Deja vu on Smackdown!...

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

"You're outta control!"

 

"YOU DAMN RIGHT!"

[Guest Choken One]

A Heel beating on A Heel shouldn't get ANY type of reaction...

 

That's what was so revolutionary about that character, Heels NEVER beat up heels before...

[Guest thrall585]

A Heel beating on A Heel shouldn't get ANY type of reaction...

 

That's what was so revolutionary about that character, Heels NEVER beat up heels before...

 

Sometimes it just boils down to who the fans like more in a heel vs heel matchup for who they root for. And being in his hometown should help Pillman out some.

[Guest Choken One]

Actually, Cincy wasn't exactly Supportive of Pillman anyways...

[Damaramu 0]

Now you're just grasping for straws and frankly it's sad.

"He was getting cheap heat! He beat up the face!"

"All heels do that...."

"Well then.......it was cheap heat! Anyone can do it!"

"Then no heel has ever been over going by your stupid system..."

"Umm.....he beat up the face! That was cheap heat!"

You've lost Thrall. You're flat out wrong plain and simple. Be a man and admit it.

[Guest thrall585]

"You're outta control!"

 

"YOU DAMN RIGHT!"

 

Didn't even realize that was a response to me. That was a pretty unclear way to do it. However now I get it. And no, I am not "out of control".

 

 

Now you're just grasping for straws and frankly it's sad.

"He was getting cheap heat! He beat up the face!"

"All heels do that...."

"Well then.......it was cheap heat! Anyone can do it!"

"Then no heel has ever been over going by your stupid system..."

"Umm.....he beat up the face! That was cheap heat!"

You've lost Thrall. You're flat out wrong plain and simple. Be a man and admit it.

 

I said "beating up the faces may be cheap heat, but it makes you a heel. Austin did it, but he didn't get that much heel heat unless he really beated the crap out of the face. A better heel gets a reaction if he does anything to the face." NO SOLD!

[Guest Adrian 3:16]

Thrall, just stop. You admit you didn't even watch the shows and you're still trying to convince a thread full of people who did that we're wrong based on your "detective work". Nobody said Austin was as over pre Mania 13 as he was say, during 1998-99. But you're saying he wasn't over at all, which is flat out wrong. Not only was he over, he was more over then than any and all active wrestlers today. (though Eddie was getting close for a minute)

 

And some PPV's might've had lackluster crowds, but while all this was going on something else was happening: Austin was getting people to WATCH period. That was a big deal when WWF had its back against the ropes and everyone was watching the NWO juggernaut on the other channel. I was in high school at the time and I remember my crew always talking about how Stone Cold did this and Stone Cold did that every week. The word of mouth spread very quickly. The Austin/Bret feud is what revitalized the WWF.

[Guest thrall585]

Thrall, just stop. You admit you didn't even watch the shows and you're still trying to convince a thread full of people who did that we're wrong based on your "detective work". Nobody said Austin was as over pre Mania 13 as he was say, during 1998-99. But you're saying he wasn't over at all, which is flat out wrong. Not only was he over, he was more over then than any and all active wrestlers today. (though Eddie was getting close for a minute)

 

I said "beating up the faces may be cheap heat, but it makes you a heel. Austin did it, but he didn't get that much heel heat unless he really beated the crap out of the face. A better heel gets a reaction if he does anything to the face." Austin got over as a heel when he beat the crap out of a face. NO SOLD!

 

And some PPV's might've had lackluster crowds, but while all this was going on something else was happening: Austin was getting people to WATCH period. That was a big deal when WWF had its back against the ropes and everyone was watching the NWO juggernaut on the other channel. I was in high school at the time and I remember my crew always talking about how Stone Cold did this and Stone Cold did that every week. The word of mouth spread very quickly. The Austin/Bret feud is what revitalized the WWF.

 

Ratings and PPV buyrates were bad during the Austin/Bret feud, and it didn't "revitalize" the WWF. Their feud didn't turn ratings and buyrates around, Austin becoming the #1 guy in the company and feuding with Vince turned ratings around.

[Guest Adrian 3:16]

I said "beating up the faces may be cheap heat, but it makes you a heel. Austin did it, but he didn't get that much heel heat unless he really beated the crap out of the face. A better heel gets a reaction if he does anything to the face." Austin got over as a heel when he beat the crap out of a face. NO SOLD!

