Bob Morris

I suspect Vince would still have been convinced, at some point, to turn heel. The angle where Austin stunnered Vince still gave justification for having Vince turn heel at some point. I also think it would have been Shawn feuding with Austin after WM XIV, assuming he didn't have his back injury. If that had happened anyway, they probably would have sped up a Vince heel turn. And yeah, I could definitely see Bret feuding with Rock. Bret likely would have done a program with Ken Shamrock as well, given that he liked working with him.

Just addressing a few points: * One can argue until they run out of breath what is and isn't "reasonable" but as far as the contract was concerned, both parties had to agree to it. Bret and Vince ultimately agreed to a DQ ending... and if I'm not mistaken, Shawn wins by DQ when Davey Boy and Owen interfere. Clearly, Vince wanted Bret to lose via pinfall or submission whereas Bret wouldn't agree to that, but if I am correct that Shawn was to win via DQ, that Bret was OK with losing to Shawn if no pin or submission took place. * I know a lot of scenarios got tossed out as Bret and Vince argued about the match, but the idea that Bret would just hand over the belt to Vince the next night on Raw came in the 11th hour. Prior to that, proposals ranged from Bret losing the title in a four-way match at the next IYH, with Ken Shamrock pinning Bret to send him out of the match early, to Bret dropping the belt to Shawn the next night on Raw. * As far as Eric Bischoff goes, giving away the results of Raw may have been viewed by some as dirty pool but there wasn't anything Vince could legally do about it. As far as Luger goes, he wasn't under contract yet still working for WWF and Vince was naive enough to believe he'd re-sign, hence the SummerSlam angle. And Luger didn't appear on a episode of Superstars he was supposed to be on, so WWF had to have known Luger was heading to WCW at that point. Regarding Madusa, Vince fired her and never bothered to ask her to bring the Women's belt back. For what it's worth, Madusa has said she didn't want to do the angle of dropping the belt in the trash can but Bischoff made her do it. Regardless, all Vince had to do was tell her to bring the belt back (and I imagine he'd be able to find a legal justification for doing so) but because he failed to do so, it's on him. At any rate, Vince and Bret have mended fences, Bret and Shawn have mended fences and Bret remains consistent in saying he never should have left... in his own way, admitting he should not have taken Vince's suggestion to go talk to WCW and try to work things out with Vince.

I agree with what was said about Hogan getting creative control and doing a poor job of booking himself. Hogan may understand how to work the crowd but he's never understood how to put somebody over without causing himself to lose momentum. He needs pretty tight direction to get him to do a truly good job of putting somebody over -- and more importantly, he's often only willing to do it if he gets his heat back at some point. The only exception that immediately comes to mind is The Rock. I suppose you could add Goldberg, but I've always believed the "fingerpoke of doom" angle did a lot to kill Goldberg's heat and was a way Hogan got heat back without actually having to beat Goldberg in the ring.

As I've gotten older and seen more of Hogan's work from the past, I've come to appreciate it more. Watching the Saturday Night's Main Event DVD, for example, gives you a good exposure to Hogan and the work he could do in his prime. I still love his reaction when the Megapowers angle kicked off -- how he looked surprised Elizabeth was asking for his help, then once he saw what was happening to Savage in the ring, IT WAS ON. Few are as good at working the crowd as Hulk Hogan. He's easily top 10 in that category. He could do it just as effectively as a face or as a heel. And the Bash 96 promo is arguably a top 10 promo of all time. Oh, and that stuff with Hogan stooging for an old lady is all kinds of awesome.

