Undertaker threatening HBK at WM 14

[cabbageboy 0]

Perhaps so, but at the end of the day heels and faces are determined by who gets cheered and who gets booed. But yeah Austin was a tough character to book for those reasons, which is why I still think his only real time of drawing money was from WM 14 through SS 99. Before WM 14 the WWF was getting beat down by WCW, and shortly after that SS in 99 Austin had the neck surgery.

 

It was really only during the Austin/McMahon angle that Austin was a character people could get behind. Being a Bret die hard I didn't like him worth shit in 1997. I suppose he also was a draw in the late 2000/early 2001 period before the heel turn, but that stuff isn't really as timeless (Austin being screwed over by Vince = timeless, Austin dropping HHH in a car with a crane..not so much).

[zyn081 0]

Perhaps so, but at the end of the day heels and faces are determined by who gets cheered and who gets booed.  But yeah Austin was a tough character to book for those reasons, which is why I still think his only real time of drawing money was from WM 14 through SS 99.  Before WM 14 the WWF was getting beat down by WCW, and shortly after that SS in 99 Austin had the neck surgery.

 

It was really only during the Austin/McMahon angle that Austin was a character people could get behind.  Being a Bret die hard I didn't like him worth shit in 1997.  I suppose he also was a draw in the late 2000/early 2001 period before the heel turn, but that stuff isn't really as timeless (Austin being screwed over by Vince = timeless, Austin dropping HHH in a car with a crane..not so much).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For me, the only reason Austin was a face, was by reason of default, since McMahon was a heel. Anybody could have filled in Austins role, although obviously not as well. They were a perfect match. But if McMahon wasnt as good as a heel, the angle would have left a lot to be desired.

[cabbageboy 0]

Ever imagine what it would have been like if BRET had been in the Austin role? Although him still being there kinda takes away from the "Montreal screwjob was real" aspect that got Vince over as a heel in the first place.

[Guest Rrrsh]

My one friend can’t understand why it is I deplore Michaels. This thread has given me the idea to compile a list of all the bullshit things he did in the past and give it to here.

 

1. Refused to job Austin

2. Refused job to Bulldog

3. Montreal

4. MISSSING: Smile. If found please return to Shawn.

5.      Synch/Hart affair

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. I dont really care what Metz and HTQ say, I call bullshit. Shawn couldnt wrestle since Rumble due to his back and knew he was gone for a while. Why would he refuse to job to the guy who was that over? It makes ZERO sense, and not to mention he was motionless after the stunner for a LONG time. Untill I hear ot out of Takers or HBK's mouth in a non worked interview (I dont count Off The Record stuff, thats a lot of kayfabed answers), too many things don't make sense.

 

2. HBK should have never been booked there. Bulldog was a midcar loser, 3rd member in his group. He cant beat the future champ and the head of the rival stable. HBK shoudl never lose there, I dont care of he dedicates it too Mother Teresa.

 

3. Yah, it was Shawns idea. Moron.

 

4. I like how no one can get it threw their thick skulls that he had a knee injury that was just far better than orginally thought. It happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME in sports. So, instead of a long term injury, he had more tests and foudn it was only 3 months. WOW, THAT NEVER HAPPENS. And everyone loves to joke about a worked line in a worked promo and hold that over his head.

 

5. Why do you care that Shawn was a dick to Bret. It wanst too you and it had nothing to do with wrestling. They were both dicks to each other, who gives a shoit.

[cabbageboy 0]

Let me address those points you just made.

 

1. Yes, we know that Michaels eventually did the job at WM 14. Until I hear that he DIDN'T threaten to refuse to job I'll accept UT's word for it. Why would Taker work the interviewer about this? Besides, it's not like that whole thing isn't Shawn's m.o.

 

2.An argument could be made that the Bulldog/Michaels match was a foolish idea, but why do THAT particular booking? Why piss off the entire UK fanbase by humiliating the local boy? And no, Bulldog isn't a loser...in fact previous to this he was undefeated in the UK and Europe as far as the WWF goes. You're telling me they couldn't have just booked a huge DQ brawl there with the Harts and DX all fighting? Bulldog retains the Euro title (which meant nothing to Shawn anyway...witness the fingerpoke with HHH) and the belt doesn't become a complete farce. Shawn goes on to win HIAC and Montreal anyway, so no one would have thought anything about this match. Basically the finish they did was a slap in the face to the entire English audience and it made no sense, as well as having no context in the US because no one here saw or cared about that show.

