Vince Russo

[jdw]

Vince is still a douchebag.

 

John

[flyonthewall2983]

He could make headlines tomorrow saving children from a burning orphanage tomorrow, and I'd still call him one.

[jdw]

Yeah, because we would know that within a few days it would come out that he set the fire so that he could play the Hero.

 

John

[Victator]

And that was his third attempt and he had to bury the first two sets of charred kids.

[kjh]

New Yorkers tell the truth! Explain Paul Heyman to me then?

[Bob Morris]

I thought Kool-Aid explained everything about Paul Heyman.

 

Besides, it's not like Heyman has written three books portraying himself as a victim of society and a misunderstood genius.

[Jingus]

Heyman will happily tell the truth whenever it suits his point, and generally tries to weave as much fact into his arguments as possible (so that it will make the fictional parts easier to buy). Russo seems like he's a compulsive liar at all times, and has a terrible memory as well. He all too frequently just glosses over everything and rewrites history in a really lazy fashion, like claiming all kinds of bullshit about ratings numbers when anyone can look up the publicly-available figures.

[kjh]

Russo knows how to lie with statistics. Like taking the lowest rating of the previous regime for a lame duck show and the highest rating when he was in power, while looking at overall trends in ratings is a better assessment of his abilities. So you get Russo bragging about taking a 2.6 rating and turning it into a 3.4, when the average of before compared with after is statistically insignificant.

[Cox]

I think you're giving Vince Russo too much credit - he might be dumb enough to believe his own bullshit on this one. If time has proven anything, it's that Vince Russo is not a smart man.

[Coffey]

I can't wait for the live YouShoot. Of course it will be filled with dumb shit, like questions about how big Batista's dick is (like all of them are), but just seeing his body language when he's asked questions about things like David Arquette, or World Champion: Vince Russo will be entertaining. Plus, maybe it can be a drinking game where you drink whenever he tries to make himself the victim in a situation.

[Bob Morris]

Russo knows how to lie with statistics. Like taking the lowest rating of the previous regime for a lame duck show and the highest rating when he was in power, while looking at overall trends in ratings is a better assessment of his abilities. So you get Russo bragging about taking a 2.6 rating and turning it into a 3.4, when the average of before compared with after is statistically insignificant.

I think another point worth mentioning is that, when Russo first took over in WCW, Nitro was three hours, then switched to two hours a few shows into his stint. So the rating went from the overall for a three-hour show to the overall for a two-hour show, which really wasn't as impressive.

 

I think a difference between Russo and Heyman is that Heyman, from all accounts, has a personality so charming that, even when you know he's lying, you are still struck by his personality. Russo, on the other hand, doesn't have that personality but is pretty slick when it comes to spin doctoring, particularly around people who don't know any better.

 

If the two were used car salesmen, Heyman would happily approach the guy who knows a lot about cars and find a way to win him over, and while he may not get the guy to buy a lemon, he would get the guy to buy a car that he might not need in the first place. Russo, on the other hand, would first approach the people who are clueless about cars and hope he sells enough to get backing from his boss despite the fact he sells a lot of lemons with just the rare occasion of selling somebody a good car.

[jdw]

My recollection is that they went from a 3 hour show that had 2 hours head-to-head with the WWF to a 2 hour show that had one hour head-to-head with the WWF. 67% head-to-head vs 50%, and the ability to concentrate angles / storylines / matches down into a more focused (yeah... I know it's RUSSO!) fashion.

 

Yeah, it's a comp that helps Russo, and that's even before he cooks the numbers by taking a lame duke episode.

 

John

[rainmakerrtv]

Having recently completed watching goodhelment's Death of WCW comp and rewatching his Four Horseman comp, 2 observations :

 

1) I wonder what would have been the effect on Russo's career if Reservoir Dogs had never come out. I really think he is convinced he is Quentin Tarrantino, a guy who used to run a video store who believes that rehashing storylines from a lot of b movies into a different setting makes him some sort of genius.

 

2) Vince Russo is the Dusty Rhodes of suck.

[goodhelmet]

2) Vince Russo is the Dusty Rhodes of suck.

