The death of WCW book

[cantona7]

I am half way through reading the book and the pro Flair/anti Bischoff bias is unbelievable.

Just wondered what other people's thoughts were on the book?

[Deleted]

I didn't really care for it. It came off very "dirtsheet" with "unconfirmed source said _____" and I came away from it not really feeling as though I had learned anything.

While Vince Russo, Bischoff and the politics that surrounded them definitely helped kill WCW, I believe Nash's side of the story when it comes to the fact that if you're pointing fingers at anyone it's Time Warner who didn't want wrestling on TBS anymore. If they didn't make that decision I'm sure it's possible WCW still could've gone out of business in other ways but there's no telling now.

[Free Hat]

Bischoff gets praised where it's warranted and criticised where it's warranted. I can't agree that there's any bias against him.

[maxheadroom]

RD Reynolds is a comedy writer and never stepped foot behind the scenes of WCW. It came off dirtsheety because it was. The guy knows jack about what really happened in WCW.

And I know that's offensive to him, but it's the truth. I've enjoyed the Wrestlecrap site for about 8 years now, but the guy isn't a credible authority on anything.

[Confused Mark Wahlberg]

I think a comedy writer writing a book about WCW is entirely appropriate.

Nitro/Thunder were some of the funniest shows on TV towards the end.

[Grimlock]

I read it last year while on holiday in Thailand. Great easy reading while lying on a beach, although I wouldnt take any of it as gospel.

The 2 main things I took away from it was:

RD is aroused by ratings.

RD does not like Hogan.

[Brain Of F'n J]

Jan 8, 2011 6:30:09 GMT -5 maxheadroom said:

RD Reynolds is a comedy writer and never stepped foot behind the scenes of WCW. It came off dirtsheety because it was. The guy knows jack about what really happened in WCW.

And I know that's offensive to him, but it's the truth. I've enjoyed the Wrestlecrap site for about 8 years now, but the guy isn't a credible authority on anything.

Yes, he doesn't use verifiable facts, such as ratings or buyrates, and didn't have comments from people in WCW such as Bobby Heenan or John Tenta. Nope, that book has none of that.

Jed Shaffer
~Opinion is one thing, but to invalidate provable facts to say "it's all rumor and opinion" ... I just don't get it.

[WHATAMANOOOVER]

Death of WCW is great. Haven't read it in a few years but from what I recall, painted a solid picture of the asinine and ridiculousness that led a company that made hundreds of millions of dollars to one that was losing money within a short period.

[amishassassin]

Filled with too much negativity and not enough praise for the things they got right. However, did a great job pointing out and explaining some of the ridiculousness that really did help kill it such as Swoll, Kiss and other concerts, Road Wild, etc.

[WHATAMANOOOVER]

Jan 8, 2011 16:52:35 GMT -5 amishassassin said:

Filled with too much negativity and not enough praise for the things they got right.

The book wasn't "The Life of WCW."

[NOwave]

Overall, I thought the book was quite good and reasonably accurate, as best we can tell from outside. I do wish he'd included more documentation of his sources, but I realize that much of it was told in confidence and he didn't want to betray those trusts.

Every individual involved will have a bit different take on what happened in any situation that complex. I'm not surprised there is disagreement. Heck, the 4 gospels contradict one another in small ways, but that doesn't mean they aren't true, in a general sense.

I think the best bet is to read the accounts of as many of the involved people as possible, and them make a conclusion as to what happened. Most of the books I've read, which include Ric Flair's, Chris Jericho's, Bret Hart's, Bill Goldberg's, Terry Funk's, Dusty Rhodes', and JJ Dillon's, agree that WCW was managed very poorly, and that certain individual talents, primarily Hogan and Nash, seemed to be more intent on feathering their own nest than in creating the best possible product for the company.

Naturally, Bischoff's book does not portray it quite that way. He admits some mistakes on his part, but generally implies that his hands were often tied by TBS and then by Time-Warner management. On top of all that, there are books like Dallas Page's that are somewhere in between, reflecting DDP's allegiance to Bischoff, but also his realization that things weren't going well.

