CvC 2.0: Who Is the Worst WWE Champion in History?

Red Division (Cross the Line division)

Daniel Massey vs Tyson Jones

Who Is the Worst WWE Champion in History?

Hello folks! Welcome to my first ever CvC question!

When I first received my topic, I have to admit I was rather gleeful as Vince McMahon immediately popped into my mind as the worst WWE Champion.

There have been 40 WWE Champions, and Vince is the only one out of those 40 who wasn’t a wrestler.

However, as I began to think about it a little bit more, I realised there may be a lot more to this topic than I first thought.

First of all, what makes a bad WWE Champion? It could be a multitude of different reasons. Is it because a bad wrestler has the belt? Does a lack of ability limit the Champion and make them a bad one?

It could be the length of the reign. If it was, then Andre the Giant would be a sure thing as he sold it (to the Million Dollar Man) straight after he won it, yet he is still in the record books as a former WWE Champion, with the shortest reign ever at no days.

There have also been many transitional champions in the WWE—Sycho Sid and Iron Sheik to name just two. A transitional Champion is someone who holds the title for a short time just to pass it onto a superstar that the previous champion did not want to lose to.

So, after weighing up all these options I had to come to a conclusion. Many superstars can be considered bad Champions such as Rob Van Dam and Yokozuna. However, the one name that sticks out to me and fits the majority of points I just mentioned—points that make one a bad champion—is Kane.

Kane won the WWE Championship at King of the Ring 1998. He dropped it a day later back to “Stone Cold” Steve Austin. There was hardly any point in having a promotional photo taken. This is the only time Kane has ever held the WWE Championship.

The fact it was such a short reign makes him a bad Champion. The outcome to the Championship match that he won was also extremely obvious because of the stipulation that if he lost, he would set himself on fire. Even WWE wouldn’t have let him set himself on fire.

It was a main event that was as predictable as WWE programming is today.

Kane was stuck in the middle of a feud between Stone Cold Steve Austin and Vince McMahon and the Championship was marred by the amount of interferences.

The Undertaker was the one who made Steve Austin bleed meaning Kane didn’t even win his own title! Admittedly he hit Austin inadvertently, but it still means it wasn’t Kane who won the match.

That also makes him a bad Champion. If not winning your own title doesn’t make you a bad Champion, then I don’t know what does.

This also makes Kane a transitional Champion—another bad point I mentioned at the start of the article. However, what I don’t understand is why he held the belt at all because the transition was from Austin to Austin...

I wouldn’t say Kane has a lack of ability, which is probably his only redeeming feature—or it would have been, had he had more than one match as WWE Champion. His match with Austin at King of the Ring 1998 was an excellent bout—though it is often forgotten about due to the hellacious Hell in a Cell match that preceded it.

Nevertheless, he did make a stupid decision as Champion. Even Paul Bearer didn’t want him to face the Rattlesnake a night after he’d won the title. However, Kane agreed (worst decision ever) and lost to Steve Austin that night.

It got a huge pop from the crowd but was it worth it Kane?

Transitional Champions usually hold the belt for a bit longer than Kane did which is why I believe Kane is the worst WWE Champion in history. Even Vince McMahon has a longer reign than Kane. This was the 39^th reign in WWE history and though it is memorable for people who were present in the Attitude Era, I would guess that not many modern fans would even know that Kane held the WWE Championship for a day.

Kane wasn’t a bad superstar, far from it—he was one of the best characters ever at that point. I think that reign did him more harm than good and I believe that WWE regretted their decision the next day. I think Kane as WWE Champion could have been a good thing for the company but you could argue that a title wasn’t needed in his feud with Undertaker and Austin.

He was a bad Champion though—the worst WWE Champion in history, and I don’t think you’ll find anyone who was worse than Kane. Some may say Vince McMahon, but although he was Champion, he wasn’t a wrestler and I believe it would be a cheap way out.

Plus, the fact that he was WWE Champion was probably just so he could say he had been. After all, he owns the company.

This singular reign has to be the worst reign in WWE history. I don’t believe Andre the Giant can really be counted because he sold the title as part of his storyline.

Kane was a bad Champion due to his short reign, a bad decision, the fact he was a transitional champion and the fact that his reign is all but forgotten by most people.

He has since had an extremely good run with the World Championship and is one of the most longstanding members of WWE.

However, I will always consider his reign as WWE Champion as the worst one in history, and I hope I have convinced you of the same.

Please leave a comment if you agree or disagree. I always reply to all comments but it won’t be until tomorrow as I have no Internet at my new house yet!

Thanks for reading!

Tyson Jones’ article