Vince Russo Or Vince Mcmahon ?

[Mitch Henessey]

In 1999 Vince won the WWF championship from Triple H on on episode of Smackdown, with help from Stone Cold. He didn't hold on to the title for long. I think he vacated the title the following week on Raw. Vince winning the WWF championship could be looked at a number of ways. You can say he was just trying to inflate his ego, it made The Game look weak back then, or was it just cool to see the chairman be champion?

During an episode of Nitro in 2000, Vince Russo won the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. Like Vince, Russo vacated the title soon after he won it. Now keep in mind this was around the time WCW was treating the heavyweight title like a hot potato. There really wasn't any dominat champions during this time.

So my question is, who's title win didn't need to happen, and did it end up killing the credibility of the belt for a while? In Vince Russo's case, I don't think it really hurt the WCW title because it was already losing it's value long before he won it. Like I said earlier, the WCW title was treated like a hot potato at the time, and there were guys being crowned champion because there was really nobody else left. And this was also the year David Arquette won the title to help promote that horrible movie, Ready To Rumble.

On the other hand, when Vince beat Triple H for the title, WWF was starting to crush WCW again int the ratings war, and had regained all the momentum they lost during WCW's rise. So I think when Vince beat Triple H (who was on the rise back then) it really killed all the prestige the WWF championship had. I didn't use to think this way, but my mind was recently changed a while back.

So what's your opinion? Do you think either of these men should've ever been a world champion? Did them winning the belt kill it's credibility? thoughts?

 

[giblet55]

I feel that Russo was by far the worst. True that WCW's title may not have been worth crap at the time, but at least in Vince's case, he's wrestled matches before and has a decent physique, where as Russo is flat with no physical abilities. I'd say Vince would give just a little bit more credibility to a belt, not much, but more than Russo.

 

[theviolentmessiah]

it's tough to decide here but I'd have to say at least Vince McMahon is built, he has an excellent physique for a non-wrestler and has the wrestling in his blood as well as being owner and chairman. Vince Russo on the other hand looks small and slim compared to his stars, aswel as just being terrible at his job. I'd have to say Vince Russo's was worse.

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

I have not actually seen the reign of Vince Russo but did not think that Vince McMahon was a bad champion at all. He brawled pretty well and almost grew as many muscles as midcarders like Val Venis and D'Lo Brown did. Some people forget that he was quick too. Does anybody remember those clips that showed him when he was pretending to chase a chicken? Sure he was not as defensive nor as powered as other technical athletes such as Chris Jericho or Steve Blackman were but he actually put up a fight against Ric Flair at "Royal Rumble 2002" and against Hulk Hogan so he was more gifted than the average fighter on a street.


Despite sacrificing a memorable run as the champion I do not think that it devalued the title. If anyone saw the match then it would be realized that weapons were used and Triple H was bleeding a lot too so since bouts for that title were often contested with hardly any holds which were being barred, it was not unbelievable nor even a stretch of the imagination for somebody like Vincent Kennedy McMahon or for somebody like Arnold Schwarzenegger to compete with a realistic chance of winning the belt.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

While I don't really think either title win needed to happen, I have to say that Vince Russo's win of the WCW World Heavyweight Championship was completely unnecessary. Vince Russo's philosophy of championships being props was running wild with the WCW title and him winning it was really the last straw I think. While the title was primarily put on life support after David Arquette won it, Russo winning it just ultimately put the title out of its misery.

Russo wins the title from Booker T on Nitro and vacates it the next week, saying that he didn't want the title because he wasn't a wrestler. It's just so fucking stupid. Everyone knew Russo wasn't a wrestler, so why book himself into winning the championship only to drop it later because he knew he didn't have the ability to defend it. Aside from making himself look foolish, he made Booker T look like a fool as well.

Don't get me wrong, I know that Vince vacated the WWF Championship about a week later as well, but there were obvious differences in the way he treated the championship. You can't really discuss something like this without discussing the way each title was treated during this time. Between November 1999 until WCW's closing, the WCW World Heavyweight Championship changed hands 22 times with many of the reigns lasting roughly one day and several not even lasting a single day. During the same time period, the WWF Championship changed hands 7 times. Even though Vince's title win wasn't necessary, he did show infinitely more respect for the WWF title than Russo showed for the WCW title.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm split here. I literally did not remember Russo's reign for about 3 years and didn't remember it until I was memorizing WCW champions one day. Both reigns were jokes, but I think McMahon's was the lesser of two evils. For one thing, McMahon looks more like a wrestler. Russo looks like a middle aged guy that belongs in an office somewhere. McMahon looks incredible for someone at any age. Also, he's a great TV character. he's someone taht gets a great reaction no matter what he does. Russo in WCW was just a guy. He was a guy that seemed like he was hired to be a character. With McMahon, the company was his. This was his life. There was a natural passion there that you simply can't fake. That makes him a much stronger on screen character and having him win the title on a fluke, while still horrible and bad for the belt, was far more acceptable. There's always the justification of "it's my company and if I want to be champion I'll do it and you can't stop me." Also, with McMahon the title was back where it belonged inside of a week and the whole thing was more or less forgotten other than when Vince needed to be hyped up for another match. With Russo, over a 5 month stretch, there was David Arquette, the Bash at the Beach mess with Hogan and now this. The fans were done with WCW as a serious company and title at that point. Going back 5 months in the WWF before Vince's reign, you have champions like Austin, HHH, Mankind and Taker. Just after that the belt went to guys like HHH, Big Show and Rock. Vince held the belt less than a week and then it was forgotten. It was an ego trip by McMahon, but it was ok I guess, as it didn't really hurt anything and Vince winning the title was a cool moment. Finally, McMahon was a face, so he was popular at the time while Russo was a heel and looked like a joke all around. McMahon, while still a bad thing, wasn't nearly as bad as Russo was.

