This Wrestling Thread has been brought to you via Satellite.

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='HydroX']While he was an asshole, Hogan was a genius. He solidified his bank account while stepping on the careers of others. I may not like what he's done, but he is one slick son of a fuck.[/QUOTE]

And now his ex-wife is reaping all his cash while banging some 20-something trophy boyfriend/husband while Hogan's shilling air conditioners or whatever.

Karma's a beautiful bitch like that sometimes.
 
Almost all of the top tier wrestlers we adore are primadonnas like that. Triple H? Shawn Michaels?

Even Steve Austin was publicly embarrassed by WWF because he refused to job to Brock Lesnar in a KOTR qualifying match. Booker T left TNA because he didn't want to job to Matt Morgan. We're stoked that Diesel is back, but he's another one, too. And let's not forget about Orton's crybaby ways that contributed to Ken Kennedy getting shitcanned.

Hogan's bad. Real bad. I don't disagree. But I also don't think he's the only one by a long shot.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Even Steve Austin was publicly embarrassed by WWF because he refused to job to Brock Lesnar in a KOTR qualifying match.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget about him "taking his ball and going home" after refusing to job to Flair..
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Almost all of the top tier wrestlers we adore are primadonnas like that. Triple H? Shawn Michaels?

Even Steve Austin was publicly embarrassed by WWF because he refused to job to Brock Lesnar in a KOTR qualifying match. Booker T left TNA because he didn't want to job to Matt Morgan. We're stoked that Diesel is back, but he's another one, too. And let's not forget about Orton's crybaby ways that contributed to Ken Kennedy getting shitcanned.

Hogan's bad. Real bad. I don't disagree. But I also don't think he's the only one by a long shot.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with you. There is no way in hell that Hogan is the only guy who did it. I think that he may be the guy who did it longest, and fucked over the most people, but by no way was the first, or last guy to do any of this by any means. Either way, fuck Hogan.
 
I'd say that no one compares to Hogan in that regard, except for maybe Shawn, and HHH being a close third.

Austin's stories all involve him not wanting to work with midcarders or lose to people with no fanfare. While it comes off as dickish, I agree with him. The only feud that might have worked is him vs. Jarrett but Jarrett has never stuck around too long in the same place, especially WWF. He constantly had contract disputes with them. There is no way anyone would have wanted to see him feud with Billy Gunn, much like the Rock/Al Snow and Val Venis/Mankind feuds were crap.

When Austin left in 2002, he said that he wanted to work with Eddie Guerrero. WWF decided they wanted him to job on RAW in King of the Ring qualifying to Brock Lesnar. Not only is that stupid from the get-go but Austin knew better than anyone apparently. They then wanted to bring him back in 2005 to lose a match to Jonathan Coachman to put heat on him as the RAW acting GM. You don't use the second biggest star in wrestling ever that way. You use him to build new stars, not bury him because you need a quick rub.
 
"The Chaperone" will be available on Netflix via Instant Streaming on Tuesday, day and date with the DVD/Blu-Ray release.

This should be hilarious.
 
I'm watching the Big Show DVD, I don't think I've seen a WWE documentary that wasn't every bit as good as the last, if not slightly biased against WCW. One thing I never really noticed was how out of shape he was in ECW. Then there's the Mayweather match.

He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that! He can't be doin' that!
 
RMhgK.jpg
 
[quote name='davo1224']

When Austin left in 2002, he said that he wanted to work with Eddie Guerrero. .[/QUOTE]


Did you have to tell us this? Now I'm gonna lose sleep tonight thinking of how amazing a program between Austin and Guerrero would've been.
 
i think davo's post reminds us that sometimes it makes sense to refuse to do something. It made sense for Austin to not want to lose clean to Lesnar on free tv with zero buildup. In Austin's mind, he's just giving away money if he does that. Same goes for Booker T refusing to put over Matt Morgan.

But when you refuse to work an entire program with someone, that becomes a much larger, more systemic issue. So I can see why some people see Hogan as the worst of the bunch.
 
Yeah it just all came out in a jumble. Me and my friend have joked for so many years now that whatever people write RAW must be high as a kite.

