clintthecrippler Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 On the 2nd point, Vince was amazing at taking older guys and repackaging with cartoonish gimmicks and turning them into bigger stars and making more money for them and him than they ever did before. I feel like if he'd gotten his hands on Bruiser and Crusher in the mid 80's he would have done huge business with them by turning them into exaggerated over the top cartoon characters. Verne never had that kind of vision of stuff that could get over nationally, and to kids, and to people who didn't necessarily like wrestling Dammit, now I am imagining an alternate reality where Bruiser and Crusher arrive in 1986 WWF as a "proto Bushwhackers" sort of tag team, and it sounds kind of awesome. Bulldogs and Harts/Valentine-Beefcake tearing it up as the main event tag team program while undercards and Midwest shows are populated with Bruiser and Crusher schticking it up against Sheik/Volkoff, Bundy/Studd, and The Moondogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 How much more over exaggerated and over the top could McMahon have made Bruiser and Crusher? They were cartoon characters already. It would have been interesting though, they'd have probably ended up being booked somewhat like Dusty was a few years later, protected, and always feuding with top guys, but kept well away from the title picture. I've always wondered how Nick Bockwinkel would have done in mid-80s WWF. He could really still go at the time, the famous one hour draw with Hennig was at the end of 1985, I think he'd have been a perfect fit for either the "King" gimmick or the Million Dollar Man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 On the 2nd point, Vince was amazing at taking older guys and repackaging with cartoonish gimmicks and turning them into bigger stars and making more money for them and him than they ever did before. I feel like if he'd gotten his hands on Bruiser and Crusher in the mid 80's he would have done huge business with them by turning them into exaggerated over the top cartoon characters. Verne never had that kind of vision of stuff that could get over nationally, and to kids, and to people who didn't necessarily like wrestling Dammit, now I am imagining an alternate reality where Bruiser and Crusher arrive in 1986 WWF as a "proto Bushwhackers" sort of tag team, and it sounds kind of awesome. Bulldogs and Harts/Valentine-Beefcake tearing it up as the main event tag team program while undercards and Midwest shows are populated with Bruiser and Crusher schticking it up against Sheik/Volkoff, Bundy/Studd, and The Moondogs. The Crusher did work some dates in AWA markets for the WWF in late 1986 and 1987. See: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantherwagner Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 Kevin Nash seems like someone who is probably at the very least a decent guy outside of wrestling, but if I was in wrestling, I would hate him. Wrestling does seem to bring out the worst in people. Twitter has completely killed the mystique of Kevin Nash. Only a few years ago he was considered to be one of the most brilliant and calculating negotiators ever in the industry. Now it's hard to see him as anything other than an insecure man who is still making great money and should have an awesome life but often feels lonely and gets drunk and rants (with terrible grammar) on twitter about stupid shit. That's when you realise that he was such a great negotiatior because he was a good looking, tall, muscular, eloquent and personable guy. That does not mean that he was smarter or a better negotiator than Sid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantherwagner Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 How much more over exaggerated and over the top could McMahon have made Bruiser and Crusher? They were cartoon characters already. It would have been interesting though, they'd have probably ended up being booked somewhat like Dusty was a few years later, protected, and always feuding with top guys, but kept well away from the title picture. I've always wondered how Nick Bockwinkel would have done in mid-80s WWF. He could really still go at the time, the famous one hour draw with Hennig was at the end of 1985, I think he'd have been a perfect fit for either the "King" gimmick or the Million Dollar Man. I imagine that Vince would have booked Bruiser and Crusher like a protected version of the Bushwhackers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantherwagner Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 My pick: Brock Lesnar. I understand the "big star" and "train wreck" appeal he brings to the table, but I just don't care. He's dead weight on the mic, To say nothing about his unwillingness to learn or grow as a "character." Perfect example, the reason Heyman is back despite a severly burnt bridge between Paul and the company, as well as Paul being DONE with the business, moved on and was in a healthier place to the point that he was never going back to ANY promotion. BUT Brock hated talking SO much, and didn't want to start fresh with a brand new mouthpiece, he demamded they bring back Heyman. It worked out of course, with Heyman adding more credentials to a HOF career, but it was only because Lesnar wanted nothing to do with talking and needed Heyman specifically. I'm curious but do you think that a talking version of Brock would