt in WCW. His time with the belt was a slap in the face of everyone who ever laced up the boots and got in the ring. At least Khali is big enough to be believable in winning the belt. Though I do agree his reign was pretty bad,

 

[Bookerkingston]

I don't know who I can say the worst. I think Kane's 1st one back in '98 was pretty disappointing since it only lasted one day and he lost it the next day. I think that hurt his character to a degree.

I agree with the original poster, I think The Miz was one of the most undeserving. I know heels aren't supposed to be "likeable" , but he was different. He always seemed like an annoying 6 year old brat who couldn't stop whining about things. He can't wrestle, he looks generic, and he's not intimidating. Then one day he just randomly comes out with his eyes all wide and says he wants to fight John Cena so they put him in the main event.....

I know this isn't popular, but I liked Great Khali back in the day. I know he wasn't a great champion, but he's one of the scariest guys out there and his feud with Undertaker was brutal and entertaining imo.

 

[Wolf Pac]

The Big Show's first WWF Title reign. He goes from beating The Rock & Triple H for the belt to defending it against The Big Bossman of all people. I don't know how Bossman ever earned a shot at the WWF Title, but the Bossman & Show's feud wasn't even about the title, it was about The Bossman disrespecting Show's deceased father. The Great Khali, The Miz, whoever you want to name, at least when those guys defended the title they defended it & retained against legitimate contenders and the world title mattered in their matches. While in Show's hands, the WWF Title was irrelevant until Triple H won it back from him. I can't remember any other time where the WWF Title was treated as dreadfully as it was here.

 

[cawsnallthis]

Anytime Hogan had the belt. I despise Hogan. I used to root for people like Bundy and Typhoon against him. Anybody but Hogan.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I think Kane's 1st one back in '98 was pretty disappointing since it only lasted one day and he lost it the next day. I think that hurt his character to a degree.

I think it did, too. They spent so much time building Kane to be this unstoppable monster, and when he finally claims the big prize, they take it away from him in a day. I was surprised and disappointed when it happened because I thought the big guy's time had truly arrived.

The problem here is including the transitional champions in this topic. Their reigns will naturally be regarded as substandard since there was never an intention by Creative of having anything but a short run as champ. The three days Bob Backlund held the belt before dropping it to Kevin Nash bothered me, too. I was excited about Backlund as titleholder and thought he'd get a few months at the top. Instead, it was obviously predetermined he was only holding the seat warm for the Nash, the guy they really wanted as champion. So, how could Backlund's title run be considered anything but bad? It wasn't his fault.

A better way to answer the question posed in this topic is to pick someone who didn't have a transitional title run....but rather, a guy who served as champion for awhile and stunk at it.

For that, I'd pick Rey Mysterio's 3-month reign in 2006. As he faced the top contenders and beat 'em all, I thought the spectacle was ridiculous. No matter how you cut it, the guy is too damn small to be seriously considered the best wrestler in the company. I couldn't stomach the way his foes fell face-first over the middle rope to receive the 619s Rey delivers in every single match....and it somehow seemed even worse in defenses of the "heavyweight" championship. It was the same damn routine every match ....and to me, that made Rey's reign the worst of all time.

 

[The Boss]

I've said this many times but anyone who has won a title via Money in the Bank was a disgrace to the title and to all champions who have held it in the past in addition to being weak champions themselves. Trading a briefcase for a title and not even having to wrestle a match is as weak as you can get.

Ric Flair had it right, "To be the man, you have to beat the man".

 

[ShatteredDreamsProduction]

The most recent title reign of The Rock.
Truly what did it achieve. They didn't need the belt on the rock to build up Cena vs rock 2
Hell. They didn't even need Cena vs rock 2 at all.
But that's a different matter

He defended it twice. Didn't even wrestle on Raw or Smackdown and just cut promos. It was one of the worst, if not the worst, title run in recent memory.

 

[HBsam31]

I think it did, too. They spent so much time building Kane to be this unstoppable monster, and when he finally claims the big prize, they take it away from him in a day. I was surprised and disappointed when it happened because I thought the big guy's time had truly arrived.

The problem here is including the transitional champions in this topic. Their reigns will naturally be regarded as substandard since there was never an intention by Creative of having anything but a short run as champ. The three days Bob Backlund held the belt before dropping it to Kevin Nash bothered me, too. I was excited about Backlund as titleholder and thought he'd get a few months at the top. Instead, it was obviously predetermined he was only holding the seat warm for the Nash, the guy they really wanted as champion. So, how could Backlund's title run be considered anything but bad? It wasn't his fault.

A better way to answer the question posed in this topic is to pick someone who didn't have a transitional title run....but rather, a guy who served as champion for awhile and stunk at it.

For that, I'd pick Rey Mysterio's 3-month reign in 2006. As he faced the top contenders and beat 'em all, I thought the spectacle was ridiculous. No matter how you cut it, the guy is too damn small to be seriously considered the best wrestler in the company. I couldn't stomach the way his foes fell face-first over the middle rope to receive the 619s Rey delivers in every single match....and it somehow seemed even worse in defenses of the "heavyweight" championship. It was the same damn routine every match ....and to me, that made Rey's reign the worst of all time.