"Hey man, what if Stone Cold came back and lost to the Coach LOL?"
"Yeah and what if it was because Goldust and Vader interfered?"

I'm still amazed that WWF tried to turn that around on Austin too. You want him to lose in an announced match, in a qualifying match for King of the Ring, in the opening contest of RAW, and to a guy that's been around for two months. WHAT?! The righteous indignation was rich too. They were so absolutely offended too that they had him come back in less than a year.

As far as Eddie, he picked him because that was right after Eddie cleaned up his life for good, and he was putting on his last few really good matches. Austin walked out so they had Eddie feud with Flair, and then if I remember correctly, team with Benoit to lose to the Dudleyz. *shakes head*







In going down memory lane, who the hell remembers Ric Flair losing to Rico? That stuck out as perhaps the worst thing to happen on RAW from 02-03 and that's saying something.
 
This vaguely ties into the discussion at hand, but I re-watched the Bret Hart documentary over the weekend. Not the WWE one, but that 'Wrestling with Shadows' one from like 1997/98. I hadn't seen it since it came out, and... wow. Talk about depressing.

It's amazing what 14 years has done to change the entire tone of that documentary. It was never a real uplifting tale to begin with, but now looking and knowing where all of these decisions ultimately ended up just makes it that much worse. And, even though it's been 'put to rest' now, I still find it hard to sympathize with Hart after he refused to drop the belt. That was always a sticking point with me.

Anyway, the thing that ties into the previous conversation is the one scene where Hart's wife is backstage after the screwjob and just starts tearing into HHH. Talking about how he knew, how he would get his, how'd he'd be going to hell... all of it. She just kept talking about karma, getting his, and all of this 'just wait and see stuff', and that's the scene that really jumps out at me now. She's knocking this guy who, for the next decade, never ceased an upward trajectory and doesn't seem to be in position to ever get his. In fact, he'll take over the company. It was sort of funny, in a tragic way.

Of course, that's to say nothing of the opposite side of that, which is the fact that that particular evening marked the beginning of the end for the Harts. After that night, it was almost literally nothing but a decade of tragedies.

Like I said, having not watched it since it came out, it's definitely worth going back to now. It used to be portrait of a man getting betrayed by those he felt closest to, and now... well, now it's just a sad look at the 2 months in which one man made decisions that basically ruined the rest of his career and (arguably) life.




... sidenote to it all? I still love when Hart compared dropping the belt in Montreal to going out to ring and blowing his brains out. Quite possibly the best overreaction ever, and another reason why I could never truly stand behind Hart with that decision.
 
I never really could sympathize with Bret in that case. "I don't want to drop the belt in Canada, since I'm from there and the crowd likes me." or something to that effect. F that. Could you see Hogan or Austin refusing to job in the states, along those same lines?

Bret and his wife were apparently Bret's biggest marks.
 
[quote name='davo1224']I'm still amazed that WWF tried to turn that around on Austin too. You want him to lose in an announced match, in a qualifying match for King of the Ring, in the opening contest of RAW, and to a guy that's been around for two months. WHAT?! The righteous indignation was rich too.[/QUOTE]

Make no mistake, I bought into the WWF "brand" during the Monday Night Wars. I didn't like WCW at the time, and thought WWF could do no wrong. I had grown up watching both, but WWF was always first and foremost in my mind. Nitro was viewed during Raw commercials, for example.

But a few things eventually killed that for me. I can point to a few that weren't about me or my interests, but WWF programming. First was the Invasion angle; no two ways about it, they blew that angle big time. We're still talking about how bad they blew it ten years later like it was yesterday, and with great frequency. Is there a single woulda-coulda-shoulda event in wrestling that was so magnificently screwed up by the people in charge that we still talk about it today to the same degree we discuss the Invasion?

The second was the WWF's "Austin took his ball and went home" segment on TV. It was like the "Stand Up for WWE" campaign last year during the election cycle. Brazen, unapologetic propaganda that only the smallest of children and dumbest adults couldn't see through. It was one of those moments where I was truly confronted with the kind of contempt WWF held for its fanbase.

