The King Of The Ring Myth

[The Brain]

“Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass!” We’re all familiar with that legendary statement that Stone Cold Steve Austin spontaneously burst out during his victory speech at the 1996 King of the Ring. It launched him to superstardom and planted the seeds of the attitude era. Ever since there has been a myth that winning the tournament is a launching pad to a hall of fame career.

I’ve read a lot of complaints about Sheamus wining the tournament last night. Everyone seems to be saying the same thing. “Sheamus didn’t need the win. He’s already an established main event talent and former two time world champion. A mid carder should have won so he could make it to the next level.” I admit that I wanted to see Alberto Del Rio win the tournament but I don’t think Sheamus winning is a problem. The very arguments against him winning could be used to justify his win. He’s a main event superstar who has won two world titles. From a kayfabe point of view that should make him the favorite. Oftentimes people want legitimacy when it comes to booking. The favorite won. What’s wrong with that?

So why am I posting in old school and not in one of the existing KOTR threads? It’s because of the King of the Ring myth. I want to take a look at past winners and dispel the myth that KOTR is the launching pad to the hall of fame. For this argument I’m going to start with 1993. Previous tournaments were not televised or even mentioned on television. Since hardly anyone realized they won the tournament those winners didn’t really benefit from the victory. So let’s take a look at the televised winners.

1993: Bret Hart. Like Sheamus Hart was already established and had been champion before winning KOTR. He main evented mania just three months earlier. KOTR looks nice on his resume but Bret was already a star.

1994: Owen Hart. I love Owen as much as anybody. He was great and occasionally main evented but he was mostly a mid carder. He was already feuding with world champion Bret Hart before winning the tournament so the title match at SummerSlam was already a foregone conclusion.

1995: Mabel. Hardly a legendary career. I’m sure Vince wishes he could go back and put the crown on HBK that year.

1996: Steve Austin. The one who benefited the most from KOTR and the reason the myth exists. Austin was kind of floundering in the mid card and this win was definitely a turning point in his career.

1997: Triple H. A case can certainly be made that he benefited similar to Austin, but I don’t think so. Forming DX with Shawn Michaels was the turning point for Triple H and that would have happened with or without KOTR.

1998: Ken Shamrock. He turned heel a couple months later and was gone a year after that. He didn’t do anything significant after winning the tournament. I’m sure Vince wishes he could go back and put the crown on The Rock that year.

1999: Billy Gunn. He was given a couple chances but never could get over.

2000: Kurt Angle. Angle was clearly on his way to the main event with or without KOTR.

2001: Edge. He’s had a great career but what did KOTR do for him? The Invasion angle was starting around that time and KOTR got lost in the shuffle. Sure he won the world title. It was nearly five years later and KOTR was a distant memory by then.

2002: Brock Lesnar. See Kurt Angle

2006: Booker T. He got a title reign after becoming king but was out of WWE a year later.

2008: William Regal. He hasn’t done anything notable since.

2010: Sheamus. If he goes on to win more world titles, years from now people will forget the details and he will become part of the myth.

I’m not saying KOTR is worthless. It’s nice that guys like Austin, Triple H, Angle, and Edge won the tournament and went on to have great careers. I just think Austin is the only one for whom it was a turning point. I certainly don’t blame WWE for hyping KOTR the way they do. I like KOTR and it’s a nice accolade for a wrestler but I feel its significance has been exaggerated.

 

[prosenfi]

KOTR actually did do something for Edge, it was the catalyst which allowed him to separate from Christian and begin his trip to singles greatness.

 

[zman21]

very good point made. i agree mable and shamrock should f never became kotr winners it def should of went to michales and the rock since they were both hot those yrs and on there way to superstardom

 

[Prestige]

I really dont see a myth anywhere. You targeted the 13 most recent winners, and of those, only 4 were not eventual world champions. And its likely Owen would have won the belt at some point, especially after Austin and Rock left and WWE needed some new champions.

Maybe you disagree with whether KOTR was the reason for their title wins, but that is kind of irrelevant to me. I dont think many people have suggested the KOTR is the sole reason for a world title or a hall of fame election. That doesnt make any sense. The creative team chooses who wins the tournament and who wins the belts, its not as if theyre influenced by an outside force, and that because a wrestler won KOTR that they feel they deserve a title shot. No, they choose a wrestler to win KOTR BECAUSE they think they can be a star and maybe a future champion. Im not suggesting that you dont understand the business, but you dont seem to be viewing this in a straightforward objective way.

