|
Jerusalem posted:Exactly, it's like those people who think that the Hell in a Cell match between Foley/Taker was great because of the spots off the roof, and can't understand why people don't consider it a classic when they leap into a dumper full of weedwhackers off of a roof swarming with crocodiles. The spots mean something because of our familiarity with the characters, the build to the match, and the fact that Foley got BACK UP afterwards with a crazy smile on his face because his character was loving insane and wanted to keep fighting.... and Taker's reaction was,"gently caress it okay let's fight some more!" It's also telling that if you walk up to anybody involved in the Mankind/Undertaker Hell in a Cell, Mick and 'Taker included, and start raving about the match being great, they'll look at you like you're a mental patient and maybe even start backing away slowly. The spectacle was incredible, sure, but the match, such as it was, sucked a dick. And the spectacle, as you point out, is not reproducible; it was a result of one planned spot, then a whole lot of unplanned poo poo and Mick Foley being, frankly, too loving stupid and concussed to know when he needed to stop.
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2009 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
WeaselWeaz posted:Actually, Jim Ross deserves a lot of credit too. In the hands of any other announcer it would have come off as a trainwreck from the big spot on. A spot which was only happened because Foley was deathly afraid of a bad match figured if he was thrown off the cage that anything after would probably be fine. Nobody, including Vince and Taker, was happy it was done. I count Ross' reactions in the "whole lot of unplanned poo poo" collection, though I did him a disservice by not mentioning him.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2009 20:40
|
|
|
freeranger posted:Can someone explain a WCW moment to me. From The Death of WCW, which really every wrestling fan should own: quote:And then there was Hogan versus Sting, which never took place. The idea Russo wanted to get across was that he told Hogan to lose the match and Hogan didn't want to. So Hogan went out in street clothes, whispered something to Sting, then lay down so Sting could pin him and win the WCW title. Nobody watching had any idea what in the hell was going on, the cameras quickly cut away, and the announcers never bothered to try to explain it. They attempted to explain what was happening in the main event, saying Goldberg versus new WCW champion Sting was non-title. A few minutes later, Goldberg pinned him and was handed the WCW title. The show ended with everyone in a state of utter confusion. So, yeah, it was a Russo SWERVE to fool the smarks he so desperately craved approval from, while at the same time fueling his fetish for vacated championships and title tournaments.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 22:50
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:Just reading about the booking of late-period WCW makes my head hurt. The way that book makes it possible to understand so much of WCW's booking, and the job it does explaining at least the concepts behind the un-understandable parts, makes it a miracle of modern literature.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2009 00:08
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:That book is also full of glaring inaccuracies. I have old Nitros on tape that they talk about and poo poo happens very, very differently on more-than-a-few instances. Have any handy examples? I believe you, I just can't check for myself. I trust the book to be accurate to the spirit of the circumstances, if not the strict facts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2009 00:31
|
|
|
Axissillian posted:Which is what the book completely admits Indeed. The book is basically, "X happened, X was stupid/insane/ridiculous/borderline criminal, but WCW could have survived. Then Jamie Kellner happened, and if your first thought is 'who the gently caress is Jamie Kellner?' you have a lot in common with a lot of WCW employees the day they were told WCW was suddenly effectively dead."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2009 01:20
|
|
|
Professor Funk posted:I don't know this story. Did Kane refuse to take a victory of Undertaker at Mania? Yeah. Kane was booked to go over at WM14 (I think), and it had Vince's and 'Taker's OKs. Kane declined and asked that 'Taker get the win instead.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2009 18:53
|
|
|
Magic_Ceiling_Fan posted:How often throughout the history of wrestling has there been a good feud for the title that wasn't about the title itself? Flair/Savage in '92.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2009 18:35
|
|
|
Karmine posted:Plus supposedly he said he wouldn't show up for his own induction if Shawn Michaels was gonna be there or something. Shawn had hoped to get a chance to talk to Bret to apologize and hopefully clear the air even a little bit between them. Bret said if he saw Shawn at all that weekend, he'd skip the induction, and if he saw Shawn during the induction he'd walk off the stage. Shawn told Vince that if that was the case, he was fine just leaving the room during the induction before Bret's.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2009 18:57
|
|
|
AkumaHokoru posted:Honestly that team is why wwe swears throwing 2 singles guys together will make an awesome team Trips and Austin was such a dynamic tag team you would have sworn they were teamed together their entire careers if you didnt know better. Well, more generally, Austin is the reason WWE thinks they can constantly pull that off. It was very difficult to find someone to pair Austin with and not get an awesome result.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2009 00:01
