Ozman
Samurai Cop
Chi-Town!!!
Posts: 2,375
|
Post by Ozman on Sept 4, 2009 2:12:46 GMT -5
I don't know why so many people (including RD) would get so butthurt over the wig schtitck. Unfortunately, this is how the "Smark Community" usually operates. If the few guys who "have a voice" in the IWC (Meltzer, Alvarez, RD, etc.) say something is bad, most of the "Smark Community" automatically agrees with them, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I prefer to make my own decisions and not automatically take the opinions of guys like Meltzer as the truth, but that's just the way I am. P.S.- The Goldberg/Goldust wig bit wasn't bad at all, and was probably forgotten by the average fan soon after it was over.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Sept 4, 2009 10:13:10 GMT -5
I don't know why so many people (including RD) would get so butthurt over the wig schtitck. Unfortunately, this is how the "Smark Community" usually operates. If the few guys who "have a voice" in the IWC (Meltzer, Alvarez, RD, etc.) say something is bad, most of the "Smark Community" automatically agrees with them, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I prefer to make my own decisions and not automatically take the opinions of guys like Meltzer as the truth, but that's just the way I am. P.S.- The Goldberg/Goldust wig bit wasn't bad at all, and was probably forgotten by the average fan soon after it was over. In other words, the sheep mentality of the IWC, though the marks are also guilty of it. "We are the IWC. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us."
|
|
spagett
Hank Scorpio
Great Job!
Posts: 5,649
|
Post by spagett on Sept 4, 2009 10:30:33 GMT -5
THIS.
You have to remember the situation back then as to why so many people hated Triple H retaining.
He had been Champion for about 8 or 9 months pretty much and was having crappier and crappier feuds and matches as the months went on. It truly was a reign of doom.
[/quote] His feuds didnt get crappier though, Sure his matches with Steiner sucked, But Shawn Michaels wouldnt have been able to get a good match out of Steiner in that shape. The Booker T feud sucked but thats because Booker T shouldnt have been anywhere near that level and noone (except the internet) bought him as a main eventer. Then he moved on to a brilliant feud with Nash which brought tv ratings up, Made WWE a hell of a lot of money, And culminated in a FANTASTIC HIAC match which scored a HUGE buyrate (funny how noone complained about burials when HHH got the win this time eh). But of course because this is the internet and it contains Nash and (to a lesser extent) HHH then it automatically sucked. As for the Goldberg feud i cant remember that much about it but their Survivor Series match was damn good and (surprise surprise) doesnt get the credit it deserves.[/quote][/b][/i] The Triple H Kevin Nash feud got good ratings and a huge buyrate? Really? I thought it was universally accepted that both the feud and their series of matches sucked. Continuing Kevin Nash's long and proud tradition of being crap.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Sept 4, 2009 10:47:08 GMT -5
It's been mentioned so much, may as well get the actual wig video up here for reference.
Total time in the wig, about 11 or 12 seconds, followed by a polite refusal followed by an outright threat.
Some people think Goldberg's entire run in the WWE was ruined by this.
Go figure, I guess.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Sept 4, 2009 11:28:10 GMT -5
It's been mentioned so much, may as well get the actual wig video up here for reference. Total time in the wig, about 11 or 12 seconds, followed by a polite refusal followed by an outright threat. Some people think Goldberg's entire run in the WWE was ruined by this. Go figure, I guess. I don't see it myself. It's not like fans stopped cheering for him when he had it on.
|
|
BlackoutCreature
Grimlock
The Ultimate Popcorntunist!
Posts: 14,527
Member is Online
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Sept 4, 2009 12:14:26 GMT -5
The Triple H Kevin Nash feud got good ratings and a huge buyrate? Really? I thought it was universally accepted that both the feud and their series of matches sucked. Continuing Kevin Nash's long and proud tradition of being crap. I always considered their Hell in the Cell match to be pretty good, for a Kevin Nash match anyways. It was solidly entertaining over-all. Don't know the ratings data, but the buyrate for Bad Blood 2003 (the show with the HHH-Nash Cell match) was a bit higher then most of the other WWE PPV's of the time. Although I'm sure most people attribute that more to Mick Foley's return then the Nash feud. Nobody will probably agree with me, but I get the impression that Nash was genuinely trying with that feud. He seemed like he wanted to prove himself, show that he's more then a loudmouth businessman who politics his way to the main event. He didn't succeed, but for the first time since like 1996 I get the impression he was actually trying.
|
|
|
Post by stevieraymark on Sept 4, 2009 16:28:09 GMT -5
The Triple H Kevin Nash feud got good ratings and a huge buyrate? Yes
Really? Yes
I thought it was universally accepted that both the feud and their series of matches sucked. Only among blind smarks it was, These are the same people that "universally accept" that Nash was the worst champion in history. Yeah smarks dont like facts. Lets be honest Nash and HHH could have had a Flair/Steamboat like rivalry and it would still get shit on, just because Nash is in it.
