Originally Posted by Cookie Monster
Regarding the Kane title reign:
He was never meant to be the guy to hold the lengthy reign or properly main event like Austin, Rock, HHH etc. Vince McMahon had been trying to get one over on Austin ever since there feud began. He knew that if he invested in Kane and add the first blood stipulation (knowing Kane is masked), he'll finally get over on his rival and he did.
Kane wasn't on the level of the Austins, The Rocks, the Triple Hs, The Undertakers etc. which is why he rarely ever beat them. So when Austin went one on one with him the following night he was always going to win (hence why Bearer and Vince never wanted Kane to accept Austins challenge)
I thought it was a good angle and definitely wasn't anywhere near one of the biggest mistakes.
Austin was the new face of the company. He should've held the title for at least 6 months, which he did minus that one day. Still, it was pointless and never should've happened. He certainly shouldn't have dropped the belt to Kane, who was certainly not ready. I'm as big a Kane-a-nite as snybody but that's the truth.
That being said, Kane should've had a legit title reign in 1999 or 2000. He was certainly more deserving than Triple H in August of 1999.