Speaking of which, that era of WWF Raw (the early 2000's) was one of the worst periods I ever remember for their programming. Outside of a hella-awesome Jeff Hardy vs Undertaker ladder match (which was one of the first matches that showed Hardy could main event), the program was overbooked garbage. Smackdown, on the other hand, during that time, had a hot-sex-on-a-plate tag team division. Los Guerreros, WGTT, Edge/Benoit, and a few others that continually had great matches with each other.

Any idea if Rock is supposed to be on Raw tonight? If not, I'm gonna get some quality time in with New Vegas.
 
[quote name='007']... sidenote to it all? I still love when Hart compared dropping the belt in Montreal to going out to ring and blowing his brains out. Quite possibly the best overreaction ever, and another reason why I could never truly stand behind Hart with that decision.[/QUOTE]

Part of me wonders if Bret really knew how much sympathy he had gained by the whole situation. McMahon used all of that hate and turned himself into the biggest heel of the late 90's, while WCW/Hart never really used the "Screwjob" to their benefit. That screwjob ending really could have been the best outcome for both parties not just McMahon.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVB6dtLFmJw

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I don't think Bret Hart's reasoning is worth discussing. I don't think he really believed that he shouldn't drop the belt because it's Canada. After all, so much of what we've been discussing the past two days has been egocentric wrestlers coming up with bullshit excuses to not drop titles or work programs. What comes out of their mouth is not the same thing as the reason they don't want to do whatever-it-is.

Unless you believe Shawn Michaels really did lose his smile.
 
I've never understood Bret not wanting to drop the belt. It's just how it is in the biz. You're leaving, you need to drop the title, or take the loss to give the other guy the shine. You can't take the belt with you, so go ahead and drop it. Hell, if anything, it'd put HBK over as a monster heel in Canada. Of course, after it was all said and done, HBK was still a monster heel in Canada, but for the complete wrong reason.
 
I don't really get people saying Bret was wrong in that situation. Never have and never will. He wasn't the dick in that situation and not in anything leading up to it. I always assume it's people who are only familiar with the Vince McMahon whitewash which probably is the case.

* Bret had signed a 20 year contract the year before so that he could come back and fight Austin and retire with the WWF ala Slaughter, Garea, Patterson, etc. Vince was the one who broke the contract because he said he couldn't afford to pay it since WCW had almost unlimited money to offer.
* Up to that point, Bret had never been uncooperative.
* Bret's contract didn't end until December 7, 1997. That's almost a month after Survivor Series and actually the date of their next PPV which featured a lame duck main event because of what happened.
* Bret said he would drop the title and has been quoted by other wrestlers as saying so
* Bret's BS excuse about not wanting to drop it in Canada (while making sense from a storyline perspective) was directly in response to Shawn's past year of on-air BS
* Shawn Michaels faking an injury because he didn't want to drop the title to Bret made it so that WrestleMania 13 is the only WrestleMania EVER to get a worse buyrate than SummerSlam and even Survivor Series

If we're talking about Hogan level BS, Shawn Michaels is dead second to him. I mean hell, Undertaker had to physically threaten him to drop the title to Austin without any funny business at WrestleMania 14 because of everything he did in 1997.
 
Because people don't think wrestling is trashy enough as-is, apparently.

The only way this ends well is if she does a HTM-esque "I'll fight anybody in the back!" speech, and Kong makes her debut. And that ain't happening.


RE: Bret - the only thing that really mattered was that ridiculous "reasonable creative control" clause in his contract. That's the source of the issue.

If they had given him creative control, then he didn't have to do anything he didn't want. If they HADN'T, then he would have needed to stop whining and do what he's told, regardless of the immaturity of co-workers.

So in that regard, it's the WWF's fault for allowing something so stupid and vague to be included in the contract. I doubt the same mistake will be made again as long as a McMahon is in power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is "Snooki will actually fight" supposed to be read "Snooki will be a corner decoration while an actual wrestler gets beat down, hulks up, cleans house, hits their finisher, and gives her the clean pinfall" or "Snooki will burn up mic time and procede to get into a catfight with a randomly selected Diva"?

