Who Was The Worst Money-Drawing WWE/F Champion Of All Time?

[kalosjuice]

everyone is forgetting david arquette...just because of the movie ready to rumble he gets a match in WCW for the title and wins......if we are talking about WWE how about when the Million Dollar Man Ted Dibiase paid Andre the Giant to win the title just to turn it over to him, then WWE made the title vacant. Khali is up there he won the world title in a freaking battle royal.

winning the title in a battle royal doesn't have anything to do with how much of a failure khali was as champion. im sorry but i don't think they should had even gave him the title. ric flair won the wwe title at a royal rumble match and kurt angle won his last world title in the wwe in a battle royal. heck triple h back in 2002 was given the world heavyweight title and he drew more crowds than khali and swagger. it's not how you win the belt, it's how you draw a crowd while having the belt.

 

[PagingMr.ass]

When it comes to the worst drawing champion of all time I have to say its HBK, let me explain. I feel when it comes to the word "Drawing" I think of the face of the company. Yes, Swagger may very well be one of the worst champs of all time, but it wasn't his responsibility to draw an audience for the entire company, thats what Cena was for. When it comes to being a champ who is the face of the company I think you have to say its The Heart Break Kid. I still consider him in the top ten of all time but during his tenure as the champ WWF dropped dramatically in ratings and WCW became the front runner. He had two memorable feuds as the face of the company, his first one with Hart and his last one with Austin, every thing else was pretty forgetable. Names like Vader, Psycho Sid come to mind as slack mainevent matches. He had a few good ones with Taker but they still didn't draw. So as much as he is loved by the company and wrestling fans in general (my self included) WWF suffered tremendously when he became the face, and didn't get back on track until he was gone. Once he left the ratings skyrocketed for five years and started dwindling when he came back. So i got to say, when it comes to being a champ and face of the company HBK takes this unfortunate lable

 

[TooCorporate2doWhatsRight]

OK just go ahead and ban me. I have no desire to be apart of a website that can't take light humor and is this stuff. I'll also be sure to unbookmark this site and stick with lordsofpain.net for my wrestling news. I sincerely thank you for your warm welcoming of new guests and members,*sarcasm*. I now leave you to your overbearing and obnoxiously unprofessional form of leadership.

Have a nice day.

Besides, the point about Jeff Jarret was totally valid. He has run TNA NOWHERE in the time with the company, nor did he do anything for the dying wcw promotion.

 

[WRESTLING_GENIUS]

OK just go ahead and ban me. I have no desire to be apart of a website that can't take light humor and is this stuff. I'll also be sure to unbookmark this site and stick with lordsofpain.net for my wrestling news. I sincerely thank you for your warm welcoming of new guests and members,*sarcasm*. I now leave you to your overbearing and obnoxiously unprofessional form of leadership.

Have a nice day.

Besides, the point about Jeff Jarret was totally valid. He has run TNA NOWHERE in the time with the company, nor did he do anything for the dying wcw promotion.

The reason they banned you is because you don't know what your talking about Jeff Jarrett was never a WWF/E World Champion this thread is in the WWE section and Double J was World Champion in WCW and TNA so he isnt relevant in this conversation n your not relevant to this site SCRAG.... I got yo backs ADMINS.....

 

[Magma101]

The Great Khali, what a waste. No mic skills and shit in the ring. Terrible draw.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

uhhh what? How is "who was the worst drawing WWE/F champion of all time" an OPINION? I'm pretty sure it's a FACT that it was Diesel. I like Nash, I think he's a fun guy and a good big man worker. Doesn't mean he was a shit draw.

I don't count the World title guys as the main guy because they aren't who draws for the company. The WWE title, except for that 2002-2003 Triple H on Raw era, is THE title that the WWE promotes and that champion they push out as the face of the company.

I still wouldn't say Jack Swagger simply because Diesel held it for a year. A year of drawing poorly is worse than a young guy given the strap too soon and it being taken off not long after.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

People saying "x because he sucks" don't understand the question.

lol yea. It's like asking "who is the richest man in the world and why?" and them saying "my daddy because he works real hard". It's like no dipshits, it's not really an opinion question as to WHO. "worst draw" basically means you literally drew less than anyone else. You can't say "Khali because he is teh sux" because that makes no fucking sense.

