Guest CheesalaIsGood Report post Posted April 15, 2002 Ok, fine. Austin and the Undertaker have another match against each other at the PPV. Fine. That is all well and good as far as I'm concerned, on the surface. I really don't care how many times these two, or any other two wrestle each other, but what bothers me is the lack of history! Here you have two guys in Austin and Taker who have been feuding, quite violently, for the better part of the last five years! So they book this match last week and NOBODY says anything about it. You'd think since Vince appears to want to make his own wrestling history, via changing gimmicks of guys who were stars in rival promotions over the years, that he'd spend more time in the announcing, and in video clips, hammering home the history and fact that these two guys hate each others guts. That they are former tag champs. That they have traded the titles a couple of times. The match at Summerslam 98, etc. It would certainly lend more credibility to the feud and if adopted as policy, for handling of recycled feuds. It would help to lessen the "repeat" feel you can get overall, plus, if you stress that one guy has beaten the other on one or more occations, it can help to lessen the obviousness of who is going to go over in the match! Cuz, you just KNOW Austin is going over for coming back, and playing nice with Scott Hall. You'd figure that with the roster split they'd have a little more time to play with to get more done. The idea is in getting to KNOW the wrestlers, what motivates them, and have it clearly defined. Cuz, these days there really isn't anybody in the WWF, who you know what they are doing and why they are doing it. Without that, how can the audience be reached? Reaching that audience, is what has allowed Ric Flairs career to last as long as it has. Cheesala Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 18, 2002 Good points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mystery Eskimo Report post Posted April 18, 2002 The WWF seems to forget anything that happened more than a few weeks ago. It's really annoying sometimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Will Scarlet Report post Posted April 18, 2002 Very good points there. That is one thing that has always confused me about the WWF logic. It is either they feel that "Nothing before, say, 2000 ever happened." or that they just expect that everyone watching now already watched in 97-98, and already know the history. Of course, things that happened last week or 5 minutes ago, they feel that they have to recap the heck out of it, just in case we happened to making a sandwich or something during the opening interview. So, yeah, I would love to see the WWF trying to better explain these long time feuds. I know I would rather see something like a history of everything the Undertaker and Austin have been through, as opposed to "Five minutes ago on Raw, Austin and Taker had a big old brawl and since one or two of you may have not seen it, here it is again!" I am not trying to sound negative, it is just that little things like that have bothered me about the WWF lately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 18, 2002 It's a bit like the Alliance thing. None of the casual fans knew about the Alliance's mid carders, and Vince didn't bother showing any of that footage he payed for, so why should they have cared? Maybe continuity is a bad word in post redux attitudanal era!!! hm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Caliban Report post Posted April 18, 2002 I wish they'd pay more attention to things that happened in the past... it would bring a new dimension to feuds as you said, and - GASP! might even persuade a few people to buy some old videos to see what all the fuss is about. Everyone wins. However, the WWF writers are getting so stupid these days... every other thing is a rehash of what has come before. Maybe they feel that if they highlighted the Austin/Taker history, people would think "Well, it's happened so many times before, why are they recycling their ideas?" It annoyed me when Kane was unmasked on RAW the other week, when JR went into hyperbole idiot mode - "No-one's ever done that to Kane before!". Um JR, Undertaker did it to him at SummerSlam 2000. Having your intelligence insulted like that sucks. I wish the WWF would reward long-time fans like me (been watching for 10 years now) by actually acknowleging their history (and getting it right) now and then... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HartFan86 Report post Posted April 18, 2002 I was a huge fan of the Taker/Austin tag team in 98, and eventually, there awesome feud of the summer of 98. It's a shame they don't bring up the history between these guys to make the feud more credible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 18, 2002 Hm. Maybe they're worried there's no way Austin and Underweartaker can match up to their past efforts? Both of em aint as good as they used to be... another Jim Ross one, when Mick Foley was reffing Angle/ Triple H, he said that Mick had never been a ref before... um, Only Wrestlemania 15... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
