You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Old WWF question...
What I never understood about Hogan's reluctance to job was the fact he jobbed to the Ultimate Warrior at Wrestlemania VI and what wound up being the final peak of Hulkamania. It never made much sense to do it then, then refuse to do it later in his career when his invincibility had loooooong worn off.
McMahon must have paid him massive amounts of money to do that, and if money is what would convince Hogan to lose, McMahon should have handed him blank checks at least twice during Hogan's 84-88 title reign. He had way too much competition during that time frame to never lose. The original Hulkamania reign went stale awfully quick, but they were able to get away with it because Hogan was a huge icon at the time and millions of kids did not want to see him lose.
Had I been a booker, I would have had Hogan lose the belt to Bundy at Wrestlemania II, and win it back quickly on an episode of Saturday Night's Main Event. I also hated the fact that WWF would never allow any face vs face matches back then. It caused them to squander what would have been a match for the ages between Hogan and Steamboat in the aftermath of Wrestlemania III. Both were huge stars at the time and Steamboat was awfully close to Hogan's status popularity wise. They could have easily set up a scenario where Steamboat walks up to Hogan during an interview segment demanding a shot at the title, and as IC champion(and number one contender), he was entitled to it. They wouldn't have needed to make Steamboat a heel to make this work. Of course Steamboat screwed the pooch by demanding time off because his wife had just had a baby, this pissed Mcmahon off, and he forced Steamboat to job to Honkeytonk Man and made Steamboat irrelevant and let him go to WCW. Steamboat of course picked up where he had left off in WWF and had a feud with Flair which led to two of the greatest wrestling matches in history.
Re: Old WWF question...
The story behind that for Vince, was at the time, it was alot like the scenario of the Hogan/Austin dream ticket of today. Hogan & Flair's egos were so gigantic, that NEITHER of them were willing to job to the other
This doesn't bother me as much since we got a great Savage-Flair feud over Elizabeth, culminating in their Wrestlemania 8 match.
I think there's alot of people that'd love to see Austin in at least one more match (he said not long ago, he's physically is in enough shape to wrestle for up to two years) full time, if he had to). But I think where the catch is... no one wants to see Austin get back in the ring against the aging Hogan. Plus Austin's been out of it for so long... will he be the Axl Rose of wrestling? The comeback is a major disappointment, because it's not like the hey day, the prime.
Can he really be compared to Axl though? Austin was the guy in the WWE from 1997-2002. After that he was around for a year with some on air role. Axl was basically MIA from 1994-2001. Personally, I'm not sure I want to see Austin wrestle, didn't he have major surgeries on both knees and his neck too? He changed his wrestling style too from a technical aspect to favoring a brawling style.
I think the Nwo in WWE angle was pretty much doomed to failure. Hogan always has some sort of issue with McMahon. Hall has substance abuse issues. Nash can't stay healthy enough to be reliable. The only interesting thing that came out of that was the Hogan face turn in his match with the Rock at Wrestlemanina.
The issue with nWo over staying it's welcome, was something Vince showed he was much more keen with business, with DX.
See this is what frustrates me about McMahon, he makes great business decisions. However, when it comes to the actual storylines and stuff sometimes he fails and FAILS miserably. There was the entire Katie Vick angle. The angle last year where he blew himself up in the limo is another one. The entire booking of John Cena where he is seen as a current day Hogan is laughable considering half the fan base HATES him. Although, I'm wondering how much of this I should be blaming on Stephanie Mcmahon-Helmsley since she's been head booker since 2002 I think. IMO they should give those powers to Shane McMahon he seems to have a better grasp on what the audience actually wants.
- NY Giants82
- Rep: 26
Re: Old WWF question...
The constant push of Cena is the biggest mystery to me of all. I scratch my head over that one. The guy wouldnt be hated so much, if he wasnt force fed to the audience.
Re: Old WWF question...
A couple things to consider...I have read before...and if pressed I could find the sources...saying that Royal Rumble '93 was being set up as a Warrior vs Bret Hart match (not sure if it was for the title)...so there is one thing that was changed by the Hogan refusing the job or work with Flair.
Also...because Hogan and Flair refused to work together...it took Macho Man out his BLOOD fued with Jake Roberts. This feud did not end as planned...it was supposed to go all the way to Wrestlemania and end in a massive fight that you would only expect at Wrestlemania...
what happened instead...Macho Man begins feuding with Flair...and the Roberts feud disappears....Roberts is gone shortly there after...
