BrianB

Bulldog. In theory, they could've tried a Vader program. Pillman was already a set-up issue but Pillman's health kept that program from ever really getting a big focus in 1997, though they did some stuff. I believe was the long-term plan. But then Vince changed things up, he wanted Taker as champion out of WM. Shawn lost his smile before he was supposed to drop the title to Sid at Thursday Raw Thursday. Then Shawn gave up the title, Bret won the title at Final Four, which was originally a #1 contender for WM match after the Rumble controversy, then dropped it to Sid the next night on RAW to set up WM. That period is one of the most nuts and frantically changing things stints in WWF. E.g., Russo's comments on air basically resulted in the 1997 Rumble finish being changed. From Bret's book on what Vince told him after Bret got pressured into putting over HHH and Bret called him the next day asking what his plans were: “Well, you probably think this is crazy, but you’ll screw Shawn this Thursday at Lowell TV so Sid wins the belt. Then in the final four, at In Your House, Shawn will screw you out of winning, and from there Taker will work with Sid at Mania for the belt, and Shawn will put his hair up in a ladder match, and you’ll cut it all off.” I was a bit stunned at how casual he was. “So, it’s not me and Shawn at WrestleMania XIII for the belt?” “It’s too predictable now. I’m changing it.” But I could see this for what it really was. Shawn had refused to work with me or put me over, and it changed everything. "

That change was because Shawn refused to job to Bret and lost his smile to avoid even working at Mania. That's true. But I believe PeteF3 is right, and that Bret vs. Shawn was changed to be non-title and the #2 match.

I also prefer the 1994 WCW series. The match is overbooked and the post-match angle with Brutus is bad, but I like the Halloween Havoc 1994 match the most of the three. I'd be surprised if Vince actually put the Wrestlemania 8 main event into Sid's contract, but I definitely believe he verbally promised Sid the main event slot. Pretty sure Meltzer has said as much since. I'm not surprised Vince didn't backtrack on that considering the office wasn't blown away with the Hogan/Flair numbers, and Vince's boner for Sid and his look (which was arguably even better in 1992) put Sid into the main event of WM13 over the originally planned Bret vs. Shawn return.

Absolutely. An extremely underrated blunder in the monday night wars. A big turning point.

Also, while the action between Hart and Lawler is brief, maybe five minutes only, it's the only chance we have to see Lawler in that kind of a Memphis brawl in New York. It's also a great chance to see the pissed off Bret Hart that would come back in the Diesel feud and eventually in his heel run. Even the ending of the match foreshadows WM13. It's the kind of career-long storytelling only Bret did and it's absolutely flawless in it's execution. Yeah, this was great. To me, you almost have to put the entire segment: Lawler's coming out and interview, the doink match, then the bret/lawler match and fallout, for it to get in there, but I can absolutely see why someone would then pick it, if you do that. It was great.

I'd go with Savage/Warrior at WM7. Counting the post-match angle, it's one of the best pieces of storytelling I've seen in the WWE. Maybe because I rented the VHS when I was young and loved Savage and Liz I'm pre-disposed to be a mark for it, but it's always been a touching, unique moment in wrestling to me. I think it's worth throwing out Bret/Perfect KOTR '93 (I prefer this to the summerslam '91 match) and the Rumble 1992 match into the discussion, on top of the names already mentioned. If you're willing to consider commentary as part of the match (and maybe some of the people who loved Reigns/Cena won't be because the commentary was all time terrible in that match) I can see a solid argument for that Flair Rumble win. It's really good already, but Heenan helps put it over the top.

Sure, and that's the peak run, he also booked the downturn. But are we going to ignore him booking in 1991? 1993? 1992 I guess could be debatable. He was the head booker under Watts, but it sorta feels jarring looking at some of those shows whether Dusty or Watts had more hands over the booking. Was he the booker under Frey too? I haven't seen any of his TNA booking. Did anybody really love that?

Maybe if we had a clearer picture of Pat Patterson's contributions, he'd be more in the mix. Vince has some great arguments, but he's got a lot of misses and dogshit. He's more undeniable as a promoter. There must be a bunch of great Dusty stuff I need to see. Because his tail run in JCP and his stints in WCW arguably disqualify him from this conversation.

Great episodes lately.

For a premise you'd think would be easy to dismiss as a must-listen, Peter has proven the exact opposite. I've enjoyed every single show I've listened to (still have a couple to go through) but the effort put in is obvious without ever feeling too laborious. I'd think almost anybody who hasn't listened and reads these forums would appreciate it, and there's a wealth of info for people unfamiliar with certain periods or shows, especially for the WWF or WWWF.

Bruce has made comments about Hogan not liking the idea and commenting on Dustin's arms and body. That suggests the idea got somewhere beyond just being suggested in a meeting/brainstorming session--perhaps potentially more than other things Bruce has floated like Scott Steiner coming in as a singles and getting the title, which he has said was entertained.

