Hunter's Torn Quad

Bulldog was meant to win the match against Shawn in the UK, and even dedicated the match to his dying sister, who was suffering from cancer. At the last minute, Shawn flat out refused to do the job, wasn't going to budge, and so Bulldog lost the match he dedicated to his dying sister.

That's because it kept getting pushed back. One of the first dates it was meant to happen was January 7th of 2002, but that turned into the night Hunter came back, and after that they kept putting the date back, and by the time it happened, everyone had been talking about it for months, and the surprise element was long gone.

It would have been stupid for Triple H to pin Bret at that time, Bret leaving or not. This was long before the world champion did non-title jobs on free TV. Being pinned by Hunter would have hurt Bret a lot more than losing to the Patriot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bret got the finish changed because he felt it made no sense to have Hunter beat him clean if it wasn't going to lead to anything. And it wasn't going to lead to anything; there would be no program or feud between the two, so Bret's decision made total business sense.

Vader didn't take liberties with anyone. As was said by nl5xsk1, he learned to work a stiff style in Japan, and that was the style he brought to the US because that is what WCW wanted. Wrestlers working against Vader knew that he worked stiff, but he also worked relatively safely: like William Regal once said in description of his style, "I hit hard but in very safe places". Wrestlers like The Steiners and The Nasty Boys were just as stiff and/or reckless as Vader, and they are have taken liberties with jobber talent at times, and at one point one of the Nasties, I think Saggs, got into a legit scuffle in the ring with a jobber over how reckless he was being.

I remember this vividly. It was definitely one of the most brutal bumps you'll see. They hyped up showing the tape of this on a year-end edition of Worldwide that year, with Bill Watts and Tony Schiavone calling the action. Vader was really upset by what happened, and according to Sting he was crying in the back over it, because he was afraid he had ended the Thurman's career.

HTQ, Do you really think someone would give up a year+ of their career? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Normally, I'd say no. However, Hunter may be a special case. Even though his thinking since his rise to the top has been almost exclusively short term, in that he's tended to squash virtually anybody who he has felt has threatened his spot, and thereby squandered any money that could have been made, if Hunter is thinking long term, he'd realise that going away for a year isn't the worst thing he could do. For one thing, he'd give his body time to properly heal up, which is something he hasn't tended to do over the past few years. This would prolong his ability to at least put in the physical effort, because even though Hunter will be in the top spot until the day he dies, the more wear and tear on his body there is, the less chance there is of him being physically able to put on the best performance he can. Second, it would give the likes of Cena, Benjamin, etc, a potentially easier time to rise to superstar status, because the shadow of Hunter wouldn't be looming over them. Granted, this part of the equation relies on WWE 'creative' not dropping the ball, but at least without Hunter's ego to satiate, the chances of them reaching the top level would be increased a little. Third, it's not like Hunter would be risking his spot by staying out for so long. He's never leaving the top spot no matter what happens, so even if Hunter were to leave for two-years, he'd come right back into the main event scene. That alone should, even though it likely won't, assure him that he can quite easily take a break of a year or so and not lose his spot, because Hunter is in the top spot until he dies. Basically, it all boils down to Hunter being willing and able to think long term, and realise that with his lock on the top spot assured for life, he can afford to do the kinds of things that are beneficial to business that other wrestlers wouldn't be able to do. If Hunter wants his legacy in the business to be for something other than his political games, which have often been to the detriment of the business, he might realise that taking an extended break is an option to consider.

