Good things about WCW 2000

[James Fabiano]

Dec 27, 2013 0:10:06 GMT -5 wildojinx said:

We had a thread about the good things in 1995 WWF, so lets look at the good things about one of the worst years in WCW's existence:
Booker T as world champion
Lance Storm
Positively Kanyon
3 Count
Yung Dragons
The attempt to push new young talent like Palumbo, O Haire, Jindrak, Mike Sanders, etc (what they did with them is a different story)

This. WCW 2000 was awful, but I think now that a lot of the hate is mostly because of Vince Russo turning the company into just another sports entertainment show with <1 minute matches, sexual and racist storylines, etc. It wasn't all the talent's fault.

Now, look at the names above, and tell me who used them better? WCW in 2000 or WWF/E, ever? This is why I agree with the OP.

[BlackoutCreature]

Dec 27, 2013 13:59:37 GMT -5 SOR said:

Dec 27, 2013 8:35:57 GMT -5 BlackoutCreature said:

Ok, let's say Hogan was the most guy over in the company. Being the most guy over in a company that was falling apart and losing as much money as WCW was is the equivalent of being King of the Hobo's. If nobody wanted to be a hobo anymore, then maybe it's time to find somebody new to be the most over guy in the company.

He was still the most over guy though and was a huge loss for WCW. I think if the original idea Russo had thought up would of came off as planned it'd of been a hot angle that would have made tons of money.

Can you elaborate on how losing Hogan was a "huge loss" for WCW? As far as I remember their numbers were pretty much the same miserably stagnant numbers they were before the Bash at the Beach incident as they were after.

And what "original idea" that Russo thought of are you referring to? The "Stone Cold" Terry Bollea gimmick that Hogan was uncomfortably doing when Russo first showed up? The Millionaire's Club? The whole dual World Champs/unify the titles thing that Russo only seemed to pitch to Hogan to get the title on Booker T?

The fact is the last decade plus in both the WWE and TNA have proven that while Hogan's nostalgia act might get a live crowd to pop, it doesn't translate into numbers that make anybody any money, except maybe Hogan. And like I said, if you're the most over guy in a company that was falling apart as bad as WCW was back then, then it's time to find a new most over in the company.

As for WCW in general, after Russo left whoever was left with any power realized the company was dying and needed to do some drastic things to turn it around. They realized what their problems were and made genuine strides to attempt to correct this. The just didn't have the time and resources to get it done before the end came.

[auph10imitated]

[TheMediocreWarrior]

^^Introducing Stacy Keibler.

Also Booker T as WCW Champion.

That is all.

[SOR]

Dec 27, 2013 17:29:48 GMT -5 BlackoutCreature said:

Dec 27, 2013 13:59:37 GMT -5 SOR said:

He was still the most over guy though and was a huge loss for WCW. I think if the original idea Russo had thought up would of came off as planned it'd of been a hot angle that would have made tons of money.

Can you elaborate on how losing Hogan was a "huge loss" for WCW? As far as I remember their numbers were pretty much the same miserably stagnant numbers they were before the Bash at the Beach incident as they were after.

And what "original idea" that Russo thought of are you referring to? The "Stone Cold" Terry Bollea gimmick that Hogan was uncomfortably doing when Russo first showed up? The Millionaire's Club? The whole dual World Champs/unify the titles thing that Russo only seemed to pitch to Hogan to get the title on Booker T?

The fact is the last decade plus in both the WWE and TNA have proven that while Hogan's nostalgia act might get a live crowd to pop, it doesn't translate into numbers that make anybody any money, except maybe Hogan. And like I said, if you're the most over guy in a company that was falling apart as bad as WCW was back then, then it's time to find a new most over in the company.

As for WCW in general, after Russo left whoever was left with any power realized the company was dying and needed to do some drastic things to turn it around. They realized what their problems were and made genuine strides to attempt to correct this. The just didn't have the time and resources to get it done before the end came.