The correct, factual answer is Diesel. He literally brought in less money than any other champion in history. Why? Well I think it's because he wasn't as marketable as Vince thought. A big tall guy with dark hair and intimidating eyes dressed in all black in a family friendly era as a babyface? What the fuck?

 

[californiachef84]

lol yea. It's like asking "who is the richest man in the world and why?" and them saying "my daddy because he works real hard". It's like no dipshits, it's not really an opinion question as to WHO. "worst draw" basically means you literally drew less than anyone else. You can't say "Khali because he is teh sux" because that makes no fucking sense.

The correct, factual answer is Diesel. He literally brought in less money than any other champion in history. Why? Well I think it's because he wasn't as marketable as Vince thought. A big tall guy with dark hair and intimidating eyes dressed in all black in a family friendly era as a babyface? What the fuck?

I really don't understand this... The "facts" that you like to point to simply aren't true. The worst drawing champion of all time is the Miz. Nash drew HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, money in the nWo and also as the WCW world champion when he was the leader of the Wolfpac... Matter of fact, Nash has actually drawn more money than most of the other stars in recent memory.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I really don't understand this... The "facts" that you like to point to simply aren't true. The worst drawing champion of all time is the Miz. Nash drew HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, money in the nWo and also as the WCW world champion when he was the leader of the Wolfpac... Matter of fact, Nash has actually drawn more money than most of the other stars in recent memory.

Nash drew "HUGE HUGE HUGE" money as the champ? You mean from what? Late 1998 on when he had the WCW title he was a huge draw even though the company started losing ground? Or do you mean he was a "HUGE HUGE HUGE" draw when he was the lowest drawing WWF champion in history?

How the FUCK is Miz the lowest drawing champion of all time when WWE was making money? Both times Diesel/Nash was champion, the company(s) lost money. Seriously, where are you getting your facts? The amount a guy draws isn't an opinion. When a guy (Nash/Diesel) is champion, while he is CHAMPION (what it means to be a highest/lowest drawing CHAMPION, not after you're champ or before dumbass); and the company LOSES MONEY he is worse than a guy who the company made money off of.

Jesus fucking christ do we need to have a business section on this site?

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

TWJC what are you on about? Californiachef's argument is BS not just because he may be factually wrong. The title of the thread reads "Who was the worst drawing WWE/F champion of all time?". californiachef is talking WCW and you are arguing with him/her.

I agree. His argument is completely stupid in every way. I think I've proven that Nash is a bad drawing champion in WCW and WWF/E. There's a story where Nash was bitching backstage to Cornett that he was the "lowest paid WWF champion in history" and Cornett just says "well that's because you're the lowest drawing WWF champion in history" and walks off. The story makes me lol.

 

[californiachef84]

Nash drew "HUGE HUGE HUGE" money as the champ? You mean from what? Late 1998 on when he had the WCW title he was a huge draw even though the company started losing ground? Or do you mean he was a "HUGE HUGE HUGE" draw when he was the lowest drawing WWF champion in history?

How the FUCK is Miz the lowest drawing champion of all time when WWE was making money? Both times Diesel/Nash was champion, the company(s) lost money. Seriously, where are you getting your facts? The amount a guy draws isn't an opinion. When a guy (Nash/Diesel) is champion, while he is CHAMPION (what it means to be a highest/lowest drawing CHAMPION, not after you're champ or before dumbass); and the company LOSES MONEY he is worse than a guy who the company made money off of.

Jesus fucking christ do we need to have a business section on this site?

WCW was still doing good business and drawing 5.0 cable ratings well into 1999. In fact, WCW was in the peak of business from mid to late 1998 and that is also when Nash was champion... You are referring to Nash's title reign in the WWF when you say that he was a poor draw.

Bottom line is that Nash was WCW world champion when WCW was doing some of it's best ratings, merchandise sales, and ppv buyrates. And you want people on here to believe that Nash had the worst drawing title reign in history?

