|
Post by Chip Jordan on Apr 29, 2015 17:24:41 GMT -5
During Triple H's "reign of terror" he dropped the belt to Goldberg and Batista - rather than say, Booker T and Rob Van Dam.
Are there two main-eventers from any era with less passion for wrestling than Goldberg and Batista?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Apr 30, 2015 11:37:23 GMT -5
During Triple H's "reign of terror" he dropped the belt to Goldberg and Batista - rather than say, Booker T and Rob Van Dam. Are there two main-eventers from any era with less passion for wrestling than Goldberg and Batista? Batista comes off as a guy with passion for wrestling but as it stands with the way WWE works he just doesn't want to deal with the way they operate and why should he when his career as an actor is taking off. Goldberg on the other hand not so much. If he isn't front and center than he wants no part of it.
|
|
efarns
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,273
|
Post by efarns on Apr 30, 2015 15:38:25 GMT -5
During Triple H's "reign of terror" he dropped the belt to Goldberg and Batista - rather than say, Booker T and Rob Van Dam. Are there two main-eventers from any era with less passion for wrestling than Goldberg and Batista? Batista comes off as a guy with passion for wrestling but as it stands with the way WWE works he just doesn't want to deal with the way they operate and why should he when his career as an actor is taking off. Goldberg on the other hand not so much. If he isn't front and center than he wants no part of it. This is another one I kind of thought about. Booker T re-created himself and became a world champion. Without that signature Wrestlemania win over Hunter, what would separate Batista from all the other big, strong men in the WWF? Goldberg was already a made star, so that's a different discussion. When RVD got a chance to finally carry the company banner, he got arrested. In retrospect, not putting their most prestigious belt on someone who openly flouted drug laws was probably a good corporate choice, even if it made all the sense in the world inside the arena.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Apr 30, 2015 19:38:10 GMT -5
I don't agree with that one. At least, it doesn't fit the category. He didn't refuse to job to Lesnar, only to turn around and put over someone like The Road Dogg or The Godfather. Yeah, Stone Cold's point of that was a Brock Lesnar vs. Stone Cold match with hype and build is a ppv caliber match that people would pay money for. Not something that should be given out on Free TV without any kind of story behind it. Shit, if WWE had the logic now that Austin had back then, perhaps we would have more engaging feuds and they wouldn't feel boring after 2 months.
|
|
|
Post by mysterious on May 1, 2015 1:10:28 GMT -5
I don't agree with that one. At least, it doesn't fit the category. He didn't refuse to job to Lesnar, only to turn around and put over someone like The Road Dogg or The Godfather. Yeah, Stone Cold's point of that was a Brock Lesnar vs. Stone Cold match with hype and build is a ppv caliber match that people would pay money for. Not something that should be given out on Free TV without any kind of story behind it. This is why wrestling sucks today. Build it up for the PPV and give it some credibility. Goldberg beating Hogan on Nitro for the title just killed off all of Goldberg's momentum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2015 8:55:08 GMT -5
In hindsight, I can see Bruno Sammartino's torch as the all-conquering babyface champion passed through Superstar Graham to Bob Backlund looking like that could be an error in judgement.
A year or two, sure, but 6 years of him as champion? (Since broken down into 3 separate reigns.) Any fans of the product back then that can provide some insight on what this was like?
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on May 12, 2015 5:29:00 GMT -5
In hindsight, I can see Bruno Sammartino's torch as the all-conquering babyface champion passed through Superstar Graham to Bob Backlund looking like that could be an error in judgement. A year or two, sure, but 6 years of him as champion? (Since broken down into 3 separate reigns.) Any fans of the product back then that can provide some insight on what this was like? Replying late but whilst I had no issues with Backlund as champ (I started watching the product when he was on top) there was gradual dislike to him from the smarks of the day. The fact that Jimmy Snuka, whilst a heel, got cheers against him during their feud was the only time the minority opinion may have translated into the major audience.
|
|