|
Post by evilone on Dec 27, 2016 7:08:50 GMT -5
Surprised no one has discussed my point about this title change burying Bret in a roundabout way. He went forever against Backlund and Backlund essentially outwrestled him and took him apart with the crossface chicken wing, but Diesel simply beats Backlund in 8 seconds. During that time it seemed like Bret was the go to guy once Vince's pet projects tanked. Hell, Bret got the belt in Oct. 1992 because business was tanking with the combo of Savage/Flair/Warrior on top (which is sad since that isn't a bad top guy combo). Bret got the belt back at WM X once Vince abandoned the Luger experiment and got the belt off Yokozuna. Bret got it from Nash since Diesel's run was a flop. I'm actually not sure why Bret got the title at Summerslam 1997. It almost seemed more of a catalyst for the HBK/Taker feud and Bret's win was secondary. One does wonder how different history would be if Bret didn't win the title there. The Taker/Shawn HIAC would have been for the world title and Montreal wouldn't have happened the way it did. Well it kinds of makes sense for a company to have more than one champion at the time right? Long gone were the golden days of one guy holding the title for multiple years to come, business was just not the same. Bret would have lost all the steam had he been a champ from 92-95. Having him win, loose and chase the gold was his gimmick, a fighting champion. I disagree that Yokozuna, Diesel and Luger were failed experiments, they were the championship material and they paired with Bret and each other just fine. Some wrestlers have better champion stigma than the others and they last more as champions, like Bret and Shawn, while others don't but overall they all have their own purpose in the grand type of scheme known as creative and business plan.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Dec 27, 2016 7:35:47 GMT -5
Surprised no one has discussed my point about this title change burying Bret in a roundabout way. He went forever against Backlund and Backlund essentially outwrestled him and took him apart with the crossface chicken wing, but Diesel simply beats Backlund in 8 seconds. During that time it seemed like Bret was the go to guy once Vince's pet projects tanked. Hell, Bret got the belt in Oct. 1992 because business was tanking with the combo of Savage/Flair/Warrior on top (which is sad since that isn't a bad top guy combo). Bret got the belt back at WM X once Vince abandoned the Luger experiment and got the belt off Yokozuna. Bret got it from Nash since Diesel's run was a flop. I'm actually not sure why Bret got the title at Summerslam 1997. It almost seemed more of a catalyst for the HBK/Taker feud and Bret's win was secondary. One does wonder how different history would be if Bret didn't win the title there. The Taker/Shawn HIAC would have been for the world title and Montreal wouldn't have happened the way it did. I wouldn't say that really. Bret had a submission match with Backlund, where they spent most of it grappling. Nash just dropped a 40 year old man onto his back from 7 feet in the air.
|
|
|
Post by Toilet Paper Roll on Dec 27, 2016 10:57:12 GMT -5
They were pushing Nash hard. He should have been able to beat a 45 year old man in seconds.
His title reign was a waste. Once he beat Sid it became obvious Sid was never faking that title from him so we got a main event run with British Bulldog a Mabel which went about as bad as you'd assume.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2016 13:08:23 GMT -5
I know Scott Hall had his demons but Razor in 1994 was super over and would have been a credible world champion. I wonder if that was even a consideration at the time. Diesel was over as well but his babyface push was very sudden.
|
|
|
Post by OVO 40 hunched over like he 80 on Dec 28, 2016 0:28:39 GMT -5
Nash told the story in his wwe timeline shoot that he and Backlund basically had zero chemistry and in matches in house shows, Backlund as the heel called the matches and he gave Nash spots to use on Bob, moves that didn't made sense for a guy his size, like a sunset flip. Yes fn Diesel tried to do a sunset flip
Backstage the undertaker told him that the match was the shits...maybe that's why the fans didn't need to see a match longer than 8 seconds out of them.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Dec 28, 2016 9:46:44 GMT -5
As big a Bret fan as I am, I've no problem with Backlund losing how he did to Diesel, it's like putting a world class college wrestler up against Mike Tyson, Backlund went out there to wrestle and Diesel just clocked him and hit his finisher, something the deluded Backlund never saw coming.
That said, I think winning titles at non televised shows is a horrible idea, it leaves the champion struggling for credibility as their big moment never really happened in the eyes of most fans, Bret never beat Flair on a major PPV and Diesel clonked a guy who didn't win the title cleanly at a house show.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Dec 29, 2016 7:05:13 GMT -5
Surprised no one has discussed my point about this title change burying Bret in a roundabout way. He went forever against Backlund and Backlund essentially outwrestled him and took him apart with the crossface chicken wing, but Diesel simply beats Backlund in 8 seconds. During that time it seemed like Bret was the go to guy once Vince's pet projects tanked. Hell, Bret got the belt in Oct. 1992 because business was tanking with the combo of Savage/Flair/Warrior on top (which is sad since that isn't a bad top guy combo). Bret got the belt back at WM X once Vince abandoned the Luger experiment and got the belt off Yokozuna. Bret got it from Nash since Diesel's run was a flop. I'm actually not sure why Bret got the title at Summerslam 1997. It almost seemed more of a catalyst for the HBK/Taker feud and Bret's win was secondary. One does wonder how different history would be if Bret didn't win the title there. The Taker/Shawn HIAC would have been for the world title and Montreal wouldn't have happened the way it did. I already covered all this a while ago. I don't think Bret was buried in this way because it made sense from a story perspective, and I'm glad it happened. However I think his run as 94 champ was a little lackluster anyway, with only one real good defence (against Owen), so his whole run buried him, not specifically the match against Backlund. and to be honest I don't think he was really buried by his 1994 run, but it definitely was not as good in hindsight as people like to make out. Now his 4th run as champ in early 1997 was a burial I feel, but that's a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite on Dec 31, 2016 13:07:41 GMT -5
I hate squash matches for titles. A squash match for your biggest title, on a non-televised show? f***ing lunacy from where I'm standing. I do like the idea it seems like "anything" can happen As previously mentioned Nash wasn't the best worker so if they wanted to make him look good it's probably better to not have him to long.
|
|