WWE Network... It's Here

[El-P]

 

Didn't know what

Vince "didn't know" that Bischoff supposedly never would have had Bret throw the belt in the trash because of the lawsuit.

 

Still. The whole "Madusa throwing the belt is the first major blow of the MNW" is a brand new narrative that magically appeared because of Madusa's HoF induction. Now we're getting even sillier with "Madusa throwing the belt is the reason why Montreal happened", when infact, yeah, the very fact Madusa threw down the belt and the following lawsuits made the very idea of WCW doing the same shit again with Bret Hart quite insane. WCW were stupid, but not that stupid.

[SteveJRogers]

EDIT : oh man, and now we have to hear again that Madusa trashing the belt was the start of the MNW. Funny how it wasn't even a blip on the radar for ever but since they got back to her now it's like the biggest event ever. That company...

1) It did lead to the aforementioned lawsuit. Unlike the WCW Big Gold (which was spat on), it was referred to its exact name, so it was a big deal at the time. WCW did use it often as a "memorable shots fired moment" in branded best of Nitro packages.

 

2) Watch that Lonley Road of Faith WWF history video produced in early 2002, it is spotlighted on there as a "bad times" clip. So you really can't sit on your "WWE revisionism bull shit high horse" when they used it as soon as they had the rights to the clip!

[El-P]

It wasn't the start of the MNW. Lex Luger showing up on Nitro was. Bischoff giving out results happened way before that point. Yeah, it did lead to a lawsuit. Then the Billionnaire Ted stuff happened. Then the other lawsuits about Razor & Diesel.

 

Madusa thrashing the belt wasn't that big of a deal when it happened really, apart from a "holy fuck" moment. It was given a brand new meaning this year, as part of the brand new WWE narrative of Alundra Blayze being a big deal and shit. Which, she really wasn't. Like, ever.

[SteveJRogers]

 

 

Didn't know what

Vince "didn't know" that Bischoff supposedly never would have had Bret throw the belt in the trash because of the lawsuit.

 

Still. The whole "Madusa throwing the belt is the first major blow of the MNW" is a brand new narrative that magically appeared because of Madusa's HoF induction. Now we're getting even sillier with "Madusa throwing the belt is the reason why Montreal happened", when infact, yeah, the very fact Madusa threw down the belt and the following lawsuits made the very idea of WCW doing the same shit again with Bret Hart quite insane. WCW were stupid, but not that stupid.

 

 

The ONLY way I can call bullshit on it influencing Montreal is Vince not trusting that Bret Hart would be that good of a former WWF solider not to give in to Bischoff's demands to run a "Title Belt on TV angle", brand new boss or not.

 

Vince was that desperate and paranoid, and Bischoff was that much of a petty narcissistic bully that Vince would buy pulling it off, pending lawsuit or not.

 

Its not that hard to believe considering this is carnie style bull shit we are dealing with!

[El-P]

Vince was that desperate and paranoid, and Bischoff was that much of a petty narcissistic bully that Vince would buy pulling it off, pending lawsuit or not.

 

Its not that hard to believe considering this is carnie style bull shit we are dealing with!

 

I can agree with this. Both made pretty stupid decisions at the time.

[SteveJRogers]

It wasn't the start of the MNW. Lex Luger showing up on Nitro was. Bischoff giving out results happened way before that point. Yeah, it did lead to a lawsuit. Then the Billionnaire Ted stuff happened. Then the other lawsuits about Razor & Diesel.

 

Madusa thrashing the belt wasn't that big of a deal when it happened really, apart from a "holy fuck" moment. It was given a brand new meaning this year, as part of the brand new WWE narrative of Alundra Blayze being a big deal and shit. Which, she really wasn't. Like, ever.

 

Luger didn't show up throwing his US Express/Allied Powers garb into a dumpster fire, though, he just showed up as if the last few years never happened and he was the same Lex Luger that lost to Sting at Superbrawl his last night with the company. It was a holy shit moment, but it was like any other random former guy showing up. IOW, its not treated as the same "this was a fuck you" moment to the WWF the way the title in the trash was. Hence the latter, and not the former was shown in that video package I mentioned.

[stro]

They've always mentioned Madusa dropping the title in the trash in literally everything about the MNW since The Rise and Fall of WCW. Years before Madusa was involved with the company again. The talking point of Vince not wanting to let Bret go with the title because of it has also been around since then. Neither just suddenly popped up when Madusa went into the HOF.

