Spots that should've been the finish...

[Betty Houle 0]

The best thing for business would have been for Jericho, the guy going on the road and supposedly one of the people meant to draw at house shows, to beat the guy who was only wrestling part time, and not going on the road to all the house shows. It was another high profile match against a top star that Jericho lost clean in the middle, which, regardless of any emotional attachment to the result, only solidified Jericho as someone who, not only can't win the big singles matches, but can't beat a part time wrestler to boot. While it may have been the sentimental choice for Michaels to win, business dictated that Jericho should have won.

Michaels was on the road as well - for TV & PPVs and television ratings & buyrates are a much bigger concern for the WWE. Since then, Michaels has headlined significantly more PPVs than Jericho so him winning makes perfect sense to me. Build up for a returned star that had more main events to come. Jericho has only been in 2 PPV main events since then (2 Elimination Chambers) that I can think of.

 

Granted, you could argue that if Jericho had won that match (and others), he might have been in more main events but that's just a matter of opinion. Too subjective to call. Either way, clearly the WWE sees Jericho as a high-mid-card guy that can main event but probably won't win. They probably see Michaels differently.

 

The storyline was set up for the fans to really want to see the veteran babyface beat the younger heel. And that's what they delivered. And I loved it.

[Guest LooneyTune]

Thinking long term: Why the fuck would you put over a guy who has a few years left in him (and a questionable back problem) for a guy who's still in his prime, is incredibly over despite his constant burials, and 100x more charismatic?

 

Putting Shawn Michaels over just shows how fucking dumb WWE is by pushing their "old-new school" main eventers who never could draw a dime (HBK - worst draw in MSG history; shit PPV buyrates) instead of their younger guys who they must trust with main events when the older guys finally retire.

 

Yeah... putting Shawn over was really the best move for the company. No wonder they are nearly in the fucking shitter.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

The best thing for business would have been for Jericho, the guy going on the road and supposedly one of the people meant to draw at house shows, to beat the guy who was only wrestling part time, and not going on the road to all the house shows. It was another high profile match against a top star that Jericho lost clean in the middle, which, regardless of any emotional attachment to the result, only solidified Jericho as someone who, not only can't win the big singles matches, but can't beat a part time wrestler to boot. While it may have been the sentimental choice for Michaels to win, business dictated that Jericho should have won.

Michaels was on the road as well - for TV & PPVs and television ratings & buyrates are a much bigger concern for the WWE. Since then, Michaels has headlined significantly more PPVs than Jericho so him winning makes perfect sense to me. Build up for a returned star that had more main events to come. Jericho has only been in 2 PPV main events since then (2 Elimination Chambers) that I can think of.

 

Granted, you could argue that if Jericho had won that match (and others), he might have been in more main events but that's just a matter of opinion. Too subjective to call. Either way, clearly the WWE sees Jericho as a high-mid-card guy that can main event but probably won't win. They probably see Michaels differently.

 

The storyline was set up for the fans to really want to see the veteran babyface beat the younger heel. And that's what they delivered. And I loved it.

Jericho was wrestling on more house shows than the handful Michaels did, so simple business logic says the guy going over should be the one most on the road. As for Shawn having more main events, well that still means Jericho should have got the win to at least make him more credible, so it would mean more when's used, once again, to get over someone else. After all, if Jericho is seen as not getting it done too often in big matches, his overall value goes down, and he can't people over as well as management would like, because beating him means less and less.

 

While it may be a matter of opinion that Jericho winning the match would have seen him in more main events, it isn't a matter of opinion to say that Jericho winning, when he really needed a big PPV singles win, would have given him a heck of a boost. That would have meant Jericho being elevated, and, in turn, beating Jericho in the future would mean more. When a guy whose main job it would seem is to elevate new guys and make them look good doesn't win a big match at least once in a while, he can't really elevate or 'make' someone, because he's not seen as meaning much, so beating him means very little.