 

[gtajoker01]

Vince mcmahon because this guy has worked hard he made wwe into a global empire. He's accomplished a whole lot and hes hated by a lot of people but so is russo. He turned steve austin,rock,hhh, into superstars.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

Vince mcmahon because this guy has worked hard he made wwe into a global empire. He's accomplished a whole lot and hes hated by a lot of people but so is russo. He turned steve austin,rock,hhh, into superstars.

I'm not sure you read the original post.

The answer has to be Russo. Don't get me wrong, McMahon winnings wasn't great or necessary, but he was an established character with an established ability to wrestle. Russo? Not so much. Plus the way Russo won it was way stupider.

 

[thesacredcow]

I don't think McMahon's title win did anything to harm the credibility of the title. It made sense in the context of the storyline. Triple H was trying to prove that he was worthy to be champ, and pissed off because he felt he'd been held back. Vince had sworn not to get involved in WWF matters but is goaded into a match for the title, never actually thinking that Vince could beat him. He then kicks the shit out of Vince for about eight minutes, with Vince getting in a few punches and one low blow. Shane, the stooges and Linda all try to stop the beating, then Austin shows up, stomps a mudhole in Triple H, stunners Chyna, then Triple H and throws a semi Vice on Triple H. So basically he won the title for Vince.

The who Russo thing was just ******ed. He put himself into the match, which was one of the biggest all time clusterfucks. He came out dressed in American Football pads (American Football, as opposed to real football. You know, where they actually uses their feet and kick the ball on a regular basis. So had to say it), and actually beat Booker T down with a bat. Then we get seemingly everyone WCW had on their roster interfere in the match in some way. And at one point Booker T has Russo beat, walks right up to the cage door...and stands there. Just stands there. Ok yeah Goldberg's music had just hit, but why did he stop? Goldberg walks past him and then he gets hit by Steiner. He recovers, kicks the door in Steiner's face...and stands there. The Goldberg spears Russo through the cage. Match over. After all this he vacates the title saying he never wanted it. Yet he put himself in the match.

So lets look at it this way. Russo goes after the title, wins it in the most ******ed way possible (and actually beats down Booker T for most of the match, albeit with a bat) and then gives it up, claiming he never wanted it in the first place

McMahon on the other hand, is goaded into a title match by Triple H, gets the shit kicked out of him, then Austin stunners Triple H and throws Vince on him for the 1 2 3.

So yeah Russo. At least McMahon won the belt without making Triple H look weak. Plus it advanced the ongoing feud between the two. Booker on the other hand didn't come out of it so well, matter of fact he came out of it looking like he was mildly ******ed.

 

[Blade]

Both are pretty awful. But on the one hand, the WCW title couldn't get any lower after they put the title on David Arquette. So I don't think it shocked or pissed off that many people, it just made people go "Oh no, not this crap again....". Obviously, it lost the few regular viewers that WCW had left, cause they were finished just months later.

But... For some reason, Vince's Mcmahon's title win did make a little bit of sense. It was Austin trying to screw over, humiliate Triple H in any way possible. Making him lose to Vince did that. I don't think it hurt the title that much, either. And Vince vacated the title a whole lot quicker than Russo did.

So yeah, I think I might have to go with Russo's reign as more shameful and embarassing.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

This is a simple answer. Vince Russo.

Vince Russo was just WRITING for WCW, whereas Vince McMahon owns the WWE and can do whatever the hell he wants, which includes him winning the WWE Title. Plus, Vince is a strong guy who looks like a wrestler and is much, MUCH more powerful than Russo ever thought about being. To be honest, I think David Arquette's reign is much worse than Russo's. At least Russo was working for WCW. David Arquette is a B-List actor.

The thing we forget about these two title reigns is one progressed a storyline (McMahon) the other was just for shits and giggles (Russo). Russo wanted nothing to do with the belt, but was a transition champion in order to get the belt on who he wanted. McMahon won the belt in a brilliant turn about fair play against Austin, which was a HUGE swerve. Many were mad at both, but McMahon's made much more sense.