|
|
|
Fallon posted:Fake Razor and Diesel: Neither, exactly. The point was that they weren't Hall and Nash, but they were Razor and Diesel. Vince wanted to establish that Hall and Nash weren't anything special, they were made by Vince and the WWE and he could do the same thing to make any other two people. And as a bonus, he'd use them to turn Jim Ross heel. Didn't quite work out for him.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2009 22:00
|
|
|
Axissillian posted:It also used to be that it was defended under a certain "tv-length" time limit. Yes, it was supposed to be defended on at least every Nitro, and all TV title matches had a ten-minute time limit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2009 05:33
|
|
|
Timby posted:for example, TNT pulled all Fred Dalton Thompson-era episodes of Law & Order for the duration of his presidential campaign And for those of you who don't understand what a hardship it is for TNT to only have had three-quarters of Law and Order's twenty-year span available for Thompson's campaign, we should point out that the loss of the Thompson episodes meant TNT had to rerun several episodes three times in those ten days.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2009 00:32
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Green_%28wrestler%29 No. Two different guys. The Big Al that fought Tank Abbott was apparently the former 911. The match can be seen here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2009 06:04
|
|
|
The A-Team Van posted:Legit question: What were the rules of a normal ECW match? IIRC, they were contested under pinfall/submission rules, where you could use a weapon if need be. Am I right? Right. Unless otherwise specified (a very rare occurrence), matches were no-countout and no-disqualification. Also, "need be" was "quite often."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2009 07:50
|
|
|
Capsaicin posted:Except every now and then there would be a Lance Storm or Benoit or whoever match that was just a straight up wrestling match. They didn't need to be no-dq or no-countout. Though I'm pretty sure they were no-DQ, no-countout anyway, it just never came into play. I could be wrong, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2009 08:42
|
|
|
PeteRoseHaircut posted:Can we once and for all get a consensus definition of X-Pac Heat? I was browsing around some awful forum earlier and someone said that Vickie had X-Pac Heat. The 51% consensus (and that's the best you'll ever get) is that X-Pac heat involves fans booing the wrestler when he enters and, sometimes, if he wins, but generally not reacting much to anything else he does. I've never seen Vickie's segments, but based on what I've read here I find it hard to believe she was getting anything of the kind. Most of the other definitions either are a simple "when fans boo a face" or involve psychic knowledge of why fans are booing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2009 05:14
|
|
|
TL posted:Can we take it easy on the X-Pac heat discussion? It seems to pop up every couple weeks and just leads to big protracted arguments. I tried to answer it in a way that nobody would take major exception to. TL posted:Also, can we agree that "X-Pac" is one of the stupidest wrestling names ever? Seconded.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2009 06:40
|
|
|
The A-Team Van posted:Bret Hart just won't change And since he won't change, he refuses to believe that other people can and have. He's openly mocked Shawn's religious conversion, and hinted that he believes HBK's just using it to try to force people to overlook his past.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:I dunno I mean, people do do that... Not denying that. But Bret seems to be, literally, the only person who knows or knew Michaels but is still questioning his new faith, and Bret hasn't spoken to him since well before his conversion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2009 00:11
|
|
|
WeaselWeaz posted:No. While he wasn't ignored by any means, because his work was good, looking like a 12 year old killed a good chunk of his heat. Right. He went from the face of the cruiserweight division, so to speak, to just another cruiser by and large. And the stupid failed heel turn didn't help anything.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
Karmine posted:I've read that book a bunch of times and I don't remember this part. Weird. Neither do I, and I don't believe it's in Death of WCW. The book's in Google Books, and searches for USA Today, logo, or bird return nothing relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2009 20:09
|
|
|
Professor Icepick posted:http://books.google.com/books?id=uf...ay%20ad&f=false That's a different ad.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2009 22:31
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Well, I guess I'm wrong that the ad doesn't exist because it wasn't mentioned in RD Reynolds' book. What are you talking about? I don't think the ad exists either. I just don't think Death of WCW claimed it did.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2009 00:36
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Fair enough. Just seemed like all the discussion about it not being in the book and no discussion or comments on the fully made-up nature of the ad were pointing in the direction I went. Nevermind. And I went over the top a bit, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2009 04:01
|
|
|
