Would WM7 have worked better without Iraqi angle?

[Boo!]

Rather than having Slaughter come out waving the "Eye-rackey" flag with Adnan and insinuated links to Saddam Hos er......whatever you know what I mean brother (sic) wouldn't it have worked better if it was simply the resentful 'former' hero vs Hulk Hogan

You didn't have to exploit the war or make Slaughter an Iraqi sympathiser as he already had natural traction as the GI Joe All-American. IMO it they had just played with that and turned him into a bitter, resentful fallen-from-grace hero who wanted to attack Hogan for being everything that he used to be then it would have worked far better, pissed off a lot less fewer people and actually be an angle that could have drawn quite well. GI Joe turns evil and is attacking Hogan. 

I think the Iraq thing went over a lot of heads of kids who would have been at the age where the 'former hero vs new hero' angle would have made sense to them. It' be like Batman turning on Superman - that sells  of itself you don't need to sign Batman up to ISIS in order for the story to sell.

[jmule]

They should've made a war story about him losing his tongue so he could never speak or do any long, loud, boring, obnoxious, horrible promos....

[DjZonk]

I've always said it should have been Warrior vs Hogan 2 in that 100 seat arena.

[Sephiroth]

It would have worked better without Sgt. Slaughter, period. The Sarge just was already well past his prime even then, and he was a horrible fit for that gimmick. I get that they wanted to get the belt of Warrior because his title reign had not fulfilled expectations (and they have only themselves to blame for that), but Slaughter was just not the guy to do it.

[Hit Girl]

I loved the Sgt Slaughter/Iraq War angle. I liked that WWF had the balls to do it, and Slaughter was an incredible heat-drawing heel.

I do feel however that it should have ended at Wrestlemania VII. Made no sense to me to draw it out until Summerslam, when the war was over for months by then.

I would have gone for Warrior vs Hogan 2 at Summerslam 1991 with Hogan getting his win back. Summerslam 1991 could have been the redemption of Slaughter with him finally going back to being pro-USA.

[baerrtt]

As distasteful as the angle was the audiences wouldn't have cared for Slaughter without it.

[mizerable]

Anyone but Slaughter.

He sucked as a heel.

[Crappler El 0 M]

Slaughter was years past his prime. If you take Slaughter out of the picture, then Ultimate Warrior would have either still been champion or would have lost it to Savage before WrestleMania.

An obvious alternative with no Slaughter would have been a rematch from the previous WrestleMania with Ultimate Warrior going in as champion and giving Hogan the win back.

Another alternative would have been to have Ultimate Warrior (as the champ) defending against Randy Savage. You could even keep the retirement stipulation.

In that case, what do you do with Hogan? I guess they could have stretched out the Hogan/Earthquake feud. I don't think they ever (except perhaps on house shows) let Hogan cleanly pin Earthquake in a straight-up one-on-one match.

I think Warrior/Savage and Hogan/Earthquake would have been better.

Perhaps Warrior/Hogan II would have been the single best main event, but that leaves you to have to figure out the undercard with Savage, Perfect, Earthquake, Roberts, Piper DiBiase, LOD, Hart Foundation, Boss Man, and the still-new Undertaker.

[Sephiroth]

Oct 13, 2014 9:50:01 GMT -5 Crappler El 0 M said:

Slaughter was years past his prime. If you take Slaughter out of the picture, then Ultimate Warrior would have either still been champion or would have lost it to Savage before WrestleMania.

An obvious alternative with no Slaughter would have been a rematch from the previous WrestleMania with Ultimate Warrior going in as champion and giving Hogan the win back.

Another alternative would have been to have Ultimate Warrior (as the champ) defending against Randy Savage. You could even keep the retirement stipulation.

In that case, what do you do with Hogan? I guess they could have stretched out the Hogan/Earthquake feud. I don't think they ever (except perhaps on house shows) let Hogan cleanly pin Earthquake in a straight-up one-on-one match.

I think Warrior/Savage and Hogan/Earthquake would have been better.