Hogan in WWF would've died a death. I just can't see him fitting in long-term into that creative direction, plus we are talking him coming in right around when Shawn Michaels is at his most ornery. That situation would've exploded. I understand if Austin goes down that changes the equation, but if they went with the plan of Hogan in DX...I can't see that working beyond a short boost. Hogan as a face has a short-shelf life, and HBK wasn't going to be cheered by most fans at that point. Vince probably has to give Hogan creative control to poach him from WCW too at that point. And it's an open question how Hogan would've viewed The Rock at that point.

At the time? I wasn't fully smartened up then, so Bob Backlund beating Bret was a real mindfuck. He just seemed like an annoying, pale goof/create-a-wrestler to me as a kid, and he was awful to watch in the ring. To me, his character was the heel Brutus--keep that shit in the midcard. Honorable mention: David Arquette I had stopped watching WCW by this point in time. When I saw the USA Today blurb on it, I just shook my head and didn't bother to watch any WCW for at least another 6 months (I think it took that Big Show title win and the bait and switch with Austin at Survivor Series 1999 before I even considered tuning back in.) Putting the title on Arquette was a shockingly desperate move that just solidified the world title didn't mean anything in WCW and anybody who did care would just be punished as a fan, so why watch?

If this bracket is the original and correct, then I'd assume either DiBiase beats Hogan by some kind of robbery or Jake is the guy who DiBiase beats in the finals. If DiBiase beats Hogan, you can bet that Hulk, when he returns, will quickly be getting his win back. I just have trouble seeing Vince getting cold feet on waiting until WM5. But, to be honest, I'm not sure it changes a lot. To end WM4, Hogan likely would still pose at the end, just like Vince got him to do at Survivor Series '87. And Hogan would chase and win back the title. The only really tricky things involve complications from how long that Hogan re-conquers the WWF and smashes his rivals would take. Specifically, if Hogan's chasing the title and smashing down DiBiase takes long enough, then maybe Vince's love of Zeus and/or Warrior prevents Macho from getting the title, a nice run with Hogan, or forces him into a quick a transitional champ type role. I'm guessing Vince puts the title back on Hogan fairly quickly in 1989, either Summerslam or Survivor Series, and Hogan then vanquishes DiBiase again at another show. Maybe they do Andre/DiBiase vs. Hogan/partnerto blow things off, since that could still make sense and Andre's too beat up for another singles match. Then they'll go into a Hogan's tag partner turns on him, which was basically their original idea and the same thing they did for most Hogan programs (even the megapowers, though that had great little tweaks to that formula). I just don't see Brutus getting that spot over Savage, even if Hogan would've pushed for it. But if the original plan was something like: SummerSlam - Dibiase vs. Savage; Hogan vs. Andre; Survivor Series - Hulk's team vs. DiBiase's team, Royal Rumble - tag match Hogan/partner vs. DiBiase and Andre, then WM5 Hogan vs. DiBiase...I can see how maybe Vince's Zeus boner throws things off a lot, but then again business might not be as strong so Patterson and Bruce can talk Vince out of that idea.

Actually watching any of these Russo shows, especially WCW Russo shows, just makes me angry, but listening to your recaps is always fun. I liked hearing Matt Holt's live POV too. It's funny and so WCW that his friend was rooting for Sting and got Sting druids. I can understand how live the start of this show would beat down the crowd so hard that they'd have some stockholm syndrome and be drawn into Jerry Springer-esque Russo's promo. Have any of your opinions or views from Ep. 42--saving WCW in October of 1999--now changed?

Creatively, for that era, it would have been difficult to turn Bret back face. The attitude era was basically underway by late 1997, and not going away maybe unless Russo gets axed. HHH might be kicked to the curb because he doesn't start hooking up with Steph until 1999. My hunch, unless Austin balks at working with Owen again, is that Owen would beat HHH in their program and eventually become part of Austin's title run in 1998. I'd guessFoley probably takes longer to become a main eventer. Maybe by the 2nd half of 1998. Maybe that doesn't happen because Bret almost certainly would've worked some main events with Austin after WM, and it probably takes a little longer to get the ball rolling on the evil Vince McMahon character. Then they've got the Taker turn, which might be pushed back to Survivor Series, depending on the top picture. But Austin was friends with Foley so I do think that program would eventually happen, especially since they had a history together. Owen/Bret vs. Austin/Foley seems like a natural program. Then the Foley turning on Austin seems the logical thing to do, basically like how they did it in early 1998, with Vince buying Foley off. WCW probably is an even bigger shit show backstage if you've got a pilled up Shawn throwing temper tantrums. He might go the Scott Hall route. Almost certainly he ends up getting his ass kicked in a backstage fight. Ultimately my suspicion is that aggressive boss Bischoff doesn't like Shawn's antics or non-PG tendencies, and starts to move him to the periphery of main events, since I think he'd view Shawn as one of those WWF top guys whose ass he was kicking every week. On the other hand, if he pays a lot for him, Shawn might get a better run than Bret because Shawn would've had allies in WCW when Bret didn't. But he's more likely to vocally clash with guys like Hogan. I don't think they would had gone in that direction. They were already there pretty strong and Russo was heavily involved in creative.

