Daniel Arshad
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 13, 2011 6:56:25 GMT -5
Posts: 997
|
Post by Daniel Arshad on Dec 28, 2013 19:12:52 GMT -5
Goldberg and Shane Douglas. Both guys looked like a million bucks and got over because of who they faced, and once left to get over (stay over in Goldberg's case) their weaknesses were exposed. Plus, both guys have some of the most annoying fanbases in all of wrestling. Shane Douglas has his 40 year old virgins who act like he could've been bigger than Austin and Rock and Hogan and Jesus Christ all because he cursed on the mic in 1992, and Goldberg has his army of marks who put him up there with Undertaker and Shawn Michaels all because he was manufactured with a cool entrance, badass look and catchphrase and steam rolled through a slew of skilled workers who made him seem like he knew what he was doing. rant/
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Dec 28, 2013 19:46:51 GMT -5
Does that Shane Douglas fanbase still exist? I haven't heard anyone say that stuff in years so I figured they'd all seen sense, but it did used to make me laugh.
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Dec 28, 2013 20:24:40 GMT -5
Goldberg and Shane Douglas. Both guys looked like a million bucks and got over because of who they faced, and once left to get over (stay over in Goldberg's case) their weaknesses were exposed. Plus, both guys have some of the most annoying fanbases in all of wrestling. Shane Douglas has his 40 year old virgins who act like he could've been bigger than Austin and Rock and Hogan and Jesus Christ all because he cursed on the mic in 1992, and Goldberg has his army of marks who put him up there with Undertaker and Shawn Michaels all because he was manufactured with a cool entrance, badass look and catchphrase and steam rolled through a slew of skilled workers who made him seem like he knew what he was doing. rant/ Thank you sir for mentioning Shane Douglas I had forgotten how irritating his fans were for someone who was once a " dynamic dude" with Johnny Ace. He was below mediocre and needed great workers to have a good match. I thought a lot of ECW was shock Value and overrated tv and Shane Douglas definitely fit that
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Dec 28, 2013 20:25:10 GMT -5
Goldberg and Shane Douglas. Both guys looked like a million bucks and got over because of who they faced, and once left to get over (stay over in Goldberg's case) their weaknesses were exposed. Plus, both guys have some of the most annoying fanbases in all of wrestling. Shane Douglas has his 40 year old virgins who act like he could've been bigger than Austin and Rock and Hogan and Jesus Christ all because he cursed on the mic in 1992, and Goldberg has his army of marks who put him up there with Undertaker and Shawn Michaels all because he was manufactured with a cool entrance, badass look and catchphrase and steam rolled through a slew of skilled workers who made him seem like he knew what he was doing. rant/ Thank you sir for mentioning Shane Douglas I had forgotten how irritating his fans were for someone who was once a " dynamic dude" with Johnny Ace. He was below mediocre and needed great workers to have a good match. I thought a lot of ECW was shock Value and overrated tv and Shane Douglas definitely fit that
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Dec 28, 2013 20:25:24 GMT -5
Goldberg and Shane Douglas. Both guys looked like a million bucks and got over because of who they faced, and once left to get over (stay over in Goldberg's case) their weaknesses were exposed. Plus, both guys have some of the most annoying fanbases in all of wrestling. Shane Douglas has his 40 year old virgins who act like he could've been bigger than Austin and Rock and Hogan and Jesus Christ all because he cursed on the mic in 1992, and Goldberg has his army of marks who put him up there with Undertaker and Shawn Michaels all because he was manufactured with a cool entrance, badass look and catchphrase and steam rolled through a slew of skilled workers who made him seem like he knew what he was doing. rant/ Thank you sir for mentioning Shane Douglas I had forgotten how irritating his fans were for someone who was once a " dynamic dude" with Johnny Ace. He was below mediocre and needed great workers to have a good match. I thought a lot of ECW was shock Value and overrated tv and Shane Douglas definitely fit that
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Dec 28, 2013 20:26:01 GMT -5
My bad on the triple post
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Dec 28, 2013 21:14:02 GMT -5
I don't understand how Shane Douglas gets mentioned in this thread, considering that most people don't have a clue who he is. I thought he was the best overall performer ECW ever had, but that's just me.