Personally, I think that Earthquake should have been Warrior's main title challenger instead of Rick Rude. Quake was on fire at the time and had been well built as a monster. He was a fresh heel who Warrior had never really faced off with previously. Warrior vs Quake would have been something fresh and different, which had been the prime reason for putting the title on Warrior to begin with.

[Boo!]

I don't think Quake would have worked well with Warrior because Warrior didn't do 'peril' very good. If we're widening this out to that whole period I think Warrior's problem is that nobody cared about any of his matches save Hogan one and Savage after he lost the title. People came to see the Hogan story and Warrior was just an attraction who everyone would be happy if he just made an appearance, ran down, shook the ropes maybe clotheslined someone and ran off. If you wanted an angle or to get people draw into something then unless working with a genius (Savage) Warrior was awful at that.

Quake with Warrior would have been awful as he'd not have been able to do his Brother Love show squash. The Hogan/Quake angle was the biggest heat of the summer because you could do that thing with Hogan. Put Quake with Warrior and Hogan with Rude and today everyone would be complaining why Hogan got Rude and he'd have been a better fit for Warrior - simply because whoever Hogan would have been paired with at the time would have ended up as the better angle.

[nisidhe]

Slaughter was, in some ways, the best of a bad lot in 1991. Bundy was gone from WWE by that point (if memory serves) and at the very least was a step down from Andre; Hogan had blown Earthquake off prior to WMVII; Tugboat had yet to become Typhoon; Undertaker was still on the slow-build and their encounter in 1991, I think, was timed more or less perfectly. Most of the rest of the roster Hogan had already worked with or were considered too far down the card to be credible opponents. Savage might have been a possibility but was busy feuding with Warrior. Barring turning Hogan heel (which would have opened things up considerably booking-wise,) the available options were quite thin. It would have been pointless to go fishing from the competition, either, as everybody seemed to be in the same boat at that time.

[Deleted]

Would it have worked better? No. Would it have been more appealing to me as a wrestling fan than a generic USA vs. Iraq storyline? Yes.

Hogan vs. Slaughter was the weakest WrestleMania draw to that point because Slaughter was past his prime and had been out of the mainstream for so long, working in AWA which was a veritable territory for its last several years. Also, Hulkamania wasn't the draw that it had been prior to WM6. Thirdly, wrestling was sliding off the Rock & Wrestling boom and just wasn't drawing like it had a few years before. I think they knew that they weren't going to be able to sell the old main event formula of "Hulk Hogan overcoming the odds" or "Hulk Hogan getting revenge". They had to reach beyond that for something that would stir controversy and get them in the newspapers. Thus, they exploited the Gulf War. Instead of trying to sell Hogan vs. Bad Guy, they sold USA vs. Iraq.

I can't fault Hogan or Slaughter, because they both did a great job playing their roles. If anything killed this for me, it was just how predictable it was. NO ONE gave Slaughter a chance of beating Hogan. The result was purely academic, and given how we'd all seen the Hogan's victory posedown about 1000 times before, I think many decided they would just catch it in reruns.

[dangerousdanpotato]

Oct 13, 2014 10:25:37 GMT -5 nisidhe said:

Slaughter was, in some ways, the best of a bad lot in 1991. Bundy was gone from WWE by that point (if memory serves) and at the very least was a step down from Andre; Hogan had blown Earthquake off prior to WMVII; Tugboat had yet to become Typhoon; Undertaker was still on the slow-build and their encounter in 1991, I think, was timed more or less perfectly. Most of the rest of the roster Hogan had already worked with or were considered too far down the card to be credible opponents. Savage might have been a possibility but was busy feuding with Warrior. Barring turning Hogan heel (which would have opened things up considerably booking-wise,) the available options were quite thin. It would have been pointless to go fishing from the competition, either, as everybody seemed to be in the same boat at that time.

Hulk hadn't really blown Earthquake off. He lost to him at Summerslam, and then at Survivor Series 'Quake got himself counted out brawling with Tugboat. Hulk only really got his revenge by eliminating him in the Royal Rumble, at which time 'Quake was still strong. I would argue Earthquake was the strongest heel in the WWF at that point and if they'd taken him out of the rumble match they could have had him beat Warrior and set up a no-brainer main event at WMVII with Hulk Hogan, with Hulk FINALLY beating him conclusively AND getting the belt back.

