Vince mcmahon denounces heels and faces

[Guest Risk]

First off, don't move this to the old school folder, it isn't MORE than five years.  It is actually five years exactly.  So don't be a Post Nazi.  This isn't a Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels post either, they're names are just mentioned.

 

November 7th, 1997, Vince McMahon

 

"Over the past few days I have read certain comments on the Internet concerning Bret Hart and his ‘alleged’ reasons for wanting to pursue other avenues than the World Wrestling Federation to earn his livelihood. While I respect the ‘opinions’ of others, as owner of the World Wrestling Federation I felt that it was time to set the record straight. As it has been reported recently on line, part of Bret Hart's decision of pursue other options is allegedly due to his concerns with the ‘direction’ of the World Wrestling Federation. Whereby each and every individual is entitled to his, or her opinion I take great offense when the issue of the direction of the World Wrestling Federation is raised. In the age of sports entertainment, the World Wrestling Federation REFUSES to insult it audience in terms of ‘Baby Faces’ and ‘Heels’. In 1997, how many people do you truly know that are strictly ‘good’ guys or ‘bad’ guys? World Wrestling Federation programming reflects more of a reality based product in which life, as well as World Wrestling Federation superstars are portrayed as they truly are--in shades of gray... not black or white. From what I am reading it has been reported that Bret may be concerned about the morality issues in the World Wrestling Federation. Questionable language, Questionable gestures, Questionable sexuality, Questionable racial issues. Questionable? All of the issues mentioned above are issues that every human being must deal with every day of their lives. Also, with that in mind, please be aware that Bret Hart has been cautioned-- on ‘numerous’ occasions--to alter his language by not using expletives or God's name in vain. He was alto told--on numerous occasions--not to use certain hand gestures some might find offensive. My point is: regardless of what some are reporting, Bret's decision to pursue other career options IS NOT genuinely a Shawn Michaels direction issue, as they would like you to believe! In the personification of DeGeneration X, Shawn Michaels character is EXPECTED to be living on the edge--which I might add Mr. Michaels portrays extremely well. The issue here is that the ‘direction’ of the World Wrestling Federation is not determined by Shawn Michaels, OR Bret Hart for that matter. It is determined by you--the fans of the World Wrestling Federation. You DEMAND a more sophisticated approach! You DEMAND to be intellectually challenged! You demand a product with ATTITUDE and as owner of this company--it is my responsibility to give you exactly what you want! Personally, I regret the animosity that has built up between Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart, but in the end, it is the World Wrestling Federation that is solely responsible for the content of this product--NOT Bret Hart --NOT Shawn Michaels--NOT Vince McMahon for that matter. May the best man win at the Survivor Series!..."

[Guest]

It'd have been funny if he said "May the man who has the Sharpshooter applied when I tell the timekeeper to ring the bell win".

[Guest HartFan86]

Well, Vince can die and go to hell.

[Guest The Man in Blak]

Yeah, that's why Michaels defamed the Canadian flag multiple times leading up to match and even at the match.  He wasn't trying to be a heel at all.

[Guest HartFan86]

Yeah, that's why Michaels defamed the Canadian flag multiple times leading up to match and even at the match.  He wasn't trying to be a heel at all.

How fucking true...well said.

[Guest Human Fly]

"Well, Vince can die and go to hell."

 

Maybe he and Bret will talk again if that happens. Now that would make a good special.

[Guest Austin3164life]

Another example of Vince just trying to keep his pockets full.  Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and Steve Austin that year were all going through character changes, and these three in particular had all mean streaks in them, so Bret can't claim that he is a pure babyface, because he totally degraded American fans on television.  Both Bret and Vince are pretty stubborn on their points.  It's just too bad things had to end the way they did....

[Guest Kinetic]

Everyone pretty much decried this for the bullshit that it was back in '97.  Without heels and faces, people don't know who to cheer for.  That breeds apathy, which results in diminished profits for the company.  The key is to keep it realistic--which they did well for awhile, before reverting totally back to the completely virtuous face and the wholly evil heel.  Still, shades of grey doesn't sell tickets.