Check out these awesome clips of that feud...excuse the bad qualityj...
Re: Old WWF question...
What I never understood about Hogan's reluctance to job was the fact he jobbed to the Ultimate Warrior at Wrestlemania VI and what wound up being the final peak of Hulkamania. It never made much sense to do it then, then refuse to do it later in his career when his invincibility had loooooong worn off.
McMahon must have paid him massive amounts of money to do that, and if money is what would convince Hogan to lose, McMahon should have handed him blank checks at least twice during Hogan's 84-88 title reign. He had way too much competition during that time frame to never lose. The original Hulkamania reign went stale awfully quick, but they were able to get away with it because Hogan was a huge icon at the time and millions of kids did not want to see him lose.
Had I been a booker, I would have had Hogan lose the belt to Bundy at Wrestlemania II, and win it back quickly on an episode of Saturday Night's Main Event. I also hated the fact that WWF would never allow any face vs face matches back then. It caused them to squander what would have been a match for the ages between Hogan and Steamboat in the aftermath of Wrestlemania III. Both were huge stars at the time and Steamboat was awfully close to Hogan's status popularity wise. They could have easily set up a scenario where Steamboat walks up to Hogan during an interview segment demanding a shot at the title, and as IC champion(and number one contender), he was entitled to it. They wouldn't have needed to make Steamboat a heel to make this work. Of course Steamboat screwed the pooch by demanding time off because his wife had just had a baby, this pissed Mcmahon off, and he forced Steamboat to job to Honkeytonk Man and made Steamboat irrelevant and let him go to WCW. Steamboat of course picked up where he had left off in WWF and had a feud with Flair which led to two of the greatest wrestling matches in history.
I like your take on the face vs face matches. It definately was not allowed...however, the marketing of the WWF at that time made it necessary. They didn't want the fans to have to decide and be split...and I understand that when your target audience is 8-16 year olds.
I do beg to differ with you as far as Hogan's first title reign. First of all, the wrestling boom occurred because the bulk of wrestling fans (all be it, youngsters) made it happen. Perhaps if Hogan lost the title, even for a day at that time, the entire bottom would have fallen out. In order for wrestling to break out at that time, that's what needed to happen. I sort of akin it to the Cena thing of the past few years. He is the favorite of the fringe fans...he's what keeps turning a giant profit...why?...because he brings in the fringe fans.
They always have the "smart" or "loyal" wrestling fan almost regardless of the decisions they make. The girls and little kids in 2009 love Cena and only come back to pay if he wins.
One great thing that occurred was because Hogan was hogging the WWF title in the 80s and early 90s was the IC title talent. Never again will you see the likes of that much talent vying for the IC title.
Re: Old WWF question...
The IC title scene was at times better than the Main Event. HBK, Scott Hall, Bret Hart, Mr. Perfect, Davey Boy Smith. Then going back further to Steamboat, Savage, Tito Santana etc. The IC title use to be a strap that mattered and I was always a fan of it because you knew certain guys that got the IC strap were next in line for the WWF title.
As for WCW. Kevin Nash and Scott Hall were just what the company needed to get off the ground and really start competing with Vince. When Scott Hall first appeared on Nitro just walking through the crowd like WCW wasn't expecting it either was the rebirth of the brand right there. Adding the biggest heel turn in the history of wrestling with Hogan and you got something to build off of. It did last too long but it was a great angle and it sold damn well especially the merch. They always had talent especially in the cruiser weight division. The reason WCW went down was horrible business and not being able to use certain bigger stars and more younger wrestlers the way they should have. Bret Hart was brought in very poorly for example. Too many egos without someone who can control them running the show is always going to create problems. Bischoff(sp?) and company couldn't handle it. Then bringing in Vince Russo when the company was already half way in the shitter was a horrible idea. Kevin Nash was booking for a while towards the end of WCW. I give Nash credit he came in and stayed even with backstage heat. Nash is very good on the business side of wrestling and the politics. WCW fell from the inside out and it's a shame because WWE needs competition. Not only would it help them but wrestling as a whole.
As for Cena.. He makes the dollars. He draws crowds and buys for the PPV. I think he is horrible but what can you do. If he's making the money then he will be riding shotgun. Doesn't look like he is going anywhere either.
Re: Old WWF question...