 

Yes, the storyline was set up for the veteran wrestler to beat the younger heel, but with the younger wrestling being clearly more athletic than the admittedly aged veteran, not to mention the business aspect of the guy who was going to all the house shows putting over the guy who was, and would go on to wrestle, on far fewer house shows, the only reason for Shawn to win was pure sentimentality, and you can’t make business decisions based solely on sentimentality. At some point, business sense has to dictate business decisions, and this was one instance when business should have overruled sentimentality. Let Shawn get his win on a Raw or another PPV. Give the guy going on the road full-time the much-needed boost of a Wrestlemainia singles win.

[Guest HTQ's Personal Bitch]

Yeah... putting Shawn over was really the best move for the company. No wonder they are nearly in the fucking shitter.

And we can trace it all back to Jericho not pinning Michaels.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Yeah... putting Shawn over was really the best move for the company. No wonder they are nearly in the fucking shitter.

And we can trace it all back to Jericho not pinning Michaels.

Nice try at attempting to ignore the real issue, which is a pattern of not giving guys wins when they needed them, in favor of staying with a pat hand, which can only be bad for business in the long run.

[alfdogg 0]

It was only when Rock hammered on how cheap it was every Raw and Smackdown for a month, started pinning Jericho with DDTs, and basically did everything he could to make Jericho look like a jobber, that the finish started to look bad.

...you do know the results are fixed, right?

[Guest cosbywasmurdered]

It was only when Rock hammered on how cheap it was every Raw and Smackdown for a month, started pinning Jericho with DDTs, and basically did everything he could to make Jericho look like a jobber, that the finish started to look bad.

...you do know the results are fixed, right?

Sssh you.

[Guest HTQ's Personal Bitch]

...

[Guest Loss]

But it is. It's hard to talk about Jericho and all the squandered opportunities, because he was a can't-miss superstar who's been intentionally sabotaged by all the top guys except Rock.

 

I think if at this time in 2000, you had asked anyone who'd be the biggest star in the company in 2005, almost no one would have said HHH and almost everyone would have said Jericho. Seeing him in WCW made it obvious that he would eventually make it to the top of the card and stay there, and the WWF was going to be fun because we'd get to watch his ascension for 6-12 months before he became a permanent fixture in the upper card.

 

It wasn't to be, and Jericho is blameless.

[Betty Houle 0]

The problem with a thread like this (discounting the obvious arrogant nature of it) is that people just end up talking in circles and going back and forth. I'm not going to change my opinion and others won't change theirs.

 

I wanted to see Michaels win and was happy when he did. I don't think it was a bad business decision either.

 

I do wonder who all these people are who thought Jericho would be the biggest star in the company by 2005. If you asked me I would have said the Rock (I didn't forsee him all but leaving for Hollywood), HHH, Kurt Angle, and maybe Booker T. Jericho was...Jericho.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

The problem with a thread like this (discounting the obvious arrogant nature of it) is that people just end up talking in circles and going back and forth. I'm not going to change my opinion and others won't change theirs.

 

I wanted to see Michaels win and was happy when he did. I don't think it was a bad business decision either.

 

I do wonder who all these people are who thought Jericho would be the biggest star in the company by 2005. If you asked me I would have said the Rock (I didn't forsee him all but leaving for Hollywood), HHH, Kurt Angle, and maybe Booker T. Jericho was...Jericho.

Actually, the main problem with this thread is people who are unable or, like you, unwilling to see that their favorite winning was wrong for business. And of course you won't change your opinion, because that would involve you having to admit that Michaels winning, while great for sentimentality, was bad for business, for all the reasons that have been explained.

 

The only reason for Michaels to win was purely for a feel-good ending to the feud, when the best thing for business was Jericho winning, and leaving Michaels to get his win at a Raw, or even building it up for a 'B' level Raw PPV where it could even have been used to draw some buys. Jericho winning being the best thing for business is obvious to anyone with a clue, which seems to be why such a fact is beyond you.

 

As for who thought Jericho would be one of, if not the biggest star by 2005, that would be people who are in favor of change and progression, which sees new top stars made, and guys whose time has a main eventer has passed, like Shawn, to do what is best for business and step aside, to let someone new draw money.

[bob_barron 0]

HTQ-

 

Why would HBK have to get his win back anyway? Why couldnt Jericho beat him and leave it at that

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

HTQ-

 

Why would HBK have to get his win back anyway? Why couldnt Jericho beat him and leave it at that

Beside the obvious answer of people politicking for HBK to get his win back, it's WWE policy to, in some fashion, let the babyface get some form of victory at the end of a feud, even if it is just a moral one.

[Guest Loss]

In 2000, Booker T wasn't even in the company.

 

I think this was around the time people were starting to warm up to HHH, and I think most people would have expected him to be a star, but Jericho was seen as the future of the company by just about everyone not in the company at that time.

 

Were you on the Internet in 1999? If so, you should remember how grandiose the "will he stay or will he go?" saga was over his contract situation in the latter days of WCW, and all the excitement over him jumping ship.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Not to mention that, internally, getting Jericho was Jim Ross's number one goal of 1999. Management considered getting Jericho's services a top priority.

[Guest Loss]

The WWF was so excited when they did sign him that they actually put streaming video on the website of him meeting Vince McMahon for the first time and touring corporate.

 

Vince McMahon even said at the time that they weren't really looking to add a whole lot of new talent to their roster, but that Jericho would be the exception to the rule, and that he'd have overwhelming success in the business, whether he signed with them or not. He ended up not delivering on the hype for millions of reasons, granted, but the hype was definitely there.

[Guest HTQ's Personal Bitch]

...

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

The problem with a thread like this (discounting the obvious arrogant nature of it) is that people just end up talking in circles and going back and forth. I'm not going to change my opinion and others won't change theirs.

 

I wanted to see Michaels win and was happy when he did. I don't think it was a bad business decision either.

 

I do wonder who all these people are who thought Jericho would be the biggest star in the company by 2005. If you asked me I would have said the Rock (I didn't forsee him all but leaving for Hollywood), HHH, Kurt Angle, and maybe Booker T. Jericho was...Jericho.

Actually, the main problem with this thread is people who are unable or, like you, unwilling to see that their favorite winning was wrong for business. And of course you won't change your opinion, because that would involve you having to admit that Michaels winning, while great for sentimentality, was bad for business, for all the reasons that have been explained.

 

The only reason for Michaels to win was purely for a feel-good ending to the feud, when the best thing for business was Jericho winning, and leaving Michaels to get his win at a Raw, or even building it up for a 'B' level Raw PPV where it could even have been used to draw some buys. Jericho winning being the best thing for business is obvious to anyone with a clue, which seems to be why such a fact is beyond you.

 

As for who thought Jericho would be one of, if not the biggest star by 2005, that would be people who are in favor of change and progression, which sees new top stars made, and guys whose time has a main eventer has passed, like Shawn, to do what is best for business and step aside, to let someone new draw money.

This post made me laugh for all the wrong reasons! Repeatedly!

 

Do you have any other hobbies?

Do you have anything relevant to add to this thread ?

[Guest LooneyTune]

I think everyone can come up with the right answer 2 seconds after reading that question.

 

Answer: N _

 

Would you like to buy a vowel?

[alfdogg 0]

Just ban the little shit already, for God sakes. He's never contributed anything at all to this folder, and is only here to stir shit up.

[Guest HTQ's Personal Bitch]

..

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Just ban the little shit already, for God sakes.  He's never contributed anything at all to this folder, and is only here to stir shit up.

Stuff that doesn't matter.

I'm taking your advice, and just relaxing.

 

Yuck this up, laughing boy.

[Betty Houle 0]

In 2000, Booker T wasn't even in the company.

 

I think this was around the time people were starting to warm up to HHH, and I think most people would have expected him to be a star, but Jericho was seen as the future of the company by just about everyone not in the company at that time.

 

Were you on the Internet in 1999? If so, you should remember how grandiose the "will he stay or will he go?" saga was over his contract situation in the latter days of WCW, and all the excitement over him jumping ship.

About Booker T, I thought we were talking about the people we thought were going to be the biggest stars in wrestling (not just the WWE) in 2000. I reread his post and realize my error. My list stands as the 4 guys that I thought would be the biggest stars in American wrestling by the year 2005.

[Betty Houle 0]

The problem with a thread like this (discounting the obvious arrogant nature of it) is that people just end up talking in circles and going back and forth. I'm not going to change my opinion and others won't change theirs.

 

I wanted to see Michaels win and was happy when he did. I don't think it was a bad business decision either.

 

I do wonder who all these people are who thought Jericho would be the biggest star in the company by 2005. If you asked me I would have said the Rock (I didn't forsee him all but leaving for Hollywood), HHH, Kurt Angle, and maybe Booker T. Jericho was...Jericho.

Actually, the main problem with this thread is people who are unable or, like you, unwilling to see that their favorite winning was wrong for business. And of course you won't change your opinion, because that would involve you having to admit that Michaels winning, while great for sentimentality, was bad for business, for all the reasons that have been explained.

 

The only reason for Michaels to win was purely for a feel-good ending to the feud, when the best thing for business was Jericho winning, and leaving Michaels to get his win at a Raw, or even building it up for a 'B' level Raw PPV where it could even have been used to draw some buys. Jericho winning being the best thing for business is obvious to anyone with a clue, which seems to be why such a fact is beyond you.

 

As for who thought Jericho would be one of, if not the biggest star by 2005, that would be people who are in favor of change and progression, which sees new top stars made, and guys whose time has a main eventer has passed, like Shawn, to do what is best for business and step aside, to let someone new draw money.

Listen: we disagree. I don't think Michaels beating Jericho was bad for business. You do. Period.

 

Let's not get a crummy attitude and tell me I have no clue because I don't agree with you. Don't get mad because I won't change my opinion (which I don't hold just because I like Michaels better than Jericho). I could say the same thing about your opinion being influenced by your love for Jericho.

 

You call Michaels a guy whose time as a main eventer has passed and he should do what is best for business and step aside, to let someone new draw money. WWE sees it differently as they obviously see him as a main event guy that can put on great matches and draw money. I agree with them. And I think that Michaels is a better overall performer than Jericho and a better draw than him anyway! Nothing against Jericho because I'm a fan of his, too. Heck, if Jericho were her, he'd probably agree with me. If he cared about such silliness at all which is doubtful.

 

What were talking about? Oh yeah, tha match at Wrestlemania. I don't think the loss hurt Jericho. And I liked it. Oh well.

 

Next up: Betty argues that Hogan shouldn't have put over anybody from 1996 to 2000!

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Could you elaborate on why you think Michaels is a better draw than Jericho, and try and explain the logic in him going over ?

 

As for my opinion being influenced by my 'love' of Jericho, not even close. I'm a fan of both men; I just happen to think that the time of one of them to headline had, and has, long since passed.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

The problem with a thread like this (discounting the obvious arrogant nature of it) is that people just end up talking in circles and going back and forth. I'm not going to change my opinion and others won't change theirs.

 

I wanted to see Michaels win and was happy when he did. I don't think it was a bad business decision either.

 

I do wonder who all these people are who thought Jericho would be the biggest star in the company by 2005. If you asked me I would have said the Rock (I didn't forsee him all but leaving for Hollywood), HHH, Kurt Angle, and maybe Booker T. Jericho was...Jericho.

Actually, the main problem with this thread is people who are unable or, like you, unwilling to see that their favorite winning was wrong for business. And of course you won't change your opinion, because that would involve you having to admit that Michaels winning, while great for sentimentality, was bad for business, for all the reasons that have been explained.

 

The only reason for Michaels to win was purely for a feel-good ending to the feud, when the best thing for business was Jericho winning, and leaving Michaels to get his win at a Raw, or even building it up for a 'B' level Raw PPV where it could even have been used to draw some buys. Jericho winning being the best thing for business is obvious to anyone with a clue, which seems to be why such a fact is beyond you.

 

As for who thought Jericho would be one of, if not the biggest star by 2005, that would be people who are in favor of change and progression, which sees new top stars made, and guys whose time has a main eventer has passed, like Shawn, to do what is best for business and step aside, to let someone new draw money.

Listen: we disagree. I don't think Michaels beating Jericho was bad for business. You do. Period.

 

Let's not get a crummy attitude and tell me I have no clue because I don't agree with you. Don't get mad because I won't change my opinion (which I don't hold just because I like Michaels better than Jericho). I could say the same thing about your opinion being influenced by your love for Jericho.

 

You call Michaels a guy whose time as a main eventer has passed and he should do what is best for business and step aside, to let someone new draw money. WWE sees it differently as they obviously see him as a main event guy that can put on great matches and draw money. I agree with them. And I think that Michaels is a better overall performer than Jericho and a better draw than him anyway! Nothing against Jericho because I'm a fan of his, too. Heck, if Jericho were her, he'd probably agree with me. If he cared about such silliness at all which is doubtful.

 

What were talking about? Oh yeah, tha match at Wrestlemania. I don't think the loss hurt Jericho. And I liked it. Oh well.

 

Next up: Betty argues that Hogan shouldn't have put over anybody from 1996 to 2000!

Betty, that's like saying Taker should go over Cena. It just doesn't make good business sense. Jericho DID need to go over Michaels, whether you like Michaels or not. However you said your opinion won't change, and I won't try.

[Betty Houle 0]

I think you're wrong. Nothing personal!

 

I don't have any comment on Cena-Undertaker. I haven't seen the match, followed the feud, or anything. I doubt it's exactly the same situation. I don't like absolutes.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Do you think you can explain why you think he's wrong ? And while you're at it do you think you can explain why Michaels should have gone over ?

[Guest LooneyTune]

Here's my educated guess why he does: (S?)HE'S AN HBK MARK. I can't recall how many times over the years on message boards I've defended people like Hogan about putting people over, and my mind won't change for some reason.

 

In short: It's obviously a bias issue in this case.

[Betty Houle 0]

Here's my educated guess why he does: (S?)HE'S AN HBK MARK. I can't recall how many times over the years on message boards I've defended people like Hogan about putting people over, and my mind won't change for some reason.

 

In short: It's obviously a bias issue in this case.

Not quite.

 

Yes, I am a HBK mark. I’m also a Y2J mark. Yes, while watching that match I was rooting for HBK to win. He did win, which seemed like the proper ending to the angle (arrogant younger heel taunts more experienced babyface who needs to prove that he’s not a shell of his former shelf. Sounds like the plot from about twenty movies that I can think of off the top of my head).

 

I can also remove myself from my feelings and examine this match from the viewpoint of not being a fan (and, really, what more fun can be found in life?) and declare that Jericho losing that one match was not a bad business decision. Like I said, it pays off the angle and leaves the fans happy. You’re supposed to do this at times on PPV. Besides it helps HBK stay established so he can go on to main event PPVs like WWE wants him to (Survivor Series 2003, Royal Rumble 2004, Taboo Tuesday, etc.). I happen to think that he did a better job in those matches than Jericho could have (not that Jericho winning at WM19 would have put him in those main events but…). I think Michaels is a better worker and bigger draw than Jericho. I also don’t think that EVERY older, “part-time” worker like Michaels (although Michaels was pretty much a full-time worker in the 18 months after WM19 on TV and PPV where WWE’s revenue comes from) needs to lose to a younger. “full-time” wrestler EVERY time. And we are arguing the virtues of losing or winning one single match; I’m really not here to examine the entirety of Jericho’s WWE career.

 

But if I was, I would point out that Jericho himself has said that his character is bullet-proof. He can lose matches and still come back and be believable. Why? Because he’s so darn talented and entertaining that people are going to pay attention to him no matter what. If WWE wanted to, they could take Jericho tomorrow and make him a main eventer -- people would buy it (as a bayface anyway. I’m not entirely sure it would work as well with him as a heel but that’s just me)! It’s not entirely different that when they did it with Benoit. They did nothing with Benoit for a long while but turned him into a main event wrestler overnight. People bought it because WWE presented it awesomely and because Benoit is great at what he does. Talent shines through.

 

Maybe the preceding paragraphs ramble a bit. I’m posting in a forum not writing a dissertation. Hopefully my points come across.

 

Again: I’m sorry that I don’t agree with everyone else. I don’t think Jericho losing that one match was necessarily a bad business decision. Period. I’d love that to be my last comment on the matter but I’ll probably be back at lunchtime tomorrow to say something else…