[Guest Risk]

Shades of grey sells lots of tickets.  No one can relate to a fully good or fully bad character.  This is one case where I agree with Vince, heels and faces are insulting to a person intelligence.  Austin would in no way be concidered a "baby face" in 97.

 

It really doesn't matter if you have heels and faces if they wanna do this soap opera crap.  Most people who watch soap operas like whoever they relate too.  The point is to have characters act HOW THEY SHOULD AND NOT AS A GOOD OR BAD GUY.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

It really doesn't matter if you have heels and faces if they wanna do this soap opera crap.  Most people who watch soap operas like whoever they relate too.  The point is to have characters act HOW THEY SHOULD AND NOT AS A GOOD OR BAD GUY.

For a soap opera or any other drama to work, there needs to be protagonists and antagonists, or in this case faces and heels.  While you're right about having a person's character be consistent, in "real soap operas" the bitchy bad characters will always act bitchy and bad.  It's the same in wrestling, a heel will always act heel, and in real life, a bad guy will always act as a bad guy.  People will relate to whomever they want to, good or bad.  Just as there are sickos who relate to Adolf Hitler and the KKK, so are there people who will cheer on heels because they agree with them and appreciate their actions (forgive the extremeness of my real-life examples).

 

Is it demeaning to a fan's intelligence? No offense, but wrestling is not the place to look for intelligence (and I'm saying this as a wrestling fan).  I know I always liked the heels, how could anyone not when the faces are so damned arrogant?

[Guest Risk]

The point is, McMahon controls the company, so if he doesn't WANT heels and faces, there won't be any.  

 

For a soap opera or any other drama to work, there needs to be protagonists and antagonists, or in this case faces and heels.  While you're right about having a person's character be consistent, in "real soap operas" the bitchy bad characters will always act bitchy and bad.  

 

Yeah, but bitchy characters have vendettas against over bitchy people, which makes it shades of grey.  Wrestlers should be treated like real people, not characters.

[Guest El Luchadore Magnifico]

I really liked how he had the word opinions in quotation marks, like it was some new and foreign concept to him.

 

The rest of the article just seemed to be McMahon talking out of his ass and insulting the intelligence of the WWF fans while talking about not wanting to insult them. Ah, irony...

[Guest]

After reading that I have just one comment:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

ahahahahah

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Risk]

Riiiiiiiiiiight...

[Guest]

Funny, pretty much since that day, Vince has played a Evil "Heel" Character.

[Guest mastermind]

Now actually I think the third dimension to the characters DID work for the wwf for awhile. You still have the good/bad guy stuff, but the third dimension is the shades of grey. The not insulting the intelligence of fans was also there. It boils down to how the wwf contructs the storyline. It doesn't have to be completely good vs. bad just as long as there is a struggle between competitors which fans can LATCH onto. This is what happens when the wwf has the competition breathing down their throats. The wwf just got LAZY in 1999 when wcw was getting their tails kicked. Russo just got lazy. Here is what I'm talking about.

 

1997

Steve Austin/Bret Hart double turn at WrestleMania. I still don't think the wwf had any damn idea about "attitude" here, but there was shades of grey. Austin headed in as a heel, but to some he wasnt a heel. The wwf announcers were correct in commentating the way they did about Austin. He wins the Rumble by disputable actions. He comes the next night and says Bret just whines. There is the good/bad for fans to catch onto. Some will say Austin was RIGHT for saying Bret was a crybaby because he did what he had to do to win. Bret whined and quit. To some fans he did the right thing by not accepting the unjust ruling from the night before(similar to the real life situation with Austin not showing up recently). To other fans he is a heel because he's a "player hater" who is upset that he got "played" by Austin's actions.

 

Bret slowly turns into a bigger whiner in the weeks ahead, but some fans still see him as the good guy because he is somewhat right in the injustices he is getting from Austin's "game". Austin slowly shows he IS a badass that will do anything to win and it all climaxes with Austin not quitting at Mania. Bret wins the match and STILL complains with Shamrock. You see there isn't a true all bad guy or good guy in this situation. It's just how the characters are portrayed in their scenarios at the time.

