TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Aug 3, 2020 4:42:22 GMT -5
Heh it would have legit been Steve Williams vs Steve Williams
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Aug 3, 2020 4:35:50 GMT -5
I rewatched Nitros from 1997, saw this and was like "huh?". What was the point of giving Luger the title for a cup of coffee? To sell the ppv 5 days later? Get some last minute buys? This was Bischoff 101. Hotshotting to the max.
I see a lot of people online ragging on Luger, about how he was terrible, couldn't cut a promo, wasn't liked enough, flopped as a main eventer.... Well I'll tell you now - that was total BS.
Watching those old Nitros from spring-summer 1997, Luger was regularly getting HUGE reactions from the crowd. His promos got the crowd pumped hard, despite lacking substance. People were all behind Luger facing Hollywood and screamed big every time he came out and when he conquered Hogan, it was a massive pop.
Then he faded away, no promo time, no faith from management, still got a crowd pop (much smaller but still), and by early 1998, basically became a regular mid-carder with no character. I didn't understand it.
It couldn't be his lack of crowd reaction or promo skills. As I mentioned before - he got the fans going. There are several guys out there that got repeated pushes despite lacking reasoning. So why did he get dropped? Because Bischoff never like Luger and this was the likely reason why.
Luger at the time thought holding the belt for a short-term was genius, since Bischoff was "feeding a little piece to the audience, then taking it away, making them beg for more". He thought he'd be chasing again and have another big push.
I couldn't stop thinking what a mug Luger was for saying that.
The whole thing baffled me and I can't get over how over he was and they threw it all away.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Aug 3, 2020 4:26:18 GMT -5
Count me in as another kid who never realised the 1999 logo said WCW, I only noticed in 2005 when I was 14 lol
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Aug 3, 2020 4:17:05 GMT -5
Im pretty sure its Macho, Flair, Gym Worker, Hogan, Giant, Gym worker, Austin, gym worker, gym worker, Bulldog I use to think the guy in the blue hat was Bob Holly, then people mentioned Billy Gunn but the guy is too tall to be either. Billy Gunn is a BIG dude. He's legit 6'4/6'5. Unlike Triple H that is. That guy could be Gunn easily based on height alone. But can't quite tell from the face. Very close.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 29, 2020 4:30:49 GMT -5
I still say it was a work. The entire year he was back he got 'screwed.' In Your House Dec. 96, HBK cost Bret the title against Sid, he got screwed. Royal Rumble 97, Austin cost him the win, he got screwed. The following night on Raw, he quits the WWF in an angle to go to WCW and then gets rehired. Loses the WWF Title to Sid the night after he won it at IYH due to Austin, he got screwed. Lost to Sid in the cage match due to Undertaker and Austin, he got screwed. Then in November the final screwing takes place and that's that. If Bret wanted to stay with the WWF so bad, then why didn't he?? He says in Wrestling With Shadows that it wasn't about the money. So then stay for less money?? I am guessing he would. People will argue this till the end of time, and if it's a work (like I believe it is) then it's the greatest work in the wrestling business ever! If it was a shoot?? Then it was the greatest wrestling shoot in the business ever! Either way, it wins, and people will always be guessing and wondering about it. They even had cameras rolling backstage the night of the screwjob. It made the whole thing look like a work. Yeah but even the filmmakers admitted they stumbled upon gold and that prior to that it was just a documentary. They just happened to be right place, right time. There is no way it was a work, at least one person in the know would have blabbed by now. It is hard enough to get people to keep a secret in real life, let alone in wrestling. Plus Bret is not a good actor. He would not be this bitter if it was a work. Bret was a shell of his former self in WCW, moping around and never had any of the same passion he had before. Bischoff said he was a miserable person and didn't want to do anything. And that was prior to Owen's death and you could say it was due to backstage politics but Bret came in immediately like this. He could never move past the MSJ then and couldn't for years afterwards along with Owen's death.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 27, 2020 9:22:50 GMT -5
Absolutely dumbfounded that this goes through someone's mind, they have the audacity to state this assinine opinion - let alone they think it as a fact, and that this hasn't got locked yet by mods.
