nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,343
|
Post by nibs92 on Mar 1, 2010 13:55:01 GMT -5
Hey guys
I’ve just finished reading “the death of wcw” again. A great read for sure. I found it particularly interesting with all the lunacy that went on within the company, especially when vince russo was the booker.
What I’m really interested in is people’s opinion of the product when Vinnie ru was in charge – as the title says, was it really that bad?
I mean, although the audience numbers decreased drastically, according to the above book, there were still thousands of people who attended events and/or tuned in to watch the product on a weekly basis, so there must have been something worth watching.
Your thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:48:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2010 14:05:21 GMT -5
Yes, it was that bad. It was horrible. I had been a fan of the NWA/WCW since I was a toddler, so I just kept watching hoping that it would get better, that somebody would realize just how bad things were getting and do something about it. I think a lot of fans were like that -- hanging around hoping it would get better. The booking and storylines sucked.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,343
|
Post by nibs92 on Mar 1, 2010 14:22:19 GMT -5
Yes, it was that bad. It was horrible. I had been a fan of the NWA/WCW since I was a toddler, so I just kept watching hoping that it would get better, that somebody would realize just how bad things were getting and do something about it. I think a lot of fans were like that -- hanging around hoping it would get better. The booking and storylines sucked. i'm always a bit sceptical when i read things like that. it seems very biased and some of the stories seemed a little too far fetched to be true. i'm more a wwf fan so didn't really follow wcw at any given point. jus a shame that the company was pretty much run into the ground spoiling it for people like yourself who followed it for such a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by calhil8 on Mar 1, 2010 14:43:08 GMT -5
Well yeah from like mid 1998 onwards WCW went down the pan a few examples why are
Nash ending Goldbergs Streak
Finger Poke of doom
David Arquette winning the world title
The huge number of members to the NWO
Jarrett lieing down for hogan which Hogan broke kayfabe on against Russo etc
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:48:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2010 15:31:06 GMT -5
Just to clarify, I've never read "The Death of WCW." I was just giving my opinion that the Russo-era WCW was as bad as people generally claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmy! on Mar 1, 2010 16:30:15 GMT -5
I've read that book, great read and it appears that WCW was awful towards the end, although I enjoyed it somewhat haha.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:48:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2010 16:36:56 GMT -5
I've never read it either, but I mean to, it's just quite expensive out here. I've read quite a bit of stuff from RD Reynolds and Bryan Alvarez anyway, but it's on my To-Do list.
Going solely from what I saw in the 'Russo Years', it quickly became a truly secondrate promotion IMO, with everything from nonsensical booking to half-hearted in-ring work (resulting in botches galore) and a bit of a copycat syndrome (Booker T booked similarly to The Rock and Scott Steiner booked similarly like Triple H when it came to the World Title).
Taking the only solid draw left, Goldberg, and turning him heel was terrible, as was Sid Vicious' run, not to mention Bischoff hvaing Mysterio be unmasked all added to a dire product that bordered on being unwatchable for the most part, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:48:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2010 19:14:04 GMT -5
from Jan 99 thru the end it was awful.just awful......when Russo took over in Oct 99 it got so much worse
I remember being so pissed off at the Fingerpoke of Doom
|
|
|
|
Post by chaz on Mar 1, 2010 19:16:39 GMT -5
The company became unsalvageable in late 98, when the Time Warner executives ordered Bischoff to become more family friendly. Despite Russo's idiotic and hurrendous booking, nobody could have saved that company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jord on Mar 1, 2010 19:21:50 GMT -5
2001 WCW was awesome. I really don't care what people say since 99% of people automatically assume that WCW sucked in 2001 because it sucked from 1998-2000.
|
|
|
|
Post by Juba on Mar 1, 2010 19:58:59 GMT -5
the only great thing about this time was how much attention lance storm was getting...And that's the only good thing i remember
|
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Mar 1, 2010 20:15:41 GMT -5
The on screen product from late 99 through most of 00 was really a cluster  of sorts. Titles would just be passed around 2-3 times per show and then everyone stripped and then given back...it was just really messed up. The big kicker is that even though their ratings did drop, they were still getting very high ratings. A failing WCW was getting high 3s, low 4s...which is as good if not better then raw right now. Raw then I believe was only pulling 5s and 6s. WCW had a VERY loyal fan base much like ECW did. WCW was still the highest rated show on TBS/TNT. It clearly could have stayed around much long even now but ownership was a much needed change. If AOL/Time Warner would have just agreed to keep the show running there is no doubt it would still be around and running strong |
|
|
|
Post by chaz on Mar 1, 2010 20:29:59 GMT -5
The on screen product from late 99 through most of 00 was really a cluster of sorts. Titles would just be passed around 2-3 times per show and then everyone stripped and then given back...it was just really messed up. The big kicker is that even though their ratings did drop, they were still getting very high ratings. A failing WCW was getting high 3s, low 4s...which is as good if not better then raw right now. Raw then I believe was only pulling 5s and 6s. WCW had a VERY loyal fan base much like ECW did. WCW was still the highest rated show on TBS/TNT. It clearly could have stayed around much long even now but ownership was a much needed change. If AOL/Time Warner would have just agreed to keep the show running there is no doubt it would still be around and running strong Exactly. People don't seem to realise that it wasn't Bischoff or Russo that killed WCW. Blame AOL/Time Warner. |
|
Johnny Lawrence - Cobra Kai
Main Eventer
Promotional consideration paid for by the following
Joined on: Jul 25, 2005 17:12:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,209
|
Post by Johnny Lawrence - Cobra Kai on Mar 2, 2010 5:19:58 GMT -5
People don't seem to realise that it wasn't Bischoff or Russo that killed WCW. Blame AOL/Time Warner. AOL/Time Warner definitely drove the stake through WCW's heart at the end, but the fact is that WCW wasn't profitable long before that. And part of the reason the company was struggling financially was massive payroll and production overspending (which was definitely Bischoff's fault) and failing to yield a return on that investment because the production wasn't good enough to sustain (much less grow) audience after 1998 (which has to fall on those in charge -- including the bookers -- as well as the main event level wrestlers that weren't performing up to par, like Hogan and Nash). To the original topic question -- WCW was always good for a strong match here and there. Even toward the end, they were having some insanely entertaining cruiserweight matches. But the booking was really lame. It's easier for me to stomach the WCW booking in retrospect than it was at that time, for some reason. I think it's because I'm no longer directly comparing it to Attitude-era WWF, which was awesome by comparison. And there's also the idea that cheesy, corny booking is more fun to watch years later ... sort of the way a corny 1980s movie is fun to watch for comedy value. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Mar 2, 2010 10:50:04 GMT -5
vince russo destroyed everything bischoff's era had worked to create and left nothing to work with.
|
|
|
|
Post by L 0 T T 0 on Mar 3, 2010 4:20:08 GMT -5
Honestly, as bad as people say WCW was the last 2 Years or so, I'd rather sit through some of that stuff than WWE has produced the last 5 Years or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmallett4 on Mar 3, 2010 12:27:32 GMT -5
i never really watched wcw around that timeas i was only 8-9, and didnt even know it existed. I still have yet to really watch any of their stuff, but just by checking the WHC history, i can see the company was in a big, BIG mess.
For example, between october 1999, and april 10, the title was vacant 6 times. between these times, they had 6 champions also. so in 6 months, they had 6 champions, and the belt was vacated 6 times overall. this just screams to me that the company had no idea of the direction they were going in.
|
|
|
|
Post by OmegaGaijin on Mar 3, 2010 12:56:56 GMT -5
the only good thing for me watching it was having bret back,and having him be world champion. Russo's first PPV Halloween Havoc 99 was fantastic,it then went from brilliant things and ldiotic things minute to minute afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hollywood Asia on Mar 3, 2010 12:58:10 GMT -5
Yeah it was that bad, some of it was unwatchable, the other half was unintentional comedy....
|
|
|
|
Post by LeighD on Mar 3, 2010 17:03:04 GMT -5
Honestly, as bad as people say WCW was the last 2 Years or so, I'd rather sit through some of that stuff than WWE has produced the last 5 Years or so. Sadly, I agree. But WCW in 1999 was alright. But 2000 - 2001, it was just plain awful. |
|
