Worst booked title reign ever?

[MARTYEWR 0]

Gillberg's lightweight title reign. Wins it from Christian, disappears for 2 years, comes back and loses it to Essa Rios.

I agree. For all the faults of the world title reigns of Angle, Jericho and Goldberg, Duane Gill's lightheavyweight title reign was so bad that everyone forgot he even had the title.

[Guest LooneyTune]

Don't forget Dean Malenko defended the title maybe two times from the Summer of 2000 until he lost it to Crash (might've been one of Malenkos final TV matches)

[Epic Reine 0]

Nah, Malenko's last TV match I believe was against Scotty 2 Hotty during the summer of 2001.

 

I'd also like to nominate Sid Vicious' US title reign in 1999. He beats Benoit for it and Goldberg makes him his bitch. The U.S. title was thrown around quite a bit during the end 1999.

[Guest Trivia247]

Anytime Vince wins the World title......I think thats what..Twice?

[Guest Dale Earnhardt]

Anytime Vince wins the World title......I think thats what..Twice?

Once, he defeated Triple H on an episode of SmackDown in September 1999. He won it solely on the help of Stone Cold Steve Austin. He promptly vacated on the RAW following and it was decided in the Six Pack Challenge at Unforgiven.

 

Not badly booked as Vince won it with the help of Steve Austin and promptly vacated it.

[Guest Mos_Def]

Benoit/Jericho/Angle worst booked title reigns???

 

To me, clearly the worst booked title reign was Ronnie Garvin’s NWA title run from Sept. - Nov 1987. The title was put on a barely over mid-card lemon in an effort to placate Ric Flair’s ego, so Flair could win the title back at their biggest show ever (Starrcade 87 which bombed). Garvin’s reign was so transparent that it was a huge credibility blow, as the whole ordeal did irreparable damage to the belt and the NWA.

 

There is no way Garvin should have been placed in that position outside of political b.s (no other baby face was dumb enough to have themselves compromised in that way by Flair).

 

Chicago Fans booed the shit out of the idea that Garvin/Flair was a big time PPV main event match. Helped to further cement Crockett’s NWA as an ass-backwards minor league operation as compared to the WWF at the time.

[Guest Dale Earnhardt]

Benoit/Jericho/Angle worst booked title reigns???

 

To me, clearly the worst booked title reign was Ronnie Garvin’s NWA title run from Sept. - Nov 1987. The title was put on a barely over mid-card lemon in an effort to placate Ric Flair’s ego, so Flair could win the title back at their biggest show ever (Starrcade 87 which bombed). Garvin’s reign was so transparent that it was a huge credibility blow, as the whole ordeal did irreparable damage to the belt and the NWA.

 

There is no way Garvin should have been placed in that position outside of political b.s (no other baby face was dumb enough to have themselves compromised in that way by Flair).

 

Chicago Fans booed the shit out of the idea that Garvin/Flair was a big time PPV main event match. Helped to further cement Crockett’s NWA as an ass-backwards minor league operation as compared to the WWF at the time.

Harsh?

 

Ronnie Garvin's run didn't damage the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. When Flair won the belt back and started defending it against Steamboat and Sting, it picked back up. Jim Crockett Promotions (Remember it wasn't "Crockett's NWA" as Crockett owned a BRANCH of the NWA, not the NWA) wasn't damaged by Garvin's run. The reason that Starrcade 1987 was not because of Garvin, it was because Vince McMahon put Survivor Series 1987 on the same night at Starrcade thus forcing cable companies to choose. WWF was a proven commodity over JCP which had just started expanding so WWF was chosen over JCP. Vince McMahon made Starrcade fail not Ronnie Garvin.

[Guest LooneyTune]

Anytime Vince wins the World title......I think thats what..Twice?

Once, he defeated Triple H on an episode of SmackDown in September 1999. He won it solely on the help of Stone Cold Steve Austin. He promptly vacated on the RAW following and it was decided in the Six Pack Challenge at Unforgiven.

 

Not badly booked as Vince won it with the help of Steve Austin and promptly vacated it.