Baffling.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 24, 2020 6:28:18 GMT -5
Wow. Talk about being opinionated and leaving facts out of it. Vince buying out talent and having national exposure led to a boom period of wrestling. It was much more widely available and popular and pay per view gates prove that. Vince gave an avenue for his big shows, something that couldn't not have been done without the business side of things or the top, marketable, larger than life talent they had in the 80s. People may dislike this term, but his brand of "sports entertainment" sent wrestling into the stratosphere. And again, maybe the wrestling was overrated in parts in the 90s, but to many, it was prior to the 80s as well, depending on tastes. Matches with HBK, Bret, Owen, Eddie, Malenko, Benoit, Jericho, Austin, Jarrett, Flair, Sting, Rude, Perfect, Savage...... and other actual WORKERS in main or mid-card positions actually helped elevate and evolve wrestling. The brand of slow, methodical wrestling from prior would not have flown with the later audience. But you cannot have a large wrestling following without stories, variety, entertainment, characters and of course quality wrestling. And the 90s brought that and continued to keep wrestling in the mainstream. Was wrestling in the mainstream in the 60s or 70s? It was niche as hell and still a bit carny. And yet you talk about ECW with the best stories and characters. And say wrestling in the 2000s was terrible.... ECW definitely had its fair share of great wrestling, but it also had extremely poor workers and spot monkeys that led to today's short-attention-span wrestling. I can't and won't post all the details it would take to show why you are wrong; A.) It's not my job to educate you. B.) Formatting the amount of numbers and names would be a headache. Put it this way, the NWA was made up of nearly 30 promotions, running 5, 6 sometimes 7 nights a week. Selling out. Some of the buildings, quite large. Adjusted for inflation, ticket sales are WAAAAAY more then what WWF/WWE have ever grossed in a year. TV ratings at their height were 7/8 million in the US watching on a Monday night. Percentage of homes watching that could be though, quite small. Meaning, though 7/8 million might've watched, in a country of 300+ million. That's not exactly "hot." When TV hit for the territories, each territory would regularly pull a number equivalent to 50% of possible viewing audience tuning in. I know, less channel choices then, more in the 90s. It is not going to be something we agree on, so either way.. that's that. OP was an odd post, so I decided I'd give some thoughts as no one really had seemed to be doing so. Sorry it offended you. Then why did gates and attendance dwindle in the 70s? Why did tv ratings rapidly decrease in the 70s? Overexposure. There's a reason why the 80s was called a "wrestling boom". And it was thanks to Vince McMahon's aggressive expansion and tv deals. Ticket prices back in the 60s and 70s were dead cheap compared to today. So there was a much larger margin for profit back then. TV ratings in the 90s were the highest they ever were, with regular 5s and 6s from 97 onwards, and you're discrediting that because it's a small representation of the population? Back then that put wrestling in the top 20 shows consistently for the latter years of the 90s. You cannot say the same for 60s and 70s wrestling. Wrestling became mega mainstream, starting in the 80s and culminating in the late 90s, it was everywhere - countless merchandise, cross promotion with SNL, sitcoms, game shows, soaps, dramas, sporting events, Vince had made wrestling a cultural juggernaut. You never had that back in the 60s and 70s. You don't have it as much as today. You discredit the 80s and 90s but if wrestling hadn't evolved and moved on from what you revered from before that period, it probably wouldn't be even as big as it is today. Wrestling was in a boom period in the Hulkamania era and the Attitude Era. You cannot say that about the 60s or 70s. And to your earlier point - you should at least "educate me", because the way discussion works is that - you make a point? You better make sure to back it up. And don't flatter yourself by saying you offended me. I disputed your points because they were delusional.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 23, 2020 16:36:38 GMT -5
I'll add to it. Wrestling in the 80s wasn't nearly was big as in the 60s & 70s. 90s wrestling in the US is mostly overrated and remembered with rose colored glasses. Attitude Era is NOT nearly as good as people remember. WCW had way better match quality. ECW had the best characters and stories. 2000s-2020 wrestling has been TERRIBLE, outside of early ROH greatness with Joe, Punk, Danielson and the lot. Sadly, most of that will never get seen by mainstream wrestling fans. WWE has been terrible for the past 20 years. TNA had some stacked rosters and 2 people on positions of power that didn't know crap about wrestling. Wow. Talk about being opinionated and leaving facts out of it. Vince buying out talent and having national exposure led to a boom period of wrestling. It was much more widely available and popular and pay per view gates prove that. Vince gave an avenue for his big shows, something that couldn't not have been done without the business side of things or the top, marketable, larger than life talent they had in the 80s. People may dislike this term, but his brand of "sports entertainment" sent wrestling into the stratosphere. And again, maybe the wrestling was overrated in parts in the 90s, but to many, it was prior to the 80s as well, depending on tastes. Matches with HBK, Bret, Owen, Eddie, Malenko, Benoit, Jericho, Austin, Jarrett, Flair, Sting, Rude, Perfect, Savage...... and other actual WORKERS in main or mid-card positions actually helped elevate and evolve wrestling. The brand of slow, methodical wrestling from prior would not have flown with the later audience. But you cannot have a large wrestling following without stories, variety, entertainment, characters and of course quality wrestling. And the 90s brought that and continued to keep wrestling in the mainstream. Was wrestling in the mainstream in the 60s or 70s? It was niche as hell and still a bit carny. And yet you talk about ECW with the best stories and characters. And say wrestling in the 2000s was terrible.... ECW definitely had its fair share of great wrestling, but it also had extremely poor workers and spot monkeys that led to today's short-attention-span wrestling.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 18, 2020 12:31:30 GMT -5
Just cos Austin didn't have a 6 pack didn't mean he wasn't muscular.
Jericho was a pretty decent size in 2001 onwards, and Michaels was muscular but slim.
But you're right they all bust their asses and proved themselves to Vince. Same for JBL.
