khawk20 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 How about Otto Wanz with the AWA Title. The fans were dying to see Hulk Hogan as the AWA Champion and instead they got him. On that note. Does anyone know what Wanz paid for his title reign? $50,000. And no, Wanz's reign didn't devalue the AWA title at all. That happened when things happened like Verne retiring with the AWA title in 1981 and Bockwinkel being given the title back (instead of even a one-night tournament to determine a new champ), Hansen walking out and Bockwinkel being awarded the title in 1986, and Lawler getting stripped and Larry Z winning it in a battleroyal in 1989. Wanz won and lost the title in the ring. With Wanz being a star from across the pond, it gave the AWA title an "international" feel...anyone-on-any-given-night, that sort of thing. Those things hurt the cred of the title. Wanz winning it did not, especially when it wasn't common knowledge that Wanz paid for the reign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 I agree with khawk. Watching AWA now and the Wanz win really doesn't feel that out of place or odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Kersey Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 - This leads to Dogg winning the title from Venis, and then Gunn winning the Hardcore Title from Holly, switching their matches at 'Mania, and throwing storyline sense out the window. Has anyone ever given a reason why that happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 and I had completely forgot that Dibiase was feuding with Tito during this time. I was a die hard and I don't even think I knew they were programmed then. It sure as hell went nowhere I consider myself a fairly big DiBiase fan, and also have no recollection of a Tito feud. I knew they had some matches at house shows, but an actual angle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Morris Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 and I had completely forgot that Dibiase was feuding with Tito during this time. I was a die hard and I don't even think I knew they were programmed then. It sure as hell went nowhere I consider myself a fairly big DiBiase fan, and also have no recollection of a Tito feud. I knew they had some matches at house shows, but an actual angle? Geez, I can't believe I actually remember these details, given the DiBiase/Santana feud was so insignificant, but... This was when they did special TV shows prior to PPVs... in the case of Survivor Series, it was usually members of two teams facing each other in a singles match. Before Survivor Series 1991, they did DiBiase/Virgil for the Million Dollar Belt. Long story short: Repo Man came out and grabbed the belt, then when Virgil went after him, Repo Man hit him with the belt and DiBiase pinned Virgil. DiBiase then was set to do his "stuff a $100 bill in the mouth" but Santana came out and chased DiBiase off. Then DiBiase started taunting Mexicans in response. Oh, and IRS/Bossman was about IRS accusing Bossman of accepting bribes and not reporting them for taxation purposes. So... yeah, that was WWF booking for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 The most frustrating thing about the Tito/Dibiase feud is that one of the few matches taped from that is a MANAGER CAM MATCH with Sherri, where she says "Teddy Bears" 3000 times. On the other hand she has a great moment where she goes.. "I ALWAYS LIKED YOU TITO" when he's threatening her or something. Edit: Oh what the hell: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2lyl9_te...sensation_sport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 That Hogan/Brock/Heyman promo recap made me remember just how awesome Hogan's run in 2002 was. The IWC at the time was ambivalent at best towards it, and the Undertaker feud was indeed pretty bad. But the booking and the promos were perfect. Hogan was portrayed as an aging guy who just didn't have it anymore, and knew it, even if he didn't want to admit it. But he just barely didn't have it anymore, and if his opponent was too cocky or made a crucial mistake then this is still Hulk Fucking Hogan that we're talking about and he might possibly snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Hey, is it surprising that the only time Hogan has been bearable in the past dozen years was also the only time that he was forced by circumstances into accepting a contract without his beloved Creative Control? - This leads to Dogg winning the title from Venis, and then Gunn winning the Hardcore Title from Holly, switching their matches at 'Mania, and throwing storyline sense out the window. Has anyone ever given a reason why that happened? Just typical Vinnie Roo idiocy with swerves for swerves' sake. Everyone naturally expected Gunn to be wrestling for the IC belt and Dogg for the Hardcore title at Mania, so Russo thought it was predictable and had them switch places at the last minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 - This leads to Dogg winning the title from Venis, and then Gunn winning the Hardcore Title from Holly, switching their matches at 'Mania, and throwing storyline sense out the window. Has anyone ever given a reason why that happened? Gunn was supposed to win the IC belt at the Royal Rumble but showed up late for the show and was punished by not getting the belt. I think literally Russo did that switch on a whim the day of that show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 The most frustrating thing about the Tito/Dibiase feud is that one of the few matches taped from that is a MANAGER CAM MATCH with Sherri, where she says "Teddy Bears" 3000 times. On the other hand she has a great moment where she goes.. "I ALWAYS LIKED YOU TITO" when he's threatening her or something. Edit: Oh what the hell: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2lyl9_te...sensation_sport