[The Chief]

WWE wanted Madusa back in 1998. The whole bad blood thing is something they've flipped on a million times.

[El-P]

Of course it was mentionned. But it was never made that important before th HoF.

 

Luger showing up on Nitro was infinitely more important. Luger's profile as a star improved ten times just by jumping back to WCW. He was over as all hell during the glory days of WCW. He popped ratings when he won the title from Hogan. Madusa was an afterthought (although she has been used much better over there than in WWF too, before Russo showed up that is).

[C.S.]

It was given a brand new meaning this year, as part of the brand new WWE narrative of Alundra Blayze being a big deal and shit. Which, she really wasn't. Like, ever.

Alundra was never really a big deal, but it's Bizarro World to think that Vince reinstated the Women's division in 1994-95 (or whatever year it was), centered the entire division around the former Madusa, and brought in a bunch of Japanese killers for her to feud with. All of that goes so against the grain of what WWE has ever been about.

 

Like I said before, Alundra was miscast as a babyface. She was far more interesting as a heel and a rare example of someone WCW used better (in 1991-92 anyway), even if she rarely wrestled then.

[El-P]

She was dull as hell as a babyface in WWF. If at least she would have kept her MadUSA identity, she could have been the counterpart to Lex Luger. Well, we know how well it worked out for Luger, but those were the years. The name Alundra Blayze always sounded contrived to me (and back then I had never saw the girl before).

 

Her first Mania match was basically a competitive squash against Lelani Kai who had not been around since the Glamour Girls days, not built at all. Speaking of which, the idea that the american audience had "never seen anything like Madusa" before is kinda funny when you think about those matches against the JBA. Kai was certainly a better worker than Madusa in her prime.

 

And I like Debbie, but like you said her better days were in WCW working along Heyman. I did enjoy her and Mona working around a washed up Savage too though.

[Fando]

Just saw the Legends episode. This is how JBL presented the Montreal tie-in, which makes it sound even more ridiculous.

 

Eric Bischoff at that time couldn't have done anything because of the lawsuit. Vince McMahon didn't know that

 

 

Making it sound like Vince was somehow oblivious he was suing them in the first place. I dunno if he misspoke there or what but it's still gross they keep pushing this narrative that it was plausible 20 years later. Ironically this comes just after they finish talking about people drinking the kool-aid.

[sek69]

The official excuse for Montreal now is Vince was forced to do what he did because he was afraid Bret would show up on Nitro with the belt. That ignores the fact that Bret had several more weeks left on his contract (he offered to drop the belt at the December PPV) but that Vince's own lawsuits would prevent WCW from doing anything with the belt.

 

Remember that the first lawsuit over belts was WCW's from Ric Flair showing up on WWF TV billed as the Real World Champion with the big gold belt. Then there was also WWF suing them over portraying Hall and Nash as WWF invaders in their initial appearances on Nitro. It was clear at that point that neither company would do anything implying usage of the other's intellectual property after that.

 

The Madusa excuse is just another example of history being written by the winners and making Vince seem like anything than the paranoid mess he was at the time.

[cpst]

Sounds interesting. A legit Madusa shoot interview would be fascinanting thanks to her multiple experiences : AWA, WCW in the early 90's, mid-90's WWF, Nitro era, and of course the whole Japan years. Where is Sean Oliver when you need him (instead of doing yet again some Youshoot with current former WWE guys with shit to say)

She did a shoot for Stardom World and they are posting a new segment of the interview every week or so. The first episode was about her relationship to Japan, and the second is about her life before wrestling. I don't know how much further than her AJW stint they're going to go.

[stro]

The official excuse for Montreal now is Vince was forced to do what he did because he was afraid Bret would show up on Nitro with the belt. That ignores the fact that Bret had several more weeks left on his contract (he offered to drop the belt at the December PPV) but that Vince's own lawsuits would prevent WCW from doing anything with the belt.

 

Remember that the first lawsuit over belts was WCW's from Ric Flair showing up on WWF TV billed as the Real World Champion with the big gold belt. Then there was also WWF suing them over portraying Hall and Nash as WWF invaders in their initial appearances on Nitro. It was clear at that point that neither company would do anything implying usage of the other's intellectual property after that.

