Except you are talking out of your fucking ass.compare the list of who hogan wouldnt drop to to that of guys hhh said no to. Whi hasnt beaten hhh in his 22 year career. Hogan in that time has clean losses to what,2 people?

Reply

... There's no way you're a real person.

Reply

Suck a dick.

Reply

lol

Reply

Austin was right in not wanting to job to Brock on an un advertised raw match. Although he probably could have talked vince out of it instead of just not showing up. Saw him there, it's true it's true.

Reply

I'm not sure if there is a show I hate more in WCW history than Starrcade 97. If you could write everything you should have done on a piece of paper, then write the exact opposite on another piece of paper, that's the one they went with.

It's always about context with political issues, but they captivate me. Everybody does it in their own interest, but sometimes that happens to coincide with what is best for the company. Case in point, Steve Austin probably shouldn't have been wasting his time with midcarders like Billy Gunn and Jeff Jarrett as they wanted him to, and probably shouldn't have been booked to lose to Brock with no build up for no reason as a punishment for burying creative on WWE.Com.

Should HHH have put somebody over during that big long reign in 02-03? Absolutely, and the numbers bear that out.

But in almost everybody's case, it's a mix of good and bad. I think that's why Rock deserves even more credit, you never hear stories about him refusing to lose or refusing to work with guys, he lost far more than any other top guy, and he still went on to be one of the biggest stars in the whole world.

Reply

The Rock is always the case I go to when someone tries to say wins/losses don't matter. Hell, the last time he was there full time as a face, people were sick of him. His face run before that quickly ended up getting the Cena treatment. And it was all because he was a shit-talker who couldn't back it up and no one wants to cheer a character like that. He probably could have stood to politic a little more and put his foot down to keep his character from turning to shit. He deserves all the credit in the world for becoming what he ended up being despite it.

Reply

WUT DA HAYELL?!

Reply

An über-rich movie star?

Reply

Jericho should probably politic a little more.

Reply

I don't think Rock being a "shit talker who couldn't back it up" was the reason he got booed. He just got a bit stale as a face, and it was time to turn him heel.

Reply

One example of some good politicking is Russo convincing Vince to extend the Chyna/Jarret feud in order for Jarret to get a larger payday.

Reply

A well booked face doesn't get stale over the span of a year or two. It was because he was booked terribly.

Reply

Well there's a few factors for one thing. First of all... over exposure.... every single week spouting the same catch phrases doing the same thing. Keep in mind, Hogan wasn't on t.v. every single week as a main fixture in the show. Maybe he was on superstars in those promo shots for house shows or whatever, but you get my drift. Week in, week out, Rock was there.

Also, he left for Hollywood for a hiatus, came back, won the championship, and most of the fans knew he was kind of on his way out, and he was ALREADY over exposed at that point, and fans kind of wanted something different from him. Thus, Hollywood Rock was born and he was awesome.

It wasn't wins/losses. You're trying to make your own narrative here, and it just doesn't add up.

Reply

And Cena gets booed all the time, especially when he was always winning and overcoming the odds.

Hogan in WCW got booed before he turned heel, and as has been discussed here, he wasn't exactly known for laying down for the 1-2-3. Sometimes it's just time to make a change.

Reply

I read what you wrote, its typical IWC, lifted from the Newsletters point of view.

Certain guys who were politicians get a pass because they have 4-5 star matches. The guys who dont, like Hogan and Nash, get buried online and in the sheets. Its standard fare. Ive read it all before. I just dont happen to feel the need to have the millionth debate about whether or not Bret was in the right to refuse the finish he was given. Because as we know the entire country of Canada would have went into a state of mourning if they had to see Bret do a JOB.

Its all the same issue to me regardless of the excuse. Promoter comes up with an angle, the top star kicks up a fuss, and says "no". Promoter then makes alternate plans. Its happened in every territory in every era, its nothing new.

I will say, the issue to me is not who has the better reasoning to balk at a finish, to me its just the act itself which is at issue, and proves that everyone plays politics at the top.

