Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

WWE TV 11/22 - 11/28 LeBron James is a King's Road Style wrestler


KawadaSmile

Recommended Posts

The simple answer is that history is written by the victors. In a world where WCW wins the Monday Night Wars, the worst of Attitude Era WWF would be looked at the way the worst of late period WCW is now. Another key difference is that the WWF was on fire in 1999 and WCW was falling apart in 2000. When a promotion is hot, the great stuff feels even greater and the bad stuff is easily forgotten. When a promotion is cold, the reverse is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

50 minutes ago, NotJayTabb said:

Vince had more overall credibility than Russo or Arquette too. He'd been part of the on-screen product for over 20 years, people fully associated him with the promotion, so it didn't feel as fly-by-night as Russo. Plus Vince had worked matches at that point, which made him feel a bit more legit, and he was built like a tank. Russo and Arquette were just normal sized men, Vince looked more like he belonged, even if he wasn't a wrestler.

He also stripped himself of the title rather quickly (the character was a baby face at that point), which probably is the main reason it doesn’t get lumped with the Russo/Arquette reigns, or even his ECW title “run” that lasted a couple of months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, El-P said:

That being said, I've told the story a countless times now, Vince winning the Rumble 1999 is what killed the WWF fan in me (which I had been since 1990). So....

My head cannon is that Austin is a 4-time Rumble winner (and only 3-peater)…yeah I know if I head cannon that I have to take away 1997, but still… ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SteveJRogers said:

He also stripped himself of the title rather quickly (the character was a baby face at that point), which probably is the main reason it doesn’t get lumped with the Russo/Arquette reigns, or even his ECW title “run” that lasted a couple of months.

Durag Vince was fucking outrageous. 06-07 Vince is just absolute insanity and is really closer to dying WCW in tone than the stale product we got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SteveJRogers said:

He also stripped himself of the title rather quickly (the character was a baby face at that point), which probably is the main reason it doesn’t get lumped with the Russo/Arquette reigns, or even his ECW title “run” that lasted a couple of months.

Russo vacated the title too. And surely the fact that he won as a face makes it worse? I get the point about him being a roided freak, but he had never been presented as remotely credible in the ring. He would barely get any offence against any wrestler, and when he would, they would usually no-sell it. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Shane McMahon was booked as ten times tougher and more credible a year later, even though he looked far more like Russo/Arquette than his dad. 

The point about Vince being the number one heel in the promotion and part of the hottest feud of the decade is very valid, but as Loss also pointed out, Bobby Heenan, Jim Cornette, and Jimmy Hart had also at various points in time been the number one heel in their respective promotions; it would have been a disaster for any of them to hold the belt either. Russo and Arquette winning was worse, but the Vince win isn't even talked as being in the same ballpark of bad booking decisions. It's barely spoken of at all. I think a lot of it has to do with WWF being really hot in 1999 due to Austin and then Rock, and as NintendoLogic said, history is written by the victors. In an alternative universe where WCW wins the war, the Rise and Fall of WWF documentary would probably have an extensive segment on Vince winning the title and WWF champion Big Show feuding and fighting over his dad's casket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NintendoLogic said:

Another key difference is that the WWF was on fire in 1999 and WCW was falling apart in 2000. When a promotion is hot, the great stuff feels even greater and the bad stuff is easily forgotten. When a promotion is cold, the reverse is true.

13 minutes ago, MoS said:

I think a lot of it has to do with WWF being really hot in 1999 due to Austin and then Rock, and as NintendoLogic said, history is written by the victors. In an alternative universe where WCW wins the war, the Rise and Fall of WWF documentary would probably have an extensive segment on Vince winning the title and WWF champion Big Show feuding and fighting over his dad's casket. 

Agree. 

