Who do you think should've/could've never held the World title in modern WWE?

[CyberPunk]

The other day we were watching WWE Countdown on the Network when my friend (who's new to wrestling) asked, "Miz held the WWE championship?" It got me thinking, how many of the recent champions should've/could've never held the world title.

The two main reasons I see for so many world champions in recent years is that a) until now, we've had two world titles on two different brands and b) Money in the bank. I mean, there have been countless superstars from the past who could've held the World title in WWF/E by today's standards but never did (like Jake 'the snake' Roberts, Roddy Piper, Mr. Perfect etc.). There were less number of Main event slots available, less number of titles available and that made winning the World title all the more impressive. There would always be champions who'd be 'undeserving' in the eyes of many, but my belief is any World Championship should be for the best.

Keeping that in mind, who do you think should've/could've never held the World Heavyweight Championship or WWE Championship in modern WWE if we had only one title? Here are few of my picks:

Jack Swagger: He should've never won the WHC at the time he won. While he's always been a decent wrestler, he was not main event ready at that time (or even now). He was not over enough, and his booking didn't help either. His booking throughout his championship reign as well as after it made him look really weak and pushed him way down the card, something he hasn't fully recovered from yet. He was victim of the Money in the bank concept.

The Miz: It's not that his WWE title reign sucked, it was just that he was made to look like he didn't belong there. His title defenses were booked weak (he defended his title against Jerry 'The King' Lawler!) and became the third wheel in Rock and Cena feud. Main eventing Wrestlemania 27 didn't do anything for him and once he dropped the title, he was made to look like a chump who got his ass handed to him by his apprentice, who himself fell into obscurity later. Our Money in the bank casualty no 2.

Alberto Del Rio: Think about it. 4 years and 4 World championships later, he still has non-existent connection with the crowd. He's perfect example of 'too much, too soon.' He was never tested in the mid-card, went onto feud for the world title and all his momentum was derailed when he failed to win the WHC of Edge at Maina 27. At that time WWE should've tried to rebuild him. Instead he was handed the MITB briefcase and what we saw later were 4 lackluster World title reigns.

Mark Henry: He is more of case where he may have never won a world title if it wasn't for the World Heavyweight Championship. It was a 'thank you' reign on part of WWE. He had a solid run, but if there were only one title, I don't think he would've ever held the world championship.

Honorable mention The Great Khali. He never deserved to be anywhere near World championship.

So, who are your picks? Why do you think they shouldn't/couldn't have won the World title in modern WWE?

Please no spam, please. State the reason with your pick.

 

[zomigosh]

What was exactly wrong with Mark Henry's title reign? I believe at first it started off as a "thank you reign", but he turned into a real commodity during it and actually boosted Smackdown ratings quite a bit. If the Daniel Bryan push wasn't happening last year, Henry should've been the one to take the title off Cena in my opinion. He was just turning into a real star during the MITB 2013 feud, it's such a shame where things went. Does not deserve to be listed with The Miz, Alberto Delrio and Jack Swagger at all.

 

[Jessi10x]

Mark Henry's was a great run in my opinion, he seemed like an unstoppable monster who could not have been stopped.

Had The Miz' run be swapped with CM Punk, who was a great heel at the time, with The New Nexus (say what you want about them) it could have made the 3 year a feud between Rock and Cena so much better. Think about it-

Punk retains at 27 thanks to Rock, Cena and Rock have their match at WM 28, ONCE in a lifetime, and then at 29, after the RR and EC matches between Rock and Punk, have a triple threat. Cena can still pin Rock, while you're maintaining the "Once in a Lifetime" tagline. Now, who worked with Taker is a different question, maybe it'd be Brock that year, but I surely am not complaining after the great match Punk/Taker delivered, even if the build up wasn't how everybody wanted it to go.

I do think it's a little out there to expect WWE to be booking THREE years into the future, but in retrospect, The Miz' title reign... we could have done without it.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I think you've got to look at who was holding the other world title at the time to try and figure it out. Would Jack Swagger be a former world champion if there was only one belt? No. Would The Miz? Yes, most likely. Firstly The Miz, despite how his career has gone since, was over and a worthy of the WWE Championship at the time. Seconds, he was against Cena & Orton throughout some of his run and Edge was holding the opposite world title.