Been a fascinating topic, just a few points on some of the guys discussed: * The problem I have with putting Jesse Ventura into the HOF is that Bobby Heenan was right there at the same time and was just as effective as a heel commentator, and there were a few times in which Heenan stepped in to fill for Jesse (this was long before Jesse left the WWF) and I never noticed a difference in the quality of the commentary. Case in point: Heenan was the heel commentator on the SNME in which the Megapowers came together for the first time. The moment wasn't any less special because Jesse wasn't there -- Heenan did a very good job in the heel commentator role. I agree with what John has said that Jim Cornette was just as effective as a heel commentator when he came to WWF and I don't view that as a knock on Jesse. What you have to remember is this: Jesse got put into the heel commentator role because he was originally brought in to be a wrestler, but his back problems meant he couldn't wrestle any longer, so they found something else for him to do. I don't think he was bad in his role -- he did a fine job. But the question I have to ask is this: Did he define the heel commentator because nobody else could have done it or did he define the heel commentator because circumstances allowed him to be the one? For example: If Heenan does the heel commentator work with Vince on Superstars and Gorilla on early PPVs while Jesse is stuck on Wrestling Challenge, does Jesse get nearly as much attention? Or what if Venture had been able to wrestle full time and the WWF decides to throw money at Cornette to make him a heel commentator? That's the problem with Ventura. There isn't a really strong case to make to say that, without him, the heel commentator role isn't truly defined. And with announcers, you are talking about a role with a limited scope, so you really have to look at the cream of the crop and I don't think Ventura is there -- certainly not at the level of Solie and Ross in their primes. * Finkel has the same problem in terms of the scope of his role -- it's very limited. That being said, I can see the argument for Finkel given that the quality between him and the overwhelming majority of ring announcers is a pretty wide gap -- I always thought of Finkel as being the absolute best. I have Gary Cappetta second but it's not a close second. Most every other ring announcer falls into two categories: Solid but doesn't stand out, or just plain sucks. * Okerlund is an interesting case -- again, he's got the "limited scope" issue but I agree he did well with what he did and knew enough how to get himself over while getting the wrestlers over. In terms of backstage interviewers, he's at the top of the list. But I have to agree that his "after his prime" years, he wasn't very good and, more importantly, he just looked out of place in WCW. * Big Show might be the more recent version of Sting -- there's so much in which you wonder "what might have been" had he been booked better. WCW did some good things but it was a half-hearted push overall. And in WWF/E, I think the biggest problem is that he wasn't "Vince's creation" and thus he didn't really have a reason to get behind him in a way that would take advantage of Show's strengths -- hence he had no reason to go against the flow of however he was booked. That being said, it didn't help Show that he entered a period in which he became lazy and got out of shape, to the point he got sent down to OVW to get his act together. * I think the case for Lex Luger is better than some people may think, but he suffers from the same problem Sting has. There is a lot of "what might have been" with regards to how he was booked initially in JCP/WCW, often where the wheels came off just as he was getting into a groove. In WWF, he was initially bored because I don't think he cared for the Narcissist gimmick. He was more motivated when he was turned face but it was a time in which the fanbase that was there was more favorable to Bret (even if he wasn't a big draw) and Luger just never found his niche. I think Luger did some good things for the first half of his second WCW run, particularly during the nWo feud, but in the latter half, he quit caring.

http://www.glowthemovie.com/ Anyone know if this is going to be a hard-hitting documentary along the lines of Heroes of World Class or if this is kind of a fluff piece? FWIW, here's the website of the company that is producing the documentary. http://connellcreations.com/about.html

The Young Scallions definitely needs to get to the bottom of this! "If you can't realize you are full of shit, Bryan, I really don't know what else to say."

Having watched more of the DVD, I must say I really like the insight Steve Austin gives on the guest commentary with Jim Ross. Austin talks quite a bit about pacing and timing and how he sees too many young wrestlers today wanting to move too quickly along to the spots they want to do. I thought those were good observations about what really goes into making the difference between a good match and a match that's just a spotfest.

Regarding Austin's theme, I don't remember if it had the glass breaking at Survivor Series... in fact, WWF The Music Volume 2 uses a theme in which Austin was dropping one-liners throughout the music (and I don't even remember WWF ever playing that version of the theme... I know it wasn't used for the 1997 Royal Rumble, that one definitely had the glass breaking). As for the DVD, I got it yesterday and really enjoyed it. I haven't bought previous Austin DVDs, so I can understand those who have seen other DVDs saying that Austin didn't really provide a bunch of new insight. I did find it interesting that Austin was the one who wanted to turn heel, but it was good to see him admit that was a mistake, even though it did give him a chance to show a new side of his character. Of course, it can also be argued that the Austin heel turn was what led to the "What? chants that, while they worked in the context of promos in which Austin, or whoever Austin was bantering with, intentionally set things up for it, became annoying when fans tossed out the chant in nearly every promo a wrestler tried to cut. The fourth disc is definitely fun. That Livewire interview was a hidden gem... Austin clearly set himself up as a "me against the world" character there. It's also good to get the ECW promos as it gives you the perspective about elements that Austin developed, which were later used in the promos that defined his most popular WWF character. One thing I've always wondered is how Austin's character would have been like if he went back to the "natural born killer" gimmick that the Stone Cold character was first being developed. It would have been interesting to see if he could have gotten some mileage out of it in the main event scene.

