the official "bitch about survivor series" thread

[Guest SP-1]

And Brock also has injured ribs. Whether or not Show was involved in that injury, he was the man in the feud, he was the villain in the story. Introducing someone asa third party to come in and take the belt off Brock is an insult to the people who were paying attention to that story.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

What's important is that the company makes money so that they continue to exist.

 

They aren't making money.

 

Making people happy for one night doesn't work when you refuse to create new stars that people can get excited about.

 

As much as I have to hear about RVD's lack of character and mic skills...he's more over than most without them. So what's everyone elses excuse?

[Guest bob_barron]

Brock wasn't hurt at all from the loss.

 

It seemed like was even more over afterwards.

 

Looks like Brock is over- yay vince

[Guest KoR Fungus]

<<<I've gotta ask, bps. Did you not see/hear the reaction that HBK got after he won the belt? Now, those people paid money for those seats, money that will go to Vince's pockets, and those people seemed quite happy with the ending to the Elimination Chamber. The people who were in the theatre, watching the show with me also paid money to be there, and some of that will go to Vince, as well, were happy as well.

 

What's to say that, you know, other people aren't going to be, 'Hey, HBK is champ, lets watch Raw again'? Sure, in the long term, Michaels as champ makes little to no sense, but WWE is rather desperate right now, and since an Austin or a Rock aren't available right now, why not give it to someone who was a proven champ in the past?>>>

 

How quickly we forget the Hogan fiasco. The live crowds loved Hogan. He got the biggest pops of anyone in the company. The reaction for him at Wrestlemania was completely off the charts. And what happened? Ratings spiraled downward at alarming speeds. Buyrates dropped. So the reaction of the live crowd doesn't indicate what's in the best interest of the company. The bottom line is that putting the title on Hogan, and now putting the title on HBK, are short term desperation decisions. They may provide a slight ratings spike, but the ratings will fall right back down when the young audiences get tired of seeing a has-been as the champion.

[Guest SP-1]

Exactly. Sometimes a loss helps get someone over. I don't know where the whole losing always hurts someone mentality comes from.

 

And making people happy starts with doing it right for one night. Then you keep telling good stories. The reason that the company is lacking right now is that we've had some less than wonderful stories the last few months. Triple H can be entertaining. He was over in 2000/2001 because he was involved in a great story. Mick Foley's career, the feud with the Rock was very personal. They were good stories. If Triple H has a good story to work with, he can tell it well. The problem lies there. And to be honest with you, the subject of Necrophilia sucked. But Triple H still went out and put what he could into it. They all did. The subject matter itself threw that off.

 

Good stories that last will get interest, and the financial matters will come up as interest does. The product makes money. Compelling product. We got that last night. Hopefully, we'll continue to get it.

[Guest SP-1]

The problem with the Hogan "fiasco" is that Mania was heavily promoted. But afterwards, the storylines took an odd turn, and the promoting itself fell away. Alot of the monetary problems come with how it's promoted, and things haven't been promoted very well lately. Which cycles back around to the material you have to promote with. Good stories+Good promotion of good stories+people with clearly defined characters telling good, heavily promoted stories=return to glory for WWE. Simple equation.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Wow, the apologists are stretching more and more. Whether or not Brock's credibility was hurt, you all are defending the WWE's decision to put their top title on *Big Show*, one of the worst workers in the company.

 

As for these so-called compelling stories, what exactly are we talking about? All I'm seeing is HBK vs HHH again, and more Brock vs Show. Those are some pretty boring main angles that certainly aren't going to have me glued to the TV anytime soon.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

It sounds simple, however better stories with the same old same old wrestlers at the top will not return the WWE to glory.

 

There have been 2 cases where the WWF took major leaps forward in the business.

 

Mid 80's and LAte 90's.

 

Why?

 

Because the Hogan era and Austin era were aloud to flourish without any "old guard" preventing the stars from doing there thing.

 

HHH and Taker have to go.

 

That has been, and remains the first step on the bps21 road to recovery

[Guest treble charged]

<<<I've gotta ask, bps. Did you not see/hear the reaction that HBK got after he won the belt? Now, those people paid money for those seats, money that will go to Vince's pockets, and those people seemed quite happy with the ending to the Elimination Chamber. The people who were in the theatre, watching the show with me also paid money to be there, and some of that will go to Vince, as well, were happy as well.

 

What's to say that, you know, other people aren't going to be, 'Hey, HBK is champ, lets watch Raw again'? Sure, in the long term, Michaels as champ makes little to no sense, but WWE is rather desperate right now, and since an Austin or a Rock aren't available right now, why not give it to someone who was a proven champ in the past?>>>

 

How quickly we forget the Hogan fiasco. The live crowds loved Hogan. He got the biggest pops of anyone in the company. The reaction for him at Wrestlemania was completely off the charts. And what happened? Ratings spiraled downward at alarming speeds. Buyrates dropped. So the reaction of the live crowd doesn't indicate what's in the best interest of the company. The bottom line is that putting the title on Hogan, and now putting the title on HBK, are short term desperation decisions. They may provide a slight ratings spike, but the ratings will fall right back down when the young audiences get tired of seeing a has-been as the champion.

All I'm saying is, wait until Michaels bombs as champ before you compare his reign to Hogan's reign. HBK as Raw champ could very well be a ratings disaster, but let's wait and see what happens before jumping to conclusions.

[Guest SP-1]

Why are they boring to you?

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Hogan's title chase and title run were booked as well as they could have been. The problem with Hogan wasn't the booking, it was the simple fact that the audience simply was not interested in seeing an old man hold the fed's top title. The nostalgia was only a factor for old school fans, while the fans who got into the product during the Austin era didn't give a shit about Hogan, and thus they stopped watching. The same thing will happen with HBK, who's glory days were also before most of the fanbase started watching.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Brock vs Big Show is boring to me because nothing good can come of it. Big Show can't work, Brock isn't good enough to carry him to anything, and so no matter how well booked the feud is, the payoff match is going to suck. I can't get into a feud where the payoff sucks. HHH vs Shawn is boring to me because it inevitably means deuling promos between two people that I despise on the mic. The payoff match will likely be fine, since Shawn seems pretty good at carrying Trips, but the buildup will make for some horrendously boring TV.

[Guest treble charged]

HBK has two things over Hogan, though:

1) He's not old

2) He can still work a decent match

 

Hogan can't even run properly anymore. Now, I doubt we'll see Shawn defend the belt every week on Raw, but HBK can still go if given the chance.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Yeah, I admit that HBK can still go, but I still think he'll lose more young viewers. If people really still cared about HBK, ratings would have gone up when he became a part of the NWO angle. They didn't. He's not old, but he's still a part of the old generation, and the ratings have shown with the NWO and with Hogan that people don't want to see any of those pre-Austin stars.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Well...then there are things that Hogan has over HBK:

 

1) He at least at one point in his career was a draw

2) He could wrestle every week

3) He put a bunch of people over clean this last run.

 

IF HBK comes to work and lays down for people, great.

 

If not...this is the dumbest decision ever.

[Guest SP-1]

Yeah, because HBK never put anyone over. Nope.

 

*coughAUSTINcough*

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Yeah...with a broken back and the Undertaker having to physically force him too do it in the locker room.

 

Good example.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

No, it was Bret that put Austin over. HBK just happened to have the title at WM14, where Austin was going to get it no matter who was champ.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Oh, and Shawn did such a great job of returning the job to Bret the year before, haha. "Lost my smile", indeed. What a selfless company guy!!

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Yeah, that was great.

 

Hey let's do the list again:

 

WWF Tag Team title: HBK leaves his teammate Austin to have to team with Foley when they finally lose the belts.

 

WWF Euro champion: Allows HHH to pin him in a fake match.

 

WWF IC Champion: Surrenders belt to Dean Douglas.

 

WWF World Title: Loses his smile.

 

There it is, folks. He lost the entire grand slam without really jobbing.

 

Not to be outdone...Hunter has tried hard too:

 

WWF Tag Team: Tears his quad, Austin takes fall.

 

WWF euro: Owen Hart beats Goldust (dressed as HHH) for the title.

 

WWF IC: Get's a knee injury, title held up.

 

WWF World: Rock pins Vince McMahon to win HHH's World title.

[Guest SP-1]

Ahhh, judging people by their past mistakes. FUN!

 

You're attacking the man without seeing what he will do now. I find it hard to go along with that, somehow.

 

SP

[Guest SP-1]

You do realize that half of your bashing above is based in injuries that were beyond his control. Right?

[Guest areacode212]

You left out splitting up with Diesel at Survivor Series '94, thus vacating the tag titles (to be fair, he was injured here, too).

 

EDIT: Also, he managed to avoid jobbing the IC title in late '93.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

"You do realize that half of your bashing above is based in injuries that were beyond his control. Right?"

 

 

Why don't you explain to me how it's a good idea for him to have not dropped the other half then?

 

hmm?

[Guest SP-1]

Mind telling me when Shawn Michaels became owner of the WWF? Last I checked, Vince McMahon made those kinds of decisions.

 

SP

[Guest SP-1]

Or Triple H, for that matter.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

SURE.

 

Can I have some of whatever it is your smoking?

 

Ao Vince McMAhon decided that despite the fact that the main event of MAnia 13 was going to be Bret vs. HBK two...he booked HBK to lose his smile.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Don't even start saying that HHH has no booking power.

 

We watched the last 2 IC title changes, the abolishment of that title, the last tag title change and the last "fake" world title change come from him.

[Guest treble charged]

I'm confused on the last tag title change being HHH's idea.

 

I'm assuming you're talking about Jericho/Christian beating Hurricane/Kane for the belts. If so, if HHH doesn't like Jericho, why would he want him being given a title?

[Guest SP-1]

Those were desperation moves to try and boost RAW's ratings, no doubt. If it wasn't Triple H, it would have been whomever else was Champ at the time. Those wrestlers know as well as we do that the belts are ultimately leather and gold dressings and are merely tools for what? For storytelling.