The same can be said for Del Rio. He likely would've been the guy to hold WWE's only main title at one point. Though this is just speculation as it'd be harder for those guys to get elevated up the card when there's only one title and no brand split.

 

[Dagger Dias]

To those who are saying Khali, he was over enough as a heel monster that he might still have held the belt even if there was only one World Championship. Swagger might still have due to being the Money In the Bank winner, but his reign would have been considerably shorter. A lot of the wrestlers who held a world title during the time that there were two world titles might still have won a world title, but getting a smaller reign. The main wrestlers that come to mind who would absolutely not have are Miz, Mark Henry, and Dolph Ziggler. As talented as Dolph is, without the second world title he would never have gotten a chance. Henry wouldn't have gotten it as there were plenty of heels better than him who would have gotten pushed for a world title win over him. Miz never deserved it and his odds of getting a world title are far less if there was not a second world title at the time, Edge would have been the World Heavyweight Champion as he held the other belt during Miz's reign. Christian would still have gotten a push after Edge retired, and still feuded with Orton.

It would have affected the last few Money In the Bank shows as there would likely have only been one winner instead of two. Between Kane and Miz, I would have seen Kane winning it. Miz as World Champion when there is only one world title? Really? Yeah, no. Between Alberto and Daniel Bryan, as much as I hate to say it, Alberto. WWE had much bigger plans for Del Rio at the time. Between Ziggler and Cena? That should be pretty obvious that it goes to Cena. Cena's cash in failure was more relevant than anything Dolph did. The same goes for between Orton and Sandow, it would go to Orton. The cash in was needed for the big heel turn to start the authority angle at Summerslam and they never did anything with Sandow after he lost his attempt.

 

[Airehk]

I have to say Dolph Ziggler.

I have nothing against him, in fact, I think he's amazing. The problem I have with either one of his title reigns is WWE didn't seem like they knew what they were doing or weren't sure how to handle the situation at the time which made the reigns look weak. They should have built Ziggler up to it with something that looks more accomplished like a King of the Ring tournament or something. Speaking of which, I feel a tournament to hold a MitB briefcase would show more legitimacy than a ladder match once the wrestler chooses to cash in.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's difficult to say. Even though it's complete speculation no matter what, booking is generally done much different these days than it was 5 or so years ago. Aside from the fact that there's now only one World Championship again, things are decidedly different because WWE's generally no longer playing hot potato with the title. Over the course of the last 2.5 years, the WWE Championship has only changed hands 7 times. It may have been even less had WWE not gone the route of pissing off fans with Bryan's first two runs, though it looks to have all worked out in the end. Prior to CM Punk's 2nd run as WWE Champion, the title had changed hands 7 times. During the 2.5 year time period prior to Punk's 434 day run, the title changed hands 20 different times.

If there'd only been one World Championship in the past 5 years, Triple H had the power he has now & was in charge of creative while implementing his policy of ending the hot potato runs, I'm not sure that the WWE Championship runs of Jeff Hardy, the brief 20 minute or so reign of Rey Mysterio, I doubt The Miz would've been champion as Trips is allegedly not a big fan of his and I highly doubt that Cena & Orton would have had so many runs as champion.

 

[MWRedskins]

well first things first. having two world titles did help determine who deserved a run and who didnt and who has potential and who didnt. for example, without the two titles guys like Punk and Bryan would NEVER have been pushed like they were/are, but it also had some mistakes. Some will call Miz one, but i cant. he had a nice heel run, the only issue was his in ring skills just werent great. Jack Swagger now was a mistake in his first run as he was just bland and boring. Del Rio had a nice heel run in the ring, he just needed a tweek to his character. Henry had a great heel run, he just needed to stay healthy. The Great Khali in my book had NO business ever holding the World title. did he play the monster heel well due to his size and look, yes, BUT his in ring skills and his mic work was and is just awful and his matches were/are just unwatchable. so mine is Khali and i think Swagger just had a too soon run. if he was playing his "real american" character during his title run, then his run would've been a success.

 

[Meth Head]

Think about it. 4 years and 4 World championships later, he still has non-existent connection with the crowd. He's perfect example of 'too much, too soon.' He was never tested in the mid-card, went onto feud for the world title and all his momentum was derailed when he failed to win the WHC of Edge at Maina 27. At that time WWE should've tried to rebuild him. Instead he was handed the MITB briefcase and what we saw later were 4 lackluster World title reigns.

"Too much, too soon" applies not only to Del Rio, but most of the other guys you mentioned.

--

I don't believe it's a coincidence that most of the Superstars that have been brought up on this thread so far are all post-PG era guys. It illustrates how desperate the WWE was to create legitimate new stars for a time, so much so that they went as far as to throw around the WWE and WH Title belts at promising mid-carders who were nowhere near ready to be at the top.

I remember seeing Swagger carry the WH Title to one of his matches and thinking the belt was bigger than he was. The guy had the look for a world champion, but I never bought him because he didn't have the credibility. From FCW Champ to ECW Champ to World Heavyweight Champ all in the space of two years for someone whose character was not even fully fleshed out yet. He was a joke.

Same goes for The Miz, whose limited bag of tricks on the mic somehow landed him a WWE Title reign and a main event spot at WrestleMania - and yet no one buys into him as a true main event player to this day.

There was one person with whom the "Shoot him straight to the top" tactic seemed to have worked, though, and that man was Sheamus.

 

[TheICChampion]

I think the guy who should've never held any World title is Alberto Del Rio. His character has always been boring, at least to me, and what baffles me is when the fans react to him the way they have, yet WWE keeps giving him World title reigns. During his third reign, when he beat the Big Show and turned face, I'll admit, he started showing some momentum and started to get over. But that should've been it. That one time. No more. Instead they gave him another reign, and when they finally realized Del Rio wasn't getting over, they pushed the panic button and brought Cena back.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

The two main reasons I see for so many world champions in recent years is that a) until now, we've had two world titles on two different brands and b) Money in the bank. I mean, there have been countless superstars from the past who could've held the World title in WWF/E by today's standards but never did (like Jake 'the snake' Roberts, Roddy Piper, Mr. Perfect etc.). There were less number of Main event slots available, less number of titles available and that made winning the World title all the more impressive. There would always be champions who'd be 'undeserving' in the eyes of many, but my belief is any World Championship should be for the best.

Keeping that in mind, who do you think should've/could've never held the World Heavyweight Championship or WWE Championship in modern WWE if we had only one title?

Rey Mysterio, Jr., Daniel Bryan, The Miz, Alberto Del Rio, Jack Swagger, Dolph Ziggler, and Sheamus should've/could've never won the WWE/WHC had there only one primary world championship in the WWE, Brand Extension or No Brand Extension. Why do I think it? Lets consider these individuals:-

Rey Mysterio, Jr. 185 lbs mexican cruiserweight who should've never gotten beyond the US/IC title. Has the charisma of a banana and is more primarily
directed at kids who'd buy his masks. Had Psychosis and Juvented Guerrera had a similarly selling merchandise, they should've been given the WHC too. How obnoxious would both look with the big gold belt? Rey Mysterio is the most terrible atrocity imposed upon the WHC- yes, even worse than David Arquette.

The Miz- Terrible talent, defines "overrated" and "generic", mic skills or mannerisms copied from Jericho's 2009 obnoxious heel gimmick, with none of the beauty and finesse of a world class athlete like Jericho but only OBNOXIOUSNESS. The Miz as WWE champion was so embarrassing that the only way to recover from its horrors would be by spitting on him a few times.

Alberto Del Rio:- He was tall, talented, enjoyable too. Some will say they liked him as the hybrid version of Eddie Guerrero and JBL. But WWE Champion? No thanks. He shouldn't/couldn't have been the champion with only one championship around before a solid 4-5 yr run as a mid-carder or occasional contender.

Sheamus:- Similar to what others have said. He is a good brawler, but a terrible personality on the mic, unless an Irishman spewing out "fella" and some lame Irish anecdote is what is perceived as main-event level talent by a largely American and business-oriented company such as the WWE. Also, he was neither as amazing in the ring as Kurt Angle, nor the literal next big thing like how Brock was back in 2002.