Dragging Iron Feet posted:Somebody mentioned Orton's "inverted backbreaker" in Beasley's thread and it got me thinking about "Above Average" Mike Sanders and how awesome he was. Where the gently caress is Mike Sanders nowadays? The guy was one of the few shining lights of the dying days of WCW and I really wanna see him wrestle again. Stand-up comedy. Seriously. WWE sent him to developmental after the purchase, he became a booker there, got fired, spent a couple months in TNA, spent a couple months in indies, decided he wanted to be a comedian.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2009 02:47
|
|
|
Chunky Delight posted:Am I wrong in thinking that Jarrett was okay as an upper mid-card heel during his first WCW and second WWF run or were they lovely but compared to his second WCW run and TNA they seem down right decent in comparison ? Jarrett certainly could be OK-to-good at times. But he could also get stale very quickly. Given how he was perfectly content to coast on minimum effort when the opportunity presented itself, that was a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2009 06:49
|
|
|
Chilly McFreeze posted:Shawn Michaels and Tommy Dreamer have done piledrivers in the last 3 years. Yeah, Michaels is the second guy they trust with piledrivers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2009 05:49
|
|
|
Carlton Banks posted:I can imagine Bret volunteering for Make a Wish. I love this post.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2009 18:38
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Goldberg's jackhammer finisher must be one of the most protected finishers of the last 10 years. All of the biggest finishers always had someone kick out, but I can't remember anyone kicking out of the Jackhammer. Ever. It got kicked out of a few times when Malenko used it, but that was before Goldberg.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2009 05:33
|
|
|
TL posted:I have to disagree on this. Kurt Angle at his peak was a bigger star than Sting was at his. You should not disagree with people who are correct.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2009 08:14
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Angle headlined a Wrestlemania. He was and is a bigger deal than Sting. If I'm not mistaken, Starrcade '97 had a significantly higher buyrate than Wrestlemania 19. Sid and Yokozuna headlined two Wrestlemanias. Are they bigger, besides physically, than Sting? Than Angle?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2009 18:19
|
|
|
rotinaj posted:How did the infamous Owen Hart impersonator, Jason Sensation, get noticed to be part of that D-X skit making fun of the Nation? Wasn't he selling poo poo on QVC or something? Don't ask me which WWF staff member was watching QVC, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2009 07:05
|
|
|
TL posted:That powerbomb/neckbreaker combination that the Dudebusters sued on ECW, isn't that the move that Raven and Kanyon used that broke one of the Villanos necks? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7oSESAJYkA
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2009 19:33
|
|
|
Theshby posted:I mean the movement more than than the name. a) Because for the half-second your body's scrunched together, you're falling faster due to less air resistance and will therefore land harder, theoretically. b) Because you're wrong, it looks awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2009 19:48
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:ECW owned the name, didn't they? Or Heyman or some such thing, and the rights were sold to WWE and the Dudleys didn't find out until they were informed they couldn't use the name post WWE? Right. Heyman definitely owned the Dudley trademark. They allegedly had a gentlemen's agreement with Heyman to use the Dudley name after they left, but it was still Heyman/ECW's property when Vince bought all the ECW poo poo. Unsurprisingly, Vince was not inclined to honor any agreements Heyman might have made about what was now Vince's intellectual property.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2009 07:21
|
|
|
Tato posted:I remember this theme for Bret Hart called "You Start the fire" being included on the "WWF: The Music Volume 2" and I was always confused because I knew that Hart only ever came out to his classic theme. I shrugged it off as a kid and never really tried to figure out why it was on the disc. I think they used it for the montages they aired before WM12.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2009 01:48
|
|
|
WeaselWeaz posted:According to Foley, he tried to explain that Vince and WWE needed competition to drive them to be creative and a real #2 promotion would help everybody. Instead, Vince felt betrayed and threw a ton of money to keep Foley but it killed their friendship. And the fact that Foley didn't realize that trying to explain that to Vince would be the dumbest thing he's ever loving done shows how stupid he was to take that many chairshots.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2010 05:44
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:Has Undertaker ever gone on the record about the Montreal incident? No. He doesn't go on record about almost anything backstage.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2010 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
dusty udder smoker posted:didn't rock and austin both have to basically fight and plead with mcmahon to put jericho over at vengeance 01? Not quite, IIRC. They were both of the opinion that Jericho should win and were both very willing to put him over. I think Vince's stand was basically, "if you two are OK with it, I've got no problem, either, so let's go for it."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 01:28
|
|