Reply

Was thinking Samoa Joe would have to be the exact opposite. Had his career sidetracked time and time again because he continually just went along with whatever stupid shit TNA gave him.

Reply

HBK might be the only guy The Rock never wanted to work with mostly due to the stories about the animosity between the two during HBK's first WWE run. Depending on how far back the stories are to be believed, its almost Austin-Jarrett levels in terms of animosity.

Assuming that animosity was gone by HBK's return, timing issues and the Rock leaving very shortly is probably why that never happened during HBK's second run.

Reply

Cena's "always winning" has been overblown to an insane level. As I've said before he loses more than any top face ever and even when he was winning more at the beginning of his run, after the JBL feud, he was starting to suffer from the paint-by-numbers booking.

As for Hogan... He was a top face for over a decade at that point. He didn't start getting met with crowds hating him a year after his face run began. A great, well-handled character can run out of things to achieve and get bland after over a decade. When it happens go the most charismatic/entertaining man wrestling has ever seen a year after his face run begins on two separate occasions, there's a problem.

Reply

Which once again is very circular. We have al discussed how everyone politics at the top, but we are discussing when it has hurt business and when it has been most egregious. The 5 star wrestler bit is nonsense, you are generalizing my statements because you think all of the iwc is the same. Take Nash, I could give a shit about his politicking because he was head Booker, the company has themselves to blame and Nash was just making himself top dog, and it's how hes always been.

And you keep going into this whole thing about whether Bret was right or wrong,and that's not what I'm talking about, I'm saying there were extenuating factors.

Hogans politicking at its best was good for business, at its worst, a desperate vindictive selfish man, doing desperate. Vindictive, selfish things that didn't even really benefit himself in the long run.

Same can be said for some others, but his often come across as the most ludicrous when k poking back, no matter what Dave Meltzer says. And I often defend Hogan.

Reply

Ignoring my over exposure and the difference in the characters. Well done.

Reply

lol Well put it all in one post, dipshit...

Was Rock any more overexposed than Austin? Austin was on TV every week, spouting the same catchphrases, talking the same shit. You know what the difference was? He didn't lose and look like a little bitch when it came time to back it up. And *gasp* the crowd didn't fucking turn on him. Do I need to name all the other guys who were a face for more than a year or two while being on TV constantly who DIDN'T start to get booed out of the building?

Not to mention you argued my point of well-booked characters not getting stale within a year or two by bringing up Hulk Hogan getting booed in 1995...

Who's writing their own narrative and ignoring things now?

Reply

I just wanna point out for the "fan's a dick" bunch, that was totally warranted. Lay off, fuckers.

Reply

MONTREAL :
People seem to think that Bret refused to lose because he was in Canada and it was his final night in WWE. Neither are true.

Bret refused to job to Shawn Michaels after Bret,as the champion, said to Shawn : I am willing to put your over clean, Shawn replied : I'm not willing to do the same for you.

Bret told this to Vince and then said I won't lose to the little fucker until he shows me some respect and puts me over first! - it had nothing to do with the home country thing. People are blurring the Hart Foundation storyline into the real reason.

Also, Bret still had about a month more left in his contract before he left. He was not leaving the same night - he was booked on raw and then all the way until 4th December. Montreal happened November 9th I believe.

This wasn't a case of politics (getting an unfair advantage or burying someone).

Reply

In the documentary Bret himself literally says "I'll drop the belt. Just not in Canada."

Reply

I'm kind of in the middle on this argument, but just to add my two cents to both sides, when it comes to the fans turning on Rock, if you can call it that, wouldn't say it's him losing so much as the nature of his character. He was a dick, even as a babyface, he was malicious, vindictive, obnoxious and insulting. Austin took no shit, far less to be rubbed the wrong way by.

With that said, I'm replying mainly because the Hogan thing is a little misleading - he was getting booed on house shows in 91, booed famously during the Rumble 92, and was getting mixed responses throughout 94 and 95 on live shows. Point being, Rock getting booed in particular instances was usually a result of circumstance: against babyface Austin in Texas as the hometown guy goes for gold after his big comeback, against Hogan in Hogan's best market in a special nostalgic moment in time, against Lesnar in New York when he was leaving and everybody knew it.

