Barney Stinson
Superstar
Joined on: Feb 5, 2011 18:42:24 GMT -5
Posts: 979
|
Post by Barney Stinson on Dec 19, 2013 17:27:32 GMT -5
Yeah, I get what you're trying to say. I did like his feud with Bam Bam Bigelow after Mania 9 though. It's just a shame by the time they had their televised singles match at Royal Rumble 94 their feud was long over and they were both in different programs, so it wasn't as satisfying. Yeah, they did have great chemistry though, and their RR match was excellent. I think a heel turn would have been good for him if he hadn't joined the mid card corperation. Plus, he and Luger never really got a blow off match. Tatanka vs. Luger should have been booked for Wrestlemania 11. Yeah it should have. I think it happened on the Sunday Night Slam the week before WM11 and even then it ended in a count out I think. There were so many potential great matches for WM11 that just didn't pan out. I heard one wrestler say in a shoot interview that they dumbed down WM11 on purpose to make Bam Bam v. LT look that much better as a match in comparison to the others. I can honestly believe that as clunky matches were booked and there is no way Bret & Backlund would have had the match they had. They were probably told to hold back a little. Because their previous matches were awesome. Michaels & Diesel had a good match, but in all honesty probably wouldn't have cared if they were told to slow down.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:22:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 17:58:26 GMT -5
Yeah, they did have great chemistry though, and their RR match was excellent. I think a heel turn would have been good for him if he hadn't joined the mid card corperation. Plus, he and Luger never really got a blow off match. Tatanka vs. Luger should have been booked for Wrestlemania 11. Yeah it should have. I think it happened on the Sunday Night Slam the week before WM11 and even then it ended in a count out I think. There were so many potential great matches for WM11 that just didn't pan out. I heard one wrestler say in a shoot interview that they dumbed down WM11 on purpose to make Bam Bam v. LT look that much better as a match in comparison to the others. I can honestly believe that as clunky matches were booked and there is no way Bret & Backlund would have had the match they had. They were probably told to hold back a little. Because their previous matches were awesome. Michaels & Diesel had a good match, but in all honesty probably wouldn't have cared if they were told to slow down. Yeah that's been a rumour for a while. They definitely could have had a good WM11 with the talent they had. It's a shame Neidhart got fired before WM11, Owen/Neidhart vs. Smokin Gunns would have been much better than Yoko/Owen. Plus Yoko probably would have had a squash match against someone. Tatanka didn't even get on the card...
|
|
Barney Stinson
Superstar
Joined on: Feb 5, 2011 18:42:24 GMT -5
Posts: 979
|
Post by Barney Stinson on Dec 19, 2013 18:50:10 GMT -5
Yeah it should have. I think it happened on the Sunday Night Slam the week before WM11 and even then it ended in a count out I think. There were so many potential great matches for WM11 that just didn't pan out. I heard one wrestler say in a shoot interview that they dumbed down WM11 on purpose to make Bam Bam v. LT look that much better as a match in comparison to the others. I can honestly believe that as clunky matches were booked and there is no way Bret & Backlund would have had the match they had. They were probably told to hold back a little. Because their previous matches were awesome. Michaels & Diesel had a good match, but in all honesty probably wouldn't have cared if they were told to slow down. Yeah that's been a rumour for a while. They definitely could have had a good WM11 with the talent they had. It's a shame Neidhart got fired before WM11, Owen/Neidhart vs. Smokin Gunns would have been much better than Yoko/Owen. Plus Yoko probably would have had a squash match against someone. Tatanka didn't even get on the card... Besides the lumberjack deal. I kind of liked Owen & Yoko as a Tag Team although Owen & Anvil as Tag Champs would have been cool too. If Anvil was still there they could have done The Smoking Gunns v. Owen & Anvil, Luger v. Tatanka & Bulldog v. Yokozuna. I also think that Lawler could have had his 1st Mania match here vs. Bret instead of Bret v. Backlund. Bret & Lawler had so much history at that point, that it's a shame it ended in the cheesy Kiss My Foot match as opposed to WrestleMania.
|
|
|
Post by Ian from 616Entertainment. on Dec 19, 2013 19:05:54 GMT -5
Shawn Michaels. His 2002-2010 stuff was so much better. Haha, interesting answer. God damn, HBK's 2002-2010 portion of his career really was something special.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:22:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 19:15:19 GMT -5
Shawn Michaels. His 2002-2010 stuff was so much better. Haha, interesting answer. God damn, HBK's 2002-2010 portion of his career really was something special. Yeah it really was. And me not being a fan of the guy as a person has nothing to do with my answer. Yeah the guy has always been good. I just think his 90s stuff is held in a higher regard than his return matches when I think that it's definitely the opposite. Thing is the word overrated is always opinion based.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:22:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 21:49:29 GMT -5
Shawn Michaels is the correct answer here. Shawn wasn't necessarily bad in the 90s, in fact he was far from it. But, he didn't draw and his work rate suffered because of his attitude and the bad booking decisions he made. His match quality was generally much better in both the 80s and 00s. Anyone saying Bret Hart is wrong, and I have to question why they even watch wrestling. Or in fact if they do actually watch wrestling. In fact there is no right or wrong on an opinion, . ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:22:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 9:07:48 GMT -5
Shawn Michaels is the correct answer here. Shawn wasn't necessarily bad in the 90s, in fact he was far from it. But, he didn't draw and his work rate suffered because of his attitude and the bad booking decisions he made. His match quality was generally much better in both the 80s and 00s. Anyone saying Bret Hart is wrong, and I have to question why they even watch wrestling. Or in fact if they do actually watch wrestling. In fact there is no right or wrong on an opinion, . ? I like how you ended that with a pure contradiction. All of Harts matches seemed to tell the same story him as the fighting underdog. His setup was always the same Russian leg sweep second rope elbow sharpshooter. Sounds to me a lot like hip toss due knuckle shuffle AA. His promos were bland and dull . He was a champion in the way bob back kind was a champion while he was a great technician. I never found him entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by TurboEddie on Dec 28, 2013 11:54:06 GMT -5
Goldberg.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:22:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 12:00:31 GMT -5
I like how you ended that with a pure contradiction. All of Harts matches seemed to tell the same story him as the fighting underdog. His setup was always the same Russian leg sweep second rope elbow sharpshooter. Sounds to me a lot like hip toss due knuckle shuffle AA. His promos were bland and dull . He was a champion in the way bob back kind was a champion while he was a great technician. I never found him entertaining. You obviously haven't seen many Bret Hart matches then. Plus, I'm not sure that "bob back kind" was ever champion.