Don't know the ratings data, but the buyrate for Bad Blood 2003 (the show with the HHH-Nash Cell match) was a bit higher then most of the other WWE PPV's of the time. Although I'm sure most people attribute that more to Mick Foley's return then the Nash feud.
Im glad someone brought this up, Because the original smark excuse for the show doing so well was that the HIAC was the only draw to the match, But when the following years Badd Blood HIAC between HBK and HHH only drew HALF as good a buyrate as the Nash one the excuse was changed to Foley being the main draw. That my friends is what you call clutching at straws. Thats right the excuse for Nash being a draw is that people only paid their money to see Mick Foley REFEREE a match.
So Mick Foleys such a draw right? i mean a ginormous amount of people are willing to buy a ppv with him REFEREEING a match, Imagine what it would be like if he actually wrestled? Why dont we fast forward to april 04? Oh wait Backlash didnt do ANYWHERE NEAR the buyrate Badd Blood did. I dont know are people only willing to pay to see Mick Foley when hes REFEREEING. Or is Nash a draw?.
|
|
BlackoutCreature
Grimlock
The Ultimate Popcorntunist!
Posts: 14,527
Member is Online
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Sept 4, 2009 17:20:14 GMT -5
So Mick Foleys such a draw right? i mean a ginormous amount of people are willing to buy a ppv with him REFEREEING a match, Imagine what it would be like if he actually wrestled? Why dont we fast forward to april 04? Oh wait Backlash didnt do ANYWHERE NEAR the buyrate Badd Blood did. I dont know are people only willing to pay to see Mick Foley when hes REFEREEING. Or is Nash a draw?. It was Mick Foley's first PPV appearance in nearly a year and a half. Between that and the Hell in the Cell stipulation, people got talking and it pulled in a slight bump in the PPV buyrates of the time. By Backlash 2004 Foley was on TV every week and the mystique was gone. Also, "ginormous" is a pretty radical overstatement. Here were the buyrates for the PPV's at the time - Backlash - .67 Judgement Day - .62 (where HHH and Nash had there first match) Bad Blood - .75 (with the HHH-Nash Cell match) Vengeance - .69 While Bad Blood had a mild bump, the first HHH-Nash match got the lowest buyrate of all the PPV's around that period. I think its pretty safe to say more people were interested in Mick Foley appearing to referee then Kevin Nash appearing to wrestle.
|
|
|
Post by stevieraymark on Sept 4, 2009 17:47:51 GMT -5
I was being sarcastic using ginormous - in relation to the amount of people buying a ppv for the referee. as for your ppv buyrate figures your dead wrong.
Backlash- scored a mega buyrate of 1.1 Judgment day- done a 0.58 Badd Blood- done a 0. 82 Vengeance - done a 0.49
|
|
spagett
Hank Scorpio
Great Job!
Posts: 5,649
|
Post by spagett on Sept 4, 2009 18:25:40 GMT -5
I was being sarcastic using ginormous - in relation to the amount of people buying a ppv for the referee. as for your ppv buyrate figures your dead wrong. Backlash- scored a mega buyrate of 1.1 Judgment day- done a 0.58 Badd Blood- done a 0. 82 Vengeance - done a 0.49 I cant help but think your love of Kevin Nash is affecting your views here. Why would nobody care about Kevin Nash a month earlier and then at Bad Blood suddenly care? Answer Foley and Cell.