... Vince McMahon... the OWNER (the REAL OWNER) of the WWF, won his OWN championship, over legit main eventers, and actually was reffered to as the WWF Champion.

 

Please, thats just the worst possible booking EVER. WCW died because of stupid shit like that (David Arquette, Vince Russo...). No one should win the title of their own promotion!

[Guest Dale Earnhardt]

Anytime Vince wins the World title......I think thats what..Twice?

Once, he defeated Triple H on an episode of SmackDown in September 1999. He won it solely on the help of Stone Cold Steve Austin. He promptly vacated on the RAW following and it was decided in the Six Pack Challenge at Unforgiven.

 

Not badly booked as Vince won it with the help of Steve Austin and promptly vacated it.

... Vince McMahon... the OWNER (the REAL OWNER) of the WWF, won his OWN championship, over legit main eventers, and actually was reffered to as the WWF Champion.

 

Please, thats just the worst possible booking EVER. WCW died because of stupid shit like that (David Arquette, Vince Russo...). No one should win the title of their own promotion!

Vince McMahon was never booked as a true champion at all. Steve Austin made his return that night and screwed over Triple H thus making HHH and Austin the highlight of the angle and Vince as the backdrop. It was used to further the Austin vs. HHH feud.

[Youth N Asia 0]

Rick Steiner's US title reign. All I remember is everyone thinking WTF! Why doesn't Benoit have the belt?

[Guest Loss]

Garvin not being over at all at the time is a myth. He was loved as a challenger for Ric Flair, and everyone praised their matches for being something different compared to the normal Flair Formula stuff, but he wasn't the kind of guy worth putting a title on.

 

There was no ego involved in the build to Starrcade '87 -- that's another myth. Flair was wrestling with a broken neck for most of the year and putting the belt on Garvin allowed him to work mostly tag matches and heal. Even in the last few months of Flair's time with the belt earlier in the year, he was wrestling almost entirely six-mans and eight-mans, but they had no one else they could conceivably put the title on. They probably should have pulled the trigger at the end of the Barry Windham feud and put the belt on Barry for a while, and Flair winning it back might have tied into the Horsemen storyline and heel turn Barry had in '88. Implying that it was Flair's ego at work implies that he was the booker at the time, and he wasn't ... Dusty was. If it was ever a case of Flair wanting to lose the belt just so he could win it back, with nothing else at stake (which it wasn't), it was up to Dusty and Crockett to put their foot down and tell him no in that case. They had another option in Nikita Koloff, but apparently that wasn't even being considered for whatever reason. I'm sure Flair's detractors will blame him for that too, but Flair volunteered to lay down for Koloff many times, which Nikita says himself. It just never happened.

[Slickster 0]

If it was ever a case of Flair wanting to lose the belt just so he could win it back, with nothing else at stake (which it wasn't), it was up to Dusty and Crockett to put their foot down and tell him no in that case. They had another option in Nikita Koloff, but apparently that wasn't even being considered for whatever reason. I'm sure Flair's detractors will blame him for that too, but Flair volunteered to lay down for Koloff many times, which Nikita says himself. It just never happened.

I had read that nobody wanted that lame-duck reign for fear it would tarnish their careers. Garvin accepted it, however, and the rest is history, I do feel, however, that waiving the 30-day rule for title defenses was an out-and-out stupid decision because it made him look weak(er) in the eyes of the fans. He didn't defend the title from winning it in September until losing it at Starrcade. You'd think they could have had him beat Al Perez or Vladimir Petrov in 5:00 squashes once a month to at least keep him on TV, but they didn't.

 

Also, I disagree with the Russo and McMahon nominations. Both times, the non-wrestlers won the title via a fluke and neither man held it for more than a week. Also, neither one made title defenses or even pretended that they had earned the title. In both cases, the title reign was a plot device intended to put heat on a major angle.