In contrast, Miz was WWE champion when Raw was struggling to stay above a 3.0 cable rating, NOBODY was buying any of the Miz's merchandise, and ppv buyrates were setting all time lows... This is what we call a FACT! The months preceeding the Miz's title reign were seeing Raw routinely do a 3.5-3.6 cable rating. After he won the title, THEY DROPPED! As a matter of fact they still haven't recovered from his HORRIBLE title reign!

TWJC what are you on about? Californiachef's argument is BS not just because he may be factually wrong. The title of the thread reads "Who was the worst drawing WWE/F champion of all time?". californiachef is talking WCW and you are arguing with him/her.

This really is not technically true. The current Smackdown World heavyweight championship used to be the WCW world title. I do not see how you can make a difference between the two when the same belt is still being used by the WWE.

 

[ralphie9181]

Yeah, I think people don't understand the question. Kind of par for the course around here. Worst drawing champ ever means who brought the company the least amount of money. Who sold the the least PPVs when on top, who sold the least amount of merchandise. It is not a question of so and so sucked in the ring. Statistically it is Kevin Nash and his 1 year run as champ in WWE, I'd have to dig out an old Observer news letter to get the actual statistics, but the WWE made the least amount of money relative to any other time in their existence when he was on top for that run. I say relative because you have to take into account inflation and stuff, for example $100 in Nash's day wasn't the same as say $100 when Bruno or Billy Graham were on top. The actual overall numbers in Nash's run may be bigger than 20 years before, but in terms of total profit and what the money Nash drew was actually worth makes him the lowest drawing champion in WWE history. I hope I haven't confused anybody, and I would be happy to put it in simpler terms if I need to , but I think people need to put aside their x guy sucks because I don't like him attitude for a topic like this.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

WCW was still doing good business and drawing 5.0 cable ratings well into 1999. In fact, WCW was in the peak of business from mid to late 1998 and that is also when Nash was champion... You are referring to Nash's title reign in the WWF when you say that he was a poor draw.

Bottom line is that Nash was WCW world champion when WCW was doing some of it's best ratings, merchandise sales, and ppv buyrates. And you want people on here to believe that Nash had the worst drawing title reign in history?

In contrast, Miz was WWE champion when Raw was struggling to stay above a 3.0 cable rating, NOBODY was buying any of the Miz's merchandise, and ppv buyrates were setting all time lows... This is what we call a FACT! The months preceeding the Miz's title reign were seeing Raw routinely do a 3.5-3.6 cable rating. After he won the title, THEY DROPPED! As a matter of fact they still haven't recovered from his HORRIBLE title reign!



This really is not technically true. The current Smackdown World heavyweight championship used to be the WCW world title. I do not see how you can make a difference between the two when the same belt is still being used by the WWE.

Look at the post below yours dipshit.

Goddamnit you are dumb. Okay, so, Nash as WCW champion, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE RATINGS ARE. What matters is WHICH DIRECTION THEY WENT.

Nash was NOT champion mid to late 1998, he became WCW champion for the first time in DECEMBER 1998, from there on out is basically when WCW went on a decline. DECLINE means they LOST MONEY.

Miz as champ getting 3.0 means dick. WWE was consistently around that before and after, not much of a change.

Not only that but using ratings in 2011 as your only way of looking at things is fuckin stupid. More channels, more stuff on the internet. I watch just as much wrestling now as I did then only I don't watch it on TV, I watch on the net, so "ratings" for me are down, but really I still watch the same.

You wanna know what you should use to measure it smart guy? WWE's fucking balance sheet. Because that, get this, doesn't show you how many people watched the show, but shows you HOW MUCH MONEY THE COMPANY MADE. Look at their balance sheets and tell me what it says? It says that they MADE MONEY. Hmmm, weird huh. Publicly traded company and you can look at their books to see if they made money and exactly how much. So fuckin strange right? Maybe you're right though, maybe I should look only at ratings, which is flawed beyond belief to base my entire opinion on.

