MJH Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 What I think he means is that the Champion wasn't presented as being the top guy in the company... Yoko was. Angle in 2000? Not really. Excusing Backlund's 3-day reign in '94 and Vince getting the belt in '99... it's probably Angle. Maybe Show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Show was a face though. Angle is probably the answer, he was booked like a complete bs champ who couldnt really beat any of the top guys. How long did he have the belt anyway, 2 or 3 months? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 What I think he means is that the Champion wasn't presented as being the top guy in the company... Yoko was. Angle in 2000? Not really. Excusing Backlund's 3-day reign in '94 and Vince getting the belt in '99... it's probably Angle. Maybe Show. Was Iron Sheik booked as the top guy in the company? I know it was only 4 weeks, but if Backlund and Show are getting mentions here then you have to mention Sheik too. I also don't think that Mankind was ever presented as the top guy in the company. However, all of these answers are wrong. Why? Because the actual answer is Ric Flair in 92. He was consistently booked as a BS champ who couldn't beat Undertaker or Hogan or Savage or Warrior. Flair was a proper chicken-shit style heel champ in WWF. And I don't think it would be accurate to say he was booked as top guy when Hogan was still around and Savage in one of the best years of his career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Flair was still the top heel during that time, and was put over really strong in how he won the title at the Rumble. Angle was doing midcard comedy while holding the belt, which felt really weird. Remember the Eric Angle stuff, and the Raw where the Angles were in Christmas hats? (Something like that ...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Flair was different for the WWF at the time. But he was still treated as a top guy and a big deal. Angle was up and down. Taker and Austin made him look like shit but the Rock made him look like a threat. I think Angle has some fault as he didn't totally seem to get that he needed to change how he acted. Jericho was really bad. He couldn't even get convincing wins over Maven at the time. He had one great promo against the Rock before the Rumble and that was a lone bright spot in his reign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Backlund was treated like the top guy on the WWF Mania that aired the day of the MSG show where he lost the title. They acted like he was going to be champion for awhile and that he was negotiating with Ted Dibiase to be his manager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Backlund was treated like the top guy on the WWF Mania that aired the day of the MSG show where he lost the title. They acted like he was going to be champion for awhile and that he was negotiating with Ted Dibiase to be his manager. Wow, I remember when they used to act as if those weekend shows mattered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Flair was still the top heel during that time, and was put over really strong in how he won the title at the Rumble. Angle was doing midcard comedy while holding the belt, which felt really weird. Remember the Eric Angle stuff, and the Raw where the Angles were in Christmas hats? (Something like that ...) plus when they finally put together Angle and Stephanie as "business partners" they seemed to lose all the chemistry they had the past several months. I think they thought putting him with her would give him a main event rub but it just didn't pan out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Flair was still the top heel during that time, and was put over really strong in how he won the title at the Rumble. Angle was doing midcard comedy while holding the belt, which felt really weird. Remember the Eric Angle stuff, and the Raw where the Angles were in Christmas hats? (Something like that ...) Yeah, stuff like that was what I meant by Angle's first title reign. I actually place Backlund's short reign in the same realm as all the heel transitional champs of the past (Koloff, Stasiak, Sheik) and wouldn't count him in what I was trying to describe above. Flair's run could qualify, but I remember him still being treated by the WWF as a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 He was treated as a big deal IN GENERAL, but not really in the ring, because Flair vs. Warrior or Flair vs. Undertaker would have been booked as virtual squash matches unless he did something cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Flair was still the top heel during that time, and was put over really strong in how he won the title at the Rumble. Sid was the top heel: * caused Hogan to lose the Rumble rather than Flair to "win" the Rumble * got the main event at Mania against Hogan rather than Flair * Hogan & Piper vs Sid & Flair = Hogan Leg Drops Flair 1-2-3 * Flair promptly dropped the title to Savage to *start* their feud * Warrior got the SummerSlam spot opposite Savage in a no-heel double main event One gets the feeling that if Sid hadn't had issues pissing in a bottle that it would have been Savage-Sid at SummerSlam. Flair was "a" top heel... one of the top 2. But he wasn't put over strong. Even with strong angles against Hogan, Piper and Savage, there never was strong payoff in any one of them to make him look strong. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Flair was still the top heel during that time, and was put over really strong in how he won the title at the Rumble. Sid was the top heel: * caused Hogan to lose the Rumble rather than Flair to "win" the Rumble * got the main event at Mania against Hogan rather than Flair * Hogan & Piper vs Sid & Flair = Hogan Leg Drops Flair 1-2-3 * Flair promptly dropped the title to Savage to *start* their feud * Warrior got the SummerSlam spot opposite Savage in a no-heel double main event One gets the feeling that if Sid hadn't had issues pissing in a bottle that it would have been Savage-Sid at SummerSlam. Flair was "a" top heel... one of the top 2. But he wasn't put over strong. Even with strong angles against Hogan, Piper and Savage, there never was strong payoff in any one of them to make him look strong. John I'll concede most of that point, except that Flair lasting the full hour was equally or more important than Sid eliminating Hogan. Flair lasting as long as he did in that match was putting him over strong in itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Backlund was treated like the top guy on the WWF Mania that aired the day of the MSG show where he lost the title. They acted like he was going to be champion for awhile and that he was negotiating with Ted Dibiase to be his manager. Wow, I remember when they used to act as if those weekend shows mattered. Yeah the next morning on Action Zone they announced Diesel had won the WWF title as breaking news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 One gets the feeling that if Sid hadn't had issues pissing in a bottle that it would have been Savage-Sid at SummerSlam. Was that why Sid left? Sid said in his shoot that it was because he was asked to lose to Warrior around the horn right after Mania. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 I'll concede most of that point, except that Flair lasting the full hour was equally or more important than Sid eliminating Hogan. Flair lasting as long as he did in that match was putting him over strong in itself. It put him over to us hardcores. For WWF Fans, TV pushed the Hogan-Sid finish. How important was it to the WWF? The doctored the audio to support their Mania main event plans. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 Didn't softball also factor into Sid's decision to bugger off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 Speaking of Sid, I was reading some random Tom Zenk thing, and he claimed Pillman actually had an ice scraper, but the boys changed the story to further rib him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 Didn't softball also factor into Sid's decision to bugger off? That usually factors into him actually showing up for a booking or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollinger. Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 Didn't Meltzer or someone claim last year that the whole "softball" story was bullshit to cover for Sid just being a flake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 I'll concede most of that point, except that Flair lasting the full hour was equally or more important than Sid eliminating Hogan. Flair lasting as long as he did in that match was putting him over strong in itself. It put him over to us hardcores. For WWF Fans, TV pushed the Hogan-Sid finish. How important was it to the WWF? The doctored the audio to support their Mania main event plans. John As someone who was a 10 year old kid in 1992, albeit one who was pretty contrary, I feel like at the time, they put over the sheer miracle of what Flair did in a big way, and a lot of that was Heenan and the post match interview. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 I feel the same way. I was a kid and Flair lasting the hour was a huge deal. Was Flair behind Hogan in the pecking order? Yes he was, but no more than Savage or Warrior were. 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.