 

The Madusa excuse is just another example of history being written by the winners and making Vince seem like anything than the paranoid mess he was at the time.

 

Make up a story that makes him sound like a paranoid mess to...make him not sound like a paranoid mess?

[C.S.]

To be fair, the "Vince being afraid Bret would show up with the belt" narrative was around in 1997 too.

[SteveJRogers]

To be fair, the "Vince being afraid Bret would show up with the belt" narrative was around in 1997 too.

 

Geez, that was the whole POINT of Montreal! Nothing else.

 

Neither Vince nor Shawn trusted Bret in "doing the right thing" based on Bret being so against jobbing to Shawn.

 

Other wise, why the hell would they have gone through the trouble of making sure the belt ended up around Shawn Michaels at the end of the night?

 

In hindsight, sure, Bret even suggested dropping it to anyone but Shawn, but that was the sticking point, Vince wanted Shawn to have the title at that point, Bret would do the honors to anyone BUT Shawn, and Vince was afraid Bischoff was too much of a POS that he'd have Bret go back on his word, and show up on Nitro with the WWF title. Plain and simple.

 

The only way you could argue this is a "new narrative" to fit the warming of relations with persons wronged in the past is if you buy any theory that the whole screwjob was a work all along (and if you think Vince was going to let a shitty state of morale in the company and locker room get worse than it was that year due to Hart leaving through a screwjob, there is a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd could sell to you), which of course is a whole new kettle of fish anyway!

[sek69]

 

The official excuse for Montreal now is Vince was forced to do what he did because he was afraid Bret would show up on Nitro with the belt. That ignores the fact that Bret had several more weeks left on his contract (he offered to drop the belt at the December PPV) but that Vince's own lawsuits would prevent WCW from doing anything with the belt.

 

Remember that the first lawsuit over belts was WCW's from Ric Flair showing up on WWF TV billed as the Real World Champion with the big gold belt. Then there was also WWF suing them over portraying Hall and Nash as WWF invaders in their initial appearances on Nitro. It was clear at that point that neither company would do anything implying usage of the other's intellectual property after that.

 

The Madusa excuse is just another example of history being written by the winners and making Vince seem like anything than the paranoid mess he was at the time.

 

Make up a story that makes him sound like a paranoid mess to...make him not sound like a paranoid mess?

 

 

 

Make up a story that makes it sound like Eric was actually planning on doing it instead of the truth that even if he did want to (and lets be honest he probably did), there would be a hundred Turner lawyers shutting it down before it happened.

[Fando]

 

To be fair, the "Vince being afraid Bret would show up with the belt" narrative was around in 1997 too.

 

Geez, that was the whole POINT of Montreal! Nothing else.

 

Neither Vince nor Shawn trusted Bret in "doing the right thing" based on Bret being so against jobbing to Shawn.

 

Other wise, why the hell would they have gone through the trouble of making sure the belt ended up around Shawn Michaels at the end of the night?

 

In hindsight, sure, Bret even suggested dropping it to anyone but Shawn, but that was the sticking point, Vince wanted Shawn to have the title at that point, Bret would do the honors to anyone BUT Shawn, and Vince was afraid Bischoff was too much of a POS that he'd have Bret go back on his word, and show up on Nitro with the WWF title. Plain and simple.

 

The only way you could argue this is a "new narrative" to fit the warming of relations with persons wronged in the past is if you buy any theory that the whole screwjob was a work all along (and if you think Vince was going to let a shitty state of morale in the company and locker room get worse than it was that year due to Hart leaving through a screwjob, there is a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd could sell to you), which of course is a whole new kettle of fish anyway!

 

 

Bret supposedly agreed to dropping it to Shawn, but a month later, after Montreal. Even after Shawn had insulted him in front of the locker room by saying he'd never return the favor. And Michaels turned it down. The "Bret wouldn't do the honors" for Shawn thing is the same Why Bret Why angle they broadcast on RAW that's meant to put most of the blame on him. No one is arguing this narrative is "new" just that it's crazy the company is still clinging to it decades later just so Vince can save face, looking "reasonably paranoid" rather than just out of his mind at the time.

[SteveJRogers]

 

 

The official excuse for Montreal now is Vince was forced to do what he did because he was afraid Bret would show up on Nitro with the belt. That ignores the fact that Bret had several more weeks left on his contract (he offered to drop the belt at the December PPV) but that Vince's own lawsuits would prevent WCW from doing anything with the belt.

 

Remember that the first lawsuit over belts was WCW's from Ric Flair showing up on WWF TV billed as the Real World Champion with the big gold belt. Then there was also WWF suing them over portraying Hall and Nash as WWF invaders in their initial appearances on Nitro. It was clear at that point that neither company would do anything implying usage of the other's intellectual property after that.

 

The Madusa excuse is just another example of history being written by the winners and making Vince seem like anything than the paranoid mess he was at the time.

 

Make up a story that makes him sound like a paranoid mess to...make him not sound like a paranoid mess?

 

 

 

Make up a story that makes it sound like Eric was actually planning on doing it instead of the truth that even if he did want to (and lets be honest he probably did), there would be a hundred Turner lawyers shutting it down before it happened.

 

 

Like CS said, this had been part of the Montreal narrative, official or linked to the WWF or not, SINCE THE STORY WAS BREAKING!

 

Unless Montreal was a work all along, there is no way to justify this stance as being "made up in recent years."

 

Especially considering that yes, it does paint Vince as the desperate and paranoid loon that he was at the time, unless its to throw you off the scent of it being a work (LOL) why on Earth would it be part of any narrative, official or not?

[sek69]

It wasn't made up in recent years, it's been pushed hard in recent years as the justification for Vince doing what he did.

 

Based on the multitudes who keep @'ing Dave on Twitter about it, it seems a lot of the younger generation is convinced that Bret was 100% going to show up on Nitro with the belt and poor Vince had no other choice but to do what he did. No matter how many times it's pointed out that there was zero chance of that ever happening, each time they release a new documentary it just cements it further in the minds of people who weren't following at the time.

 

Yes it makes Vince look desperate, but it also makes him look right in the eyes of the fans. I'd wager that's more important to him. Just like they push the narrative that WCW was the evil empire bent on sending the McMahons to poverty.

[joeg]

I'm of the opinion that Montreal was a work. And have been for a long time. It just makes more sense than anything else. For it to be a work, only 5 or 6 people would need to be in on it. If it were a shoot, why would there have been a documentary film crew there? Two wrestling documentaries came out in a 3 year span that made Vince McMahon look like the sleaziest human being alive. And both had full access to the WWF. That wasn't an accident. Both Wrestling With Shadows and the WWF and many segments in Beyond the Mat are complete works IMO. If it were a shoot, wouldn't it make more sense to put Ken Shamrock in there? Then have Shamrock drop the belt to Michaels the next PPV. Michaels doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would do well if things went south in a shoot. Also if it were a shoot, how did Owen Hart stay for the next two years? Davey Boy and Neidhart left, but Owen stayed. Also WWF came out of Montreal way ahead than if Bret had simply dropped the title. There was nuclear level heat, white heat, fan jump a gaurd rail and stab somebody heat on Michaels, Vince McMahon, and the company in general. No ordinary title change could have created that. Plus the way they have been talking about it for the past 20 years non stop is so self congradulitory. To me, it has to be a work.

[SteveJRogers]

That also assumes WWF knew how bad the locker room was getting in WCW, and signing Bret in the middle of the hottest angle in YEARS would contribute to the comany's downfall.

 

Like they were banking on them dicking around with Bret in non-sensical mid-card crap, turning to be a lap dog, etc. Banking on WCW's creative pissing away the white hot Sting vs the nWo angle, as well as badly mishandling Goldberg's entire reign as champion (never mind Goldberg had just debuted in the fall of 1997, the WWF somehow knew WCW would piss all over something that organic) and the end of said reign.

 

1998 WCW doesn't happen, to quote The Rock, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE WWF WAS DOING!

 

Yeah Austin was hot, but somehow, WCW was still leading the War. See THAT's where the revisionism comes in. Yeah, Austin v McMahon on Raw did end the ratings streak, but it wasn't until the wheels were going off WCW by the end of 1998 that the WWF would never be topped again. That is too long of a gambit to play in November of 1997, especially with all the negativity and gloom that the company was under in weeks following.

[Bix]

I'm of the opinion that Montreal was a work. And have been for a long time. It just makes more sense than anything else. For it to be a work, only 5 or 6 people would need to be in on it. If it were a shoot, why would there have been a documentary film crew there? Two wrestling documentaries came out in a 3 year span that made Vince McMahon look like the sleaziest human being alive. And both had full access to the WWF. That wasn't an accident. Both Wrestling With Shadows and the WWF and many segments in Beyond the Mat are complete works IMO. If it were a shoot, wouldn't it make more sense to put Ken Shamrock in there? Then have Shamrock drop the belt to Michaels the next PPV. Michaels doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would do well if things went south in a shoot. Also if it were a shoot, how did Owen Hart stay for the next two years? Davey Boy and Neidhart left, but Owen stayed. Also WWF came out of Montreal way ahead than if Bret had simply dropped the title. There was nuclear level heat, white heat, fan jump a gaurd rail and stab somebody heat on Michaels, Vince McMahon, and the company in general. No ordinary title change could have created that. Plus the way they have been talking about it for the past 20 years non stop is so self congradulitory. To me, it has to be a work.

 

Nope.

 

In the Owen Hart wrongful death lawsuit, WWE, I guess because of how strong the family's case was and a lack of options, decided to base their defense on the idea that Bret was masterminding the lawsuit as revenge for Montreal (yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds). This was addressed under oath in depositions, where Bret refuted the idea and, if the whole thing was a work, could have just admitted it and blown WWE's stupid idea to pieces. But he didn't. because it wasn't a work.

[joeg]

That also assumes WWF knew how bad the locker room was getting in WCW, and signing Bret in the middle of the hottest angle in YEARS would contribute to the comany's downfall.

 

Like they were banking on them dicking around with Bret in non-sensical mid-card crap, turning to be a lap dog, etc. Banking on WCW's creative pissing away the white hot Sting vs the nWo angle, as well as badly mishandling Goldberg's entire reign as champion (never mind Goldberg had just debuted in the fall of 1997, the WWF somehow knew WCW would piss all over something that organic) and the end of said reign.

 

1998 WCW doesn't happen, to quote The Rock, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE WWF WAS DOING!

 

Yeah Austin was hot, but somehow, WCW was still leading the War. See THAT's where the revisionism comes in. Yeah, Austin v McMahon on Raw did end the ratings streak, but it wasn't until the wheels were going off WCW by the end of 1998 that the WWF would never be topped again. That is too long of a gambit to play in November of 1997, especially with all the negativity and gloom that the company was under in weeks following.

 

It doesn't assume all of that. It assumes that Bret was leaving and they were willing to let him leave rather than match the WCW offer. It also assumes that they needed some really big angle to make up for him leaving.

 

 

 

I'm of the opinion that Montreal was a work. And have been for a long time. It just makes more sense than anything else. For it to be a work, only 5 or 6 people would need to be in on it. If it were a shoot, why would there have been a documentary film crew there? Two wrestling documentaries came out in a 3 year span that made Vince McMahon look like the sleaziest human being alive. And both had full access to the WWF. That wasn't an accident. Both Wrestling With Shadows and the WWF and many segments in Beyond the Mat are complete works IMO. If it were a shoot, wouldn't it make more sense to put Ken Shamrock in there? Then have Shamrock drop the belt to Michaels the next PPV. Michaels doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would do well if things went south in a shoot. Also if it were a shoot, how did Owen Hart stay for the next two years? Davey Boy and Neidhart left, but Owen stayed. Also WWF came out of Montreal way ahead than if Bret had simply dropped the title. There was nuclear level heat, white heat, fan jump a gaurd rail and stab somebody heat on Michaels, Vince McMahon, and the company in general. No ordinary title change could have created that. Plus the way they have been talking about it for the past 20 years non stop is so self congradulitory. To me, it has to be a work.

 

Nope.

 

In the Owen Hart wrongful death lawsuit, WWE, I guess because of how strong the family's case was and a lack of options, decided to base their defense on the idea that Bret was masterminding the lawsuit as revenge for Montreal (yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds). This was addressed under oath in depositions, where Bret refuted the idea and, if the whole thing was a work, could have just admitted it and blown WWE's stupid idea to pieces. But he didn't. because it wasn't a work.

 

 

Yeah, I don't know about that. How many wrestlers have maintained kayfabe under oath? We've all seen the video of Hogan trying to split hairs and stay in character while talking about the size of his penis while under oath.