ATH Knockout Semi final 1: Voltwad vs Cactus Col

Bounty Hunter

So we had a quality opener with Voltwad seing off Volt_2007 to progress on to face Flahavaj in the quaterfinal and the really tight Degag vs Campo match which saw Campo progress to another QF, This was followed by argueably the tie of the round when Waltersobcheck booked his place in the next round at Danger Dave's expense, then we found out the final first round winner as Dare 2 Defy took on Dieselqueen, with DQ coming out on top.

The first quaterfinal saw the clash of the co-champs but didnt quite live up to its potential but saw Cactus Col progress to the Semi-final Where it was later determined he would be joined by Voltwad as he overcame Flahavaj. At last the final Semi final spot went to Waltersobchek after his QF with Campo.

now for the Semi-finals and first up is Cactus Col vs Voltwad!

Simplified version of the rules:

I will post a topic and you have to post your response including why you made that choice within a given time limit (before the next match is scheduled to begin), take care while making your responses however as the other contestant can counter your arguement i.e pointing out possible flaws in what youve said.

*you can only counter an arguement three (for the semi) times so make sure your point is worth making. If someone's defense of their arguement isnt good it will count against them.

*You can use the same answer as your opponent if you wish i.e you agree with their choice however its hard to win a debate when your making the same points someone has already made

see the first few match ups or OP of the main thread for further details if any are needed

Q. Who in you opinion was the worst ever world champion and why do you pick them over other options available to you?

the criteria for worst is totally up to you but so is voters potential to agree or disagree with your arguement for why they are the worst of course.

good luck

The Volt

I always think of a bad title run as a title run with a superstar who is not over, or is booked as a weak champion. However, there is one title reign that stands out above all for me that was the worst move ever by a booking team. I am of course talking about the title win of one David Arquette of WCW back in 2000. I was a big WCW fan growing up, moreso than WWF and to give the belt to an actor for the simple purpose of promoting a movie was downright wrong as well as being a spit in the faces of fans worldwide.

For those of you who don't remember, it was back in April of 2000 on an episode of WCW Thunder. Arquette captured the title by pinning Eric Bischoff in a tag team match including a special stipulation that the pin fall winner would be the new WCW champion. Participants in the wild bout were the leader of WCW's New Blood, Jeff Jarrett, and Arquette's partner Diamond Dallas Page, the former champion. Vince Russo basically destroyed any credibility that the WCW Title had left for the purpose of a quick buck. After Arquette got the pin on Bischoff, DDP literally laughed about it despite his last title reign being over. It was by far the biggest facepalm ever and I argue that nothing can top it.

We've had some boring title reigns alá Big Show in 2003 and The Great Khali. However, both of these were somewhat credible due to the size factor and it was able to put over the stars that won the belt off them but David Arquette is by far and away the worst World Champion that ever existed. It was rotten all over. It ruined a decent feud between Page and Jarrett but on a larger scale, was the beginning of the end for WCW.

Cactus Colm

Well .. .I've had a drink .... and I've had a think...

I tried to decide on a criteria for Worst World Champion.

First I decided to go with the Boards Draft criteria for World Champion (meaning post 1992 NWA Champs were out the window ... goodbye Shane Douglas ditching the NWA title!).

This left me with the title lineages for the WWE/F title, WWE World Heavyweight tite, TNA World title, WCW World title, etc.

Looking at the lineages one name stood out. One name that is pretty much reviled by wrestling fans across the world. And that name is Vince.

He won the title on a fluke. Booked to win the title (by himself) in a cage match, by being speared through the cage wall by Goldberg, in a match against Booker T (the champion). An ending that literally ripped off the the Valentines Day Massacre cage match between Vince McMahon and Steve Austin (where Austin won the match by being thrown through the cage wall by The Big Show).

Russo was as unpopular then as he is now. Not unpopular in the way that people wanted to see him get beaten, but unpopular in the way fans just did not want to see him at all.

Russo's reign added nothing to the title in the way of prestige or attention. Obviously as he was not a mainstream celebrity his win did not even have the potential of attracting any kind of mainstream media attention, and as he won on a fluke, did not defend, and vacated the title a week later, he did not any kind of prestige to the title.