We are going around in circles here. Losing Hogan was a huge loss because he was still a huge draw. Go back and watch shows from 2000, Hulk was the most over guy on the show most nights and most merchandise in the crowd were Hogan shirts or nWo shirts (Oddly 2 angles the IWC hate from 2000) apart from that Sting was doing well in merchandise and Flair also but not many others.

Hogan never did a rip off of the Stone Cold gimmick either. This proves you didn't even watch WCW 2000 except maybe some reviews on YouTube. His gimmick was he dropped the Hulk Hogan gimmick and was focused on ending the New Blood entirely because he hated them. He wasn't this rebellious guy who came out and beat the crap out of everyone before drinking a beer, that'd be a Stone Cold rip off.

As for the original idea. Bash At The Beach 2000 was meant to have Hogan beat Jarrett, Booker T comes out later and wins the WCW World Heavyweight Title and down the track at Halloween Havoc you have Hulk return and say he's the real World Champion and he feuds with Booker or whoever the champion would have been at that time (Probably Jarrett). It ends with a big unifying title match (Probably at Starrcade) in which I assume Jarrett would have gone over on Hulk ushering in a new era at WCW.

I like how you throw last decade in because Hulk has had like 2-3 major matches since then and that's it however if you had given me 2002 I'd have countless things to mention. Regardless, Hogan received the biggest pop of the night against Randy Orton at that Summerslam show and he got a big pop against Michaels as well. The dude is still over, he's still making money and he's still selling merchandise. Hell, I spent 75 bucks in merchandise when he toured Australia a few years ago. Most people bought something, he still draws.


In closing. It's very easy to sit there and say "WCW had to make a new guy" but that takes time. It's very rare that you can just toss someone a mega push out of nowhere and have them get over. That's evidenced by Booker T who won the title but Sting, Kevin Nash, Goldberg were still doing way better numbers then him. In an additional note, If WCW lives for another year or two Hulk would have returned regardless of who was in charge. Whether you like it or not (And you clearly don't) Hulk Hogan is one of the biggest names in wrestling and back in 2000 if you had put him in a hot angle with a guy like Jarrett or Steiner it would've been a license to print money.

[Deleted]

Oh great, another thread gets SOR'd.

[Spider2024]

Dec 27, 2013 18:16:35 GMT -5 auph10imitated said:

Yeah, this. Even she was involved in crappy storylines, but looked good doing it.

Also, Booker T finally became World Champion this year.

[mizerable]

Dec 27, 2013 13:59:37 GMT -5 SOR said:

Well of course they're going to put him over. He still draws. To this very day he could do that exact same schtick you just mentioned and he'd draw and the audience would love it.

In 2000 Hulk was WCW's biggest star by far. Losing him was horrible for them.

But where do you draw the line? What if Hogan is still the biggest entity in the 2nd biggest wrestling company. He draws 60% of the fans and the other 40% don't like him at all. The ratings are shit compared to your competition, and you've got your biggest draw of the company, who can't be relied on due to getting up there in years, injuries, too much creative power and likes to disappear from time to time. Oh, and you're still losing fans month after month. So change now...or change when Hogan is in his 70's, yet still gets fan interest due to his own leverage on what he will or won't do. I certainly wouldn't put all my stock on that guy.

[SOR]

Dec 27, 2013 22:33:16 GMT -5 mizerable said:

Dec 27, 2013 13:59:37 GMT -5 SOR said:

Well of course they're going to put him over. He still draws. To this very day he could do that exact same schtick you just mentioned and he'd draw and the audience would love it.

In 2000 Hulk was WCW's biggest star by far. Losing him was horrible for them.

But where do you draw the line? What if Hogan is still the biggest entity in the 2nd biggest wrestling company. He draws 60% of the fans and the other 40% don't like him at all. The ratings are shit compared to your competition, and you've got your biggest draw of the company, who can't be relied on due to getting up there in years, injuries, too much creative power and likes to disappear from time to time. Oh, and you're still losing fans month after month. So change now...or change when Hogan is in his 70's, yet still gets fan interest due to his own leverage on what he will or won't do. I certainly wouldn't put all my stock on that guy.

