Yeah, this is part two from this thread from February. I am redoing the thread, mostly because I think now people would want to vote for Cena.

I'm sticking by my original statement of Diesel.

I'll buy Diesel, just cause he SHOULD have worked. I'd say Vince himself is a close 2nd.

Deep inside I want to vote Sid, but he was mad popular when he was champ (for whatever reason).

I'll have to debate and post later.

I actually have gone on to enjoy the HBK/Sid match where Sid wins the title. There is something about that match that just works for me (besides the crowd tearing HBK apart).

Uhhhh........it's easily Vince guys. Name ONE redeeming thing about that reign?

How is KANE nominated?

1. He was the most over Non-McMahon heel in the company.
2. His reign lasted all of 25 hours and 19 minutes.


McMahon by a business decision, but since he took it off himself days later (thank God), I vote for Diesel. The WWF was in toilet because of that reign.

Kane is nominated because I could have imagined someone voting for him, nothing personal against the guy.

Diesel has gotten more votes this time around, I believe.

Both Diesel and McMahon got 3 each last time too, I think.

Yeah, I forget... maybe more people voted last time, so right now it SEEMS like those two got more votes now.

I remember having this same thread at TSM once (I made it, of course) and JBL was a very popular choice at the time.

JBL wasn't that bad. I don't think I would nominate him against Diesel and McMahon. Not too fair.

Yeah, in hindsight JBL turned out to be a pretty good champion, IMHO.

How it could be anyone other than Vinny the Mac I have no clue.

It's not so much the redeeming quality thing, it's that it did much less damage. I mean, Vince winning the title in an emotional soap opera storyline, getting his masturbatory day in the sun, and then putting the title up in the 6-Pack Challenge is very stupid, I admit. But in two weeks time, the title was back where it belonged. Compare that to Diesel going over Bob Backlund at a house show in 7 seconds when Backlund had just dethroned the most respected man in the company in Bret Hart, then keeping the title for a year, and buyrates, attendance, and match quality tanking.

But look at the credibility of the title. I have no problem believing that a 7' roid freak could destroy an over the hill Backlund. However, the 55 year old owner of the company beating the unbeatable anti-hero....something seems a little suspicious.

Not to defend this, but McMahon won it thanks to the "HHH stacks odds against himself because he's so confident" routine. It was a horrible idea, but it wasn't meant to be that serious, and McMahon was pretty over. :P

Woops. I thought he beat Austin for the belt. Nevertheless, It is still obvious that the guy who owns the company just wanted to have the belt for himself, living out a stupid little fantasy. Totally destroys the "sport" illusion.

At least McMahon looks like he could kick someones ass, unlike Vince Russo and David Artquette, who had bodies that would make the guy who played Screech on SBTB look like a roid monkey.


<---Still not defending that horrible move. It just could've been MUCH worse. Much much much much much worse. Linda McMAhon could've won it.

I see your point and agree to an extent, I just disagree for a few reasons.

1) Putting Diesel over Backlund at a house show in 7 seconds still doesn't make any sense to me. No build, nothing. If you're gonna pull the trigger and hotshot it like this, at least put it where someone can see it. (NOTE: I could KINDA buy the whole "draw to the house show" thing, but this is at MSG, where they do well all the time anyway. I just don't get it.)

2) Vince was an idiotic choice for champ, but his reign didn't "tank" cause it lasted what, a day? It was stupid and masturbatory, like I said, but didn't hurt business.

3) The "credibility" wasn't damaged to me, because it made HHH look too confident, not inferior to Vince in the ring.

It was also done to put heat on the Austin/Triple H feud. It still was stupid, but that's Vince for you.*

*-I don't know if Russo was around, or if McMahon did it on his own, so I'll just say Vince _____ and leave it at that.

It happened right around the time when Russo was leaving or about to leave for WCW. Perhaps it was Russo thinking "Hehe, if I can book some especially stupid crap here, it will give me an advantage when I get to Turner land and then reveal my true genius."

Curious, why are Buddy Rogers and Ivan Koloff on the worst champion list?

Koloff's reign lasted all of 3 weeks as a transition champion between 2 of the hottest stars in the 70's, and Rogers jobbed to Bruno in 40 seconds.

I dub them 2 "Filler" choices, like almost everyone else.

They were still top heels at the time. SamoaRowe should create a thrid poll: "Best Transitional Champion". :lol:

Didn't the Austin/Kane Rematch get one of the best quarter-ratings up to that point? If so, I vote for Kane as best transitional champ. :P

Bret Hart :D

Vince shouldn't count. He forfeited the strap after he won it, and he never defended it or anything.

I voted for Nash, he's the worst drawing WWF Champion of all time.

He still won his own promotions most important championship. In the record books, Vince McMahon is a former WWF Champion.

He only had the title for 4 days, he won it on Smackdown then vacated it on Raw. That shouldn't count whether he won it or not, it's not like it hurt business or anything, he just won it then vacated it.

It just hurt the credibility of the fucking title and the title picture at the time. Just like everytime HBK held a title and vacated it instead of putting someone over. Point being is a 50 year old man that was never a full time wrestler shouldn't go over ANYONE.

I think Nash takes too much of the blame for his reign. Yeah he was bad but he never had a good challenger to make his run click. He spent most of it defending against non-draws like Sid, Davey Boy and Mabel. He also defended against Michaels at Mania and it's been proven that Michaels can't draw a buyrate to save his life. He was also leading the company with acts like Mantaur and Kwang in the undercard. Had they done Nash/Hart, Nash/Taker and Nash/Hall I think his reign would've done better.

He never should've been champ at all but 4 days is barely a reign. A 12 month title reign that drew shit and barely had any solid matches is worse than a 4 day reign with no title defenses and no draw loss. It did hurt the title, but just be glad it was a very short run, short enough that it shouldn't be considered on this poll.

I agree with what Mad Dog is saying here. Nash didn't draw well as WWF champion, but neither did anyone from 1993 to 1997. I don't see anyone complain about Michaels or Bret's reigns, but they didn't draw either. Not to say that it was any of their faults though because the WWF's business was in the shitter those years anyway.

Surprised Yoko doesn't have any votes yet. Granted Nash didn't draw, but at least he held the title for a good bit and had a couple of good feuds (for the time). Although Yokozuna did have that feud with the Undertaker.

Bret and Yoko did respetable numbers for what they had. It wasn't that good, but miles ahead of Big Daddy Bitch.

Surprised Ray Stevens wasn't added to the list.

When did Ray Stevens ever win the WW(W)F/E Title?

July 15, 1967 - Ray Stevens defeats Bruno Sammartino for the WWWF Championship in San Francisco, CA.

Uh... Bruno had an uninterrupted reign for 8 years from 1963-1971. That either never happend, or it never happend.

It happened. It was never acknowledged.

So it never happend.