Jack Swagger:-Very talented with some speaking troubles. He could be a believable champion in an era of one championship, had he been booked properly and had some more edge to his American character, like how Kurt Angle did.

Dolph Ziggler:- Make him world champion when he does more than just show off in-ring proficiency. He's got the in-ring dynamism and confidence of a young Shawn Michaels, but a personality of a Sensational Sherri or some other "diva" .

Lastly, the controversial pick- Daniel Bryan- Before all you DB devotees go YES on me, in an era of one championship and talent like John Cena , Randy Orton and numerous others, Daniel Bryan is essentially an Eddie Guerrero with lesser charisma stuck in the mid-card in an era with guys like Brock Lesnar and Goldberg around. Quite simply, even CM Punk would've had a hard time being a champion for so long because with one world championship and so much talent, it's too tough to even contend for the title(and we probably wouldn't have witnessed the R-truth challenging John Cena for the WWE title disaster). Daniel Bryan would/could've been champion, only once or twice, after a severely long journey - just like Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit did- though even they did it only because the brand extension was in effect.

Honorable mention The Great Khali. He never deserved to be anywhere near World championship.

I disagree with it, just like Daggerdias did. Even though Khali is probably not even as talented in the ring as The Miz(and the Miz is dog p00p in the name of wrestling talent), he is something which no one is- A giant, A circus freak, An anomaly, An Attraction. With his heel antics and a good manager, I think The Great Khali would've/could've won the WWE/WHC at least once in an era of a single WHC, though it'd have been more for attraction or shock, and probably a very short reign, similar to Big Show's reign from 1999, or Kane's 24 hour reign from June 1998.

 

[Judah's Lion]

Even though Khali is probably not even as talented in the ring as The Miz(and the Miz is dog p00p in the name of wrestling talent), he is something which no one is- A giant, A circus freak, An anomaly, An Attraction. With his heel antics and a good manager, I think The Great Khali would've/could've won the WWE/WHC at least once in an era of a single WHC, though it'd have been more for attraction or shock, and probably a very short reign, similar to Big Show's reign from 1999, or Kane's 24 hour reign from June 1998.

i like ya Renaissanceman. have for awhile now. but i've got 2 words for ya here: BIG SHOW. he is in fact a giant, circus freak, anomaly and attraction. but i do get your point. i disagree with it some, but i totally understand it. and it is a valid point. if he and his run were booked better, i'd be fine with it. more on that in just a minute.

lots of names come to mind initially. several have been said already so i'll just do a quick summary to re-cap and add one or two of my own...

Khali: i've defended this guy tons of times on these very forums. but his run with the WHC was pretty awful and should have been avoided. if he could not be booked better and his run couldn't be booked better, then it should not have happened at all.

Swagger: too much, too soon is very appropriate for this guy in particular. not only in hindsight but also at the time it actually happened, this was just a flat-out bad idea. he was literally jobbing to Hornswoggle a week or two before he was holding the strap. bad, bad booking that never would have occurred with only one world title.

Miz: with 2 world titles, his run was okay, at best. with 1 world title, there's no way it would have happened. decent on the mic and decent in the ring. not so much at the time he won the belt but now he's okay.

Ziggler: this one is a bit of a tough call for me cuz i definitely think he has all the skills necessary to be a world champion, one belt or two. the biggest problem with his reign(s) was timing. he got injured almost immediately after winning the belt for real and then lost it not long after. his first run, though technically acknowledged, lasted a minute and was used only for storyline purposes. we shouldn't count either run really. but if he was given a fair shake and there was only one WHC, i'd still say he could win it.

Mark Henry: many have said that his run with the belt was a "thank you" run given to him for his loyalty and service for so many years. hard to deny that his run started out as that, but it became much more and his character was one of a few that i really enjoyed at the time and still do. i think it could have / would have / should have happened even with just the one title.

Rey Mysterio: tough call on this one. no doubt he's talented. to be totally honest, i just have a hard time with a guy weighing 150 lbs as a world heavyweight champion. he's had 3-4 really quick title reigns. i'm not sure any would have happened with 1 belt, but maybe. it's the hardest one to predict for me.

really fun thread idea. thanks, OP.