In fact he helped damage the prestige of the title. By winning in a fluke against a champion who won the title just 8 days before, he undermined that champion and the championship belt. This was a time when the title had been hotshotted around the around the company 15 times before Russo won it. What the title needed was a proper, decent reign. What it got was Russo winning it, and almost immediately vacating it. Booker T won it back again, but his credentials were already undermined, as Russo vacated it, Booker didn't even get the chance to beat the world champion for the belt.

Russo is the worst champion because he never had any potential to be a good champion, to even give any mainstream attention to the belt or promotion, to increase the popularity or promotion, to increase the popularity of a challenger. There is no plus side to Russo holding the title. None at all.

There is no champion who has held the title that has absolutely no positives about at least one of his reigns. Except Vince Russo. There is no defence.

Cactus Colm

Voltwad wrote: »

I always think of a bad title run as a title run with a superstar who is not over, or is booked as a weak champion. However, there is one title reign that stands out above all for me that was the worst move ever by a booking team. I am of course talking about the title win of one David Arquette of WCW back in 2000. I was a big WCW fan growing up, moreso than WWF and to give the belt to an actor for the simple purpose of promoting a movie was downright wrong as well as being a spit in the faces of fans worldwide.

For those of you who don't remember, it was back in April of 2000 on an episode of WCW Thunder. Arquette captured the title by pinning Eric Bischoff in a tag team match including a special stipulation that the pin fall winner would be the new WCW champion. Participants in the wild bout were the leader of WCW's New Blood, Jeff Jarrett, and Arquette's partner Diamond Dallas Page, the former champion. Vince Russo basically destroyed any credibility that the WCW Title had left for the purpose of a quick buck. After Arquette got the pin on Bischoff, DDP literally laughed about it despite his last title reign being over. It was by far the biggest facepalm ever and I argue that nothing can top it.

We've had some boring title reigns alá Big Show in 2003 and The Great Khali. However, both of these were somewhat credible due to the size factor and it was able to put over the stars that won the belt off them but David Arquette is by far and away the worst World Champion that ever existed. It was rotten all over. It ruined a decent feud between Page and Jarrett but on a larger scale, was the beginning of the end for WCW.

Well ... there is a couple of reasons why Arquettes reign as champion beats Russo's.

The biggest reason is that Arquette's reign brought some (admittedly not a huge amount) of mainstream media attention to the promotion. Arquette was a fairly big movie star, having starred in the Scream trilogy and Never Been Kissed, a legit film star who's movies had banked hundreds of milliions of dollars, of course he had the potential to attract attention from media outlets, and new fans to the promotion.

Russo's reign neither had the potential, or the effecto fo attracting media attention, or new fans to the promotion. In fact, the night Russo won the title Nitro scored a 2.9 rating, a rating the promotion never achieved again until the very last nitro (which scored a 3.0). Russo's reign actively turned fans off watching the product.



Now, if you want one reason, just one reason why David Arquette was a better World Champion than Vince Russo it is this:

All money earned by Arquette while world champion went to the families of Owen Hart, Brian Pillman, and Darren Drozdoz. Quite frankly that kind of class gets a pass from me.

The Volt

Cactus Colm wrote: »

Well .. .I've had a drink .... and I've had a think...

I tried to decide on a criteria for Worst World Champion.

First I decided to go with the Boards Draft criteria for World Champion (meaning post 1992 NWA Champs were out the window ... goodbye Shane Douglas ditching the NWA title!).

This left me with the title lineages for the WWE/F title, WWE World Heavyweight tite, TNA World title, WCW World title, etc.

Looking at the lineages one name stood out. One name that is pretty much reviled by wrestling fans across the world. And that name is Vince.

He won the title on a fluke. Booked to win the title (by himself) in a cage match, by being speared through the cage wall by Goldberg, in a match against Booker T (the champion). An ending that literally ripped off the the Valentines Day Massacre cage match between Vince McMahon and Steve Austin (where Austin won the match by being thrown through the cage wall by The Big Show).