Your argument is false for so many reasons it's unbelievable you can even start up a computer. Nash was NOT champion in mid-late 1998. He won the title in December, so right there you're already wrong. Second, you compare ratings from over 10 years ago to today. It's a different climate and totally different media landscape. Comparing ratings from 1998-1999 to today is like comparing pitching statistics from the early 1900s to today. It's not at all the same so you can't really use it.

Not only that but you stil think his WCW reign should even be in the discussion. It's not the same thing. I don't care if it's the same belt. By that logic, you should only look at guys with the current spinner belt. Yea that makes sense. Fact is, they are 2 totally different companies. The backing of the champion is totally different. I don't even think you should use World Title holders at all because the thread says "WWE/F champion" which is NOT the World Title. Both guys aren't looked at the same way. The WWF/E champion has always been the flagship of the company. Even with 2 belts that title has always been more prestigious and looked at as more important.

 

[SickJames]

Oh my, this is a 5 way tie dudes


You really cant pick one over the other

look at this:


The Great Khali

Jack Swagger

Dolph Ziggler

Sheamus

Khali only got it for being big and didnt draw at all, really! His opponent's drew, but not him, Khali never sold out an arena even in India

Swagger wasnt ready, couldnt cut a decent promo and only had his amatuer background going for him, he was a failed champ and wasnt a compelling heel, but rather booed because no one wanted to see him anymore, and well the rest of the fans were asleep

Ziggler was a joke, a complete joke, it's clearly obvious he didnt draw and was another one who wasnt ready. No one tuned in because Ziggler was champ and it's really just fact. Few cared, few fans of his but Ziggler's promo against Pat Patterson (I think at Breaking Point or some new PPV years back, got NO reaction and it was sad, he had 0 drawing power as a champ and it was just as sad.


Sheamus was a success later moreso, but no doubt his first run will always be
undeserved and a joke, he beat Cena, but by a slip up, it made Cena look good more than it did Sheamus, he couldnt put him over cleanly and I get why but it shouldve have happened anyway like that. Sheamus just sucked that year and no one bought that event thinking he'd be champ and no one cared that he was champ after he won it, they were likely shocked and he was the better of these 4, but Sheamus was too new to draw any money and the entire undeserved reign with the company's biggest title was a fuck up

and

I will take this back, I wont have a 5 way, but 4 way tie, Rey does draw so he'll be an honorable mention because HE didnt draw as a champion his first run, EDDIE drew, he only got it cause Eddie died and look at what WWE really thinks of him, his 2nd reign was shit as was his third this past Monday, they dont care for Rey as champ, he didnt get a fair chance to draw, because the focus on his first reign, sympathy belt, was Eddie just as his Rumble win else he wouldnt have won the rumble or the title, and he wasnt given a fair shot to draw in his other runs


Rey thus wasnt a drawing champion, not star, champion, understand the difference

I mean he may get a longer run next time if Chavo or Vickie dies, otherwise he'll be a transitional champ to them, I dont agree, but WWE has shown how they feel

 

[god-soldier]

I would of said Diesel without a doubt from his lackluster run in 95 but unfornately the following year would hold the winner of this thread. When you say the worse world champion only 3 letters come to mind H B K!!!! Yes I said it and will say it again H B K!!!!! The reason isn't because of his in ring performance because he is up there with some of the greats. However, he could not draw an audience for his life!!!! HBK could not connect with the fans well enough to get them to buy merchandise, buy tickets, get them to tune for ratings, and buy PPVs. Now some will say he was competing against the nWo but unfornately they real didn't start to form or get really hot till July 96 and by then HBK had been champion for 5 months and headlined every PPV.Over on WCW the Giant had been champion in his rookie year and went on to win rookie and wrestler of the year in PWI and WCW was recognized as the number wrestling promotion by every magazine and internet site. By the time 96 had hit november the WWF was losing lots of money and the company was folding in desperate attempt to save the company they had to bring back Bret "Hitman" Hart to bring back ratings and PPV buys. HBK was then booed out of MSG and a new champion emerged by cheating and his win sent th Garden through the roof. HBK was given a second title reign in his hometown of San Antonio and they could not sell out the arena their and get PPV buyrates again. HBK was scheduled to lose the title @ WM XIII to Bret someone the company knew could help them get back on top. But HBK got injured and it never happened. HBK was then made a transitional champion to Steve Austin because they knew and had it proven he couldn't carry the company. HBK came back in 2002 and was given the WHC title and he would headline the lowest attended WWE PPV in history and one of the lowest PPV buyrates in history. After this HBK never held another world championship again. HBK might be one of the best wrestlers in the top 10 but he could not draw a dime or carry a company.Now I am sure you will say he was # 1 superstar of all time according to the WWE but that was a biased list everyone knows it should of been Bret or Austin.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Oh my, this is a 5 way tie dudes