You know Sally the more I read your posts the more I think maybe we do share a brain. As soon as I read the title of the thread Rey is the first name that came to mind. After he won the title they kept putting him against the biggest guys possible, and it just never seemed believable to me. I have always been a Rey fan, but his title run just didn't do it for me in any way. He was just to small, and like you said it was the same routine every match with his opponents just falling perfectly for the 619. I agree with you again Sally, and indeed Rey's title run was the worst imo.

 

[MINISTRYrising]

wcw title - David Arquette. By far the worst title run in the history of wrestling, There was plenty of young tallented wrestlers around at the time that WCW could have put the title on, But instead they put the strap on a actor who had no right being in the ring in the first, just because he was the lead character in a move about wrestling and people still wounder why WCW went under.

World Title - The Great Khali. While Khali did have the right look to be a world champion, He was in no way Andre The Giant. The guy was incredibly slow in the ring and could bearly throw two moves togther.

WWE title - The Miz. To be fair to the guy his run was by no means awful, its just the fact that there were so many other guys around at the time that were far more deservin g and tallented then him.

 

[thatotherguy]

WWE title - The Miz. To be fair to the guy his run was by no means awful, its just the fact that there were so many other guys around at the time that were far more deservin g and tallented then him.

Hmm. See the way I see it, Miz was the right guy at the right time. WWE was building up for a big Cena/Rock confrontation, and they needed someone to be the third wheel who was still good enough on promos to draw attention to himself from time to time. Miz was that guy. I don't think this was by any means pre-medidated (that would be giving WWE far too much credit in terms of forethought) but it worked out very well for them. There were, and still are, very few people on the roster who would have managed not to get lost in between the personalities of Cena and Rock, Miz, for the most part managed it. Ultimately, if for that alone, Miz's run was a success.

In terms of WWE title runs, The Big Show's is the one I would run with.

For WCW, since plenty of people have brought up David Arquette I would remind everyone that Vince Russo also won the title, and unlike Arquette he didn't donate the money he got from being WCW World Champion to charity.

For the World Heavyweight title, plenty of people have brought up The Great Khali. But Randy Orton's first reign as World Heavyweight Champion, cut entirely short by Triple H, was brimming with wasted potential, and ultimately a failure (Orton would eventually return to the mid-card after only a month as Champion)

In TNA, Rob Van Dam's run counts. He was pushed hard as soon as he got there, but then proceeded to do nothing with the title, get injured, and do nothing once he came back.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

It's pretty tough to ignore The Great Khali...but in the interest of something new, I'm going to offer up Jack Swagger.

I don't think anyone ever got less over having the World title than this guy. He had the title about 3 months, and his career took a nosedive after he was done.

Quick! Tell me who he defended the title against in any pay per view without referring to Wikipedia!



Dude is just sad.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's a toss up for me between Vince Russo & David Arquette.

There've been several unremarkable World Championship runs in WWE, WCW, TNA, etc. but those two just really stand out for me. Vince Russo treated the WCW World Heavyweight Championship as if it was a joke. He himself said that titles don't matter, even though most fans would disagree. Russo booked himself to get the title and then simply threw it down and said he didn't want to be champion because he wasn't a wrestler. As far as David Arquette goes, it's hard not to say that a title has hit rock bottom when a major wrestling promotion gives a vanity run to a celebrity. That's especially true if it's a D list celebrity like David Arquette. I appreciate that Arquette is a passionate wrestling fan, I really do. I even don't mind the fact that he wrestled in a couple of matches in WCW while promoting the Ready to Rumble movie. But actually giving Arquette a 12 day run with the WCW World Heavyweight Championship...it's just beyond ludicrous. After that, the title truly, truly meant nothing.

While Swagger, Foley, Steamboat, Windham, Khali, Kane's 1 day WWE Championship run were all disappointments, at least they were wrestlers. They worked hard and did their best, sometimes without really even being given much in terms of booking. So I have to give them that. Russo wasn't a wrestler, neither was Arquette, so they shouldn't have been champs. I wasn't that wild about Vince McMahon winning a championship, authority figures as champions just don't do much for me. However, at least Vince did treat the title with some respect and is someone that's ate, slept, breathed & shit pro wrestling for nearly his entire life.

 

[Dirk]

It's not really a title reign, but ODB & EY's Knockout tag title jumps to mind (also in the spirit of mentioning something new).

At first it was funny. Yeah, EY having a knockout title. But then the joke just ran...and ran...

It's been more than a year now...

They never defended and we're just supposed to forget about the title and move on with our lives.

 

[JakeAdams]

World Title - Triple H (2003 is a write off for wrestling, the burial of booker T at wrestlemania 19, scott steiner feud + matches, GOLDBERG, Kane fued + matches)

 

[berlinbrawler]

David Arquette's run as WCW champion comes to mind. Solid candidate for most asinine move ever done by any wrestling company in history.

The Great Khali, well, one needs to keep in mind the his Championship run was the result of a crisis. It was a knee-jerk reaction when a whole bunch of top stars got injured, among them the reigning champion Batista and Edge. As soon as Batista was back on his feet he got the title back. Whether or not Khali was the best solution in a bad situation is debatable, but I find a little comfort in the fact that him being champion was never truly the intended design.