For even more insight, I'd like to see accounts of the last years of WCW by the following: 1)Jeff Jarrett-he's a very savvy guy on the business of wrestling, so he must have had some idea as to what was happening.
2)Sting-WCW's longest tenured worker, also must have known everything was not ok
3)Kevin Nash-another very insightful guy. He's certainly taken a lot of heat for his role, but he continues to defend himself.

[i.Sarita.com]

Very anti-WCW and smarky sounding. But interesting I suppose.

Though, how can you write a book about WCW and the Monday Night Wars and not ONCE mention the nWo Wolfpac by name? They were huge in terms of popularity.

[Free Hat]

The lack of proper citation does annoy me, but much of the information is easily verifiable. As far as the backstage stuff is concerned, I think they did as good a job as could be expected in piecing it together from various first hand accounts, which in the end is all we really have to go on.

The book does very much have a pro-Flair/anti-Hogan bias, which did bug me a little. Speaking purely from the perspective of a fan who didn't have internet access in those days, I pretty much viewed those two in exact same light. Just two old dudes who I wanted off my TV screen.

[Spankymac is sick of the swiss]

The one thing that DID bug me was the aforementioned overwhemling pro-Flair bias. Other than that, thought, I found it to be a fairly honest, well informed book.

["Playboy" Don Douglas]

I didn't really see a Flair bias. The guy was the face of WCW. The guy who, when all else failed, could be turned to and least draw them a good house in the old mid-atlantic areas. And they buried him again and again, until not even the fans in the Carolinas gave a damn anymore.

[Mozenrath]

Jan 8, 2011 23:40:34 GMT -5 "Playboy" Don Douglas said:

I didn't really see a Flair bias. The guy was the face of WCW. The guy who, when all else failed, could be turned to and least draw them a good house in the old mid-atlantic areas. And they buried him again and again, until not even the fans in the Carolinas gave a damn anymore.

I think they blew it with Flair, but I would argue that Sting was the face of WCW for the most part. Minor point, I suppose.

["Playboy" Don Douglas]

Jan 9, 2011 0:27:08 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Jan 8, 2011 23:40:34 GMT -5 "Playboy" Don Douglas said:

I didn't really see a Flair bias. The guy was the face of WCW. The guy who, when all else failed, could be turned to and least draw them a good house in the old mid-atlantic areas. And they buried him again and again, until not even the fans in the Carolinas gave a damn anymore.

I think they blew it with Flair, but I would argue that Sting was the face of WCW for the most part. Minor point, I suppose.

I can see the argument for Sting. I ultimately go with Flair because of the history and legacy he established there over the years. He was basically "the guy" any time the company had been hot in any way before the nWo era.

[saintpat]

For me, the book is certainly a good account on a nearly week-by-week basis of what happened on the WCW side of the Monday Night Wars.

I think a lot of the sources probably were able to grind their axes by getting their viewpoints across, and probably some of those sources managed to escape scrutiny for their part in WCW's death.

Where I think it really jumps the shark is that it makes a huge deal about the way WCW was booked and leaves the impression that the booking was always the reason for the company falling further and further behind WWF in the Monday Night Wars -- but only on a rare few occasions points out that WWF's booking in many cases was just as lame, or even moreso, even on the same nights (check out WWE OnDemand and look at dueling shows and you can see that was definitely the case).

I also think WAY too much is made of (a) WCW telling the audience that Foley was going to win the title on Raw (something WCW did all the time) and (b) the complete and total fail of the Sting-Heel Hogan showdown PPV. Both were mistakes, the latter certainly a major mistake, but if neither happened I seriously doubt WCW would still be around today.

A lot is made of high salaries paid to WCW stars who contributed little -- but WWF's track record wasn't a lot different (see Mick Foley's comments on Mark Mero in his book, whichever one that was in, for just one minor example). So if that killed WCW, why didn't it kill WWF too?

The book totally overlooks the fact that even though Sting never got over the way he should have to please the audience, faces like Goldberg and DDP certainly did -- and quite often -- so the thesis that WCW was killed by creating a heel stable and letting it run roughshod over the company (which was quite successful) without the babyfaces ever getting their turn (it happened, just not by the babyface the authors thought should have) is simply not supported by the evidence.

And the idea that putting Hogan-Goldberg on free TV was some kind of gigantic error overlooks the fact that WCW revolutionized wrestling by putting PPV-quality matches on TV all the time -- and they also did quite well on their PPVs for a long time while doing so. Would Hogan-Goldberg have made money on PPV? Sure. But having Goldberg defend his title -- a title that everyone saw him win -- on PPV probably also sold a few buys.

A lot of factors went into WCW's demise, but the book focuses too much on some low-hanging fruit without digging deeper into the real reasons.

[WHATAMANOOOVER]

Jan 9, 2011 0:53:20 GMT -5 saintpat said:

Where I think it really jumps the shark is that it makes a huge deal about the way WCW was booked and leaves the impression that the booking was always the reason for the company falling further and further behind WWF in the Monday Night Wars -- but only on a rare few occasions points out that WWF's booking in many cases was just as lame, or even moreso, even on the same nights (check out WWE OnDemand and look at dueling shows and you can see that was definitely the case).

I also think WAY too much is made of (a) WCW telling the audience that Foley was going to win the title on Raw (something WCW did all the time) and (b) the complete and total fail of the Sting-Heel Hogan showdown PPV. Both were mistakes, the latter certainly a major mistake, but if neither happened I seriously doubt WCW would still be around today.

A lot is made of high salaries paid to WCW stars who contributed little -- but WWF's track record wasn't a lot different (see Mick Foley's comments on Mark Mero in his book, whichever one that was in, for just one minor example). So if that killed WCW, why didn't it kill WWF too?

I think the major reason the book builds as to why WWE overtook WCW was the creation of new stars who got over and weren't buried as they may have been in WCW. While WCW's one major fresh star was Goldberg (then you had the guys like DDP and eventually Booker T), WWE was already pushing Austin in 1996, HHH in 1997, Foley, The Rock then the midcard guys like Edge/Christian, the Hardys, the Dudleys, Jericho, Benoit towards the end of the decade and into 2000).

As for the Foley title win incident, it probably had little effect on anything other than symbolizing the stupidity of WCW. When they tell Tony to make the jab at Foley's title win and he says it, whatever the # was, tuned out to watch it on RAW, then tuned back and Nitro was losing the ratings war at this time.

The Starrcade 1997 debacle, it's assumed that if it was better executed, Sting is over and the bubble doesn't burst. Just four months later, the Nitro strangehold on ratings is over and like you mentioned, Sting is just there. A letdown of a match/angle that was built up for over a year.

With the salaries, again, I'd say they aren't theorizing that the crazy contracts killed the promotion, because it didn't. It just shows an atmosphere that allows for Lanny Poffo to make six figures for literally doing nothing and the money wasted on Master P, the Kiss stuff, and assorted other crap. IIRC, they mentioned how at one point, Nitro had over 100 wrestlers under contract and obviously they did not use close to that many.

WWE gave guys big money, Pillman got a big deal, Mero had a sweet deal and others here and there....and that was at a time when they were struggling as a company before they came threw and saw daylight.

At the end of the day, there are a slew of reasons why WCW came crashing down and as a whole, the book paints the experience as to how the heavily profitable company could crash within a couple years.

Personally, I think no matter what horrible crap went on in WCW, if Turner never signs away his company (as it turned out) with the AOL/Time Warner merger and he maintains power of the TV networks, there's no chance in hell he ever allows wrestling to be cancelled. But he lost control and the new suits wanted a brand change (as we've seen since then) and a money loser/pro wrasslin company didn't mean shit to them.

[truwrestlingfan]

There were some things that were written that were true and made WCW look awful(signing the Genius, paying him a fortune and never using him). But a lot of the stuff was a reach and was not really proven accurate. It came off as second rate. One of the worst 15 dollar purchases I have ever made. The dude should have sticked to listing jobbers of the week