Re: What was the point of kanes 1 day reign

They wanted to keep the title on Austin, but it wouldn't be believable for him to beat Kane in a First Blood match. Kane has virtually no exposed skin with his attire, Austin is almost completely exposed. That's the reason why Kane won the match. Still, I don't know what the thought process was in booking the match in the first place. It didn't exactly help out Kane. Although it did make Austin look even stronger, so that was probably it.

 

Re: What was the point of kanes 1 day reign

They wanted to keep the title on Austin, but it wouldn't be believable for him to beat Kane in a First Blood match. Kane has virtually no exposed skin with his attire, Austin is almost completely exposed. That's the reason why Kane won the match. Still, I don't know what the thought process was in booking the match in the first place. It didn't exactly help out Kane. Although it did make Austin look even stronger, so that was probably it.

The reason for the match was simple.

Vince wanted to take the belt off Austin- So he scheduled a match where Austin had no chance in hell to win.

But Austin refused to let Vince stop him.

They basically promised the fans something was going to happen- So the fans bought the PPV and watches the next RAW.

It was great booking in my opinion. Kane is a gimmick character, I don't want him as a champ. But the story behind his 1 day reign was so great. That's why I liked that reign far more then Kane's 2010 world title reign.

 

Re: What was the point of kanes 1 day reign

As far as I remember, the only point to it was to set up a new feud the next night between Foley/Austin/Taker/Kane. Of course Austin only lost the title due to a miss-timed chair shot by Taker after both him and Foley made an interference. Kane never "won" the title himself, thus.

EDIT: that and, as JaffaTheHeel mentioned, Kane wore a mask with most of his skin covered so the win for Austin would be a bit perplexing.

 

Re: What was the point of kanes 1 day reign

why did they gave him the match in 1st place.
Why did vince said kane wont be a wwe champion ever again??

 

Re: What was the point of kanes 1 day reign

I think it's just down to bad booking really, should've been given at least a month with the belt.

 

I think it's just down to bad booking really, should've been given at least a month with the belt.

Yep, but it made for great television. I knew a lot of people thought Austin would go on a Hogan like title run in 1984-86 but got surprised by his loss.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

 

They should have saved Kane vs Austin for summerslam. Build Kane up the whole time stay undefeated.

 

It led to an epic ending to KOTR, plus we got another awesome moment the next night seeing Austin beat Kane straight up and win it back. 1998 was a truly awesome year.



Taker was a bigger star than Kane, not to mention the biggest star on the roster besides Austin at that time, their match was highly anticipated. Plus, Kane wasn't undefeated, he had lost to Taker twice already.

 

It was just Vince getting one over on SCSA then Austin getting instant revenge, just a continuation of their storyline

I dont know why Kane fans complain about it, surely better having it for one day than not

 

Nope, it's worse than not having the title at that time. It put a dent into his character as an unstoppable monster which was way too early in his career. They could have as well waited longer and given him a wwf title reign somewhere down the road just for a few months.

 

They booked themselves into a corner there as they knew there was no way Kane would lose a First Blood match.

 

I remember this being the real explanation back then.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

 

I honestly thought the whole thing made sense, as the match was tailored for Kane winning, and at the time, Kane really was unstoppable. Plus getting the title, even if only for one day, you still won it. You almost gotta feel bad for Kane, after all of the high profile feuds, the times he was over with the fans, and the stuff he did for the company, he hasn't gotten much in return.

 

Ratings. It was done so more people would tune into the main event of RAW that night.

 

This.

It was a quick ratings gainer which made sense I suppose.

 

Just the usual toss the title belt around like a hot potato mentality that was very common during the Attitude Era.

 

Probably because they didn't want Kane to light himself on fire.

 

Bingo. They'd had Kane make that ridiculous promise on TV for whatever reason, leaving them two choices - Kane loses and they renege on what they've promised the viewers, or Kane wins. The latter upsets fewer people.

I know you're probably thinking "why would people be upset a wrestler didn't set himself on fire?" - if they renege on that stipulation, you're less likely to believe the next stipulation will be lived up to that they present. That's why "if wrestler X loses, he's fired" matches aren't a draw, because people see through them. Nobody really goes anywhere for more than a couple of weeks.

 

Television

 

my guess is Kane got cold feet immediately after winning it and begged them to take it back

 

It's sole purpose was to further a story line. It showed that Vince's threats to take away the WWF Championship from Steve Austin were more than just threats.

 

I agree that it was done just to further the storyline and spice things up a bit.

It was a good story because Kane played a movie monster type of character. He was big and scary but a little dumb and he would not back away from a fight. It didn't fit his character to back down. It would be like watching Friday the 13th and seeing Jason Voorhees run from a fight. He wouldn't and neither would the original Kane character. Austin exposed that weakness in Kane by goading him into a rematch just 24 hours later and getting the belt back. It was very well done and one of the more memorable Raw main events during the attitude era.

 

lol at people trying to rebook the greatest year in WWF history.

It was all about the storyline.

 

I think it was done for a few reasons:

- It was a new time in the WWF, with all of its Attitude marketing, and after Bret and HBK had their time, it helped to not only have a new champion in Steve Austin, but also a brand new character like Kane holding the gold, however briefly, to establish new blood up top. (Rock and Mankind would soon follow later on in the first timers club)

- To christen Kane as a top monster, capable of beating the best the WWF hard to offer.

- Kick off the Austin/Undertaker buildup

- Show that Steve Austin was always going to be vulnerable as WWF Champion with Vince plotting against him.

- EDIT: Also, yeah, the obvious "ratings!" reason, to keep the storyline unpredictable and lead to a Kane-Austin match on RAW.

Kane, with all of the development that went into creating the "New Undertaker" type character, really should have been the guy to end Austin's reign, but I do wish that they had waited a little longer to do it. Austin wound up losing the title to Undertaker and Kane in that triple threat match later in the year anyway.

 

The only reason those stips were made was because Kane was always supposed to win the match.

Kane's victory set the table for Taker's heel turn and popped a big rating at the same time. Win/Win.

 

-Shock value. Austin loses his title but surprises everyone when he wins it back the next night. Pops a big rating in the process.

-It was the perfect start of the "Are Undertaker and Kane On The Same Side" story line that ran throughout the summer and the fall. It all began with Undertaker 'accidentally' busting Austin open with a chair shot, thus costing him the title against Kane. This led to Austin accusing Taker of being in cohoots with Kane.

-It intensified the Austin/Vince feud even more. Vince manages to pry the title away from Austin, only for him to win it back the next night anyway.

 

It's typical Russo booking to be honest. SWERVE~! done to shock fans for one night and to make Kane a credible "threat".