Promoter

1) I don't really think they explained this to be honest as he just burnt up Jim Ross when questioned . They started the cracks at a SummerSlam in 2000 I think. They didn't care and they knew full well the inconsistency because before the ppv match they did a whole article on Taker/Kane's history on a website. You are right. The "dumb" Kane can get away with the psychological crap, but now he is some clever prankster. It doesn't fit. 2) This is another glaring mistake. 3)I just think Vince wanted to use the real life saga of Jimmy Snuka's driving problem somehow and since Kane is a dolt he got dumped with the storyline without them even thinking about past history. -------- All in all. Kane is a monster against the likes of Maven and Sandman. A goof and clutz against the likes of Triple H. Used to get smaller wrestlers like Benoit, Matt Hardy and HBK over with the David and Goliath story. Is made the BUTT of sexual jokes and relationship disasters. Vince uses him to dump all the stupid ideas he has because he doesn't want to sink his other wrestlers with the crap. His only time to shine is against his "brother" who he has lost a billion times to. BTW, he has a long lost cousin over at Smackdown called Big Show

AlwaysPissedOff, no..no..no... Orton WILL be the focus of the show because he is in Evolution with Triple H. You can bet Triple H's quest to regain HIS belt will be a major portion of the 7 month reign. I still think this will be a slow burn with Orton going face around either Survivor Series or Royal Rumble. Kid Kablam what you are saying was the point I was making. I think he will want to make his 10th world title win a historic one. The man knows how to book to make his status become legendary. The debate about Triple H turning face for his movie promotion is a good one, but I think the wwe will keep Triple H heel regardless. That is his appeal to the masses. He is hated, but he is also respected which is why he gets cheers. The fans might also know very well he is playing goody goody just because of the movie releasing. In other words it's like having the 1986 Ric Flair appear in a movie and turning him face just for the brief stint. The fans back then still saw him as the prick wrestler. Is his role a big part in the movie? How about the movie he was/is suppose to film? That wouldn't come out til next year. Anyways, could Orton be replacing the role of Brock Lesnar as it was rumoured that the main event of Mania 21 was going to be Triple H vs. Brock Lesnar. Now the wwe is attempting to re-create Orton as the youngest heavyweight champion ever and defend against Triple H.

I would rather Orton holding the belt all the way to WrestleMania instead of doing that Rock/Mankind trade-off stuff. It seems like they want to solidify Orton as being a legit main eventer and having him hold the belt all the way up to Wm 21 should at least make him seem like a real deal. That is what they should have done with Brock Lesnar originally instead of cutting his reign by jobbing out to Big Show. The guy was catching on and then they cut him off. They might have seen that problem and will rectify this time around. Orton seems like he is being given the position Brock had at first. Besides the days of one day title reigns seem to be over as it does no one any good. It was done in 1998 and 1999 to get people to watch raw instead of nitro.

True, but has the chasing heel walked in as challenger and walk out as champion? Maybe Triple H wants to get that accomplishment first just like the heel retaining first at WM 16. I think Orton will be a heel at first and then turn face. He would probably get rematches with Benoit and Jericho which might turn him face afterwards to go after Evolution.