If it's 60-40 then you move him down into the Midcard and have him feud with small time guys.

Fact of the matter is back in 2000 he wasn't 60-40 he was more like 80-20

[Mesousa287793]

I recall watching tons of 2000's WCW stuff a few years ago. I was wholly entertained.

Oh, also Vampiro will always be awesome.

[Reflecto]

Dec 27, 2013 22:44:20 GMT -5 SOR said:

Dec 27, 2013 22:33:16 GMT -5 mizerable said:

But where do you draw the line? What if Hogan is still the biggest entity in the 2nd biggest wrestling company. He draws 60% of the fans and the other 40% don't like him at all. The ratings are shit compared to your competition, and you've got your biggest draw of the company, who can't be relied on due to getting up there in years, injuries, too much creative power and likes to disappear from time to time. Oh, and you're still losing fans month after month. So change now...or change when Hogan is in his 70's, yet still gets fan interest due to his own leverage on what he will or won't do. I certainly wouldn't put all my stock on that guy.

If it's 60-40 then you move him down into the Midcard and have him feud with small time guys.

Fact of the matter is back in 2000 he wasn't 60-40 he was more like 80-20

In the 1950s, Ralph Kiner had led the National League in home runs for 6 straight years for the Pittsburgh Pirates, an also-ran in the time. When he showed his stats and went to GM Branch Rickey for a raise or he'd walk, Rickey's response: "We finished last with you, we can finish last without you."

Change it to Hogan, there's your reason.

[Deleted]

I can't say I watched too much WCW around this year, but what I did like was "Team Canada", the MIA (mainly Cpl. Cajun), Chris Candido & Tammy Sytch, the newer guys getting a chance at the WCW Title, and DDP.

[BlackoutCreature]

Dec 27, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5 SOR said:

We are going around in circles here. Losing Hogan was a huge loss because he was still a huge draw. Go back and watch shows from 2000, Hulk was the most over guy on the show most nights and most merchandise in the crowd were Hogan shirts or nWo shirts (Oddly 2 angles the IWC hate from 2000) apart from that Sting was doing well in merchandise and Flair also but not many others.

Again, if he wasn't drawing enough to keep the company viable then he wasn't a "big draw". Getting pops does not always equal making money.

Dec 27, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5 SOR said:

Hogan never did a rip off of the Stone Cold gimmick either. This proves you didn't even watch WCW 2000 except maybe some reviews on YouTube. His gimmick was he dropped the Hulk Hogan gimmick and was focused on ending the New Blood entirely because he hated them. He wasn't this rebellious guy who came out and beat the crap out of everyone before drinking a beer, that'd be a Stone Cold rip off.

I've been watching wrestling since 1987. I watched every RAW and Nitro back in the day, even when Nitro was at its worst. If you can watch Hogan during Vince Russo's first run with WCW and tell me he wasn't being told to ape Austin as much as possible then you're the one who wasn't watching WCW at the time.

Dec 27, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5 SOR said:

As for the original idea. Bash At The Beach 2000 was meant to have Hogan beat Jarrett, Booker T comes out later and wins the WCW World Heavyweight Title and down the track at Halloween Havoc you have Hulk return and say he's the real World Champion and he feuds with Booker or whoever the champion would have been at that time (Probably Jarrett). It ends with a big unifying title match (Probably at Starrcade) in which I assume Jarrett would have gone over on Hulk ushering in a new era at WCW.

Yes, because this is making so much money for TNA right now? What makes you think this situation would actually happen? As near as I can tell Russo was telling Hogan whatever he needed to tell him to get the title on Booker T. And Hogan already had issues losing a match to Jarrett in an over-the-top DQ finish, what makes you think he would've been willing to lose to Jarrett in a grand, "ushering in a new era" fashion? Nobody involved in that Bash at the Beach situation actually cared about WCW's long term health, they were all just trying to buy time so they could run their own agenda.

