What are your top 10 WWE wrestlers who never held the world title but should have at least once in their career. Mine are...
1. Owen Hart
2. Razor Ramon (Scott Hall)
3. Rick Rude
4. William Regal
5. Million Dollar Man
6. Mr. Perfect
7. Roddy Piper
8. Bam Bam Bigelow
9. Ricky Steamboat
10. Jim Duggan
To me its a travesty that Owen Hart never held the world title at least once in his career.
I fixed it but I think people get what I mean by WWE wrestlers. NWA isn't WWf/WWE. I ment wrestlers who at the time in the WWE/WWF who never held a world title.
Re: 10 WWE Wrestlers Who Never Held The World Title But Should Have
We talk exclusively about their WWE run:
1.Vader
2.Owen Hart
3.Million Dollar Man
4.Mr. Perfect
5.Roddy Piper
6.Ricky Steamboat
7.Jake Roberts
8.Hercules Hernandez
9.Davey Boy Smith
10.Rick Rude
Re: 10 WWE Wrestlers Who Never Held The World Title But Should Have
A lot of these guys didn't need it. Jake Roberts was over as a character, had great ring psychology, and could cut a promo. He was one of my favorites but in the height of his WWF career, he didn't need a belt. If he'd stayed around in WCW during that heel run, I could see giving it to him though.
Re: 10 WWE Wrestlers Who Never Held The World Title But Should Have
I'll break it down into three tiers
Should have gotten the title
Lex Luger- You don't build a babyface up this strong in 1993 and not deliver. Lex seemed to be set up to fail.
Goldust- Personal preference. Would have preferred him over Sid and an extended '96 Goldust/HBK feud would have been so epic.
Vader- Personal preference. Would have preferred him over Sid and given WWF another monster heel threat going forward.
Wouldn't have been the worst thing in the world
Mr. Perfect- Still think he would have been champ had he not missed so much time. People forget injuries robbed Perfect of five years during what probably should have been his peak.
Ted Dibiase- Imagine the heat if Andre handing the belt to Dibiase would have been allowed to stand. He could have lost the belt to Macho at WM 4. Or you can Teddy Wrestling win the title at WM 4 and go with the rare heel champ on top for a while.
Owen Hart- Could have been in Mr. Backlund's role, though I'm not complaining since Mr. Backlund ruled.
Meh....because the OP asked for ten
Razor Ramon
Roddy Piper
Paul Orndorff
Jerry Lawler
Lex Luger- You don't build a babyface up this strong in 1993 and not deliver. Lex seemed to be set up to fail.
Goldust- Personal preference. Would have preferred him over Sid and an extended '96 Goldust/HBK feud would have been so epic.
Vader- Personal preference. Would have preferred him over Sid and given WWF another monster heel threat going forward.
Wouldn't have been the worst thing in the world
Mr. Perfect- Still think he would have been champ had he not missed so much time. People forget injuries robbed Perfect of five years during what probably should have been his peak.
Ted Dibiase- Imagine the heat if Andre handing the belt to Dibiase would have been allowed to stand. He could have lost the belt to Macho at WM 4. Or you can Teddy Wrestling win the title at WM 4 and go with the rare heel champ on top for a while.
Owen Hart- Could have been in Mr. Backlund's role, though I'm not complaining since Mr. Backlund ruled.
Meh....because the OP asked for ten
Razor Ramon
Roddy Piper
Paul Orndorff
Jerry Lawler
I agree with Lex by the way... I don't get how they build him up and then he wins by count out at Summerslam by count out and everyone holds him up in the ring like its some great win.
I don't know how to properly answer that question because the title is a prop and it's only used to further storylines. The people that I think should've gotten the title are those that IMO would've made sense for the story being told
In this case Roddy Piper could've easily become world champion and feuded with Hogan during the buildup to Wrestlemania 2, but at that point they had Hogan firmly cemented as champion and they wanted to present him as an indestructable force so not taking the title off of him is understandible
They could've given the title to Ted Dibiase instead of doing the tournament angle at Wrestlemania 4 -- Ted could've dropped it to Savage in a simple 1-on-1 match and they could've built a more traditional card instead of a tournament
Vader could've easily beat Shawn in 1996 and faced Undertaker in the ME of Wrestlemania 13 instead of Sid, or he could've dropped it back to Shawn or Bret
That's going by what made sense given the storylines and the starpower at the time. I like Perfect, Owen and Razor but I can't imagine a time when it would've made business sense to put the title on them over the guys that had the title already. Bret/Owen didn't need a title to make their feud matter and WWF weren't going to have Bret drop it just a few months after FINALLY retaining it at Wrestlemania 10 -- I guess they could've used Owen as the transitional champ between Bret and Diesel instead of Backlund but then people would've been even more disappointed in hindsight lol
We see this question a lot here in the ole' classics section and I think I have come to this conclusion;
In 1973 instead of Stasiak as their transitional champ I would have used Blackjack Lanza as their transitional champ, or Larry Hennig. Either of those men would have left a prouder legacy. Stasiak was gone less than a year later.
But other than that up until 1992 no one, not one single superstar.
And I mean none of them, not Piper, not Dibiase, not Andre, nor Orndorff, not Funk, or anyone.
The way the WWF managed it was perfect. None of them needed a title.
After 92 when holding the title was cheapened because a.) the business had changed b.) the belt was used as a way to get guys over instead of the focus c.) so many freakin guys got a run with it.
So after 92? Heck half a dozen, no wait 20 guys should have gotten the title what did it matter? But Vader sticks out to me as their biggest fumble.