Jack Swagger's run as WHC was terrible. I have no idea who ever figured he should be the champion. His run devalued the belt and it was around that time that it became clear to the last doubters that the WHC title is definitely inferior to the WWE belt.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The Big Show's first WWF Title reign. He goes from beating The Rock & Triple H for the belt to defending it against The Big Bossman of all people. I don't know how Bossman ever earned a shot at the WWF Title, but the Bossman & Show's feud wasn't even about the title, it was about The Bossman disrespecting Show's deceased father. The Great Khali, The Miz, whoever you want to name, at least when those guys defended the title they defended it & retained against legitimate contenders and the world title mattered in their matches. While in Show's hands, the WWF Title was irrelevant until Triple H won it back from him. I can't remember any other time where the WWF Title was treated as dreadfully as it was here.

You're being unfair to both Big Show and Bossman here. The Big Bossman was unfortunate not to have more of a run in the late 80's and early '90's, and is only really behind Vader and Bam Bam in terms of ability... He was far better than 95% of most big men ever were. Indeed had Earthquake not come along I am pretty sure Bossman would have ended up feuding longer with Hogan and perhaps even stealing the belt at least once.

When he returned in the AE he was seen as a safe pair of hands for someone like Show, who was still acclimatizing to the WWF style could work with, while providing a believable threat to a "giant".

In general any "self booked" title reign is pretty bad, so Russo, Vince McMahon those kind of reigns are amongst the worst, but Vince at least made sense from the storyline perspective. Russo, ego pure and simple.

There have been guys who had no business near a title getting one, Arquette for sure is up there, but again there was a business reason for it with the movie... now had it been Oliver Platt's "character" who won the title that might have made more sense but Arquette had some mainstream name value at the time... it sucked but you could never say it made no sense to WCW's business.

Some were just booked badly, like the Fingerpoke, Jarrett/Hogan's laying down and Ziggler's first run - they actually cheapened the talent involved.

Personally the worst ones for me are the unnecessary title reigns, where someone gets the belt (or gets it back) when there is no real point to it. My personal bugbear was Triple H taking the title back from Jericho the same night in 2000... the pop Jericho got when he won the title proved the fans wanted it and even if it only lasted a week or two it would have made far more sense than the ridiculousness that followed. It damaged Jericho and was Trips at his most egotistical but it did nothing for the show or the title or Trips himself other than prove "I can do what I want cos I f*** the bosses daughter".

 

[Rellim]

Not counting transitional champions, The Great Khali. Oh god, that was awful. You take the most boring wrestler to ever live and put the strap on him? The only good thing about his reign was that made Batista look good when he beat him for it.

 

[Jstrike]

I would have to go with the big show latest world heavyweight championship title reign. Why? cause every thing big show has done in the past years has been sloppy and i don't feel like big show needs to be the whc.
he's a good wrestler, and a soon to be legend, but he should be putting over talent, and not putting over himself.

 

[fenderjapan]

Not including Vince Russo and David Arquette here...I'd have to go with The Great Khali. A champion who looks like he's about to topple over every time he gets in the ring is not a believable one.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

"Hands of Stone" Ronnie Garvin

Had a great build to beating Flair for the NWA title, but then promptly went into hiding for a couple of months before dropping the belt back to Flair in a pretty bad Starrcade match.

I can't remember the backstage reasoning behind it all, but it was just a horrible reign and pretty much killed off Garvin.

 

[miz2676]

The worst title run in history to me is Kane's first title run it lasted less then 24 hrs he then had to wait till the 2000s for a final shot at a title he should have had a chance to prove his ability

 

[Brahma_Bull9]

I've said this many times but anyone who has won a title via Money in the Bank was a disgrace to the title and to all champions who have held it in the past in addition to being weak champions themselves. Trading a briefcase for a title and not even having to wrestle a match is as weak as you can get.

Ric Flair had it right, "To be the man, you have to beat the man".

Am I missing something or don't they have to win a match to get the briefcase. And Dolph actually defended the briefcase this year.... completely illogical. I get you may not like it, but saying they don't earn it at all is just flat out wrong and that's undeniable.

 

[I'm A Vince Russo Guy]

People automatically say Great Khali, but I don't think his run was as bad as his wrestling ability suggests. At least it was one thing - memorable. Who can forget the Punjabi Prison match? I've seen much worse title reigns in the past.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Am I missing something or don't they have to win a match to get the briefcase. And Dolph actually defended the briefcase this year.... completely illogical. I get you may not like it, but saying they don't earn it at all is just flat out wrong and that's undeniable.

Yeah, I think he's saying that the while they win the MITB match, most of the guy's who cash in the briefcase do it by following the sneaky underhanded Edge fashion whether they are a heel or a face: They wait until the champ has just taken a beating, and then cash it in and have a quick 30 second to 2 minute match. Essentially, they are taking advantage of a guy who's already been beaten.

While there's a certain logic to this, I agree that it's overused and it immediately sets up the champion as a weak champion and someone who didn't really earn the title.