 

3. I dunno to what extent Shawn was involved in Montreal, but he was in on it. He admitted as much. Thus, he 100% lied his ass off for a good 5 years about it.

 

4. The "Lost Smile" promo was a fucking embarrassment. Shawn's knee hurts? Who gives a shit? Get in the damn ring and job the title to someone, then get the surgery or rest needed. His mysterious knee ailment certainly did heal up quickly. Shawn forfeited titles WAY too many times to make anyone think that he was flat out too hurt to wrestle and at least drop a title. He pulled the same shit with Shane Douglas in 1995.

 

5. Yeah Bret and Shawn were both dicks to each other and hated one another. No one disputes that one....though I don't recall Bret airing Shawn's various love life details (true or false) on TV.

[zyn081 0]

Ever imagine what it would have been like if BRET had been in the Austin role?  Although him still being there kinda takes away from the "Montreal screwjob was real" aspect that got Vince over as a heel in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You answered your own question with the answer I would have given you.

[BHK 0]

Had it not been for Montreal/Bret leaving, we'd have gotten an Austin/Hart Wrestlemania rematch for the WWF title, and Boston would ahve gone nuclear.

[cabbageboy 0]

I dunno, I don't think somehow that another Bret/Austin matchup would have resonated as much as the way things turned out. I'm not that big of a fan of rematches from previous WMs though. It would have just come off like "Bret beat Austin a few times, now Austin finally wins and gets the title."

[Guest Rrrsh]

Let me address those points you just made.

 

1.  Yes, we know that Michaels eventually did the job at WM 14.  Until I hear that he DIDN'T threaten to refuse to job I'll accept UT's word for it.  Why would Taker work the interviewer about this?  Besides, it's not like that whole thing isn't Shawn's m.o.

 

2.An argument could be made that the Bulldog/Michaels match was a foolish idea, but why do THAT particular booking?  Why piss off the entire UK fanbase by humiliating the local boy?  And no, Bulldog isn't a loser...in fact previous to this he was undefeated in the UK and Europe as far as the WWF goes.  You're telling me they couldn't have just booked a huge DQ brawl there with the Harts and DX all fighting?  Bulldog retains the Euro title (which meant nothing to Shawn anyway...witness the fingerpoke with HHH) and the belt doesn't become a complete farce.  Shawn goes on to win HIAC and Montreal anyway, so no one would have thought anything about this match.  Basically the finish they did was a slap in the face to the entire English audience and it made no sense, as well as having no context in the US because no one here saw or cared about that show.

 

3.  I dunno to what extent Shawn was involved in Montreal, but he was in on it.  He admitted as much.  Thus, he 100% lied his ass off for a good 5 years about it.

 

4.  The "Lost Smile" promo was a fucking embarrassment.  Shawn's knee hurts?  Who gives a shit?  Get in the damn ring and job the title to someone, then get the surgery or rest needed.  His mysterious knee ailment certainly did heal up quickly.  Shawn forfeited titles WAY too many times to make anyone think that he was flat out too hurt to wrestle and at least drop a title.  He pulled the same shit with Shane Douglas in 1995.

 

5.  Yeah Bret and Shawn were both dicks to each other and hated one another.  No one disputes that one....though I don't recall Bret airing Shawn's various love life details (true or false) on TV.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A: He would say that because at the time Taker was Face, HBK was heel. So it Kayfabe makes sense in the "worked shoot" enviroment of OTR.

 

B: I agree it could have been a big DQ. I am just saying no fucking way should HBK job to Bulldog at that very time.

 

C. I know he was in on it and lied about. But why would someone hate HBK because of that? He was a solider, why hate him?

 

D. I think in theory a symathetic Babyface promo is fine to keep his heat. It didnt work out, but in theory I have no problem with it. And I may be in the minority, but I think Tournaments are better for business than shitty matches with guys who cant work properly. Unless its for a massive PPV. So of HBK gets hurt 2 weeks before WM, job. But they had time to change their palns, and it worked fine for the Feb PPV

 

E. I dont think he did, but my point remians that in general, they were so bad to each other, I cant see why one is so much worse than the other.

