So? He still won it, he still won it over top guys. You can't ignore victories over WCW top guys because it's inconvenient to do so.
You also can't place his last two title reigns on the same echelon as his initial run because it's convenient to do so. At least with Sheamus, besides his last reign with the WWE Championship, his reigns were of a consistent length, and as such, it's fair to group them together.
Yet during that entire time Rude was treated as a big deal. Also, he defended the title more than 4 times. You do realize this was in an era where most title defenses weren't televised and often not acknowledged right?
Yes, I do, but factoring house shows and un-televised events into the equation makes things very messy for both parties since they aren't decisive matches and often can have drastically different results to television matches. I'm not using them to base my judgement for either party, Sheamus or Rude.
To be fair the WHC came in noting all the greats that wore the title before HHH was even given it and it was established enough that for the 1st year and a half it headlined damn near every PPV including Wrestlemania 20. It was everything after that made the WHC a mostly forgotten deal. During Sheamus' face run he was in mid card matches the entire time and outside a few times on Smackdown it was NEVER the main event. The point I'm trying to make is even though the WCW World title was the #1 title (which it was) they still treated the International heavyweight title like it was a big deal and that was pretty much the entire time, you can't say the same for Sheamus' 2012 title run.
As I've said, I concede that the NWA title at the time was a bigger deal than the 2012 WHC. But the NWA title was DOA the moment the NWA split from WCW, whereas it took 8 years for the WHC to reach the same point the NWA title was on after the split.
And just because the title had degraded in value doesn't necessarily mean the talent contesting for it had. John Cena was the final official WHC champion, and it helped elevate stars to the next tier like Daniel Bryan (as much as people complain about 18 seconds, and whilst I agree people were cheated out of a good match, this ended up helping Bryan's career more than hurting it). It simply wasn't being accentuated as a primary draw, something that the WCW's NWA title couldn't claim either unless Sting was attached.
I said he was the #2 heel which he was, Sting and Flair were both faces at the time. To be fair #2 heel (both in WWF and WCW) is better than Sheamus has ever done.
Again, other than prime Vader, who was there to give him competition in the early days of his run as a heel? Sheamus had prime Cena, prime Punk and prime Orton to contest with.
#2 face? I guess that's why Cena and Punk were always in higher profile matches, got cheered alot more and sold more merchandise, because Sheamus was #2. He wasn't even above Ryback in popularity during his face run.
At the best of times, I would say so. Punk turned heel before Summerslam, and I don't think Ryback ever reached Sheamus's level of popularity.
So? Rude is a better heel and could easily cheat his way to victory here. Why can't he.
Not all of Sheamus's biggest wins involved interference, flukes or heel tactics. Rude has not only won his big matches non-clean, but has lost several matches in an attempt to win matches non-clean.
Yes it was. Rude last won the title beating Sting in Japan, during the match Sting did a dive over the top rope and Rude landed on the step, injuring his back and ending his career as a wrestler. The title was later vacated, which Sting won and then was unified in a double title match which Flair won. So yeah, Rudes last full time match (I think he had one in 97 ECW but not 100%) was a world title match where he beat Sting for it.
Rude hit Sting with the title, pinned Sting, only to have the decision reversed. At best, it's a non-clean win for Rude, at worst, it's a loss. Sting refused the title, so it was vacated.
And yeah, he had a 6 man tag match in '97 ECW, but I won't count that for the sake of your argument.
Accomplished more in a fixed sport? Yes, Sheamus is more accomplished (then again who isn't in the modern era) but he has never really gotten over as a heel or face. Even with all those accomplishments he was never more over than Rude and he was never a bigger deal than Rude. Rude was definitely a better wrestler and could do everything Sheamus could and alot better I might add.
But that's the thing, wrestling is a fixed sport. From a kayfabe perspective, Sheamus would be put over Rude in a rubber match between the two. And I've explained why Sheamus would be put over Rude from a booking perspective; it makes more sense.
And I do think you're underestimating Sheamus; sure he gets a degree of flak from the IWC, but he was very popular amongst the casual fans throughout his face run. He can put on good matches, and is comfortable using the mic, which is more than can be said for a lot of other guys.
Rude did succeed though, every single time he was given a chance. The only reason he never feuded with Hogan is because Hogan was legitimately afraid of Rude and during Hogan 2nd run Rude was at worst the #3 heel in WWF, at best #2 (which is better than Sheamus no question). He was at worst the #3 heel pretty much his entire WCW run and he was always over win or lose.
Not saying that Rude wasn't over, but again, you're basing the reaction of the IWC towards Sheamus as the entire perspective. He was very popular amongst casual fans and got good reactions consistently.
What does Sheamus do whenever he loses the title? He disappears into the abyss for a year or 2, doing absolute jack the entire time and you know why? Because he's not that good. Sheamus always falls back into nothing every single time he loses the title and whenever he does have it he's never done anything worth even mentioning, Rude did more to get noticed in his first 6 months in WWF with his Roberts feud, that alone trumps anything Sheamus has done.
Sheamus doesn't "disappear into the abyss", he falls out of the top card, an area of the card that he has had far more success in than Rude. At his very worst, Sheamus has been a successful mid-carder, and to his credit, so has Rude. But Sheamus has had far more success than Rude in the upper echelons.
Accomplishments like title runs in this day and age usually mean very little and they meant almost nothing every single time in Sheamus' case. At least with Rude he did shit worth remembering.
So winning the Royal Rumble in 2012 wasn't as memorable as anything Rude did? Right...
Sorry dude, vote however you want but Sheamus doesn't deserve this win. He's one of the most forgettable Champs ever and even with all his accomplishments there isn't a single one worth remembering.
I respect your opinion, and you've made a good case for Rude. What it boils down to me is that Rude has had very little success at the top of the card, whereas Sheamus has at least had some. Rude's accomplishments look more meaningful on paper than they are in reality.