|
|
Ragnal
Game Genie
Yanno what they say: All toasters toast El Dandy
Posts: 8,677,836
|
Post by Ragnal on Sept 4, 2009 18:52:41 GMT -5
I was being sarcastic using ginormous - in relation to the amount of people buying a ppv for the referee. as for your ppv buyrate figures your dead wrong. Backlash- scored a mega buyrate of 1.1 Judgment day- done a 0.58 Badd Blood- done a 0. 82 Vengeance - done a 0.49 I'm not about to help turn this thread into a debate about whether or not Nash was a big draw at like, the one PPV he headlined, but even if the buyrates are "wrong", they're still marginally the same thing: Judgement Day and Vengeance didn't do so well, while Bad Blood did. Just because the numbers are wrong, the margins aren't. Back on topic...I don't see the issue with the wig either. I mean, yeah, I bought into the "WIG IS BAD" thing when I read Death of WCW, but then I watched the video a while back, and I see that...and I wondered..."That's IT?"
|
|
|
Post by A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto) on Sept 4, 2009 21:47:39 GMT -5
I have an even better question: Was Vader's WWE run REALLY that bad? I always hear and see people saying this, but I have looked back on his initial debut vignettes and impact to WWF back in 1996, and they really made him seem like a bad-ass monster heel. He even got to attack Gorilla Monsoon, and hospitalize the mighty Yokozuna. I might be willing to agree that he had better overall matches in WCW and Japan, but I don't think his first run in '96 was bad. I guess the next year he wasn't really doing much aside from teaming with Mankind. Still, Vader was a big deal for months in WWF back then, and even *kayfabe wise* should have won the title from Shawn Michaels two times at Summerslam. He pinned him at International Incident '96 and had a feud in early '97 with Undertaker.
I remember his face being on the front of Raw magazine (back when Raw actually meant a damn thing) totally covered in blood. Ahh the good ol' days. Things were so much simpler then.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 4, 2009 22:16:51 GMT -5
I have an even better question: Was Vader's WWE run REALLY that bad? I always hear and see people saying this, but I have looked back on his initial debut vignettes and impact to WWF back in 1996, and they really made him seem like a bad-ass monster heel. He even got to attack Gorilla Monsoon, and hospitalize the mighty Yokozuna. I might be willing to agree that he had better overall matches in WCW and Japan, but I don't think his first run in '96 was bad. I guess the next year he wasn't really doing much aside from teaming with Mankind. Still, Vader was a big deal for months in WWF back then, and even *kayfabe wise* should have won the title from Shawn Michaels two times at Summerslam. He pinned him at International Incident '96 and had a feud in early '97 with Undertaker. I remember his face being on the front of Raw magazine (back when Raw actually meant a damn thing) totally covered in blood. Ahh the good ol' days. Things were so much simpler then. I genuinely disliked his WWF run. Felt like wasted opportunity after wasted opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 4, 2009 22:17:18 GMT -5
I have an even better question: Was Vader's WWE run REALLY that bad? I always hear and see people saying this, but I have looked back on his initial debut vignettes and impact to WWF back in 1996, and they really made him seem like a bad-ass monster heel. He even got to attack Gorilla Monsoon, and hospitalize the mighty Yokozuna. I might be willing to agree that he had better overall matches in WCW and Japan, but I don't think his first run in '96 was bad. I guess the next year he wasn't really doing much aside from teaming with Mankind. Still, Vader was a big deal for months in WWF back then, and even *kayfabe wise* should have won the title from Shawn Michaels two times at Summerslam. He pinned him at International Incident '96 and had a feud in early '97 with Undertaker. I remember his face being on the front of Raw magazine (back when Raw actually meant a damn thing) totally covered in blood. Ahh the good ol' days. Things were so much simpler then. I genuinely disliked his WWF run. Felt like wasted opportunity after wasted opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Threadkiller [Classic] on Sept 4, 2009 22:43:25 GMT -5