[bob_barron 0]

A: He would say that because at the time Taker was Face, HBK was heel. So it Kayfabe makes sense in the "worked shoot" enviroment of OTR.

 

HBK wasn't around when Taker said this on OTR. OTR is not done in kayfabe and Taker has no reason to go around saying if it wasn't true.

 

It's also been confirmed by Meltzer numerous times.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Guys, it's Rrsh. Look at his sig. There's clearly a bias at work here.

[Papacita 0]

As far as the whole shades of grey thing goes, I'd say DOA were the closest to faces in that whole deal. The Nation were of course heels, and Los Boriquas were tweeners leaning towards heels. Thing is, was this angle at all a success? Not really. Know why? No one knew who to cheer.

I think it had more to do with the fact that the groups were mostly comprised of character-less midcarders who the fans couldn't give a shit about either way. Face and heel alignments had absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

I've always hated that "fans don't know who to cheer" argument in relation to face/face or heel/heel programs. As long as the characters involved are ones who the audience can connect with, it really shouldn't be a problem.

 

B: I agree it could have been a big DQ. I am just saying no fucking way should HBK job to Bulldog at that very time.

The One Night Only match had no real bearings on the main storylines going on at the time. Shawn doing the job wouldn't have hurt him any.

 

As for the Taker issue...I've always been a little skeptical about it. I don't doubt that the confrontation happened (since it's been confirmed by a few people), but I think it's probably been exaggerated by the net. Perhaps my Shawn bias is blinding me somewhat, but I have a very hard time believing that he'd outright refuse to job given his circumstances.

[Guest Rrrsh]

A: He would say that because at the time Taker was Face, HBK was heel. So it Kayfabe makes sense in the "worked shoot" enviroment of OTR.

 

HBK wasn't around when Taker said this on OTR. OTR is not done in kayfabe and Taker has no reason to go around saying if it wasn't true.

 

It's also been confirmed by Meltzer numerous times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I mean at the time of WM 14.

 

Metz has been wrong many time before

 

OTR has had many kayfabed answers. I live in Canada, I watch it all teeh time.

[Guest Rrrsh]

B: I agree it could have been a big DQ. I am just saying no fucking way should HBK job to Bulldog at that very time.

The One Night Only match had no real bearings on the main storylines going on at the time. Shawn doing the job wouldn't have hurt him any.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont buy that for a second. If you book that match, it has signifigance.

[Guest Rrrsh]

Guys, it's Rrsh. Look at his sig. There's clearly a bias at work here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am a HBK fan. But I also consider Bret Hart, in ring, top 5 for me all time.

 

But I can still think of him as a whiny, pathetic loser.

 

I can seperate one from the other.

[Papacita 0]

B: I agree it could have been a big DQ. I am just saying no fucking way should HBK job to Bulldog at that very time.

The One Night Only match had no real bearings on the main storylines going on at the time. Shawn doing the job wouldn't have hurt him any.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont buy that for a second. If you book that match, it has signifigance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To whom? What impact did it have on the overall product? Hell, outside of the attack on Raw the week before the PPV, I can't even recall the match being built up on main shows. Plus when you consider that the PPV wasn't even shown US and that the event took place in the UK (where the hometown win for Bulldog is pretty much a given), and what you have is a meaningless job. And besides, HIAC would've made up for any heat that Shawn could've lost from the job.

[bob_barron 0]

I mean at the time of WM 14.

 

Metz has been wrong many time before

 

OTR has had many kayfabed answers. I live in Canada, I watch it all teeh time.

 

I know, but given that the interview was in 2002 and Taker has no reason to mention it unless it was true, then it's probably is.

 

Dave Meltzer is considered the best source for wrestling information. So if he has said it several times, Taker has said it and HBK's never denied it- then I think you can probably take it to the bank.

 

I watch OTR when they have wrestlers on and for the most part there is little kayfabing from what I've noticed. Taker and Dave Meltzer have no reason to lie.

[Guest Rrrsh]

B: I agree it could have been a big DQ. I am just saying no fucking way should HBK job to Bulldog at that very time.