Dusty and Russo should never be in the same sentence...

 

Shit.

[rainmakerrtv]

2) Vince Russo is the Dusty Rhodes of suck.

Dusty and Russo should never be in the same sentence...

 

Shit.

 

Sorry, let me explain. I love Dusty, but towards the end of his booking run he had some flaws that caused problems leading to the sale of JCP to Turner. I was just struck how Russo seemed to repeat and magnify these flaws in his run that destroyed WCW : constant screw job finishes, making himself the center of everything and jamming himself down everyone's throat, whenever he was not around having everyone say "Where's poochie?", believing his own hype. All, of course, while lacking all of Dusty's many conspicuous good qualities : creativity, ability to work the mic and connect with a crowd, fundamental love and understanding of wrestling, etc. etc. etc. It just seemed from watching that somebody had distilled the worst elements of Dusty and tried to see how much they could make it worse.

[goodhelmet]

I have a hard time believing that Russo ever watched Dusty Rhodes in the NWA.

[Victator]

Dusty in 88 was a great booker. He had some problems, but they were problems common in American wrestling. Namely being allergic to a clean finish. But he had a roster full of great characters and better wrestlers. In 88 he created the Varsity Club and the Powers of Pain. He put the Midnights with the Fantastics and turned Barry heel while getting Lex Luger over as a main event face. Plus setting up Sting to be the next top face.

 

WCW basically lived off of Dusty's booking tenure for years. It had problems, but nothing that was insurmountable. I think Dusty at his worst is still pretty good.

 

I think one big difference between Russo's shit and other wrestling is. When you got a non finish in Crockett, it was at the end of a fairly long match. With Russo, he has three run ins after two minutes of action..

[Mr Wrestling X]

It's probably the same for a lot of people, but the one thing that annoys me about Dusty's booking in WCW (when I've watched old matches) was his tendency to overly prolong feuds by having so many of his false finishes and run-in's part of the main event picture.

 

Of course, Russo took this one step too far by having false finishes and run in's that made no real sense whatsoever and were done presumably, in the name of "unpredictablity" - which was what made him successful in the WWF during the heyday of the "Attitude Era" (because Vince McMahon, etc would cut out the illogical elements of his booking and the end product would be decent).

[sek69]

Dusty's Achilles Heel seemed to be not really being all that good at building new stars that stuck. It wasn't all his fault, since you had guys like Nikita and Barry getting derailed by outside issues, but you largely had the same guys feuding in 1988 that you did in 1986. He was good getting mid card and tag team acts noticed, but it's like there was some kind of block about getting guys over the hump to main eventers.

 

Regarding Russo, I watch the Monday Night Wars on WWE OnDemand and they just had the episode of RAW that was like the very essence of Russomania: show opens with Vince calling Taker and Kane pussies (such edgy language!), and that kicks off a show long routine of them coming out to interrupt EVERY MATCH that tries to take place on the show. There's not much that's more Russo than having it slammed in your face for two hours that this in ring stuff doesn't matter when there's STORYLINE that needs to unfold!

[rainmakerrtv]

So anyway, sorry about the Dusty Rhodes comparison. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Guess it boils down to Russo being like a lot of other bookers who only knew how to push themselves, except Russo was never a star in his own right, he just wrote himself to be. There was no way that he could claim so much of how he was pushing himself was going to bring ratings or buyrates, it was all just to make himself look big.

[jdw]

Dusty in 88 was a great booker.

I think Dusty by 1988 was running a bit on fumes...

 

 

He had some problems, but they were problems common in American wrestling. Namely being allergic to a clean finish.

Some other problems as well:

 

* declining talent roster in terms of being fresh as talent migrated to the WWF

* fairly to pull much out of the UWF

* pushing himself a bit too much

 

 

But he had a roster full of great characters and better wrestlers.

To a degree, yes.

 

In 88 he created the Varsity Club and the Powers of Pain.

The Powers of Pain were created in 1987. They did have the big angle with the Warriors, which was pretty effective. They jumped to the WWF in 1988, not even making it out of one feud in JCP.

