|
|
Post by tekkenguy on Dec 16, 2013 18:12:02 GMT -5
Who was a worse WCW champion? David Arquette or Vince Russo?
|
|
Tony Schiavontay
Dennis Stamp
This is the greatest post in the history of this board!
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tony Schiavontay on Dec 16, 2013 20:06:38 GMT -5
Russo. David Arquette thought him as champion was a horrible idea whereas Russo thought it was brilliant and that putting it on himself was even better.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamero00 on Dec 16, 2013 21:01:37 GMT -5
You can at least defend the David Arquette win, as it was just a publicity stunt.
The Russo thing was just him putting the title on himself in his hometown.
They were both terrible, but a booker who is not a wrestler putting the title on himself is just stupid
Yes, Vince McMahon did it, but his character was far more over, and he actually wrestled from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcmahonfan85 on Dec 16, 2013 22:33:21 GMT -5
Russo. at least with Arquette they got some publicity for it
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Dec 16, 2013 23:24:06 GMT -5
Russo. You could understand why they put it on Arquette, to try to get some main stream press. Russo was obviously just full of himself or hellbent on doing the most assinine thing possible
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 17, 2013 0:22:55 GMT -5
Apparently Arquette donated some money from his WCW run, so he's not the bad guy in this whole WCW situation, Russo is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2013 1:05:17 GMT -5
The Arquette title reign did more damage to WCW. By the time Russo put the belt on himself, no one was watching anymore.
|
|
Tony Schiavontay
Dennis Stamp
This is the greatest post in the history of this board!
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tony Schiavontay on Dec 17, 2013 1:10:20 GMT -5
The Arquette title reign did more damage to WCW. By the time Russo put the belt on himself, no one was watching anymore. No one was watching when Arquette won it either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2013 1:14:46 GMT -5
The Arquette title reign did more damage to WCW. By the time Russo put the belt on himself, no one was watching anymore. No one was watching when Arquette won it either. I was! It was horrible. |
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 17, 2013 1:33:51 GMT -5
You can at least defend the David Arquette win, as it was just a publicity stunt. The Russo thing was just him putting the title on himself in his hometown. They were both terrible, but a booker who is not a wrestler putting the title on himself is just stupid Yes, Vince McMahon did it, but his character was far more over, and he actually wrestled from time to time. And the storyline for Vince getting it made a lot more sense, and was good. Triple H had goaded him into it, and after everything he needed to get his comeuppance. So it made sense that after everything Triple H had done to Vince, and to everyone else, his comeuppance would be Austin attacking him, costing him the WWF Title, and allowing Vince to take it off of Trips even just for a few days. |
|
|
|
Post by "Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik on Dec 17, 2013 2:10:49 GMT -5
I think an argument for Russo can be made in that it really did not affect the actual shows that much. I believe neither should have happened and that they were awful booking decisions. Hence, they should have been as minimized as possible. Arquette became heavily featured in WCW up until he dropped the belt and when he did, he caused the title change to happen. At the very least, Russo was never shown celebrating his victory. It wasn't even clear he won at first on the Nitro he beat Booker for it. He also immediately vacated the title the following week and led to Booker T holding a picture of Scott Hall. Russo did little to nothing with the belt, and if these reigns had to happen, isn't that all we can hope for?
|
|
|
|
Post by kamero00 on Dec 17, 2013 2:24:45 GMT -5
I like how the general consensus is somehow: They were both equally terrible
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 17, 2013 7:19:05 GMT -5
Russo is worse simply in principle because the booker put the belt on himself, which is always an asshole move.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Dec 17, 2013 16:09:23 GMT -5
Russo because well, f*** him that's why
|
|
SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611 
|
Post by SOR on Dec 17, 2013 20:06:44 GMT -5
It's clear not a lot of you watched WCW at this point or have gone back to watch it and are just blindly attacking.
Russo is the worst but he isn't as bad as you all are saying. He was one of the most over heels in WCW from about April to September or October. People despised him and they popped when he got his ass kicked week to week.
It's not like Vince Russo actually beat someone to win the belt either. He got speared through a cage by Goldberg and won that way. It was a fluke and the next week on Nitro he gave up the title because he was afraid of Goldberg and what Goldberg may do to him.
Now Arquette only stays out of this because he was a Hollywood Star with cross over appeal that Vince Russo didn't have. In terms of entertainment on a wrestling show Vince Russo shits all over David Arquette.
|
|
|
|
Post by WoodStoner1 on Dec 18, 2013 13:42:49 GMT -5
Arquette, only because he actually defended the thing and had a reign. Russo just surrendered it after a week or so, I think?
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Dec 19, 2013 22:27:10 GMT -5
It's kinda a tough choice. With Arquette, they got some publicity (that didn't translate into any money) and people did care about his character (even if nobody wanted to see him as Champion). Under other circumstances, when WCW was in a stronger position, it might've worked. With Russo though, nobody cared about him. Nobody wanted him as an authority figure, nobody wanted him on television. I've seen people try to justify his title reign, but their arguments always fall flat. It was an ego trip through and through and would've never worked under the most ideal of circumstances.
That being said, the Arquette title reign did more damage to WCW simply because there was more damage to be done. When Arquette won the title, WCW could still occasionally sell out a PPV arena or pop a decent rating (not near RAW's number, but competitive). His title reign turned WCW into a joke and killed their business. Before Russo even won the title, WCW would have trouble drawing a hundred people to a High School gym throwing in free beer with every ticket. It's like taking a baseball bat to a city that's already been nuked, what more can you do?
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Dec 20, 2013 1:38:01 GMT -5
I hated both, although while I'd say Arquette is at least more deserving...at least Russo's was made to look like it shouldn't have happened.
So replace Russo with any legit wrestler or hell even a job guy and it would have been a million times better.
|
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Dec 20, 2013 4:04:00 GMT -5
Arquette won by fluke too. And he always played up that he wasn't deserving. Russo won the belt and then gave it up. Russo never lost his title. It was also just three months after Russo shaved Ric Flair in Flair country, the first major change to Flair's legendary appearance in decades.
|
|