I also laugh at those mentioning HBK, Foley, and Bret Hart, as if they're not three of the most dynamic performers in the history of wrestling. Bret Hart's in-ring run from 1993-1998 is virtually untouchable in terms of the quality of the in-ring product. I agree that HBK was better when he came back (especially from about 2002-2006) but his first run was incredible. He was, at times, the most consistent, athletic and charismatic wrestler on the planet. Look at his last run as a heel in 97-98 in particular. I don't know if there's ever been a better in-ring heel than HBK from that time. And Foley's work is beyond reproach in my opinion, too. Put everyone he faced over in the ring and on the mic, had some of the most memorable moments of the Attitude Era, and never wrestled the same match twice. What the hell do you guys expect? Jesus.
I would vote for Ric Flair (who I think was a good performer, but a very mediocre technical wrestler who chopped and Flair flopped his way through every match of this decade), Mr. Perfect (a good character but an overselling cheeseball), and Billy Gunn (only because his delusional stans think he was something more than a very blah performer in almost every way).
On a related note, the most underrated wrestler of the 90s, by a landslide, was Hakushi. He was the only guy who did something every single match that looked superhuman. It's a shame he never really got to mix it up with guys like HBK and Razor Ramon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 21:28:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 21:28:51 GMT -5
I don't understand how Shane Douglas gets mentioned in this thread, considering that most people don't have a clue who he is. I thought he was the best overall performer ECW ever had, but that's just me. I always liked Shane Douglas especially with the Triple Threat in ECW, it was one of his best runs.
|
|
|
Post by Flair Forever on Dec 28, 2013 21:30:11 GMT -5
They were from different time periods, when Hogan left in 92 he was partly responsible for the WWF's financial trouble thanks to his drug and steroid use. The only time you can accurately compare Bret and Hulk as how they drew as champions is in 93, when Bret outdrew Hogan by a mile. Not to mention that Bret drew more oversees than any other WWF star (a fact that still stands today, if I'm not mistaken), and during Hogan's title runs in the 80s, Bret was getting more fan mail than any him or anyone else under contract. Yes, they were from different time periods, but you can't just take Hogan from 93 because it makes your argument look better. Hogan was THE GUY, or right there with the main guy of his company during both of the 2 modern booms of pro-wrestling (Hulkamania and Hollywood Hulk). Career vs Career, Bret isn't close to Hogan when it comes to selling merch and getting people in the seats. Also, he said that Bret had a bad attitude. Which is completely false. So yes he was wrong on that. Bret refused to put a guy over ONCE his entire career, and he had good cause to do that. He also bent over backwards and suggested umpteen different scenarios which Vince shot down because he was desperate to try and kill Bret's stock on his way over to WCW. The only reason Vince let Bret go is because he knew the WCW would never use him, their combination of bad booking and backstage politics would never allow it. Being honest, I wasn't there to know what Bret's attitude was. I've seen shoots and read books where he was both praised and criticized. A bad attitude isn't just not wanting to lose to someone... There's a lot more to it, but neither of us know how he really was back then. We only get conflicting accounts from various people who were there, and 98% of them have their own agenda when telling the story. He also said "The WWF tried to make Bret Hart the main guy - and eventually came to regret it, all leading up to the 1997 Montreal Screw Job" which is also wrong. Vince regularly tried other guys -- IE Shawn, Luger and Diesel -- who all flopped (in Michaels case, horribly). Bret was Vince's safety net, a guy he knew that he could always fall back on when his failed experiments went wrong... BECAUSE of his drawing power. The fans solemnly chose Bret over Luger, who was essentially a better version of Hogan. If Vince really wanted to keep Bret the main guy, or REALLY wanted to keep him in the company, I really think he could have done it. The fact is that Vince decided that he wasn't worth it, and in the long run he was right. History shows that the WWF did not need Bret Hart to succeed. I was going to try to rebut this - but "Dat guy" did a fantastic job for me, thanks! Just a few thoughts.... I'm not referring to Hart's "wrestling ability" - I didn't think that was what this thread was about.... no one is denying