Wrestling history

[Promoter 0]

This is just a simple question. Is it okay for Vince Mcmahon to re-write the history of wrestling like he always does? Or is it more beneficial that he keeps an accurate account? Does it even matter? You know how the saying goes. History is written by the winners and Vince Mcmahon is the winning promoter.

[spman 0]

I odn't think Vince likesto re-write History so much as forget past history that he wasn't involved in.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

"History is written by the Winners" isn't a testament; it's an indictment. It doesn't mean that the winners earn the right to write history; it just means they do it. His "Re-working" of history is so transparent that it's "okay" in the sense that it doesn't matter _today_; because anyone who cares enough about Wrestling and knows enough can see right through it. There are websites that'll debunk it, boards like this that will mock it, and books that will refute it. But in the future, when there are enough lies being told and Vince has guys like Bruno and Bret on his payroll and repeating those lies, it may change things quite-a-bit. Like, 20 years down the road, it won't be "okay". But then again, who'll care?

[Guest Dazed]

"If you repeat a lie loud enough, and often enough; the lie soon becomes a truth in the collective mind of the people"

 

Rudo is right that people will see through it, but if we are told the same lie over and over, it appears that those who are telling the truth are the liars

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

... and I hate it. But it's kinda fun to know all the "notes" and watch the WWE "hit" them on every possible occasion. It gets more elaborate too, every time it's retold.

 

"So I met Ted Turner for lunch in a small cafe outside of Atlanta. He said he wanted to get into the wrestling business, and I said 'that'sgreat, because I'm in the Sports Entertainment business'. He didn't appreciate it and smashed his coffee cup against the ground and told me he'd do everything in his power to put me out of business. Well, I'm still here Ted... And you're homeless."

- Vince McMahon, 5 years from now. Not only reworking history, but the present too.

[Steviekick 0]

I odn't think Vince likesto re-write History so much as forget past history that he wasn't involved in.

But part of deception is intentionally leaving parts out.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

If he wanted to "forget" about the history he wasn't a part of, then he wouldn't be putting out a DVD with WCW in it. Or starting up a wrestling channel. Or buying up all the footage he can. He wants to rework history, the way he sees it.

[Promoter 0]

... and I hate it.  But it's kinda fun to know all the "notes" and watch the WWE "hit" them on every possible occasion.  It gets more elaborate too, every time it's retold.

 

"So I met Ted Turner for lunch in a small cafe outside of Atlanta.  He said he wanted to get into the wrestling business, and I said 'that'sgreat, because I'm in the Sports Entertainment business'.  He didn't appreciate it and smashed his coffee cup against the ground and told me he'd do everything in his power to put me out of business.  Well, I'm still here Ted...  And you're homeless."

- Vince McMahon, 5 years from now.  Not only reworking history, but the present too.

 

You know, that story may turn into that one day for real. How about when the wwe tried to make it seem like nothing happened before January 23, 1984 during Hogan's hey day(after 1986). If you see the newer versions of WM 2's battle roayl you would notice that commentary for Sammartino's particpation are edited out. You know what is even funnier? The A&E special with the 70's being overlooked and the origins of the wwe not being accounted for. Bruno Sammartino is completely left out of the history for crying out loud. How about the 1992 Royal Rumble with Sid and Hogan's reactions. Good thing I got the original with Hogan getting booed and Sid cheered. I also have the tape of the SNME where Hogan is cheered and Sid is booed with the same footage.

 

I don't think he wants to completely re-write history to be a jerk though. He just seems to want to make it how he wants it to be or feels best represents his sports entertainment. That would be everything wwe was gold, while everything else was inferior until he made it mainstream. I mean look how he kept the unifications of the championships in 2001 with wcw and ecw. He unified each title with its respected counterpart for each promotion. He does have some sense of keeping the history. However, it is hilarious to see Vince only acknowledge the true father of wrestling as we knew it(before Vince changed it from "working" to prepackaged entertainment) in Toots Mondt once in the wwe media and he is a pioneer for his very own company. That would hurt the story of Vince Mcmahon taking the small dusty wwf from smoke filled halls into big domed stadiums and changing it from a pseudo sport into the glitz and glamour of a billion dollar sports entertainment franchise.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Vince is being Vince, which tends to make him come off like a Jerk

 

As he gets older, he looks back on his legacy to see what he has accomplished. What he sees and what others see are probably very different things - so its his goal to make sure the two visions align... and it's certainly not his that will be changing, so it's up to everyone else to see it his way.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think it's funny how no one in the WWF would probably ever mention the utter failure when the WWF briefly took over the NWA's timeslot on TBS.

[Guest TheJewof2001]

We know the truth, so it doesn't really matter what Vince says.

 

And I think it is wrong. That would be like the NFL saying that Smith never beat Walter Payton's record or anything.

