Boondocks Kernoodle Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 In '01 he was billed from Houston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 (1) The streak wasn't really played up at all in 2001. (2) WWE loves to job wrestlers in their hometowns. (3) Undertaker was billed from Death Valley. 1) It was known he was undefeated in 2001- I remember they first mentioned it at Wrestlemania XI in fact. Of course, it's not as bad as today, which is why I hate the streak. 2) But it's the Undertaker, and they were also turning Austin that night. 3) When he came back as Biker Taker, he was billed as being from Houston. I'm still curious whether HBK costing Taker the match is true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Morris Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 I think that HBK stuff was just message board talk about what people expected might happen... not what was actually the plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 From F4W 4/16/01: The tentative idea for his month’s PPV is to headline with Steve Austin & Triple H vs. Undertaker & Kane. The original plan was for Shawn Michaels to interfere in Hunter’s bout at Mania and cost him the match. That would have likely lead to Hunter vs. Shawn and Austin vs. Undertaker as the top two matches on this show, but everyone said the way it worked out with Michaels gone was much better. As far as Michaels is concerned, he appears to be screwed. There has been absolutely no talk at all of bringing him back at this point, and there is a chance he’s done for good in wrestling. He might have had a clause built into his newest contract which would allow the WWF to release him over a situation like this, in which case he’d be up a creek since there aren’t any other viable options with McMahon controlling the entire US scene. I’m not even sure if heavy-duty groveling would help at this point, since he’d been given chance after chance in the past, and then, after plans had been made to promote his big comeback, he screwed up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Thanks! I posted that on his blog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LShunter Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 I was always under the impression that the original plan for Wrestlemania X-7 was for Triple H vs Shawn Michaels with Triple H going over, but Shawn was messed up backstage at Raw one night (possibly around the time of the WCW simulcast) and the match was changed to Triple H vs The Undertaker with Undertaker going over. I also remember this apparently led to a bit of friction between Triple H and Shawn. Anybody else remember this, or am I just making shit up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 HBK was supposed to come back the RAW where Shane bought WCW (a week before X-7) but got cut for time constraints. He was then supposed to show up the Smackdown! before X-7, but showed up messed up, Taker-HHH was already in the works the Smackdown! after No Way Out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 "If you could pick one guy who could end the streak of The Undertaker at this years Wrestlemania who would it be and why?" I don’t think there’s any value in ending the streak at this point, but if you HAD to give the win to someone, the only logical choice is John Cena. Yeah! Take the one guy who doesn't need any help getting over, and give him the win! Anything else is just dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted December 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 Jeff Gorman gives the book a good review in exchange for Keith plugging his book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 On the subject of the drugs, there was shall we say a lengthy list of notes from the legal department that drastically altered the tone of certain passages from the time I wrote to the book to the time it hit shelves. We were quite surprised at how conservatively the legal department for the publisher wanted to play it when broaching that subject, and any time the topic was “such and such was on such and such” I had to make sure I either rewrote it or had documented evidence, to the point where I couldn’t even make my usual jokes about roided wrestlers or certain people smoking crack without getting a page of notes. It made my head hurt, frankly.Damn legal department, tryin' to stop the SmarK from so-called "slander." If he wants to say Tammy Sytch was addicted to crack, then dammit, who are these lame-o's to stop him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Is it wrong of me to note that Baby Doll in a tux is pretty hot? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Given that Bret was a willing participant in "Wrestling With Shadows" I’d say that rehashing Survivor Series isn’t something he has a problem with. Not like that documentary was in production well before Montreal. Or that it came out a decade ago! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 This is an important date for me, because this would be my 12th birthday, which resulted in my parents renting Wrestlemania 2 for the party and turning me into a lifelong fan. He's said several times before that it was Orndorff turning on Hogan that turned him into a huge fan, which was 2 or 3 months after Wrestlemania 2. He can't even keep his own memories straight, and people are supposed to trust him as an authority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 His review of the 9/12/87 Boston house show has some classic SKeith misinformation, as he states the Hercules-Davey Boy match was due to Dynamite Kid no-showing for reasons unknown and robbed the world of a Harts-Bulldogs match since they ended up defending the tag belts against the unlikely duo of Sika and Mr. Fuji. Of course none of that is remotely true, since Dynamite was dealing with the back injury at that time and a five minute search on Graham Cawthon's site informs you that Mr. Fuji was subbing for Kamala that night. What's especially sloppy about that is A. Scooter's a fan of all things Hart and or Stampede related so surely he knew why Dynamite wasn't there and B. He's pimped Graham's site before so he's clearly aware of it's existence and how simple it would have been to find out who Fuji was subbing for (as I did when I was watching and wondered who was supposed to be in that match). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 This is an important date for me, because this would be my 12th birthday, which resulted in my parents renting Wrestlemania 2 for the party and turning me into a lifelong fan. He's said several times before that it was Orndorff turning on Hogan that turned him into a huge fan, which was 2 or 3 months after Wrestlemania 2. He can't even keep his own memories straight, and people are supposed to trust him as an authority? Erm ... he says they rented WM2, not took him to watch the event. What's so hard to believe that they may have rented the video cassette months after the event? Googling shows that the date that Keith is speaking about is August 30th, 1986. Orndorff turned on Hogan two months prior. Maybe that got him originally into wrestling, causing his parents to think of renting WM2 for the party as a good idea, and this sealed the deal for his fandom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Scott has problems getting the Flair-Herd straight when trying to correct someone who can't get the Flair-Herd story straight: http://www.rspwfaq.com/2009/01/flair-putting-people-over John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I thought this was pretty funny. Given that Bret was a willing participant in "Wrestling With Shadows" I’d say that rehashing Survivor Series isn’t something he has a problem with.Huh?!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Morris Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 The silly part about the whole "Flair won't put over Luger" story is that it wasn't so much Luger that was the issue with Flair in 1991 as it was that Jim Herd wanted Flair to take a large pay cut. And prior to that, it was more that Flair believed in Sting as the guy to take the NWA title from him when others pushed for Luger (and if I'm not mistaken, Jim Crockett was the biggest proponent of Luger getting the belt). But regardless of Flair's issues with Luger, I would argue that while Luger wasn't ready to hold the NWA's top title in 1988, he certainly was in 1991. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 We need to remember that Ric had more than a full year left on his contract. It *wasn't* expiring. Ric saw the handwriting on Herd's wall: Ric would be getting moved down on the cards. It was entirely possible that when his contract would come time to expire that he would no longer be in position to leverage a good deal. And at the time, he had a helluva $$$ deal with WCW. So he was looking for an early *extension* before he risked moving down the card. That is what Herd was "lowballing" him on. Ric tried to play hardball by holding up dropping the title at the Bash to Luger, which was the original plan, in turn for getting an extension. Herd didn't go for it, and tried to move up Flair dropping the title to Barry at a taping *before* the Bash, which the pretty clear plan for Barry to inturn drop it to Luger at the Bash. Ric didn't like that either. Hence Ric got "fired", and all that other bullshit over whether he was or wasn't fired. But in the end, Ric basically wanted the biggest payday in history up to that point to drop the title - a multi-year extension of a contract that already had a year left on it. I'd have to go back to look through the WON again from back then to see how much per year he wanted on the extension (and how much he turned down for the "lowball" offer), but I think it would be up over a million to drop the title. Ric did have the contractual right to say "no". He had used it before, back in March 1990, to say no to dropping the title to Lex at a Chicago house show. And Herd clearly was a prick. But Ric's not a saint in this. He was holding the company up for a big contract extension even while having a year left on his contract. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 This was all recently covered in the Classic WON archive on the Observer website, since Meltzer started with 1991 in uploading issues (the first year he used a computer to write the Observer as opposed to a typewriter). Fascinating stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LShunter Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 From Scott's recent review of the IC title DVD: Ted DiBiase vs Pat Patterson Dammit, I was hoping for footage of that tournament Patterson won, where he unified the North American and South American titles. Since Dibiase was the North American champion and dropped it to Pat, this is close enough, I guess. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that "tournament in Rio di Janero" never actually happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Fairly sure he's joking, as I believe he's acknowledged the dubious nature of the alleged tournament in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LShunter Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Yeah, I thought that he'd previously acknowledged that too. I didn't think he was just being subtle this time because of the second line of the match review, but he probably is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 He appeared on this radio show December 7th: http://www.wrestling-radio.com/?view=getsh...burgs%20Legends Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 The Hart Attack was never the official name for the move, it's just that people such as myself have used it so often that it's retroactively been named as such. WHAT 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.