This can only be awesome and worthwhile if the aforementioned "Kong debuts and powerbombs the shit out of her" scenario plays out, which is like telling me Johnny Singer...Swinger is going to win the Cruiserweight title: 0% chance of winning.
 
[quote name='davo1224']* Bret's BS excuse about not wanting to drop it in Canada (while making sense from a storyline perspective) was directly in response to Shawn's past year of on-air BS[/QUOTE]

that doesn't make it right. I see your point, but don't agree that Bret was entirely innocent.
 
[quote name='Scorch']what. the. fuck!!!!!

http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/07/snooki-wwe-monday-night-raw-wrestling-fighting-jersey-shore/




!@*#&$^*&!@^$(*!&@^#$(*&!^@*#$&^@*!&^*^$[/QUOTE]

Ugh. It was almost literally a week ago that someone brought up the TNA/Jersey Shore stuff to me at work. They, though, thought it was WWE. My entire rant was making sure they knew the difference between the two companies and that it wasn't WWE. This development is unhelpful.

Still, nothing says 'we're on the road to WrestleMania' like Snooki.

It's like I don't think my interest in the product can get any lower, but they manage to find new and exciting ways to lower that bar every single week.

[quote name='davo1224']I don't really get people saying Bret was wrong in that situation. Never have and never will. He wasn't the dick in that situation and not in anything leading up to it. I always assume it's people who are only familiar with the Vince McMahon whitewash which probably is the case.

* Bret had signed a 20 year contract the year before so that he could come back and fight Austin and retire with the WWF ala Slaughter, Garea, Patterson, etc. Vince was the one who broke the contract because he said he couldn't afford to pay it since WCW had almost unlimited money to offer.
* Up to that point, Bret had never been uncooperative.
* Bret's contract didn't end until December 7, 1997. That's almost a month after Survivor Series and actually the date of their next PPV which featured a lame duck main event because of what happened.
* Bret said he would drop the title and has been quoted by other wrestlers as saying so
* Bret's BS excuse about not wanting to drop it in Canada (while making sense from a storyline perspective) was directly in response to Shawn's past year of on-air BS
* Shawn Michaels faking an injury because he didn't want to drop the title to Bret made it so that WrestleMania 13 is the only WrestleMania EVER to get a worse buyrate than SummerSlam and even Survivor Series

If we're talking about Hogan level BS, Shawn Michaels is dead second to him. I mean hell, Undertaker had to physically threaten him to drop the title to Austin without any funny business at WrestleMania 14 because of everything he did in 1997.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that Hart never presented it that way. Regardless, I don't think it was so much Hart being in the wrong, more so *everyone* being in the wrong.

Should McMahon have reneged on the contract? No, that was just bad business. Should McMahon have just trusted Bret to not take the belt? Possibly, but it's tough to discount the fact that whether Hart and McMahon had the relationship that Hart claims, McMahon viewed himself as fighting a war. As a result, he wasn't going to even remotely chance a repeat of the Alundra Blayze incident, no matter who the wrestler was and how long he'd been with the WWF.

My issue with Hart is that he was acting more like someone retiring than someone going to the competition. I get that he felt like WWF was his home, and that ultimately Vince gave him no choice but to leave. He wanted to go out the conquering hero riding off into the sunset, which... well, he just wasn't. He was a top star leaving for a company that was currently beating WWF in the ratings. Asking him to drop the belt at Survivor Series was, in my opinion, a totally reasonable request. When I hear things like 'I'll forfeit the title the next night' or 'I'll drop it on live TV', it just doesn't make sense to me. Outside of Bret's own feelings, there was no reason to not drop the belt that night.

That being said, it's not as if McMahon went about this in the right way, either. He forced the situation, and I imagine to McMahon's mind, the constant stalling of dropping the title could mean that Bischoff had gotten to him. Remember that we're dealing with, quite possibly, the most desperate and paranoid Vince McMahon that has ever been. Do I think that McMahon should've given him the benefit of the doubt? Probably... but viewing it through the lens of that time period, I understand why he went with the kneejerk reaction.

So, really, I blame both parties equally, as McMahon was blinded completely by his desire to not be embarrassed by WCW again, and Hart couldn't come to grips with the fact that he was in the process of becoming 'the enemy' and that none of his history meant anything. A bad situation all-around, made worse by the massive egos involved.
 