 

[d_henderson1810]

"Too much, too soon" applies not only to Del Rio, but most of the other guys you mentioned.

--

I don't believe it's a coincidence that most of the Superstars that have been brought up on this thread so far are all post-PG era guys. It illustrates how desperate the WWE was to create legitimate new stars for a time, so much so that they went as far as to throw around the WWE and WH Title belts at promising mid-carders who were nowhere near ready to be at the top.

I remember seeing Swagger carry the WH Title to one of his matches and thinking the belt was bigger than he was. The guy had the look for a world champion, but I never bought him because he didn't have the credibility. From FCW Champ to ECW Champ to World Heavyweight Champ all in the space of two years for someone whose character was not even fully fleshed out yet. He was a joke.

Same goes for The Miz, whose limited bag of tricks on the mic somehow landed him a WWE Title reign and a main event spot at WrestleMania - and yet no one buys into him as a true main event player to this day.

There was one person with whom the "Shoot him straight to the top" tactic seemed to have worked, though, and that man was Sheamus.

This is where I see the WWE Intercontinental Title being so important.

The IC Title used to not just be put on mid-carders but it was a way to gauge how someone carried a championship. How would WWE have gauged whether Austin, Rock, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels etc have done with the main title, if they didn't have an IC Title reign.

When there were two main titles, the IC belt became less important. Swagger, Del Rio, Ziggler etc should have had a WWE IC Title reign first, and if they became big as a result, then entrust them with a main title run.

Having the IC Title is a way to build someone, without giving them a main title run if not over, but pushing to the moon someone who thrives with it.

If the IC Title still had the same prestige, I doubt that you would have had as many transitional WWE or World Title reigns.

I just hope that the IC belt now gets back its former importance, and it elevates Bad News Barrett (who I tipped as a potential main-eventer years ago) to the WWE World Title at some stage.

 

[Roaches]

It would be far less time consuming to compile a list of WORTHY WWE champions from the last five years.

Since the turn of the decade, the world title picture has been a veritable mess; dominated by flummoxing big guys, unestablished journeymen, and athletes incapable of carrying the company. There's been so many ill-conceived pushes I've lost count.

 

[CyberPunk]

What was exactly wrong with Mark Henry's title reign? I believe at first it started off as a "thank you reign", but he turned into a real commodity during it and actually boosted Smackdown ratings quite a bit. If the Daniel Bryan push wasn't happening last year, Henry should've been the one to take the title off Cena in my opinion. He was just turning into a real star during the MITB 2013 feud, it's such a shame where things went. Does not deserve to be listed with The Miz, Alberto Delrio and Jack Swagger at all.

Henry's run was solid. I've nothing against it. What my point was that I don't think he would've gotten a world title run if we had only one world title. I completely agree that he had an excellent championship reign. It started as a thank you run when they needed someone to feud with Orton at that time.

 

[Roaches]

Mark Henry is terrible. Amongst industry insiders he's considered a veritable joke. The only reason the WWE feel obliged to lavish him with spoils is because they need to justify his ridiculously large contract.

Frankly, how any self respecting fan of pro wrestling can refer to his title run as anything other than regrettable is a illogical.

Mitsuharu Misawa, Hiroshi Tanahashi, Jushin Thunder Liger, Ricky Steamboat, Ric Flair, Steve Austin... THOSE are good title runs.

Mark Henry holding the title for 91 days and flummoxing his way through match after woeful match while not getting over, is not, by any definition, a good title run.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The issue isn't who shouldn't have gotten near the title, buy more how the conveyor belt system has ruined any chance a new talent has.

It started with Randy Savage... continued with Warrior, then Bret, Shawn, Austin, and basically never changed. Someone wins the IC title, then they HAVE to win the World title within a year-18 months of losing or be considered a failiure. There is no difference between Austin in 1997-1998 or Rude in 89-90 other than politics kept Rude from the belt.