Can he really be compared to Axl though? Austin was the guy in the WWE from 1997-2002. After that he was around for a year with some on air role. Axl was basically MIA from 1994-2001. Personally, I'm not sure I want to see Austin wrestle, didn't he have major surgeries on both knees and his neck too? He changed his wrestling style too from a technical aspect to favoring a brawling style
Yeah, but Austin changed his style before his exit, and the transition was pretty smooth. Also in Austin's defense... there weren't really any good technical wrestlers on the WWE roster at the time. Long gone were the days of Bret & Owen Hart, and even to an extent Shawn Michaels. All were gone. nly Benoit seemed to be a good technical wrestler, and i've always NOT seen Eddie Guerrero as a technical wrestler, even though some do. There really wasn't anyone around to have those matches anyways. And by that point Vince's big pushes were The Rock, Undertaker & HHH, all of which were brawlers, so seeing Austin go that route, was unnoticable, considering he had no one to wrestle on a technical level.
Oh and by the way, that on air role you're referring to in 2003, was when Vince's did an angle where Eric Bischoff had become GM of RAW, and I believe Austin was made 'Sheriff' of RAW, to keep Eric in line. It eventually led to a heels vs. faces match, with 'Team Bischoff' defeating 'Team Austin', the loser had to 'quit', and that was pretty much Austin's exit in 2003. Since then he's showed up rarely, usually just to crack open some beers, and lay some stunners on the douches of the WWE. More memorable was a couple years ago at WrestleMania, Austin special refereeing the 'Bald Billionaires' match between Vince and Donald Trump with Umaga and Lashley facing off, representing them. The whole thing ended with Austin & Trump shaving Vince's head, and Austin laying stunners on Umaga, Shane McMahon, Vince McMahon, and even (to my joy) Donald Trump... it was one of the cooler Austin moments in alot of years.
=slashsro]See this is what frustrates me about McMahon, he makes great business decisions. However, when it comes to the actual storylines and stuff sometimes he fails and FAILS miserably. There was the entire Katie Vick angle. The angle last year where he blew himself up in the limo is another one. The entire booking of John Cena where he is seen as a current day Hogan is laughable considering half the fan base HATES him. Although, I'm wondering how much of this I should be blaming on Stephanie Mcmahon-Helmsley since she's been head booker since 2002 I think. IMO they should give those powers to Shane McMahon he seems to have a better grasp on what the audience actually wants.
The whole Vince blowing himself up thing was beyond stupid, then the whole thing was just dropped, because the following week was the Benoit Murder-Suicide, and it just seemed in poor taste to continue. Big strike out at the plate for Vince. It didn't help that the WWE jumped the gun and aired a 'touching' memorial for Benoit and his family, which a few days later, everyone learned all of those 'touching' moments with the family, was a family that Benoit brutally murdered, then lived in the house with the corpses, before killing himself. One of the most bizarre moments in wrestling and television history imo.
Steph is not to blame for the booking decisions. Last I heard, it was in fact, Jim Ross, that makes all booking decisions. Steph, and I believe Dusty Rhodes, are the head's responsible for storylines and direction. So maybe they are OR aren't responsible. Who knows?
Shane always has had the best mind of "the family". Shane knows exactly what that audience wants, and how to get it. Unlike his father, Shane is also not concerned with his audience's opinion, as much irony as that statement is. Vince will not even entertain the idea of something, unless he knows his audience will enjoy seeing it, good or bad. Shane is much more of a line-stepper, a boundary pusher. If Shane was responsible for say... ECW... it'd be much more like the original, than the bastard it is now. Shane isn't scared to offend, but also knows the business in and out like his father, and how to book. He also ain't a half-bad wrestler.
I'm shocked Shane hasn't already taken over the WWE. Maybe Vince is just too egotistical to ever let that happen, as long as he's alive.
The constant push of Cena is the biggest mystery to me of all. I scratch my head over that one. The guy wouldnt be hated so much, if he wasnt force fed to the audience.
John Cena is a guy pushed, because he's a babyface (literally) and also terrific with a mic. But he's a HORRIBLE wrestler. Cena is pushed, because he's a good 'image' product, and it also helps that Cena is reputed to be a very good guy, very respectful of the elders, very good friends with the McMahon's, and also a very hard worker... even if he can't seem to make himself a better wrestler through all that hard work.