You really cant pick one over the other

look at this:


The Great Khali

Jack Swagger

Dolph Ziggler

Sheamus

Khali only got it for being big and didnt draw at all, really! His opponent's drew, but not him, Khali never sold out an arena even in India

Swagger wasnt ready, couldnt cut a decent promo and only had his amatuer background going for him, he was a failed champ and wasnt a compelling heel, but rather booed because no one wanted to see him anymore, and well the rest of the fans were asleep

Ziggler was a joke, a complete joke, it's clearly obvious he didnt draw and was another one who wasnt ready. No one tuned in because Ziggler was champ and it's really just fact. Few cared, few fans of his but Ziggler's promo against Pat Patterson (I think at Breaking Point or some new PPV years back, got NO reaction and it was sad, he had 0 drawing power as a champ and it was just as sad.


Sheamus was a success later moreso, but no doubt his first run will always be
undeserved and a joke, he beat Cena, but by a slip up, it made Cena look good more than it did Sheamus, he couldnt put him over cleanly and I get why but it shouldve have happened anyway like that. Sheamus just sucked that year and no one bought that event thinking he'd be champ and no one cared that he was champ after he won it, they were likely shocked and he was the better of these 4, but Sheamus was too new to draw any money and the entire undeserved reign with the company's biggest title was a fuck up

and

I will take this back, I wont have a 5 way, but 4 way tie, Rey does draw so he'll be an honorable mention because HE didnt draw as a champion his first run, EDDIE drew, he only got it cause Eddie died and look at what WWE really thinks of him, his 2nd reign was shit as was his third this past Monday, they dont care for Rey as champ, he didnt get a fair chance to draw, because the focus on his first reign, sympathy belt, was Eddie just as his Rumble win else he wouldnt have won the rumble or the title, and he wasnt given a fair shot to draw in his other runs


Rey thus wasnt a drawing champion, not star, champion, understand the difference

I mean he may get a longer run next time if Chavo or Vickie dies, otherwise he'll be a transitional champ to them, I dont agree, but WWE has shown how they feel

None of those guys were champ long enough to hurt the company. Holy shit do you guys even know what it means to be the "worst draw"? It means that IN REAL LIFE, not your opinion, the guy brought in the least amount of money.

It is PROVEN FACT that it's Diesel's run. Financially, WWE literally made less money with him as the face of the company than anyone else. Jesus fucking christ. This thread should be closed because people literally don't know what it means to be the "worst draw". It's not an opinion based question. It's a factual question. Factually, Diesel drew less than anyone and was on top for a year. How is it not him?

Anyone who says anyone other than Nash should change their user to stupid. Saying anyone else means you don't understand what it means to be the "worst draw". This isn't something subjective like "worst wrestler" or "worst hair" it's objective "worst draw".

Fuck, change the name of the thread to "which champion brought the WWE the least amount of money?" Fuck it, change it to "in your opinion, why did Diesel bring the WWE the least amount of money."

This is such an easy question. The thread may as well have read "in what city do the New York Yankees play their home games" and people say "well I think it's Cleveland because I hate Cleveland and I hate the Yankees". That's how stupid these opinion-based answers sound.

There is no fucking opinion. Statistically, Diesel drew less money as champion than anyone else.

