|
|
Post by jadison on Dec 27, 2011 9:06:17 GMT -5
Those Santino feuds would never get hot enough to main event Smackdown. It is a bad comparison in terms of Cactus's spot in the company and Santino's spot. My God you people are overanalyzing this. My point is the same - Vader was seen as a main eventer, Cactus wasnt. Vader was seen as someone important, Cactus wasn't. From the beginning Vader was gonna go over, Cactus wasn't. The only reason this feud existed was to give Vader something to do until something more important for him came along. End of story. Based on everything we've seen and heard about WCW at the time this should be painfully obvious. Why is this an argument? I don't appreciate it when people tell me how much I can analyze something. You made a comparison, someone said it wasn't a very good one, and you got all "wut sorry I'm offending your god Mick Foley" so I wanted to try and explain the point. It's a message board, expect peoples' two cents when you post. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on Dec 27, 2011 10:08:54 GMT -5
The head booker in question was Ric Flair. Later on it was Eric Bichoff. I know, I was making a joke about WCW's revolving door policy on their head booker position. I get that, I was just pointing out who was the booker was and that Flair being in charge was probably why Foley didn't get very far. |
|
BlackoutCreature
Grimlock
The Ultimate Popcorntunist!
Posts: 14,439
Member is Online
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Dec 27, 2011 17:02:59 GMT -5
Because not only are you inaccurate, but you're completely understating Foley's role in the company at this time. Yes the plan all along was for Vader to go over, but what exactly does that prove? Just because he was scheduled to lose a program doesn't mean he wasn't seen as "someone important". That's seriously ridiculous. Perhaps "important" wasn't the right word. I have seen footage of WCW back then, I watched it regularly. At no time did I see anything to suggest that the guys in charge of WCW saw him as anything more then a mid-carder with a cult following who got on a hot streak with Vader. He was not seen as an integral part of the company the way Vader was. Based on Foley's own comments about his time in WCW in his books I doubt he would argue this point. If Foley would've walked into a WCW office one day and said "I'm quitting", do you think anybody in charge would make an attempt to stop him? Reverand BSB's post pretty much summed up Bill Watts feelings on him. Ric Flair has made it no secret how he felt about Foley. What are you basing your claims on that somebody in a position of authority saw him as something more? "The only reason this feud existed was to give Vader something to do until something more important for him came along." What a ridiculous statement. What is this based on? Can you confirm this? Is there anything substantial behind this statement? No. It's absurd. You can say that about any wrestling feud ever. For example, "Kane's going to lose his feud with John Cena. The only reason it's even happening is to keep Cena on TV." Yeah, you can. In fact my statement probably perfectly sums up the Kane-Cena feud as well. The thing is nearly two decades after Cena beats Kane and their feud is over I doubt there will be people starting threads asking "why didn't Kane come back after that, get his revenge on Cena and go over?". Why? Because that wasn't the point of the feud. That's all I was trying to say from the very beginning. I don't appreciate it when people tell me how much I can analyze something. I apologize if I offended you. Let me ask you this though - what do you base your statement that Foley's role in WCW in 1993 is drastically different from Santino's role in the WWE in 2011? To be fair, I'll list my reasons why I think there more similar then people would give them credit for - 1. Both were looked at as mid-carders with cult followings by management. 2. Neither were looked at as potential main eventers or serious challengers to World Championships at their times by management. 3. Both have had programs with top tier talent despite the fact that they were considered nothing more then mid-carders. 4. Both were programmed against monster heels who didn't have much else to do at the time and neither feud was meant to really elevate either guy beyond mid-card status. 5. Both were placed in the feud because, despite not being considered main eventers by management, they could get the fans interested in the feud through their unconventional antics. So what are you claiming are the differences? |
|
|
|
Post by toodarkmark on Dec 28, 2011 0:12:17 GMT -5
Because not only are you inaccurate, but you're completely understating Foley's role in the company at this time. Yes the plan all along was for Vader to go over, but what exactly does that prove? Just because he was scheduled to lose a program doesn't mean he wasn't seen as "someone important". That's seriously ridiculous. Perhaps "important" wasn't the right word. I have seen footage of WCW back then, I watched it regularly. At no time did I see anything to suggest that the guys in charge of WCW saw him as anything more then a mid-carder with a cult following who got on a hot streak with Vader. He was not seen as an integral part of the company the way Vader was. Based on Foley's own comments about his time in WCW in his books I doubt he would argue this point. If Foley would've walked into a WCW office one day and said "I'm quitting", do you think anybody in charge would make an attempt to stop him? Reverand BSB's post pretty much summed up Bill Watts feelings on him. Ric Flair has made it no secret how he felt about Foley. What are you basing your claims on that somebody in a position of authority saw him as something more? Yeah, you can. In fact my statement probably perfectly sums up the Kane-Cena feud as well. The thing is nearly two decades after Cena beats Kane and their feud is over I doubt there will be people starting threads asking "why didn't Kane come back after that, get his revenge on Cena and go over?". Why? Because that wasn't the point of the feud. That's all I was trying to say from the very beginning. I don't appreciate it when people tell me how much I can analyze something. I apologize if I offended you. Let me ask you this though - what do you base your statement that Foley's role in WCW in 1993 is drastically different from Santino's role in the WWE in 2011? To be fair, I'll list my reasons why I think there more similar then people would give them credit for - 1. Both were looked at as mid-carders with cult followings by management. 2. Neither were looked at as potential main eventers or serious challengers to World Championships at their times by management. 3. Both have had programs with top tier talent despite the fact that they were considered nothing more then mid-carders. 4. Both were programmed against monster heels who didn't have much else to do at the time and neither feud was meant to really elevate either guy beyond mid-card status. 5. Both were placed in the feud because, despite not being considered main eventers by management, they could get the fans interested in the feud through their unconventional antics. So what are you claiming are the differences? I watched WCW at time, and combined with what Foley wrote in his book, I would say Blackoutcreature is spot on. Cactus Jack is a hardcore legend, but up until 1993 I remember him being a guy me and some friends marked out for, but was never given more than a mid card push. The Santino analysis is intelligent and well explained. I do think Santino gets buried, as did Cactus at the time. Cleveland? Tagging with Maxx Payne? Undeserved and silly de-pushes. Cactus has always gotten over, and has a way of proving everyone wrong. But at the time, Vader was the top heel and Jack was just a guy to get over to the next Feud. |
|
