Kane Winning The WWF Championship

[Mitch Henessey]

I was watching my Legacy Of Stone Cold DVD today, and I came across the Austin/Kane First Blood Match for the WWF championship at King Of The Ring 1998. This is Kane's one of only two world championship wins in WWF/WWE. Then, the very next night on Raw, he loses it back to Stone Cold! The very next night! Now if I remember correctly, Austin would go on to feud with Kane and Taker over the WWF championship for a while.

Why does WWE feel the need to mention Kane being a former WWE champion? Seriously, I didn't even remember this match until I watched it earlier today. And the fact Kane dropped the belt back to Steve Austin the very next night? Come on. I know Kane was hot at this time(no pun intended) but is it really worth mentioning? I watch Smackdown every other week, and every now and then the announcers will say,"Kane is a former WWE champion" like he had a reign or something like that.

Does Kane winning the WWF championship really need to be remembered or mentioned at all? I know it's the WWF/WWE championship, but when you hold it for 24 hours or however long the official time was before Kane lost it back to Austin the very next night, It really isn't that big of a deal or is it?

 

[DiscipleofWrestling]

I think that anytime you are booked to have a hold of the WWF/E Championship, I think it is a big deal. I think the First Blood match was an example of WWE overbooking itself. If Kane had lost that First Blood match, the stipulation was that Kane would have set himself on fire. I guess theoretically Undertaker could have stopped Kane from going through with the fire gag, but that would have spoiled the big storyline of the summer of that year, which was "Are Kane and the Undertaker in cahoots?" By Taker hitting Austin and costing him the title, it caused the controversy to stir without actually confirming an alliance with Kane.

But back to the question, I think it is relevant. Even though Kane only had the title for 24 hours, it is something to mention. To even be in a championship match is an honor enough, but he was the man booked to be the hiccup in Steve Austin's first WWF/E Championship run. Did holding the WWF/E Championship necessarily do anything for Kane? I would argue not in the long term. But I thought it was a nice swerve to everyone who thought Austin was just going to steamroll over everyone he faced. It was a reminder that Austin was in a life and death struggle with McMahon, who would do ANYTHING to cause Austin to lose the title. Therefore, whomever Austin defended the WWF/E Championship against had at least an outside chance of winning, and that made for better TV in my personal opinion.

 

[The Original Enigma 1.0]

dude you forget to say that Kane is also a former ECW world champion not only a WWF champion but back on the subject dude it doesn't matter how long you hold that world title okay you could have it for 8 minutes, 24 hours, or 1 year all that matter is that you got the richest prize in the whole bussiness, you are on the top of the mountain

 

[INDYjon22]

He only has won one wwf world title to my knowledge, unless your counting his ECW run.

I think its important when any WWE star wins the world title. It means that they have have reached the apex of the company even if it is for a short period of time. Though i can totally see your arguement. Jericho won the belt back in 2000 but they dont recognize it. But that was more to go along with the angle they had going. Kane's world title win was also part of an angle and he wasn't stripped of the belt, therefore there is no reason for them not to label him a former world champion.

Nice thread.

 

[XgringolocoX]

length and number of title reigns is no longer relevant. Getting to that level still is. Once there the belt is just a means to further a story.
So in that regard kane has been there. Should be mentioned just like everyone else who's a former ............ Champion.

 

[Sockpuppet353]

I remember reading that SCSA was busted open on accident, and that Kane was supposed to actually lose the match. But since he was busted open (on accident) they had to put the title back on SCSA, so why not just go with the day after the ppv?

(Sources unknown. Wikipedia Maybe??)

 

[Australian Punk]

Does Kane winning the WWF championship really need to be remembered or mentioned at all? I know it's the WWF/WWE championship, but when you hold it for 24 hours or however long the official time was before Kane lost it back to Austin the very next night, It really isn't that big of a deal or is it?

This really is a pointless thread, no offence but it is.

Remember Jeff Hardy winning the worlds title at Extreme Rules? He held it for no more than 5 minutes and he is remembered as a 3 time world champion. Andre the Giant held the WWF title for what like 45 seconds?? and yet he is remembered as a WWF champion.

So why would Kane's reign be any different?

Once Again , I am not meaning to offend you, but why didnt you just make the thread about all the world / WWE title reigns that lasted 24 hours or less?

 

[Ed Philly]

Was this the first blood match where the only part of Kanes body that wasn't covered was his arm? Stone Cold never had a chance. That's always irked me.

However, I feel it should count. If you win the belt, even for a minute, why shouldn't it count? At one point in time you were champion.

 

[Midnight_rider]

Going along with other people refering to short title reigns, I remember Triple H winning the title at a pay per view, cannot remember which, in which he won the match, had another match, won, then had another match in which he lost, so he was a champion for no more than 2 hours, but the reign still is calculated into his...what...13 times?

