Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 416

Thread: WCW Thread

  1. #41
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,032
    I loved "That 70s Guy" and "The Fat Chick Thriller", but I was at an age where stupid humour like the latter made me laugh.

  2. #42
    the.shockmaster
    Guest
    i miss Tony Schiavone saying "This is The Greatest Night in the History of Our Sport" on almost every episode of nitro or a ppv. also would love to see war games back though as stated earlier, i doubt vince would bring it back seeing as he's against anything he didnt create. though im sure huh would consider bringing it back.

  3. #43
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    I am watching Great American Bash 89, and I'm completely convinced that WarGames marks are deluded with nostalgia. I'm not saying all of them sucked, but they are no more interesting in 2013 than forced Elimination Tag Matches. Much like how all Hell in a Cell events have felt forced since the theme PPV inception, WarGames would just not work in WWE PG. Plus, 2 rings is so fucking stupid.

    I never got into WCW. I'd watch it during the war, but it just didn't suit my liking. I found the wrestling sloppy, with very few wrestlers I cared to watch.

  4. #44
    the.shockmaster
    Guest
    the war games format would have to change, two rings set up is ridiculous. its a spectacle though. i never really thought it was anything special either until i watched the dvd on it. simple format, baby face and heel start then a heel comes in and beats down the baby face until somebody comes in to make the save. if you had a hot angle you could use the war games, fans would pop for it i think. though would be difficult in the pg era. and war games was basically created by dusty rhodes to get himself over haha

  5. #45
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,032
    To make War Games work in 2013, you have to have one ring and just use the Cell cage. Why give up approx. 625 sq. ft. of potential audience space just to appease the people who loved two rings? And there wouldn't be any blood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Every Internet War Games Fan After WWE Tries the Match
    Blah, blah, blah, ONE RING!?!?! Blah, blah, blah, NO BLOOD!!?!?!? Blah, blah, blah PG!?!?!?! Blah, blah, blah, WWE SUCKS!!!!!!

  6. #46
    the.shockmaster
    Guest
    totally agree, two rings is dumb. if you look at the current hell in a cell, its pretty big and could possibly be the sitting of a war games type match.

  7. #47
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    But what would be the point? That's the big problem with WarGames, so rarely was there a point to have these matches.

  8. #48
    McDaygo
    Guest
    While I know it took a lot of space I always liked the World War 3 concept of three rings and 60 men.

  9. #49
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,835
    What I didn't like about that was how serious it highlighted the roster bloat in WCW at times. Does WWE - not counting NXT guys - have 60 total guys on their roster right now?

  10. #50
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,032
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15 View Post
    But what would be the point? That's the big problem with WarGames, so rarely was there a point to have these matches.
    I'd say that if you had an organic multi-man situation, the general idea would work. Same as Survivor Series matches.

    Team WWE vs Team Nexus probably would have made a decent War Games match because you could have always had the WWE guys outnumbered. A month ago I'd have said that Daniel Bryan, Big Show and the Rhodes Bros. vs The Shield and Randy Orton would have made a good War Games style match.

  11. #51
    ^Exactly. I'll agree that there was a ton of times the WarGames match was unnecessary, but if you built that match around a hot angle, the results were great. Look no further than the final two "classic" WarGames matches in 1996 and 1997 involving the nWo and you can see how well the gimmick worked. Hell, the 1996 match is one of my favorite bouts ever; it's not a technical classic, but the booking going into that match was so strong and the factor of which side Sting was on is just masterfully done.


  12. #52
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    3,592
    The '91 and '92 matches are well done as well, not to mention the ones with the Horsemen in the 80s. There are plenty of duds too of course, but it's a matter of building a good story around it.

    ...Er, so maybe Pen is right and WWE shouldn't get their hands on it...

  13. #53
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    Sure, potentially. But WWE have struggled to put on an Elimination Tag Match that made sense at least once every 3-4 years. Is there a reason to add another match with the same needs for a storyline, in a non-blood WWE? It's nostalgia for the sake of it, and nothing more.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by T.O. View Post
    Jim Cornette once said that, as great as Sting was, he was always the-guy-who-worked-with-the-guy-who-made-money (He also says that about Triple H). He's dead on, too. Outside of his 1997 run (where he didn't even fucking wrestle!), when was he ever the #1 commodity, the major drawing point? Even then, the spotlight was on Hogan, and rightfully so.

