|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Dec 28, 2018 20:51:37 GMT -5
Losing Luger was almost a must and Hogan being the shrewd politician knew that. He was getting the win back anyway. I also wouldn't put it past him to have given up that Luger win as well because his win does cut into the Sting angle Losing to Sting wasn't just a random L, it was a payoff to a year long angle that could effect him and his group. Piper only came back to cash in on the fact Hogan never got his W's back against him and in the end Hogan was never going to lose the title and can move right passed his program with Roddy with no problem
Yeah, I really wonder what the difference was between old, tired Roddy Piper who wasn't a full-time wrestler and Sting who was blowing the roof off of every arena..... Speaking of roofs, why didn't Sting come down from the ceiling at the MCI Center? Were they not rigged for that? His entrance was very lackluster.I assume the Owen incident was still on their mind
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 28, 2018 20:54:27 GMT -5
Yeah, I really wonder what the difference was between old, tired Roddy Piper who wasn't a full-time wrestler and Sting who was blowing the roof off of every arena..... Speaking of roofs, why didn't Sting come down from the ceiling at the MCI Center? Were they not rigged for that? His entrance was very lackluster.I assume the Owen incident was still on their mind Owen was Over The Edge 99, this was Starrcade 97.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Dec 28, 2018 20:57:01 GMT -5
I assume the Owen incident was still on their mind Owen was Over The Edge 99, this was Starrcade 97. Whoops, where the hell was my mind at
So then yeah, add it to WCW unintentionally sabotaging Sting as the light show was fun and the speech before the entrance but he came out and just walked down the aisle
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,561
|
Post by cjh on Dec 28, 2018 21:15:35 GMT -5
Not literally overnight, but the decline in 1999 over a matter of a few months in the spring that continued until the end was staggering. With Sting/Hogan, a year after it happened, WCW was still setting record highs in ratings and was competitive with the WWF on PPV into early-1999 (Hogan/Flair did a better buyrate a week after Austin/McMahon). There is a disconnect here. I don't think Starrcade 97 is some beginning of the end for WCW that some believe it is. My only point to Starrcade is that people can be very disappointed with how an angle ended and it not singe-handedly bury a company. I think it was a lack of payoff, and you can't use the next year's profits to argue that the night as a standalone was better than it was quality-wise. I think only the Fingerpoke was intentionally egregious in that it gave the fans something Nitro was known for (PPV-quality big match-ups) and completely failed to deliver.....anything, really. Nash/Hogan had been building tension for about a year, had a history, were two of the biggest stars at that point (especially Nash, who people forget was white hot during the Wolfpac days), complete with pyro and Michael Buffer. And they just took a dump in the ring. Business fell between late-May and Semptember like a stone, and I think it was just a cumulative effect of the 9 months or so leading up to that. Their main event matches usually stunk, the bait-and-switches, Goldberg's shine wearing off, things just generally not making sense, terrible booking, wrestling trending back down in the mainstream, WWF's momentum. Everything inside and outside of the company was working against them maintaining their buzz. Yeah, I can agree with that. I don't think the Sting/Hogan finish was great, just that it's far, far down the list of things that brought the end of WCW. Another thing besides the Hogan/Flair deal I think was really bad in spring 1999 was the follow up with Goldberg after the FoD. Why WCW started something with him and Bret Hart when he should have been trying to get to Hogan is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 28, 2018 21:48:32 GMT -5
There is a disconnect here. I don't think Starrcade 97 is some beginning of the end for WCW that some believe it is. My only point to Starrcade is that people can be very disappointed with how an angle ended and it not singe-handedly bury a company. I think it was a lack of payoff, and you can't use the next year's profits to argue that the night as a standalone was better than it was quality-wise. I think only the Fingerpoke was intentionally egregious in that it gave the fans something Nitro was known for (PPV-quality big match-ups) and completely failed to deliver.....anything, really. Nash/Hogan had been building tension for about a year, had a history, were two of the biggest stars at that point (especially Nash, who people forget was white hot during the Wolfpac days), complete with pyro and Michael Buffer. And they just took a dump in the ring. Business fell between late-May and Semptember like a stone, and I think it was just a cumulative effect of the 9 months or so leading up to that. Their main event matches usually stunk, the bait-and-switches, Goldberg's shine wearing off, things just generally not making sense, terrible booking, wrestling trending back down in the mainstream, WWF's momentum. Everything inside and outside of the company was working against them maintaining their buzz. Yeah, I can agree with that. I don't think the Sting/Hogan finish was great, just that it's far, far down the list of things that brought the end of WCW. Another thing besides the Hogan/Flair deal I think was really bad in spring 1999 was the follow up with Goldberg after the FoD. Why WCW started something with him and Bret Hart when he should have been trying to get to Hogan is beyond me. In terms of the ultimate downfall of WCW, Starrcade is way down the list. Corporate buyouts and overspending being the primary reasons it closed its doors anyway. And ultimately WCW had fundamental flaws in how they ran it, which made their eventual coming back to earth a foregone conclusion. I agree about Bret/Goldberg. They botched Goldberg so bad after Starrcade. A hot babyface who got screwed over and is back chasing the belt is money, and they just completely blew it. If you were going to have him work a program with Hart, it should have been when he was champion as so many had difficult times having decent matches with him. Though, given how Goldberg/Bret eventually played out, maybe it was doomed regardless....