However he does look over people like that for others with less talent but good physiques, that is undeniable. Roman Reigns, Jinder Mahal, Jack Swagger.... the list goes on.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 18, 2020 6:47:09 GMT -5
It was only the tv products and merchandise that had "WWFE World Wrestling Federation Entertainment (C) 2002"; followed by a paragraph of other legal jargon. I noticed it on toy packaging at the time too.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 18, 2020 6:44:48 GMT -5
When I lived in France there were a few cereals that we didn't have. One was called Frosties: Grrrrr and were around for about 5 years before we ever got Krave cereal and were exactly the same but with tiger stripes on the cereal pillows. I was so happy when we finally got a similar cereal because they were so tasty. They also had a cereal called Crisp-X which were honey-glazed corn-based lattices. Very tasty. We never had them over here but I believe I tried them in America and just found they do have a version. I don't think the French version exists anymore but would love them to be sold over here
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 18, 2020 5:37:27 GMT -5
Been going through a very anxious time in my life where I am worrying about my relationship and job. So I have tried to do some mindfulness for the first time.
I believe it's worked a little but would like it to be better.
Anyone ever practiced it and had some benefits?
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 17, 2020 6:10:59 GMT -5
Tito Santana (I believe he left sometime in 1993, don't remember him in the WWF after 1993) He came back to be a Spanish announcer.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 17, 2020 6:05:09 GMT -5
He found a cool gimmick with Kronik and I'm glad that worked out for him and Bryan Clark but IIRC most of their team matches were APA style rather than anything competitive. And it really shows just how poor of workers they were to only have one match in 2001 WWF before being asked to go back to developmental. Both guys had about 10+ years experience at the time. Was he/they really that bad? Sure they may have had a certain style, but Vince was happy to push certain guys who only had one style and like you said - these guys were in the business for a long time and had already been in the WWF. It sounds ridiculous but true?
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 17, 2020 5:58:37 GMT -5
It would have flopped more than Jinder Mahal's run as WWE Champ. He just wasn't in his element as a top guy, he'd need some strong support behind him.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 15, 2020 8:30:56 GMT -5
I always thought it was that Benoit too
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 11, 2020 17:56:23 GMT -5
how many times was 'The Flock' (or a different name) reused in other feds? Just for fun and those keeping track: - Raven's Nest (ECW): - The Flock (WCW - obviously) - The Deadpool (WCW - with Vampiro and ICP) And like 3 times in TNA alone.... - The Gathering (with CM Punk, Julio Dinero and Alexis Laree) - Serotonin (Havok, Martyr and Kaz) - Raven, Dr Stevie and Daffney Any missing?
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 9, 2020 6:44:06 GMT -5
Why is it the cool thing to hate on the attitude era these days? This time was a roller coaster, you had to watch each week as you never knew what the hell was going on. The characters back then were a million times more interesting than what we have now. Also from an in ring point of view it was also great, plus the wwe actually gave you a reason to care about most of the matches that were happening Probably something to do with today's expectations and mindset, in and out of wrestling. The hate of the attitude era seems to be due to the disgust at the portrayal of women and today's "woke" culture (which is overrated as hell and repeatedly gets worse every year) and the indy wrestling fans who disconnect from the idea of entertainment and wrestling. Like the commenter a few comments above. Pure wrestling with no character/build/entertainment is like plain, fried rump steak. It's nice every now and then for a change, but you need the seasoning and flame-grilling for it to taste good. I will never get the over-emphasis of wrestling with today's hardcore fans. Back in the AE, yes it wasn't as good as today, but the matches were short enough that you didn't get saddled with too many boring matches and the characters were interesting enough to pay attention. A lot of mid carders lacked certain skills, just like some guys nowadays lack character/uniqueness. Many hardcore fans may like the "you-go-I-go, you-go-I-go", 10 superkicks? Kick out. 450 splash/shooting star press? Kick out. Canadian destroyer x2? Kick out. Your finisher - I kick out, my finisher - you kick out, ad nauseum wrestling, but it gets to the point where it lacks reasoning or story. The AE then gets hated on cos it's the thing to do now, and then the RA era (which was good, but not perfect) is now getting praised to an OTT degree.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 2, 2020 6:16:52 GMT -5
"They got all the cool guys, brother" Pretty much 🤣🤣🤣 While Nash and Hall were trying for an alternative, mainstream hip-hop vibe, Hogan misheard "Hip-Op(eration)" so he added Savage and Luger..... Surprised he didn't add Piper to the Wolfpac
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,936
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jun 2, 2020 3:46:20 GMT -5
I believe Undertaker is 7 years older than Big Show so that wouldn't work well at all.
Maybe if Big Show was originally going to be Undertaker & Kane's brother that may have worked
This is the same wrestling company that back in 2013 tried to convince the fans that when Stephanie was little she would sit on the Big Show's lap.... making Big Show about 70 years old right now apparently. So I would not be shocked if they tried to convince the fans that Taker was Show's dad. WTF? Never knew that. Sounds dumb AF.... Doesn't surprise me with how little creative think of things.... I feel they for some reason wanted Big Show to be like Andre, cos she would have sat in Andre's lap back in the day but damn what a stupid story
|
|