Rude was deemed a failure and "not worthy of the main event"because he never moved into that World title role... ditto for Razor Ramon, yet removed from the politics of Hogan and Warrior they flourished and became the best heels of their time in WCW and the decision to not put the title on them looked shortsighted and costly.

Likewise look at Wade Barrett today, people are again looking that this IC title reign HAS to lead to the World title or he'll get cut!

Why? If he's a good enough hand to keep on the roster, is getting over in his own time and worth 4 IC title regins so far, then he's definitely a keeper.. add to that he has enough natural talent and the guaranteed UK fanbase to make a London title match/win work means he is nowhere NEAR failiure in the IC role right now... but it might take 3 years for the WWE's stars to align for that situation to materialize. People who follow and believe in the treadmill would never let that happen, they'd move onto the next guy, and the next guy rather than consolidate the investment made in talent by giving them mid-card runs and the benefit of time served on the roster.

Look at it in these terms - Bret Hart was on the roster for 7 and Shawn for 9 years before he won his world title, Mark Henry 13 years, Christian 8 give or take. Their reigns are not footnotes, some more successful than others but their wins were no less valuable or deserved for the time they took.

Then look at Kevin Nash... on the roster for 18 months before winning the World title and the biz less than 3 years, look at Khali, Thwagger, Miz, Sheamus, ADR, Ziggler and the other "failures" they are generally on the roster barely 3 years before winning the big one and in some cases far less, in that time they genereally HAVE a strong push with a midcard title that leads them to the World title... it's too much too soon and they are barely finding themselves as WWE performers, much less getting the chance to get over. Sometimes it DOES work if the talent is exceptional like a Kurt Angle, Rock, Trips or Bryan but they are expecting this from Reigns, possibly Wyatt too... that is the danger.

The best guys who should "never" have had the belt and got it were the ones with storied careers and experience to capitalise on their moment. Jericho was booked as the heel champ poorly but when he had his earlier "bait and switch" moment with Trips for the title he had grown into his character and the experience to handle being the champ no one ever expected. Same for Foley, Edge and most importantly Bret Hart...

WWE is so intent on creating new "stars" that they forget sometimes about the stars they have had for a long time who never really got the shot... like I said, Bret was on the roster for a long time, he was always featured, always over but never thought of as even a remote shot for the big belt... he summed it up in his book when he was tellng Dynamite about it and Knobbs had to clarify they meant THE BIG BELT not the IC. They are doing that again right now, focused on new meat like Reigns who may or may not have IT rather than letting a Barrett or even Kofi have the shot now they have 5 years or so on the roster. Again it might be cos of who Reigns is related to, but right now I'd rather see Wade Barrett moved up than Reigns monster pushed. Reigns could be the next big thing no mistake, but I'd rather he was a big thing in his own time, even if thats in 4 years time rather than forced to fit in with Dwayne's schedule...same for Bray, great as he is doing it's a risky strategy they are taking with an exceptional talent.

For the worst one... Nash... never should have gotten that belt when he did... more recently, gotta go with Batista, he was never a champion in a million years, just there for his look. Miz gets a bad rap... he wasn't REALLY world title material but he was a good surprise guy, but again it was rushed rather than built over years... ADR same... the only one I can say in the last couple of years "WTF?" truly is Ziggler, overrated, dangerous in the ring to himself and others and an attitude that stinks worse than Rikishi's sumo pants...

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I think the original poster covered pretty much all the ones I would have gone for. Jack Swagger was a midcarder who was handed the World Heavyweight Title, Alberto Del Rio hadn't really got over with the crowd and should've been Intercontinental Champion first and worked his way up to the main event while The Miz was a disgraceful choice as WWE Champion.

Mark Henry winning the World Heavyweight Title ended up being quite successful though, so I wouldn't include him on the list (although if there had been just the 1 belt he probably wouldn't have got that title run- same as Christian. Without Edge retiring and there being 2 Heavyweight World Titles, I doubt Captain Charisma would have ever got a title run.

Rey Mysterio is another I would have to say. I was a big Rey Rey fan back in the day (not any more) and he has had a great career, but someone his size as World Champion? I don't buy it. And finally, The Great Khali....the man shouldn't even be in the ring, let alone World Champion.