We see this question a lot here in the ole' classics section and I think I have come to this conclusion;
In 1973 instead of Stasiak as their transitional champ I would have used Blackjack Lanza as their transitional champ, or Larry Hennig. Either of those men would have left a prouder legacy. Stasiak was gone less than a year later.
But other than that up until 1992 no one, not one single superstar.
And I mean none of them, not Piper, not Dibiase, not Andre, nor Orndorff, not Funk, or anyone.
The way the WWF managed it was perfect. None of them needed a title.
After 92 when holding the title was cheapened because a.) the business had changed b.) the belt was used as a way to get guys over instead of the focus c.) so many freakin guys got a run with it.
So after 92? Heck half a dozen, no wait 20 guys should have gotten the title what did it matter? But Vader sticks out to me as their biggest fumble.
Even though I started this thread I do like your reply. I was just interested to see what everybody thought as far as what wrestlers they would have liked to see as world champion. Just a fun question that's all, but like I said I like your reply and it does make sense.
Truthfully, I thought Luger not winning was the best thing that happened to the belt. It showed that even the guy they were pushing wasn't a give-in for a title reign.
To reiterate what I said prior, I loved Jake and Piper was also one of my favorites but that alone should not mean they get handed the gold. The biggest problem with the Monday Night Wars was having too many belts that changed hands too quickly.
Mr. Perfect didn't need a World Title reign. His dominance as a I-C champ made it all work. If he had been healthy, post title loss, a gradual push to the top might have been in the cards but as it is, there was never a time where he was active on the roster, where I would have thought having them drop everything they were doing to put the belt on Perfect. Owen was too young when he died. Bulldog might have been ready in '99 if his run had been a little more successful. The only real missed opportunity was Ted Dibiase. He was one of the greatest heels going.
William regal as a world champ? Are you kidding me... During wrestlings hottest era he got no reaction at all and was a mid carder at absolute best. His best work was as a commissioner not a wrestler, even during the laughing stock champion era of 2007-2013 he wouldn't cut it.
Rick rude could've been champ for sure, Jake Roberts is overrated IMO outside the promos and gimmick, million dollar man probably should've had a run in 87/88, ken shamrock could've had a short heel run.
Not many and like Greenlawler pointed out it's actually a case of undeserving guys and too many belt changes happening nowadays. Owen Hart never should have been champ. He's Kane and was just there to enhance his brother. No disrespect to him as a talent but piggy backing off your brother doesn't make you title worthy. Everything about him back then was some shade of the Hitman's gimmick, and again he was an incredible talent but that doesn't necessarily make you title worthy.
Lex Luger would top my list though and not as a face and winning at Summerslam 93. He should of turned at Summerslam 1994 and from there you have a legitimate heel for Bret to feud with and the Million Dollar stable is more than just a stable of mid carders for your 6 top faces to work with. You also don't give someone that kind of push and then just phase him out. The fans chose Bret and that means Luger should turn to rival him.
You should change you thread title to wrestlers whom never held the WWF Title as to avoid confusion..
However to answer the question Vader and perhaps Razor seem to be the ones that stick out.. Vader was well on his way to winning the strap in 1996 but unfortunately HBK was a bitch about it so that was ruined..
Razor on the other hand isn't one of those cases like Mr. Perfect and Owen Hart where people want to see them as champion just because they are good workers, he was a totally different story. He had the look that fits the bill and could actually wrestle as well, which was important at the time in the Fed. I think if he had stuck around through 96 he would have won the Title.
People should consider who held the belt in the run where "someone should've won". People like Roberts, Piper and DiBiase competed in an era dominated by the "touring superhero baby-face". Scott Hall was never going to usurp his buddies (Hogan/Nash/Michaels), even if Vince wanted it that way. Owen Hart had one window to win the title, and it was the right idea to keep it on Bret. If Owen had then proceeded to lose to Backlund a few months later, he'd be one of the worst champions in history.
Etc etc
Luger should've had a run at it in the fall of '93.
Vader instead of Sid at Survivor Series.
Roddy Piper, Ted Dibiase (only during his feud with Hogan in '88, because of how much sense it would made at the time), Razor Ramon, Lex Luger if he had turned heel sometime in '94 or '95, etc. Not saying that all of these guys should have won the title absolutely, but if things were a little different and the timing was right, they were all good enough under certain conditions to deserve a run.
Realistically, I don't think guys like Piper, Roberts, Owen, Bulldog etc. should've won the title but for the sake of the thread I decided to play along. Considering the storylines, who held the belt at the time, and the fact that the guys mentioned in this thread were over to the point that they didn't need the belt, yes they shouldn't have gotten it. But if the timing was right and them winning the belt could've fit in somehow with what was going on at the time, I certainly wouldn't have minded seeing them as champion.
I think Goldust could have made a great controversial champion in 96 but realistically I don't see at what point in time he could've won it. Same for guys like Piper, Roberts, Owen, Bulldog etc. I wouldn't have changed much of what went down during those periods.
The only guys I could see being champions realistically and fitting in what was happening at the time are Vader, Ted Dibiase, and Muhammed Hassan. As mentioned already, instead of the tournament angle, Dibiase could've won it and defended it against Savage in a traditional 1-on-1 match. Vader could've been the one to beat Shawn instead of Sid or Vader could've won it at Final Four and dropped it to Taker at Wrestlemania. Hassan was originally supposed to win the title from Batista at Summerslam but unfortunately was forced to be written out before that could happen.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Wrestling Forum
23.4M posts
266.5K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.