Guest JMA Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Who do you think was the worst WWF World champion? Vote now! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Steve J. Rogers Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Kane. Only one day reign and won that match by screw job ending only to lose cleanly the next night on Raw to the guy he beat for the title. Worse IMO then Vince simply because Vince didn't set himself up as a viable contender (ala Vince Russo in WCW) and gave it up freely rather than lose a match Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Diesel. Unlike the other bad champs, he dragged down the promotion for an entire YEAR. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Fook_Hing_Ho Report post Posted March 12, 2003 Diesel. At least Shiek, Big Show, Vince, Kane, etc. had short reigns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest dvkorn Report post Posted March 13, 2003 Vince for sure. At least all the other guys were wrestlers, albeit not very good ones but still. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mecha Mummy 0 Report post Posted March 13, 2003 Vince did the right thing. He didn't win cleanly and he vacated the belt because he knew he wasn't a wrestler. Some people should have learned from that.*COUGHArquetteCOUGHRussoCOUGH* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Metal Maniac Report post Posted March 13, 2003 Yokozuna shouldn't even be ON this list. Sure, he wasn't a great wrestler, but he *was* fucking enormous. The fact that he could do a superkick (Not a great one, but still) is impressive enough. Besides, it's not like he wasn't over. And when he finally dropped the belt to Bret Hart, Bret got uber-over for it. Unless you're talking about his 10-minute reign, but still. I think one good reign and one shitty one do not = worst champ ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Steviekick Report post Posted March 13, 2003 Big Show. Y ou know why. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest converge241 Report post Posted March 13, 2003 either Bob Backlund (2nd) or Kane's one day kane wouldnt be a choice if they played up that he was a champ , which they barely do the story around Backlund's win was awesome but he just shouldnt have had the belt..I would have rather seen Owen be the transition champ or something Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Aero Report post Posted March 13, 2003 While guys like Big Show, Kane, and Vince were pretty bad, they were all short reigns. Diesel, who I voted for, easily takes the cake for worst champion. As it was just said above, he held the title for one FULL YEAR. Let's examine that year. It started off decent with some good title defenses against Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels to lead into WM XI, but then we had to sit through a 3 month program with sid, a Summerslam main event against Mabel, and then a match with the British Bulldog. (not that he's terrible by any means, but a match with Diesel could do no good) It was a joyous day when Bret Hart once again stepped up and won the belt at Survivor Series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Betty Houle 0 Report post Posted March 13, 2003 either Bob Backlund (2nd) or Kane's one day You can't really choose Bob Backlund's last title reign because the poll isn't "what was the worst WWF World title reign?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Betty Houle 0 Report post Posted March 13, 2003 I picked Vince because he qualifies in every category. He's not a wrestler. It added nothing. It was pointless. His reign was short. Nothing good to say about him as champion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted March 13, 2003 I had to go with Vince...for nothing else it was a way to get the belt off HHH, JUST to put it right back on him. So it was pointless. And I was there the night Show won the belt (1st time), the people were kind of into it...although they did bait and switch Austin on us...fuckers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Si82 Report post Posted March 13, 2003 I went for Sid. I was torn between him and Diesel but Sid it was. Why did they ever put the belt on him? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted March 13, 2003 I went for Sid. I was torn between him and Diesel but Sid it was. Why did they ever put the belt on him? It's a Hoss thing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted March 14, 2003 I went for Sid. I was torn between him and Diesel but Sid it was. Why did they ever put the belt on him? At the time it seemed like a good idea considering how much HBK was bombing as champion. They needed to get the belt off Shawn at all costs, and tried to put it on Vader but Shawn wouldn't job to him, so they picked Sid. The only other realistic choice was Taker, but they ended up saving him for Mania. Of course, everything got screwed up by Royal Rumble and they ended up putting the belt on Shawn again, who dropped it because he wouldn't job to Bret at Wrestlemania XIII. Taker was offered as a second choice, but Michaels refused to job to him too. Since by this point they wanted Taker to win at Mania, the third option was to do Sid/Taker & Bret/Austin with Shawn jobbing the belt to Sid at Final Four. He ALSO refused to do this, and simply forfeited the title. Vader was rapidly pissing off management, and since he was really the only other option by this time, they gave it to Sid again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest snuffbox Report post Posted March 14, 2003 Vince Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Plushy Al Logan Report post Posted March 14, 2003 Yokozuna shouldn't even be ON this list. Sure, he wasn't a great wrestler, but he *was* fucking enormous. The fact that he could do a superkick (Not a great one, but still) is impressive enough. Besides, it's not like he wasn't over. And when he finally dropped the belt to Bret Hart, Bret got uber-over for it. Unless you're talking about his 10-minute reign, but still. I think one good reign and one shitty one do not = worst champ ever. 127 seconds to be exact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Your Olympic Hero Report post Posted March 14, 2003 sgt slaughter was worthless Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted March 15, 2003 sgt slaughter was worthless I liked Slaughter as champ. At least he was better than Warrior. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted March 15, 2003 sgt slaughter was worthless I liked Slaughter as champ. At least he was better than Warrior. But Warrior was over Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted March 15, 2003 sgt slaughter was worthless I liked Slaughter as champ. At least he was better than Warrior. But Warrior was over Not as over as Slaughter was. People HATED this guy when he was champ. I haven't seen so much heel heat since. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0 Report post Posted March 15, 2003 Sid was over when he was champ. So he's not the worst. I'll vote for Sgt. Slaughter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Respect The 'Taker Report post Posted March 15, 2003 Diesel. Unlike the other bad champs, he dragged down the promotion for an entire YEAR. Well if your going by who drew the least then Yokozuna shouldn't be on the list at all, considering he drew big numbers when he was at the helm. Diesel, however, in 95 wasn't completely unwatchable, and better than the majority of those listed. I believe it was intended to go by talent, and if that is the case then i vote Big Show, hands down. I almost stopped watching wrestling forever when i found out he replaced Austin... UYI Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Canadian Crippler Report post Posted March 16, 2003 Vince was the shittiest of all. At least, the other were wrestlers, shitty wrestlers, but still wrestlers. When a non-wrestler is the champion of a promotion, there's a problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SupaTaft Report post Posted March 16, 2003 Umm... why is Andre on there? He was never champ. If he was the champ, that would have meant that they took the belt off of him and he barely ever lost in the WWF. Goofy. -Taft Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted March 16, 2003 Umm... why is Andre on there? He was never champ. If he was the champ, that would have meant that they took the belt off of him and he barely ever lost in the WWF. Goofy. -Taft He won the belt from Hogan and right away gave it to Debiase...then Tunny said that he couldn't do that, and they vacated the belt and did the tourney for Wrestlemania IV Right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted March 16, 2003 You got it YNA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted March 16, 2003 The WWE refuses to recognize that as a legit title change (Unless something has changes since the last time I've scoped out the title histories.) so it is NOT a true change, and Andre was never a WWF Champion. Technically, SupaTaft is correct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted March 16, 2003 Does WWE.com have title histories? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
