|
DrVenkman posted:I was sure the WCW book says that Nash was booker at the time.
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
MassRanTer posted:Here's the thing: That couldn't be their desired outcome. When Hogan lost to Goldberg on Nitro that was the only time they could ever do that match because Hogan wouldn't do the job again. So when they put the belt back on Hogan they knew they were going into a Hogan vs Flair program and Goldberg vs the Outsiders. The only intelligent and well-reasoned argument to be made out of the situation is this: gently caress Hulk Hogan.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
While Nash didn't become official sole head booker until some point in 1999, he was effectively running the booking committee after Hogan left in fall 1998.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
I remember all of the horrible dirtsheet sites like Wrestlezone blaring "Nash holds the book and the belt" right after he won.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
What should they have done to end his title reign?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Judakel posted:What should they have done to end his title reign? Probably have Scott Steiner beat him through slightly screwy means around Bash at the Beach.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
I feel like Hulk Hogan really was what brought the death of WCW. I guess he was the core of the nWo and what it made such a big deal (although in hindsight Hollywood Hogan kind of looks like someone's dad trying to be cool with his teenage son's friends), but--combined with the creative control bullshit he pulled and his lukewarm to negative reception he had in his first face run, Hulk Hogan just never seemed like a good idea.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:I feel like Hulk Hogan really was what brought the death of WCW. I guess he was the core of the nWo and what it made such a big deal (although in hindsight Hollywood Hogan kind of looks like someone's dad trying to be cool with his teenage son's friends), but--combined with the creative control bullshit he pulled and his lukewarm to negative reception he had in his first face run, Hulk Hogan just never seemed like a good idea. Hulk Hogan was always going to be an odd fit for WCW, at least before the nWo days. One thing to remember is that in many ways, WCW was still very much a Southern regional promotion. Booker T recently said in an interview about how, even at their height, WCW still tended to stick to the Southern circuit, with the occasional forays up North (to what Booker called "colder cities"). There was likely a sizable contingent of WCW's traditional fanbase that viewed Hogan as an interloper from "New York" and hated him for that reason alone.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:While Nash didn't become official sole head booker until some point in 1999, he was effectively running the booking committee after Hogan left in fall 1998. MassRanTer posted:Probably have Scott Steiner beat him through slightly screwy means around Bash at the Beach.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
They were actually doing a "chasing the title/nwo" angle with Goldberg starting around December 99 but then he went and punched his fist through that limousine window and was out for 5 months which kinda killed the thing dead.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
MrBling posted:They were actually doing a "chasing the title/nwo" angle with Goldberg starting around December 99 but then he went and punched his fist through that limousine window and was out for 5 months which kinda killed the thing dead. Nash etc. had no serious plans after beating Goldberg and the fingerpoke.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
I think Goldberg's streak should have ended with the big names of the NWO doing a run-in and stomping the poo poo out of Goldberg. Instead of making it a one sided thrashfest, have Goldberg just start rampaging across the entire ring destroying people left and right until someone gets a lucky cattle prod hit or a chair shot from behind, or some other nefarious method to take him to his knees. At that point, have the biggest guys hold him down while everyone else stomps on him and Goldberg is still trying to fight them off, perhaps succeeding one or two times before they finally take him down for good. They'd spent all that time building Goldberg up into this unstoppable monster that I think that kind of defeat would have given him a really good push as well as setting up for a really great feud between Goldberg (as leader of team WCW) vs Kevin Nash and the NWO. Play the story up where Goldberg just utterly trashes the biggest guys in the NWO with Spear + Jackhammer at random times during the match, but also have the NWO guys come out and ambush Goldberg in his matches, backstage, wherever he is. There are so many places you could take that, it seems incredibly obvious that this is what really should have happened. The streak would have been broken but Goldberg would've come out looking like a total beast as well as a serious contender for the belt, as well as giving the face guys a much needed leader that would have inspired fear in the NWO.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:That was the nWo revival after Russo took over.