be a better character? I understand the promotion's goal is to churn out TV to sell to all the different markets but my problem with characters like Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins or Dean Ambrose is that they get too much talking time. Even Heyman is very repetitive and he is one of the best talkers out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 I don't understand the Brock criticisms at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 Moolah is up there right now, especially after seeing her HOF induction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 Moolah is up there right now, especially after seeing her HOF induction. yeah surprised it took this long for her to come up. i think if you looked at who is given the most universally negative treatment in shoot interviews, she'd be up there with buzz sawyer. those two would probably finish ahead of russo & warrior from what i know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 What bothers me about it is that it hasn't hurt her reputations with either casuals or the history as told by WWE. Her game ended and she won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 The Moolah shit pisses me off. I brought it up somewhere else and people hadn't heard of it and then acted like it was some internet rumor mongering even after you point out it's well documented. She's on the Invader level of scumbags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Solomon Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 Cactus Jack and Vince McMahon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 Cactus Jack and Vince McMahon Are Mick Foley, Mankind and Dude Love okay in your book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJRogers Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 My pick: Brock Lesnar. I understand the "big star" and "train wreck" appeal he brings to the table, but I just don't care. He's dead weight on the mic, To say nothing about his unwillingness to learn or grow as a "character." Perfect example, the reason Heyman is back despite a severly burnt bridge between Paul and the company, as well as Paul being DONE with the business, moved on and was in a healthier place to the point that he was never going back to ANY promotion. BUT Brock hated talking SO much, and didn't want to start fresh with a brand new mouthpiece, he demamded they bring back Heyman. It worked out of course, with Heyman adding more credentials to a HOF career, but it was only because Lesnar wanted nothing to do with talking and needed Heyman specifically. I'm curious but do you think that a talking version of Brock would be a better character? I understand the promotion's goal is to churn out TV to sell to all the different markets but my problem with characters like Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins or Dean Ambrose is that they get too much talking time. Even Heyman is very repetitive and he is one of the best talkers out there. The comment was about Brock as a human being. My response was that he didn't give a shit about the icy relations between his good friend and IRL buisness partner and his new place of employment. Nor did it seem that he had much consideration for his friend's state of mind of putting his time in the buisness behind him and feelings of "I'M FREE!" and had him brought back Godfather III style, because it made Lesnar comfortable, and Lesnar knew the company would do whatever he demanded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 My pick: Brock Lesnar. I understand the "big star" and "train wreck" appeal he brings to the table, but I just don't care. He's dead weight on the mic, To say nothing about his unwillingness to learn or grow as a "character." Perfect example, the reason Heyman is back despite a severly burnt bridge between Paul and the company, as well as Paul being DONE with the business, moved on and was in a healthier place to the point that he was never going back to ANY promotion. BUT Brock hated talking SO much, and didn't want to start fresh with a brand new mouthpiece, he demamded they bring back Heyman. It worked out of course, with Heyman adding more credentials to a HOF career, but it was only because Lesnar wanted nothing to do with talking and needed Heyman specifically. I'm curious but do you think that a talking version of Brock would be a better character? I understand the promotion's goal is to churn out TV to sell to all the different markets but my problem with characters like Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins or Dean Ambrose is that they get too much talking time. Even Heyman is very repetitive and he is one of the best talkers out there. The comment was about Brock as a human being. My response was that he didn't give a shit about the icy relations between his good friend and IRL buisness partner and his new place of employment. Nor did it seem that he had much consideration for his friend's state of mind of putting his time in the buisness behind him and feelings of "I'M FREE!" and had him brought back Godfather III style, because it made Lesnar comfortable, and Lesnar knew the company would do whatever he demanded. I don't think Heyman would be there if he didn't want to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 My pick: Brock Lesnar. I understand the "big star" and "train wreck" appeal he brings to the table, but I just don't care. He's dead