|
Post by Mrs. Potato Dick on Nov 19, 2013 19:39:23 GMT -5
The Hogan thing...really? Seeing Hogan give his friends the rub over and over and over and over again got damn boring, especially by late 94. Bret does it once and it's the end of the f***ing world?!
Give me a break...
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Nov 19, 2013 20:58:42 GMT -5
The Hogan thing...really? Seeing Hogan give his friends the rub over and over and over and over again got damn boring, especially by late 94. Bret does it once and it's the end of the f***ing world?! Give me a break... But nobody makes excuses for Hogan or tries to convolute a way around trying to explain it. They call it for what it is - nepotism. Having the man you want to leave Wrestlemania as the face of your company get pinned, clean, in the middle of the ring by ANYONE, let alone some as low down the card as Owen had been made the belt look terrible. I don't care how people try to justify it, it made the belt look bad. We weren't talking about a guy who had been pushed as a credible threat at the time or a guy with proven box office. If it was it may have been a tiny bit excusable but still dumb. But Owen hadn't had one single memorable match as a singles competitor or feud. He'd been around for years in nothing matches and then later in a tag team, again in nothing matches. But he didn't have the currency of a feud with X behind him or a run of great matches with Y. As a singles wrestler he had a filler match with Skinner at WM8 that had absolutely no back story and that's it and even that was a whole year away in people's memories. These were the days before kayfabe was completely shattered. The audience looked on, many of them, must have thought "Damn, he's the champ but..he can't beat Owen who's beaten like...nobody". I agree the match made sense but the result didn't. Brawl to the back, double DQ, time-limit draw, count out - all would have got Owen over and allowed them to use the "you can't beat me Bret" angle for the next PPV but at least the champ isn't beaten by someone who at that stage prior to throwing a hissy at the last two PPVs in tag matches, has been just some low card hamandegger Whichever way you dress it up that doesn't make Bret or the title look a million bucks. Else why doesn't it happen more often? If it's a great way to set up the next title feud, why not have the would-be-champ of the main event lose in the first match quite often so it gives the other guy a push and sets up a programme for the next PPV? We all know the reasons why this doesn't and shouldn't ever happen but because it's Bret Hart involved I think some people cannot bring themselves to admit it.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Nov 19, 2013 21:35:54 GMT -5
If WWF wanted to do a major angle with Bret feuding with one of his brothers, how is it nepotism?
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 19, 2013 21:59:21 GMT -5
I was never under the impression Owen wasn't world title material So the guy who had never been in any main event, major feud or even singles match at a PPV before (other than a 3 minute match to Skinner at WM8, excluding matches wrestled under another gimmick) you thought he could have been world champion? The leeway that's being taken because it's Bret and Owen is extraordinary. Replace the name 'Bret' with 'Hogan' and 'Owen' with 'insert-Hoga-ass-kisser-here' it's almost inconceivable that anyone would view the outcome of WM10 as a complete outrage. The reason why it worked with Owen was in the little things; things that WWE had spent years cultivating as part of Bret Hart's story. The first of course is the Dungeon; sold as this mythical, brutal, no-frills training ground that made mincemeat of lesser men and athletes and produced wrestlers (kayfabe) tougher and more durable than most. Gorilla Monsoon himself had been selling the toughness of Stu and what he did to people down there for YEARS, and by proxy of that, how special Bret was as a result (and eventually by proxy, Owen). Now, here's where Owen's arc at the time came in. They absolutely played up Owen's lack of marquee matches in that feud -- but painted it as if Owen had been held back; as if he was purposely (or chose to remain) in Bret's looming shadow. That's why the early build and catchphrase of the rivalry was built around that word "shadow". Owen, from his point of view, had never been given the chance, and when he finally was (Surivor Series '93, Rumble '94) Bret f***ed it up for him. So, fast forward to the Mania build and then Mania itself. Owen had attacked Bret's injured leg, and brutalized him. Then, he went on a win streak leading into the event, beating every midcarder they had on TV to hammer home the point that he was indeed not one of them, and had indeed just never gotten his shot. Then, he goes out, and flat out pins Bret at 'Mania clean, and comes out at the end during Bret's celebration to show his seething jealousy that, again, Bret had stolen his spotlight. That led to matches wherein the hook was, Owen could beat Bret. But like with Undertaker/Kane years later, Bret had not wanted to really hurt Owen out of respect for his family, and him still caring about him. But eventually, Bret was forced to, and once he did, he proved that while Owen was great, he himself was still greater. The whole thing unfolded masterfully, in my opinion. Owen winning King of The Ring to prove he was indeed no fluke. Owen having Bret's own former tag team partner turn on him in favor of Owen. Hell, it was Owen who directly led to Bret finally losing the belt in the first place to Backlund. The only shame of it was that Owen/Bret didn't really get a proper WM 11 blow off out of it, in some sort of extra brutal stip match; or even an actual "I quit" match.
|
|
|
Post by Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite on Nov 19, 2013 22:57:06 GMT -5
I never liked the idea that the man who'd end the show as WWE champion - the man who you would seek to launch the 'new generation' on the back off - jerked the curtain by losing, clean, in the opening match to someone who up until that point had been almost literally nothing but a lower-mid carder. In my view nepotism played a huge part. I think had Vince gone to Bret and said "we want to do an angle where in the opening match you lose to Doink" Bret would have, rightly, told him where to go. As much as the match itself made sense in terms of the storylines to have the would-be-champ lose just undermined the position of the belt. Have it a double count our or a time-limit draw if you're that desperate to make Owen look like a million bucks but for god sake don't end the show with the WWE Champion having been beaten by someone so far down the card as Owen was, clean in the middle of the ring. I also think it made Yokozuna look terrible. Bret was able to beat him having already wrestled 20 minute match that night. The guy who was supposedly the biggest monster in the company. Imagine if Hogan did that. Imagine if Hogan jobbed to his buddy in the opening match and then came out and then beat the then WWE champ clean to win the belt. The word 'apoplectic' wouldn't go far enough in describing people's rage. As it was, because it was Bret who has always been a darling of the smarks, an entirely different logic is applied. That didn't necessarily make yoko look bad. I look at it that Bret wrestled two different wrestlers with two wildly different fighting styles. Bret clearly has a speed and technicsl advantage over yoko, whereas with owen they were Both trained in the dungeon and owen was probably faster. Also, kayfabe wise it would have been smart for Bret to not go all out in the first match and save a little something for his title match
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 23:13:04 GMT -5
I think people are using today's standards to judge the past. In 1994 (and earlier than that), it was inconceivable to have your top guy job clean to a mid-carder (at best) and then go on to win the WWF title the same night. Hell, it was inconceivable to have your top guy job at all, unless there was a ton of foul play that lead to the loss.
In hindsight, the storyline was fine, but I can see why it made Bret (and the title) look weak as a result. I had already lost interest in the product by 1993, so Bret's win didn't mean much to me anyway, but regardless, I don't think it's unreasonable to say it was a weird booking move at the time.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Nov 20, 2013 12:39:14 GMT -5
Also its unprecedented for someone to have two matches at Mania, seems really strange. My memories flaky at best so any helps great It's not unprecedented. Savage had four matches at WM4, DiBiase had three, Valentine, Muraco and The One Man Gang all had two. Technically, Hogan had two matches at WM9.
|
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by TGM on Nov 20, 2013 14:42:26 GMT -5
Edit: never mind, I'm just gonna hit block.
|
|