Russo was as unpopular then as he is now. Not unpopular in the way that people wanted to see him get beaten, but unpopular in the way fans just did not want to see him at all.

Russo's reign added nothing to the title in the way of prestige or attention. Obviously as he was not a mainstream celebrity his win did not even have the potential of attracting any kind of mainstream media attention, and as he won on a fluke, did not defend, and vacated the title a week later, he did not any kind of prestige to the title.

In fact he helped damage the prestige of the title. By winning in a fluke against a champion who won the title just 8 days before, he undermined that champion and the championship belt. This was a time when the title had been hotshotted around the around the company 15 times before Russo won it. What the title needed was a proper, decent reign. What it got was Russo winning it, and almost immediately vacating it. Booker T won it back again, but his credentials were already undermined, as Russo vacated it, Booker didn't even get the chance to beat the world champion for the belt.

Russo is the worst champion because he never had any potential to be a good champion, to even give any mainstream attention to the belt or promotion, to increase the popularity or promotion, to increase the popularity of a challenger. There is no plus side to Russo holding the title. None at all.

There is no champion who has held the title that has absolutely no positives about at least one of his reigns. Except Vince Russo. There is no defence.

I wouldn't begrudge you Vince Russo, he was a terrible world champion. A poor man's Vince McMahon if you will. I think Russo is a bit of a risk taker. He's not afraid to try things that might not work. As a result, sometimes his risks pay off and we get gold while other times we get a dud. You win some, you lose some as they say. Of course he never had any potential to be world champion but he himself willingly admitted that it was never meant to happen. Goldberg speared him through the cage and he forfeited the title the next night on Nitro. Maybe this wasn't the best kayfabe way forward but in circumctances where he willingly booked Arquette as champion, that takes the biscuit. This is a matter of what was the worse of the two decisions that Russo made and where one was a fluke as you put it, Arquette's title win is on a whole other level. It was down to this event that meant becoming WCW Champion meant nothing anymore.

A publicity stunt gone wrong doesn't even cover it. It's one thing to have Russo win the title, at least that was a) a fluke and b) involving someone with a pro-wrestling background but to give it to an actor for the sake of promoting a movie has to go down as one of the most disrespectful moments in wrestling history. No matter how much Vince Russo tries to justify it, it really would have to be considered one of the single worst ideas that he would ever create. To put Arquette in a title lineage with Ric Flair, Lou Thesz et al. just makes light of the tradition held so dear and treated seriously by so many. WCW didn't have to go down this route with Arquette, they could have simply have him aid Jarrett or Page in the match but they chose to put the belt on him and then include him in a PPV that involved a heel turn that made no sense whatsoever.

Cactus Colm wrote: »

Well ... there is a couple of reasons why Arquettes reign as champion beats Russo's.

The biggest reason is that Arquette's reign brought some (admittedly not a huge amount) of mainstream media attention to the promotion. Arquette was a fairly big movie star, having starred in the Scream trilogy and Never Been Kissed, a legit film star who's movies had banked hundreds of milliions of dollars, of course he had the potential to attract attention from media outlets, and new fans to the promotion.

Russo's reign neither had the potential, or the effecto fo attracting media attention, or new fans to the promotion. In fact, the night Russo won the title Nitro scored a 2.9 rating, a rating the promotion never achieved again until the very last nitro (which scored a 3.0). Russo's reign actively turned fans off watching the product.



Now, if you want one reason, just one reason why David Arquette was a better World Champion than Vince Russo it is this:

All money earned by Arquette while world champion went to the families of Owen Hart, Brian Pillman, and Darren Drozdoz. Quite frankly that kind of class gets a pass from me.

Arquette's reign cannot be justified by anything. Imagine a modern day guest host like Seth Green winning the WWE Championship? That's what it would be akin to. Pro Wrestling companies have always helped out charities and those families would have been well looked after either way. As I stated above, they didn't have to put the belt on Arquette. He could have simply helped one of Page or Jarrett win the match. Arquette as champion was met with indifference from the crowd, he has no physicality, infact, his wife would put up a better fight. No credentials that make him a world champion and a few quid towards the families of the aforementioned superstars that would have been earned anyway is no saving grace at all.