I'd probably do something that plays off of his quad tear, because that's been burned into the fans brains. Run some major angle where a heel starting to catch fire lays out Hunter and damages his previously torn quad. Play it up huge, complete with doctor's interviews, etc, and talk about how he had to have surgery. Then I'd have them just drop his name entirely, like they did when it happened for real, until about 8 or 9 months have passed, and then announce that Hunter has been allowed to leave rehab to come to Raw and address the fans, and when Hunter comes out for that, on crutches with a brace, have the heel who attacked him before atttack Hunter again, and, after Hunter tries to fend him off with the crutch, the heel again lays Hunter out. Hunter then gets carried out, and the next week he's announced as needing 4-5 months more rehab because of what happened, and they could also have a short interview with Hunter saying he came back to address the fans because he missed the rush of being in the ring, and while he knew that his quad was still weak, it was something he had to do because of the fire in his heart. Hunter goes away for 5 months, leaving the heel to get the super push, and Hunter comes back after 5 months, making his time away being pretty much 14-months, and we've got a new top babyface to program with the heel. The people know and/or believe Hunter is going to take the title, no matter what happens. It's about the only consistent factor on Raw over the past six-years. Yes, he did the thing with Batista, but that's just one time, and it doesn't make up for everything else. The fans don't believe he can lose on any given night, because he rarely does, and he doesn't lose enough to where the people don't know for sure if he's going to win. For a top babyface, that might not be so bad, but he's the top heel, and people should be pretty sure the top heel is going to lose, not pretty sure he's going to win. That all comes down to good booking though, and with WWE, they don't typically come through on that side of things. I have faith that they won't totally bury any program Cena is in before he gets into his angle with Hunter. After that, it will probably be business as usual.

Not really Regal is Gold at being the straight man in a duo (i.e. Tajiri, Eugene) Regal is not that great working the stick by himself, but that wasn't my point, I was commenting on how writers think very little of actual wrestling. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've not heard much of Regal on the mic have you?

The character needs a longer break than just a few months. He needs a break of a few years. When he comes back in a few months, it will still be Triple H v Cena/Angle, etc, as the main program, which we've had almost six-years of. Hunter was stale in 2002-3, and that was with his seven-month layoff due to injury. Does Hunter have value at the top of the card? Yes, and he always will do to some degree, but that value is almost non-existant because he's been around at the top for far too long. Sure, Hunter v Batista had a lot of juice until right near the end of their WM XXI build-up, but that was because Hunter was actually putting him over and wasn't cutting his legs off which is what happens in virtually all of Hunter's programs, which itself is why he got stale so quickly, because almost every Hunter program ended with him making the other guy look like a fool, and the other guy got sent back down to the midcard, and you can't keep doing that, especially when it's the heel always coming out on top. And that line about Hunter sharing the spotlight was priceless. They would be fine for an upper-midcard program to make a new guy a star, but not for the main event. New people need to be in the main event, so that fans can get used to, and accept, seeing them there, so that they can eventually draw.

How is it not at least partly his fault when he came up with the angle in the first place, knew enough that he made the call to edit the angle off of the overseas editions of Smackdown while not taking it off the US and Canadian versions, and also had the angle put up on WWE's own website? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Im talking about the airing on UPN, since this has what the thread has become about. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll try one last time: UPN deserve blame for not cutting the angle out. WWE deserve blame for not telling UPN to cut the angle out, which they had the power to do, but decided not to. Get it now?

This is ridiculous. UPN said that they could have decided to cut out the segment if they wanted to. Every TV station has this right. Sky Sports in England excercised that right and Ive heard nothing about Vince or the WWE being upset with Sky for cutting it. UPN had the power to do so, Vince or the WWE. The problem is not the angle itself but the timing of it. SD is film on Tuesday and sent to UPN for airing. The product is then sent into UPN. This is UPN's freaking fault. They fucked up by not cutting it. They have realised that they have cocked up big time and now are trying to shift the blame onto the WWE. Ass monkeys. Vince just take SD elsewhere. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WWE deserve the blame too. They had it cut out of every overseas version of Smackdown, but made no such call for the US and Canadian versions, which they could have done. The blame lies with both WWE and UPN. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Im not making excuses for them, but SD is shown later overseas than it is in the US, sometimes delayed by a day or 2. Given the short time span, I think that UPN shouldnt have had to ask permission to cut it (which they clearly dont have it) and just gone ahead and cut it. They could have just told the WWE that it was a network decision given the circumstances. The WWE would have accepted that as they did in the UK. That makes it more UPN's fault with respect to this particular segment. I have never defended the WWE for this storyline or angle though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, UPN should have cut it, but in the same vein, WWE should have had the smarts to order it cut out themselves, and that alone, as well as everything else involved, makes WWE partly to blame here.

No. He was the one who got kicked off for lying, because WWE doesn't like people who lie.

How is it not at least partly his fault when he came up with the angle in the first place, knew enough that he made the call to edit the angle off of the overseas editions of Smackdown while not taking it off the US and Canadian versions, and also had the angle put up on WWE's own website?