 

Austin gaining support slowly tells Vince and the fans he doesn't care if they cheer him or not. Bret turns on his American fans because he thinks they turned on him. American fans think Bret has punked out. However, in Canada the fans think Bret is right in his views about America. Thus at that POINT and SCENARIO he is seen more as the good guy(hero). Austin keeps telling fans he doesn't care for their cheers until he wins the I-C title at SummerSlam with a broken neck. It can be argued that Austin's character at that POINT saw the light in having the sixth man(the fans) on his side and thus embraces them. It was soon after it happened, while fans were behind him to come back.

 

Bret in the meantime is on a collision course with a younger generation. Enter Shawn Michaels and DX. He doesn't like what Generation X represents. Thus he is booed. Even the crowd in Canada are starting to die off the Canadian patriotism. HBK does the flag stuff to generate more USA/Canada heat for the Montreal match. Neither man is truly heel or face like in the mid 1980's. Vince then screws Bret who is heel in the US, but face in Canada. The act done by Vince is seen as more heelish, thus Bret turns back face immediately. No where does Bret's own actions of a "good guy" come into play.

 

Bret leaves the wwf for the younger generation. Austin now the anti-hero is placed in a storyline against HBK then slowly Vince, who wants the same man he made champion to remain champion because Austin's would be a PR disaster. Shawn still had his fans because he represented the gen x crowd. Austin was THE anti-hero. He wins the title and Shawn the chosen champ by Vince is gone. Vince then tries to get Mankind and other people to topple Austin. It doesn't really work.

 

Rocky Maivia WAS the vintage face which fans didn't want. He came back against the fans for not wanting him. The fans start to back him and he turns on them at Survivor Series to become champ. SOME fans still side with Rock because in their minds Rock is correct for what he did. The fans told Rock to die earlier in the year, so he pissed on them. Rock/Austin WM 15. THEN IT WENT DOWNHILL!

 

Russo started doing dumb stuff like Taker believing his character and stuff like that. The wwf leaned back on the same philosophy that they tried to prevent because it created a dark age for the company because the times had changed. I'm talking about stuff like Triple H when he doped Stephanie. There were fans who actually face popped for that. Trips had game for stealing Steph from Test. The wwf didn't do the 3 dimension character thing here. They were forcing fans to fully go all heel pop on him. Trips retiring Foley and also beating him twice in his own type of match was also downplayed. It went back to the old formula and soon by KOR the fans started to turn away.

 

Kurt Angle shouldn't have been the full heel in the love triangle. He should have got tweener heat for being smart to go after the boss' daughter and champion's wife. They made Angle just look like a dork to keep him in the traditional heel. Doing stuff like that makes the characters have more depth for storytelling. Using that logic Angle could be seen as a shrewd person for Vince to have on Smackdown. However, fans just see him as a geek. As we know geeks are not ALL dumb or clumsy, but can turn out to be people with power like Bill Gates. Just showing how the wwf is missing the boat.

The wwf DID listen to the audience when they were getting their tail kicked, but now think they actually took over the business with their infinite knowledge.

[Guest Risk]

Mastermind truly has a mastermind.  I could NOT have said it better myself.

[Guest Risk]

If they hadn't used the cartoonish "Kane" angle, the WWF would have been so great in 98.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

So they weren't great in '98?

[Guest Risk]

They were great except for...

 

The Bossman

Kane

Test(that's one for Anglesault)

Ken Shamrock(this isn't the UFC, folks/JR mode off)

Amish Taker

Mideon

Viscera

Paul Bearer

[Guest Risk]

Bump.

[Guest HartFan86]

Are you talking about 98 or 99 cause 1998 Taker kicked serious ass.