 

[SickJames]

dude You're gonna sit here and tell me Khali was a bigger draw? you're fucking nuts. Swagger and Ziggler and all these mini runs? i get what you're saying, but these guys werent better at drawing money, they didnt draw a dime, so wtf

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

dude You're gonna sit here and tell me Khali was a bigger draw? you're fucking nuts. Swagger and Ziggler and all these mini runs? i get what you're saying, but these guys werent better at drawing money, they didnt draw a dime, so wtf

it doesn't matter. the fact is, Diesel LOST more money for the company. Sure there are peripherals, for example, Val Venis probably could have made money with the company in the tude era because the product as a whole was hot. However, when you're given the title for a year, and you lose money that whole year, you are the worst draw ever.

Saying these other guys is like saying "well yea Derek Jeter was voted a starter in the all star game this year even though he's terrible but these 2 relief pitchers, man they were the worst".

The fact is that Diesel is the worst draw ever. This isn't my opinion, this isn't your opinion, this is what happened. Just like saying SummerSlam is in LA this year, it's not an opinion, it's fact.

Sorry dude, no argument, you can't argue that 2+2 is 6 and you can't argue that Diesel was the worst drawing WWF/E champion in history.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

yeah ya can. there are a lot of things that drew or were still more successful than others but lost money, look at Sony and PS3

the ps3 made money from the games. I'm saying, that's not what we're talking about. This isn't "who helped the WWE" like how HBK did his damndest to keep it afloat when everyone was leaving, this isn't "who was an undeserving bad draw" this is "who was the worst draw". It's that simple. Why can't you just accept that the question is "who was the worst draw" and that statistical, actual, factual answer is Diesel? If you lose the company money for an entire year, and more money than anyone else, you are the worst draw. Period, end of story. I don't care that the product as a whole sucked, I don't care that Swagger, even though he was much younger and much less established and actually won the World title which is kinda secondary. The fact is that Diesel was unquestionably THE MAN for a year. Something Swagger, Ziggler, and Khali weren't. They were all secondary champions, or they were only champ for a short time. Nash was given the main strap and he was given it for a year and lost the company money for a year. He is the worst draw in history. Just accept that because it's fact. I'm finished because this thread is now pointless. You have a bunch of people trying to throw opinion into a factual question. It's insane.

 

[Shafer757]

Ezekiel Jackson as ECW champion.


In seriousness, I'd have to say Sheamus as well. I love the guys work but with the way they had him defeat Cena for the belt, I couldn't take him, as a champion, seriously. If that tables match weren't for the title, breaking a tiny part of the table and winning would be acceptable for a heel. To win the championship that way though was outrageous. In fact, when Sheamus was on tv as champion during that reign, I changed the channel.

 

[ralphie9181]

LOL I love this thread, people still don't get it. I DIDNT LIKE REY MYSTERIO HE R WORSE DRAWING CHAMP!!!!!!! Worst drawing champ of all time means that financially they made the company either lose money or made the company little profit. If you want to go by TV ratings, Nash's 1 year run saw ratings in the 2-2.5s. WWE was absolutely in the toilet in 1995. Some one mentioned earlier, you people are trying to argue a point like water isn't wet. No matter how you try to argue you cannot change the fact that Nash is the lowest drawing champ in WWE history, its fact, numbers back it up, it happened. I'm thinking a majority of the people posting in this thread have to be too young to understand what the topic means. That is the only explanation for some of the posts.

 

[SickJames]

well you shouldve said who was the worst champion not worst drawing champion, because that doesnt imply losing money, rather just the drawing power you have, if I cant fucking draw a dime, at all, then that makes me the worst, so Nash was bad for a full year, are you telling me Kane's less than 24 hour title run drew more? no. Why the fuck cant u see that? it's a fact, u can argue he didnt have a chance but the fact is these guys like Swagger and such had such short runs and didnt benefit the company at all, atleast Nash did somewhat moreso, thats the only fact here

you shouldve worded the title differently

 

[Marzyk]

Do any of you remember the Big Show being champ?... He won it in a triple threat match after Stone Cold was hit by Rikishi... They wanted to use the belt to boost someone and it was a coin toss between The Show and Test... I can even remember when HHH beat him for the title early in the episode of RAW, which debuted the McMahan Hemsley Era... By the middle of the show you had forgotten that the title had ever changed hands... Even Show losing the belt was that forgetable... Chris Benoit was a bust as well... He didn't fare well as a long term headliner... I can't blame Swagger because he didn't have time to get his feet under him before having to carry that role... If we were to follow the World Title back to the WCW days, where would I begin