The One Night Only match had no real bearings on the main storylines going on at the time. Shawn doing the job wouldn't have hurt him any.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont buy that for a second. If you book that match, it has signifigance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To whom? What impact did it have on the overall product? Hell, outside of the attack on Raw the week before the PPV, I can't even recall the match being built up on main shows. Plus when you consider that the PPV wasn't even shown US and that the event took place in the UK (where the hometown win for Bulldog is pretty much a given), and what you have is a meaningless job. And besides, HIAC would've made up for any heat that Shawn could've lost from the job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Shawn was prime to win HIAC and then the Title. Saying that jobbing to the rivals group THIRD member wont hurnt his cred is something that I wont buy man. The match shouldnt have booked. But since it did, Shawn cant lose.

 

It was good when title contenders got build up by winning key matches, not this even-steven booking shit.

[Guest Rrrsh]

I mean at the time of WM 14.

 

Metz has been wrong many time before

 

OTR has had many kayfabed answers. I live in Canada, I watch it all teeh time.

 

I know, but given that the interview was in 2002 and Taker has no reason to mention it unless it was true, then it's probably is.

 

Dave Meltzer is considered the best source for wrestling information. So if he has said it several times, Taker has said it and HBK's never denied it- then I think you can probably take it to the bank.

 

I watch OTR when they have wrestlers on and for the most part there is little kayfabing from what I've noticed. Taker and Dave Meltzer have no reason to lie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont think Taker just blurted it out. I think Lansberg said it, then Taker admitted to the confrontation. But he didnt outright say what Metz said and it was made to sound like a work-shoot storyline to me.

 

Metz is the best source, but that dosnt mean he is perfect. I just dont buy it man, and I havnt bought stuff Metz has said before.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I mean at the time of WM 14.

 

Metz has been wrong many time before

 

OTR has had many kayfabed answers. I live in Canada, I watch it all teeh time.

 

I know, but given that the interview was in 2002 and Taker has no reason to mention it unless it was true, then it's probably is.

 

Dave Meltzer is considered the best source for wrestling information. So if he has said it several times, Taker has said it and HBK's never denied it- then I think you can probably take it to the bank.

 

I watch OTR when they have wrestlers on and for the most part there is little kayfabing from what I've noticed. Taker and Dave Meltzer have no reason to lie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont think Taker just blurted it out. I think Lansberg said it, then Taker admitted to the confrontation. But he didnt outright say what Metz said and it was made to sound like a work-shoot storyline to me.

 

Metz is the best source, but that dosnt mean he is perfect. I just dont buy it man, and I havnt bought stuff Metz has said before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well you're a fucking idiot. That I can buy.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I mean at the time of WM 14.

 

Metz has been wrong many time before

 

OTR has had many kayfabed answers. I live in Canada, I watch it all teeh time.

 

I know, but given that the interview was in 2002 and Taker has no reason to mention it unless it was true, then it's probably is.

 

Dave Meltzer is considered the best source for wrestling information. So if he has said it several times, Taker has said it and HBK's never denied it- then I think you can probably take it to the bank.

 

I watch OTR when they have wrestlers on and for the most part there is little kayfabing from what I've noticed. Taker and Dave Meltzer have no reason to lie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont think Taker just blurted it out. I think Lansberg said it, then Taker admitted to the confrontation. But he didnt outright say what Metz said and it was made to sound like a work-shoot storyline to me.

 

Metz is the best source, but that dosnt mean he is perfect. I just dont buy it man, and I havnt bought stuff Metz has said before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well you're a fucking idiot. That I can buy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd love CarnivalizComing then. He's just as bad as Rrrsh, except his blind worship is of Jeff Jarrett.

[zyn081 0]

I mean at the time of WM 14.

 

Metz has been wrong many time before

 

OTR has had many kayfabed answers. I live in Canada, I watch it all teeh time.

 

I know, but given that the interview was in 2002 and Taker has no reason to mention it unless it was true, then it's probably is.

 

Dave Meltzer is considered the best source for wrestling information. So if he has said it several times, Taker has said it and HBK's never denied it- then I think you can probably take it to the bank.

 

I watch OTR when they have wrestlers on and for the most part there is little kayfabing from what I've noticed. Taker and Dave Meltzer have no reason to lie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont think Taker just blurted it out. I think Lansberg said it, then Taker admitted to the confrontation. But he didnt outright say what Metz said and it was made to sound like a work-shoot storyline to me.