Oh I actually have that match on VHS, it's on one of the Supertapes or Wrestlefests (or one of those Mooney/ Hayes comps). I actually knew about the Repo Man angle too, but no idea about the ripping on Mexicans part. Tbh, Tito was a JTTS by this stage, so feuding with him was pretty low down on the card for Ted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 I think the IC/Hardcore program switch would be remembered better if someone other than Russo was booking since you know he did it for the wrong reason. The idea that they'd get matches against the "other" champion to help with the buildup makes sense, and they were running a lot of title matches on TV back then. It's not a bad "anything can happen" angle in theory, they just shouldn't have done it as close to WM as they did. It's not that far removed from RVD's TV Title win over Bigelow, where the angle was that he was supposed to be softening up Bigelow for Sabu. It has a lot more internal logic than, say, the "every title changes hands" UWF show, which holds up terribly and suddenly has wrestlers scheduled for multiple matches (including the world champion in a street fight before a scheduled title defense?!?!) in the same episode for the first time ever for no apparent reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 I think had Wrestlemania not been a drizzling piece of shit that year that it would be better remembered. I also think it would have been better remembered if Road Dogg hadn't lost the belt before it really effected anything other than the Wrestlemania card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 I think the IC/Hardcore program switch would be remembered better if someone other than Russo was booking since you know he did it for the wrong reason. The idea that they'd get matches against the "other" champion to help with the buildup makes sense, and they were running a lot of title matches on TV back then. It's not a bad "anything can happen" angle in theory, they just shouldn't have done it as close to WM as they did. It's not that far removed from RVD's TV Title win over Bigelow, where the angle was that he was supposed to be softening up Bigelow for Sabu. I don't entirely disagree with you here, Bix, but I'm curious as to what you think the right reason would have been. Both of the Outlaws' WM matches had some decent backstory to them. Gunn chasing the IC Title, as well as the overall issue with Shamrock. Dogg trying to win back the title that he hadn't actually lost. The RVD/Bigelow ECW angle you talked about is actually a good example of doing something like that right. I believe the PPV was scheduled for May, and the did the switch in early April. Even with ECW's TV in '98, there was still plenty of time to build up to the title match, and it did lead somewhere (at temporarily) with RVD being a total douche to Sabu about it and them not getting along for a spell (there is clearly dissension between them by Heatwave '98 in August). Come to think of it, Gunn's heel turn could have been based on him being jealous that Dogg bogarted the IC Title from him and kept it, while he got a cup of coffee as Hardcore Champion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 How many times has the WWE title changed hands since the beginning of the summer and the "great" Punk angle ? With suspensions, bogus tournament, hotshotting title changes twice in one show, Kevin Nash costing someone the title, MitB ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 07/17/11 (1) Punk pinned Cena to win WWE Title 07/18/11 Vince strips Punk of WWE Title 07/18/11 Trip fires Vince for abuse of power; unclear what this means for Punk 07/25/11 (2) Rey pinned Miz to win World Vince Title 07/25/11 (3) Cena pinned Rey to win World Vince Title 08/01/11 (4) Trip recognizes Punk as still the WWE Champ 08/14/11 (5) Punk over Cena to win World Vince Title 08/14/11 (6) Del Rio over Punk WWE/Vince Titles John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 This is straight out of Russo's booking in 1998/99. Awful stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 This is straight out of Russo's booking in 1998/99. Awful stuff. Except that it's been fun. I think you'd like it. They have Punk doing promos about how WWE sucks using lots of typical internet smart mark cliches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 This is straight out of Russo's booking in 1998/99. Awful stuff. Except that it's been fun. I think you'd like it. They have Punk doing promos about how WWE sucks using lots of typical internet smart mark cliches. I watched the "greatest promo ever". Yeah, it was a great promo. That's why I did watch Cena vs Punk when I stumbled onto MitB. Loved Punk's entrance. Enjoyed the match to a point. Still, I always hated a title switching a hundred time in a month with suspensions and screwjobs and quicky title switch (man, the MitB gimmick seems annoying). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 I don't think the hotshots have really devalued the title that much. You have to look at the Rey/Cena reigns as fake reigns because they essentially were. So it has really just been Cena-Punk-ADR this summer. But short term hotshots can work, it's when you do it over a long period of time that it really hurts things. For all you know, ADR could hold the belt for 6 months and no one would remember the belt hopped around a lot for a 10 week period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 We've mostly been discussing short reigns or "hot-shot" changes here, but could an overly-long reign hurt a title just as much? Take Kobashi's GHC reign, for example. Kobashi held onto the title for so long and ran through so many challengers, it was hard to buy anyone beating him. They basically painted themselves into a corner. Then when Rikio won, it