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

well you shouldve said who was the worst champion not worst drawing champion, because that doesnt imply losing money, rather just the drawing power you have, if I cant fucking draw a dime, at all, then that makes me the worst, so Nash was bad for a full year, are you telling me Kane's less than 24 hour title run drew more? no. Why the fuck cant u see that? it's a fact, u can argue he didnt have a chance but the fact is these guys like Swagger and such had such short runs and didnt benefit the company at all, atleast Nash did somewhat moreso, thats the only fact here

you shouldve worded the title differently

Holy shit dude. Kane's less than 24 hour reign actually DID draw more.

think about this, if nash had a YEAR of the WWE LOSING MONEY, then he would have drawn NEGATIVE MONIES huh? So there actually is no fucking way Kane LOST that amount of money, just like all the others had no way of losing the company that much money.

So how the fuck does nash "benefit the company" by losing it the most money? If you have 3 people. One person adds shit to the house and increases the value, the other pretty much keeps it the same but only stays in it for a few days, the other trashes it for a year. Who helped the house the most? In order, it'd be person 1, then 2, then 3. Even though person 2 only had the house for a few days, he didn't fuck it up as much as person 3. Nash fucked the house up.

Do you get it yet?

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Rey on last nights RAW was the worst angle for a Champ of all time! WTF?? He held it for less than 2 hours. Might as well have done the fingerpoke of doom! That was such an insult to Rey and the intelligence for WWE fans. When it was announced he would face CENA I'm sure 90% of the wrestling world knew Cena was walking away champ. They should have just buried Miz and let him come back with vengeance not REY.

Worst drawing of all time would be Swagger easily! He will end up being a Did you know trivia question on RAW one day!

Last night was in NO way "the worst angle for a Champ of all time!" Yeah, Rey was used as a transitional champ, but for an hour everyone was excited to see him as the new WWE Champion. You had to wonder if he could beat Cena, if del Rio would cash in, or if some other crazy shenanigans would pop up. Rey has been to the mountain twice, and while he's one of the best of all time, he's more of an enhancement talent than the face of the company. Right now the entire main event scene is featured around John Cena and CM Punk, with Alberto del Rio swimming around the outside with his briefcase. Allowing Mysterio to feed Cena back the title needed to happen, and NO they should not have buried Miz! The Miz has been main eventing for less than a year, and he needs to slow climb back to the top. Using him as the transition would have made him look really week. Plus, Rey was able to pull off two really great matches, which is more than either of his other title reigns had... The money right now is on Cena and Punk at SummerSlam, in a rematch with the Undisputed WWE title on the line. Mysterio vs. Cena, or Mysterio vs. del Rio is cool, but it's nowhere near the angle they need for one of the biggest events of the WWE year.

I can also think of much worse, more unfair championship angles. Like when Jeff Hardy finally won his first World title, only to have Punk cash in and take it out from under him. Or recently when Christian won his first title, to have Orton steal it back that week. How about when Diesel beat Bob Backlund in 8 seconds way back in 1994? Or even Kane's 1 night as WWE Champion... If you're a huge Mysterio fan, I can see why you'd be upset. But he was "screwed" to further one of the best angles on Raw in the past 5 years. He'll get over it...

To actually answer the question, I'd have to say Jack Swagger. Sheamus' time as champion was lackluster and disappointing, but he definitely DREW more as champion than Swagger, and that was the question. Sheamus is still pretty dominating today, and he made a lot of people believe in him as champion and as a future long-term champion. He also drew a lot for the WWE when they went to Europe. Apparently, he's HUGE across the pond in certain areas. Who did Jack Swagger draw for? Die-hard Americans? Nobody likes Swagger... Even the writers bash his title reign by allowing Michael Cole to say that nobody remembers it. I would say a close second is the Great Kahli's time as World Champion.