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Dec 28, 2018 22:06:51 GMT -5
Yeah, I can agree with that. I don't think the Sting/Hogan finish was great, just that it's far, far down the list of things that brought the end of WCW. Another thing besides the Hogan/Flair deal I think was really bad in spring 1999 was the follow up with Goldberg after the FoD. Why WCW started something with him and Bret Hart when he should have been trying to get to Hogan is beyond me. In terms of the ultimate downfall of WCW, Starrcade is way down the list. Corporate buyouts and overspending being the primary reasons it closed its doors anyway. And ultimately WCW had fundamental flaws in how they ran it, which made their eventual coming back to earth a foregone conclusion. I agree about Bret/Goldberg. They botched Goldberg so bad after Starrcade. A hot babyface who got screwed over and is back chasing the belt is money, and they just completely blew it. If you were going to have him work a program with Hart, it should have been when he was champion as so many had difficult times having decent matches with him. Though, given how Goldberg/Bret eventually played out, maybe it was doomed regardless.... Yea, when you speak Starrcade in terms of downfall you should be talking more of a hindsight thinking. That speaks in regards to them not finishing story lines which f***ed the fans tho I think fans would got passed that because in the grand scheme of things if WCW is still doing good business and putting on good TV then they are fine
The corporate buyout and Eric not having the ear of Ted anymore thanks to that buyout is what f***ed them over because that budget is now put in place after having years of free spending for the sake of it.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 28, 2018 22:18:47 GMT -5
In terms of the ultimate downfall of WCW, Starrcade is way down the list. Corporate buyouts and overspending being the primary reasons it closed its doors anyway. And ultimately WCW had fundamental flaws in how they ran it, which made their eventual coming back to earth a foregone conclusion. I agree about Bret/Goldberg. They botched Goldberg so bad after Starrcade. A hot babyface who got screwed over and is back chasing the belt is money, and they just completely blew it. If you were going to have him work a program with Hart, it should have been when he was champion as so many had difficult times having decent matches with him. Though, given how Goldberg/Bret eventually played out, maybe it was doomed regardless.... Yea, when you speak Starrcade in terms of downfall you should be talking more of a hindsight thinking. That speaks in regards to them not finishing story lines which f***ed the fans tho I think fans would got passed that because in the grand scheme of things if WCW is still doing good business and putting on good TV then they are fine The corporate buyout and Eric not having the ear of Ted anymore thanks to that buyout is what f***ed them over because that budget is now put in place after having years of free spending for the sake of it.
I think Eric miscalculated the sustainability of wrestling's hot point. It may be that he was expecting the WWF to close its doors and that never happened, because maybe then his bloated contracts don't look as bad. But whether it was a gamble that didn't pay off or simply a complete lack kf foresight, it was a giant hurdle regardless. And who is to say that even if WCW maintains decent to good ratings, that the AOL people don't want wrestling in the portfolio all the same?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Dec 28, 2018 22:28:31 GMT -5
Yea, when you speak Starrcade in terms of downfall you should be talking more of a hindsight thinking. That speaks in regards to them not finishing story lines which f***ed the fans tho I think fans would got passed that because in the grand scheme of things if WCW is still doing good business and putting on good TV then they are fine The corporate buyout and Eric not having the ear of Ted anymore thanks to that buyout is what f***ed them over because that budget is now put in place after having years of free spending for the sake of it.