But then again... Hogan was never a good wrestler either. Like Cena, he was always a face & showman. Never a wrestler. Now Ric Flair... Bret Hart... Stone Cold... HBK... those guys had it all. Ability, 'the look', and mic skills.
Re: Old WWF question...
Oh and by the way, that on air role you're referring to in 2003, was when Vince's did an angle where Eric Bischoff had become GM of RAW, and I believe Austin was made 'Sheriff' of RAW, to keep Eric in line.
Is that when that dammed What? catchphrase became popular? Anyway, which wrestler would be best for him to face in one match where Austin can have a great match? Just curious about the answer since I have no idea. Jericho maybe?
Steph is not to blame for the booking decisions. Last I heard, it was in fact, Jim Ross, that makes all booking decisions. Steph, and I believe Dusty Rhodes, are the head's responsible for storylines and direction. So maybe they are OR aren't responsible. Who knows?
You're wrong here--she is responsible for the booking. This is what her wikipedia page says: She was promoted to Senior Vice President of Creative Writing in 2006.[2] She oversees the hiring of scriptwriters, supervises the writing team, and is involved in the long-term booking of WWE. I believe that Dusty Rhodes used to book for ECW before heading to FCW (WWE affiliate in Florida). I don't think Jim Ross was ever involved in WWE booking. His job (aside for commentating) was hiring people not writing.
I think I read somewhere where SMH prefers the soap opera style storylines. Last year's epic feud with Jericho and Michaels were primarily written with extensive input from both men. The strange part about the crackpot WWE booking is that sometimes I find the over the top storylines entertaining. Anybody remember the time when the evil Undertaker( with the ministry) tried to embalm Stone Cold? I think they knocked him out with for formaldehyde and dragged him to a dark cemetary. Luckily, Austin woke up in time and fended them off. Another off the top storyline that made very little sense was the entire Undertaker vs Kane storyline and who actually set fire to their home. What kind of balance should they take with their booking strategy? Old school no frills booking or the soap opera stuff. Ideally you'd like a balance between the two.
But then again... Hogan was never a good wrestler either
Yeah but he tried to keep up most of the time and I think he understood match psychology a lot better than Cena. He even carried Warrior in the previously mentioned WM 6 main event. I get annoyed by Cena because 1)he isn't very entertaining--sorry those juvenille jokes don't entertain me 2) his matches just don't flow very well. I think it was at last month's PPV where he was getting beat down by Jericho. He escapes the Walls of Jericho and applies his STFU submission move and wins just like that. I will say this about Cena I think he might be a victim of "WWE style" wrestling. I remember reading that he was a pretty good wrestler in OVW and then when he comes up those skills disappear. I guess he got smart and realized he didn't need to wrestle a lot to get over.
Re: Old WWF question...
Regarding the IC title discussion and the huge amount of talent in that pool, I was always an advocate of another title being brought in to the WWF, likely a TV title or US title. The NWA was smart in that regard knowing that you cant just have 2 titles because it causes talent to get buried.
Wrestlers like Hillbilly Jim, George "the Animal" Steele, Butch Reed, Adrian Adonis, King Kong Bundy, "Dr. D" David Schultz, Big John Studd, Andre the Giant, Bad News Brown,etc. were unable to ever have a title because Hogan would never lose and the IC title was used as almost like a "co-world title' to give a massive push to its 2nd star at that particular moment. In a 6 year period, the only IC champions were Santana, Savage, Steamboat, and the Honkeytonk Man. When you have so much talent, that is simply unacceptable.
In the 83-88 timeframe, there was so much talent in the tag team division, Mcmahon could have easily created an IC tag team title.
Re: Old WWF question...
Can I just clarify something, did Stephanie McMahon really marry Triple H?! I always thought that was just part of the storyline.
I agree about John Cena, but I guess it's gotta be working somehow. People probably watch to hate him & hope he loses. Myb Vince thought fans would like him like they did The Rock, but that never materialized. As for the belts in the 80's, I agree 2 was not enough. But on the other hand didn't WCW during it's peak have like 8 or 10 belts? I agree esp during Hulks 4 year reign Vince probably should have acknowledged he wasn't letting go & created a 3rd belt.
We should start a thread called "Name a Wrestler" thread & each post only name 1 wrestler. See how many old names we can come up with. Just reading yours James brought back some memories (Hillbilly Jim, Big John Studd)