I stole this from another place and thought it would create some nice discussion again at these forums. There are two posts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The issue at stake here is the difficulty in choosing one star to push to Main Event status with a view to becoming World Champion. We are looking to do two thing here, 1. To get the guy over and 2. to achieve the biggest draw possible from the star's potential. -------- The Face Champ: The Ultimate Warrior was an awesome draw when chasing the title (either the IC belt from Rick Rude or the World Title from Hogan/ Savage) but then just predictable and boring whilst actually in the title run because he squashed all challengers, including the very able like Ted Dibiase, Mr. Perfect and Rick Rude. After you've been through a list like that who's going to believe ANYONE can beat him? Who's going to pay to see him win AGAIN? So why was Hogan such a big draw? Wasn't the formula the same? Well no actually it wasn't... well in essence it was but the actual formaula played itself out differently. The average Hogan match started with Hogan getting the token initial offence until the heel (usually either A. A physically bigger/ stroner wrestler - an Andre, King Kong Bundy, Zeus or Earthquake or B. A far better technical wrestler - a Savage, Dibiase or Flair) broke the momentum and beat on him for 10-15 minutes. Hogan is an underrated worker as he made every heel look GOOD. After 15 minutes of taking punishment THEN we got the Hulk up, big boot, leg drop and the win. Hogan has overcome the odds again. With Hogan's title runs the question was always 'well how's he going to be THIS guy?'. Whilst Hogan was a constant in terms of heat the WWF also built up the heels he would face - Andre the Giant, "The Million Dollar Man" Ted Dibiase, Earthquake, Sgt. Slaughter. And when they wanted an EVEN bigger draw put him up against another high-drawing face - Randy Savage, Ultimate Warrior. So that's one way to do it. This is pretty much what the Rock does too. With Warrior this tactic didn't work because he was a poor worker and also because he was booked to look indestructable - this is also why Goldberg lost alot of heat when he became WCW champion. Once the indestructible force has conquered the imovable object (as Gorilla Monsoon might say) it has nowhere else to go, so a potential heat machine just ends up looking pointless. Austin who was also booked to look indestuctalbe at times was handled far better than Warrior or Goldberg. He was screwed at every turn out of the title, put into long lasting feuds against hordres of scheming heels - one tough man against the world rather than one super man against whoever will take him on. This is another way to go. So.... so far 3 ways to go with a face champ - 'the Hogan way', 'the Warrior way' and 'the Austin way. There is a fourth - this is the Bret Hart type of face champ. The hardworking face who'll defend his title no matter what or who and against any odds. Ricky Steamboat fits this role nicely. Flair's face title runs pretty much follow this formula as well and I believe it is the current situation with Chris Benoit. The fifth sort of face champ is the sort of champ Randy Savage was... someone who had been a heel and could be again, someone who would take on faces as well as heels, someone who towed the tweener line. Shawn Michaels qualifies also, as does Chris Jericho. The highest drawing of all these ideas is undoubtedly the Hogan way of doing things and, roughly on par, the Austin way of doing things. This is not because they also happen to be the highest drawing but because it's logical. People will pay to see a face battle the odds, the odds were always stacked against Austin, the odds always seemed to favour Hogan's opponent. But it really depends on what type of face you're trying to push.... If it's a 'monster face', a Warrior, a Goldberg, an Undertaker or a Kevin Nash, you need a scheming or arrogant heel Champion for them chase (a Ric Flair or Kurt Angle say), you'd want them to chase it for as long as possible and have them lose it fairly quickly too. If you've got a strong face character like Hogan or The Rock you'll want to give them fairly lengthy reigns and build up heels for them to overcome (note NOT destroy). If you've got a face who's high on workrate but low on charisma (Bret Hart, Chris Benoit) you need to fill the World Title picture with an assortment of different challenges. In 1992/3 for example there was Yokozuna, Shawn Michaels, Kamala and The Undertaker for Bret Hart to defend against. What you're trying to do here is to 'prove' that this champ really is the best wrestler there is. If you've got a face who is a bit of a tweener - Michaels or Savage say - it is probably best to give him the belt and have him feud with a mixture of faces an heels. In Savage's 1988 run for example he had a lengthy programme with Ted Dibiase (a match which could always go either way and so virtual certainy of a high draw - check out their figures over that year) and then eventually with Hogan. This is potentially the best policy but it runs the risk of a more popular face stealing the limelight and the heat and thus making the champ seem weak, which arguably happened to both Savage and Michaels in their time. ------ The Heel Champ: I think the heel champ is far easier to book and also is a guarenteed draw if done correctly. The classic case is Honky Tonk Man. A man who clearly had no right to be wearing the IC belt but somehow held onto it for 18 months. The more he holds onto it the more people will pay to see him lose it. But the champion in question must be weak. Arguably Sgt. Slaughter was a bit like this. If you want a stronger sort to be champ it all depends on what the heel is like, there are multiple options. Type 1 is the Classic heel - a guy who has undoubted ability and knows it and talks about it but is not above cheating and frequently does. This is Ric Flair, Ted Dibiase, Mr. Perfect, Rick Rude and Kurt Angle. You simply book this guy like you'd book the working face champ only he'd only be challenged by faces. What you're trading on here is the strength of the guy's heel-heat, how much do the people want to see him beat AS WELL AS how much do they like the face. If Dibiase had won the belt at Wrestlemania 4 the same programme only with Savage as the challenger and Dibiase as the champion would have sold just as well, if not better. NWA always went this route because the heel champ would battle the biggest face draw in each territory. Type 2 is the Monster heel - here we have Warrior/ Goldberg only in heel form. The heel form tends to focus more on phyisical bulk than strength of force, hence Yokozuna, Earthquake, Brock Lesner, Andre the Giant, Kane. These are usually the puppets of an evil force - Vince, Heenan, Mr. Fuji. I suppose they could effectively work as challengers or champions. A huge obstacle to a Hogan type face champ or an immovable object to a face challenger - preferrably a Warrior but any will do. Type 3 is HHH. He is like the other two rolled into one. This comes with its problems because he invariably ends up looking awesome and unbeatable. I am not sure how to book HHH as champ but I think his 1999/2000 run was the best, with a clique behind him and in-league with the powers that be. Not too dissimilar to his situation right now. Perhaps the best policy is to build a face that he continously screws out of the title for a long time until the final blow-off. I know they've already done this a few times but you know what I mean. Some champions need to take on all comers, others need feuds and specific adversaries to get the title reign over. I think HHH is like this as he doesn't need to 'prove he's the best' like a Bret Hart would. ---- Conclusion All in all the highest drawing type of champion is the Hogan-type face and then I would say the Classic Heel. The Austin-type run is also high drawing but faces the potential problem of becoming a bit repetitive if repeated too many times. This too is the problem facing a heel champ with a clique behind him who also happen to weild immense power (eg. NWO, McMahon-Helmsly era, Evolution/ Bischoff). Discuss. -- I also think the best type of champion is the Super Champ of the 80's Hogan version for all the things you stated. The problem doing this however is getting someone who the fans would actually allow to be in this vien. It's easier said than done which is why I feel Hogan is under-rated by the IWC. Yeah, the excuse will be that was back in the day and so on, but I don't think it's just that simple. When I watch some of the old school matches today Hogan just seems invincible and believable. I'm talking 84-88 Hogan here and not the champ of 1989-1990 because that just got too cartoonish after he regained the title from Savage. Hogan just seemed larger than life and had an aura to him like Mike Tyson use to have He was dominant and you knew he was, but you still wanted to see how he would overcome the obstacle. He made you care to see him because it felt like an event in and of itself. For all the success of The Rock and Steve Austin their reigns just did not have the same kind of aura which tells me Hogan couldn't have been all that much of a guy in the right place at the right time. No one has done the championship reign like Hogan did since 84-88. I think Ultimate Warrior flopped for a lot of reasons. Firstly, when he became champion he BEAT Hogan and the way he won it seemed as if they were passing the torch. It was all good, but Warrior started to emulate Hogan and no one likes a copycat. We already had Hogan to do the shtick. Their mistake was trying to make Warrior the new Hogan by really making him a new Hogan. Remember the shaking of the leg for the ten count instead of the dropping of the arm and hulking up like Hogan? How about stripping Ultimate Warrior of all his craziness and trying to make him kissing babies and making his make-up disappear to a little Warrior sign on his cheek? Secondly, the wwe did not line up any solid competition for Ultimate Warrior. In 1989 the wwe ran Warrior/Rude for the whole spring and summer. In 1990 they did the exact same thing. His other contenders in Mr. Perfect and Ted Dibase didn't even get any storyline reason for facing Ultimate Warrior. Compare it to the time they faced off against Hogan. Some of Warrior flopping had to do with Warrior, but I believe it was a lot more to do with the booking. Then when Warrior started to catch on as champion in the winter of 1990 they job him out to Sgt. Slaughter in early 91 killing Warrior's chances for good as the heir apparrent(although the changing of direction with guys like Bret Hart were on its way anyways). In other words Vince booked Hogan MUCH BETTER than he did Ultimate Warrior. I actually think the wwe did not book Austin as champion that well. Notice Austin is more remembered for feuding with his boss than anything. The only real good that came out of it was the anti-authority character shining and the politics of behind the scenes coming out on camera. This could also be seen as a curse as we have seen the evil boss character get ran into the ground. I think they booked Austin well up until WM 15 and after that it became too repititive as you stated. They probably should have just booked Austin like Hogan in 1999 and have him job at SummerSlam to Triple H. I think the idea of the chase being better than the actual defending is down to booking. It's bad booking for the babyface to finally get the prize and then fizzle out. The fans should want the man to KEEP the title because they know how long or hard it was for the babyface to get the title. Anytime the chase is better than the actual reign it's because the booking is made to keep the heel champ over and to regain the strap. It's more of the fans just wanting to see the heel finanly go down. That is a good tool, if they want the heel to be the real champion. That is the problem I saw with Vince/Austin's rivalry. It was about Vince screwing Austin and not the title so much. It set up a scenario where the fans were just glad to see Vince get foiled in his plans instead of setting up Austin as a real champ like say Hogan or Hart. It's good for awhile, but gets annoying and the title and other wrestlers lose their heat since it's not really about them. Vince made the other wrestlers just look like pawns in his game with Austin unlike Hogan's reign where it also put over the other talent's ambition to become #1. Speaking of Triple H the wwe booked him well from the time he got the strap from Big Show. No complaints, but he did not put over the top face as he should have. He lost the title because of Vince Mcmahon getting pinned. To really blow it off the heel should get his comeuppance. I think type 1 is still the best heel because if someone is real talented and knows it, but still takes shortcuts that pisses people off. It helps keep the prestige of the belt because the guy is talented and arguably is the best guy, but he takes shortcuts. Going back to the kind of champ that Bret Hart was I think that is the true old school face champ. Again, this would only work with someone that actually is a man who can arguably say he is the best. The person has to fit the role. The tweener champ role works best with a heel everyone respects, but gets cheered anyways. This obviously can only work with certain talented wrestlers.

