|
Red posted:Here is a controversial ranking of all The Four Horsemen members that will surely derail this thread with pages of argument and discussion, often resorting to childish name-calling and flamewars: I, too, fear that we would derail the WCW thread with discussion of WCW.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
I, too, get jokes
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Like Flair would beat Sting in the ranking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
I think malenko was in there for awhile, and hes the best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Sid!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
There is no other answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
Luger and Mongo were the Horsemen, Malenko, Benoit and Sid were mere pony boys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
I want to connect the term ponyboy to S.E. Hinton's the outsiders and then logically to hall and Nash but I'm just not making it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
Stay gold, big sexy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
I'm sorry but the best Horsemen lineup was Flair, AA, Benoit, Pillman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 10:37
|
|
VogeGandire posted:I'm sorry but the best Horsemen lineup was Flair, AA, Benoit, Pillman. That line up were together for about 2 months, during which Benoit spent most of his time on Saturday Night only really interacting with Pillman the once (in footage they show like 12 times on the horseman dvd), and didn't really do anything. I mean potential wise they might have been the best, but they did nothing as a stable.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
I like the original lineup just because they pulled a part of a house off to beat a dude with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
coconono posted:I like the original lineup just because they pulled a part of a house off to beat a dude with it. The problem with that statement is that you are, essentially, saying something positive about Ole Anderson.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Red posted:The problem with that statement is that you are, essentially, saying something positive about Ole Anderson. If we're saying positive things about Ole Anderson, "Minnesota Wrecking Crew" is a badass name for a tag team.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
VogeGandire posted:If we're saying positive things about Ole Anderson, "Minnesota Wrecking Crew" is a badass name for a tag team. That's true. But he wasn't an original member of the team. But I guess he liked it so much he managed a tag team called "Minnesota Wrecking Crew 2", who were actually kind of neat, until they went to the WWF and became The Beverly Brothers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
They were neat there too, if only for the Shaker Heights Spike, the ugliest, meanest "Oh poo poo they've killed that guy" finisher ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
DeathChicken posted:They were neat there too, if only for the Shaker Heights Spike, the ugliest, meanest "Oh poo poo they've killed that guy" finisher ever. And now it's famous for possibly literally killing a guy
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
DeathChicken posted:They were neat there too, if only for the Shaker Heights Spike, the ugliest, meanest "Oh poo poo they've killed that guy" finisher ever. The only video I can find of this online is a 3D that becomes a Sabu neck botch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:The only video I can find of this online is a 3D that becomes a Sabu neck botch. That's pretty much it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-RIqtmRJhY&t=3m5s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqGzxLSYFW4&t=2m25s Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:That's pretty much it. Christ, they hit it that way more than once? That's terrible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aPlfPbEh9w This one is only kind of funny because it gives Jerry Lawler a heelboner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Christ, they hit it that way more than once? That's terrible. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Red posted:Here is a controversial ranking of all The Four Horsemen members that will surely derail this thread with pages of argument and discussion, often resorting to childish name-calling and flamewars: When asked by Tazz, Flair said the Four Horsemen were himself, Arn, Blanchard, and Windham.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
So with the Hogan heel turn at BatB in 96, I remember reading somewhere that someone had overheard Hogan talking with Piper about it on a movie they were filming together? Does anyone remember the name of that movie, and if it ever saw the light of day?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Memento1979 posted:So with the Hogan heel turn at BatB in 96, I remember reading somewhere that someone had overheard Hogan talking with Piper about it on a movie they were filming together? Does anyone remember the name of that movie, and if it ever saw the light of day? I believe it was called "The Overlords" and also starred Roddy Piper and Gary Busey, but it never got finished.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:I believe it was called "The Overlords" and also starred Roddy Piper and Gary Busey, but it never got finished. Piper and Gary Busey? Holy poo poo! I have never wanted to see a movie more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
bartok posted:Piper and Gary Busey? Holy poo poo! I have never wanted to see a movie more. I remember seeing a YouTube clip from the unfinished film of Piper and Busey playing dueling saxes while wearing sunglasses. No, not really. But how awesome would that be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
bartok posted:Piper and Gary Busey? Holy poo poo! I have never wanted to see a movie more. I assume they ran out of cocaine to pay the cast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
LvK posted:And now it's famous for possibly literally killing a guy Wait, I never heard about this - who was this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Jason Sextro posted:Wait, I never heard about this - who was this? OneThousandMonkeys posted:Christ, they hit it that way more than once? That's terrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Nitro is tonight. First we have the follow up to Fall Brawl. The nWo won War Games, does this mean they get their announcer? Will they follow through with threats to take over the show? What will Sting do now that he's walked out? FIND OUT IN ABOUT AN HOUR! http://psp-tv.com/r/greatestnitroinhistoryofoursport 8 PM Eastern, Tuesday Nightro.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Highlights from the classic observer: That drat'd heel Austin getting face pops and using the Ace Crusher still. And WWF begins their feud with TNA.  And Nitro sucked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