 

The Varsity Club also was created in 1987 with Sullivan and Rotundo, with Rick joining in 1988. It was a real good gimmick, and a lot of fun. Hard to say it was capitalized on in 1988 as Sullivan had the unending feud with Jimmy Garvin while the other guys weren't massively focused in feuds. It did build well to Rick getting tossed out and that massive pop at Starcade when he beat Mike for the TV title. I don't think we can credit Dusty for that specifically since one of his last bright ideas was for Rick to beat Flair for the title at Starcade.

 

I liked the Varsity Club a lot, but it just seemed that they didn't take off as much as the could have and two of their better storylines (the long awaited feud with the Warriors and the Rick TV Title Reign) were just killed off way too soon. I get the killing off of the TV Title because it had to get to Sting which in turn led to the Muta feud... but still. And the Warrior feud was a clusterfuck.

 

 

He put the Midnights with the Fantastics

That actually was Cornette begging to get a fresh set of quality opponents and lobbying for the Fans. I'll have to go back and read the Corney/MX book, but I don't think much of any of the booking of it was Dusty-esque. It's pretty much rehashes of stuff that the MX did in Mid South, with possibly the exception of the handicap matches.

 

Probably also noteworthy that:

 

* the Fans has literally *nothing* to do after the MX feud... as in there seemed to be no plans

 

* Dusty really had no good "save" for the MX once that MX vs Arn & Tully feud went to shit

 

It actually was Corny who came up with the MX vs OMX feud, and while he gives props to Dusty for some of his help on it (having just Corny juice in the intial angle), it's really Cornette's feud and angle (before it got fucked up by the post-Dusty bookers/agents).

 

 

and turned Barry heel while getting Lex Luger over as a main event face.

Lex as a main event face really wasn't a master stroke. They could have brought him in as a top face in 1987 and dropped him against Flair and fans would have bought it. The master stroke was more in 1987 by letting him be a Horsemen so that the turn would have a bit more impact.

 

Of course Dusty had to feud himself with Lex, and beat Lex, before Lex turned face and slow rolled towards Flair. It certainly was a good program for Dusty, but I'm not sure it was a great program for Lex... and over in the corner Barry kind of jerked off after his program with Flair ended in early 1987. Might actually have been a better feud for Lex to work with Barry: someone he was comfortably with, and also an exceptional hand to help him develop even more on the job. Also gave Barry something to do... and Barry beating Lex for the title at Starcade would have meant something for Barry... and played even stronger into:

 

* Barry coming to Lex's aid when the Horsemen turned on Lex

* Lex & Barry putting aside their differences to team

* Barry then turning on Lex to go Horsemen

 

Wait... I'm forgetting that Dusty doubled down on his 1987 US Title feud with Lex to have a 1988 US Title feud with Barry, which... just seemed really forced.

 

 

Plus setting up Sting to be the next top face.

 

They actually lucked into this: Sting got over at the end of 1987 and they literally had *nothing* else to toss at Flair since they wanted to hold off on Lex. They tossed Hayes at Flair, it wasn't so hot... Sting angle... it took off. I suspect if you got an honest answer out of them, they would admit that (i) Sting at Starcade '87 surprised them by how over he got with the fans with no real push, (ii) they didn't have much else, (iii) things broke well for them to find something to delay going with Flair-Lex until the Summer.

 

Did they hit it out of the park?

 

That's really hard to tell and know. Flair-Lex drew really well. Flair just got the title back at Starcade '87. So I know they couldn't really have put over Sting for the Title. But... he really was hot in a way that a "fresh" wrestler hadn't been in a long time in JCP. I think in more modern PPV cycling might have seen a "good" booker trying to strike while Sting was hot and give him a run with the belt, with Lex in reserve for a push leading into Starcade.

 

 

WCW basically lived off of Dusty's booking tenure for years. It had problems, but nothing that was insurmountable. I think Dusty at his worst is still pretty good.