 

[Chill]

I think Kane winning the WWF Championship for 24 hours should be acknowledged because at the end of the day it happened. When the announcers say Kane is a former WWE Champion it is the truth isn't it? If you're talking about the history of the WWE title, it would be incomplete to just pick and choose who should be remembered as having held the belt. Overall, if you won the belt for a day or a year, it should be remembered for the simple and important fact that it happened.

 

[Spurs4life22]

Yeah i believe that this reign should me recognised. Why not? As someone before me said Triple H`s 2 hour reign counted so why not this?

Kane should also be proud of this because it shows at one point he was at the top of the tree,albeit only for a day.

 

[Billie Jean]

Does Kane winning the WWF championship really need to be remembered or mentioned at all? I know it's the WWF/WWE championship, but when you hold it for 24 hours or however long the official time was before Kane lost it back to Austin the very next night, It really isn't that big of a deal or is it?

Of course it does. Chill sums this up well.

I think Kane winning the WWF Championship for 24 hours should be acknowledged because at the end of the day it happened. When the announcers say Kane is a former WWE Champion it is the truth isn't it? If you're talking about the history of the WWE title, it would be incomplete to just pick and choose who should be remembered as having held the belt. Overall, if you won the belt for a day or a year, it should be remembered for the simple and important fact that it happened.

Yeah, no matter what happens, he won the title. In one of the newer WWE magazines, a special anniversary addition correct me if I am wrong, Vince was asked something about erasing Chris Benoit entirety. And he said that would be wrong as he was there and his titles were won and will be remembered. This is exactly the case here. In fact, the fact he only held the title for a day makes this reign more memorable. We are sitting here discussing it, we are not discussing a title reign that although longer, was irrelevant. This is more memorable for the fact he only held it for a day.

Going along with other people referring to short title reigns, I remember Triple H winning the title at a pay per view, cannot remember which, in which he won the match, had another match, won, then had another match in which he lost, so he was a champion for no more than 2 hours, but the reign still is calculated into his...what...13 times?

Yeah, No Mearcy 2007. He held the title for little under 3hours and yet had 2 title defenses winning one. Again more memorable than a lot of recent reigns for the fact that too many it was kind of pointless and the fact it put Orton over.

Although sometimes it can look like another way of burring a star, short title reigns are a part of WWE and will continue to do so. But to answer the original question, of course Kane's first WWF title run(although short) should be remembered because at the end of the day it still happened.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I was watching my Legacy Of Stone Cold DVD today, and I came across the Austin/Kane First Blood Match for the WWF championship at King Of The Ring 1998.

Which was a fuckin' terrible match imo, and was probably the main reason they immediately took the belt off him again.

This is Kane's one of only two world championship wins in WWF/WWE.

Seriously dude, you're not comparing the ECW belt to the other two are you? It's not even gold!

Then, the very next night on Raw, he loses it back to Stone Cold! The very next night!

In about 3 minutes as well......

Now if I remember correctly, Austin would go on to feud with Kane and Taker over the WWF championship for a while.

Briefly. The focus became more about Austin not being champion and McMahon doing all he could to fire Austin, which led to the Deadly Game Tournament at Survivor Series, and the birth of the 'Corporate Champion'. Great angle, wish they'd do something like it again.

Why does WWE feel the need to mention Kane being a former WWE champion?

To hype a match that might otherwise seem really shit. Otherwise all they can say is 'He's got the Royal Rumble record for most eliminations' and 'he used to be burnt', which isn't going to hype the match, or help the opponent get over at the end of the night.

Seriously, I didn't even remember this match until I watched it earlier today.

I try my hardest to forget it.

And the fact Kane dropped the belt back to Steve Austin the very next night? Come on. I know Kane was hot at this time(no pun intended) but is it really worth mentioning?

Was Foley's 3rd reign worth mentioning? Was Orton's 20 minute title reign at the end of '07 worth writing in the record books? Apparently so, so Kane's is just as valid, even if it was stupidly brief.

I watch Smackdown every other week, and every now and then the announcers will say,"Kane is a former WWE champion" like he had a reign or something like that.

It's still a title reign dude, regardless.

Does Kane winning the WWF championship really need to be remembered or mentioned at all? I know it's the WWF/WWE championship, but when you hold it for 24 hours or however long the official time was before Kane lost it back to Austin the very next night, It really isn't that big of a deal or is it?

I feel that it establishes Kane as a legitimate threat. It's like saying 'this guy can hang with the best of them', even though arguably, he can't. Most fans these days won't know of the masked Kane that tore through the roster in a few short months back in '97/'98, so to emphasise his past accomplishments helps improve his credibility, and when he jobs to whoever, it helps their credibility that much more as well.

 

[Miko]

Yeah what the dude above me said, it makes the guy who Kane's about to job too look impressive by beating a former World Champion, even if no one can remember the reign. It also reminds people that he was relevant once.