I was being sarcastic using ginormous - in relation to the amount of people buying a ppv for the referee. as for your ppv buyrate figures your dead wrong. Backlash- scored a mega buyrate of 1.1 Judgment day- done a 0.58 Badd Blood- done a 0. 82 Vengeance - done a 0.49 I'm not about to help turn this thread into a debate about whether or not Nash was a big draw at like, the one PPV he headlined, but even if the buyrates are "wrong", they're still marginally the same thing: Judgement Day and Vengeance didn't do so well, while Bad Blood did. My personal theory for why Badd Blood did the numbers it did was a combination of Foley/Cell/the much-hyped Redneck Decathalon featuring Steve Austin and, this is the important part (at least to me), the fact that it was the first single-branded PPV. I can only speak for myself, but I was definitely more interested in Badd Blood than the other off-month PPVs because it was the first test to see if the brands could sustain their own separate PPVs. That intrigued me if, for no other reason, we would be getting midcard feuds that got PPV blow-offs (for instance, the fairly interesting London-Kidman feud that terminated at No Mercy, which wouldn't have gotten within sniffing distance of PPV on today's tri-branded PPVs). I was intrigued to see how they'd handle the first single-branded PPV, and so I ordered it. Also, and this is a bit of a weak spot for me, the IC title was always a huge factor in determining whether or not I ordered a PPV (it's always been my favorite championship), and the IC title had just returned. So yeah, I was excited about Christian vs. Booker T. As far as Goldberg goes, they jettisoned a pretty good feud with Y2J at Badd Blood. I seriously think they could have drawn that out over the summer and extended Goldberg's title chase to Survivor Series. I definitely would have been game. I was excited about the prospect of having Goldberg be this absolute beast that the WWE-grown guys didn't know how to handle. For the most part, this was true. I mean, HHH had no idea how to handle Goldie unless he had his trusty Sledge, and that was a nice mini-story in itself, even if it was just a way for Trips to hold onto the belt that much longer. That said, I don't think the WWE brass knew going in that Goldberg would be as monstrously over as he was at Summerslam that year. I mean, even I was surprised. And I was a Goldberg mark from day one. So I can sort of see how they thought that building up the chase for just one more month and having the title change occur at one of the newly-established single-brand PPVs would heighten the profile of the single-branded shows, proving that titles wouldn't only change hands at one of the big four, and that anything could happen on a Raw or Smackdown brand PPV. I just think that hindsight as worked its ugly magic to show how poorly that plan (assuming that was the intended plan, and not just one of the many fabled "HHH Power Plays") turned out.
|
|
BlackoutCreature
Grimlock
The Ultimate Popcorntunist!
Posts: 14,527
Member is Online
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Sept 4, 2009 22:49:09 GMT -5
I have an even better question: Was Vader's WWE run REALLY that bad? I always hear and see people saying this, but I have looked back on his initial debut vignettes and impact to WWF back in 1996, and they really made him seem like a bad-ass monster heel. He even got to attack Gorilla Monsoon, and hospitalize the mighty Yokozuna. I might be willing to agree that he had better overall matches in WCW and Japan, but I don't think his first run in '96 was bad. I guess the next year he wasn't really doing much aside from teaming with Mankind. Still, Vader was a big deal for months in WWF back then, and even *kayfabe wise* should have won the title from Shawn Michaels two times at Summerslam. He pinned him at International Incident '96 and had a feud in early '97 with Undertaker. I remember his face being on the front of Raw magazine (back when Raw actually meant a damn thing) totally covered in blood. Ahh the good ol' days. Things were so much simpler then. I actually thought it was a pretty good run up until around late-96 when you realized there was no way he was gonna win the WWF Title. Vader works best as a monster heel champion who plucky babyfaces rose up to try to conquer (similar to how Mark Henry worked best in ECW). Once he failed to win the title, nobody seemed to know what else to do with him so he just kinda spun his wheels until his face turn against Bret Hart. Then when he couldn't get the title off of Hart, he went back to spinning his wheels until his release.