that Bret Hart was very talented in the ring. This is more about the whole "Sports Entertainment" package.... But when you read the various interviews over the years - his criticisms of OTHER wrestlers, and his negative comments about matches he had with them.... that is the "bad attitude" I was referring to. He's spoken negatively about his matches with Ric Flair, openly mocking Flair's ring style. He's openly admitted (and apologized) for some of the things he's said about Shawn Michaels.... this is the bad attitude I'm talking about. You don't hear John Cena saying he couldn't get a good match out of Ryback. You never really heard Hogan saying negative things about his opponents (not that he'd have any right to). You frequently hear "The Hitman" openly saying negative things about other wrestlers ring skills - and that's not a wrestling angle, or a heel persona - that's a bitter man with a chip on his shoulder (or, to put it nicely - a negative attitude). Yeah, Hogan had lost some of his "drawing power" by 1993.... but what about 1985-1992? These were considered "Golden Years" for WWF, and they were headlined by Hulk Hogan. WWF had Bret Hart signed to a 20 year contract - and they asked him to leave for WCW. Think about that - if he was a legit top draw, putting "butts in the seats" - and they had him locked in - what earthly reason would they have to drop him? Simply put - Bret Hart couldn't outdraw WCW, so WWF couldn't afford to keep him as the top guy, or at all - on the flip-side, once "Stone Cold" became the "top guy" - WCW was out of business within 5 years. All of this - and I often hear Bret Hart referred to as "The Greatest of All Time". I just don't buy it. Best wrestler, maybe..... but I don't even think his promos were that great (for the most part). Sounds like "over-rated" to me...
|
|
|
Post by ztj_wwf on Dec 28, 2013 21:32:37 GMT -5
Razor Ramon. Liked the gimmick, but the in ring work was never extraordinary, with the exception of when he worked with HBK.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Dec 29, 2013 2:09:52 GMT -5
Goldberg and Shane Douglas. Both guys looked like a million bucks and got over because of who they faced, and once left to get over (stay over in Goldberg's case) their weaknesses were exposed. Plus, both guys have some of the most annoying fanbases in all of wrestling. Shane Douglas has his 40 year old virgins who act like he could've been bigger than Austin and Rock and Hogan and Jesus Christ all because he cursed on the mic in 1992, and Goldberg has his army of marks who put him up there with Undertaker and Shawn Michaels all because he was manufactured with a cool entrance, badass look and catchphrase and steam rolled through a slew of skilled workers who made him seem like he knew what he was doing. rant/ Thank you sir for mentioning Shane Douglas I had forgotten how irritating his fans were for someone who was once a " dynamic dude" with Johnny Ace. He was below mediocre and needed great workers to have a good match. I thought a lot of ECW was shockValue and overrated tv and Shane Douglas definitely fit that Douglas made a name for himself because Paul E. allowed him to do things that the Big 2 companies weren't allowing at the time: use profanity and call out guys who didn't work for his company. Take that away and there was nothing special about Douglas.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 29, 2013 2:56:18 GMT -5
Warrior, Nash, & Luger.
No three men ever took so much to give so little. They are the most prominent examples of the flaws with the "Putting asses in seats is all that matters" school of thought advocated by journeymen & those who take no shame in pandering to mediocrity. No consideration for why Anvil Fan is dead wrong in his observation.
Bret Hart didn't have an "attitude". He had a deep-rooted sense of being unappreciated. Vince's very lack of use of him due to the unreaoonsiveness of the uneducated majority is the quintisential example of Tootz Mondt's immortal words. "The common man will never appreciate scientific wrestling.".
The tactic of pandering to the uneducated commoner is as antiquitous as the illusionists who pioneered it. "A magician's best friend is a drunk or stupid audience.". While it was revolutionary in it's implementation by the Golddust Trio ended up by abused into a communistic fall thanks to contemporary promoters.(Don't tear anything interpreting that metaphor kiddies)
Bret Hart is the Pablo Picasso of professional wrestling. He is the wine that is so exquisite, he makes all, but the finest competing concoctions taste like urine.
In the classical definition of entertaining people by telling artistic stories with the performance of wrestling contests, Bret Hart perfected the stories being written on the paper Lewis left out.