weight on the mic, To say nothing about his unwillingness to learn or grow as a "character." Perfect example, the reason Heyman is back despite a severly burnt bridge between Paul and the company, as well as Paul being DONE with the business, moved on and was in a healthier place to the point that he was never going back to ANY promotion. BUT Brock hated talking SO much, and didn't want to start fresh with a brand new mouthpiece, he demamded they bring back Heyman. It worked out of course, with Heyman adding more credentials to a HOF career, but it was only because Lesnar wanted nothing to do with talking and needed Heyman specifically. I'm curious but do you think that a talking version of Brock would be a better character? I understand the promotion's goal is to churn out TV to sell to all the different markets but my problem with characters like Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins or Dean Ambrose is that they get too much talking time. Even Heyman is very repetitive and he is one of the best talkers out there. The comment was about Brock as a human being. My response was that he didn't give a shit about the icy relations between his good friend and IRL buisness (sic) partner and his new place of employment. Nor did it seem that he had much consideration for his friend's state of mind of putting his time in the buisness (sic) behind him and feelings of "I'M FREE!" and had him brought back Godfather III style, because it made Lesnar comfortable, and Lesnar knew the company would do whatever he demanded. Why would Heyman not want to go back there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 I am not sure if that is Brock not wanting to do the talking segments so much as not wanting to deal with them heavily scripting him and all the bullshit that goes with it. He is a pretty good talker when he wants to be, he was very good at it in his UFC days. And for what it's worth, Paul scripts his own promos, Lesnar could have gotten away with demanding that he'd do his own. Which again goes back to the point, they bent over backwards to appease him by bringing in someone who wanted no part of returning any time soon, and while the hatchet was easily buried at the point of his return, it does seem to speak to Lesnar having a lack of self awareness or social skills to consider the factors behind Heyman's departure at the end of 2006, and realize that it is a subject that probably should have been drawn out, and done with more tact (i.e. Triple H opening conversation channels for a possible HOF induction) than just a spur of the moment demand. I mean, think about it. A guy gets fired due to one last clash with management, after YEARS of constant butting heads and clashing egos with those above you. Then 5 years later, with the same people in charge, the company decides "you know, we really could use that guy back, even though we both were dicks and hate each other." Simply because the guy's protegee gets hired by the company and "demands" that the guy get a job (and not a "if I have a job, then you'll have one" deal). Sure hatchets can get buried, but only in entertainment, and sports (see Martin, Bill and Steinbrenner, George) would it be that fast, but you'd think in real life versions of that scenario, things like that would take weeks, maybe months of ego massaging negotiations, and not spur of the moment "GET HIM HERE NOW" demands. This seems like a really silly complaint to me. Why should it bother you that Heyman & the McMahons were able to just get over their issues? I don't see why they would have needed months for this if they are grown, professional adults who are more interested in doing business than holding on to old grudges. Vince has shown himself to be quite capable of doing that. You can say he does it when there is money to be made but sometimes there isn't even any money to make like him bringing Sable back in 2002 or 2003. I think as much as people are ready for him to "just die already' it's something that is going to be sorely missed when he's gone because I don't think HHH is that same kind of guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJRogers Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 My pick: Brock Lesnar. I understand the "big star" and "train wreck" appeal he brings to the table, but I just don't care. He's dead weight on the mic, To say nothing about his unwillingness to learn or grow as a "character." Perfect example, the reason Heyman is back despite a severly burnt bridge between Paul and the company, as well as Paul being DONE with the business, moved on and was in a healthier place to the point that he was never going back to ANY promotion. BUT Brock hated talking SO much, and didn't want to start fresh with a brand new mouthpiece, he demamded they bring back Heyman. It worked out of course, with Heyman adding more credentials to a HOF career, but it was only because Lesnar wanted nothing to do with talking and needed Heyman specifically. I'm curious but do you think that a talking version of Brock would be a better character? I understand the promotion's goal is to churn out TV to sell to all the different markets but my problem with characters like Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins or Dean Ambrose is that they get too much talking time. Even Heyman is very repetitive and he is one of the best talkers out there. The comment was about Brock as a human