|
|
|
Post by Threadkiller [Classic] on Sept 4, 2009 23:06:56 GMT -5
I have an even better question: Was Vader's WWE run REALLY that bad? I always hear and see people saying this, but I have looked back on his initial debut vignettes and impact to WWF back in 1996, and they really made him seem like a bad-ass monster heel. He even got to attack Gorilla Monsoon, and hospitalize the mighty Yokozuna. I might be willing to agree that he had better overall matches in WCW and Japan, but I don't think his first run in '96 was bad. I guess the next year he wasn't really doing much aside from teaming with Mankind. Still, Vader was a big deal for months in WWF back then, and even *kayfabe wise* should have won the title from Shawn Michaels two times at Summerslam. He pinned him at International Incident '96 and had a feud in early '97 with Undertaker. I remember his face being on the front of Raw magazine (back when Raw actually meant a damn thing) totally covered in blood. Ahh the good ol' days. Things were so much simpler then. I actually thought it was a pretty good run up until around late-96 when you realized there was no way he was gonna win the WWF Title. Vader works best as a monster heel champion who plucky babyfaces rose up to try to conquer (similar to how Mark Henry worked best in ECW). Once he failed to win the title, nobody seemed to know what else to do with him so he just kinda spun his wheels until his face turn against Bret Hart. Then when he couldn't get the title off of Hart, he went back to spinning his wheels until his release. I remember back in the day that one of the Apter mags had a bi-monthly feature where they'd fantasy book a major angle for one of the big two promotions. And they came up with this totally badass angle where Vader beats Shawn for the WWF title at the Royal Rumble and holds it until the following year's Rumble. This entire time, Goldust is being built up as a babyface (much like he had been at that point, but in a much more serious fashion), eventually getting Dusty Rhodes to be his manager alongside his valet/wife Terri. Slowly, Goldust catches on like wildfire as the eccentric, unpredictable competitor who fought wildly against all opponents. He earns a shot at the title at the Rumble and basically the match is a re-enactment of Flair/Vader from Starrcade 93. It puts Goldust over huge, and he finally rescues the WWF from Vader's year-long reign of terror. Then Dusty denounces Goldust, saying he's ashamed that his son has to be such an embarrassment, lowering himself to this oddball persona in order to get noticed - basically telling him that if he wasn't good enough for the world title as Dustin Rhodes, then he should have had enough respect for his father to retire, instead of dragging the family name through the mud by running around as a crazed weirdo. Dusty keeps challenging Goldust to a match and Goldust keeps refusing to fight. Eventually, Dusty costs Goldust the title in a rematch against Vader inside a steel cage (much like the Bret-Sid fiasco from 1997), inadvertantly wounding Terri in the process. It is then that Goldust accepts and the match is booked for WM. Goldust pounds on Dusty and then, when he has him beat, Goldust wipes the makeup off of his face, unzips his outfit to reveal a plain white t-shirt, blue jeans, and cowboy boots (I know, just go with it). He gets on the microphone and tells Dusty that he's "Dustin Rhodes, a world champion like my father. <i>(Yes, they basically adapted the end speech from Return of the Jedi). </i> And I'll keep on being a champion after he's gone. Tonight, being a champion means walking away." And Dustin leaves the ring with Terri and forfeits the match by countout. Oh yeah, Vader. He main events WM against Steve Austin. Austin wins, becomes the champion, the Austin era begins and blah blah blah. I would have loved to have seen Vader in his prime against Goldberg, now that you mention the guy. Or even Vader against Brock Lesnar. Excuse me, I'm going to go watch some Vader matches now. Best big man in the history of this business, in my opinion. (Hilarious pratfalls from 2005 notwithstanding)
|
|
|
Post by noleafclover1980 on Sept 5, 2009 0:46:38 GMT -5
I watched WCW and WWF at the time, and followed Goldberg. Yes, the guy was exciting at first, but how many wins in that streak were against guys like Renegade and Jerry Flynn? The point was, after awhile, Goldberg's entire gimmick was about him being unbeatable, and undefeated. You can't keep it going forever, and with him, the chase is better then the catch. It was a big build to him winning the title, and when he finally did, where do you go from there? I just don't think he ever got the same momentum back after dropping the title to Nash, sometimes you can only catch lightning in a bottle once.
|
|
|
Post by stevieraymark on Sept 5, 2009 11:20:58 GMT -5
I was being sarcastic using ginormous - in relation to the amount of people buying a ppv for the referee. as for your ppv buyrate figures your dead wrong. Backlash- scored a mega buyrate of 1.1 Judgment day- done a 0.58 Badd Blood- done a 0. 82 Vengeance - done a 0.49 I cant help but think your love of Kevin Nash is affecting your views here. Why would nobody care about Kevin Nash a month earlier and then at Bad Blood suddenly care? Answer Foley and Cell. Maybe because that whole month in between was spent building up to Nash vs HHH. Foley was only added to the match 6 days before the ppv (i think) and was barely advertised and the Cell wasnt a draw for HBK VS HHH the following year. The dvd of this show was also hugely successful.
|
|
|
Post by wasimperviz on Sept 7, 2009 19:47:08 GMT -5
Goldbergs WWE run was very bad. I felt it could have been far better then it was as I am sure many of us think that. Also some of his matches could have been hyped up a lot more and made far more money for WWE.
It is a shame because when Goldberg joined WWE I was very happy but one year on I was saying what a mistake.
|
|