With regards to the thread topic, my bigger issue are with those people who profess a like or dislike for something and never want to explain why they do or didn't like beyond "OMG IT RULEZ" and "OMG IT WAS SHIT" or some variant thereof of those expressions, in which they aren't able to explain what really made it work or not work for them. SLL's YouTube link raises a valid point, but it could also be raised about those who like something just as much as those who don't like something. That being said, sometimes discussions will get heated, particularly if people feel strongly about one side or the other. But as long as they are able to articulate their points, I'm fine with it. When they get into simplistic response or, worse yet, insults, that's when I'm gonna tune out the discussion, regardless of who I agree or disagree with.

Speaking of Raven, there was that rumored feud with Roddy Piper that never materialized. Regarding the Higher Power, wasn't there a rumor that it was supposed to be Mick Foley and he turned it down?

Covering a few things discussed: * Bret was originally supposed to go over Yokozuna at WM IX. That only got changed when Hogan talked his way into getting the title. I believe the plan was to have the Bret-Luger house show program be a feud for the title. * As far as booking philosophy went, I suspect some of the people who came into the company might have been tossing out some ideas (Jerry Lawler and Jim Cornette come to mind) and the fact so many WWF wrestlers were either working Memphis or SMW may have given Vince the idea to take a different approach. I know they did a lot of stuff about Bret's life outside the ring, they did this to an extent with Lex Luger, and Loss has gone over what they did with Diesel. Heck, you can look at WWF Magazine during that time and its approach changed a bit. I can still remember the issue in which they did a pretty extensive story about the Hart family and where they got into Randy Savage's days playing professional baseball (which I don't believe WWF had EVER mentioned before). * And the early days of WWF booking Raw were certainly unique. They would shoot an angle during a show that would lead to a match later that night, something WWF didn't do much before. They did several instances of surprise booking that made the show a must see, even if the talent pool was thinning. * They even had some instances in which they did vignettes for new wrestlers who, even when saddled with gimmicks, they made them seem not as larger than life. Case in point: When Tatanka was first introduced, they called him by his real name (Chris Chavis) and essentially built to how he got his new name... and they didn't really do it over the top.

I'd love to see the Flair/Dusty one, except I wonder how long it will be before TNA and Flair cut ties. Both are desperate in their own ways. Austin/Rock would certainly be a fun one to do. One could also think about "what might have been" with Hogan/Savage. But I imagine it's going to be difficult to top the Bret/Shawn DVD. I watched it and loved it. Really good insight from both guys. I thought the part that was really telling was when Bret basically said that he and Shawn were trying to "work the boys" and ended up working themselves. There's a lesson to be learned.

Did Bischoff change the plan? My only exposure to wrestling "news" was the Apter mags at my local grocery during this period and I remember the speculation was that DiBiase was to be the NWO financier. I thought he WAS the financeer. I mean what else was he meant to be? The Bischoff turn seemed to be more about the thought of "how does nWo get its own promotion eventually." I know Bischoff had the idea of eventually going down that road. I suspect he backed off that after negative response to the first Souled Out, then tried it again with nWo taking over Nitro and doing the whole set switch live... and we all know how that worked out. EDIT: Speaking of all this, why didn't WCW ever figure out that DiBiase should have been DDP's benefactor?