[Guest Jericholic82]

um Im confused, didnt vince make that speech on raw after the survivor series where he basically announced the attitude era.  or is this another one.  I do know that he did the "bret screwed bret" one right after the ppv

[Guest bob_barron]

I think Test was 1999

[Guest Risk]

I think Test was 1999

A year that will live in INFAMEY~!  Anyways, I'm glad McMahon killed heels and faces...it sucked because he brought them back in 99.  !@#$%^&*

[Guest mastermind]

This topic kind of ties into my other topic about Rock. I also liked when the wwf was trying to move away from the straight up good guy/bad guy junk. That's what the wwf promoted when Hogan was in the media. I think it's now more about their idealogy than Rock himself. Anyways, the wwf stumbled upon their renaissance. I have no doubt that if wcw didn't do the nWo we would still have Vince's "vision" of good guy/bad guy with the wwf having 1.0 - 2.0 ratings. I still think 1998 was THE year the wwf had the right mindset. I think the wwf only grew bigger because wcw started to suck the life out of the boom with its crap. I mean Russo even stated that the wwf grew substantially from 1997 to 1998. The wwf would get 2.5 ratings in 1997 and would jump to friggin 5.0 ratings in 1998.

 

Compare that to 1999-2000-2001-2002. There is no where close to that big of a jump. I just think the wwf dropped the ball on what they had in 1998. Creative minds with breaking up their product for marks(just because someone knows its predetermined still doesn't mean they are smarks), smarks, and the insiders within their storylines. Stuff like JR saying how can they learn how to fall for certain spots that gives the viewer the idea how tough it is to put on a match. Ross stating the "wink wink" for smarks who knew stuff like Patterson not truly winning his title in South America. The wwf had strong competition and hit all cylinders and made sure not to expose the product(not meaning saying its real) or their characters.

 

1999 comes and people like Chyna are wearing belts. Godfather. Road Dog. Austin getting hit with cars etc, etc, etc. We shall see is all I'm saying.

[Guest mastermind]

This topic kind of ties into my other topic about Rock. I also liked when the wwf was trying to move away from the straight up good guy/bad guy junk. That's what the wwf promoted when Hogan was in the media. I think it's now more about their idealogy than Rock himself. Anyways, the wwf stumbled upon their renaissance. I have no doubt that if wcw didn't do the nWo we would still have Vince's "vision" of good guy/bad guy with the wwf having 1.0 - 2.0 ratings. I still think 1998 was THE year the wwf had the right mindset. I think the wwf only grew bigger because wcw started to suck the life out of the boom with its crap. I mean Russo even stated that the wwf grew substantially from 1997 to 1998. The wwf would get 2.5 ratings in 1997 and would jump to friggin 5.0 ratings in 1998.

 

Compare that to 1999-2000-2001-2002. There is no where close to that big of a jump. I just think the wwf dropped the ball on what they had in 1998. Creative minds with breaking up their product for marks(just because someone knows its predetermined still doesn't mean they are smarks), smarks, and the insiders within their storylines. Stuff like JR saying how can they learn how to fall for certain spots that gives the viewer the idea how tough it is to put on a match. Ross stating the "wink wink" for smarks who knew stuff like Patterson not truly winning his title in South America. The wwf had strong competition and hit all cylinders and made sure not to expose the product(not meaning saying its real) or their characters.

 

1999 comes and people like Chyna are wearing belts. Godfather. Road Dog. Austin getting hit with cars etc, etc, etc. We shall see is all I'm saying.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<This topic kind of ties into my other topic about Rock. I also liked when the wwf was trying to move away from the straight up good guy/bad guy junk. That's what the wwf promoted when Hogan was in the media. I think it's now more about their idealogy than Rock himself. Anyways, the wwf stumbled upon their renaissance. I have no doubt that if wcw didn't do the nWo we would still have Vince's "vision" of good guy/bad guy with the wwf having 1.0 - 2.0 ratings. I still think 1998 was THE year the wwf had the right mindset. I think the wwf only grew bigger because wcw started to suck the life out of the boom with its crap. I mean Russo even stated that the wwf grew substantially from 1997 to 1998.>>>

 

 

Word for the wise---NEVER use Russo as a source for anything.

 

 

<<<The wwf would get 2.5 ratings in 1997 and would jump to friggin 5.0 ratings in 1998.