End of discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 21:28:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 6:20:14 GMT -5
They were from different time periods, when Hogan left in 92 he was partly responsible for the WWF's financial trouble thanks to his drug and steroid use. The only time you can accurately compare Bret and Hulk as how they drew as champions is in 93, when Bret outdrew Hogan by a mile. Not to mention that Bret drew more oversees than any other WWF star (a fact that still stands today, if I'm not mistaken), and during Hogan's title runs in the 80s, Bret was getting more fan mail than any him or anyone else under contract. Yes, they were from different time periods, but you can't just take Hogan from 93 because it makes your argument look better. Hogan was THE GUY, or right there with the main guy of his company during both of the 2 modern booms of pro-wrestling (Hulkamania and Hollywood Hulk). Career vs Career, Bret isn't close to Hogan when it comes to selling merch and getting people in the seats. Also, he said that Bret had a bad attitude. Which is completely false. So yes he was wrong on that. Bret refused to put a guy over ONCE his entire career, and he had good cause to do that. He also bent over backwards and suggested umpteen different scenarios which Vince shot down because he was desperate to try and kill Bret's stock on his way over to WCW. The only reason Vince let Bret go is because he knew the WCW would never use him, their combination of bad booking and backstage politics would never allow it. Being honest, I wasn't there to know what Bret's attitude was. I've seen shoots and read books where he was both praised and criticized. A bad attitude isn't just not wanting to lose to someone... There's a lot more to it, but neither of us know how he really was back then. We only get conflicting accounts from various people who were there, and 98% of them have their own agenda when telling the story. He also said "The WWF tried to make Bret Hart the main guy - and eventually came to regret it, all leading up to the 1997 Montreal Screw Job" which is also wrong. Vince regularly tried other guys -- IE Shawn, Luger and Diesel -- who all flopped (in Michaels case, horribly). Bret was Vince's safety net, a guy he knew that he could always fall back on when his failed experiments went wrong... BECAUSE of his drawing power. The fans solemnly chose Bret over Luger, who was essentially a better version of Hogan. If Vince really wanted to keep Bret the main guy, or REALLY wanted to keep him in the company, I really think he could have done it. The fact is that Vince decided that he wasn't worth it, and in the long run he was right. History shows that the WWF did not need Bret Hart to succeed. Because business was up and down during the 80s and 90s respectively thanks to the drug scandals and the fact that wrestling was discovered by the masses to be fake, the only way you can accurately compare Hogan and Bret's drawing power is when they both held the title in the same year. Bret outdrew Hogan during that time. And it's also worth something to mention that during Hogan's run on top, it was Bret who got the most fan mail in the company. If you want to have a good idea of what Bret's attitude was, watch WWS. The only people I've ever heard say that Bret had a bad attitude were Vince, Shawn and Hunter (and a couple people who butt kissed to those three) ll of which are known liars. Better yet you can read Bret's book. Bret has every right to be critical of terrible wrestlers. I don't see how telling the truth makes you "bitter".
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 21:28:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 11:42:04 GMT -5
This thread started going downhill when people began listing Bret Hart as overrated
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Dec 29, 2013 12:19:26 GMT -5
This thread started going downhill when people began listing Bret Hart as overrated Well he wasn't spectacular at all
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 21:28:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 12:24:27 GMT -5
This thread started going downhill when people began listing Bret Hart as overrated Well he wasn't spectacular at all
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 21:28:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 12:26:03 GMT -5
This thread started going downhill when people began listing Bret Hart as overrated Well he wasn't spectacular at all
|
|
|
Post by jayrod2009 on Dec 29, 2013 13:01:50 GMT -5
Bret Hart and Shane Douglas do NOT belong on the list of overrated. These are two perfect examples of guys who eat, breath, and sleep this buisness. Bret Hart showed it in the ring. Franchise did aswell, but was better on the mic. Both men told us what was wrong with the buisness during their times. Funny enough, the problem has been mentioned here aswell. Hogan and Nash. Politics!
|
|
|
Post by knupmc on Dec 29, 2013 13:17:22 GMT -5
Shawn michaels
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Dec 29, 2013 13:26:24 GMT -5
Bret was a main guy from 1992 to 1997 that's not being overrated that's being OVER.
|
|