|
|
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 12:01:39 GMT -5
Wow 60 posts in this is the first time someone has mentioned Goldberg. He was but I tend to Believe Brett Hart and sting are more overrated.
|
|
Revy
Superstar
Joined on: Oct 12, 2011 22:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 707
|
Post by Revy on Dec 28, 2013 15:03:38 GMT -5
ehhh, that's your opinion so I respect it, but i disagree. 96 was really blahhh for the most part with him, but I think his 97 stuff was great. He just wasn't meant to be the clean cut baby face during that time. It worked for him in the 2000s.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:22:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 16:08:20 GMT -5
Bret Hart.... The dude had a bad attitude, and he wasn't really the "Main Event" draw that the WWF needed at the time. While he was loved by the "smart" wrestling fans - he didn't appeal to the mass audience - at least, not on the level that the WWF needed him to - the level that guys like Hulk Hogan and John Cena do...... the ones that buy a lot of tickets and a lot of merchandise. 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.... they then rebooted and made "Stone Cold" Steve Austin the main guy - and the rest, as they say, is history. I want to hug you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:22:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 16:16:46 GMT -5
Bret Hart.... The dude had a bad attitude, and he wasn't really the "Main Event" draw that the WWF needed at the time. While he was loved by the "smart" wrestling fans - he didn't appeal to the mass audience - at least, not on the level that the WWF needed him to - the level that guys like Hulk Hogan and John Cena do...... the ones that buy a lot of tickets and a lot of merchandise. 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.... they then rebooted and made "Stone Cold" Steve Austin the main guy - and the rest, as they say, is history. Wow. Was Dec 19th backwards day?
|
|
Dat guy ova der
Main Eventer
WF 10 Year Member
Dah What?
Joined on: May 16, 2005 19:43:50 GMT -5
Posts: 3,085
|
Post by Dat guy ova der on Dec 28, 2013 16:36:29 GMT -5
Bret Hart.... The dude had a bad attitude, and he wasn't really the "Main Event" draw that the WWF needed at the time. While he was loved by the "smart" wrestling fans - he didn't appeal to the mass audience - at least, not on the level that the WWF needed him to - the level that guys like Hulk Hogan and John Cena do...... the ones that buy a lot of tickets and a lot of merchandise. 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.... they then rebooted and made "Stone Cold" Steve Austin the main guy - and the rest, as they say, is history. Wow. Was Dec 19th backwards day? I don't really see how you can argue with anything he said. Would you even attempt to say that Hart was on the same drawing level as Hogan or Cena?
|
|
|
Post by Prophet of Ash on Dec 28, 2013 16:45:58 GMT -5
Steve Blackman.
He's not even a real person
|
|
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 16:46:18 GMT -5
Wow. Was Dec 19th backwards day? I don't really see how you can argue with anything he said. Would you even attempt to say that Hart was on the same drawing level as Hogan or Cena? While I agree with hart being overrated you can't blame him for low draws wrestling as a whole was at a lull then .
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:22:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 16:52:54 GMT -5
Wow. Was Dec 19th backwards day? I don't really see how you can argue with anything he said. Would you even attempt to say that Hart was on the same drawing level as Hogan or Cena? 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. 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by OmegaGaijin on Dec 28, 2013 17:11:14 GMT -5
God almighty, can't even remember the last time I've been in this section, then I stumble across this bile lol? seriously, this is why I prefer talking wrestling/sport/movies face to face with people.
The basic problem I've noticed with wrestling fans online, even more so than even American sports or football/soccer is the inability to differentiate between not liking a wrestler to the fact you have to attach the 'over rated' tag to them or some drivel. It's ok to dislike a wrestler you know? Doesn't always have to be a reason, just like in real life. The other thing I have noticed is people taking sides with they're favourite wrestler if they have some heat in real life with another wrestler. Really, c'mon?
Some fantastic chat on this forum when it comes to collecting & discussing figures, but it seems when people get the wrestling itself they are in perpetual brain fart mode.
|
|
Dat guy ova der
Main Eventer
WF 10 Year Member
Dah What?
Joined on: May 16, 2005 19:43:50 GMT -5
Posts: 3,085
|
Post by Dat guy ova der on Dec 28, 2013 17:12:36 GMT -5
I don't really see how you can argue with anything he said. Would you even attempt to say that Hart was on the same drawing level as Hogan or Cena? 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.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Dec 28, 2013 17:16:52 GMT -5
Owen Hart.
|
|