[frisco 0]

I think vince can pretty much do whatever he wants. When you've had as much success as him and own the company you do what you want and let time be your judge. Vince is a jerk for sure, but its pretty hard to argue with his success

[Lord of The Curry 0]

So because he's had success in the business that gives him the right to change what others did before him?

[frisco 0]

Vince McMahon has always done this. I once saw a show when they were talking about Mr. T and his earlier Wrestlemanias appearances. At that time they were building up Mr.T and portraying Roddy Piper as a heel so then Gorilla Monsoon was blasting Piper and saying how Mr. T was going to kick his ass. Now years later Mr.T is out of the fad stage and they were building up Piper as a face and Gorilla Monsoon was suddenly saying how Piper Kicked Mr.T ass. I'm not agreeing with what the WWE does but at the same time I don;t think its different from what other companies do when the need arrises. Its like a soap opera when they change the characters a lot and sort of "re-write" history. I don't approve but it is Vinces show. he produces it and his name is on the check so he can do what he wants.

[Guest JMA]

Is it okay for Vince to re-write history? No. It's NEVER okay to re-write history.

 

It's important for an accurate and non-biased report of history to be kept.

[Guest GreatOne]

Hell what's everybody bitching about? If I wanna watch incessant non-stop bitching and whining I'll watch the Democratic National Convention next week.

 

Is Vince McMahon (through Gene Okerlund) portraying the beginnings of WWE in late 1983 any different than your average smark 5-6 years ago saying how he always hated Hogan when in part he was a Hulkamaniac For Life in its' heyday?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

The thing that bugs me about their historical revisionism is that they do it in places where it doesn't even NEED to be done.

 

Anyone see the Rikishi bit on Confedential a while back? The one where they pretended that Too Cool never existed? Yeah.

[Guest GreatOne]

The thing that bugs me about their historical revisionism is that they do it in places where it doesn't even NEED to be done.

 

Anyone see the Rikishi bit on Confedential a while back? The one where they pretended that Too Cool never existed? Yeah.

Does anyone even WANT to remember Too Cool even existed? I mean when I think of 98 WWE (and yes I find WWE easier to type than The WWF) I like to think of Austin/Vince, The Rock Nation, DX, not necessarily the Mega-Meros explode or Too Cool, you know?

 

Would you go to a job interview and say 'You know what, this job sucks and I really don't wanna work here, but I like the money'?

[Guest TheJewof2001]

Hell what's everybody bitching about? If I wanna watch incessant non-stop bitching and whining I'll watch the Democratic National Convention next week.

 

Is Vince McMahon (through Gene Okerlund) portraying the beginnings of WWE in late 1983 any different than your average smark 5-6 years ago saying how he always hated Hogan when in part he was a Hulkamaniac For Life in its' heyday?

Um, yes there is a big difference.

 

McMahon is re-writing history. Just because he has a big ego, he thinks he has the right to change what happened in the past.

 

However, he has no right to change history. Plain and simple.

 

And there is a big difference between Vince changing history and Smart marks saying they didn't like Hogan.

 

First off, ten bucks says most smart marks did like Hogan back in the day and will admit to it. When Hogan was on top, back then, I loved him. He was the man.

 

Most people here will tell you the same thing.

[Guest GreatOne]

Hell what's everybody bitching about? If I wanna watch incessant non-stop bitching and whining I'll watch the Democratic National Convention next week.

 

Is Vince McMahon (through Gene Okerlund) portraying the beginnings of WWE in late 1983 any different than your average smark 5-6 years ago saying how he always hated Hogan when in part he was a Hulkamaniac For Life in its' heyday?

Um, yes there is a big difference.

 

McMahon is re-writing history. Just because he has a big ego, he thinks he has the right to change what happened in the past.

 

However, he has no right to change history. Plain and simple.

 

And there is a big difference between Vince changing history and Smart marks saying they didn't like Hogan.

 

First off, ten bucks says most smart marks did like Hogan back in the day and will admit to it. When Hogan was on top, back then, I loved him. He was the man.

 

Most people here will tell you the same thing.

McMahon is re-writing history. Just because he has a big ego, he thinks he has the right to change what happened in the past. However, he has no right to change history. Plain and simple

 

But actually he does since it's, you know, HIS company, whether you like it or not. Besides are we talking something of worldly importance that affects people's lives? Probably not

 

First off, ten bucks says most smart marks did like Hogan back in the day and will admit to it.

 

Fine I just made ten bucks. I might have only started posting last week, but I do remember reading a plethora of posts back in '97-'98 full of 'Oh I hate Hogan, and I always have really', it might not have been on the old Delphi boards where I was reading it but the sentiment was there.

 

But back to the original, is Vince revising history when he essentially says that in fact WCW was winning the ratings war with some thanks to him? Nope.