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I think Goldberg's streak should have ended with the big names of the NWO doing a run-in and stomping the poo poo out of Goldberg. Instead of making it a one sided thrashfest, have Goldberg just start rampaging across the entire ring destroying people left and right until someone gets a lucky cattle prod hit or a chair shot from behind, or some other nefarious method to take him to his knees. At that point, have the biggest guys hold him down while everyone else stomps on him and Goldberg is still trying to fight them off, perhaps succeeding one or two times before they finally take him down for good. They'd spent all that time building Goldberg up into this unstoppable monster that I think that kind of defeat would have given him a really good push as well as setting up for a really great feud between Goldberg (as leader of team WCW) vs Kevin Nash and the NWO. See you have to do all this dumb poo poo just for a dumb streak that doesn't really mean anything. I kinda agree with nash on this one. If all he had was the streak then what was there in the first place? If taking a loss is that bad then there's a problem.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
RBX posted:See you have to do all this dumb poo poo just for a dumb streak that doesn't really mean anything. I kinda agree with nash on this one. If all he had was the streak then what was there in the first place? If taking a loss is that bad then there's a problem. But again, even Goldberg says that the run should've ended sooner or later. It just stopped the momentum of Goldberg as a character dead. Not because he didn't have anything else to offer, but because once the NWO ended the streak they essentially buried him. They had no interest in following through the angle. It never seemed like it was about "Well this has to come to an end at some point" it was more "Hey this guy is insanely popular, we need to do something." hence the immediate hand over to Hogan for the title. The whole thing was nothing more than to restore the status quo. Goldberg was still insanely popular, but WCW didn't seem all that interested which makes a lot of sense when you see who's basically running it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 11:01
|
|
RBX posted:See you have to do all this dumb poo poo just for a dumb streak that doesn't really mean anything. I kinda agree with nash on this one. If all he had was the streak then what was there in the first place? If taking a loss is that bad then there's a problem. Even if the streak was all Goldberg had, if you have someone has something that gets them over, then why take away that one thing that makes him over particularly in such a lovely way?
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
RBX posted:See you have to do all this dumb poo poo just for a dumb streak that doesn't really mean anything. I kinda agree with nash on this one. If all he had was the streak then what was there in the first place? If taking a loss is that bad then there's a problem. If something is making you money, you don't take it away. If Kevin Nash is telling you something that makes you money isn't important you know he is full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
MassRanTer posted:If something is making you money, you don't take it away. If Kevin Nash is telling you something that makes you money isn't important you know he is full of poo poo. Especially considering how motivated by money Kevin has always claimed to be.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
I like Nash and all but he contradicts himself just as much as any other wrestler in trying to claim that he's not a mark for himself to some degree. In various shoot interviews he always goes on about how wrestling is just a job, and he didn't care about winning or losing, and he was just there to make money, and all that sort of thing. Then he'll turn right around and talk about how he argued with various guys (even Shawn at one time or another) about who was going to eat a loss in a match.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
I was rewatching the Rise and Fall of WCW documentary on Netflix and at the part when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash first show up as The Outsiders, Nash said "So this is where the big boys play, huh? Look at the adjective: play." I busted out laughing that Nash hosed up something so easy as verb identification. Completely petty and stupid, but it's indicative of WCW as a whole really.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I was rewatching the Rise and Fall of WCW documentary on Netflix and at the part when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash first show up as The Outsiders, Nash said "So this is where the big boys play, huh? Look at the adjective: play." That cracks me up and it gets shown on every Botchamania. Makes me laugh when he has that goofy look on his face too.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:I like Nash and all but he contradicts himself just as much as any other wrestler in trying to claim that he's not a mark for himself to some degree. In various shoot interviews he always goes on about how wrestling is just a job, and he didn't care about winning or losing, and he was just there to make money, and all that sort of thing. To be fair to Nash you do make more money when you are in the main event and you stay in the main event by winning.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:That cracks me up and it gets shown on every Botchamania. Makes me laugh when he has that goofy look on his face too. I always crack up at that shot of the wrestler in-front of a blackboard: VERB!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I was rewatching the Rise and Fall of WCW documentary on Netflix and at the part when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash first show up as The Outsiders, Nash said "So this is where the big boys play, huh? Look at the adjective: play." Some people argue that it wasn't a botch, he just phrased it wrong and didn't pause when he should have. "So this is where the big boys play, huh? Look at the adjective. (Meaning big, seeing as he was larger than pretty much the entire roster, Hall is a big guy as well) (longer pause) Play? We ain't here to play." That would have made sense but he just ran everything together and looked like a doofus. But he probably just hosed it up regardless and it's still funny.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Critical posted:Some people argue that it wasn't a botch, he just phrased it wrong and didn't pause when he should have. I don't know, there's really too much thought going into that. Occam's razor says he hosed up.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