This is ridiculous. UPN said that they could have decided to cut out the segment if they wanted to. Every TV station has this right. Sky Sports in England excercised that right and Ive heard nothing about Vince or the WWE being upset with Sky for cutting it. UPN had the power to do so, Vince or the WWE. The problem is not the angle itself but the timing of it. SD is film on Tuesday and sent to UPN for airing. The product is then sent into UPN. This is UPN's freaking fault. They fucked up by not cutting it. They have realised that they have cocked up big time and now are trying to shift the blame onto the WWE. Ass monkeys. Vince just take SD elsewhere. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WWE deserve the blame too. They had it cut out of every overseas version of Smackdown, but made no such call for the US and Canadian versions, which they could have done. The blame lies with both WWE and UPN.

Yes, a ton of people are talking about the angle, but how many of them do you seriously think are also saying, "Man, I really want to pay $34.95 to see Hassan wrestle Undertaker now"? And people being offended is absolutely relevant, because I doubt that those who were offended by the angle want to pay to the conclusion to it. The storyline should continue, but this particular angle should be dropped entirely from the storyline, because it's not worth the hassle it brought.

He shouldn't. It would make it too obvious it's a work, and pretty much ruin the suspension of disbelief. While people, to varying degrees, know it's a total work at this point, the angle needs to be kept as close to shoot-like as possible so the feeling of realism can be maintained. Something like Edge showing up would make it seem like just another wrestling angle, and the unique aura surrounding it would be gone. Not only that, but the ROH fans would crap all over Edge showing up, and they'd turn on Matt Hardy, and his match, the instant it happened, because they would be watching a WWE angle, and they don't want a WWE angle anywhere near an ROH event. If WWE insists that Edge show up to further the angle, which would be a huge mistake, then it should be kept to Edge trying to confront Hardy before the show begins and Edge being kept back by security. No cameras should be around when this happens, and if they want tape or photos of the angle to use, they should get that from fans only, to keep up the realism. Edge should not show up at all, but if the issue is forced, then that would likely be the best way to do it to keep the realism of the angle going.

Road Warrior Animal getting another shot? I guess he's got an ACE in the hole. The Benoit v Regal match sounds hot, but it will likely get sliced to bits by the time it airs.

Basically WWE has Danny Davis by the balls, in a nutshell. Being the "official WWE training center" draws a lot of marks in for classes at the school, plus they don't have to pay for most talent. Considering they don't draw like they did a few years ago, he's not really in a position to go out on his own. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not really. From Bryan Alvarez when it was claimed this could doom OVW: Davis also still owns their old building, so they could bring in anyone they wanted off the Indy scene. If WWE did drop OVW as a developmental territory, not only would it survive, but it would go back to being the OVW that fans like, and not the mess that was put out with Dreamer booking.

If UPN felt that badly about the angle, they could have told WWE to take it off, and given the circumstances, it would have been a reasonable request. They wanted to play both sides of the fence with the angle, and are now feeling some heat for it, and are just trying to avoid that happening again this week.

*Buzz* WWE feeds all UPN affiliates the Smackdown broadcast late wednesday night/early thursday morning via satellite (I used to watch that feed, but I got rid of the big dish satellite to get it). At that point, there wouldn't be any way for them to edit it with the exception of local affiliates deciding to do it on their own. This is the same reason the WWE didn't edit it, because they wouldn't have any time to do the edit and broadcast it via satellite to the affiliates since the WWE leases satellite transponders at specific times to transmit their programing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WWE and UPN had time enough to edit the angle out. Credit - The Torch

I wonder which ACEhole made that call?

She was there in person. The argument revolved her wanting to take their daughter back with her to Germany, where she is from, and Rhyno wanting to be able to see his daughter. I assume the divorce is still pending, as I've not heard anything of them getting back together.

And didnt Bret say that he would personally relinquish the title on RAW and hand it over to Vince the next night? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That was one scenario suggested.

I guess Vince isn't the only one living in a bubble.

He's not gone from OVW, just from the WWE roster and payroll. He can, and likely will, still work in OVW, just as many others do, and have done, when WWE have canned them.