 

Metz is the best source, but that dosnt mean he is perfect. I just dont buy it man, and I havnt bought stuff Metz has said before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well you're a fucking idiot. That I can buy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd love CarnivalizComing then. He's just as bad as Rrrsh, except his blind worship is of Jeff Jarrett.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont think Carnivaliz is as bad as Rrrsh though.

[cabbageboy 0]

About that One Night Only match, why was it even booked? Did they not see the potential landmine that awaited by putting the non jobbing Shawn in against the local British hero? Maybe they didn't really care about pissing off the English audience knowing they could still do the occasional tour and sell out shows, I dunno. I doubt they could draw 80,000 again there though.

 

Was Bulldog really the #3 guy in the Hart Foundation anyway? I always put him more like #2 behind just Bret, considering he beat Owen when they had the Euro title final.

 

In reality I don't think either guy should have jobbed there. Shawn had HIAC and Montreal coming up, so it made little sense to job him, yet it was even dumber to job out Bulldog in front of his homeland crowd and dying sister. I'd have just done a double DQ with the Hart Foundation clearing the ring of DX, no title had to change, Michaels wouldn't have jobbed, and the fans go home reasonably happy.

[zyn081 0]

I'd have just done a double DQ with the Hart Foundation clearing the ring of DX, no title had to change, Michaels wouldn't have jobbed, and the fans go home reasonably happy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or they could have made it Bulldog-HHH and cut out the crap of HBK lying down for HHH.

[4hartthreat 0]

About that One Night Only match, why was it even booked?  Did they not see the potential landmine that awaited by putting the non jobbing Shawn in against the local British hero?  Maybe they didn't really care about pissing off the English audience knowing they could still do the occasional tour and sell out shows, I dunno.  I doubt they could draw 80,000 again there though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If I recall correctly, that was exactly the point. It was to prove to everyone that Shawn would job if he was told to do so. Too bad it didn't work out that way.

 

As for rrsh's point that Shawn shouldn't be jobbing to Bulldog heading into HIAC and his world title win, as some have said that's just bullshit. First off, this was a UK only ppv, so it had bearing what so ever on HBK in the states. He could have jobbed to Bulldog and no one other than Europe had to know about it. And I would also argue that even if they did let the US know about it, it wouldn't have hurt Shawn one bit as at the time it was very conceiveable that Bulldog could beat Shawn in a one on one match. And most importantly and the ultimate proof of rrsh's blind Shawn love is his point about Shawn becoming champion in a few months. When One Night Only took place no one knew Bret was leaving the company yet, so there was no way anyone in the company thought Shawn would be winning the title soon as Mania was set to be, of course, Bret-Austin.

[cabbageboy 0]

So wait, zyn. You instead want Bulldog to job in his homeland to a heatless HHH circa 97? Yeah I'm sure that would have pleased the fans in the UK more than Bulldog jobbing to Shawn.

 

The One Night Only PPV is the equivalent to the ECW PPV this year...it existed outside of the regular established storylines. Or rather maybe it was using the feuds of the day, but no one in the US even saw it or cared. Also, what does it say about Shawn when he wouldn't even job to Bulldog, a guy that was key in getting Shawn over as both IC champ and World champ? Bulldog jobbed to him in late 92 in the IC match, and then he was a key opponent in Shawn's 96 title run. It's a perfectly rational booking decision to say "Bulldog comes up short vs. Shawn in the US, but in the UK he gets the win."

[chaosrage 0]

As for rrsh's point that Shawn shouldn't be jobbing to Bulldog heading into HIAC and his world title win, as some have said that's just bullshit. First off, this was a UK only ppv, so it had bearing what so ever on HBK in the states. He could have jobbed to Bulldog and no one other than Europe had to know about it. And I would also argue that even if they did let the US know about it, it wouldn't have hurt Shawn one bit as at the time it was very conceiveable that Bulldog could beat Shawn in a one on one match.

 

But then, Shawn wouldn't have been the first person in WWF history to hold all 4 belts.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

No, I think zyn meant Bulldog should have gone over HHH, well at least I hope so.

[4hartthreat 0]

But then, Shawn wouldn't have been the first person in WWF history to hold all 4 belts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Oh well, god forbid, nevermind then. Shawn over Bulldog was clearly the right decision.....

[chaosrage 0]

Oh well, god forbid, nevermind then. Shawn over Bulldog was clearly the right decision.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm glad that you now see the light.