[Boo!]

But by that time Hogan vs Quake had been done all over the country. I understand in theory how it would have been a better match/angle but in practice I think it would have been very difficult to have that as your summer programme of 1990 and still had heat for it by the time spring of 1991 came around when the match would have been exhausted on the live event circuit. It isn't like today where you can give someone a rematch for two or three successive PPVs. To go from Hogan vs Quake in June 1990 and still been there in March/April of 1991 is a hell of a long time.

[Deleted]

Oct 13, 2014 11:50:26 GMT -5 dangerousdanpotato said:

Oct 13, 2014 10:25:37 GMT -5 nisidhe said:

Slaughter was, in some ways, the best of a bad lot in 1991. Bundy was gone from WWE by that point (if memory serves) and at the very least was a step down from Andre; Hogan had blown Earthquake off prior to WMVII; Tugboat had yet to become Typhoon; Undertaker was still on the slow-build and their encounter in 1991, I think, was timed more or less perfectly. Most of the rest of the roster Hogan had already worked with or were considered too far down the card to be credible opponents. Savage might have been a possibility but was busy feuding with Warrior. Barring turning Hogan heel (which would have opened things up considerably booking-wise,) the available options were quite thin. It would have been pointless to go fishing from the competition, either, as everybody seemed to be in the same boat at that time.

Hulk hadn't really blown Earthquake off. He lost to him at Summerslam, and then at Survivor Series 'Quake got himself counted out brawling with Tugboat. Hulk only really got his revenge by eliminating him in the Royal Rumble, at which time 'Quake was still strong. I would argue Earthquake was the strongest heel in the WWF at that point and if they'd taken him out of the rumble match they could have had him beat Warrior and set up a no-brainer main event at WMVII with Hulk Hogan, with Hulk FINALLY beating him conclusively AND getting the belt back.

What I'm not seeing is how this would have been better than Hogan vs. Slaughter.  First, Slaughter was a bigger star than Earthquake.  Second, I love Earthquake, but Hogan and Slaughter could get a lot more out of a match than Hogan and Earthquake, which would have been the cookie cutter "CAN HE SLAM HEEM??" match that he already had with Bundy and Andre at two previous Manias.  Third, Slaughter allowed them to exploit the Gulf War and give WrestleMania a degree of cultural significance.  Hulk vs. Quake was a fine rivalry for SNME or one of the other PPV's, but not the biggest show of the year.

[Boo!]

Oct 13, 2014 12:02:40 GMT -5 @tafkaga said:

Oct 13, 2014 11:50:26 GMT -5 dangerousdanpotato said:

Hulk hadn't really blown Earthquake off. He lost to him at Summerslam, and then at Survivor Series 'Quake got himself counted out brawling with Tugboat. Hulk only really got his revenge by eliminating him in the Royal Rumble, at which time 'Quake was still strong. I would argue Earthquake was the strongest heel in the WWF at that point and if they'd taken him out of the rumble match they could have had him beat Warrior and set up a no-brainer main event at WMVII with Hulk Hogan, with Hulk FINALLY beating him conclusively AND getting the belt back.

What I'm not seeing is how this would have been better than Hogan vs. Slaughter.  First, Slaughter was a bigger star than Earthquake.  Second, I love Earthquake, but Hogan and Slaughter could get a lot more out of a match than Hogan and Earthquake, which would have been the cookie cutter "CAN HE SLAM HEEM??" match that he already had with Bundy and Andre at two previous Manias.  Third, Slaughter allowed them to exploit the Gulf War and give WrestleMania a degree of cultural significance.  Hulk vs. Quake was a fine rivalry for SNME or one of the other PPV's, but not the biggest show of the year.

But you say cultural significance like that helped. It didn't, the disdain at the angle drove people away. 