I thought WWF had solid booking in 1992 for the most part, but the switching of the title from Ric Flair to Bret Hart came out of nowhere. I'm guessing that was the point that Vince was convinced that it was time to try somebody new at the top of the card. 1993 strikes me as the year of missed opportunities. They were clearly building to Bret Hart vs. Lex Luger feuding over the top title until they made the switch to Hogan, and we know how that turned out. And while I liked Luger better as a face than a heel during his WWF run, I just don't think fans were enthused enough to buy into Luger as the top guy, despite him picking up his pace in the ring. With 1994, they really had some interesting angles going, particularly the Bob Backlund heel turn. It's amazing to watch how much heat Backlund was drawing after he was just kind of there as a face. I know the Undertaker vs. Underfaker angle tends to get shit upon but I think that goes back to the fact that they didn't do as good of a job of casting doubt over whether DiBiase had really brought back the Undertaker. (To put this into perspective, it needed to be more along the lines of "it can't be the Undertaker... right?" instead of playing it like it really was Taker until Paul Bearer said otherwise.) In 1995, I agree that the problem was a lack of opponents for Diesel. I do think there is some truth to the WM XI match with Michaels hurting Diesel, as it was pretty clear at that point they were going to turn Shawn face and he needed to be a strong heel going into the match, then build to his face turn a couple of months after the fact. Sid wasn't the best option to challenge Diesel, but imagine how much better it would have worked had they kept Shawn heel for a couple months after WM and had a rematch or two, building to Sid turning on Shawn. With that being said, 1995 KOTR stands as one of the worst PPVs in WWF/E history. Mabel was not the guy to put over. 1996 booking just didn't have anything going for it that could overcome the nWo. Had Shawn been willing to work with Vader more, they could have gotten a lot more mileage out of that feud.

I understand your point. Rick Steiner menacing Chucky was one of the most retarded thing ever. That said, it's a different case simply because it's the Muppets. Muppets are cool by definition, so people are willing to accept the fact that hell, it's a Muppet episode of Raw, and should be seen as such. Does anybody remember what the critical consensus on them co-promoting the "Shaft" reboot by having Crash go to Shaft for protection was? I haven't thought about it in ages, and I might be insane, but I remember it being warmly received, at least compared to Rick Steiner meeting Chucky or Sting being saved from the Horsemen by Robocop. Or what about Leslie Nielsen's segments during the Undertaker vs. Undertaker angle? That was the one of the only things about that angle that didn't totally shit the bed, and while they used the name "Leslie Nielsen", it was pretty obvious that he was playing it as Frank Drebin. Hell, thinking that was the actual Nielsen and not just his famous fictional character probably required more suspension of disbelief. It seems to me - as Jerome alludes to - that what separates the Muppets, Leslie Nielsen, and Sam Jackson's take on Shaft (if I remembered that one correctly) from Chucky, Robocop, and Arliss isn't so much whether or not it's any more or less believable as whether or not it's any more or less entertaining. People are a lot more forgiving about unbelievable/impossible/downright stupid things in their professional wrestling if it's something they actually enjoy. This leads me to wonder... what if the Muppets appeared on TNA? Does it rule because it's the Muppets or does it suck because it's TNA? I missed the show so I won't comment on it, but I think what Loss and others are really trying to say is this: A human appearing on The Muppet Show works because it's the human adapting to the world of the Muppets. The Muppet movies see the Muppets and humans living in the same world and people accept that. But when the Muppets are the guests on another show, it's up to the writers of that show to make it work so it will generally be accepted by all. Now, again, I won't comment on the show itself, but I think we've all gone over how many times WWE Creative just can't keep itself focused on how to put a good show together for whatever the reason may be. I suspect if they were better at their jobs in general (or if Vince wouldn't be so much of a control freak), they might be able to come up with something to make the Muppets interacting with the wrestlers to be something that allows nearly every fan to suspend disbelief. It's just tricky to get the Muppets worked into any show outside of the Muppet realm. You just have to get the proper context to make it work... and if people here felt they did, then that's good. For those that didn't, well, then that's probably more a sign of how flawed WWE Creative remains.

And regarding the '99 Rumble, I agree the Austin/Vince stuff was good but it could have been done better by simply having Austin eventually get too distracted with every wrestler coming into the ring and Vince being able to slip under the ropes and do commentary. And Vince winning the Rumble wasn't really the bad part... the bad parts were the stuff with the Ministry of Darkness, the white coats coming after Kane and too many spots in which one guy just stands around waiting for the next entrant to come.

I wonder if I need to drag over my reviews of Royal Rumble matches from tOA to here. I can remember looking at the Rumbles of the earlier years and how some of them did a better job of building issues and teasing Wrestlemania matches better than others. The 1990 Rumble was one of the best in terms of building issues and giving people an idea what the Wrestlemania card that year would be. They addressed Jake/DiBiase, Savage/Rhodes, Demolition/Colossal Connection, Piper/Bad News and Hogan/Warrior and did a good job of pacing for the most part until the end, when they have Hogan and Warrior and four guys remaining to enter. Plus the stuff to open the Rumble with DiBiase, tying all the way back to the previous year's Rumble, was done well.

