Promoter

Man, some guys hit the nail on the head for me. I did love the wwe in 1999 until WM 15. The show got atrocious after. I also think Vince went that route in 1999 because wcw was still neck and neck in 1998 because of the star power. The wwe did more outrageous things to get people to change over to USA. Maybe we are forgetting that part, but it still isn't an excuse for embarassing stuff like birth of a hand and Austin on an ebalming room table. You notice in 2000 the wwe did a complete reverse when they started to get more talented wrestlers like Benoit and Guerrero into the mix? commie_50 has a point about the lack of workrate horses. Once the wwe got guys like Angle, Jericho, the radicalz they started to focus more on the wrestling aspect. Don't forget that wcw still did have a strong wrestlers in 1997-1998. Vince came back with some solid wrestling and storylines in 1998, but 1999 the wackiness took off and made people take notice over wcw as well. Yep, the best wrestling does always happen when the popularity is down, but the wwe probably doesn't get that the slow progression of increasing the quality brought back fans. I would say from the increasing quality of the product from WM 13-WM 15 the wwe got back a lot of fans. 1999's change of campaign from "attitude" to "get it"(action adventure) hindered things I think.

No more Hulk Hogan and wwf? What has the world come to if Hogan and the wwf are eliminated from history. TRIPLE H can now become The Babe Ruth of Wrestling by saying Hulk never existed and neither did the wwf. Everything starts with Undisputed Champion Triple H in 2002. He is the cerebral assassin.

I suppose Trips could win and they go with Trips/Edge champ vs. champ. Edge's storyline is to take down Evolution. He already beat Flair and Batista for the tag titles and defeated Orton soundly. Would Edge win the title in Toronto? I could also see Benoit winning and also defending against Edge. I don't think Trips/Benoit would happen at SummerSlam with this being given away, but then again they could have HHH go over monday and then have Benoit regain the belt in Toronto. It seems like a blow-off match. Remember, Angle/Brock? It went Angle defeating Brock on tv, then Brock going over Angle, Angle over Brock at Slam, and then the blow-off with the ironman. This one is going Benoit over Trips at Mania, getting over on him again at Backlash, again at Vengence. Trips goes over here maybe. I could see Benoit winning again though.

I have to admit. They have somehow made this Eugene character work so far. I was so sure it would be a ridiculous Bushwhacker's manager 2004 version. They got me intrigued since I still believe this guy will pull a swerve soon and will get monster heel heat. Honestly, I can't believe Benoit could hold his strap longer than Eddie Guerrero who I felt the wwe would be more relunctant to make job his title to someone like Bradshaw to due his demograhpic appeal.

1999 was a blur of a year. I have been watching since 1986 basically and I could at least remember things off my mind easily, but when it comes to 1999 I can't remember a whole lot. It could also be that I don't want to remember. I really believe the financial gains in 1999 were a big illusion for why things were hot. 1998 was the real year that put the wwe back on the map because it was actually a good year. Let's see....the ratings were sky high in 1999 and had the highest ratings. Okay, one raw had to deal with the death of Owen Hart in a ring. Obviously, that would attract plenty of people just curious and concerned about the incident. How many people stayed around after that to contribute to the high ratings who knows. 1999 saw the wwf title change how many times? Compare the title changes on free tv of that year compared to all the other years prior and I can see how fans were staying tuned. The same with the tag and I-C titles. This kept the new fans glued and old fans glued who never saw rapid title changes as much. This helped the ratings, but hurt the credibility of the titles that was built up up until that point. 1999 saw the big buy-rate for WrestleMania 15 that hasn't been touched since(I still don't know the real numbers for Mania XX and if it competes). Okay, we had the main event of Rock and Austin. Austin was peaking and Rock was gaining a lot of steam. The storyline was playing off the hotly debated Montreal Screwjob of 1997 where Vince and his son screwed Austin out of his title and had Rock become the chosen champ. Terrific storyline with the two hottest stars in the business. The res of the card was pure filler crap. The problem with comparing 2004 with 1999 is that the wwe was just plain hot coming off their big comeback year in 1999. New fans were in the fold and old lost fans had returned. 2004 does not have that working in its favour. It's coming off the heels of losing Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, The Rock, the lost heat of heel Vince Mcmahon circa 1997-98, no competition, and a watered down brand split. It also has to do with guys like Cena and Orton not rising and improving as fast as guys like Triple H, Rock, and Mankind were during their push to the top in 1999. Those guys matured into their positions much easier with a hot audience following the wwe. There was spark that helped the wwe in 1999 that doesn't appear in today's environment. I think for better or worse this year is better workrate wise sometimes(except when it gets bad it gets real bad lik smackdown), but the star power is lacking as well as a developed midcard which Russo is known for giving everyone at least something to do. When things sucked in 1999 there was still a strong magnetism flowing through the stop stars like Rock and Austin that made people watch. Even the goofy Minsitry of Darkness still had some unique appeal to it. The wwe doesn't have anyone like that now. Creatively, this year is better when you take into account stuff like Benoit's Rumble story over Vince Mcmahon winning. Eddie Guerrero overcoming the monster Brock Lesnar to win the title. Goldberg/Brock was interesting to me although their match sucked, but who could not like that MSG crowd? Benoit's title win was vastly superior to Rock/Austin although again their star appeal was stronger with a better long term storyline. The anticipation for Taker at WM XX. The Angle heel turn was great. Then you got stuff like JBL as champ which voids my whole argument