 

However, I do agree with whomever suggested The Big Show's second US Title reign. To put things in perspective, The Big Show held the title for 147 days, the longest reign in seven years. From winning the title in October until losing it in March, The Big Show had two televised title defenses: one over Billy Gunn, one over Hardcore Holly. The rest of the time, he was working as Brock Lesnar's lackey and jobbing in tag matches. He is, in my opinion, the worst transitional champion of all time. At least with Duane Gill he held a minor title and had few possible challengers, whereas The Big Show held the company's #2 title and could have faced any midcarder on the roster.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Any time a World title is put on a non-worker, it's a bad decision.

[Slickster 0]

Any time a World title is put on a non-worker, it's a bad decision.

I didn't say it was a GOOD decision, I'm just saying it's not the worst possible decision they could have made. They could have forgotten about the title a la Duane Gill or The Big Show.

[Guest Loss]

I had read that nobody wanted that lame-duck reign for fear it would tarnish their careers.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall the Observer or Torch ever reporting that. I think it's another one of those things useless moron Scott Keith made completely up, like Austin being scheduled to go over at Final Four and Foley being scheduled to go over at Mind Games. He created so many fallacies and people have believed them for a long time.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Garvin got the belt because he was the only babyface Dusty was willing to have Flair beat cleanly.

[Slickster 0]

I was unaware of the story behind the Garvin situation. Thanks for clearing that up, guys!

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Reading over this thread, I agree with the Goldberg title reign as the worst. WCW took the hottest wrestler they perhaps ever created, and managed to bury their World Title in the span of eight months.

[Guest Mos_Def]

Ronnie Garvin's run didn't damage the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. When Flair won the belt back and started defending it against Steamboat and Sting, it picked back up.

 

You kinda contradicted yourself because you said the Garvin run did no damage, yet you say Flair had to build it up afterwards. That’s precisely my point. Flair hurt the company for his benefit so he could swoop in and save the day. Maybe saying irreparable damage was a tad too strong.

 

McMahon certainly lent a hand in making Starrcade 87 a commercial failure, but he had nothing to do with it being a CRITICAL flop. That falls entirely on the NWA. Cant blame everything on Vince.

 

The momentum they could have received if Starrcade 87 had been a strong show that outperformed SS 87 resulting in a fresh face established at the top after years of Flair domination, might have gone a long way as far as house show revenue and interest in the product. Considering the show they put on, they might as well not even shown up.

 

Its comparable to WCW vs WWF in 1996. WCW was putting a lot of fianacial pressure on Vince, but Vince’s own product and decision making was just as strong of a determining factor in the war.

 

It was probably for the best that few people were exposed to that abomination of a main event at Starrcade 87.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

How did Flair hurt the NWA over the Garvin deal, when it wasn't his choice for Garvin to win and lose the belt so quickly ?

[Guest Mos_Def]

I’m sure Loss you’re going to tell me that Garvin practically getting booed out of Chicago was a myth too, despite the fact I heard it with my own ears. Again, Garvin was barely over midcard act that got a out of nowhere win against Flair. Shit, no heel would lose to him because he was such a lame duck. I don’t think he ever defended the belt as a champ until Flair beat him!!

 

So let me get this straight. Flair’s neck hurt so bad, it forced him to do a sabotage job by putting the belt on Garvin and winning it right back. That same neck injury prevented him from putting over somebody at Starrcade in a meaningful fashion that might remove him from the main events for a few months. That’s an interesting way at looking at it. Patron Saint Flair strikes again. Meltzer did a great job in covering for him.

 

If HHH lost the belt to someone like Stevie Richards at a Feb house show (not on TV) only to win it back at WrestleMania would you guys would say there was “no ego involved.”

 

Dusty had his issues as booker, but for a move that benefited Flair and Flair alone, I think its dubious to put the Starrcade 87 fiasco all on Dusty. Both Dusty and Flair were obsessed with keeping their spot as are most main eventers whose paychecks depend on their match on the card. Crockett deferred to both as evidenced by the treatment Flair received and his damn near uninterrupted run at the top. HBK/HHH/Hogan/Nash (before late98) ext weren’t bookers either and I haven’t seen them get the benefit of the doubt.

 

The Garvin/Starrcade 87 move was a HOF political power play.