The "failures", or more precisely, the non world championship holders who won King, is more the exception than the rule. For the most part, the winners HAVE been big successes, some of the biggest stars in history in fact. So yes, to say someone like Del Rio would have had more to gain from the distinction is true. Now, I cant say whether Sheamus won because the brass doesnt feel confident enough to award it to Del Rio or Zeke, or if its more about how much they think Sheamus is worth.

Bottom line, had any of the other competitors won KOTR, its a strong likelyhood that they would be a future world champion or at least a solid success, because thats what history dictates and the same people who picked them to be King would be making those decisions about who the champions are. There is no myth, and whether or not you think a wrestler would have been a main eventer without the KOTR has nothing to do with this. Its not a real sport or a real tournament. The WWE decides who they want to be successful, and someone claiming a title was won BECAUSE they won the tournament, must not realize the results are staged, and I just dont buy that there are many of those people out there.

 

[DiscipleofWrestling]

That's a very intriguing argument, Brain. You brought up very good points with all of these cases. Bret Hart was already World Champion, Owen was already in a feud with Bret, Kurt Angle was already going towards the top (was in high profile matches on episodes of Raw beforehand). Edge's KOTR win was forgotten, and William Regal's Wellness Policy suspension essentially killed any momentum he would have had by being King of the Ring. I thought it was curious that Sheamus was booked to win KOTR as he really didn't need it in the long run, having been already a main eventer and primed for a renaissance of his feud in months against Triple H. But then again as you mentioned, sometimes it's good that the bully wins once in a while. Austin and Triple H really didn't reference their victories at the King of the Ring, other than the iconic Austin 3:16 reference Austin made in his victory speech. The funny thing about Austin's victory was that Triple H was originally booked to win the tournament that year. Imagine if Austin 3:16 were never spoken...

To be honest, of the men you mentioned in the modern King of the Ring tournaments on TV, I think the guy who probably used the King of the Ring moniker the best and really hyped up his victory for a good year was Booker ... No. KING BOOKAH! Booker and Sharmell sold the gimmick for all it was worth: the scepters, the crowns, the robes, the chariots (on occasion). Hell, Booker had his own court. He even started speaking with an English accent. I know his main event matches weren't exactly legendary (or for that matter good) in that time period, but the gimmick was great. It was funny hearing Regal shout every five seconds: All Hail King Booker!

 

[triple_b2k]

If I recall correctly, King Mabel went onto Summerslam to face Diesel for the WWE Title. He lost and his push pretty much ended there. He went on to face the Undertaker and lost. Shortly after that, he was released. He received a good push but never got over.
I'm disappointed with Regal's reign. Getting suspended for failing the drug test really punished him. He was getting a good push but that stopped it flat. He still hasn't recovered and probably won't (if the truth regarding his retirement is true).

Very interesting article! I'm so glad Austin won KOTR instead of Jake the Snake. Who knows what would have happened if The Snake won.

 

[legendkiller1979]

I would agree that the idea of winning the KOTR shooting a wrestler into superstardom is not true. In 1993 Bret won as a means of letting the fans know he was still on top even without the belt and as a way of starting the feud with Jerry Lawler over who was the real king. In 1994, Owen Hart won as a means of continuing the feud with Bret. The year 1995 in wrestling was bad from beginning to end and the KOTR was no exception. I guess they gave mable the win so he could challenge Diesel for the belt. This was a disaster all the way around. Austin's win did nothing for him other than give him the opportunity to give the legendary Austin 3:16 phrase. I would say the same for Triple H. I think Shamrock was given the win over The Rock because he spent basically all of 1998 defeating The Rock by DQ. This was a way of giving him a clean win without giving him the IC title. I have no idea why Billy Gunn was given the 1999 KOTR. Kurt Angle was the only logical choice in 2000 because he won absolutely everything that year. The same could be said for Brock Lesnar in 2002. For me that's the end of the KOTR. The rest are irrelevant to me. So in short, the only person that really got a push from the win was the worst winner in the history of the tournament, King Mable. The rest either continued a storyline or were just another win.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Good points have been made. However, the WWE never comes out and advertisies that if a wrestler wins KOTR that they're in line for much bigger things. While hyping it, it merely points out that KOTR could be considered a turning point for some and I do think that's true in more than just Austin's case. Some of those winners have gone on to have brilliant careers after winning KOTR may very well have done so with or without winning the tourney.

