ATH Semi Final 2 : GerryBBadd vs thebostoncrab

beakerjoe

So its the 2nd Semi and its former ATH champ, The Crab from Boston taking on Johnny B Goods evil twin. TBC Vs Gerry. Winner meets BH or Garseys


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 two 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 OP of the main thread for further details or if any examples are needed check out previous years competitions.

Semi Final Question 2 : Lets segway nicely from the first Semi Final question where asked about great wrestlers who never became world champion and now lets talk about World champions who just didn’t deserve to be the top guy in the company. Who in your opinion was the least deserving world champion in WWF/WWE/WCW history. Catch is the person you pick can only be used as an answer if he was a champion when there was only ONE world title per promotion (so The Miz and Jack Swagger are out) and they cant have been a non wrestler (ie Vince, David Arquette) .

thebostoncrab

The WWE title. Unlike so many other belts out there, there has rarely been a time when that belt was held by someone who just didn't deserve it. Even when you look at someone who may not have been the best wrestler in the company at the time (Sid or Yokozuna for example) , you couldn't deny how over they were with the crowd and the reaction they got would envy the reactions you'd here today. So, out of every belt that fits the rules of this round, it's should be near impossible to point the finger at a wrestler and go "He didn't deserve it"....right?




.....right?




Wrong. Meet the man people seem to forget about when they bring up the great history of this belt. Stan Stasiak. The man who, on December 1st 1973, ended the 1,027 day reign of the great Pedro Morales. Stan was only back in the company 3 weeks when he won the belt, and even he didn't know it was going to happen until the day of the match. So, how long did Stan's date with destiny last for?

6 days.

Stan lost the title a grand total of 6 days later to Bruno Sammartino. Bruno went on to hold the belt for 1,237 days. Now, I know there are others who held the title for less than a month between these long reigns, but these were evil heels who would deliver massive hear by winning these belts, but would also win the belt in deceive and clear ways.

Stan won the belt because he was given a belly-to-back suplex by Morales, Stan lifted his shoulder but Morales didn't.

Doesn't really sound like a clear victory there does it?

So, was Stan really the man? Was he being built up as someone to lead the main event scene?

Nope, Vince Snr just didn't want a babyface to lose to another babyface, so Stan beat Morales instead of Bruno beating Morales. It was almost a case of right place right time for Stan, rather than him being the best man for the job. So with all this is mind, it's a very easy argument to make that Stan is indeed the least deserving champion in the history of the WWE.

gerrybbadd

Really tough question. As pointed out by TBC, rarely has there been a case where an undeserving wrestler was made the top guy (at least within the guidelines of the question)

With that in mind, I've chosen Bob Backlund's reign in 1994 as my answer. Bob won the title controversy from Bret Hart, in what was dubbed a Towel match. effectively, a submission match, both guys had corner men, whom would throw in the towel to signify their man's intended submission.



While the story of the match was brilliant, with Bret's man Bulldog knocked out, and Backlund's man Owen, convincing Bret's mother to throw in the towel on Bret's behalf to escape further punishment, I feel Bob Backlund was undeserving of the title.

Bob was a great wrestler in his day, often winning Wrestler of The Year awards, and held the title for a long, long time (pretty much from '77 to '83). However, when he won the title in 1994, he would only hold it for 3 days before losing it to Diesel, at a house show (a house show!)

In effect, Bob was used as a tool to transition the belt off of Bret, and onto Kevin Nash - a transitional champion in every sense.

There were other guys who could have been put into this match, who may have been more deserving. Bob was likely given the title based on his previous history, rather than being the most deserving wrestler on the roster. There were some great hands on the roster in 1994 like Scott Hall or Bam Bam, who could have been used to transition the belt off of Bret, and onto Diesel. They'd have been more convincing in beating Bret as well, as Bob at the time, was far from a threatening looking figure

thebostoncrab

Don't get me wrong, Bob winning the title then was really strange, but it certainly didn't come out of nowhere and it wasn't without purpose.

1) Bob had been beating men like Luger since turning heel that year. He lasted an hour in the Rumble also. His whole attitude was that of a real wrestler that didn't need to be flashy. It wasn't a complete "out of nowhere" victory. Plus putting the title of Razor like you suggested would have been a huge waste of a run. Unlike Stan, who was also a transitional champion, but won the title literally out nowhere (He had just been rehired a few weeks previously, even he was stunned when he found out he was going to win, as it made so little sense).

2) it has storyline purpose. Owen cost Bret the title in the match by throwing in the towel. This kick started the excellent Bret vs Owen feud, so the match and the title lost resulted in a great story and a feud that people still talk about to this day. Stans title victory didn't result in a great feud, or a storyline...he literally won just so a baby face Sammartino wouldn't beat a baby face Morales.