Dave Hebner was far better than Earl. He did a better job of getting over his counts being just a bit slower than usual after taking a bump, whereas Earl would overdo it with the crawling and slow counts. Earl took less exaggerated bumps than Dave, though. I always though Joey Marella was good at working main events. He generally kept his counts consistent and didn't try to make it look like an epic moment. I think the Bret Hart/Davey Boy match from SummerSlam 92 is one where Marella really does some of his best work. But yeah, Tommy Young was one of the best, and Nick Patrick was always entertaining.

If you want to talk bad PPVs, KOTR '95 and KOTR '99 are absolutely among them. Honestly, I think it's no surprise KOTR eventually died out as a PPV as the majority of them were not good shows overall.

Regarding Nash's political viewpoints, he sounds more like somebody who would be a Ron Paul supporter and Paul isn't what one would consider "conservative" in the strict sense of the word. And I do know Paul to be one of those who has backed people who believe 9/11 to be an inside job. Regardless, Nash may not have seen all his investments go well, but he at least sounds like somebody who believed in the importance of saving money. Morton, on the other hand, was not somebody who was smart with his money, so Nash does have a valid point in his criticism of Morton on that subject.

What everyone is arguing about with regards to Hart needs to remember is this: He had to give a 30-day notice and, during that time, he was legally bound to working for WWF if the company so chose to use him. His "reasonable creative control" was certainly something Bret could invoke, but that being said, he couldn't use it to refuse to drop the title at any point because then Vince can say "that's unreasonable, you have to drop the belt at some point in this 30-day window." As far as WCW announcing they had signed Bret the Nitro after Survivor Series, it was already becoming common knowledge that Bret was leaving, and it wan't just among the "smart" crowd, so it's not like an announcement on Nitro means that much in the long run. In fact, it may have caused people to tune into Raw any way to see if Bret showed up, and if he did, to keep tuning in wondering how long it would be before he showed up on Nitro. And then those people watching Raw would have seen more of Stone Cold Steve Austin, and as we all know, Austin's rise through the WWF ranks was a key element to WWF turning things around.

Speedy is still around... they had him on that new Looney Tunes show. And still the same stereotype. Oh, and one thing Warner Bros. had that WWF never had was a character like the Abominable Snowman... a vastly better version to play off Bugs and Daffy than WWF had with George "The Animal" Steele playing off Hogan and Savage. EDIT: Oh, and I agree that Wile E. was the draw in the feud with Road Runner. There is a reason why Wile E. got to work with Bugs and they never even tried to pair Road Runner with Daffy.

I wouldn't call Road Runner like Steamboat or Morton. Steamer and Morton may have been two guys you didn't want to boo, but they could work with a variety of opponents and were believable as challengers to Ric Flair... and Steamer was believable as a guy to take the title from Flair. Morton wasn't, but you could definitely buy him in main events... you could put him in tag team action in a main event against anyone and fans would buy it. Road Runner was never a main eventer by any stretch of the imagination. He's really the WWF version of Hacksaw Jim Duggan.

Yes, when Wile E. explained to everyone why he wanted to catch the Road Runner, it was the same one in which a kid said the same thing we all felt deep down, "Sometimes I wish the Coyote would catch the Road Runner." Really, where the Road Runner was weak was that there was no way he could play the heel. He was so one-dimensional. And that's the real reason why, deep down, we wanted Wile E. to catch the Road Runner. Nobody wants to cheer for a one-dimensional face for long. That wasn't a problem for Bugs, who was multi-dimensional and could take on a lot of roles, work face or heel just as effectively and mesh with a variety of opponents. I mean, does anyone really think a Road Runner short would work with Elmer Fudd? Or Daffy Duck? Or even Tweety? Really, who wants to see a Tweety vs. Road Runner face matchup? Tweety may have been stuck mostly working with Sylvester, but you could throw another heel into the mix and he would have found a way to make it work. Not Road Runner. And Daffy may have been No. 2 in the promotion but he got to work a lot of main events. If you didn't have Bugs in the main event, Daffy was the first guy you'd turn to. So while Daffy may not have liked playing second fiddle to Bugs, he knew darn well he was that valuable to the Warner Bros. promotion and, if he left, Warner Bros wouldn't have had as a reliable an option to fall back on... especially since Porky was aging.