[Art Sandusky 0]

To me a poorly booked champion is one I never really buy into as the real champ. Even before the shitstorm that was Jericho's title reign was truly realized, I remember having a really hard time thinking of him as the champion. I felt the same way with any time Angle was champion, as well as with Brock Lesnar. Those three have just always been difficult for me to see as the #1 guy, although they're each believeable title contenders in my mind.

[Guest Dale Earnhardt]

Ronnie Garvin's run didn't damage the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. When Flair won the belt back and started defending it against Steamboat and Sting, it picked back up.

 

You kinda contradicted yourself because you said the Garvin run did no damage, yet you say Flair had to build it up afterwards. That’s precisely my point. Flair hurt the company for his benefit so he could swoop in and save the day. Maybe saying irreparable damage was a tad too strong.

 

McMahon certainly lent a hand in making Starrcade 87 a commercial failure, but he had nothing to do with it being a CRITICAL flop. That falls entirely on the NWA. Cant blame everything on Vince.

 

The momentum they could have received if Starrcade 87 had been a strong show that outperformed SS 87 resulting in a fresh face established at the top after years of Flair domination, might have gone a long way as far as house show revenue and interest in the product. Considering the show they put on, they might as well not even shown up.

 

Its comparable to WCW vs WWF in 1996. WCW was putting a lot of fianacial pressure on Vince, but Vince’s own product and decision making was just as strong of a determining factor in the war.

 

It was probably for the best that few people were exposed to that abomination of a main event at Starrcade 87.

What I meant was, even if he had done damage, it was built back up anyway.

 

Ronnie Garvin winning the title was an obvious play for buyrates. Crockett wanted people to buy the PPV to see Ric Flair regain the championship. Vince McMahon making cable companies choose was a big part of Starrcade's failure. You're also showing that you have no idea on Jim Crockett Promotions/Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling history. Garvin was never a lower card guy. He hovered around the uppercard. He was US Tag Team Champions with Barry Windham, the last Mid-Atlantic Champion (before the title was dropped in 86) and he had generally hung around the upper midcard. The most accurate comparison to Garvin, card position wise would be Christian.

[brighty 0]

Ronnie Garvin's run didn't damage the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. When Flair won the belt back and started defending it against Steamboat and Sting, it picked back up.

 

You kinda contradicted yourself because you said the Garvin run did no damage, yet you say Flair had to build it up afterwards. That’s precisely my point. Flair hurt the company for his benefit so he could swoop in and save the day. Maybe saying irreparable damage was a tad too strong.

 

McMahon certainly lent a hand in making Starrcade 87 a commercial failure, but he had nothing to do with it being a CRITICAL flop. That falls entirely on the NWA. Cant blame everything on Vince.

 

The momentum they could have received if Starrcade 87 had been a strong show that outperformed SS 87 resulting in a fresh face established at the top after years of Flair domination, might have gone a long way as far as house show revenue and interest in the product. Considering the show they put on, they might as well not even shown up.

 

Its comparable to WCW vs WWF in 1996. WCW was putting a lot of fianacial pressure on Vince, but Vince’s own product and decision making was just as strong of a determining factor in the war.

 

It was probably for the best that few people were exposed to that abomination of a main event at Starrcade 87.

What I meant was, even if he had done damage, it was built back up anyway.

 

Ronnie Garvin winning the title was an obvious play for buyrates. Crockett wanted people to buy the PPV to see Ric Flair regain the championship. Vince McMahon making cable companies choose was a big part of Starrcade's failure. You're also showing that you have no idea on Jim Crockett Promotions/Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling history. Garvin was never a lower card guy. He hovered around the uppercard. He was US Tag Team Champions with Barry Windham, the last Mid-Atlantic Champion (before the title was dropped in 86) and he had generally hung around the upper midcard. The most accurate comparison to Garvin, card position wise would be Christian.

and if Christian won the World Title right now in a lame duck reign just to drop it back to HHH at WrestleMania that would damadge the company.

[Guest Loss]

I’m sure Loss you’re going to tell me that Garvin practically getting booed out of Chicago was a myth too, despite the fact I heard it with my own ears.