3) The title victory was a "thank you" to Bob for his efforts in the company before. This was before the hall of fame became a thing, and was harmless really. Unlike Stan, who won the title simply because he was in the right place at the right time. There is literally no other reason for him to have won the belt.

So to summarise, Bob won the title with a decent build up, to kick start the excellent Bret vs Owen feud, and as an almost hall of fame style thank you.

Stan won the title because he just happened to be there. Now tell me which of these two sounds less deserving?

gerrybbadd

There is no denying that Stan was an undeserving champion, and was lucky to be in the right place at the right time, as already pointed out.

However, I feel Bob's undeserved reign had a greater impact.

Stan won the belt at a time when there were many regional titles between all of the different promotions around the state. The WWF (or WWWF) was not the juggernaught that it is today, and was certainly not the only game in town. The amount of eyes that were on the product at that time were nowhere near the amount of eyes that would have been on the title scene in WWF 1994.

When Stan won, there were countless regions, each with their own title. When Bob won, he won a belt that was arguably the most prestigious in the World at that time, there were fewer promotions around. Plus, the WWF title at that time was truly a World title, as the WWF was now being beamed into homes worldwide, rather than the nationwide only shows that would have been available when Stasiak won.

Saying Bob was awarded the belt as a thank you is neither here nor there. The Hall of Fame came into existence in 1993 (Andre being the first in, with several more inductions in 1994), so if it's a "thank you" they wanted to give Bob, then he could have been inducted to the Hall of Fame, unquestionably.

beakerjoe

Poll added

thebostoncrab

The size of the WWWF compared to the WWF is neither here nor there when discussing how deserving someone was of holding the belt.

The belt was built on the idea that the person holding it was indeed the best in the world, that the company revolved around or as an important tool in a story. During Stans time the title had short reigns when held by a dastardly villain, so used to tell a story of the babyface saving the day. Stan had nothing. He didn't have the heel heat, he wasn't part of a great story, or was the beginning of an amazing reign. He only won just because he was right place, right time, and was only a tool to move the title from one person to another. There were great heels in the WWWF at the time that could have been used as a the traditional transitional champion and get that classic story in again, but instead Stan was used. And the fact that he only won because Morales didn't lift his shoulder when he gave Stan a belly to back suplex just hammers it home that it was a complete fluke.

So Stan only wins because of a fluke in a match, he didn't even win with his own moves. Complete undeserving champion.

While on the flip side you look at Bobs victory, which was built up to with a story and was used to kick start a brilliant feud between Bret and Owen. Bob got his reign, and while he may have been an undeserving champion, at least his reign was actually an instatement used in a story line, it was built up to in the previous months since his heel turn, and he didn't win by a pure fluke.

So guys, when you go to vote, just ask yourself, without look at names, which of these two reigns is really the most undeserving:

-A reign which was part of a feud, which had been built up to in the previous few months, and was the begining of a feud which is still talk about to this day.

-A reign which lasted 6 days, where the champion one because the champion didn't lift his shoulder in his own move, and he was given the title literally because he was in the right place and at right time, with no build up and with no feud or story to follow.

Vote for Stan, at least winning this poll will be a more deserving title to hold than his actual title reign.

gerrybbadd

I feel the size of the company when talking about deserved title reigns is more than relevant when it comes to Stan and Bob.

I'll admit, I know very little of Stan (other than Meat being his son). And you've definitely shown how he was a most undeserving champion. But, and this is the crux of the matter, he was champion, albeit for a few days, of a regional territory, with limited eyes on the product.

Bob, for all intents and purposes, became the Man, and held the biggest title in the entire world, and undeservedly so. Eyes from all over the world were on the WWF in 94, not just Regional eyes like there would have been when Stasiak won his title.

I get the "right place, right time" argument put forward for Stan. And him being a transitional champ, being a tool to transport the belt from one waist to another could also be applied to Bob's reign also.

But Bob's reign, while not a fluke, was a joke. He was beaten (squashed) at a house show by Diesel days later. And his winning the belt in the first place was used only as a method of kicking off the feud between Bret and Owen to begin with. There was no other reason for Bob to win the title.

So, folks when voting, I feel the decison lies with either:

Stan Stasiak, the Regional Champion, who's title win, while undeserved,means very little that he won it anyhow

OR

Bob Backlund, who definately didnt deserve to win. Here was a guy from a different era, who had been a champion in the past. He was in the ring with the best in the world, in the biggest wresting organisation in the world, and won the belt due to a swerve. So that a feud could start. And then proceeded to lose the title, in jobber fashion, at a house show.

beakerjoe

Poll bump, one day left and so far the voting is close

thebostoncrab

I always panic when I see an even number of voters, so quick someone else vote!

beakerjoe

literally 1 vote in it with 12 hours left to vote....

Bounty Hunter

Poll re-opened

It's sudden death folks!