Worst Title Change In WWE?

[The Small Show]

Worst Title Change In WWE?

As I have only bee a wrestling fan since 2001, I thought that the most pointless and worthless transition of champions was earlier this year on ECW. The match was Christian vs. Ezekial Jackson on the last ever ECW. Instead of giving the show and Christian a feel-good moment to conclude the show, Vince decided to place Zeke as the champion so he could walk around the ring with the belt and then give it back. The angle would have been fine if Zeke had brought the belt to Smackdown with himself, but he didn't.. The whole moment was solely to claim that he was a "World champ" but the announcers forget the small details like he was champion for 5 minutes and never actually lost the belt.. Oh well...​

 

[Kross Rhodes]

Do you just go around copy and pasting the exact same posts at every forum you frequent? LOL

But I agree, it was a pointless title change that served no purpose. Christian should have retained and been the rightful last ECW champion.

 

[gatesoftanhauser]

Here was a bad one:

Yokozuna's 5 minute title reign at 'Mania 9. Hulk Hogan comes out, immediately after Yoko pinned Bret Hart, somehow a bell gets rung, big boot, leg drop, pin and Hogan walks out of Las Vegas with the title after not bringing the title into the event.

 

[CMS]

I actually understand and like Ezekiel's title win. Bad thing is, announcers stopped talking about it. But it was supposed to be something to put him over.


I found not pointless, but just bad, the The Great Khali being the one winning the belt after Edge vacated it in 2007. If they wanted a monster to carry the torch, they could have given the nod to Mark Henry (who was actually being pushed back then), trade Umaga to Smackdown or hey, guess what, give it to Kane.

 

[Montana]

I heard Khali had a clause in his contract, that basically said they would give him one title reign, and that seemed like the best time to do it. But i def. see your point.

I didn't like these title changes

Bob Backland defeating Bret Hart in 1994, crushing his momentum.

Sid defeating HBK and Bret Hart in Late 96, Early 97 for two title reigns.

JBL winning the belt from Eddie G in June 2004.


I feel as if Backland, Sid, and JBL hurt the product, more than help it, in those times.

 

[CMS]

I didn't like Batista defeating Chris Jericho and Randy Orton for two of his title reigns. Totally pointless, specially considering the lenghts of his reigns.


If that was the case with Khali, then yeah, it was indeed the best time to pull the plug on his reign, and what you say makes sense, considering how bad Khali got squashed for the remainer of the year and into 2008, when he got build for HHH to beat him and then jobbed again until now

 

[gatesoftanhauser]

Oh yeah, I forgot about Kane's 22 (22, 23?) hour title reign after beating Austin. I understand Austin was popping fire at the time, but they could have at least waited 3 -4 weeks until the next PPV to have Kane drop it back to Austin. At least they could have given Kane 30 days, ya know?

 

[Airfixx]

....I assume we're not looking too intently at the IC or tag title?

I heard Khali had a clause in his contract, that basically said they would give him one title reign, and that seemed like the best time to do it. But i def. see your point.

I didn't like these title changes

Bob Backland defeating Bret Hart in 1994, crushing his momentum.

Agreed. Bret went on to do fuck all of note until facing off with Nash @ SS95. Poor Bret, the Hogan/Yoko WM9 bullshit left him high and dry too!

Sid defeating HBK and Bret Hart in Late 96, Early 97 for two title reigns.

Contractual shit I'd imagine, but yeah, did nothing for the product... Additional speculation though; it's widely commented that Vince didn't know where they were headed for WM13... The 2nd of the 2 runs was probably just to find someone imposing for Taker to beat once they'd decided he'd be the one leaving WM with the belt. A s for the first run, they didn't really have any fresh challengers for HBK at that stage so prob went with the switcheroo whilst at the back of their minds was an the uber-gate in Texas for HBK regaining the title at RR97.

JBL winning the belt from Eddie G in June 2004.

Lack of decent heels to throw at Eddie on SD I'd imagine, but yeah, as over as he was, his reign could have gone much longer... I really enjoyed JBLs reign though.


I feel as if Backland, Sid, and JBL hurt the product, more than help it, in those times.[/QUOTE]

True... I'd add:

Batista x2 in 2009 (as previoulsy mentioned by CMS)
Hogan/Yoko WM9



Interesting how, dispite all the IWC hype, there's no mention of the evil HHH's monopolising of the WWE title scene bringing about a terrible title reign. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... 'The plot thickens'.

 

[CMS]

With HHH, I just think it's bitching for bitching sake. They talk about 2002, but whom besides HBK, was worthy of being champion? Kane, who was running with the friendly, talking monster gimmick? RVD? Maybe as a transitional champion, but even that is iffy? Same goes for 2003.

The only really bad part about HHH was his run of WCW opponents Raw decided to sign and throw at him. You just cannot hate on Flair and HHH.

 

[CMS]

Continuing on the bad title changes, I think all 2009 was a parade of maybe not bad title changes, but unnecesary title changes. Cena winning the belt at Wrestlemania then losing it to Edge is top one on unnecessary.

 

[Montana]

Not to change the direction of his conversation, but to HHH's respect, he's earned his spot with the company like it or not. He would have been a multi-time champ, Steph or not. Vince loved him since debuting with the company. It's not like they just threw the belt on HHH, opposed to someone like Shaemus. HHH worked his way through WCW, and then to a Low card WWE guy, then to a mid card, and then to the main event. And from what i hear, he's got a great work ethic. But yeah, Did he deserve all ten regins, or however many reigns he's had?? Maybe not every one, but close. He just seems to be in the right position at the right time.

Plus as mentioned before, he has jobbed/put people over at Wrestlemania. Batista, Cena, Beniot, Orton at 24,

 

[GardenStateSaint]

The worst title change for me had to be WrestleMania IX when Hogan beat Yokozuna for the belt. I hated it when I was 8 and I still hate it to this very day. Just a yuck move.

 

[Airfixx]

The only really bad part about HHH was his run of WCW opponents Raw decided to sign and throw at him.

Only in as much as that they were shit and even then they still put Golberg over him for the title.

 

[CMS]

That's exactly my point. People expecting HHH to drop the belt to anyone in 2002-2003 and actually bitching about it are just delusional. He did it twice and to HBK and Goldberg, the only two deserving.

Nash, Steiner, Kane and Van Dam would have made for horrible champions

 

[...god...]

Finally, people see the light about Triple H in 2002-2003. Really, the only one who coulda worked was Kane after he unveiled the mask but if I recall they didn't even feud after that..