Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 17:43:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2012 21:59:49 GMT -5
Long story short, Bret (in 1993) had a much harder time from an internal stance, while HBK (in 1996) had a harder time from an external stance. Apples vs. Oranges my friends. thats a great point there man.+1 |
|
ellisd
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 26, 2009 0:30:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,758
|
Post by ellisd on Nov 20, 2012 2:41:51 GMT -5
HBK had a ton of great heels to work with in 96; Sid, Owen Hart, Vader, Bulldog, Mankind, Goldust... I feel that Crush could have been a great main event heel for Bret in 93/94, he was solid in the ring (at least at that time) and had a really imposing look about him. Adam Bomb could have also been good if he didn't have such a stupid gimmick. Obviously Ludvig Borga was supposed to be something special, he ended Tatanka's 2 year streak but just didn't get over enough as a heel to really do anything. Tatanka said in an interview that Borga was going to be pushed to the stars. I think had Borga not injured himself in a battle royal, he was supposed to have won the WWF title faced off against Luger at WrestleMania X. AT least that is what I've heard over the years. 1996 was definitely a weird year. The first half of the year actually looked rather solid with Bret, Diesel, HBK, Ramon, Vader, Warrior, and Undertaker. But within a few months, Hall & Nash were gone as was Warrior. Bret was taking time off and Vader was lessened considerably. I did think HBK's feud with Bulldog was great but IMO that just wasn't one to keep drawing fans. I think had Hall & Nash stayed, WCW wouldn't have been so dominant in the ratings and obviously the nWo wasn't going to happen. Plus I think Hall was moving up the ladder to the WWF title picture. Hall vs. HBK for the Title in a ladder match?! Makes you think. To add to the debate, I do think Bret's 1992 run was a lot harder from a supposrting-cast prespective. The number of big names was quickly cut within months. Bulldog, Warrior, Flair, etc were all leaving and the roster turnover is one of the highest I've seen. I mean look at the cards from 1992 and 1993. Not a lot of names that stayed. Hogan wasn't a supporting post as he was in and out within 3 months. WWF did push Yokozuna, Luger, & others, but Bret was their staple person. But at the time WCW wasn't a big threat. Had WCW's 1996 happened against WWF's 1993, WWF would not even be around today. Forward to 1996. HBK had more creditable guys to work (Bulldog, Austin, Vader, Sid, Mankind, Undertaker, etc). But I think the biggest hurt to HBK's 1996 was the fact that WCW was so HOT. I mean the nWo was on FIRE and the hottest angle going in the wrestling world. You go to one channel and you have this cool, cutting edge product. Then you turn the channel to WWF and you have a dude wearing hearts, dancing around, and doing a semi-strip show. I mean no wonder fans didn't take HBK seriously at that time and why Austin's star was finally rising! Long story short, Bret (in 1993) had a much harder time from an internal stance, while HBK (in 1996) had a harder time from an external stance. Apples vs. Oranges my friends. I've gotta agree with this. Shawn had more to work with from a talent standpoint in 1996 than Bret had in 1993. From an outside competition standpoint, WCW was considered an alternative in 1993, but it was considered a threat in 1996. |
|
|
|
Post by wyleecyotee on Nov 20, 2012 13:29:56 GMT -5
I think the stronger supporting cast for me also involves the under card. PPVs in 92/3 had a lot more to offer in terms of IC matches and similar stature (HBK, Tatanka, Bulldog, Razor, Perfect, Ted Dibiase, Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Crush, evil Doink and Owen) and a tag division with the likes of (LOD, Steiner Brothers, Money Inc, Natural Disasters, Smoking Guns and Men on a Mission) compared to 96 when you had IC and mid card (Helmsly, Goldust, Savio Vega, Mankind, Bulldog, Owen, Marc Mero, Double J, Mabel and Ahmed Johnson) and Tag (Goodwins, Body Donas, Smoking Guns and a couple thrown together tag teams) I personally think the Bret championship run time had a better supporting cast below the title picture and put on an overall better show from top to bottom.
Shawn had to deal with having a big surge in new faces in the undercard whilst Bret still had a lot of old names still around, you only really have to look at the Rumbles they where champion around, Bret still had some good stars around whilst still maintaining a good undercard whilst Shawn had a few people brought in just to fill numbers.
