Did he deserve the title? Day 13

[darthobiwan]

I'm going to start a new idea, kinda based on Possum's should have been champion polls. The difference is these will be guys who were world champions and you have to decide if they worthy of having the title or not. If not you could give reasons why not and what you have done differently. If yes you can say why they did deserve it or change any other things about their title reign(s).

This isn't about if they should have had as long of reign and/or as many reigns, just if they deserved the title period. I'm going to leave out guys like hogan, flair, austin, and even cena for now since mostly everyone would agree that they deserved the title at least once.

next one is...




Mick Foley

***results so far

*Yes
superstar billy graham- 19-0
kane- 25-1
iron sheik- 21-1
andre the giant- 19-1
buddy rogers- 15-1
ultimate warrior- 21-3
sid- 15-8
yokozuna- 16-7
antonio inoki- 8-7

*No
stan stasiak- 9-4
sgt. slaughter- 13-11


*undecided
ivan koloff- 4-4

[Bake Or Die]

Yes

[The Possum]

Dreams can come true!

[Junkenstein]

One of wrestling's most popular characters in what was arguably it's most popular era. I say yes.

[Magnus the Magnificent]

There's noting about Foley that screams "World Champion" to me.
Yes, he was over, but he was better at putting other people over than being the man himself.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Not only did he deserve it, he deserved a title made of blowjobs.

[Malibu Albino]

He deserved a longer reign if you ask me but hell yes did he deserve it.

[Incognito]

Yes.

The man was accepted by the crowd. The people changed the channel when he won the gold. He re-energized the Undertaker's career back in '96 and, over the years, it gave us a unique feud that we still remember. He managed to make it believable that he could hold his own against HBK.