BigBadMick Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Listened to his interview with Bret Hart this morning. Any truth to Bret's claim that Jake ballsed up or sabotaged the end of his match with taker at mania 8 and was fired? Jake himself claimed he held up Vince for more money on the show. And I assumed he was fired for substance abuse around then anyway..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayfabe1984 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Listened to his interview with Bret Hart this morning. Any truth to Bret's claim that Jake ballsed up or sabotaged the end of his match with taker at mania 8 and was fired? Jake himself claimed he held up Vince for more money on the show. And I assumed he was fired for substance abuse around then anyway..... There's a bit of truth to this. Paul Bearer talked about it in one of his ROH shoot interviews. it was Jake's last night with the company and didn't want to get beat clean with the Tombstone in the middle of the ring. Therefore, he changed the finish to where Taker tombstoned him on the floor and then rolled him in the ring to get pinned. According to Paul Bearer, Vince was furious over this and blamed Taker since he couldn't do anything to Jake. I can't remember the exact details but that was pretty much it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Listened to his interview with Bret Hart this morning. Any truth to Bret's claim that Jake ballsed up or sabotaged the end of his match with taker at mania 8 and was fired? Jake himself claimed he held up Vince for more money on the show. And I assumed he was fired for substance abuse around then anyway..... There's a bit of truth to this. Paul Bearer talked about it in one of his ROH shoot interviews. it was Jake's last night with the company and didn't want to get beat clean with the Tombstone in the middle of the ring. Therefore, he changed the finish to where Taker tombstoned him on the floor and then rolled him in the ring to get pinned. According to Paul Bearer, Vince was furious over this and blamed Taker since he couldn't do anything to Jake. I can't remember the exact details but that was pretty much it. Thanks. Between that, the 2 unapproved bladejobs by Flair and Bret, and Sid kicking out of Hogan's legdrop because Wippleman (or Papa Shango - can't remember) was late for the dq-causing run-in, this was one headache of a night for Vince..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Forgot to bring up, this was on the Wednesday Bryan/Dave show, but someone asked a question about who the next female WWE HoF inductee would be. Dave basically said (although he segued it into Jim Ross talk) that there were not any stronger candidates than the rumored Victoria and Mickie James. Really? No Stacy Kiebler? Or Sable? Torrie Wilson, Medusa, Molly Holly or maybe someone else who was around before 2000? If Victoria and Mickie James are the best candidates.....they'd be reaching. I know it's the WWE HOF, but they don't feel like HOF level stars If Sable wants to go in they would put her in no doubt, but she seems to want to keep out of the spotlight, so she might not care about it Wasn't there a story that Stephanie McMahon met with Stacy and offered her a ton of money to come back, hoping to play off her mainstream publicity? She'll go in the HOF at some point I would think but it will depend on where her Q rating is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I get that it's not a real HOF and all, but Stacy? Torrie? Even by the low standards already set that just seems wrong. Neither girl was ever even a contender for one of the ladies' titles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I'd put them in over Victoria or Mickie James. They might have been awful wrestlers, but a lot of angles and TV time centered around them in the early/mid 2000s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Yeah, they were both way bigger stars and got more tv time than Victoria or Mickie. Plus, they're known outside of wrestling, and both of them did Playboy shoots, 2 in Torrie's case. WWE HOF is based on star power and political connections *edit Stacy didn't do playboy, was thinking of Maria Edited July 28, 2014 by cm funk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Listened to his interview with Bret Hart this morning. Any truth to Bret's claim that Jake ballsed up or sabotaged the end of his match with taker at mania 8 and was fired? Jake himself claimed he held up Vince for more money on the show. And I assumed he was fired for substance abuse around then anyway..... Jake wanted Pat Patterson's vacated spot in creative, and when they didn't give it to him he held him up for a release, not more money. This is almost verbatim from Jake's DVD "Pick Your Poison". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 What about Vickie for next year's HOF if she's really done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Is "none" not an option? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakla Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 What about Vickie for next year's HOF if she's really done? I think they can wait on her. She's a tricky one to put in since her character was always portrayed as bossy and incompetent. In a kayfabe sense, what did she do to merit a place in the HoF? It's kinda like when Dave was surprised that Jesse Ventura wasn't nominated for the best guest host Slammy in 09 (I recall since I asked a question on WOR about it where Dave cut Bryan off with a NO! NO! NO!). Why would a host who turned heel at the end be nominated for a kayfabe award? Even if his performance was strong per "mega" wrestling fans? If you want to place her in a WON-style independent HoF for her performances and tenure, that's one thing. There are plenty of females that were around before 2006 that they can put in, need honor the past some more rather than figures from the 2010s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Listened to his interview with Bret Hart this morning. Any truth to Bret's claim that Jake ballsed up or sabotaged the end of his match with taker at mania 8 and was fired? Jake himself claimed he held up Vince for more money on the show. And I assumed he was fired for substance abuse around then anyway..... There's a bit of truth to this. Paul Bearer talked about it in one of his ROH shoot interviews. it was Jake's last night with the company and didn't want to get beat clean with the Tombstone in the middle of the ring. Therefore, he changed the finish to where Taker tombstoned him on the floor and then rolled him in the ring to get pinned. According to Paul Bearer, Vince was furious over this and blamed Taker since he couldn't do anything to Jake. I can't remember the exact details but that was pretty much it. Thanks. Between that, the 2 unapproved bladejobs by Flair and Bret, and Sid kicking out of Hogan's legdrop because Wippleman (or Papa Shango - can't remember) was late for the dq-causing run-in, this was one headache of a night for Vince..... Attendance was also disappointing for Vince. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Now I'm going to go back and watch WrestleMania VIII and just imagine Vince backstage losing his shit every 45 minutes or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Actually, on top of all THAT, I recall Fred Ottman's shoot interview including a story about the Money Inc-Disasters match being shortened at the last minute, and DiBiase refusing to cut it. Would explain Skinner-Owen going about 60 seconds. Oh what a night! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Wasn't the Torrie/Dawn Marie angle actually a ratings draw? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Wasn't the Torrie/Dawn Marie angle actually a ratings draw? Even if it was, I view it as the opposite of a Mike Tyson/Wrestlemania 14 situation. On the one scenario you lose money on an angle but it leads you to making way more money and better ratings down the line. On the other scenario you pop a ratings boost with cheap smut but lose a lot of fans through the tasteless, seedy nature of the angle, not to mention all the people who maybe stopped their young kids getting exposure to WWE because of 'hot lesbian action' and the other stuff they were putting out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Actually, on top of all THAT, I recall Fred Ottman's shoot interview including a story about the Money Inc-Disasters match being shortened at the last minute, and DiBiase refusing to cut it. Would explain Skinner-Owen going about 60 seconds. Oh what a night! That's not all, as Bret almost had a punch-up with Shane sometime during the weekend of that show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Wasn't the Torrie/Dawn Marie angle actually a ratings draw? Even if it was, I view it as the opposite of a Mike Tyson/Wrestlemania 14 situation. On the one scenario you lose money on an angle but it leads you to making way more money and better ratings down the line. On the other scenario you pop a ratings boost with cheap smut but lose a lot of fans through the tasteless, seedy nature of the angle, not to mention all the people who maybe stopped their young kids getting exposure to WWE because of 'hot lesbian action' and the other stuff they were putting out. Parents letting their kids watch late night TV objecting to content? That's absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Wasn't the Torrie/Dawn Marie angle actually a ratings draw? Even if it was, I view it as the opposite of a Mike Tyson/Wrestlemania 14 situation. On the one scenario you lose money on an angle but it leads you to making way more money and better ratings down the line. On the other scenario you pop a ratings boost with cheap smut but lose a lot of fans through the tasteless, seedy nature of the angle, not to mention all the people who maybe stopped their young kids getting exposure to WWE because of 'hot lesbian action' and the other stuff they were putting out. Parents letting their kids watch late night TV objecting to content? That's absurd. Late night TV? Smackdown has always aired from 8-10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 Anyway, I was about to say in the Current WWE thread that his talk about Cena-Cesaro not being a match that would look good years from now was interesting, because it contradicts his usual opinion on these things. He did ultimately say that any match that works for the people in the building is good period, but he did openly ask if that means we should call all of those old Ultimate Warrior matches that were bad yet managed to get over really good just because they worked in the building. Is it possible he's coming around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 Bix wasn't said angle on PPV and not television? (The Dawn / Torrie hotel kissing). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 Anyway, I was about to say in the Current WWE thread that his talk about Cena-Cesaro not being a match that would look good years from now was interesting, because it contradicts his usual opinion on these things. He did ultimately say that any match that works for the people in the building is good period, but he did openly ask if that means we should call all of those old Ultimate Warrior matches that were bad yet managed to get over really good just because they worked in the building. Is it possible he's coming around? Was looking back in an old Observer where he wrote up a Naoya Ogawa vs. Kawada match from 12/03. In short, Ogawa is awful but was presented strongly and effectively, Kawada worked around his weaknesses and the crowd ate up everything. Even though he had nothing to say about the match being all that fantastic, it sounded like he rated it ***3/4 because of how into it the crowd was. Now I haven't watched the match yet so I don't know if this was any good or earned its rating primarily because of a super hot crowd. Any merits to the idea that a crowd's impact is greater when you don't understand what the announcers are saying and possibly dragging things down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 I think what it comes down to is that Dave bases his match opinions almost entirely on hot crowds unless they involve either guys he doesn't care for or there are major execution problems where he doesn't think they deserved that reaction. For the most part, I think he's consistent on that and as much as we bag him around here, I probably agree with him on matches just as often as I disagree with him. I'm not the type to forever write off someone's match reviewing because they had one review (or even a few) where I didn't see what they saw at all. I've probably felt that way about something everyone on this board has written at some point, and I'm sure the same applies to me. I don't think Dave has always seen wrestling this way as far as the importance of the crowd, and I think he'd probably give Hogan matches much higher ratings if they were happening now. He wouldn't go back and watch them now because he doesn't believe in that, but his outlook on these things I do think has changed over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakla Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 That Cena/Cesaro debate on WOR was something. They got so wrapped up in their opinions that they didn't mention Cesaro did the swing for the first time in awhile. What about someone asking a question about the Impact cancellation being a work (referencing the Eyada shows about Nitro having the plug pulled) and Dave's "FUCK NO." response? I assume the question was asked somewhat kiddingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 Bix wasn't said angle on PPV and not television? (The Dawn / Torrie hotel kissing). The reveal was, yes, but the majority of the program, including Al Wilson's prosthesis, was on SmackDown on UPN. 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.