Cactus Colm

Voltwad wrote: »

I wouldn't begrudge you Vince Russo, he was a terrible world champion. A poor man's Vince McMahon if you will.

I certainly won't! Vince McMahon is acknowledged as one of the greatest heels in professional wrestling. When he made his in ring debut, the man was built like a brick ****house. He put his body on the line to make his matches worth watching. Russo, turned up in the ring, for a steel cell match dressed as an American football player, pads and helmet included.

Voltwad wrote: »

I think Russo is a bit of a risk taker. He's not afraid to try things that might not work. As a result, sometimes his risks pay off and we get gold while other times we get a dud. You win some, you lose some as they say. Of course he never had any potential to be world champion but he himself willingly admitted that it was never meant to happen. Goldberg speared him through the cage and he forfeited the title the next night on Nitro.

He may have called his win a fluke, but it was certainly supposed to happen. To win the match the competitors had to leave the cage, either through the unlocked door, through the roof, or any other way. At the end of the match Booker T had several opportunities to leave through the unlocked door. He literally had to wait at the unlocked door for Goldberg to come down the ramp, and enter the cell, he then had to wait for Scott Steiner to attack him (by closing the cell door on him, dispatching steiner with a kick through the door), and instead of going through the door then he has to wait for Russo to attack, and Goldberg to spear Russo.

Booker T literally spent the last minute of a ten minute match, standing beside the unlocked door to the cell.

The title was won on an episode of Nitro. Russo could have vacated the title on WCW Thunder, but waited a full week to vacate it. Plus him vacating the title nullified any benefit from him winning it. As I pointed out, it did not add to any angle, it did not increase the prestige of the title, and did nothing to attract fans (or keep fans watching).

Voltwad wrote: »

Maybe this wasn't the best kayfabe way forward but in circumctances where he willingly booked Arquette as champion, that takes the biscuit. This is a matter of what was the worse of the two decisions that Russo made and where one was a fluke as you put it, Arquette's title win is on a whole other level. It was down to this event that meant becoming WCW Champion meant nothing anymore.

By the time Arquette had won the title it had exchanged hands seven different times that year. It was only APRIL! In fact 3 different people held that title in April alone (not counting Arquette). This hotshotting of the title more than any individual holder damaged it's prestige. Hell Chris Benoit won it, and immediately vacated it by leaving the company. That title was tarnished before Arquette got anywhere near it.

In May, the month after Arquette's reign, the belt changed hands a further 5 times (6 if you include Jarrett beating Arquette for it).

So while Arquette's reign did nothing to help the title belt, it certainly did not do as much damage as you claim.

The second half of the year, it seemed the hotshotting had ended. Jarrett had won the title, and held it for 41 days, Booker T won it back in July, and held it for 50 days. Kevin Nash held it for 20 days before it went back to Booker. Then, just 8 days into his reign Russo won it. Immediately undoing any value that had been reclaimed for the title by the longer reigns.

Voltwad wrote: »

A publicity stunt gone wrong doesn't even cover it. It's one thing to have Russo win the title, at least that was a) a fluke and b) involving someone with a pro-wrestling background but to give it to an actor for the sake of promoting a movie has to go down as one of the most disrespectful moments in wrestling history.

If you watch both matches you will see that Arquette performed much better in the ring than Russo, despite Russo being in the business for several years. Russo managed to no sell beatdowns from both Booker T and Ric Flair (including both men's finishing moves), as well as a fall from the top of the cage (well, he was dangling from the top).

Arquette sold his beatdown, he won the title by pinning Eric Bischoff, which is not a totally unrealistic result, and actually performed a couple of wrestling moves.

Voltwad wrote: »

Arquette's reign cannot be justified by anything. Imagine a modern day guest host like Seth Green winning the WWE Championship? That's what it would be akin to.

It would not be akin to that at all. Seth Green is not a movie star who has recently been a part of a trilogy of films that have (indidvidually) grossed hundreds of millions of dollars, and influenced a genre for years to come.

The WWE title, despite not being as prestigious as it once was, is still far better regarded than the WCW title had been when this happened.