 

Compare that to 1999-2000-2001-2002.>>>

 

 

No show can double their audience repeatedly.

 

However, 2000 had ratings in the 6-7 range for the most part, so the product then was doing better numbers than the crap in 1998.

 

 

<<<There is no where close to that big of a jump.>>>

 

 

Again, an impossible feat. You can't double your ratings several times.

 

 

<<<I just think the wwf dropped the ball on what they had in 1998. Creative minds with breaking up their product for marks(just because someone knows its predetermined still doesn't mean they are smarks), smarks, and the insiders within their storylines. Stuff like JR saying how can they learn how to fall for certain spots that gives the viewer the idea how tough it is to put on a match.>>>

 

 

Actually, Ross always asked how one can learn to fall on metal or a ladder. It was more of an "F-U" to the critics of the business than anything else.

 

 

<<<Ross stating the "wink wink" for smarks who knew stuff like Patterson not truly winning his title in South America.>>>

 

 

Why in the world should the WWF deny that he never won the belt in a tournament?

 

 

<<<The wwf had strong competition and hit all cylinders and made sure not to expose the product(not meaning saying its real) or their characters.>>>

 

 

In 1999 and 2000, the WWF had virtually no competition. WCW was dying. ECW never was going to be able to compete.

 

 

<<<1999 comes and people like Chyna are wearing belts. Godfather. Road Dog. Austin getting hit with cars etc, etc, etc. We shall see is all I'm saying.>>>

 

 

Well, once they turfed Russo, the product, overall, got much better. In 2000, the WWF was the best company I've ever seen.

                       -=Mike

[Guest mastermind]

"Word for the wise---NEVER use Russo as a source for anything".

 

I agree with you here. *LOL* However, it is well known how CRAP the wwf was in most of 1997 until DX and Austin(with the exception of his WICKED storyline with Bret) were really given the ball after Montreal.

 

 

"No show can double their audience repeatedly".

 

Okay you are correct. No show can also stay at a certain level for a long amount of time in terms of years. This is why I think the wwf taking the action adventure approach is a death knell(not saying out of business, but art wise). Actually, the wwf has cut out the action adventure crap for the most part since 1999.

 

"However, 2000 had ratings in the 6-7 range for the most part, so the product then was doing better numbers than the crap in 1998".

 

I know. I'm not sure what you mean by crap in 1998. If it's storylines and matches I disagree. We had the DX invading wcw storyline. We had Austin/Mcmahon storyline. Dude Love/Austin match. UT/Mankind hell in a cell. The big five ppv quality over all was better than 2000 as I think KOR and Series 2000 falls short of their 1998 counterparts.

 

"Again, an impossible feat. You can't double your ratings several times."

 

I agree and I wonder why fans on the net always get a heart attack when Smackdown does a 3.5 or something. I do think it makes Vince go into panic mode and we get crap like Vince/Stacy on Smackdown and depushing people like RVD.

 

"Actually, Ross always asked how one can learn to fall on metal or a ladder. It was more of an "F-U" to the critics of the business than anything else".

 

That's my point. The wwf did more back then to at least to give some semblance of how brutal the business can be. On the documentary by Blaustien he stated that Vince likes to let the media think the wrestlers don't go through as much pain and agony they do because it will cause people in the media to check up on Vince.

 

<<<Ross stating the "wink wink" for smarks who knew stuff like Patterson not truly winning his title in South America.>>>

 

 

"Why in the world should the WWF deny that he never won the belt in a tournament"?

 

I think you are misunderstanding what I was trying to say. That was a "bone" for smark fans who know better. A casual viewer has no clue what Ross means by the wink wink remark.

The wwf doesn't really do this anymore because they attack the damn smarks on the net. Another ideaology I disagree with.

 

<<<The wwf had strong competition and hit all cylinders and made sure not to expose the product(not meaning saying its real) or their characters.>>>

 

"In 1999 and 2000, the WWF had virtually no competition. WCW was dying. ECW never was going to be able to compete".

 

I know this. I'm talking about 1997 and 1998 when the wwf started their "attitude" campaign and took over wrestling again. 1999 and 2000 illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. Sure January to around KOR was excellent, but after it went downhill. SummerSlam was good and it went garbage after that as the ratings showed fans started to tune out and I think some fans had good reason to.

 

<<<1999 comes and people like Chyna are wearing belts. Godfather. Road Dog. Austin getting hit with cars etc, etc, etc. We shall see is all I'm saying.>>>

 

"Well, once they turfed Russo, the product, overall, got much better. In 2000, the WWF was the best company I've ever seen".

 

 

I agree as well. Russo was in his mode that wrestling sucked and sports entertainment ruled. I mean he booked stuff like Vince winning the strap. I don't care what anyone says Vince didn't need to win the belt to advance the storyline. A simple comeuppance on Trips would have suffice. The title and its storyline suffered until Trips started to get hot the following year. Imagine all the brain farts in wcw by Russo. Just imagine some of that crap would have been on wwf television. Remember when he attacked the very internet he stole ideas from when he stated that some were geeks who would rate matches, while a sock was the most over thing?

 

The wwf turned things around and had very solid workrate when Russo left making his claims look stupid in retrospect as fans were glued to the workrate as well as the entertainment aspect. Vince and the wwf are going back to that philosophy somewhat with the lack of workrate in the top matches this year.                      

1997

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"Word for the wise---NEVER use Russo as a source for anything".

 

I agree with you here. *LOL* However, it is well known how CRAP the wwf was in most of 1997 until DX and Austin(with the exception of his WICKED storyline with Bret) were really given the ball after Montreal.>>>

 

 

Thing is, looking back, the WWF had a lot of horrible storylines in 1998. The Undertaker/Kane storyline STILL makes no sense. And I won't even get into Russo's Corporate Ministry debacle.

 

Russo's ideas were different, I'll give him that. And he definitely tried to give the mid-carders stories (a good idea). But, most of his ideas just weren't good and needed serious editing to work.

 

 

<<<"No show can double their audience repeatedly".

 

 

Okay you are correct. No show can also stay at a certain level for a long amount of time in terms of years. This is why I think the wwf taking the action adventure approach is a death knell(not saying out of business, but art wise). Actually, the wwf has cut out the action adventure crap for the most part since 1999.>>>

 

 

Well, the WWF started heading more towards the soap opera area with the initial success of the love triangle involving Kurt/HHH/Steph. I still point to THAT angle as the beginning of the WWF's problems.

 

 

<<<"However, 2000 had ratings in the 6-7 range for the most part, so the product then was doing better numbers than the crap in 1998".

 

I know. I'm not sure what you mean by crap in 1998. If it's storylines and matches I disagree. We had the DX invading wcw storyline. We had Austin/Mcmahon storyline. Dude Love/Austin match. UT/Mankind hell in a cell. The big five ppv quality over all was better than 2000 as I think KOR and Series 2000 falls short of their 1998 counterparts.>>>

 

 

I disagree on both accounts. KOTR 2000 wasn't a great show, but unless you think UT v Mankind at KOTR '98 is a great match (which I do not), that show was quite bad. And SSeries '98 had poor---at best---wrestling while 2000 had mediocre---at best---wrestling.

 

And how much of the success of Austin/Foley/McMahon was due to writing and how much was due to all 3 of those guys being rather good performers and able to make almost anything look decent?

 

 

<<<"Again, an impossible feat. You can't double your ratings several times."

 

I agree and I wonder why fans on the net always get a heart attack when Smackdown does a 3.5 or something. I do think it makes Vince go into panic mode and we get crap like Vince/Stacy on Smackdown and depushing people like RVD.>>>

 

 

Well, in the case of SD, it dropped a significant percentage of its audience right after the announcement of the Hogan v HHH ME at Backlash.

 

If the rating stays that low again, it will only verify something I and a few others noted at WCW---Hogan draws pops from crowds---but he doesn't actually draw crowds.

 

The fans that are there might go nuts for him, but few people go to the show just to see him.

 

 

<<<"Actually, Ross always asked how one can learn to fall on metal or a ladder. It was more of an "F-U" to the critics of the business than anything else".

 

That's my point. The wwf did more back then to at least to give some semblance of how brutal the business can be. On the documentary by Blaustien he stated that Vince likes to let the media think the wrestlers don't go through as much pain and agony they do because it will cause people in the media to check up on Vince.>>>

 

 

I think they still do that, by and large. They've toned down some of the bumps because, well, they don't want to see their guys nearly cripple themselves in the ring. But, when the match is on, the announcers (okay, Lawler and Cole don't do squat) play up the brutality of the match.

 

 

<<<Ross stating the "wink wink" for smarks who knew stuff like Patterson not truly winning his title in South America.

 

"Why in the world should the WWF deny that he never won the belt in a tournament"?

 

I think you are misunderstanding what I was trying to say. That was a "bone" for smark fans who know better. A casual viewer has no clue what Ross means by the wink wink remark.

The wwf doesn't really do this anymore because they attack the damn smarks on the net. Another ideaology I disagree with.>>>

 

 

As do I. Attacking the hardcore fans is the worst move any business can make.

 

 

<<<The wwf had strong competition and hit all cylinders and made sure not to expose the product(not meaning saying its real) or their characters.

 

"In 1999 and 2000, the WWF had virtually no competition. WCW was dying. ECW never was going to be able to compete".

 

I know this. I'm talking about 1997 and 1998 when the wwf started their "attitude" campaign and took over wrestling again. 1999 and 2000 illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. Sure January to around KOR was excellent, but after it went downhill. SummerSlam was good and it went garbage after that as the ratings showed fans started to tune out and I think some fans had good reason to.>>>

 

 

Well, their head writer, I believe, quit in Sept. 2000 and then Steph took the reigns in Oct. or Nov.---and the WWF has never been as good since.

 

And, to head this off at the pass, Heyman would not be a good answer.

 

If I were the WWF, I'd let Flair, Raven, and Dreamer handle most of the booking duties.

 

 

<<<1999 comes and people like Chyna are wearing belts. Godfather. Road Dog. Austin getting hit with cars etc, etc, etc. We shall see is all I'm saying.

 

"Well, once they turfed Russo, the product, overall, got much better. In 2000, the WWF was the best company I've ever seen".

 

I agree as well. Russo was in his mode that wrestling sucked and sports entertainment ruled. I mean he booked stuff like Vince winning the strap. I don't care what anyone says Vince didn't need to win the belt to advance the storyline.>>>

 

 

In his defense, he also booked himself winning the strap and EB winning the HC strap. I guess he thinks executives in a company holding titles is big money. :-)

 

 

<<<A simple comeuppance on Trips would have suffice. The title and its storyline suffered until Trips started to get hot the following year.>>>

 

 

Absolutely. Russo believed that shocking fans is what was needed, never realizing that a pointless shock doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever.

 

 

<<<Imagine all the brain farts in wcw by Russo. Just imagine some of that crap would have been on wwf television. Remember when he attacked the very internet he stole ideas from when he stated that some were geeks who would rate matches, while a sock was the most over thing?>>>

 

 

Well, otherarena.com has reposted his infamous interview with WrestleLine (loved writing there for those last few months---even loved finding out the site was closed from a friend and not by Denny). Russo said that Crash TV had to be used because fans were trained to love short matches.

 

I think the WWF in early 2000 disproved that notion.

 

Fans wanted GOOD matches. The WWF didn't have the talent in 1998 to do that top to bottom, so short matches were a good idea at the time.

 

 

<<<The wwf turned things around and had very solid workrate when Russo left making his claims look stupid in retrospect as fans were glued to the workrate as well as the entertainment aspect. Vince and the wwf are going back to that philosophy somewhat with the lack of workrate in the top matches this year.>>>

 

 

Vince needs to sit back and realize that as much as he loves her, Stephanie has not done any good as a writer.

                   -=Mike