I think Eric miscalculated the sustainability of wrestling's hot point. It may be that he was expecting the WWF to close its doors and that never happened, because maybe then his bloated contracts don't look as bad. But whether it was a gamble that didn't pay off or simply a complete lack kf foresight, it was a giant hurdle regardless. And who is to say that even if WCW maintains decent to good ratings, that the AOL people don't want wrestling in the portfolio all the same? Agreed. Eric says something along the lines of the people at AOL mandated they be "clean" and stop with the cursing and all that which he felt hurt them even more
I think Eric just sort of got caught up in the lifestyle and being able to do things way he wanted and if anyone told him no he had Turner in his back pocket to bail it all out. Eric always wanted to beat Vince and once he did that he just kept going bigger and bigger and thought the gravy train would never end
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Dec 29, 2018 10:26:20 GMT -5
Honestly I think even if the match had gone as it should have Sting's viability as a babyface drawing champion had always been limited. Yes he should have won clean but he also should have had a monster heel ala Vader lined up to do the favor for sooner than later. Then you guve Sting a rematch where he gets close to beating the monster but can't as you build up Goldberg as the monster slayer. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and I don't know when they decided on the Goldberg push.
|
|
|
Post by sportatorium on Dec 29, 2018 12:10:52 GMT -5
I never believe Eric Bischoff at 100% face value on things he says about WCW. As many have mentioned in this thread, if Sting was capable of working the match (he was), but you think he will be a problem as champion- book the finish you’ve been building toward and then get the belt off of him afterward.
Hogan didn’t “deserve” the Creative Control clause, but WCW was gullible enough to give it to him. He believed that he was the top babyface even when he was working heel.
Bischoff was smart to how the business worked, knows now and knew then that Sting going over clean is the only finish to consider that night. I’m just amazed that he still won’t admit that.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Dec 29, 2018 12:56:10 GMT -5
I never believe Eric Bischoff at 100% face value on things he says about WCW. As many have mentioned in this thread, if Sting was capable of working the match (he was), but you think he will be a problem as champion- book the finish you’ve been building toward and then get the belt off of him afterward. Hogan didn’t “deserve” the Creative Control clause, but WCW was gullible enough to give it to him. He believed that he was the top babyface even when he was working heel. Bischoff was smart to how the business worked, knows now and knew then that Sting going over clean is the only finish to consider that night. I’m just amazed that he still won’t admit that. Bischoff's business is tied to Hogan and as long as there's money there, Hogan will have spent his time in WCW peeing rainbows as far as Eric is concerned. The fact Hogan has a track record of suing when people have stated facts (*cough* bald *cough*) that put him in a bad light doesn't help any,
|
|
|
Post by SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts on Dec 29, 2018 14:47:29 GMT -5
Um, Bischoff was fired in Sept 1999, months before the AOL/Time Warner merger, so he long lost the ear of Ted Turner well before the buyout. Also, Bischoff made some critical statements in I think in 1998/1999 about how WWF was marketing raunch to children and how WCW would never do that. Now he thinks they needed more "mature" content? Which is funny because WCW in 2000 was far raunchier with sex and cursing than they had ever been in 1996/7/8. If they were mandated to clean up the show, they probably wanted WCW to stop with the embarrassing crap.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,561
|
Post by cjh on Dec 29, 2018 16:36:03 GMT -5
Um, Bischoff was fired in Sept 1999, months before the AOL/Time Warner merger, so he long lost the ear of Ted Turner well before the buyout. Also, Bischoff made some critical statements in I think in 1998/1999 about how WWF was marketing raunch to children and how WCW would never do that. Now he thinks they needed more "mature" content? Which is funny because WCW in 2000 was far raunchier with sex and cursing than they had ever been in 1996/7/8. If they were mandated to clean up the show, they probably wanted WCW to stop with the embarrassing crap. In his 2006 book, he basically said cleaning up and becoming family friendly around late-1998, early-1999 was a directive from Turner Broadcasting, and he hated having to put a positive spin on it in public since he believed Turner was asking for the kind of product that nearly destroyed WWE around 1995. In terms of language, Turner really did put their foot down, as the 7-second delay for Nitro resulted in words like "hell" or "screw" being muted.
|
|