Also WCW has a tradition for celebrities takign part in their wrestling events, from Child's Play's Chucky tormenting Rick Steiner, to Robocop saving Sting from the four horsemen at a ppv. In comparison to these, Arquette's appearances could be seen as a triumph.

Pro Wrestling companies have always helped out charities and those families would have been well looked after either way. As I stated above, they didn't have to put the belt on Arquette. He could have simply helped one of Page or Jarrett win the match. Arquette as champion was met with indifference from the crowd, he has no physicality, infact, his wife would put up a better fight. No credentials that make him a world champion and a few quid towards the families of the aforementioned superstars that would have been earned anyway is no saving grace at all.

Now believe me, I'm not trying to justify Arquette's reign, but I simply trying to emphasise that at least some good came from him being World Champion. I do not think it's right to call any act of charity pointless.
Arquette did some good as world champion.

Russo, did nothing. He booked himself as champion, for no other reason but to for him to be champion for a week.

The Volt

I certainly won't! Vince McMahon is acknowledged as one of the greatest heels in professional wrestling. When he made his in ring debut, the man was built like a brick ****house. He put his body on the line to make his matches worth watching. Russo, turned up in the ring, for a steel cell match dressed as an American football player, pads and helmet included.

Despite his ridiculous attire, he was still the boss at the time and in circumstances where he was established in WCW I think it's fair to say that it's a little easier to swallow him winning the belt as opposed to Arquette.

He may have called his win a fluke, but it was certainly supposed to happen. To win the match the competitors had to leave the cage, either through the unlocked door, through the roof, or any other way. At the end of the match Booker T had several opportunities to leave through the unlocked door. He literally had to wait at the unlocked door for Goldberg to come down the ramp, and enter the cell, he then had to wait for Scott Steiner to attack him (by closing the cell door on him, dispatching steiner with a kick through the door), and instead of going through the door then he has to wait for Russo to attack, and Goldberg to spear Russo.

Terrible stuff altogether but topped by DDP finding Arquette's pinfall funny. He breaks down laughing even though he's just lost his WCW title? It's bad enough that it took place but you'd at least think they could sell it properly. In Russo's match, Booker did what you would expect and beat the hell out of Vince, and then Vince wins by a fluke accident on goldbergs part.

By the time Arquette had won the title it had exchanged hands seven different times that year. It was only APRIL! In fact 3 different people held that title in April alone (not counting Arquette). This hotshotting of the title more than any individual holder damaged it's prestige. Hell Chris Benoit won it, and immediately vacated it by leaving the company. That title was tarnished before Arquette got anywhere near it.

That's not uncommon in Pro Wrestling. Remember Rock/Mankind passing the title to one another like a hot potato? Or the way in which Edge and Cena are already multiple champions even though most of their reigns were shortlived. I don't think it's healthy booking to rotate the title like that but I wouldn't go as far as to say it devalues it beyond repair. Arquette's title win did the unrepairable damage to the belt.

If you watch both matches you will see that Arquette performed much better in the ring than Russo, despite Russo being in the business for several years. Russo managed to no sell beatdowns from both Booker T and Ric Flair (including both men's finishing moves), as well as a fall from the top of the cage (well, he was dangling from the top).

Arquette had been beaten up before the match, he played very little part in it apart from the pinfall that he got. He was getting tossed around by Bischoff for large parts of it. Like I said, his wife, the smallest character in Friends looks like she'd beat him in a fight.

It would not be akin to that at all. Seth Green is not a movie star who has recently been a part of a trilogy of films that have (indidvidually) grossed hundreds of millions of dollars, and influenced a genre for years to come.

Austin Powers comes to mind Nonetheless he is a well known actor that if chosen to go over Cena and win the WWE Title, would spark outrage and rightly so. I'm confident enough in the WWE writers that they have learned from the mistake made by WCW here.

Also WCW has a tradition for celebrities takign part in their wrestling events, from Child's Play's Chucky tormenting Rick Steiner, to Robocop saving Sting from the four horsemen at a ppv. In comparison to these, Arquette's appearances could be seen as a triumph.