I'm jonesing for an update in this thread. Over the last week, I was once again reminded of WWE revisionism, and how the Attitude Era gets more praise than it should. Remember TAFKA Goldust? I thought that was terrible. Lots of Attitude stuff make WCW seem like highbrow entertainment. While Goldust was on a ball and chain connected to Luna, WCW has DDP on a roll, Goldberg getting pushed, Sting taking on the nWo and Raven just being cool. It's incredible how much WCW failed after getting so many things right. If I had to pinpoint one thing that lead to their failure, I'd say it's the way they handled Bret Hart. His departure from the WWF ushered in the Attitude Era, and his arrival to WCW should have resulted in the demise of the nWo and Bret as the top guy in the company, being promoted as the best ever in the best company ever, holding the greatest championship ever - The Big Gold Belt. In December 1997, WCW had the ingredients needed to crush the WWF within two years, but what they did in that time period was the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
Yeah, this is the message that the Attitude Era Podcast have repeatedly stated: Most of the Attitude Era was genuinely awful. For every good main event storyline, there was like, 6 terrible undercard angles. Plus it's easy to forget how much time was dedicated to said terrible angles. Brawl 4 All, for example, got 15 minutes of every 2 hour Raw for 9 weeks. That's just over a full episode of Raw for an ongoing tournament that done absolutely no business for them at all, the crowd shat all over, killed the pacing of every episode it was featured on and injured most of the participants. Basically, WWE like to cover up and downplay just how easy WCW could have broke them, and how it was basically the equivalent of the stars aligning that means they're still around today. Gyro Zeppeli fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
Brawl for All was terrible. Midget wrestling was also terrible - I know it's supposed to be fun, but when you're competing against a hot angle like the nWo, it's just lame. The Patriot was terrible. Most of the Gang War stuff is also bad. The whole Canada VS. USA thing and the DX was, at least to me, the WWF desperately trying to gain some of the momentum WCW had at the time. But even with all the crappy stuff taken into consideration, the days when we has WCW, the WWF and ECW every week on TV were awesome times to be a fan. For every 'I am starting to watch Raw from '97 onward and it's awesome' comment I see, I can't help but think 'Yeah, but Nitro kicked rear end at the same time'. I believe if the WWE really wanted to make wrestling trendy again, they should cut Raw to two hours and just use the high point of Nitro as reference. If they have a three-hour obligation, just make the first hour a recap and hype show, which would be way better than having an x number of recaps every now and then in a three-hour show. They can easily create an intro show like that from all the backstage and promo videos they upload to WWE.com and YouTube every week, but never show on TV. (Which is stupid, because a lot of that stuff adds to storylines.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
I think when most people, or at least me, are nostalgic for the Attitude era they're more talking about late 1999 to early 2001 half of the attitude era as opposed to 1997 to early 1999. Around the time Jericho came in is where things really started to pick up. It's probably the best run any promotion has had in the modern era. This was a time where you had Austin, The Rock, Foley, Triple H, etc in the upper card and guys like Benoit, Eddie and Jericho filling out the mid-card. On top of that, the tag-division was super hot.Rad R. posted:For every 'I am starting to watch Raw from '97 onward and it's awesome' comment I see, I can't help but think 'Yeah, but Nitro kicked rear end at the same time'. I believe if the WWE really wanted to make wrestling trendy again, they should cut Raw to two hours and just use the high point of Nitro as reference. If they have a three-hour obligation, just make the first hour a recap and hype show, which would be way better than having an x number of recaps every now and then in a three-hour show. They can easily create an intro show like that from all the backstage and promo videos they upload to WWE.com and YouTube every week, but never show on TV. (Which is stupid, because a lot of that stuff adds to storylines.) WWE is more like Nitro at its high point now than it ever has been. You've got a ridiculously big and talented roster just like WCW. A heel faction that makes the faces seem like chumps just like WCW. You even have NXT which is basically WCW Saturday night. There's really not a lot more they could do and still be WWE. Plus Raw in 2000 was better than Nitro ever was, and I say that as someone who put their fingers in their ears and went "Balh blah blah! WCW is better!" during that period because I was a WCW mark. Also, WWE is investing in online infrastructure now, because the writing is on the wall for cable companies. They're not going away anytime soon, but more and more people are dumping cable all the time. Check it out: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cable-tv-providers-hit-by-619875 I know you find it annoying, but it is actually really important for WWE to get people accustomed to using their app and watching shows on Hulu and whatnot now, because that's the direction the entertainment industry is going. That being said, I totally agree. Raw does not need to be three hours. Zack_Gochuck fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Zack_Gochuck posted:Raw does not need to be three hours. They have a writing team. They have a roster of talented workers. The pieces are there - they should be able to find enough to do, instead of just throwing poo poo at the wall. The problem is that they have a 3-hour Raw, 2-hour SD!, Main Event, web shows, and on and on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Red posted:They have a writing team. They have a roster of talented workers. The pieces are there - they should be able to find enough to do, instead of just throwing poo poo at the wall. Those aren't the problem, they existed before 3 hour Raws. The longer the show the harder it is to make it a compelling watch on a weekly basis. 3 hours is an entire night of TV viewing. You could have the best writing team in the world and it would be hard to watch that show every week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:Those aren't the problem, they existed before 3 hour Raws. The longer the show the harder it is to make it a compelling watch on a weekly basis. 3 hours is an entire night of TV viewing. You could have the best writing team in the world and it would be hard to watch that show every week. Having to script a 3-hour Raw and do it again 24 hours later for a TV taping seems like a creative drain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
There's a hidden problem with the three hour shows which is that nothing remotely important ever happens outside of the top of the hour segments, and usually you can even skip the top of the 9 PM hour segment at this point. I attack RAW in a different way to condense it, but if you want you could probably get it down to 30 or 40 minutes live just by skipping everything except those key hour break segments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Nitro had several three-hour episodes where it felt like anything could happen at any time. I know exactly when to tune in to RAW to see what I need to see. But I was sixteen then and am thirty-one now, so there's also that. But I think the point stands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 06:20
|
|