Bret Hart couldn't have gone to WCW with the title as again, his contract lasted until their next PPV. If worse came to worst, WWF's certainly not above vacating the World Title in 1997 for a BS reason.

Truthfully, Bret should have just continued to be the bigger person and not cared. He was going to get paid a lot more money and he wouldn't have to deal with someone on the level of pre-return Shawn Michaels anymore. However, I can completely understand him not wanting to do it and no one should have expected him to.

I've heard Vince and other people say that he did it because he was paranoid like that's anything to be surprised about. Before the incident he could keep it relatively under wraps but after the curtain was lifted on pro wrestling, everyone started to see how batshit insane he really is.

Montreal happened because Vince and Shawn expected Bret to take in the ass one last time. When he declined, it's like their whole world had been turned upside down. They got so desperate that they were willing to embarass the company on Pay-Per-View just to make sure they came out ahead.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

Any idea if Rock is supposed to be on Raw tonight? If not, I'm gonna get some quality time in with New Vegas.[/QUOTE]

Nope. I read on his twitter he's doing some "filming" or something and won't be there. He didn't say anything about satellite though. :D
 
Interesting trivia bit:

The World Heavyweight Title match between Edge and Alberto Del Rio at WrestleMania 27 will be the first World or WWE Title match at a WrestleMania that will not feature an American.



While Yokozuna and Bret Hart wrestled at WrestleMania 10, Yokozuna was born in the United States. Chris Jericho and Edge wrestled for the World Heavyweight Title last year but Jericho was also born in the United States.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='ShinSolidus']Man, reading about all this politicking makes me glad my boy Punker ain't doing any of it..... I don't think...[/QUOTE]

Are you 7 years old? Who calls him that?
 
[quote name='pitfallharry219']Are you 7 years old? Who calls him that?[/QUOTE]

So...I have to be 7 years old to call him Punker, huh? Ok, then me and Samoa Joe will just be 7.

[quote name='mykevermin']I know for a fact he politics. Ask the current NWA champion.[/QUOTE]

Wait, Colt Cabana is NWA champ!? I thought Pearce would holy that thing forever!
 
[quote name='ShinSolidus']Man, reading about all this politicking makes me glad my boy Punker ain't doing any of it..... I don't think...[/QUOTE]

I doubt there's any top guys who don't politic to at least some extent. You just don't get that high without it.
 
As long as Hogan's list was, you know Trips' is longer but will probably never be fully known due to his "position" in the company.

It would be interesting to see what Flair's list in the 80's looked like in addition to HBK and HHH.
 
Not sure if its a spoiler or not but its Miz related for tonight
According to Miz's twitter account he's boycotting raw tonight. I hope its just a work and he is actually going to show.
 
My issue with Hart is that he was acting more like someone retiring than someone going to the competition. I get that he felt like WWF was his home, and that ultimately Vince gave him no choice but to leave. He wanted to go out the conquering hero riding off into the sunset, which... well, he just wasn't. He was a top star leaving for a company that was currently beating WWF in the ratings. Asking him to drop the belt at Survivor Series was, in my opinion, a totally reasonable request. When I hear things like 'I'll forfeit the title the next night' or 'I'll drop it on live TV', it just doesn't make sense to me. Outside of Bret's own feelings, there was no reason to not drop the belt that night.
Click to expand...

This.

I side with McMahon on the issue personally. There's a long history of title holders / top talent in the industry holding belts & appearances for ransom. That's what McMahon wanted to avoid.

The funny thing about the "I'll do it tomarrow" excuse is that tomarrow comes, you often hear the same thing. What's wrong with today? McMahon did what he needed to do.
 
If I recall correctly, Undertaker vs. HHH at Wrestlemania X7 was the only time HHH ever used a fake sledgehammer and the only time he ever legit busted someone's head open with it.
 
[quote name='lombarvm']It has to be a no dq match to mask Taker's poor health.[/QUOTE]

He's got a bad shoulder so put him in a match that focuses heavily on throwing motions and swinging objects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top