There have certainly been some duds that've won KOTR. To be fair, however, creating the next big wrestling star isn't an exact science. There'll be missed opportunities and some guys put in the spot that have no real reason for being there.

I think one thing that's hurt KOTR is the infrequency in which the WWE has revived the concept. For the second half of this decade, KOTR really hasn't meant much of anything due in large part to long gaps in which it's used. If the WWE were to decide to make KOTR an annual event once more with 3 hour Raw specials, I think that the overall impact of the KOTR could potentially have some more meat on its bones.

As for Sheamus winning it, I would've preferred John Morrison to some degree but I do get why they did it. Sheamus is a bully that has another accomplishment added to his tally. It also served as a means of him evening the score with John Morrison, whom he's been feuding with, as Morrison scored a clean pinfall victory over him at Survivor Series.

 

[The Man Of 1004 Holds]

i agree completly KOTR is a myth. as shown the winners are most of the time already on there way or it helps design a feud. some winners were already champions some winners never were and some developed a storyline or character. take brock for example the winner got a shot at the rock for the title which brock won, the KOTR was a way of getting him into that match and making him look strong so he could be taken seriously. KOTR does not guarantee success unlike money in the bank it is an acolade that looks good on a mega stars resume.
and also lets not forget stone was not even supposed to win in his year that was meant for HHH but it got pushed back a year thanks to the MSG curtain call incident

 

[ExcellenceorAwesome]

I see the valid points on both sides of the coin. It adds another point to Sheamus resume, to help legitimize him with the people who still doubt his main event credibility, but the same could have been done with Morrison.

I was fortunate enough to be at Raw last night, and at the beginning of the night i told my girlfriend that it woudl come down to Sheamus and Morrison to possibly help push their fued, but Sheamus would end up winning it, which sets up King Sheamus vs The King of Kings HHH

 

[harrythem]

See to me the myth is that KOTR 96 launched Austin straight to super-stardom as, unless my memory is dodgy, come SummerSlam he was in the pre-ppv match against Yokozuna. It wasn't until Survivor Series 96 when Bret Hart went into that feud with Austin that his star went into supernova. Granted, KOTR first gave him the chance to get the fan connection surprised everyone but, it didn't move Austin up the card any.

I think the main problem with KOTR is the same as the Royal Rumble, in that everyone has a preconceived idea of who the winners can be. Same as Rumble is only a top level guy can win it thing, KOTR is a strictly mid-card thing (or has been in general) and that has probably led WWE to the place where KOTR is dumped on RAW, instead of doing away with a flimsy gimmick ppv and putting it back on there. Hopefully Sheamus winning it can change that as, imo, I'd rather see the annual KOTR tournament on PPV (along with a few other matches) rather then "over the limit" or whatever the hell they call their crap around late spring

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

I agree on almost all points except for Brock Lesnar. True, he was onehis way up but that night at the King Of The Ring is when I truly started hearing murmurs of appreciation (face-pops) which culminated in the double turn at SS2002.

He had two great matches with Test And RVD, and I do believe it really did help his credibility as a top-tier player. If not for his KOTR run and win, I don't know if he would've gone over with the crowd as much as he did. Also because he did them fairly cleanly and dominantly as well, helped his persona ten-fold.

 

[mr.davidson]

I believe KOTR killed Booker T's carrer in the WWE... he was really relivant until they put him in that role... it just killed him afterwards...

I think they were just trying to Bring back a poor example of the Macho king and Sherri......

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I do not think winning the KOTR can harm a wrestlers career, but it is not always a guarantee that they will immediately become a star after it.

Basically KOTR is just a way of trying to push a mid-card talent up to the main event level, and to legitimise that wrestler as a possible future big name player like was the case with Edge and Ken Shamrock. However, it can also be used simply to push an already established name, as in the case of Sheamus and Bret Hart, or to continue the push of a wrestler who is on a roll such as Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar, where the KOTR trophy is just another accolade as they zoom towards superstardom.

I think winning KOTR will help to ensure that Sheamus is thought of as a main event level wrestler in the calibre of Triple H, Undertaker etc, and I think this is a good idea as WWE do need some more established main eventers for when the older guys retire. I was hoping Morrison would win as I am fan of his, but Sheamus is a good pick anyway.