No, I'm not. Garvin was not well-received as a champion at all. That doesn't mean people didn't buy him as a midcarder. It would be like putting the belt on Eugene now.

 

Again, Garvin was barely over midcard act that got a out of nowhere win against Flair.  Shit, no heel would lose to him because he was such a lame duck.

 

That's simply not true. That's a useless moron Scott Keith fallacy that has perpetuated the Internet. That was NEVER reported at the time. Flair did not request to lose the title and win it back. Flair needed the time to heal his neck and Dusty chose to put the belt on Garvin.

 

I don’t think he ever defended the belt as a champ until Flair beat him!!

 

While it's true that Garvin was eventually taken off the road, he did defend the title early on. I have a match on tape where he defended against Tully Blanchard.

 

So let me get this straight.  Flair’s neck hurt so bad, it forced him to do a sabotage job by putting the belt on Garvin and winning it right back.  That same neck injury prevented him from putting over somebody at Starrcade in a meaningful fashion that might remove him from the main events for a few months.

 

Considering they were expanding into the PPV market, and were going to be running prime-time specials called Clash of the Champions multiple times a year, they needed Flair in that position. Flair not being in main events at that time would have been like the WWF taking Hogan out of main events at that time. True, Flair was nowhere near Hogan in terms of drawing power, but he was every bit as important to his own company's success.

 

That’s an interesting way at looking at it.  Patron Saint Flair strikes again.

 

Flair is not a Patron Saint, and has done some things I have disagreed with, but this is simply not one of them. I know you have an axe to grind with Ric because you're trying to get over as someone who goes against what everyone knows and pulls evidence out of nowhere to back up your point that simply doesn't exist, but whatever.

 

Meltzer did a great job in covering for him.

 

If Meltzer covered for his favorite wrestlers, he would not have the credibility he has and the Observer would not have lasted 23 years. Hell, in 1990, he was arguing that Flair was aging worse than Jimmy Carter and needed to retire. He used to bash Shawn Michaels for the shit he pulled off camera, but never stopped singing his praises as a worker. He hated Hogan as a worker, but never tried to discredit his ability to draw. He's torn into Bret for dogging house shows many times, and they're good friends. He called HHH a fantastic worker in 2000 but still criticized his political pull. He's proven many times that he's capable of separating who he likes, what really happened and who can work into three separate categories. His track record there speaks for itself.

 

If HHH lost the belt to someone like Stevie Richards at a Feb house show (not on TV) only to win it back at WrestleMania would you guys would say there was “no ego involved.”

 

No, because there would be. HHH is married to the head writer, the boss's daughter, and is the most influential wrestler in the company. This is simply a flawed comparison, if only because Flair didn't sleep with Dusty Rhodes to keep his spot. Flair did NOT request to drop the title and win it back. I defy you to find any news reported at the time that said so.

 

Besides, Chris Jericho was a modern-day Ron Garvin with the belt. Garvin was a little more over than Steven Richards, but putting the belt on him was a lousy decision and caused him to lose heat.

 

Dusty had his issues as booker, but for a move that benefited Flair and Flair alone, I think its dubious to put the Starrcade 87 fiasco all on Dusty.

 

Have you never heard of the established star dropping a match heading into the big show to create some type of doubt over who would win? That's all this was intended to be. It's Booking 101. It happens all the time. You're grasping for straws here looking for an agenda that simply isn't there.

 

Both Dusty and Flair were obsessed with keeping their spot as are most main eventers whose paychecks depend on their match on the card.  Crockett deferred to both as evidenced by the treatment Flair received and his damn near uninterrupted run at the top.

 

This is a complete fabrication. Flair was booked as an incredibly weak world champion, and this is a large part of the reason he wasn't in Hogan's league. Have you never heard of a promoter taking the best and most over guy in the company and building the future around him? Or does everything have some sort of hidden agenda? Flair wasn't even the best worker at all times while he was champion. Dusty wanted to build around Barry Windham in 1985 until Windham left for Vince and Dusty no longer trusted him. In fact, had Barry shown a little more dedication to wrestling, he probably would have been in Flair's spot at least half of the time. He also wanted to build around Magnum TA, but he was in a car wreck. He had a chance to put the belt on Magnum in 1986, but instead took the opportunity to put the belt on himself.