    Cornette is not the be-all end-all here, but he makes a good point. He doesn't have any aura left to be interesting against Taker, outside of "Hey, I remember him!"
    Felt this made more sense here then it did taking up space in the Wrestlemania thread.

    To be fair though, Sting was supposed to be the guy in WCW at the start of 1990 after WCW had spent two years building him up. The problem was he got injured during the break up angle with the Four Horsemen (Sting joined for a short period of time), was out for several months, and had his return appearances marred by the stupid RoboCop angle. By the time he actually won the title, his momentum had been killed, Flair had been removed as booker (from what I understand, Flair was a big supporter of Sting backstage) and Ole Anderson was about to run WCW into the ground.

    Beyond that and 1997 though, I will definitely agree that Sting never was the guy; in fact, I don't believe he even really sniffed the WCW Championship picture while Hogan was there till late 95.


  15. #55
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    So, you made my argument for me as to why Sting is not that big of a deal. Thanks.

    In all seriousness, I understand that Sting was a big deal in WCW for a few points, but it was no different than someone like the Ultimate Warrior. I loved the Warrior, but I'm not such a blinded fan that I think he should face off against the Undertaker, Goldberg, or Mark Henry. I think an appearance any legend can fit into Wrestlemania, and that includes Sting. You just have to find the right place for him.

  16. #56
    I really wonder how much different it would've been for him if WCW had closed the deal on his 1997 push. This is what makes him closer to Randy Savage in my opinion; Savage had a far more consistent career, but he never, ever had a run like Sting had in 1997. Few in fact have. You can make the argument he was the most popular superstar in wrestling that year, without ever having to step into the ring or speak on a microphone; the work he and Bischoff did that year (and late 96 when the gimmick started) to reinvent him is some of the best work in wrestling ever. The only mistake they made was the one they couldn't make, and that was Starrcade. If Sting beats Hogan cleanly, he would've been the top star in wrestling along with Steve Austin.


  17. #57
    romeromingewrasslin
    Guest
    For all it's faults, WCW was a great competitor and rival to WWF/WWE. It made for a better landscape across the business and also showcased some other styles that the E didn't touch.

  18. #58
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,327
    Quote Originally Posted by romeromingewrasslin View Post
    For all it's faults, WCW was a great competitor and rival to WWF/WWE. It made for a better landscape across the business and also showcased some other styles that the E didn't touch.
    Fuck WCW. There is a reason it lost the most money in the history of a wrestling promotion ever. The only years to turn a profit under Ted Turner were 1989 1997 and 1998. They took a viable company with a clearly different style and they loaded up and hotshotted wrestling. . they overpayed talent and just like VInce drained the indys of talent for guys just to sit at home. How many guys was WCW paying so they could collect a check? Bishoff spit on Ric Flair and the loyal WCW fanbase. They didnt build a brand with a fanbase that would stick by the company, instead they focused on stealing viewership from the other guy. They let Karl Malone, Denis Rodman, Arquette and Jay Leno main event. They ignored what made them special like the tag division and their stellar midcard in ring talents like Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Dean Malenko and Perry Saturn. No one remembers what a million dollar failure guys like Warrior or how Bret Hart fell victim to the boys who had creative control were? they didnt want to pay Tully Blanchard and ended up adding Paul Roma to the Horsemen ... Paul ROMA.

    How bout how horrible was Starrcade 1997?

    Oh and just because WCW ripped off ECW it doesnt make them visionary.

  19. #59
    Senior Member FoonZeeS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Pinky of Michigan
    Posts
    578
    I've been watching every Nitro and PPV in order and am completely loving it. I just watched World War 3 1997 the other night so I'm a few weeks out from Starrcade and I can't wait.


  20. #60
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,327
    Quote Originally Posted by FoonZeeS View Post
    I've been watching every Nitro and PPV in order and am completely loving it. I just watched World War 3 1997 the other night so I'm a few weeks out from Starrcade and I can't wait.
    aw buddy, Spoilers ...

  21. #61
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,835
    Wrong man won that match.

  22. #62
    Senior Member FoonZeeS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Pinky of Michigan
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishsara View Post
    aw buddy, Spoilers ...
    I know what happens. WCW was the company I watched for the most part.


  23. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishsara View Post
    Fuck WCW. There is a reason it lost the most money in the history of a wrestling promotion ever. The only years to turn a profit under Ted Turner were 1989 1997 and 1998. They took a viable company with a clearly different style and they loaded up and hotshotted wrestling. . they overpayed talent and just like VInce drained the indys of talent for guys just to sit at home. How many guys was WCW paying so they could collect a check? Bishoff spit on Ric Flair and the loyal WCW fanbase. They didnt build a brand with a fanbase that would stick by the company, instead they focused on stealing viewership from the other guy. They let Karl Malone, Denis Rodman, Arquette and Jay Leno main event. They ignored what made them special like the tag division and their stellar midcard in ring talents like Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Dean Malenko and Perry Saturn. No one remembers what a million dollar failure guys like Warrior or how Bret Hart fell victim to the boys who had creative control were? they didnt want to pay Tully Blanchard and ended up adding Paul Roma to the Horsemen ... Paul ROMA.

    How bout how horrible was Starrcade 1997?

    Oh and just because WCW ripped off ECW it doesnt make them visionary.
    We're seriously going to say that WCW wasn't great because it took some ideas from ECW? I love ECW, but boo hoo; I'm not going to blame Eric Bischoff and Ted Turner for taking other ideas and translating them on a bigger stage. You don't think Paul Heyman, the brilliant mind that he is, wouldn't have done the same thing if the position was flipped? And further more, why aren't we blaming Vince for doing the exact same thing in the 1980s and late 90s?

    The bottom line is that WCW, from 1996 to 1998 was great. Whatever the reasons, it was great, and that's really all that matters in the end from a product standpoint right?


  24. #64
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,835
    Until Kevin fucking Nash.

  25. #65
    He wasn't the main problem, just part of it. Starrcade 97 is what killed the company in my opinion. If Sting had beaten Hogan cleanly...if only.


  26. #66
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    We're seriously going to say that WCW wasn't great because it took some ideas from ECW? I love ECW, but boo hoo; I'm not going to blame Eric Bischoff and Ted Turner for taking other ideas and translating them on a bigger stage. You don't think Paul Heyman, the brilliant mind that he is, wouldn't have done the same thing if the position was flipped? And further more, why aren't we blaming Vince for doing the exact same thing in the 1980s and late 90s?
    No, I didnt say WCW wasnt GOOD because it bought talent and ideas from ECW. It wasnt Visionary or special because of it.

    I blame WCW for increasing the price on talent and paying guys to sit at home which made it harder for companies other than the big 2 to even exist.

    Oh and I totally blame Vince for killing the territories.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    The bottom line is that WCW, from 1996 to 1998 was great. Whatever the reasons, it was great, and that's really all that matters in the end from a product standpoint right?
    It was good. It wasnt great. WCW had perhaps the second greatest roster of wrestlers of all time in 1998 and they squandered it. Instead of long term booking and focusing on stories they had to battle their creative monster with too many cooks, too many wrestlers with ironclad contracts who didnt want to work, a company who wasnt fully behind them sometimes, and a lack of continuity which fucked with the product. The product left so much on the table. Their big match main events rarely paid off ... i could keep going.

    Jamie Kellner killed WCW Nuff Said.

  27. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishsara View Post
    No, I didnt say WCW wasnt GOOD because it bought talent and ideas from ECW. It wasnt Visionary or special because of it.

    I blame WCW for increasing the price on talent and paying guys to sit at home which made it harder for companies other than the big 2 to even exist.

    Oh and I totally blame Vince for killing the territories.

    It was good. It wasnt great. WCW had perhaps the second greatest roster of wrestlers of all time in 1998 and they squandered it. Instead of long term booking and focusing on stories they had to battle their creative monster with too many cooks, too many wrestlers with ironclad contracts who didnt want to work, a company who wasnt fully behind them sometimes, and a lack of continuity which fucked with the product. The product left so much on the table. Their big match main events rarely paid off ... i could keep going.

    Jamie Kellner killed WCW Nuff Said.
    It was great, it was visionary at times and it was special. Monday Nitro is one of the five most visionary creations in wrestling history; it doesn't seem that way now but it was unheard of in 1995 for a wrestling show on Monday night to be live, let alone to compete with the biggest wrestling promotion alive. Nitro helped make sure that every match on the show was competitive as well as give the fans a feeling that anything could happen. The only mistake Bischoff made with Nitro (initially at least) was wasting it's potential for the first year with the awful Hogan-Dungeon of Doom feud. Once that was done, that show was revolutionary.

    I won't deny that the company screwed it up in the end, or that they handled a ton of contracts wrong and ultimately didn't think long term into the future. But for a three year stretch, from 1996 to the final Nitro of 1998 when Flair beat Bischoff to become President ("I THINK WE'VE GOT A NEW BOSS!"), WCW was amazing from top to bottom. I can't even begin to describe how much I miss that promotion every day.


  28. #68
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,327
    Do you want an example of how horrific WCW was in 1998? Warrior vs the NWO. he used magic, a trap door in the ring (which almost crippled Daveyboy) and wrestled a total of 4 matches and WCW paid him $1 million upfront. Watch the match of Warrior vs Hogan at Halloween Havoc. This was the main event. People PAID for this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SSb77DXhFs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl7YVhgyiQ4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CozzrADWRxo

    Other than Raven vs. Chris Jericho and the 8 mins of DDP vs Goldberg this whole PPV is brutal.
    Last edited by Irishsara; 02-18-2014 at 05:21 PM.

  29. #69
    My goodness, one match! The rest of the promotion must've just been terrible the whole damn year!

    I never said the company was perfect, but more often than not, I thought they were overall pretty damn good during that year. You don't go through a whole year of wrestling without having a handful of bad moments.


  30. #70
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    My goodness, one match! The rest of the promotion must've just been terrible the whole damn year!

    I never said the company was perfect, but more often than not, I thought they were overall pretty damn good during that year. You don't go through a whole year of wrestling without having a handful of bad moments.
    Its the majority of that PPV. There were HUGE amounts of time on the TV Show promoting those Nash, Hall, and Hogan clusterfucks every week and they RARELY paid off. Do I have to talk about the Disco Inferno in back to back matches (making both mediocre) or the brutality of Rick Steiner vs Scott Steiner wrestling both a tag match then a no DQ one after another? Scott Hall vs Kevin Nash? Or Bret Hart beating sting with a foam bat? Cmon man. Be a critic.

    This is a random example because I snagged a putlocker of it when Warrior went into the HOF.

    EDIT: Omg i completely forgot that when it happened live the feed got cut after going over 3 hours and the entire of the DDP vs Goldberg got cut off. Yeah, Ive made my point.
    Last edited by Irishsara; 02-18-2014 at 06:07 PM.

  31. #71
    Again, how does one match, or show as you are arguing, make the rest of the year terrible? How does it diminish matches like Hogan-Goldberg, Sting-Giant, Flair-Bischoff for control of WCW, the Juvi-Kidman series, Saturn vs. The Flock, Bret vs. DDP and all the other stuff that went on that year? Yes, there were low points; Halloween Havoc was certainly a low one, especially when you consider that the show went off the air before it was over. Yes, the Warrior's return was a bust, the Steiner feud was silly, and the Scott Hall storyline was awful. But that doesn't mean that WCW didn't do some great work during the rest of the year, which for the most part they did. It wasn't perfect, but it was great for the most part; certainly not the crapshoot that 1999 was.


  32. #72
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    You don't go through a whole year of wrestling without having a handful of bad moments.
    Or 434 of them.

  33. #73
    Queen of Extreme Irishsara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,327
    If you look at only the highlights then yeah the year is great. When you look at it closer you see the flaws. you see that while the highs are amazing, the lows are REALLY low. There is tons of fluff, filler, and some seriously brutal main events. The third hour weakened the product and didnt make it better. The lack of Long-term booking is brutally obvious. There were 4 GROUPS of NWO wrestlers in 1998. They focused the majority of the TV time on the WCW Senior Tour instead of pushing guys like Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, and Chris Jericho.

    Look at how many main events didnt pay off just in 1998. Here are a few.

    How about the Fall Brawl WarGames ?

    How about Hogan vs Savage from Uncensored ?

    The Rodman Malone tag match from Bash?

    WCW was at least the 4th best professional wrestling company in 1998.

  34. #74
    So because there were five blunders, WCW was the fourth best company? Right.

    Let's look at the whole year here PPV to PPV. Souled Out to start the year was a godd show with the exception of Luger-Savage, including a match of the year candidate in Bret Hart vs. Ric Flair. SuperBrawl was excellent; Booker T tears down the house with Rick Martel and Perry Saturn (sadly Martel injures himself in that match right before he was to have a solid singles run), DDP and Benoit have a solid match, Scott Steiner's heel turn was awesome and Sting finally overcomes Hogan. Uncensored, typically the worst PPV WCW ever produced, has some good matches on it (although Hogan-Savage is bad and Sting-Hall did disappoint). Ditto for Spring Stampede, Slamboree and the Great American Bash, which were carried by the great three way feud between Benoit, DDP and Raven, Jericho vs. Malenko as well as the Wolfpack/Hollywood angle. Really the only dents are Bash at the Beach, Fall Brawl and Halloween Havoc (Road Wild was a pretty decent show in my opinion, despite Leno's match), which were presented as either filler cards or had big time matches featuring past stars/celebrities that bombed. After that, it picks back up with a really good World War 3 PPV (featuring Juvi-Kidman III and that great DDP-Bret Hart main event) and the last really good Starrcade where Nash beats Goldberg (you and I have disagreed on whether or not that was a good move in the past).

    That doesn't even take into account the long list of really good Nitro's during that year, including the Goldberg-Hogan Nitro on July 6th and the best Nitro of all time on September 14th, which features the demise of The Flock, Kidman defeating Juvi for the cruiserweight title, Bret Hart turning face, Goldberg vs. Sting (the buzz in the arena during that match is unreal) and Ric Flair reforming the Four Horsemen. I don't see how you can't say it wasn't a good year if you take all of that into consideration. It was in 1999 when WCW continued with much of went on in 97/98 and refused to push the young guys when things got really really bad.


  35. #75
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,032
    I loved WCW right up until the bitter end.

    The New Blood vs Millionaires Club? The wrong guys were the babies, but regardless, at 12 I wanted nothing more than to see those young guys knock off the old dudes (and this is coming from a Hulkamaniac). 2001 felt like a real turn around year for that company if only it hadn't died almost immediately after starting to get really good again.

    Hell, for all of the shit people talk about WCW 2000, we got to see the rise of both Booker T and Scott Steiner as main event talent. I've always been a fan of Earnest Miller, and his commissioner gimmick was gold. I even remember liking the work he did with Mike Sanders (if not the matches themselves).

    Team Canada vs MIA was something else that I really enjoyed. It may have given us the worst gimmick match in recorded history (the Penalty Box Match), but everything that DeMott and Storm did was good and it largely saved Mike Awesome's WCW career. Hell, I thought That 70's Guy and The Fat Chick Thriller were hilarious at the time (I was 12).

    They had a ton of turds that year, and the booking didn't always make much (any) sense, but WCW 2000 was entertaining every week. I mean, if it weren't for that year, we'd have never gotten King Booker or proof that Shane Helms could be entertaining.

    Say what you want about WCW but as few fucks as they gave their undercard, it really allowed a lot of those talents to experiment.

  36. #76
    Reality Champ
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    6,688
    Don't want to break this off on a tangent Sara, but you should listen to JR's take on why the territories died. Basically to paraphrase him, it wasn't Vince or Ted Turner that killed the territories, it was their rigidity and refusal to adapt that did them in. So you should let your hatred of popular things die down a bit.

    And TF, you were only 12 in 2000? I really thought you were older than that.

  37. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Farrell View Post
    I loved WCW right up until the bitter end.

    The New Blood vs Millionaires Club? The wrong guys were the babies, but regardless, at 12 I wanted nothing more than to see those young guys knock off the old dudes (and this is coming from a Hulkamaniac). 2001 felt like a real turn around year for that company if only it hadn't died almost immediately after starting to get really good again.

    Hell, for all of the shit people talk about WCW 2000, we got to see the rise of both Booker T and Scott Steiner as main event talent. I've always been a fan of Earnest Miller, and his commissioner gimmick was gold. I even remember liking the work he did with Mike Sanders (if not the matches themselves).

    Team Canada vs MIA was something else that I really enjoyed. It may have given us the worst gimmick match in recorded history (the Penalty Box Match), but everything that DeMott and Storm did was good and it largely saved Mike Awesome's WCW career. Hell, I thought That 70's Guy and The Fat Chick Thriller were hilarious at the time (I was 12).

    They had a ton of turds that year, and the booking didn't always make much (any) sense, but WCW 2000 was entertaining every week. I mean, if it weren't for that year, we'd have never gotten King Booker or proof that Shane Helms could be entertaining.

    Say what you want about WCW but as few fucks as they gave their undercard, it really allowed a lot of those talents to experiment.
    I will never, never understand why Russo decided the New Blood should be heels and the Millionaire's Club the faces. That's an all time awful decision right there; if they had done it the way it was supposed to be done, that angle could've worked. That said, I did enjoy some of the stuff they did during that time; the first Nitro of the Russo/Bischoff regime was excellent, Sting-Vampire was cool, and I honestly really like the initial Bill Goldberg heel turn. Of course they immediately blew that too.

    I'm honestly really interested to have seen what Bischoff could've done if he had actually bought the company instead of Vince. Some of the ideas he had (according to the Death of WCW) seem like they would've been pretty interesting.


  38. #78
    McDaygo
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    I will never, never understand why Russo decided the New Blood should be heels and the Millionaire's Club the faces. That's an all time awful decision right there; if they had done it the way it was supposed to be done, that angle could've worked. That said, I did enjoy some of the stuff they did during that time; the first Nitro of the Russo/Bischoff regime was excellent, Sting-Vampire was cool, and I honestly really like the initial Bill Goldberg heel turn. Of course they immediately blew that too.

    I'm honestly really interested to have seen what Bischoff could've done if he had actually bought the company instead of Vince. Some of the ideas he had (according to the Death of WCW) seem like they would've been pretty interesting.
    The reason why the Millionaire club was the faces was who was in it, Yes Nash, Sting & Sid could be great heels when they wanted to be but there is no denying how over they were as faces. Flair even with heel antics would get a face pop. Hogan was Hogan. I think Page was in it as well who was monstrously over.

    The New Blood was full of undercard guys and Jeff Jarrett. With how much popular (key word here) star power that was in Millionaire club it was no doubt they would be the baby faces.

    I’ve always liked Mike Awesome but I hated the Fat Chick Thriller gimmick. They should have booked him as the juggernaut he was. That 70’s guy was funny especially when he awesome bombed Shaggy 2 Dope off of the bus (botch, he wasn’t supposed to fall and Mike tried to grab him)

  39. #79
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,032
    Quote Originally Posted by TheAman View Post
    And TF, you were only 12 in 2000? I really thought you were older than that.
    Only 25. It's really weird to think that was 13 years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    I will never, never understand why Russo decided the New Blood should be heels and the Millionaire's Club the faces. That's an all time awful decision right there; if they had done it the way it was supposed to be done, that angle could've worked. That said, I did enjoy some of the stuff they did during that time; the first Nitro of the Russo/Bischoff regime was excellent, Sting-Vampire was cool, and I honestly really like the initial Bill Goldberg heel turn. Of course they immediately blew that too.
    Oh man, Sting/Vampiro was great if for nothing more than the unintentional comedy. The Graveyard match, the Human Torch match, gold. WCW really seemed interested in using Sting and Muta in an attempt to make Vampiro a star.

    Fun thought experiment: how would the Invasion have been different if Scott Steiner had beaten Booker T on that last episode? Assuming, of course, that they pick up Steiner's contract, they'd have a guy with WWE history coming into the company as WCW Champion.

    Would they have positioned him as Austin/Rock/Angle's equal? Would they have pushed him hard (he had the physique that Vince loves) as a legitimate threat? Would the angle have been more successful, less successful or about equal? If Booker had come in at the same time, where does he fit in, and are both men positioned as equals and main event talent?

  40. #80
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,835
    I gotta think they had their eye squarely on the SummerSlam main event. No doubt about it.

    Random note: I sheepishly loved 96-98 Lex Luger. He was a guilty pleasure of mine.
    Last edited by T.O.; 02-18-2014 at 08:43 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •