Boondocks Kernoodle Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 You guys have a youtube link for this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpOtVXVIOQM but watch it quick, the last time it was up it got yanked pretty fast Nash has said before that fans were turning on Goldberg and were sick of the streak, and the proof was that the WWF was beating them at the time. That's not completely untrue, but it was mostly teenage smark types who were turning on the streak. I can see how some of the dummies in charge at the time wouldn't realize that WCW was failing despite Goldberg, not because of him, but there was a line in the Observer around that time that sums it up perfectly: Everyone is noticing just how rapidly Bill Goldberg is cooling off. A few months back his merchandise was huge, and now it's actually nicknamed "Coldberg."... I swear sometimes that WWF books to get everyone they can over and WCW has performers booking to make sure nobody but them and their friends get over. I mentioned to one prominent WCW performer about how Goldberg is flattening out, and the response was, "What do you expect when you have bookers in charge whose primary goal is to take his spot?" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 It always seemed to me like they were deliberately trying to sabotage Goldberg's title run. The best example is the bullshit they had him doing on PPV while he was champion: Bash at the Beach '98: meaningless title defense in the undercard vs Curt Hennig. Road Wild: meaningless battle royal. Fall Brawl: not even on the show. Halloween Havoc: a title match against DDP... which half the audience never saw, because the show went suspiciously long. World War III: not even on the show. Starrcade: losing to Nash. And they wonder why he wasn't so popular after all that bullshit? THAT SAID, after the initial rant, JR made a point of outlining three distinct categories of celebrity: "got it, and respected the business" (Ali, Kaufmann, Mayweather), "just there to make a quick buck" (Mr. T, Cyndi Lauper), "badly cast in their role" (Arquette).In what way did Andy Kaufmann "respect da biz" more than Arquette did? Hell, Andy's entire gimmick was that he didn't respect the business. A friend of mine watched this roundtable, and got really pissed off by how much JR was apparently harping on that respect-da-biz line; and since my friend was an indy worker himself, he knows how much a giant load of horseshit that line is anyway. As awful as the Arquette thing was (and as really fucking painful it was to see the graphic "former WCW champion" when he appeared on Raw awhile back), according to what I've read he donated all the money he made to Pillman's (and Spicolli's, maybe?) family.Pillman's and Owen's families. I've seen that mentioned repeatedly, guys like Heenan have confirmed it. Flair also told a neat story about Arquette. After Dewey won the belt, he was sitting around backstage in a daze. Flair happened to walk by him, and Arquette (clearly uncomfortable with what had just happened) asked "Ric... what do I do now?" Flair told him to do what every old world champ used to, wear the belt down to the hotel bar that night and buy everyone a round of drinks. Apparently David took his advice to the letter. I don't blame that guy personally for anything that happened, he was just a victim in the wrong place at the wrong time in the middle of some of the worst bullshit that wrestling has ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Great line. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 As awful as the Arquette thing was (and as really fucking painful it was to see the graphic "former WCW champion" when he appeared on Raw awhile back), according to what I've read he donated all the money he made to Pillman's (and Spicolli's, maybe?) family.Pillman's and Owen's families. I've seen that mentioned repeatedly, guys like Heenan have confirmed it. Flair also told a neat story about Arquette. After Dewey won the belt, he was sitting around backstage in a daze. Flair happened to walk by him, and Arquette (clearly uncomfortable with what had just happened) asked "Ric... what do I do now?" Flair told him to do what every old world champ used to, wear the belt down to the hotel bar that night and buy everyone a round of drinks. Apparently David took his advice to the letter. I don't blame that guy personally for anything that happened, he was just a victim in the wrong place at the wrong time in the middle of some of the worst bullshit that wrestling has ever seen. And Flair went on to say that by doing that David showed more respect to having the title than some other guys he'd seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Hell, Andy's entire gimmick was that he didn't respect the business. He got his brains beat in every time and did not win the Southern Title, or get proven right in the end. Kaufman put Lawler over at every turn, including playing the bitch to him on network television. This was not Snooki walking in, being drunk half the time then pinning someone who dominated the Diva's division for a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 It always seemed to me like they were deliberately trying to sabotage Goldberg's title run. The best example is the bullshit they had him doing on PPV while he was champion: Bash at the Beach '98: meaningless title defense in the undercard vs Curt Hennig. Road Wild: meaningless battle royal. Fall Brawl: not even on the show. Halloween Havoc: a title match against DDP... which half the audience never saw, because the show went suspiciously long. World War III: not even on the show. Starrcade: losing to Nash. And they wonder why he wasn't so popular after all that bullshit? I think there was kind of sort of a Hennig/Goldberg mini-feud. I would've thrown Saturn at him again but this was okay with me. The Battle Royal wasn't meaningless as he got revenge on the Giant for choke slamming him on an episode of Nitro earlier that month. I don't think the WCW Title ever got defended at World War III. They had him mowing down challengers on an almost weekly basis. He probably had more televised title defenses in his six month reign than just about any other WCW Champion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 THAT SAID, after the initial rant, JR made a point of outlining three distinct categories of celebrity: "got it, and respected the business" (Ali, Kaufmann, Mayweather), "just