Dec 27, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5 SOR said:

I like how you throw last decade in because Hulk has had like 2-3 major matches since then and that's it however if you had given me 2002 I'd have countless things to mention. Regardless, Hogan received the biggest pop of the night against Randy Orton at that Summerslam show and he got a big pop against Michaels as well. The dude is still over, he's still making money and he's still selling merchandise. Hell, I spent 75 bucks in merchandise when he toured Australia a few years ago. Most people bought something, he still draws.

As I said before, pops do not necessarily equal money, especially Hogan's nostalgia pops. There was an indie show in my area a few weeks ago that featured Sgt. Slaughter and Starman vs. Cobra Commander and the Almighty Sheik. Now if I was there I would've popped like mad for this kind of match, but I didn't think it was worth it to buy a ticket and drive a half hour to see it at that point in time just for a nostalgia act.

As for that Australian show you mentioned, if I remember correctly it didn't do the business Hogan was expecting and he had to cancel plans for a DVD release of it.

Dec 27, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5 SOR said:

In closing. It's very easy to sit there and say "WCW had to make a new guy" but that takes time. It's very rare that you can just toss someone a mega push out of nowhere and have them get over. That's evidenced by Booker T who won the title but Sting, Kevin Nash, Goldberg were still doing way better numbers then him. In an additional note, If WCW lives for another year or two Hulk would have returned regardless of who was in charge. Whether you like it or not (And you clearly don't) Hulk Hogan is one of the biggest names in wrestling and back in 2000 if you had put him in a hot angle with a guy like Jarrett or Steiner it would've been a license to print money.

I know it usually takes time to get someone over as the next big mega-star. But thats not gonna happen if Hogan is there hogging the spotlight refusing to put him over. And he was in angles with guys like Jarrett and Steiner, and they didn't make any money.

[SOR]

Dec 28, 2013 11:25:44 GMT -5 BlackoutCreature said:

Dec 27, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5 SOR said:

We are going around in circles here. Losing Hogan was a huge loss because he was still a huge draw. Go back and watch shows from 2000, Hulk was the most over guy on the show most nights and most merchandise in the crowd were Hogan shirts or nWo shirts (Oddly 2 angles the IWC hate from 2000) apart from that Sting was doing well in merchandise and Flair also but not many others.

Again, if he wasn't drawing enough to keep the company viable then he wasn't a "big draw". Getting pops does not always equal making money.

Dec 27, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5 SOR said:

Hogan never did a rip off of the Stone Cold gimmick either. This proves you didn't even watch WCW 2000 except maybe some reviews on YouTube. His gimmick was he dropped the Hulk Hogan gimmick and was focused on ending the New Blood entirely because he hated them. He wasn't this rebellious guy who came out and beat the crap out of everyone before drinking a beer, that'd be a Stone Cold rip off.

I've been watching wrestling since 1987. I watched every RAW and Nitro back in the day, even when Nitro was at its worst. If you can watch Hogan during Vince Russo's first run with WCW and tell me he wasn't being told to ape Austin as much as possible then you're the one who wasn't watching WCW at the time.

Dec 27, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5 SOR said:

As for the original idea. Bash At The Beach 2000 was meant to have Hogan beat Jarrett, Booker T comes out later and wins the WCW World Heavyweight Title and down the track at Halloween Havoc you have Hulk return and say he's the real World Champion and he feuds with Booker or whoever the champion would have been at that time (Probably Jarrett). It ends with a big unifying title match (Probably at Starrcade) in which I assume Jarrett would have gone over on Hulk ushering in a new era at WCW.

Yes, because this is making so much money for TNA right now? What makes you think this situation would actually happen? As near as I can tell Russo was telling Hogan whatever he needed to tell him to get the title on Booker T. And Hogan already had issues losing a match to Jarrett in an over-the-top DQ finish, what makes you think he would've been willing to lose to Jarrett in a grand, "ushering in a new era" fashion? Nobody involved in that Bash at the Beach situation actually cared about WCW's long term health, they were all just trying to buy time so they could run their own agenda.