bartok posted:To be fair to Nash you do make more money when you are in the main event and you stay in the main event by winning. Yeah, I dunno, this sounds to me more like a rationalization used by guys who were insecure about their spot and paranoid about losing it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:I don't know, there's really too much thought going into that. Occam's razor says he hosed up.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
After Meltzer talking Hogan's WCW contract the other night I can't stop laughing at the idea that Hulk Hogan got paid $600,000 to pin Jeff Jarrett at BatB 2000. What a company.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Is there any evidence that the people running TNA have ever been cognizant of all the things WCW did wrong? Because they're feeding the same egos and re-hashing the same ideas. They even had Vince Russo writing for them.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Is there any evidence that the people running TNA have ever been cognizant of all the things WCW did wrong? Because they're feeding the same egos and re-hashing the same ideas. They even had Vince Russo writing for them. It's really simple: Dixie doesn't know how to run a wrestling company, so she listens to anyone who she thinks knows better.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Is there any evidence that the people running TNA have ever been cognizant of all the things WCW did wrong? Because they're feeding the same egos and re-hashing the same ideas. They even had Vince Russo writing for them. I dunno, but I don't mind reiterating that for all the lessons to be learned from WCW, apparently the only one Dixie and the rest of TNA management seem to have taken away was "If you spend a bunch of money, maybe one day you can beat Vince!  "
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Jack Krauser posted:It's really simple: Dixie doesn't know how to run a wrestling company, so she listens to anyone who she thinks knows better. And the people she thinks know better are partly responsible for WCW's fuckups, but they don't accept any responsibility for it whatsoever. Why would they change what they're doing?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Is there any evidence that the people running TNA have ever been cognizant of all the things WCW did wrong? Because they're feeding the same egos and re-hashing the same ideas. They even had Vince Russo writing for them. For all people gripe about the McMahons (and their gripes are legit) and the problems with the product/company, at least Vince McMahon can run a wrestling company. The sheer incompetence and lack of intelligence demonstrated by 95% of wrestling promoters in history makes me amazed wrestling even exists at all sometimes.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Considering less than 1% of wrestling companies wound up being successful in the long run, I'd say TNA's doing quite well at going out of business for over ten years. They're like a carpet warehouse.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Considering less than 1% of wrestling companies wound up being successful in the long run, I'd say TNA's doing quite well at going out of business for over ten years. They're like a carpet warehouse. Yes, they are doing well having lost $50 million+ over the past 10 years. This is the sign of a company doing quite well when they keep losing money year after year. By this logic WCW was doing quite well when they posted losses for 7 straight years.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
I think he's joking about how great they are at losing money
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
In particular, 'carpet warehouse' is a reference to those places that have "going out of business" sales in perpetuity. Not bad!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Considering less than 1% of wrestling companies wound up being successful in the long run, I'd say TNA's doing quite well at going out of business for over ten years. They're like a carpet warehouse. Except that carpet warehouses are usually pretty successful in convincing their marks to part with their money. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
oatgan posted:I think he's joking about how great they are at losing money Haha, yeah. I missed that one. Sorry about that! Edit: and it was a good joke on top of that. MassRafTer fucked around with this message at 05:08 on May 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Except that carpet warehouses are usually pretty successful in convincing their marks to part with their money. TNA should be dead because they've made money in only one quarter of the last nine years and then they immediately decided to spend almost twice as much money for no appreciable benefit. TNA is terrible. (Not as funny when you say it like that.)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 06:11
|
|