This victory will only benefit Sheamus, and I hope they keep the KOTR concept around for next year and make it an annual event again, it is something I have always enjoyed seeing and I missed it when it was gone. I like 1 night tournaments and I think this has been lacking from WWE in recent years

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I believe KOTR killed Booker T's carrer in the WWE... he was really relivant until they put him in that role... it just killed him afterwards...

I think they were just trying to Bring back a poor example of the Macho king and Sherri......

How did it kill his career?? He was pushed to the World Title...his ONLY world title in the WWE???

Even if the WWE were just trying to recreate the Macho/Sherri partnership (and I admit Booker and Sharmell were not as good- I cannot stand Sharmell), it was still a good thing for King Booker as it let us see a different style of his character and kept him at the top of the card, something he had not always been before as old regular Booker T, where he was often wrestling in a tag-team and for mid-card titles

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

The problem I have with a main eventer like Sheamus winning the KOTR is that the KOTR is a perfect way to push a midcarder. Winning a tournament in one night involves going over a number of guys on that night. Is there a better way to give a guy credibility? Also Sheamus won the KOTR merely to further his feud with a returning Triple H, in my opinion; something which could have been done in a number of ways. The KOTR would have helped a Del Rio or an Ezekiel Jackson more than it could help Sheamus.

The OP has already put up a list of all the KOTR winners of the past. With the exception of Bret Hart the rest were all midcarders. The idea behind giving each of them the KOTR crown was to push them to the next level. The likes of Austin, Triple H, Edge and Brocklesnar succeeded while the likes of Shamrock, Billy Gunn and Mabel failed. But the idea behind giving them the crown was the same.

The arguement that the OP makes is that the KOTR is not what contributed to the success that the "kings" had in their careers. However I feel that is not the case. It was the KOTR victory speech that made Stone Cold Steve Austin a household name. In case of Edge, the KOTR proved to be a catalyst for his breakup with Christian which ultimately gave the chance for Edge to shine. Even Booker T who was never a main eventer in WWE got a chance to win the WWE title only due to the KOTR. Kurt and Brock were going to be main eventers one way or the other but the KOTR gave them a chance to get a shot at the WWE Championship sooner rather than later.

Its significance might be a bit exaggerated but when the choice comes whether to give the crown to a midcarder or to an established name I would choose the midcarder any day. The crown will give them a chance to run with the ball and prove if they have what it takes to survive at the top. That is not the case when you are considering an established main eventer. His victory would not be of any significance.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I think that the myth holds true but it depends on the wrestler himself and the fans. The point of King of the Ring was to find someone to break into the main event. After that the fans have to accept them. Then, and only then, is it when the wrestler gets the big push. Going through the list, everyone either got the big push or was going to but something went wrong. Bret Hart was already on the road to becoming a legend. Owen would have gotten the big push. Stone Cold and Trips are examples of King of the Ring helping launch a great career. Angle would have been great without King of the Ring but it still helped. The same could be said for Edge, although it took 5 years after his King of the Ring year to finally begin collecting his 9 world titles. Lesnar didn't need it but he left. Mabel and Gunn are examples where a bigger push would have happened but things just went wrong. Most likely due to them sucking. Booker and Regal made jokes out of King of the Ring, the worst since Mabel. Sheamus' win did upset me at first but he added some prestige back to the tournament by winning it after already being a 2 time world champion. He, like Bret Hart, was already on the road to greatness without King of the Ring. So it does help establish careers but not always because sometimes someone wins it who didn't need it and sometimes someone wins it who the fans think sucks.

 

[Big Sexy]

Booker and Regal made jokes out of King of the Ring, the worst since Mabel.

This right here I disagree with, at least when it comes to Booker T. Regal you can't really judge because he was suspended before he really had a chance to get a push after winning the KOTR. With Booker T, I admit his king gimmick got old after a while and it went on too long but how can a guy who won a world title because of the KOTR be considered a joke? Booker definitely deserved a WWE world title earlier in his career as Booker T but it didn't happen. The King gimmick allowed him to draw tremendous heat as a heel and propelled him to his only WWE World Championship. Once his title reign was over he should have gone back to Booker T but that's just poor booking. His KOTR win and subsequent gimmick change was very successful when it came to his pursuit of the title and his title reign.