there to make a quick buck" (Mr. T, Cyndi Lauper), "badly cast in their role" (Arquette).In what way did Andy Kaufmann "respect da biz" more than Arquette did? Hell, Andy's entire gimmick was that he didn't respect the business.He didn't say that Arquette didn't respect the business. It had already been established (by DDP, with examples) that he did. But the clear category that Arquette belongs in (whether he respected the business or not) is "badly cast". Settle down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 He got his brains beat in every time and did not win the Southern Title, or get proven right in the end. Kaufman put Lawler over at every turn, including playing the bitch to him on network television. This was not Snooki walking in, being drunk half the time then pinning someone who dominated the Diva's division for a year. Doesn't matter, because the celebrity's not in control. It's all about the booker/promoter. Kaufmann had one of the greatest creative minds in wrestling to book his stuff; Arquette had one of the worst, and who the hell knows who booked the Snooki crap in the WWE's revolving committee of writers. These guys are just actors and they do what they're told; and if they show up drunk or otherwise don't do what they're told, it's up to the boss to straighten them out. He didn't say that Arquette didn't respect the business. It had already been established (by DDP, with examples) that he did. But the clear category that Arquette belongs in (whether he respected the business or not) is "badly cast".I didn't see it myself, I'm just going on my friend's description. If he didn't paint an accurate portrait of what was actually said, then nevermind. Settle down.Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Hell, Andy's entire gimmick was that he didn't respect the business. See the bolded portion From all accounts, Andy loved wrestling and had HUGE respect for the business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I've got DDP's back, if for no other reason, then the fact that he talked about bringing the various diamond dolls to the AWA, with several accompanying shots of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted March 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 "just there to make a quick buck" ( Cyndi Lauper),Which makes no sense considering that Cyndi Lauper was one of the biggest stars in music at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I was actually a little bit surprised at the treatment of Lauper on that show, because I had always been led to believe that she was one of the major catalysts used to ignite the rock 'n' roll wrestling era. Was that not the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't blame that guy personally for anything that happened, he was just a victim in the wrong place at the wrong time in the middle of some of the worst bullshit that wrestling has ever seen. Exactly, Arquette was a guy who liked wrestling and was caught into a shitstorm of nonsense called WCW Russo. Russo is the only one to blame, and Arquette probably had a lot more respect for pro-wrestling than say, Sable. And really, was Vince McMahon winning the Royal Rumble any better ? I know it's the thing that killed my interest in WWF after 10 years of being a mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 And really, was Vince McMahon winning the Royal Rumble any better ? I know it's the thing that killed my interest in WWF after 10 years of being a mark.It's hard for me to say on that one, because by the time I started watching Vince had already been wrestling. But I never minded him in the ring. He was a big guy with big muscles, and a natural charismatic performer whose matches were well-booked, and anyway he usually spent most of the time getting his ass kicked. Whenever he managed to beat anyone, it was typically portrayed as a total fluke or massive screwjob. Some people will still complain "but he's not a wrestler!", to which I reply: says who? He's obviously done his share of training, and has probably had a hundred matches by now. Yet some smarks will oddly cling to the idea that he's less of a real wrestler than some rookie kid in the curtain jerker. Besides, the fact that he's Vince F'n McMahon makes a big difference. He's the father of modern wrestling, period. He's not like Russo or Bischoff, some relatively untalented weenie who snuck in the back door of the business. If he wants to make himself a star, and if it succeeds (which it did, hugely) then I don't see the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Also, the WAY he won that Rumble has to be taken into account. Vince, I reckon from 97 till about 2002ish was perfectly booked. One of the all-time great heels for my money. Just willing to do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous he looks, for the good of the show. I have a lot of respect for Vince as a performer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 "just there to make a quick buck" ( Cyndi Lauper),Which makes no sense considering that Cyndi Lauper was one of the biggest stars in music at the time. That's completely backwards. It's not as if Lou Albano was a hot property before he did that video. It makes them feel good to think people needed their spotlight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I also have a hard time buying that Wendi Richter vs. Leilani Kai & Moolah would have been a money feud without Lauper's involvement. I reckon WWF made more money from Lauper than vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Also, the WAY he won that Rumble has to be taken into account.Absolutely. I thought it was great story-telling. Austin was on his way to Wrestlemania to regain the title he'd lost the previous September in McMahon-engineered chicanery; Vince McMahon cheated him out of it unworthily, not by being a better athlete, but by being the long-time thorn in Austin's side who used illegal means to snatch victory. It lead to a whole series of questions about what would happen next regarding the main event of Wrestlemania. At the time we were yet to see the clichéd "winner of the Royal Rumble puts his WM main-event shot on the line at the February PPV", so the drama was ramped up. Then we got Austin finally getting his hands cleanly on McMahon at the St Valentine's Day Massacre PPV, getting his shot back because McMahon had initially waived it so as not to