Tonight's show focus was about Orton getting a win over Benoit(to probably make a point that he is ready for the main event spot beating the champ) and Triple H's revenge on Eugene(hell I can't argue about the show really being about this when the preview section for TSN on the dial read "How will Triple H handle Eugene". There's the story arc for the broadcast which is lame when the Canadian Crippler is the main event of the night. As for the Canadians teaming up I think they are setting up Edge turning on Benoit and Jericho.

I look at his comments towards Sting and Bret Hart and just wonder. In his eyes Sting is greater than Hart. He said Hart wasn't a draw as champ, yet he forgets about Sting's abysmal runs.

Yeah, mocking the legacy of Bret Hart is a way to get him back into the wwe. Yeah, attacking him about his sincerity and feelings towards his brother's death is also a work. Whichever, writer came up with this idea from all that has gone down is being a little too "smart" for his own good. Unless, Vince knows Bret so well that by doing this Bret would want to return and clear his name as the best ever and about his brother's death. My question is...why even go there and cause the chance of alienating the man even more. This is after Vince and Hart were on talking terms at least. Doesn't make any sense and probably a Flair fanboy trying to downplay this whole silly situation.

I'm of the same opinion. I thought the whole jumpstart of Orton getting the title at SummerSlam was to create interest to this feud. They are going to slow-burn this obvious feud to WrestleMania? Okay, why have Benoit lose now then? Survivor Series would be better to not create a lag that could make this whole thing feel like a bore. I hope I'm completely wrong here, but...

La Grande Luchadore the champion of Mexico

Loss, from what I understand the real wrestling record for most watched match is Rikidozan/Lou Thesz with a whopping 87.0 rating according to Meltzer's Tribute book and Hogan/Andre still have the record for North America at a 51.1. This is keeping things in context though. The Thesz-Riki match was in Japan, not the US. Different dynamic (as I explained in my previous posts). The total population size is different, and so is the TV viewing habits (Back then, you had NHK, and NTV and that was about it). The most intersting fact of the Thesz-Riki match is the re-broadcast it either the next day or the day after and got nearly the exact same rating. And the kicker is that even in that 24-48 hour period, the number of TV in Japan went up considerably (someone once said by almsot 50%, but I find that figure very suspicious; but due to the impact of this bout, the number of TV sets in Japan better than tripled in a about six months). How would you take this into account with the numbers you stated?

I think Rock did lose his heat in 2000 with the way he was booked. It showed a year to 2 years later with his other programs. In some ways, he had a choker label on him. That is a whole other topic though. Speaking of Rock there was someone who posted about where Benoit's title situation would lead for the big picture and I think you guys have answered it. I think Orton might have been chosen as the "evolution" of Triple H(takeover group) and The Rock(superior 3rd generation superstar storyline will be brought up). There is a reason why Triple H has not defeated Chris Benoit for the title, but Orton will(if rumours are true).

