Guest Nell Santucci Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 So all during the build for Mania, Dave was admonishing anyone in WWE who was griping about the Rock because he was going to pop a bigger buyrate and in turn make everyone more money. They did pop a record buyrate, per Vince at the investor call it was the biggest money making show ever. The guys just got their payoffs and the mid-low card guys all ended up getting far less than expected. So the idea that Rock would lead to everyone making more money seemed to not be the case, which is a pretty ironic lesson in trickle down economics. I don't understand the significance of JTG and his complaints. Is he speaking on behalf of those who wrestled at Wrestlemania and got slighted, or is he complaining that he got a few thousand dollars only for his work at Wrestlemania? I ask because I don't remember seeing him on the card. Why should he get credit for anything that happened on the card? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 Jericho called Nash out on his comments about Chris and Eddie on Twitter, of course mentioning that WWE's worst year of business happened to be the one when Kevin was top dog in the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 Jericho and Nash threw some shots at each other, with Jericho saying he hoped Nash didn't tear his quad while tweeting. Either they're having fun working everyone (odds on these two doing that are strong) or there's a beef there. It will be entertaining either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerva Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 As long as they are not wrestling each other then tweet war away  Apparently this Jackson Andrews that was accused of beating up Rosa Mendes is apparently engaged to not only Rosa but another woman on the side.  TMZ.com reported that another woman, Amber Stovall, had been dating and been engaged to Andrews for over four years but was completely unaware of Mendes. Stovall, who told TMZ.com that she has cut off all of the joint accounts she and Andrews shared, including his cell phone, learned after Mendes' accusations hit the web.  Stovall noted that Andrews never raised a hand to her during their time together and had been in Vegas with him a few weeks ago during a time period Mendes would have been on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 Â Very brave/stupid King of Trios Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 At least they didn't pick Jake Roberts for the third spot of mid '90s WWF babyfaces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 I've never heard Nash take credit for Austin and the Attitude Era before. It's Nash. He's taking credit for everything over time. Â I've heard him take credit for it before, and how he explains it in the article rings true a little. Not at all. Vince didn't create what Austin turned into: Austin did. Vince just rolled with it when forced to (i.e. it was over with the fans), similar to how he rolled with Savage and Razor being "cool" as heels and turning them. Â John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 When I mean it I don't mean Austin, but the Attitude Era in general. It's what they needed to do to get attention, no matter how dumb a lot of it was (except Austin, Rock and others who knew how to be top guys in any situation when given the ball). Nash has never said he took credit for Austin directly, and even said in the article Steve did what he wasn't able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 Does anyone know exactly how many matches Ted DiBiase and Bret Hart had? Seems like those two had good chemistry. Up until recently, I thought there were just two - the one in 89 from Odessa and the one from 91. Â But there's also a random one from an MSG in 91 where Bret is the IC champion and -- weirdly -- Ted is challenging for it (weird because he never seemed like he was ever in the IC division). Sherri is with him. Â How many other Bret-Ted matches are out there? And did ANY of them have a result or were they all draws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 So all during the build for Mania, Dave was admonishing anyone in WWE who was griping about the Rock because he was going to pop a bigger buyrate and in turn make everyone more money. They did pop a record buyrate, per Vince at the investor call it was the biggest money making show ever. The guys just got their payoffs and the mid-low card guys all ended up getting far less than expected. So the idea that Rock would lead to everyone making more money seemed to not be the case, which is a pretty ironic lesson in trickle down economics. I don't understand the significance of JTG and his complaints. Is he speaking on behalf of those who wrestled at Wrestlemania and got slighted, or is he complaining that he got a few thousand dollars only for his work at Wrestlemania? I ask because I don't remember seeing him on the card. Why should he get credit for anything that happened on the card? Â Am I reading it right? JTG is kvetching about being underpaid for a card he wasn't on? I wasn't on the card either. Where's MY check?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 So all during the build for Mania, Dave was admonishing anyone in WWE who was griping about the Rock because he was going to pop a bigger buyrate and in turn make everyone more money. They did pop a record buyrate, per Vince at the investor call it was the biggest money making show ever. The guys just got their payoffs and the mid-low card guys all ended up getting far less than expected. So the idea that Rock would lead to everyone making more money seemed to not be the case, which is a pretty ironic lesson in trickle down economics. I don't understand the significance of JTG and his complaints. Is he speaking on behalf of those who wrestled at Wrestlemania and got slighted, or is he complaining that he got a few thousand dollars only for his work at Wrestlemania? I ask because I don't remember seeing him on the card. Why should he get credit for anything that happened on the card? Â Am I reading it right? JTG is kvetching about being underpaid for a card he wasn't on? I wasn't on the card either. Where's MY check?? Â I'm working under the assumption that it was for all of the weekend festivities. Also, it's not just him; according to the new F4W "he and several other undercard wrestlers we're given bonus checks in the amount of $2,000." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueminister Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 When I bring up Benoit to casuals, the first thing casuals note is that he was built like a tank. I'm guessing that's really more like the second thing that casuals note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 Awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 When I mean it I don't mean Austin, but the Attitude Era in general. It's what they needed to do to get attention, no matter how dumb a lot of it was (except Austin, Rock and others who knew how to be top guys in any situation when given the ball). Nash has never said he took credit for Austin directly, and even said in the article Steve did what he wasn't able to. The number of people in Vince's ear at the time was enormous. Nash gets all the credit though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 Was Mulligan ever good? I really like his sort of ducking forward punch that I've seen him done after he hulks up for his coemback. He had a pretty good jumping back elbow. His clothesline could be good depending on who was eating it (Blackwell for instance). I think he was fairly good at interacting with the crowd. Â But in general, he doesn't seem very good in the 80s, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Dave's response to the lifetime achievement argument: Â Eddy's title run was because he was the best guy on the brand at the time. I know parroting a Bruce Mitchell talking point may make you sound intelligent, but if you think about it, you know better. Â The only lifetime achievement award title run ever was Foley. Â Benoit wasn't a lifetime achievement award either, it was something different, but it's not worth arguing about and you could make a case for it. Â Like I said, referring that to Eddy is being totally ignorant of the climate at the time. I knew people in the company heavily pushing for Eddy as champion because he was the best guy on Smackdown a good 18 months before he won it, and I never heard the term lifetime achievement award as champion except in reference to Foley. The "you" in question is rovert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 I get Dave's point (I think), but this reads like Eddy was a more deserving champ than Foley. I know that's not necessarily what he intended, but it sort of reads that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Slice Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 The point it looks like he's making is that Eddy was someone who people saw as being a title contender I guess...well, maybe "naturally" isn't the best word. But I guess considering what Eddy had done up until his title win that he was seen as someone who could hang with the top guys. Â Which makes no sense because although Foley wasn't booked like it as times, I don't think anybody was really "surprised" that he won the title considering he had been amongst the top guys for about the same amount of time prior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Speaking for myself, but at the time Foley winning really didn't feel like THAT much of a shock. I was FAR more surprised to see Eddy beat Lesnar for the belt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Slice Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Funnily enough, considering where they were going with the Lesnar/Goldberg program, it was a GIVEN he won the belt that night. ESPECIALLY in the Latino-heavy Cow Palace crowd. Foley winning was more of a "FINALLY!" moment for me considering he had just taken the HIAC dive six months earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nell Santucci Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 I get Dave's point (I think), but this reads like Eddy was a more deserving champ than Foley. I know that's not necessarily what he intended, but it sort of reads that way Dave's point seems to be, relatively speaking, Eddy was the top guy of his brand whereas Foley wasn't the top guy of his promotion and that no one saw him as a top guy. In fairness, though Eddy was the top guy, no one felt Eddy was seen as the top guy by the WWE brass, which is why so many were shocked that he got the belt (over Lesnar of all people). Â So did Bruce Mitchell give the lifetime achievement argument? Â Concerning Chris Benoit, it's easy for one to generalize and see his title win as a lifetime achievement, but people forget just how over he was during that time frame. His match against Brock Lesnar is one of the better TV matches I've ever seen (easily ****1/2, told a super story, and Benoit was over in a totally sympathetic way without coming off as a pushover either). In truth, Benoit was going to be draw only as a chaser, but since the timing was at Wrestlemania, Benoit had to go over Triple H; the face had to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Loss outed as Bruce Mitchell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 In Excel arena about to see the wrestling, lots of Americans around. Â Lots of Iranians too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Ok, that's great. And yes, I see the argument for Eddy not being a lifetime achievement award. He was one of the most over guys in the company at the time. But if Benoit was "something different", I'd like for him to explain what exactly that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Loss outed as Bruce Mitchell! Looked on F4W, saw nothing of the sort. But I have no idea what to do with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts