Worst Decisions?

[MillenniumMan831 0]

If they carried out the whole Invasion right, a huge crossover could have been done with WWF, WCW, ECW, AND the NWO. Hogan, Hall and Nash could have come in claiming that they were responsible for WCW's success, and wanted in. WCW could have refused and said no, so NWO tries to sell their services to WWF, who know their game and want nothing to do with them. Same deal with ECW, who know the NWO will only want spotlight for themselves. Then you could have the NWO managing a few acquisitions from the three opposing sides to gain a litle more interest, until they built things to come to a head. In no way would I have signed Hogan, Hall and Nash to three year deals or whatever, but for 6 month-1 year, if it were in a scenario like I had explained, I'd have lived with it.

That never would have happened because I don't see the word 'McMahon' in there once.

[Ted the Poster 0]

The XFL didn't have a hope in hell.  They went ahead with it anyway.  And what did it give us to remember.  "He hate me"?

Wait... Rod Smart is a Carolina Panther. He's also black. Who is that?

 

Edit: Oh... Tommy Maddox... okay.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

They did do Hogan/Flair. The house shows drew horribly and it showed there was not as high of a interest as we would have assumed with those two.

 

However; I agree they should have gone with Flair/Hogan @ ManiaVIII regardless. They never really did a true angle with the two on tv aside from a couple little things, if they had truely built Flair/Hogan, it would have done great business.

 

No titles or anything, they were bigger then the titles, it would simply been a "who is the real legend" type showdown. I'd have Savage/Roberts for the title with Savage defending the title after winning it from Flair(keep him winning the rumble in the same fashion) only for Savage to win it back at the next SNME.

 

I don't think it however even approaches top 20 worst decisions ever by WWF/E.

 

I say not convincing Piper to lay down for Hogan @ WM2 was worst then not doing Flair/Hogan.

 

Top Five Worst Decisions

1. The Idea to have Owen Hart propel down to the ring at OTE 1999.

2. The Invasion going the way it did

3. Putting Diesel on the forefront of the company for a whole year and shoving the more over Hart in the mid-card.

4. Putting the title on Hogan because of his reaction at Mania 18.

5. Bringing Jerry Lawler back to WWE as an announcer after 9 quality months of Paul Heyman and the brief return to good Jim Ross had during this.

[JN News 0]

Here's one:

 

 

 

Drafting HHH to SmackDown! at the draft lottery, only to send HHHim back over to RAW, just to totally kill whatever momentum SD! had left after Brock left.

[iliketurtles 0]

Ya know, I was watching the draft the other night on tape and realized how much they did right on that night...but how much they fucked it up at the same time. HHH on Smackdown would of given us new life in 2004, but nope. Weird watching the Angle/Booker segment on Smackdown that Thursday and realizing how true Booker's comments were about Smackdown...cause they were the truth in reality.

 

Worst business decision: XFL. Worst wrestling angle blown: InVasion.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Not giving Booker T the World Heavyweight Title at WM XIX and then again denying him the WWE Championship when he got a 2nd chance 20 months later.

[JN News 0]

JBL as WWE Champion, nuff said.

[jester 0]

Top Five Worst Decisions

1. The Idea to have Owen Hart propel down to the ring at OTE 1999.

The winner. XFL lost money. The Invasion was botched. But none of those actually killed somebody.

[SuperJerk 0]

^Good point.^

 

Then in 1999, they went with "Get It". It was a re-approach as listen to Vince Mcmahon during the commentary during the Superbowl half-time title match with Rock/Mankind. That year they went BACK to more silliness like Vince holding his daughter's teddy bear that UT struck on fire. It worked that year because of the momentum of 1998 and that in 1999 they went to media outlets "outing" the business and speaking more about action adventure. In 1998, they did not do this with the "attitude" campaign as they let things up to the viewers and wrestlers respond on outlets like "if Nascar is considered a sport I think we're in". Even the commentary was different in 1998 with JR giving wink wink and nudge nudge comments, but then still keeping kayfabe by asking "how can you know how to fall like that?". The Rock was also on OTR in 1999 talking about this new approach when he was champion "leading the charge".

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[AndrewTS 0]

Here's one:

 

 

 

Drafting HHH to SmackDown! at the draft lottery, only to send HHHim back over to RAW, just to totally kill whatever momentum SD! had left after Brock left.

More succintly: "everything about the Draft Lottery."

 

3. Putting Diesel on the forefront of the company for a whole year and shoving the more over Hart in the mid-card.

4. Putting the title on Hogan because of his reaction at Mania 18.

5. Bringing Jerry Lawler back to WWE as an announcer after 9 quality months of Paul Heyman and the brief return to good Jim Ross had during this.

 

3.--not a strong midcard either with interesting feuds, but the 1995 WWF midcard, where he was wrestling clowns, accountants, dentists, and the occasional pirate from Quebec.

 

4.--ratings seem to back this up, because it took a hell of a long time to recover viewers the Hogan push alienated, but there were worse ones.

 

5.--Lawler may suck, but seems just like a personal opinion thing here, since I doubt that decision had any impact on business as a whole.

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

The Invasion was the biggest mistake.

 

If you look where they wanted to go with the company (brtand extension) they were given the ideal formula to get that started. Any storyline where the end game is that Eric Bischoff ends up with control of "WCW RAW (or Nitro)" who does battle with Vince McMahon's "WWE Smackdown" would have been great, and might have actually made the brand extension a success.

 

Killing the WCW brand and their talent turned away a portion of their audience, and they lost out on years and years of potentially money making storylines.

 

The XFL was a big deal, maybe in the sense that it took McMahon's eyes off the wrestling end of things, but even now, with his full attention the product isn't getting any better, so I'm not really sure that was a big deal in the grand scheme of things. I mean sure they lost a ton of money, but its not like the company is in bad shape financially because of it.

[AndrewTS 0]

The Invasion was the biggest mistake.

 

If you look where they wanted to go with the company (brtand extension) they were given the ideal formula to get that started. Any storyline where the end game is that Eric Bischoff ends up with control of "WCW RAW (or Nitro)" who does battle with Vince McMahon's "WWE Smackdown" would have been great, and might have actually made the brand extension a success.

 

Killing the WCW brand and their talent turned away a portion of their audience, and they lost out on years and years of potentially money making storylines.

 

The XFL was a big deal, maybe in the sense that it took McMahon's eyes off the wrestling end of things, but even now, with his full attention the product isn't getting any better, so I'm not really sure that was a big deal in the grand scheme of things. I mean sure they lost a ton of money, but its not like the company is in bad shape financially because of it.

Well, the reason they aborted it was that they'd feared that WCW had already killed off their own audience and wasn't coming back. At no point did the WCW fans begin watching WWF/E en-masse--rather, as WCW was dying off, so did its fanbase. They didn't convert to WWE fans. Perhaps it's just that their fanbase was much heavier in casual fans than WWE's. WWE has a strong core fanbase that hasn't gone away (at least based on the TV ratings from 98 or so onward).

 

WWE *could* and *should* have tried to bring them back, but they threw out a poor rest-hold fest between two guys WWE fans weren't familiar with, and used that as "evidence" it simply wasn't going to work, and decided "okay, WCW's employees are now the WWE's bitches, let's job them out after a long, half-assed angle where we make them look second-rate the whole time through."

 

And yeah, considering how Ebersol and NBC were burnt on the XFL, McMahon and WWE came out smelling like a rose.

[SuperJerk 0]

4. Putting the title on Hogan because of his reaction at Mania 18.

 

4.--ratings seem to back this up, because it took a hell of a long time to recover viewers the Hogan push alienated, but there were worse ones.

Putting the belt on Hogan gets way too much flak. His title win coincided with the initial brand split, which I think is what killed the ratings at that time, not to mention the overall decline in quality they were in the middle of. Hogan's ONE MONTH title run is just a scapegoat for (and symptom of) bigger, more longterm problems which were the true cause of the 2002 ratings tank.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

3. Putting Diesel on the forefront of the company for a whole year and shoving the more over Hart in the mid-card.

 

I disagree. It wasn't a great move but it doesn't even register on overall bad choices. Remember the roster sucked during his title reign and he basically spent most of his reign fighting generic fat guys. You can't lay all of the blame at Diesel's feet because they gave him almost nothing to work with.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

He started the reign by facing Bret Hart, Jeff Jarrett (they had a brief RAW feud), and Shawn Michaels. He was already flopping by the time he got to Sid, who I have no problem with. He also had Bulldog, who wasn't dead weight at that point yet, before going back to Bret. The one big botch was Mabel, unless you hate Sid, and one feud won't sink a reign, especially when it occurs 9 months into it.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

True but Jarrett wasn't anywhere near over at that point and time. Just look at Wrestlemania XI for how terrible the WWF roster was at the time. Though I think taking the title off Backlund was a horrible choice. They should've ridden him to Wrestlemania and done the "I Quit" match for the title.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

The WWF losing the F. They never should have violated the agreement with the Pandas. The DVD's and VOD services would be better without the blur. History has been changed because of this.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

True but Jarrett wasn't anywhere near over at that point and time. Just look at Wrestlemania XI for how terrible the WWF roster was at the time. Though I think taking the title off Backlund was a horrible choice. They should've ridden him to Wrestlemania and done the "I Quit" match for the title.

True. But he wasn't a fat slug. He had talent at that point in his career. Jarrett/Michaels is my favourite HBK non-gimmick singles match of his entire career.

[Guest LooneyTune]

Blaming Hogans 4 week reign is really lame. Why not blame Triple H's face run? I think that was much worse than giving someone a (not even) 1 month nostalgic reign where he was super over and quite obvious the #1 face on the roster.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I still think Hogan's reign would've drawn had he faced anyone other than the Undertaker. Remember fans were so apathetic to him that they quickly switched Hogan into his place.

 

I think Hogan vs. Austin, Jericho Angle or a handful of other people would've done ok. Undertaker was a terrible choice as he had been actively taking ratings and buyrates with main event pushes for at least a year leading up to that.

[Guest LooneyTune]

Remember Hogan vs. Jericho bombing? Lots of people say "Boo! Hogans fault~!"

 

Let's not forget Jericho was completely made the bitch of Triple H, and was playing 2nd string to Stephanie and tied with LUCY THE FUCKING DOG. People seem to ignore how horrible Jericho was booked from January-April of 2002, then point out its Hogans fault.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

He still wouldn't have been the death that the Undertaker was.

[Kizzo 0]

The WWF losing the F. They never should have violated the agreement with the Pandas. The DVD's and VOD services would be better without the blur. History has been changed because of this.

This tops it all!^^^

 

What kind of business man would break an agreement with a company that let him use their intials if he only didn't use them overseas...I mean how hard is that....I know WWE has to do business overseas....but they could have referred the WWF to WWFE when they were over there, plus the scratch logo added fuel to fire...which could have been confused with claws....

 

And what business man would replace a Hollywood writer who did a very good job from late 99 til October 2000 with his daughter who had NO experience in writing or the creative process....what kind of busness move is that...it just amazes me....

[CanadianChick 0]

Remember Hogan vs. Jericho bombing? Lots of people say "Boo! Hogans fault~!"

 

Let's not forget Jericho was completely made the bitch of Triple H, and was playing 2nd string to Stephanie and tied with LUCY THE FUCKING DOG. People seem to ignore how horrible Jericho was booked from January-April of 2002, then point out its Hogans fault.

Jericho/Hogan was a title feud? I honestly don't remember that, and usually remember everything Jericho has done in WWE.

 

I just think them not elevating people for the longest time (as Fully Loaded 00 attested to) and now panicking and trying to make Orton into the next Austin is their problem now. I hope Vince realizes this is what happens when the same guy who really hasn't done crap for the company since maybe '00 is the focus of the show.

[Guest LooneyTune]

It was built up for Smackdown around the beginning of may... and was absolute worst SD rating ever at the point I believe (2.9). Everyone ignores the horrible booking of Jericho and automatically place the blame on Hogan.

 

I think everyone knew Jericho had a no chance in hell after Triple H BUTT-fucked his credibility away and fans just decided to not watch. It wasn't even that bad of a match except for the lame way Jericho was cheated out of the match.

[CanadianChick 0]

It was built up for Smackdown around the beginning of may... and was absolute worst SD rating ever at the point I believe (2.9). Everyone ignores the horrible booking of Jericho and automatically place the blame on Hogan.

 

I think everyone knew Jericho had a no chance in hell after Triple H BUTT-fucked his credibility away and fans just decided to not watch. It wasn't even that bad of a match except for the lame way Jericho was cheated out of the match.

Ah, okay.

 

Yeah, I'd probably place the blame more on Jericho's ill-booked early 2002 run. Hogan wasn't exactly great for business though. The best thing he did for the company was get killed by Brock.

[cabbageboy 0]

I think the worst thing is losing the name WWF, that's by far the most horrible and bad decision Vince has ever done.

 

I maintain that the Invasion angle was impossible to book...it was NOT a surefire idea. WCW was well past the point of being relevant. With the roster they had then how could they (even in kayfabe terms) challenge the WWF stars head on? And let's just say if they started jobbing out Austin to Bagwell the fanbase would NOT be happy.

 

The only way the WWF/WCW crossover could work is if both promotions were going strong like in 1998 and they did a major dream card. But then how do you book THAT card to both parties' satisfaction? Face it, it would either be one promotion dominating the other (which is how it turned out) or you have the lame "world champs go to a time limit draw" booking of stuff like Backlund vs. Flair in the early 80s. If one company actively owns the other it really isn't a legit co-promotion, and if it IS, then it's not going to be booked properly.

 

Now, Hogan/Flair. Again, how the hell do you book this? You just signed Flair but want him to look good...but can you really job out your biggest star ever to him? It's like admitting Flair is better than your guy, and the WWF fans would crap on it. And if you job Flair out to Hogan, well, why sign him?

 

Besides, what we got was quite good anyway...the 1992 Rumble, the Savage/Flair feud, etc.

[Scroby 0]

I think I saw the one of the worse things today while I was at FYE and thats the diva search on DVD for 20 bucks. Anyways the Invasion and the nWo. The draft also stands out in my mind, so many possibly's and they end up fucking Smackdown worse after Brock had left and the whole reason for the draft was to help Smackdown since Brock left.

[Guest LooneyTune]

Smackdown got Booker T, Spike Dudley, Rene Dupree and RVD... yeah, not much of a difference while RAW Got... no one that good either. Shelton Benjamin and that's it.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I think I saw the one of the worse things today while I was at FYE and thats the diva search on DVD for 20 bucks. Anyways the Invasion and the nWo. The draft also stands out in my mind, so many possibly's and they end up fucking Smackdown worse after Brock had left and the whole reason for the draft was to help Smackdown since Brock left.

Bringing in Hogan was a good idea, it was just executed wrongly. He did get interest for the show for a short time. Had they kept him as a special attraction, it could have turned out well. Even as it was, they got some value from him, aside from the idiotic World Title run.

 

It was bringing in Hall & Nash that was monumentally stupid. They had no value left at that point in time with the Invasion dead and personal problems had made them unreliable. Hogan should have come in alone.