No, it's one metric of drawing money. Today a lot of emphasis might be placed on it. But it does seem like a strong metric for how passionate the fanbase is for a wrestler. Austin in 1997 was doing gangbusters numbers with those t-shirts (I think even outselling peak Warrior or Hogan), even as WWF was kind of struggling otherwise, so in that instance, and in the case of Cena as well, it certainly tracks star power. But if somehow someone did great merch numbers, but all their house shows and segment ratings tanked, it'd be very interesting to see how that was handled, especially if the TV network started chiming in. As others have mentioned, certainly merch numbers can be influenced by things like design, how available it is at houseshows, what's not available, etc., though I'd throw out a guess that in today's world that might matter less, since so many people shop online.

In terms of other moves, this is early enough in Arn's career where I think maybe you can try pushing him as one of your top heels and see if he's got steam in the main event picture. He's a great promo and worker, and hasn't been pegged by the audience as forever midcard yet, then you can try running a Arn vs. Flair program in fall of 1993 instead of the drizzling shits that was Flair vs. Rude. You could try him as a face too, but my guess is he'd work better as a heel. Outside of trying to get Savage and Hogan (without the absurd contract terms) and bringing Flair back as an active wrestler sooner, the best business popping that I can think of is running more events in Europe and the UK. They did good numbers there in 1993. That means you've probably got to protect Davey. edit: random thought. Maybe if WCW pushes Davey hard enough, not only will he stick around, but Vince will fight putting the world title back on Bret because of the summerslam 1992 job. If so, and you get a 1994 without Bret as champ, that likely damages WWF and makes it even easier to flip eyeballs when WCW eventually acquires more WWF talents. (But maybe not if Europe becomes a bigger battleground area.)

It's pretty unique. I know some people compared him to Sting when people were pushing to keep Sting out of the observer HOF, but I never cared much for Orton and did at various points for Sting. Does John Studd count? He definitely didn't have a rep as a worker or anything, but the guy was just a total sack in the ring from what I've seen.

I doubt JBL likes to work as an announcer much anymore. He probably misses being the wrestlers court prosecutor.

Austin/Bret is my #1 Worst? Maybe Bret vs. Vince, Lawler vs. Cole, or Taker vs. Bossman...that and the Taker vs. Gonzalez travesty are neck and neck in terms of awful. If you count the builds....I'd go Bret vs. Vince, though there's an argument for all 4 even with that.

Before those final few matches, I believe Savage had a falling out with Hogan around Road Wild 1999. I've heard they were planning on jobbing him to Rodman, which was changed. Regardless, after the show had a blow-up claiming Hogan was trying to sabotage him and no-showed some events. I believe Dave said Savage's contract was set to expire at the end of 1999.

I was going to mention this one too, though I guess there have to be ones much better. But Shamrock played his role very well within the match, and he does his role great in the post-match, which is part of why the double turn so effectively works.

No, I'd agree on that front, and especially you wouldn't see that in the 90s unless it's a really small subsection of the population even compared to now. However, Austin was clearly coded and came off as working class. Facial hair was less ubitious then vs. now. It was clearly anti-white collar. And a bald head was the same kind of way, especially for somebody who was white. (Obviously, Hall and Nash and to some extent DX tried to exploit how just african-american culture was not seen as "white collar" back then.) But regardless, Austin's look and deamnor came off as edgier and anti anything resembling yuppie. The employee vs. boss is obviously the core of Austin's casual appeal, but you've also got other dressing like the Texas accent, his demeanor of not taking shit (he's definitely a character that they'd have to adjust for this current era of my turn your turn monologue promos). All of that was molded onto that foundation of the WWF 80s superhero top guy. And let's be honest, lots of those cartoonish WWF guys or WWWF guys would cheat and get dirty a good bit...or theyd have some psychology different from other areas (e.g. beat up your opponent so bad you just walk out of the cage.) Austin just ramped it up and added that layer of don't trust anybody on a foundation of years and years of an audience seeing close allies or tag partners turn on their buddies. Essentially, Austin was a different guy to put the old superhero package on top of and, unlike say Nash, he managed to keep his persona within that mold and shift within it.

So you're denying the facts of what happened last summer? And maybe houses would go up either from a) a better person getting put into the Reigns role, or families not happy at Reigns and wanting to see him beat up/gethis/etc, or c) he'd get some "cool heel" traction. It'd at least be more exciting creative, and if it makes no financial difference, they'd have a better show. RAW does have a major over faces issue, imo, considering how Goldberg basically got accepted over either Rollins or Reigns as strongest guy with very little pushback. So that's something WWE would need to work out if they did turn Reigns, but they'll probably just try to address it at the next draft. Orton isn't the right opponent to do it against, but you'd think WWE would've figured out trying Bray Wyatt as a face by now given how mental fans went when he had that brief alliance with Reigns. And now, since they've imploded the Wyatt cult, it makes sense for Bray to go more on his own. And WWE continually proves how difficult it is to do any heel vs. face storytelling where the face is afraid of the heel and the face doesn't look like a putz. They're clearly not willing to push the Wyatt character dark enough, so they might as well make him more face Jake and Undertaker-esque.