Maybe hometown hero Kurt Angle shows up all angry that Triple H wants to top the only ironman match on free television for the wwe. I mean Bischoff did attack smackdown's title match. I say he shows up as Conquistador #2 That should get a reaction out in Pittsburgh.

So what would be the best scenario? Triple H goes over, but loses the strap back to Benoit in Toronto? Benoit goes over and the wwe uses this match to sell his DVD release? Triple H loses again and a tease of Evolution breaking up because Eugene returns next week to cost Triple H the title? HBK can play the same role. These scenarios are what I'm guessing will mostly happen.

I think Flair better watch some old OTR shows because Landsberg is not going to be nice I would think because he did get Vince to admit he screwed Bret. Flair is a mic man though, so we shall see. He always credits Bret Hart for making his show what it is. Before the screwjob his show wasn't really on the radar. Then again, Landsberg interviewed Flair before WM 18 and said he was the greatest of all-time and he would tell Hogan that in his face. What happened when Hogan came on? Nada! Hopefully, he doesn't dodge with this interview with soft balls. Yeah, Flair is underestimating Bret's popularity up here I think. His comments from his interview makes me think that.

To his credit Bret didn't seem like he was trying to kiss any buttocks for a dvd release. It's funny that my friend who is a casual also thought Flair's comments might have been used to get Bret back in an angle with SummerSlam being in Toronto. Maybe it is simple as that.

Maybe Vince may cut down on the house shows and try to make back the money with monthly ppv shows from each brand next year If I had to set things up it would look like this.... January-SuperBrawl(raw or smackdown) to play off the superbowl hype February-The Royal Rumble(this creates the heat for Mania better) March-WrestleMania April-Uncensored and have a real ecw hardcore type ppv(r/s) May-Vengence June-Unforgiven July-Great American Bash August-SummerSlam September-Fall Brawl October-Halloween Havoc November-Survivor Series December-Starrcade I hate the generic names such as Vengence and Unforgiven I think stuff like SuperBrawl at least have a chance for the monthly theme match

When you put it that way it could be a CONS-piracy

I would like some of the tag team matches from the 80's with the British Bulldogs. He might ask for the company to put at least one. He always said that those matches use to steal the show back then. The Killer Bees rivalry wasn't too bad either.

HBK doing commentary on Bret's dvd? That's like saying Ric Flair will have commentary on Bret's dvd about the title win It would be some fun intrigue, but Bret would agree to it? Speaking of the title win on that same LAW program they ran clips of inside barbs Bret was doing on Flair when he just won the title on a coliseum home video release. Even an insdier joke about who was the man who came up with the ladder match. It's fun to see how they poke fun at insider stuff knowing the majority of the audience probably wouldn't know. I missed that kind of "wink of an eye" stuff they use to do a lot in 1998.

So is thread going to make a record for a topic? How would people like the Bret Hart DVD to be? I think it would be interesting to compare the matches with Flair's.

I think Hart would have been in a political power struggle regardless of Hogan turning heel. Remember the two didn't exactly see eye to eye with Bret Hart believing Hogan didn't want to put him over in 1993(ironic he returns and has kind of the same problem with HBK). It's fair to think that Hart knew that wcw would be power struggle. Don't forget he would also have guys like Sting and Flair to deal with on the ladder of success in the southern promotion. In the wwe he would only have to contend with Shawn Michaels and be the top dog.In other words, he would be the big fish in a little pond, but that pond had a monster image of being "the revolutionary force in sports entertainment". It didn't really change until the fall when wcw really got on a roll with Hallowen Havoc and Starrcade.