So Austin got heel heat for beating up faces- and? Is that supposed to be some kind of revelation? What is your point exactly? And by the way, your constant use of your "NO SOLD" joke is "NOT FUNNY". Holla at some new material.

 

Ratings and PPV buyrates were bad during the Austin/Bret feud, and it didn't "revitalize" the WWF. Their feud didn't turn ratings and buyrates around, Austin becoming the #1 guy in the company and feuding with Vince turned ratings around.

 

-The feud most definitely did turn around the quality of the shows, not neccesarily the ratings. But again, you wouldn't know this because you freely admit YOU DIDN'T WATCH THE SHOWS.

 

-They were still losing to WCW at the time, but their ratings, while still pretty bad, stopped free-falling out of control. Austin and Bret stopped the bleeding, and rebuilt enough of a fanbase where it became possible for it to really take off with Austin/Tyson and Austin/Vince later.

[Guest thrall585]

So Austin got heel heat for beating up faces- and? Is that supposed to be some kind of revelation? What is your point exactly? And by the way, your constant use of your "NO SOLD" joke is "NOT FUNNY". Holla at some new material.

 

That is nothing special because anyone gets heat for beating up a top face, and the way Austin beat up Bret Hart at points of their feud, he would get even more heat, and anybody can do that. NO SOLD is not supposed to be funny, when someone no sells something it is used.

 

The feud most definitely did turn around the quality of the shows, not neccesarily the ratings. But again, you wouldn't know this because you freely admit YOU DIDN'T WATCH THE SHOWS.

 

-They were still losing to WCW at the time, but their ratings, while still pretty bad, stopped free-falling out of control. Austin and Bret stopped the bleeding, and rebuilt enough of a fanbase where it became possible for it to really take off with Austin/Tyson and Austin/Vince later.

 

Ratings didn't change for the Austin/Bret feud, they stayed the same, so they did not "rebuild enough of a fanbase". I can tell the quality of a show by reading a report, and while the shows were more entertaining, it didn't turn anything around.

[Guest Adrian 3:16]

NO SOLD is not supposed to be funny

Glad to hear it, because its definitely not...

 

Ratings didn't change for the Austin/Bret feud, they stayed the same

 

I believe that's exactly what I said. What you fail to take into account is that before Austin vs. Bret ratings were dropping at an alarming rate, so just levelling off was an accomplishment, between WCW being in its prime and WWF sucking ass in the meantime up till then.

 

so they did not "rebuild enough of a fanbase".

 

Um, yes they did. A lot of people who didn't watch at all in years after the disastrous mid 90's started watching again. I know because I fall in this category myself.

 

I can tell the quality of a show by reading a report

 

Haha, no you can't. Its stuff like this that makes my wonder I'm wasting my time arguing with your silly ass. You didn't watch then, so you can never know. Deal with it.

 

and while the shows were more entertaining, it didn't turn anything around

 

How can you say with a straight face it didn't turn anything around when the whole point of watching wrestling is to be entertained. If they make a show that was watched half-heartedly when Nitro was on commerical into can't miss TV, that's a turn around.

[Guest thrall585]

>>NO SOLD is not supposed to be funny

>Glad to hear it, because its definitely not...

 

And its not supposed to be. What's your point?

 

>>Ratings didn't change for the Austin/Bret feud, they stayed the same

>I believe that's exactly what I said. What you fail to take into account is that before Austin vs. Bret ratings were dropping at an alarming rate, so just levelling off was an accomplishment, between WCW being in its prime and WWF sucking ass in the meantime up till then.

 

Actually ratings weren't dropping at an alarming rate or at any rate. They were constant.

 

>>so they did not "rebuild enough of a fanbase".

>Um, yes they did. A lot of people who didn't watch at all in years after the disastrous mid 90's started watching again. I know because I fall in this category myself.

 

You don't base anything from people you know or people you talk to when there are ratings and buyrates available. The ratings and buyrates stayed the same. The overall viewers did not increase.

 

>>I can tell the quality of a show by reading a report

>Haha, no you can't. Its stuff like this that makes my wonder I'm wasting my time arguing with your silly ass. You didn't watch then, so you can never know. Deal with it.

 

Yes you can, just like a lot of people on this board decide whether to watch Smackdown depending if the report sounds good or not. I didn't watch back then but I knew the shows were more entertaining. You don't have to watch the shows!

 

>>and while the shows were more entertaining, it didn't turn anything around

>How can you say with a straight face it didn't turn anything around when the whole point of watching wrestling is to be entertained. If they make a show that was watched half-heartedly when Nitro was on commerical into can't miss TV, that's a turn around.

 

It didn't turn anything around because business stayed the same. Being more entertaining doesn't turn anything around if business does not increase (which it did not until a year later). Their new attitude direction, which began with the Austin-Bret storyline did turn things around, but not until WCW started to lose steam.

Edited September 27, 2003 by thrall585

[Guest Adrian 3:16]

Yes you can, just like a lot of people on this board decide whether to watch Smackdown depending if the report sounds good or not. I didn't watch back then but I knew the shows were more entertaining. You don't have to watch the shows!

That's a totally different animal. Your problem is that you're telling people how over or entertaining a wrestler or a show was to people who saw it for themselves when by your own admission you didn't see it. Your Smackdown analogy is horrible, but if we play along its more like you telling the guy who was actually at the show and wrote the report that a certain segment was or was not entertaining despite what he wrote and he is in fact wrong when you don't even see it for another 2 nights.

 

It didn't turn anything around because business stayed the same. Being more entertaining doesn't turn anything around if business does not increase (which it did not until a year later).

 

That's too bad because the overness (aka entertainment value) of Austin was what we've all been debating, not PPV buyrates. I'll never understand people who worry about how much money a PPV makes for Vince. To me wrestling is a TV show and all that matters is how much I enjoy watching it, but you look at it like you're an economics professor and Vince is a student of yours handing in his final project to be graded accordingly. If the shows are entertaining, eventually ratings and buyrates will increase. It doesn't happen overnight, I've said multiple times that Austin was a slow burn, but it happened. Today the shows aren't entertaining, and ratings are going down again. Almost like there's a connection or something...

[Guest thrall585]

>>Yes you can, just like a lot of people on this board decide whether to watch Smackdown depending if the report sounds good or not. I didn't watch back then but I knew the shows were more entertaining. You don't have to watch the shows!

>That's a totally different animal. Your problem is that you're telling people how over or entertaining a wrestler or a show was to people who saw it for themselves when by your own admission you didn't see it. Your Smackdown analogy is horrible, but if we play along its more like you telling the guy who was actually at the show and wrote the report that a certain segment was or was not entertaining despite what he wrote and he is in fact wrong when you don't even see it for another 2 nights.

 

I finally saw how over Austin was from watching the Survivor Series 96 match against Bret again. He only got good heal heat when he continued to beat the crap out of Bret and then taunted the crowd. You no sold this. The Smackdown analogy is not horrible. Opinions of a show are subjective, some can find a Smackdown report entertaining, and then they decide to watch Smackdown and some may find it not entertaining, and they don't. To find if a show is worth watching, a report gives enough information for that.

[chaosrage 0]

I hear what you're saying RollingSambos, it is deja vu.

 

But thrall585, Austin has always been a tweener. People hardly ever booed him.

 

He wasn't a tweener back then because people hardly ever cheered him too. He was basically a nothing until Wrestlemania XIII.

Do you even know what a tweener is?

[chaosrage 0]

Okay, someone needs to seriously go back and look at old tapes from 97. The whole point to that ending in WM13 was that he was ALREADY starting to get cheered more than Bret. Just watch the opening video to the match.

 

From November to March, Austin's popularity was going up and Bret's was going down. Austin's crowd response kept going slowly up ALL the way to 1998. He was still insulting fans during the summer. It's not like he was nothing one night and then a full fledged face the next night. That's moronic. It was a slow progress. Oh, and ratings were slowly going up too.

[Guest thrall585]

>>He wasn't a tweener back then because people hardly ever cheered him too. He was basically a nothing until Wrestlemania XIII.

>Do you even know what a tweener is?

 

Don't sell until you've read everything. From my posts after the one you just quoted I said that he got heel heat when he beats up on the face (Bret Hart). And he got face heat too at times, so that makes him a tweener.

 

>Oh, and ratings were slowly going up too.

 

They weren't gradually going slowly up. Before Wrestlemania XIII they remained constant, afterwards they went overall up a tad (like .3 overall) and stayed constant until after the Montreal screwjob.