Worst Match Decision in History

[OYDK]

Scott Hall should have beat Austin at WM 18, had that happened, Hall wouldve stayed sober, nWo would have gotten on a roll and probably made something of themselves during 2002 and we could have seen a real deal kilq reunion with Hall Nash X Pac HBK and HHH in the nWo

APPARENTLY (according to a Scott Hall shoot interview I watched recently) Hall was supposed to go over Austin at Mania 18. He goes on to say that Austin bitched and complained until the decision was switched. How much somebody can take what Hall says as serious, is debatable given the level of mark the guy is for himself, but it is interesting. You may want to check it out.

 

[Kris Benwa]

I've always disagreed with this one, I think having Triple H win was the right call to make and I still do. WrestleMania is generally an extremely face-heavy event, and sometimes having the heel win is the right way to go. Triple H vs. Booker T at WrestleMania 19 is one of my favorite matches of both men's careers and one of my favorite matches of all time. And yeah, Booker T got so completely buried here that he went on to win the Intercontinental Championship, World Tag Team Championship, 3 United States Championships, King of the Ring, World Heavyweight Championship, and became a Hall of Fame inductee. Yeah, his career sure went nowhere after that match.

A bunch of mid card and tag team titles a little bit of a career resurgence as a heel and a WHC run 3 years later on a different brand and an induction into a hall of fame that fans constantly question the validity of alright... was Booker T ever as over as he was after WM 19? And may I ask why Triple H should have walked out with the title? Why was that the right way to go? It's not like Booker T would be champion forever give him a career defining moment, a nice feel good title win and then take the belt back from him at the rematch. I need you to explain this one to me buddy. Also it's not even so much that he won the match but dude he took all of Booker T's moves and beat him with 1 pedigree and a slow lackadaisical cover. He made Booker T look like shit

 

[Aquaman6686]

A bunch of mid card and tag team titles a little bit of a career resurgence as a heel and a WHC run 3 years later on a different brand and an induction into a hall of fame that fans constantly question the validity of alright... was Booker T ever as over as he was after WM 19? And may I ask why Triple H should have walked out with the title? Why was that the right way to go? It's not like Booker T would be champion forever give him a career defining moment, a nice feel good title win and then take the belt back from him at the rematch. I need you to explain this one to me buddy. Also it's not even so much that he won the match but dude he took all of Booker T's moves and beat him with 1 pedigree and a slow lackadaisical cover. He made Booker T look like shit

I've never heard a single person question the validity of Booker T's Hall of Fame induction until you. Not ONE person. Triple H walking out with the title was the right move because WWE needed a strong heel champion for once. WWE's greatest weakness has always been their over-reliance on babyfaces and making their heels look like crap. And that match made Booker T look very strong. He had HHH beat half a dozen times only to have Ric Flair's interference cost him the match. And a "feel good" title win happened later that night anyway, there was no reason for both World titles to change hands. They did that only one time at WrestleMania, realized it didn't work, and never did it again. I feel the only mistake they made with Triple H's title reign was having him lose it to Goldberg. He should have held the title straight through until WrestleMania 20 and lost it to [NAME REDACTED] there, instead of breaking his reign in two with Goldberg's pointless run in the middle.

 

[Kris Benwa]

I've never heard a single person question the validity of Booker T's Hall of Fame induction until you. Not ONE person. Triple H walking out with the title was the right move because WWE needed a strong heel champion for once. WWE's greatest weakness has always been their over-reliance on babyfaces and making their heels look like crap. And that match made Booker T look very strong. He had HHH beat half a dozen times only to have Ric Flair's interference cost him the match. And a "feel good" title win happened later that night anyway, there was no reason for both World titles to change hands. They did that only one time at WrestleMania, realized it didn't work, and never did it again. I feel the only mistake they made with Triple H's title reign was having him lose it to Goldberg. He should have held the title straight through until WrestleMania 20 and lost it to [NAME REDACTED] there, instead of breaking his reign in two with Goldberg's pointless run in the middle.

People question the validity of the hall of fame itself everyday. Any time anybody brings it up they mention Koko B Ware to discredit it. Triple H has always been a strong heel champion. Losing the title to Booker and winning it back a month or two later and continuing the rest of his career the same way wouldn't have made him a strong heel champion? And how didn't both title changes work? You realize Cena and Batista won those titles and went on to become two of the biggest stars in the business? Getting all of your moves kicked out of doesn't make you look strong. Getting pedigreed and selling for nearly a minute and then getting pinned and losing doesn't make you look strong. Getting told you aren't good enough to beat me or hold this title and then actually still losing doesn't make you look strong. It makes you look like a shitty wrestler who can't hang with the best. I don't even know what to say to your last sentence.

 

[enviousdominous]

I really wanted to vote "Other", but David Arquette was a horrible interpretation of Andy Kaufmann.

Let's make some honorable mentions to fill that "Other" slot with some painful pro-wrestling memories. Behold! The Ass Explosion Match!

[YOUTUBE]ShgRtPNfAQA[/YOUTUBE]

Hayabusa, pro-wrestling legend, agreed to have fire crackers ignited while between his butt cheeks.

How are there no mentions of the crap TNA has pulled? Remember the reverse battle royal? That one's on YouTube, but really not worth looking up. Performers had to fight to get INTO the damn ring.

 

[prestonluv]

I hated John cena over the nexus. Been a wrestling fan for 35 years and that one posses me off the most

 

[SuperSteve16]

A lot of people are going to say David Arqutte winning the WCW Championship and while that was an awful decision, at least WCW was trying to get more mainstream appeal into the company. Obviously it didn't work but at least they tried. I think the worst match decision of all time has to be Vince Russo winning the WCW belt in late 2000. The company was already dying and in huge trouble by this point so was Russo's fantastic idea to help save the company- putting the belt on himself? Russo was never the Vince McMahon character, he didn't even have the heat The Bischoff character did, so to put the title on him was a desperate move from a man that didn't understand how to run a company. When a company is nearly bankrupt, the worst thing to do is put the belt on a non-wrestler

 

[Luten]

As much as I love the guy Jericho beating Austin at Vengeance 2001 always pained me. Simply because if Austin had won and the returning HHH then went on to win the Rumble like he did, then we would have had an Austin vs HHH Wrestlemania main event a year after the Power trip. Austin could've continued being a heel harking back to when he blamed HHH for them losing the Tag Titles after tearing his quad.
I just think their epic rivalry should've included a mania main event. It's no where near the worst decision ever made, but it's always bugged me

 

[i_am_the_champ94]

Brock Lesnar ending The Streak. Not a doubt it in my mind. Undertaker either should have retired with The Streak intact, or used it to create a megastar. Not thrown it away on a part-time egomaniac with zero respect for the business. If The Streak was to end, it should have been to Edge in 2008, or CM Punk in 2013. Brock Lesnar was the worst possible choice.

I gotta say I disagree. Brock was booked to look strong and ending the streak was the perfect way to justify him getting a WWE title match when he came back. And strong is exactly how he has looked. Something I think alot of people have overlooked is the fact that Lesnar hasnt been pinned or forced to submit since 'Mania 29. Thats almost 2 years that he hasnt been legitamitely defeated, part timer or not.