Frisco, I always got that impression, but there are other times he does it for no reason above like I mentioned with the "history" video. There is no storyline or math consequence in saying stuff like Warrior vs. Macho being a championship match. Maybe he really does just forget, but then I'm sure people around him tell him otherwise.

That question right there is a good one. Shawn Michaels has gone on record saying he believed Bret did that purposely to see if he would tank as champ. HBK stated that Bret pulled a power move by doing this because of the monday night wars heating up. Bret was playing both sides as he was even rumoured to be the 3rd man in the nWo at one point. You know, I can't disagree with him on that. It is kind of ironic he goes into "semi-retirement". Bret did say he felt Vince turned him into a transitional champ after defeating Diesel at Survivor Series and loaded up his work schedule and lessening HBK's. He then said all of a sudden Vince asked him to prepare for an ironman match with HBK being all rested from the shoot angle with Owen in the previous months. I could see Bret doing that sabbatical to show Vince he needed him as champ with hopes of HBK tanking. That would explain his burial of HBK's cheap win at WM 12 at every chance he got. I also believed Bret never jumped to wcw initially because he knew he would not become champ with Hulk Hogan turning heel and being a hot commodity. It just wouldn't happen. Hogan would play too much politics and with his re-newed hollywood character he would be allowed to get away with pull. This is not even taking into account Hall and Nash who were rumoured to be apart of the Kliq who did keep Bret down out of the main events in 1995. Bret knew what he was doing imo. He goes back to the wwf with only HBK to deal with. Triple H was no powerhouse then as we know from his "punishment"(which I feel had something to do with his power hunger with titles later). Now, could some see why it was possible for HBK to deny jobbing to Bret for these reasons originally upon his return? From what I also gathered was the whole Austin thing was a way to bury Bret if he didn't return. Remember Austin was calling out Hart in the summer of 1996. Vince set that up just in case Hart didn't return he would have Austin make claims of Bret running scared. That Austin feud was a back-up and secondary plan to what the real main event story was. Russo even wrote an entire article about the wwe not beig big enough for HBK and Bret and that Bret's main mission upon returning would be to topple HBK to show he was the best. I like the discussions too. This place has knowledgeable guys. I like these discussions because it also keeps me interested with the current stuff. Some of it I can't stand and in this way I can discuss things that kept me interested in wrestling to begin with. Sometimes it comes off like complaining, but it really isn't. It's just talking about stuff that had interested at different points or trying to get other viewpoints on things from different posters.

I think that is where the heart of the issue lies. If they weren't suppose to face each other and Bret wasn't going to regain the championship from Shawn you are right. It makes Bret look like the dick. Remember, I fully believe Bret started this whole mess when he was whining about his loss at WM 12. I have the post Mania 12 interview where it's shot outside and Bret goes on and on about "feeling betrayed everytime he loses that belt" and "there was no overtime shceduled". As a side note I have the HBK DVD and see the promo with Piper about the ironman contest between Bret and Shawn. You know what is interesting? I have the original footage and Piper did say there would be overtime if needed because there HAD TO BE A WINNER. I just don't get this whole post Mania interview by Bret. Now, when the wwe shows the footage that part is taken out(there goes re-writing history again). Then he goes on about maybe just retiring and going home to his family who had become strangers. I will say this. Bret did not really give HBK the green light as champ. That is why I believe HBK was being a dick by not wanting to job to Bret. I don't blame the man. There is a wwe article with Ultimate Warrior on the cover for his return where Bret's son Blade cuts down HBK as well. I'm a fair man I think looking at this situation from the info that is out there. Bret cut HBK again upon returning by saying Austin was the best wrestler in the world. I could see where HBK wouldn't want to job to Bret. Then you have to ask this question. Vince got Bret to return and we know his ego. Isn't it fair to believe Hart would have want to get his job back from HBK as part of the deal to return? Even on OTR Vince stated that regardless of the situation between the two he expected more from Bret Hart which could mean a multiple of things in terms of performance and the backstage dealings. Off topic, but HBK/Sid, Taker/Vader and Bret/Austin would have been eons better than that crap they gave us. Another proof of the haphazard booking for WM 13 was the tag title situation. It's said that Vader thought he was suppose to win the title and was surprised when Davey and Owen retained. Foley/Vader were suppose to win until last minute. Maybe because the wwe just thought about doing the family reunion and Hart heel turn and wanted the gold to stay on them. Again, that timeframe there are just too many damn things that don't make any sense.