Dec 27, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5 SOR said:

I like how you throw last decade in because Hulk has had like 2-3 major matches since then and that's it however if you had given me 2002 I'd have countless things to mention. Regardless, Hogan received the biggest pop of the night against Randy Orton at that Summerslam show and he got a big pop against Michaels as well. The dude is still over, he's still making money and he's still selling merchandise. Hell, I spent 75 bucks in merchandise when he toured Australia a few years ago. Most people bought something, he still draws.

As I said before, pops do not necessarily equal money, especially Hogan's nostalgia pops. There was an indie show in my area a few weeks ago that featured Sgt. Slaughter and Starman vs. Cobra Commander and the Almighty Sheik. Now if I was there I would've popped like mad for this kind of match, but I didn't think it was worth it to buy a ticket and drive a half hour to see it at that point in time just for a nostalgia act.

As for that Australian show you mentioned, if I remember correctly it didn't do the business Hogan was expecting and he had to cancel plans for a DVD release of it.

Dec 27, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5 SOR said:

In closing. It's very easy to sit there and say "WCW had to make a new guy" but that takes time. It's very rare that you can just toss someone a mega push out of nowhere and have them get over. That's evidenced by Booker T who won the title but Sting, Kevin Nash, Goldberg were still doing way better numbers then him. In an additional note, If WCW lives for another year or two Hulk would have returned regardless of who was in charge. Whether you like it or not (And you clearly don't) Hulk Hogan is one of the biggest names in wrestling and back in 2000 if you had put him in a hot angle with a guy like Jarrett or Steiner it would've been a license to print money.

I know it usually takes time to get someone over as the next big mega-star. But thats not gonna happen if Hogan is there hogging the spotlight refusing to put him over. And he was in angles with guys like Jarrett and Steiner, and they didn't make any money.

1. YOu conveniently left out the fact that most people were wearing Hulk merchandise in WCW 2000 and odds are most guys who get the biggest pop on the show are the guys people are most likely paying to see. WCW fans in that time period were paying to see guys like Hogan, Flair, Sting and Nash, not guys like Booker T, Lance Storm etc

2. Hogan wasn't even there during Russo's first run as apart of management. Russo took over at Halloween Havoc 1999 and Hogan left that very same show until 4 months later when Russo wasn't there. What you're trying to discuss is when Hulk Hogan went into a revenge feud with Eric. It wasn't Stone Cold esque at all unless every baby face fighting an authority figure is a Stone Cold rip off.

3. Nothing makes money in TNA. Why not mention when WWE had all of that success doing it a couple of years ago? That'd be a more logical comparison considering WWE's ratings today are around what WCW's were back in 2000. That angle with CM Punk taking the belt was really interesting to fans. As for Hulk jobbing, you could have anyone beat him to be honest. That would involve a discussion and asking Hulk who he'd be happy to job at Starrcade to. If not Jarrett I'm sure Hulk would have done the job for Scott Steiner or someone else.

4. You're wrong about the Hogan Australian tour. The sheets reported it wrong and so did everyone else. Hulk was national news one night when they did an angle where Flair beat Hulk down. Hulkamania Tour did around what WWE does number wise here in Australia. I was at the Sydney event and there was about 10,000 people there and WWE draws around 12,000 so it's similar numbers. The reason the DVD was never released is because Umaga died a week later and people from his estate wouldn't sign on his behalf. Umaga was involved in one of only two marquee matches on the night so they never released it.

5. When was Hogan involved in feuds with Jarrett and Steiner? I can maybe see the argument for Jarrett (Although a 3 week feud isn't much) but Steiner never had a feud with Hogan in WCW. As for building new stars, WCW had countless other stars to put guys over. Also, isn't your argument that nobody cared about Hulk anyway? So why would anyone get over by beating him?

[Bootista]

People weren't paying to see Booker?? He was pretty over with the fans.

[kamero00]

Miss Hancock.

Kanyon Cutter

Judy Bagwell.(it was so stupid it was funny)