WCW didn't really "live" after Dusty left. Granted, 1989 was a load of fun on some levels. But Flair-Steamer, Flair-Terry, Sting-Mutoh, Steamer-Luger... those weren't Dusty booking. The Steiners getting over as a team weren't really a byproduct of Dusty's booking.

 

I think Dusty was pretty great in 1986 where it seemed like almost every match on the card had a reason for being there. I usually point to Boogie Woogie vs Paul Jones as a feud that lots of folks thought was horrible from a Hardcore Fan Standpoint. Set that aside and you realize that it was a match on a card that had a reason for being there: Jones and Valiant HATED each other, with Jones stopping at nothing to put Valiant out of wrestling, and Boogie on an eternal quest for revenge for the latest evil inflicted on him by Jones. It actually was a pretty well booked feud as well, with all sorts of people turning on Valiant over time, leaving him almost an island against Jones' misfit toys.

 

It's a feud that On Paper lays out pretty well, and the fans in the building "got" their little matches. That to me is a sign of a *really* good booker: it's not just that the stuff on top is drawing well, but that when you dig deeper into the card, there's other stuff that has a good deal of thought put into it rather than just thrown at the wall.

 

That level of detail was starting to slide in 1987 and into 1988. While there might be a storyline for an undercard match, they often felt more thrown together rather than worked on. I saw a Sting vs Mike Rotundo match at the 1988 Bash in Los Angeles. It was a really solid match, and I thought it reflected well on Rotundo for laying out a good structure to it. But... it really was a thrown out match. It's possible that the two had a minor storyline... but it really didn't hit home even to someone like me who watched everything from JCP that year. It certainly didn't have a storyline like feel to it similar to seeing a Jones' Army vs Boogie Woogie match in LA back in 1986:

 

JCP @ Inglewood, CA - Great Western Forum - August 28, 1986 (10,000)

Debut at the venue

Hector Guerrero defeated the Barbarian

Jimmy Valiant defeated Shaska Whatley

Wahoo McDaniel defeated NWA National Heavyweight Champion Tully Blanchard to win the title

Dick Murdoch defeated NWA TV Champion Arn Anderson

The Road Warriors defeated Ivan Koloff & Krusher Kruschev

Magnum TA fought NWA US Champion Nikita Koloff to a no contest

NWA Tag Team Champions Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson defeated Bobby Eaton & Dennis Condrey

NWA World Champion Ric Flair defeated Dusty Rhodes via disqualification

 

As a fan, you knew why that was there. I wasn't a huge fan of Boogie... but for a prelim, the fans got it.

 

 

I think one big difference between Russo's shit and other wrestling is. When you got a non finish in Crockett, it was at the end of a fairly long match. With Russo, he has three run ins after two minutes of action..

Sometimes you'd get a non-finish at the end of a short or crappy JCP match.

 

I do think over time it was a problem even in the top of the cards matches. In contrast, Hogan was beating his opponents. Flair wasn't winnnig... and the faces weren't beating him... and his feuds didn't resolve in the face eventually beating him for the title. It was a drain. In a modern style booking, they could have gotten around it by having Ric drop and regain the title a lot more. At the time... it wasn't done.

 

John

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't think Tarantino and Russo belong in the same sentence, either. At least Tarantino likes cool shit.

[Victator]

The Steiners getting over as a team weren't really a byproduct of Dusty's booking.

They were a spin off of the Varsity Club and the Rick face turn. For years the constants in WCW were Sting, Luger, Steiners and the Horsemen. Take those away and I think WCW would of been in a lot worse shape.

[jdw]

I must have missed Dusty pushing the Steiners as a tag team before getting fired by Turner in 1988...

 

John

[El-P]

I don't think Tarantino and Russo belong in the same sentence, either. At least Tarantino likes cool shit.

Yep. And Jackie Brown's script is great. Russo can't write a story that makes sense to save his life. Of course, After Jackie Brown, Tarentino's stock has dropped immensely with me, as I think both Kill Bill and Boulevard de la Mort are a complete waste, and Inglorious Bastards is half really good, half waste. And he was a terrible president at Cannes. I can't think of any big name cinematographic equivalent to Russo to be honest. Oh, yes I can, Shyamalan.