And the thing is, WWF in 1999 was hot as hell. But it also fucking sucked. Because Austin was Austin and The Rock was getting to that level, people seem to forget that the TV was actually fucking awful. There was mostly no good wrestling anymore, Russo was all over the place until he left and it really showed, I can't think of one particulary great match or even one great angle during that year (no, "It was me all along" doesn't qualify). I can remember tons of really awful ones (yes, "It was me all along" does qualify, so does Bossman vs Al Snow, so does Test & Stephy are dating, so does Sable turns heel, so does everything involving the Ministry of Darkness, so does Shane-O Mac doing his first idiotic stunt). It slowly got better once Russo left and then Angle & Jericho got on TV and then in 2000 the Radicals showed up and boosted up the average in-ring work level, but man, 1999 WWF TV was garbage. It was hot garbage, it was popular garbage, but it was garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Coffey said:

I would argue that from top to bottom, WWE has never been worse. There might have been worse moments but overall? This is the worst WWE has ever been. It's just complete & total apathy from a roster that seemingly has been so demoralized they don't care anymore either. Nevermind the writing & booking, it's just awful television.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone to see Disney on Ice. It's a decent show. If I went to see it every week I would go insane. That's WWE. I could go to a house show tomorrow and feel like I got my money's worth. But as a week-to-week proposition they have absolutely nothing going for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that what they are gonna become anyway ? I mean, we've reached the level of them doing an angle basically as a product placement for a Netflix show. They have their huge grossing week-end with Mania every year, they have their BloodMoney shows... and really nothing else matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, MoS said:

It's all Roman's fault

Roman got people working themselves into a shoot. Kayfabe is alive and well, bubbas. The GOAT.

 

6 minutes ago, El-P said:

Isn't that what they are gonna become anyway ? I mean, we've reached the level of them doing an angle basically as a product placement for a Netflix show. They have their huge grossing week-end with Mania every year, they have their BloodMoney shows... and really nothing else matters.

I'd argue they've already become that. They are wayyyy too big to fail, and have been for like 5 years. They have their own streaming service (with a huge library!), only struck massive TV deals, and are turning out record profits - with a stale/inconsistent product, even. Basically pro wrestling's Disney, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the security at Barclay's really sucks, since this dude came from the same section as the dude who attacked Bret and Nattie at the HOF that one year. 

I mean, shit happens, but if shit keeps happening at the same building like that you have to start thinking there's a pattern here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MoS said:

Russo vacated the title too. And surely the fact that he won as a face makes it worse? I get the point about him being a roided freak, but he had never been presented as remotely credible in the ring. He would barely get any offence against any wrestler, and when he would, they would usually no-sell it. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Shane McMahon was booked as ten times tougher and more credible a year later, even though he looked far more like Russo/Arquette than his dad. 

The point about Vince being the number one heel in the promotion and part of the hottest feud of the decade is very valid, but as Loss also pointed out, Bobby Heenan, Jim Cornette, and Jimmy Hart had also at various points in time been the number one heel in their respective promotions; it would have been a disaster for any of them to hold the belt either. Russo and Arquette winning was worse, but the Vince win isn't even talked as being in the same ballpark of bad booking decisions. It's barely spoken of at all. I think a lot of it has to do with WWF being really hot in 1999 due to Austin and then Rock, and as NintendoLogic said, history is written by the victors. In an alternative universe where WCW wins the war, the Rise and Fall of WWF documentary would probably have an extensive segment on Vince winning the title and WWF champion Big Show feuding and fighting over his dad's casket.  

Here's the thing with it though on a one night basis it wasn't totally crazy.  It also setup the Stephanie/HHH thing.  The whole setup was that he was using Vince to get an easy title defense.  Mcmahon was off TV and he was backed into a corner by HHH to accept.  Despite stacking the deck, HHH beat the snot out of him for the majority of the match.  Eventually Austin interfered and HHH got his comeuppance.  Now what happened later was a bit different, but in the moment it wasn't too bad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince winning the title was part of an ongoing storyline that furthered other issues. He wasn't a heel manager like Heenan/Cornette/Hart, he was (is still lol) the megalomaniac owner of the company doing whatever he could to foil his enemy.  YMMV of course if it was any good of course, but there was some greater context. The David Arquette thing (that he didn't even want to happen)  was just to promote a movie and the Russo thing was just an ego driven mess. 

Just saying "why is A and B bad and C is not?" divorced of context is kind of the thing that leads to bad faith arguments we see so often about....well.. practically everything nowadays. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, El-P said:

Yeah, you know, actually this is WCW 2000 level dumbfuckery.

Creatively, it's just as bad as WCW 2000, maybe worse if you consider at least you got the sense WCW was at least trying then. Sure all the ideas were panic driven and terrible, but you knew someone somewhere was making an attempt.  Modern WWE just feels like it's coasting by on its laurels and the idea they're basically making infinite money thanks to TV deals and the Saudis. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...