 

HBK/HHH/Hogan/Nash (before late98) ext weren’t  bookers either and I haven’t seen them get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Shawn was criticized not for being influential and making power plays so much as walking out on a regular basis when things didn't go his way and milking injuries to get out of doing high-profile jobs. You'd never in a million years see that criticism rightfully applied to Flair. Shawn lost three titles without ever taking a pinfall. Flair dropped the belt in the ring every time out, and did it clean as a sheet at that.

 

HHH married into the McMahon family. Flair never married into the Crockett family. HHH also clearly has workers on the undercard who are every bit as over, if not more so, and who are every bit as good in the ring, if not better, who he has beaten over and over to a point where they're no longer taken seriously. Did Flair ever do that to anyone? No.

 

Hogan had a creative control clause in his contract and had the ability to veto any angle he didn't like for no reason other than that he didn't like it. Flair never had anywhere near the power over the direction Crockett took as Hogan did over the direction Bischoff took.

 

Nash was used as an upper-card tag team wrestler until he got the book. He was known to fake heart attacks to get out of doing jobs and actually laugh on camera while taking a pinfall. He skipped a Nitro in '98 where he was supposed to put over Goldberg. Flair never skipped down or faked an injury when he was expected to do a job.

 

The Garvin/Starrcade 87 move was a HOF political power play.

 

No, it's a lie that was made completely up with nothing to support it.

[strummer 0]

If Meltzer covered for his favorite wrestlers, he would not have the credibility he has and the Observer would not have lasted 23 years. Hell, in 1990, he was arguing that Flair was aging worse than Jimmy Carter and needed to retire. He used to bash Shawn Michaels for the shit he pulled off camera, but never stopped singing his praises as a worker. He hated Hogan as a worker, but never tried to discredit his ability to draw. He's torn into Bret for dogging house shows many times, and they're good friends. He called HHH a fantastic worker in 2000 but still criticized his political pull. He's proven many times that he's capable of separating who he likes, what really happened and who can work into three separate categories. His track record there speaks for itself.

 

This is true, unless your name is Bob Backland, who Dave still takes shots at today for some reason. This is a clear example where Dave made someone he didn't like look bad.

[Guest Loss]

I thought Dave pushed for Backlund to go in the HOF.

[strummer 0]

I thought Dave pushed for Backlund to go in the HOF.

On WOL, he begrudgingly made a case for Backlund. I heard it. Dave for whatever reason doesn't like Backlund at all. His thesis for putting him in the HOF was "well, he's been around so long" "I didn't think he was great, but I changed my mind" He was almost making Backlund look bad by having sympathy for him rather than praising him for having legit credentials. Which is just as bad a burying someone, IMO, of course

[haws bah gawd 0]

Didnt Duane Gill defend WWF's Lightheavyweight Title across several Indy feds before returning to the WWF over a year and a half later to job it to Essa Rios? I seem to remember reading that, but I could be wrong.

 

My poorly booked title reign nomination is for one not yet mentioned. I would say WCW's Women's Cruiserweight Champion. I don't remember who won the tournament, but this was a big sham. WCW held the tournament over several weeks in 97 or 98, and I believe held the finals on a PPV. Anyways, the champion was crowned, and the title defended maybe once only to never be seen again, along with the WCW World Women's Championship. I know we could use the age-old excuse of, "this is WCW, what do you expect?". But was there any purpose in having a tournament, and a title created, only to appear a handful of times?

[jester 0]

My poorly booked title reign nomination is for one not yet mentioned. I would say WCW's Women's Cruiserweight Champion. I don't remember who won the tournament, but this was a big sham. WCW held the tournament over several weeks in 97 or 98, and I believe held the finals on a PPV.

Wasn't that a feud between Madusa and Oklahoma?

 

Speaking of which, remember when they made Jackie WWE Cruiserweight champion?

 

There was someone who was so embarassingly unover, and they turfed her not long after.