[Deleted]

Oct 13, 2014 12:06:34 GMT -5 Boo! said:

Oct 13, 2014 12:02:40 GMT -5 @tafkaga said:

What I'm not seeing is how this would have been better than Hogan vs. Slaughter.  First, Slaughter was a bigger star than Earthquake.  Second, I love Earthquake, but Hogan and Slaughter could get a lot more out of a match than Hogan and Earthquake, which would have been the cookie cutter "CAN HE SLAM HEEM??" match that he already had with Bundy and Andre at two previous Manias.  Third, Slaughter allowed them to exploit the Gulf War and give WrestleMania a degree of cultural significance.  Hulk vs. Quake was a fine rivalry for SNME or one of the other PPV's, but not the biggest show of the year.

But you say cultural significance like that helped. It didn't, the disdain at the angle drove people away. 

It did backfire, but you still have to stand in Vince's shoes and see it from his angle.  To him it was no different than the other nationalistic rivalries that had been done in wrestling, be it with the Ivan Koloff, the Iron Sheik or Nikolai Volkoff.  So in hindsight maybe we can look back and say that Earthquake might have been a better choice.  Yet, standing in Vince's shoes at the time and looking at it on paper, Slaughter and the Gulf War angle was undeniably going to be the more provocative headliner.

[Boo!]

Oct 13, 2014 12:10:49 GMT -5 @tafkaga said:

Oct 13, 2014 12:06:34 GMT -5 Boo! said:

But you say cultural significance like that helped. It didn't, the disdain at the angle drove people away. 

It did backfire, but you still have to stand in Vince's shoes and see it from his angle.  To him it was no different than the other nationalistic rivalries that had been done in wrestling, be it with the Ivan Koloff, the Iron Sheik or Nikolai Volkoff.  So in hindsight maybe we can look back and say that Earthquake might have been a better choice.  Yet, standing in Vince's shoes at the time and looking at it on paper, Slaughter and the Gulf War angle was undeniably going to be the more provocative headliner.

Perhaps at the end of 1990 but when you were weeks away and you'd only sold 12,000 tickets or whatever it was surely you do an about face or accept that you need to change something somehow. Don't forget they didn't even sell out the Sports Arena. I get why at first you think, as Vince, it's a good idea but people's dislike was evident fairly quickly.

[dangerousdanpotato]

Oct 13, 2014 12:10:49 GMT -5 @tafkaga said:

Oct 13, 2014 12:06:34 GMT -5 Boo! said:

But you say cultural significance like that helped. It didn't, the disdain at the angle drove people away. 

It did backfire, but you still have to stand in Vince's shoes and see it from his angle.  To him it was no different than the other nationalistic rivalries that had been done in wrestling, be it with the Ivan Koloff, the Iron Sheik or Nikolai Volkoff.  So in hindsight maybe we can look back and say that Earthquake might have been a better choice.  Yet, standing in Vince's shoes at the time and looking at it on paper, Slaughter and the Gulf War angle was undeniably going to be the more provocative headliner.

Yeah, I'm kind of indulging a little fantasy booking here. I don't think Sarge was a bad choice and can see why Vince went with him. Aside from the character and angle he was a trusted veteran and high profile name to carry the WWF title. That said, I was still very much engaged with Hulk vs. Earthquake and would personally have preferred to see a real culmination of the feud with 'Quake carrying on his trajectory to the top and finally being toppled. Granted, a fresh feud was probably due for Hulk. But damnit, I want to see 'Quake in the main event! Sarge can face Greg the Hammer

[nisidhe]

Honestly, I don't think that Hogan vs. Slaughter was the sole cause of the severe downsizing of WMVII. There were other factors as well, I think. The economy had tanked a few years before and the recovery was leaving out a lot of people. There were also a lot of empty gaps in the roster left behind by a largish number of departures from WWE after the 1980s, while what talents remained were growing stale to fans, with perhaps a couple of exceptions. The card overall didn't draw a lot of casual fans; while the previous year sold itself as the first WrestleMania held outside the U.S., VII didn't have the same sense of occasion as its predecessors.