The worst title run in history to me is Kane's first title run it lasted less then 24 hrs he then had to wait till the 2000s for a final shot at a title he should have had a chance to prove his ability
Not even close. That's like saying Jeff Hardy's second reign in 2009, which lasted all of 3 minutes, was a "terrible one". So because he was cashed in on by CM Punk, and lasted just a few short minutes, it's a terrible reign? How do you come to that conclusion when the reign is so short? Let's throw John Cena's title 'reign' from 2010 when he won the Elimination Chamber and was promptly forced to face Batista. Or Rey Mysterio, who won and lost the WWE Title in a tournament on a July Raw by beating the Miz, only to lose the title to John Cena later that night.
Yeah can't really judge a title reign based on 'good' or 'bad' because that person hasn't truly had the time to show what they would be like as champion.
For that, I'd pick Rey Mysterio's 3-month reign in 2006. As he faced the top contenders and beat 'em all, I thought the spectacle was ridiculous.
I agree with you here, Sally, but for the exact opposite reason.
My gut wanted to automatically say Jack Swagger, as the carefully written promos and cookie-cutter matches were pretty groan-inducing. But he beat Edge, Jericho, and Randy Orton to retain during that short time span, and they were believable defenses.
My problem with Mysterio reign were the matches he
didn't win.
After his first title defense against Randy Orton, he was put into a feud with JBL, of all people. Week after week before
their matchup at the Great American Bash, he faced Mark Henry, Khali, and Kane, in successive order. Rey Mysterio, World Champion, was squashed by the first two, and well on his way to losing to Kane when Rey tricked JBL to saying 'May 19th', causing Kane to attack JBL ringside and get counted out.
I have no problem with a vulnerable champion, and to suggest Rey Mysterio be a dominant one is a ridiculous proposition. But to watch him go out there week after week, as World Champion, and getting squashed week after week was too much for me.
There's a difference between making your champion out to be vulnerable, which could have made for a good run for Mysterio, then making your champion look like such a joke that the belt would have been better off elsewhere.
Honorable mention has to go to Batista during his reign from Elimination Chamber 2010 to WrestleMania 26. He wins the belt from a weakened John Cena following the Elimination Chamber, then gets himself intentionally DQ'd in their match the following night in order to get the right to face a....healthy John Cena.
In the interim, he barely wrestled and never defended his title. Raw's with Batista would go something like this:
1. Batista complains about John Cena being the face of the company rather then he.
2. Batista watches John Cena wrestle, and when John is about to put someone away, Batista ran in and beat Cena up.
3. Batista stood over Cena screaming "You can't beat me."
Which of course Cena did, when he made him tap to the STFU at WM 26.
Batista or Rey, Batista or Rey? Rey's was done as a tribute to Eddie Guerrero, but he lost far too much to be seen as credible by the time his reign ended to King Bookah. All Hail.
Batista's was done to move Cena closer to essentially give Cena(my favorite wrestler) two titles for the price of one. They could have had Batista beat Cena at WrestleMania by nefarious means, have Cena win the title the way he did at Extreme Rules by using duct tape in the LMS match. Then, finish out the feud at Over The Limit the way they did in the 'I Quit' match.
I'm going to go with Rey's. Like Sally pointed out, when he did win matches, he did so in ridiculous fashion. But he lost too often and was squashed in many non-title matches, and his first reign was essentially the second reign Eddie never got.