was just kind of, "huh"? I guess the idea was that whoever finally ended te reign would be a made guy. I just don't remember Rikio getting that reaction. Now, Aries ending Joe's ROH reign handled this better. It got a huge crowd reaction, and Aries got a rub for it. It just seems to me that it's easier to book short reigns than the big, epic ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 I think RoH has been very guilty of the "too long" title reign. I think Bryan Danielson held the belt far too long and needed to lose it to Homicide about 4-6 months before he did. Nigel had no business holding the belt for as long as he did and it hurt the company overall. Morishima was also a disaster from a number of points and held the belt too long. RoH under Gabe was guilty of length = quality and most of their reigns came to a crawling end instead of hot title changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 I think he overlearned from the success of parking the belt on Joe for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 I would tend to agree with that. But Gabe also has a fetish for Japan and I could see some of it coming from that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Long reigns aren't a problem if you have someone who can win the title and make it work. Kobashi drew. The fans bought him as champ. That the fans didn't buy Riko wasn't Kobashi's fault. Nor does any blame we might want to toss at Misawa relating to "He ran with Kobashi too long". There were issues with Riko, and arguably how Riko was booked. Not with how long Kobashi had the belt. I think when being critical of a long reign, you need to split it into two halves: #1 - did the long reign *itself* work That's on various levels: draw, good matches, entertain and hook the fans, them buying the champ and his defenses, etc. #2 - did the company do a good job with the next champ By that I don't really mean Iron Sheik, because he was just a transitional champ with the plan being to get it on Hogan. I would mean Hogan. Whether a planned transition champ worked or didn't work isn't terribly important when the success of the next key champ is really what's going to be the key for the company. Long reigns, like long matches, don't automatically mean they're great/cool/good. But whether Warrior's title reign worked or didn't work really isn't the fault of Hogan dominating the belt from 1/84 - 3/90. Unless the failure of Warrior was that fans woke up after Mania and thought, "This fucker isn't as good as Hogan so I don't really want to pay to see him." I don't think length had anything to do with that. After all, Savage *did* draw in 1988 when getting the title after a long Hogan reign, with people wanting to go out to see him. I think with ROH, you'd want to look at the same thing. Did AD's reign work? Were the fans burned out of it by the end and just wanted to see him drop the belt? Or were they still buying it, and it was the matter of the champs after him not being able to reach, for the fans, the levels that AD and Joe did? It's also not like Morishima's reign was "long". 8 months. I guess we have short attention span theater now, but 8 months isn't too long if a champ and reign are good. If 8 months feels too long, then usually the problem is the wrestler, his challengers or how the promotion is handling things. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Morishima's reign felt like it lasted for years honestly. He was a style clash to everyone on the roster and his matches were usually a downer. So I would call it a long 8 months. The same with Danielson. I think the last 4 months were dragging and people just wanted to see him drop the belt well before he did. I think there are more issues to a long reign than that. I think there are certain points where someone needs to win the belt with how a feud is going. Case in point, Goldberg in 2003. He needed to win the belt at Summerslam, not the next PPV. He won it a month too late and it hurt his eventual reign because of that. That can become a byproduct of the long title reign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Long reigns aren't a problem if you have someone who can win the title and make it work. Kobashi drew. The fans bought him as champ. That the fans didn't buy Riko wasn't Kobashi's fault. Nor does any blame we might want to toss at Misawa relating to "He ran with Kobashi too long". There were issues with Riko, and arguably how Riko was booked. Not with how long Kobashi had the belt. I agree that the problem was with Rikio. But, some of the blame has to fall on whoever booked the long reign. Kobashi beat every challenger thrown his way for two years. It reaches a point where the fans are going to need to see someone who has been built-up as being on a roll or built as a viable threat to the title. NOAH never did that. Rikio might have got some wins in some six-mans, etc., but it wasn't a thing where everyone was like, "Oh shit! When is he finally going to get his title shot? This could be the dude who does it." I guess, to me, the success of a long title reign really lies in how it's ended. When your champ is tearing through challenger after challenger, there needs to be someone rising through the ranks who can be seen as the main threat to champ. That's one of the things they really did right in WCW. When the NWO started and Hogan ran with the title for a year or so (I'm not classifying this as a "long reign"), they built Luger up really well as the guy that could take it from him. By the time the match between them came, there was a vibe around it that it could be something big happening. Now, I know they fucked up a number of other things around it, not the least of which was giving it away on Nitro, but it was still a pretty great moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.