It simply cannot be seen as a triumph, even in light of that tacky tradition that WCW had. WCW has done so much to ridicule the history of the sport and were really a key part of their own downfall. At the forefront of this is the Arquette saga, widely accepted as a huge failure on the part of the business. In an ideal world for WCW, the movie would have been doing well for a couple of weeks, and when the box office started to drop off, Arquette comes on Nitro and gives it another plug. People that didn’t see it the first time would to. The movie would have some momentum for a few more weeks, carrying WCW through the Slamboree PPV. Yet they chose a nonsensical angle that involved him becoming WCW Champion and furthermore, the worst World Champion in the history of the sport.

Now believe me, I'm not trying to justify Arquette's reign, but I simply trying to emphasise that at least some good came from him being World Champion. I do not think it's right to call any act of charity pointless.
Arquette did some good as world champion.

I didn't call the charity pointless, just pointed out that it's very likely those families would have been looked after anyway. I have given a couple of alternatives already as to how they could have and should have use Arquette that still could have raised funds anyway. There is no redeeming quality in his title reign.

Russo, did nothing. He booked himself as champion, for no other reason but to for him to be champion for a week.

That's true but he's the boss, the idea of him being champion because he feels like it is not a terrible storyline, pity they messed it up though.

In conclusion, I would like to restate my firm belief that David Arquette is the worst world champion there has ever been. It will take something suicidal from WWE to top that, perhaps TNA will do something ludicrous under the present hierarchy but the fact remains that a scrawny, below average actor won the same belt that Lou Thesz and Ric Flair did. That can never be erased from the history of professional wrestling.

Cactus Colm

I'm not gonna quote each piece individually, I'm just gonna deal with it in the all together.


1. Of course the idea of a celebrity winning a world title is wrong, but that does not mean that anybody involved in the industry is automatically a better champion.

2. 2 weeks before Arquette won the title Nitro had a tv rating of 1.8. The week after it had a rating of 2.5, after that the ratings went back into the 3+ throughout May. Some of the highest ratings of the year, and first time back in the 3's since January. So contrary to popular belief Arquette's reign did not stop people from watching the show.

In fact the ppv Arquette headlined got the more ppv buys than 4 other WCW ppv's that year. Two of which came before his reign. So it would seem he did a better job of selling ppv's than the likes of Sid Vicious.

As stated, the night of Russo's reign the show got a 2.9 rating, which would be the highest rating the show had until it's final show. Vince's short reign really was the end of WCW.


3. Arquette giving all the money he earned as champion doesn't nullify his reign been bad. However, what it does show is that Arquette is a man with dignity and compassion, surely two qualities we want in our face champions.

4. Arquette performed much better as a participent in his matches than Russo (someone involved in the business for several years). Arquette managed to pull out a couple of believable moves, and sold like a pro.

Russo, on the otherhand did not do any wrestling moves at all, completely sold finishing moves from Flair, and Booker T (and beatdowns from both). As well as fighting the match in a fancy dress costume.

5. Arquettes victory came by pinning a non wrestler (Eric Bischoff), without making any actual wrestler involved look like a chump.

Russo's victory came by getting a win over Booker T. Evenif it was a fluke win, he still no selled quite beatdowns from Booker and Flair, including their finishers, making them both seem like chumps.

6. Russo is THE MOST HATED MAN IN WRESTLING. Nobody else can even come close to him, not even X-Pac. And not hated in a good "heel" way, but hated in the way nobody wants to see him wrestle, or appear on tv.


I think when people look objectively at the two former champions they will agree, that while both were very bad ideas, that they will agree that Russo's reign is the biggest insult to both the fans, and to all the previous champions that held the belt before him.

I think even Arquette would be embarressed to have held the same title as Russo.

Bounty Hunter

if you havent voted please do...(its a dead heat atm!)

bump

D2D

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

if you havent voted please do...(its a dead heat atm!)

bump

How long left??

Bounty Hunter

Dare_2_defy wrote: »

How long left??

if it werent a dead heat itd be over. ill check the total sparadically from now and it will end when we have a clear winner.

gimmick

Penalties.

Bounty Hunter

after the closest match yet we have our first finalist... Catctus Col! hard luck and well played Voltwad