battle The Rock, and then was informed that he would need to defend it against Austin otherwise it would revert to Stone Cold anyway, since he was the runner-up in the Rumble. It was a phenomenal few months of TV and I don't know how anyone could be driven to give up on the back of it given that it was so gripping, one of the few spells when I've perceived wrestling that way. Vince, I reckon from 97 till about 2002ish was perfectly booked ... I have a lot of respect for Vince as a performer. I absolutely concur, with the exception of his in-ring ability. He's not the most natural (Triple H and Jericho both laugh their heads off discussing this on the McMahon DVD) but he's a phenomenal modern-day talent for entertaining TV. I loved him at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 And really, was Vince McMahon winning the Royal Rumble any better ? I know it's the thing that killed my interest in WWF after 10 years of being a mark.It's hard for me to say on that one, because by the time I started watching Vince had already been wrestling. But I never minded him in the ring. He was a big guy with big muscles, and a natural charismatic performer whose matches were well-booked, and anyway he usually spent most of the time getting his ass kicked. Whenever he managed to beat anyone, it was typically portrayed as a total fluke or massive screwjob. Some people will still complain "but he's not a wrestler!", to which I reply: says who? He's obviously done his share of training, and has probably had a hundred matches by now. Yet some smarks will oddly cling to the idea that he's less of a real wrestler than some rookie kid in the curtain jerker. Besides, the fact that he's Vince F'n McMahon makes a big difference. He's the father of modern wrestling, period. He's not like Russo or Bischoff, some relatively untalented weenie who snuck in the back door of the business. If he wants to make himself a star, and if it succeeds (which it did, hugely) then I don't see the problem. He was a jacked up 55 year old with zero wresting match under his belt in 1999. Plus the way he won the Rumble made the entire thing a farce. It showed that pretty much you could do anything and it didn't matter because it was a show. And at the time, it pissed me off beyond belief because the Rumble was my favourite gimmick match, and it turned the whole thing into a soap opera. Of course, Russo is ten times worse, but still, there's no way McMahon should have been put into this "wrestler" spot to me. I didn't enjoy McMahon vs Austin at all either. I wanted to see some wrestling, I got bad action movie stuff with bad acting. I loved McMahon as a character in 1998, but as soon as I had to consider him as a wrestler, it was done. Winter of 99 killed my interest in WWF, and it really never recovered. Of course, Bischoff and Russo are a lot worse because they have even less legitimacy, but still. As far as "father of modern wrestling", well, I don't see the point. Should Jim Barnett have put the NWA belt on himself at some point, that would have been ok too ? I know people creams themselves about Vince, but to me, Vince working matches was mostly crap and killed my suspension of disbelief. Let's not mention the Vince vs Shane match, ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 It was a phenomenal few months of TV and I don't know how anyone could be driven to give up on the back of it given that it was so gripping, one of the few spells when I've perceived wrestling that way. To me it was the nadir of wrestling TV (of course I hadn't seen WCW Russo yet). Complete shit. No good wrestling on TV, a feud that already had overstayed its welcome by a good 6 months (really, the godawful stuff with Taker and Kane during the Fall followed by the terrible russoific Survivor Series). Drove me off completely. I couldn't stand the Rock back then, and Foley maiming himself with a hundred chair shots only to get a shit finish. Then you got soap opera crap like Taker kidnapping Stephy, the Higher Power angle (It was me, it was me all along), the shittiest WM ever (swerves galore). Then Owen's death totally depressed me. I quit after SummerSlam. In retrospect, it was too bad since Russo left a few months later, and the following year and a half was back at being really fun with some actual good wrestling thanks to the afflux from WCW, Rock coming into his own, Austin's return... Another reason why I hate Russo. Drove me away just before it got really good and fun again for a while. I wish I had quit after SummerSlam 98 (the apex of the MNW years for WWF to me) and came back with SummerSlam 99 (Jericho debuting). The 12 months between the two cards are just a black hole of suckiness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 The Attitude era was both great and horrible. Everyone is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 When did Angle debut? 2000 was a vintage year in WWF in my view. 2001 was good too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Late '99 is when he first appeared on television, but he'd been working some dark matches (including one with Owen weeks before his death). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I was actually a little bit surprised at the treatment of Lauper on that show, because I had always been led to believe that she was one of the major catalysts used to ignite the rock 'n' roll wrestling era. Was that not the case?That was incredibly bizarre. She came in as a favor to Albano, who she had become friendly with doing the video and then MS charity work. I have no idea what type of payoffs she got, but on top of the a few TV tapings, those big MSG shows, WM, and SNMEs, she also randomly worked the infamous San Juan rainstorm show after being off TV for months. She's always come off as a fan, she served as a boom catalyst, etc etc. I wonder who shaped Ross's opinion and when. I doubt Vince, even on one of his crazier days, would be so negative on her. Maybe something via Watts since Richter went straight from a run in Mid-South to the WWF Lauper stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 She's so unusual! In not respecting the business, Cyndi Lauper showed her true colors. But she still cashed her paychecks, so I guess money changes everything. ... she also randomly worked the infamous San Juan rainstorm show after being off TV for months. She drove all night? 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.