being. My response was that he didn't give a shit about the icy relations between his good friend and IRL buisness partner and his new place of employment. Nor did it seem that he had much consideration for his friend's state of mind of putting his time in the buisness behind him and feelings of "I'M FREE!" and had him brought back Godfather III style, because it made Lesnar comfortable, and Lesnar knew the company would do whatever he demanded. I don't think Heyman would be there if he didn't want to be. Agreed. Its more the principle of things in entertainment industries that are common place that wouldn't fly in real life, and be considered against the norms expected professional behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 No, I think it's just you looking for something that's not there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 I don't understand why you think it's "expected professional behavior" for months of ego stroking for former employees to return to a former place of work. When does that ever happen? I don't even think it's that uncommon for employees to leave a place of business in a less than ideal way after a long period of building frustration and then coming back a few years later once everyone has kind of gotten over it. I've seen it multiple times in my own place of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Heyman has been very open about the fact that he loves his current role and thinks he's having the best run of his career. He's said this on multiple podcasts. He has creative freedom and he doesn't have to stress about anything but his own stuff, and he's said repeatedly that he thinks about what he wants to say in a promo, presents it to them, and is very rarely told "you can't do/say that" and only gets minor tweaks in verbiage sometimes Also, he's also said repeatedly that if it wasn't for Brock he wouldn't have come back, and he's grateful for it, with not a hint of being dragged kicking or screaming. He seems very, very happy. And I also think he's in Brock's ear when it comes to everything, and whether or not he stays or goes Like others have said, this is a bizarre criticism on Brock and Heyman and looking for something that isn't there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I also don't know that if someone else had won the war, they could have sustained a healthy business as long as Vince has. I love Bill Watts, but he was out of touch with the public in 1992 (at least at first) and there's no way he'd still be working as much as Vince does in 2015. And he's the best alternative candidate to win the war. Jerry Jarrett I do think understood the audience at large pretty well, but he wasn't willing to spend money to make money. Everyone else was so overwhelmingly stuck in their ways (which says a lot because Vince pretty strongly resembles that remark himself) that they could not have sustained in the long term. Yeah, it's been 30 years now and the only other promoters successful on a national scale in this country were ones willing to sustain losses long term. No other promoter has made pro wrestling work at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I also don't know that if someone else had won the war, they could have sustained a healthy business as long as Vince has. I love Bill Watts, but he was out of touch with the public in 1992 (at least at first) and there's no way he'd still be working as much as Vince does in 2015. And he's the best alternative candidate to win the war. Jerry Jarrett I do think understood the audience at large pretty well, but he wasn't willing to spend money to make money. Everyone else was so overwhelmingly stuck in their ways (which says a lot because Vince pretty strongly resembles that remark himself) that they could not have sustained in the long term. Yeah, it's been 30 years now and the only other promoters successful on a national scale in this country were ones willing to sustain losses long term. No other promoter has made pro wrestling work at all. I think in 1994, Pena and AAA were in with a shot. They drew monster houses in Chicago and California if I remember correctly. Did the peso crash around this time putting an end to them running big shows in the states? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 For all his wrongs, I can't understand people saying Vince for this thread. I mean, the man is more or less directly responsible for getting me into wrestling. I wonder how many other people, if they were REALLY honest about their journey as a fan would also admit that Vince's product was the gateway drug. I don't think there's anyone on this board who despises the modern product more than I do, but if there was no Vince I wonder how big this board would even be right now (or whether it would exist at all). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButchReedMark Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 For all his wrongs, I can't understand people saying Vince for this thread. I mean, the man is more or less directly responsible for getting me into wrestling. I wonder how many other people, if they were REALLY honest about their journey as a fan would also admit that Vince's product was the gateway drug. I doubt anyone'd lie about "How I got into wrestling". I can't think of many subjects where such a lie would have even less to gain from it. 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.