Bones58
Don Corleone
Shuup Baby, I know it!
Posts: 1,476
|
Post by Bones58 on Dec 9, 2007 13:53:21 GMT -5
Kane winning the WWF title at KOTR, only for Austin to win it back the very next night? Although he had been defeated twice but undertaker, Kane still was very much a monster and retained alot of heat but it all went downhill from there after he dropped the title the next night. Kane needed at least a month reign or not at all. Did the WWF drop the ball with his reign or was his victory just to show some vulnerability in Austin?
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Dec 9, 2007 14:00:13 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this a first blood match?
There was no really good way to have Kane lose a first blood match and still keep his mask on. So rather than try a pathetic attempt at it, they just gave him the belt for the one night and had him drop it back the next night on raw.
|
|
lovingway
El Dandy
Crimson and Clover
Posts: 8,135 
|
Post by lovingway on Dec 9, 2007 14:02:08 GMT -5
I always liked that he won it. It was just the fact that he lost it the very next night, and never won it again, that upset me
|
|
Godhand
Team Rocket
The feel good poster of the year
Posts: 803
|
Post by Godhand on Dec 9, 2007 14:14:35 GMT -5
It was just a way to build the Austin Undertaker match/feud.
|
|
BrianZane
Team Rocket
The Finest Fibers All
The Way From France
Host of Wrestling With Wregret
Posts: 972
|
Post by BrianZane on Dec 9, 2007 14:30:51 GMT -5
Not only that, but didn't Kane say that if he lost, he would set himself on fire, and breathe his last breath? It'd be kind of hard to make good on that promise if he lost.
|
|
Bones58
Don Corleone
Shuup Baby, I know it!
Posts: 1,476
|
Post by Bones58 on Dec 9, 2007 14:31:23 GMT -5
how else could he lose a first blood match Perhaps they shouldn't have booked it in the first place? Still it was a pretty entertaining brawl from what I can recall. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh DELUXE on Dec 9, 2007 17:01:37 GMT -5
I wasn't watching WWF much at the time but I'm pretty sure they had a three way feud going on afterwards or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Dec 9, 2007 17:04:46 GMT -5
The initial win made sense: how can a masked giant possibly bleed? Of course the way it was done was probably a seed to be planted for Summerslam for Austin and Taker, but how Kane didn't even get to hold the title for more than 24 hours is despicable.
|
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 9, 2007 17:25:49 GMT -5
I think it was an early example of booking to "smart" audience.
Nobody expected Austin to lose the title that early, yet all the stipulations made it seem like it HAD to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by a1TheEnigma1a on Dec 9, 2007 17:28:49 GMT -5
Kane should be top of anyone lists of guys who should have had a good title run and didn't.
Yes, even above Dibiase and Jake Roberts.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Genesis of KoOS on Dec 9, 2007 17:37:12 GMT -5
Kane should be top of anyone lists of guys who should have had a good title run and didn't. Yes, even above Dibiase and Jake Roberts. Nah. |
|
|
|
Post by Ridley on Dec 9, 2007 17:45:55 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this a first blood match? There was no really good way to have Kane lose a first blood match and still keep his mask on. So rather than try a pathetic attempt at it, they just gave him the belt for the one night and had him drop it back the next night on raw. I'd have thought if They'd wanted to, They could have rigged something to pour through the mask. Wasn't it just another chapter in the saga of McMahon stacking the odds against Austin? |
|
|
|
Post by a1TheEnigma1a on Dec 9, 2007 17:46:18 GMT -5
At the time of their run in the WWF I don't think anyone considered either Dibiase or Roberts as champion.
Many people have with Kane, I guess that is what I was trying to say.
|
|