You know that wouldn't have been a bad idea. I always wondered how come no smarks actually praised Trips for jobbing the title to Hogan. I guess not losing to Hogan per se, but being a company guy in giving the Hulkamania re-birth story some legs. I still don't know how Trips didn't put up a stink about that. I guess even he can't stop the power of Hulkamania. Triple H in the nWo would have been good, but of course the wwe and Trips were delusional at the time thinking Trips was a good face.

I think I have to chime in on the times Vince changes things for no reason as the poster said above. I don't know how many people here have ever seen a video that came out prior to WM X entitled "The History of WrestleMania". Now take notice of the name and take notice that this event is the most popular event the company has. Vince actually got on camera and said stuff like Warrior vs. Macho Man at WM 7 was for the wwf championship? I think he just wanted to forget the whole debacle with Slaughter and the bad press, but 5 years later we had Slaughter on the ALL DAY WrestleMania special talking about the incident being the championship match. Another "historical" footnote from that same video states Undertaker's first Mania match was against Jake the Snake at WM 8. I mean seriously, that is just ridiculous bold face lying. Why do that? It's not about complaining. It's just WHY?

I can't remember for sure, but either Bret or Shawn said in a shoot interview that the two would have faced each other at WM 13. Actually, now that I think about it Bret said he had planned a finish for the match with something to do with breaking Shawn's leg after he attempted to do the sweet chin music. I can't say for sure where I read the transcript, but most likely it was RF Shootvideo. You guys do make a good point about what the hell Austin would be doing then if he wasn't facing Bret at WM 13. However, the booking seems like it was really haphazard at the time. I heard Bret/Austin WAS going to be the main event title match with Bret winning the title on the raw where he pushed down Vince and cussed him out. So who the hell knows. I also heard about an audio being called in the final four match when Austin hurt his leg and the title went to Bret(Austin was suppose to win alledgedly). So, where the hell does that fit in?

Fair enough if he does that with the major matches and storylines he's worked with. As for the Owen Hart thing what was Bret suppose to do? Write a ten page essay? Flair felt he cared more about his vendetta with Vince than about his brother's death and responded that was not the case. He dressed down Ric Flair in the article to show why he wasn't the greatest of all-time. He had to go into detail for making such a ballsy statement just in case people may feel Bret's gone delusional because of the stroke. I thought he got his points across why he felt Flair wasn't the greatest. He also said he would defend his fellow former workers and he did. Brian, I'm glad you brought up those points. I can't see how it's just not simple to see HBK would not job AT ALL to Bret regardless of the situation and told Bret in his face. Bret tried to be cordial by saying he would job to him and Shawn responded he wouldn't do the same. Then add all the backstory and you got the screwed up situation in Montreal. I really believe it had nothing to do with Canada, but it was spun that way afterwards. Yes, Bret being the Canadian hero in Canada is not like Kurt Angle/Patriot/whatnot in the States. Canada btw, has always backed the wwe even in the down times. The last Observer news shows this. Vince said on OTR back in the day that Hart wasn't a Canadian hero. Recently on the show he said otherwise. I don't know if he was just kissing ass to Bret or that he now realizes how his Canadian audiences looked at Bret. Don't forget Bret's family is also revered in Canada for the contributions they have done for the business.

Maybe he doesn't, but I think if Flair was about giving opinions and contructive criticism he would do it with more wrestlers. I would see reason for talking on Hulk Hogan since during his career he was always compared to him. I don't see the link to Savage or Hart(unless the best tagline is what gets him). Just giving constructive criticism for what Vince has done for the business and whatnot. I think every old school guy's perspective on Vince would be interesting. It wouldn't have to be all negative. As for the Owen comments I think people shouldn't put their mouths in stuff like that. That's personal and acting like you are in somebody's shoes and what's the purpose of putting that in your autobiography, but to slam people. I could see the participants in the event putting that in their book with those comments.

It's funny how Hogan makes himself get into the news when he hasn't wrestled in North America in about a year. The guy is real character!!! So, is the house show circuit reaching 1995 Diesel records?

Apparently, criticism is confused with "taking shots". -=Mike I only provided those examples just to say traditionally champs have been pciky with whom they job to, but it is magnified more with Bret because of the situation. Nothing wrong with criticism, but WHY is it Hart and Savage(Savage is like blackballed for some reason and we know the Hart problems)? Why doesn't he criticize guys like HBK and HHH? Because that would hurt his position in the company. Why doesn't he criticize Vince Mcmahon? It's rather convenient. I'm not even angry at Flair's comments to be honest(with the exception of the Owen thing).