Brets era also fell into the more colourful era, watching back it seems like Shawn had the title in the transition between colourful too attitude which was a darker, black and red style portrayed on TV with people moving away from the neon multicoloured tights and wearing jeans and black trunks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 17:43:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2012 13:54:03 GMT -5
It doesn't matter who was WWF champion in 1996. They were going to get dumped on regardless because the nWo stuff was so hot and making WCW the company to watch.
|
|
ellisd
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 26, 2009 0:30:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,758
|
Post by ellisd on Nov 20, 2012 17:23:25 GMT -5
It doesn't matter who was WWF champion in 1996. They were going to get dumped on regardless because the nWo stuff was so hot and making WCW the company to watch. Exactly. The nWo was a great idea for WCW. (Unfortunately after it ran its course, WCW had lost traction and weren't able to come up with anything stable enough to save them. But that another thread.) Although I was a loyal WWF fan, even I had to occasionally flip over to see what nWo were doing. Or I would at least watch the Nitro replay. The WWF were struggling at the time, and unfortunately for Shawn his time on top happen to fall during this time and WCW ratings dominance. My brother and I have talked alot about this before, and we look at Shawn as the guy, that during a time period where everyone was jumping ship, Shawn kept the sinking ship afloat just long enough for Austin and the Attitude era to take over and get things going in the direction that it needed to be. |
|
|
|
Post by LeighD on Nov 20, 2012 18:49:48 GMT -5
From my seat, 1996 was THE year the industry changed. 1997 & 1998 were the years that those changes were really surfacing. ironically WWF was the company that started those changes to a more edgier product. Goldust, Backlot Brawl, Austin 3:16, Diesel as a tweener were all changes in early 1996 that began what would become the Attitude Era. Goldust most noteably for me. The problem for WWF was they were slow to shift. Those things I mentioned above put WWF from 1st gear to 2nd.
WCW on the otherhand went right from 1st to 4th with Hogan's heel turn. In what was very symbolic, Hogan was the face of pro-wrestling for the 80s and 90s. He wore the red and yellow colorfully through Rock & Wrestling and beyond. His very turn threw the the colorful days of wrestling and turned them into a more reality, down to earth, darker product.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 17:43:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2012 19:02:31 GMT -5
yes indeed.....it has been said in many shoots that the crowd reactions towards HBK & Bret at Survivors 96 really sent Vince a signal.......also people really started to dig Taker as an ass kicker during his feud with Mankind.folks clearly wanted more of that.
|
|
Greensborohill
Main Eventer
CHAMPION
Joined on: Jan 14, 2007 14:44:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,657
|
Post by Greensborohill on Nov 24, 2012 21:14:29 GMT -5
Survivor Series 96 through Survivor Series 97 was my favorite year of WWF wrestling. Bret and Shawn needed each other.
|
|
Lithium
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 5, 2010 18:09:07 GMT -5
Posts: 859
|
Post by Lithium on Nov 30, 2012 8:19:30 GMT -5
1996 WWF has always seemed weird to me. It just feels strange to see Austin against the backdrop of the "older", more colorful New Generation WWF. It was a transitional period for sure.
Yeah, things would've been different had it not been for Shawn being a pain in the ass. But I think everyone can see that. Beating a dead horse really with that one. I've always wondered what the wrestling scene would've been like had Hogan retired having never turned heel and Hall and Nash never defecting to WCW?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 17:43:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2012 12:51:44 GMT -5
I seriously doubt that Scott was going to be pushed into the title picture at any point. He had a brief main event stint at the end of 92/ beginning of 93 but his drug problems were getting really bad. His last memorable feuds were with Goldust and the 1-2-3 Kid, two low-mid carders. Bret didn't really have anyone to work with beginning in 93, which was why Razor was used in place of The Warrior. I still really wish that they'd stuck with Bret vs Savage for WM9, such a match could have easily gone down in history as the best match ever.
Diesel and Bret were the big losses for Vince in 96. Had Diesel stayed in the WWF, he was going to go over The Undertaker at WM and head into a title match with Shawn (so I'm guessing he would have probably won the title when Vader was booked to at Summerslam, with Shawn winning it back at the Rumble in San Antonio). I think Sid was brought in partly because Diesel had left.
|
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Nov 30, 2012 17:11:59 GMT -5
Scott Hall was never going to be a world champion in either the WWF or WCW. His drug and alcohol problems made even 90s HBK look like a saint. The guy simply had too many deamons for Vince to trust on top. Hell, even WCW was smart enough not to put their world title on him (which tells us ALOT). Hall was a great upper mid-carder who once in a while could be thrown in the main event, but was never going to be "The Man."
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 17:43:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 13:06:16 GMT -5
again all good points. many have said that the reason Vince put Yoko on top and left him there was because of the lack of credible heels.he had many faces for Yoko to oppose but not so many heels for Bret/Luger to square off with. and no Luger wasnt near as over as Vince told everyone(just like HBK in 96)they had to pipe in crowd noise for him....never a good sign really. and as bret pointed out, Luger was sent on a cross country bus tour across the country all paid for by Vince. Vince did everything he could to get Luger over and considering, it really didn't happen. |
|
TheBadGuyChico
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: Dec 3, 2012 10:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,715
|
Post by TheBadGuyChico on Dec 7, 2012 14:16:18 GMT -5
1996 was a solid year imo. I do watch stuff from 96 quite often, it had some great matches/moments. Much better than 95 which was honestly pretty bad, nostalgia aside.
One thing that doesn't quite get mentioned enough when talking about 1996 WWF is that Shawn Michaels had ZERO bussiness ever being a babyface.
One of the worst ideas in wrestling history was to try and make his Sexy Boy character a babyface. Everybody crapon it, and the WWF deserved it.
Bret Hart for all of his pink wrestling gear had the respect of the male audience, Michaels did not.
Not much more i can say about Michael's run. I'll sum it up thought: Fantastic matches-terrible stories/angles. Nothing sympathetic to grown men about a male stripper.
|
|
TheBadGuyChico
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: Dec 3, 2012 10:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,715
|
Post by TheBadGuyChico on Dec 7, 2012 14:18:15 GMT -5
Scott Hall was never going to be a world champion in either the WWF or WCW. His drug and alcohol problems made even 90s HBK look like a saint. The guy simply had too many deamons for Vince to trust on top. Hell, even WCW was smart enough not to put their world title on him (which tells us ALOT). Hall was a great upper mid-carder who once in a while could be thrown in the main event, but was never going to be "The Man." Hall had the look and charisma to slide into the main event scene easily. Matter a fact, much like Jake Roberts, i think he was underutilized in the WWF. Yes he had great moments and matches, but he could have been in some great $$$ matches! |
|
|
|
Post by LeighD on Dec 11, 2012 12:53:02 GMT -5
1996 was a solid year imo. I do watch stuff from 96 quite often, it had some great matches/moments. Much better than 95 which was honestly pretty bad, nostalgia aside. One thing that doesn't quite get mentioned enough when talking about 1996 WWF is that Shawn Michaels had ZERO bussiness ever being a babyface. One of the worst ideas in wrestling history was to try and make his Sexy Boy character a babyface. Everybody crap on it, and the WWF deserved it. Bret Hart for all of his pink wrestling gear had the respect of the male audience, Michaels did not. Not much more i can say about Michael's run. I'll sum it up thought: Fantastic matches-terrible stories/angles. Nothing sympathetic to grown men about a male stripper. This was HBK's biggest downfall in 1996. As I mentioned in an eariler post, WCW had the nWo this cool, hip, cutting-edge storyline going and WWF had HBK dancing around the ring doing mini-strip shows, and wearing colorful heart attires. I could only take one seriously. However, I think had the 1997 HBK been present along with some darker-toned tights, things would have been more appealing. Actually had WCW's 1996 taken on WWF's 1997, they would be very parallel! On another topic, I do wonder if the WWF would have been better without Shawn in 1996 and/or 1997. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 17:43:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2012 13:05:33 GMT -5
Scott Hall was never going to be a world champion in either the WWF or WCW. His drug and alcohol problems made even 90s HBK look like a saint. The guy simply had too many deamons for Vince to trust on top. Hell, even WCW was smart enough not to put their world title on him (which tells us ALOT). Hall was a great upper mid-carder who once in a while could be thrown in the main event, but was never going to be "The Man." Hall had the look and charisma to slide into the main event scene easily. Matter a fact, much like Jake Roberts, i think he was underutilized in the WWF. Yes he had great moments and matches, but he could have been in some great $$$ matches! Scott was easily one of the best wrestlers of the 90s. If he hadn't had drug problems I'm sure he would have been a main eventer. 1996 was a solid year imo. I do watch stuff from 96 quite often, it had some great matches/moments. Much better than 95 which was honestly pretty bad, nostalgia aside. One thing that doesn't quite get mentioned enough when talking about 1996 WWF is that Shawn Michaels had ZERO bussiness ever being a babyface. One of the worst ideas in wrestling history was to try and make his Sexy Boy character a babyface. Everybody crap on it, and the WWF deserved it. Bret Hart for all of his pink wrestling gear had the respect of the male audience, Michaels did not. Not much more i can say about Michael's run. I'll sum it up thought: Fantastic matches-terrible stories/angles. Nothing sympathetic to grown men about a male stripper. I agree. Shawn was made to be a heel, he was completely unlikable and he made it work for him well when he was a heel. Face Shawn Michaels was absolutely terrible. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 17:43:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2012 14:05:58 GMT -5
I can honestly say that Shawn Michaels being WWF Champion in 1996 saved the WWF that year.
I was 15 years old at the time, and I loved HBK!! He was the man to me, along with Bret Hart and Diesel. So when Nash went to WCW, and Bret took those 8 months off in 96, it meant HBK was the guy I had to watch.
Maybe the 20 year old's and 30 year old's didn't care for HBK (kind of like how those same age brackets don't care for Cena in the past few years) but as a teenager, myself and all my friends loved Shawn Michaels.
|
|
