I find it funny when the IWC talks about ratings, like they matter. Do you really watch a show and think, "I wonder how many other people are watching this?". I'm sure Shawn Michaels is somewhere in TX looking at his Hall of Fame ring thinking, "I don't deserve this, ratings were abysmal when I was champ." Vince McMahon should care about ratings, not us. I've never a day in my life worked for WWE, and I'm sure the majority of users here are in the same boat, so why do people bring up ratings.
I could see if the person in question actually was not entertaining and you brought in the quarterly ratings proving that people changed the channel while he was on screen, but even then why do you care so much?
It's like Raw a few weeks ago had the lowest ratings in 15 years, ok, the presidental debate and monday night football aired, you can debate if you found that episode entertaining, but still, as fans why do we care about ratings?
Agreed. Shawn Michaels is easily one of the more popular superstars the WWE has ever had. Always was popular since his Rockers days. So why any moron would fault him for low ratings is just stupid. I doubt the man who is consistently ranked as one of the all-time greats, who won match of the year 11 times and has almost always been over with crowds is seriously looking at himself as a failure for television ratings not being to the expectations of blind wrestling marks who don't understand anything. Yeah, he sure flopped as a champion. That's why almost every guy in the locker room touts him as one of, if not the best of all time. Not too many other WWE Champions can say that.
Rant over, looking at recent history, I can't say Khali like some held, because he NEVER even held the belt in question (then again I personally find a 7 foot giant winning a vacant world title in a battle royal believable). I'm not going to say Rey because he's small, or even if he was a transitional champ, he deserved to hold it at least once for being consistently one of the better workers in the WWE. If you actually watched tv during the Miz's build he had been built up strongly for well over a year and a half and most people at that point wanted him to become champ, and Jeff Hardy was the most over guy on the roster for a while before winning the WWE belt, so he clearly deserved it.
Now, as far as who do I think was a bad pick to win the WWE title? Sheamus, and I'm not looking at his overall body of work I'm looking at, at that time. I think now he's more than deserving as he's proven to be a good worker, his gimmick is defined and he's over, but going in to TLC 2009 he wasn't ready and that can even be said for his second reign. In my eye he wasn't matured as a performer until after his King of The Ring push and feud with John Morrison.
I like your positive look on these things. All things considered, Khali was a credible champion even if just for his size. Fans cheer him even now, so it's not like they care how stellar he is in the ring. Mysterio has always been extremely popular and a great worker, so he deserved the world titles he has had. Jeff Hardy was another one of the most popular superstars. He has proven time and time again he has charisma and people like what they see of him. Hell, even TNA made him a world champ. That says a lot about him. And The Miz did have some proper build-up and he has always been a great and charismatic mic worker, so he's fine too.
Sheamus is championship material, but like you said, it was too soon. I think he really only started to stand out when he started feuding with Morrison. I think the same applies to Del Rio, and I would say these two are the worst WWE Champions as a result. I actually like both of them, but they weren't ready.