Actually wasn't there a show where he did go missing? You are right Austin was the focus and I see the point you're making, but maybe I have just inclined to believe the belt is really Triple H's belt anyways and for him to even hold it this long is surprising. Some reason he did not get the Goldberg and HBK treatment of one month champ. Personally, I think Trips is just using Benoit to give his title increased credibility while having the wwe title shot to hell on smackdown. Notice if Orton wins the strap where everything leads to? He takes a long sabbatical from the championship where a wrestling machine like Benoit adds prestige and then he puts over someone in his faction which leads to a title match with Triple H perhaps as a face. This is what I really see is going on here and that is why this whole thing doesn't irk me that much. The good out of this for Benoit is he won at the 20th anniversary of WrestleMania in the main event. He defended the title against HBK(public enemy #1) and HHH in Edmonton and he reigned until the wwe felt he could do the miracle of making Orton look like a real champ at SummerSlam. There's the storyboard right there. The story with Triple H is he is messing up left and right in his quest to regain the title, while the cocky youngster Orton wins the title right from under him. I guess we can say Benoit is there to add credibility to the strap on the face side of things.

Look at it this way. The last man to win a title at WrestleMania and hold it even up to SummerSlam was Steve Austin in 2001. That's pretty good company and I can't even really remember Austin having any great title defenses until the defense against Kurt Angle at SummerSlam. However, there was one exception and it was CHRIS BENOIT.

I just hope Flair's ass kissing is worth it because we all know how the wwe loves to railroad people not in their favour. He could be playing a lot of politics to keep his name in lights now, but if he falls out of favour you will indeed hear the bashing about Flair being the champion of barnyard wrestling league. We know how Vince is a mark for his own company and history.

Flair and HBK both have better matches. That's debatable. Especially with HBK. HBK vs Razor, Deisel, Mankind and Taker tops any 4 matches on that Bret DVD. Those are gimmick matches though. He might be talking about pure pro wrestling.

1999 was one of the worst years in wrestling history, at least for the WWF, but also one of the most financially successful. The entire year made no sense. I think I can make sense of SOME of the crazy ratings in 1999 which goes back to my rant in another thread about 1999 being an illusion. "The entire show (the 06/28/99 RAW with Austin v Taker as the main) drew a 7.2 rating. The match itself drew a 9.5 rating for that quarter hour." *Okay, wasn't UT/Austin a rematch of the main event from the ppv where Owen Hart died (OTE)? I don't need to go into why ratings around this time would be inflated. "This is your life drew an 8.4". *Okay, do people forget the storyline leading UP to the segment? Foley was trying to befriend The Rock and The Rock was throwing insults after insults at Foley. Foley said that he had a BIG surprise for The Rock. Now general wrestling logic meant something like a HEEL TURN, but that did not happen. The segment is over-rated for the actual content and not how it was built up to. I also thought the ten man tag match(early 2000 with the radicalz in Houston) was in the top 5 with it being over an 8.4 rating?

I want to see if they put the original Hart/HBK singles match that took place almost exactly 6 years before WM 12 on superstars of wrestling? Does anyone remember that? Anvil and Jannetty interferred for the no contest. Nothing great, but it would tell the story of Bret/HBK's feud history.

He's probably begging for the "WWF President" position. I wouldn't mind a Piper DVD though and I'm sure Vince will gladly make a buck off that. Wasn't Piper nominated for some kind of best talk show thing for the 80's in a magazine or something?

I guess all pigs lie in the same mud because Triple H was quoted on the net a few years ago about Flair being a has been. I don't think he would say that now. Atough the storyline with Triple H/Flair in September 2002 is suspect, but Flair might be too much in denial to see the wwe making fun of him at the time. Hogan saw the error of his own mocking in his Captain America get up and left.

So, did anyone find out if this source is legit?

Who put the fork up Nielson's backside? What does knowing the break down hurt them? If this was 1998 the wrestling websites would be saying Ted Turner paid them off to beat Vince in the ratings

Well, Benoit's push as champion is better than what the IWC thought it was going to be when he jumped. You know a token title victory in Edmonton and jobbing back the title to Triple H at Badd Blood.

Let the HBK conspiracies begin. He wanted the match on his dvd only.

That rating is interesting. They almost pulled the same 3.7 number they have been pulling lately. Not too bad when you consider there were 2 matches and a whole bunch of Diva deliciousness