[JustJoe2k5 0]

I liked in the Monday Night War DVD where Vince McMahon was saying "If you back me into a corner where I'll have to do something stupid I'll do something stupid, luckily it never got that far." Then they go into the Billionare Ted skits which was obviously the stupidest thing Vince could've done.

[Guest TheJewof2001]

But actually he does since it's, you know, HIS company, whether you like it or not. Besides are we talking something of worldly importance that affects people's lives? Probably not

I have no problem that he owns the company. And I know that since he owns it, he has the right to do what he wants. However, just because he has the right it doesn't mean it is THE right thing to do.

 

And no, we aren't talking about something worldly important. But just about everything we talk about in the WWE folder, isn't wordly important.

 

Fine I just made ten bucks. I might have only started posting last week, but I do remember reading a plethora of posts back in '97-'98 full of 'Oh I hate Hogan, and I always have really', it might not have been on the old Delphi boards where I was reading it but the sentiment was there.

Hmm, so you read stuff back in 97-98 full of Hogan hate? So that must mean it is ALL of the smart marks said that.

 

But I do see what you are saying. I am sure a lot of smart marks lie about hating Hogan back in the day. It is just sad that they have to do that.

 

But back to the original, is Vince revising history when he essentially says that in fact WCW was winning the ratings war with some thanks to him? Nope.

Huh?

 

Well WCW was winning the ratings war with his help. It is called competition.

 

But what does that have to do with anything? That is just a random thought Mr. Great.

[SuperJerk 0]

The problem with rewriting history is that you tend to leave out your own mistakes.

 

A mistake forgotten is a mistake repeated.

[KTID 0]

McMahon is re-writing history. Just because he has a big ego, he thinks he has the right to change what happened in the past. However, he has no right to change history. Plain and simple.

 

But actually he does since it's, you know, HIS company, whether you like it or not.

 

 

Yes, because Vince McMahon owns "wrestling". How narrow-minded.

[SuperJerk 0]

The problem with rewriting history is that you tend to leave out your own mistakes.

 

A mistake forgotten is a mistake repeated.

I'm usually not self-congratulatory, but that's a damn good line.

[griffinmills 0]

The problem with rewriting history is that you tend to leave out your own mistakes.

 

A mistake forgotten is a mistake repeated.

I know you arlready gave yourself a Barry Horrowitz but I have to second it. This is a concrete good point that I can agree with. Folks want to get mad about WWE re-writing history? Go make a website dedicated to preserving the "~TRUTH!" because whining about it on this forum isn't going to do much.

 

Does this mean I think it is "hip" and "cool" to re-write history? I'm of the opinion that sometimes, when you get bitter/jaded/old/what-have-you enough that, "A little injustice can be a good thing."

[Promoter 0]

I think I have to chime in on the times Vince changes things for no reason as the poster said above. I don't know how many people here have ever seen a video that came out prior to WM X entitled "The History of WrestleMania". Now take notice of the name and take notice that this event is the most popular event the company has. Vince actually got on camera and said stuff like Warrior vs. Macho Man at WM 7 was for the wwf championship? I think he just wanted to forget the whole debacle with Slaughter and the bad press, but 5 years later we had Slaughter on the ALL DAY WrestleMania special talking about the incident being the championship match. Another "historical" footnote from that same video states Undertaker's first Mania match was against Jake the Snake at WM 8. I mean seriously, that is just ridiculous bold face lying. Why do that? It's not about complaining. It's just WHY?

[frisco 0]

I don't buy vince is rewritng history "because he has a big ego" he's rewriting it because its in the best interest of whatever angles he's pushing at the time. He makes changes that he feels are in the best interest of his company and thats about all he cares about. Can't say I blame him.

[Promoter 0]

Frisco, I always got that impression, but there are other times he does it for no reason above like I mentioned with the "history" video. There is no storyline or math consequence in saying stuff like Warrior vs. Macho being a championship match. Maybe he really does just forget, but then I'm sure people around him tell him otherwise.

[Guest GreatOne]

McMahon is re-writing history. Just because he has a big ego, he thinks he has the right to change what happened in the past. However, he has no right to change history. Plain and simple.

 

But actually he does since it's, you know, HIS company, whether you like it or not.

 

 

Yes, because Vince McMahon owns "wrestling". How narrow-minded.

Well at this point in time he pretty much DOES.

 

What are you gonna boycott the WWE unless he comes out and addresses say, the failure of the Rock's initial push (which btw is referred to in the MNW DVD)?

 

This just in, I think Vince McMahon is surviving these days regardless of whether a few hundred people on the internet don't like his account of history.

 

So you're saying you WOULD go to a job interview and say 'Honestly, this job sucks but I need the money'? Or in WWE terms, would you put D-Lo Brown vs HHH on a Best Of WWE 02-04?