Now, I agree with your point about it taking longer for Hogan, but the business in general was slower moving back then anyway. There's a lot of changes that account for the reactions to Rock at the times they happened rather than he didn't win all the time.

Of course, the other hand being I do think he lost too much, but considering his success I wouldn't say it made a real difference in the end. He was so charismatic it didn't matter, but I hate when WWE points to Rock as a "see, Rock lost a lot and he was fine", because he's the exception, not the rule. Almost nobody ever in wrestling has been like that.

I'm on Bret's side all the way on Montreal, but it was still political. When your reasoning is the other guy won't do it either, or it's okay because a clause in my contract allows the right (which is the major point I do agree with, Vince gave him the power to veto, so he can't complain about the deal he signed), it's really not a far stretch from that to Hogan saying no to an angle because he doesn't think it's in his own best interest. Because ultimately it is - he didn't want to lose to somebody he thought wasn't worthy, but it's still using the ability to divert the planned course of business for a personal reason. Again, he was legally within his right, which muddies the water, but then again, Hogan has creative control in WCW and had the legal right as well.

Good shout. Shawn and HHH always had it out for Rock pretty early on, probably because he was a handpicked company guy in much the same way they were maybe? But Shawn messed with Rock enough that Rock wanted nothing to with him, but he still worked with him on occasion. Did the superkick angle on that episode of Smackdown, did the Ironman match, etc. Granted, not the same as working a match, but as you say, by the time Shawn was back wrestling, Rock was only really being brought in for specific angles. Shame in some ways, that could have been excellent...

Reply

To hb2k's point, I'm not saying wins and losses don't matter. Someone on the way up, like a Daniel Bryan or a Dean Ambrose needs wins to look legit. And they need to keep winning world titles and being involved in main event feuds and getting the better of heels (after a good build) to look strong.

The Rock on the other hand, was a "made" guy. Wins and losses didn't matter once he was established, the same as it wouldn't for Hogan, his reputation and magnetism were what mattered after the umpteenth title reign.

And hb2k essentially nailed what I was getting at. The business was slower in Hogan's day and he was an ULTIMATE good guy, he was best friends with every babyface, and kissed babies and shook hands. The nature of the attitude era was completely different, plus the Rock was a dick (kayfabe wise) and he was going hollywood (non kayfabe).

Reply

Is Ottawa not in Canada?

Reply

And I find it odd saying how the opinion of Bret being down to drop the belt any time and anywhere but that night is "common IWC logic" is bullshit. I see more often than not people who go for the Vince "Bret screwed Bret" logic.

I personally think Vince is a giant dillhole and a bit of a psychopathic carny. A genius in certain ways all the same.

Reply

Though Bret is also a bit of a fucking nutter. anyone who wrassles the day after their brother died of kidney failure is out of their fucking mind.

Reply

The Bret/Shawn issue has to do with 2 things 1). Trust 2). Respect. It's really that simple when you break it down.

I friggin' hate when a guy like Vince Russo gets on there and says Bret shot down EVERY SINGLE POSSIBILITY because I think that is complete bullshit. Those possibilities were limited to what McMahon wanted to happen plain & simple.

If Bret really wanted to find out if he can trust Shawn in the ring, and Vince wanted Shawn to go over clean for the title, why not do a double pin first!?! Haven't they done shit like that before!?! They could have either restarted the match or concluded it the following night.

As far as Bret losing in Canada, I think the words used to describe that feeling are always misinterpreted. It was Bret's final PPV event, going against a guy that he has a personal issue with, which whom the company wants as the next clean champion. Bret not wanting to lose in Canada I think is a simple redirection of what he really felt which was he did not want to lose to Shawn in his final PPV event as the champion. Hence the reason why he says he'd lose to anybody else or lose to Shawn on Raw. Back then, PPV was a much bigger deal than Raw.

Reply

I still don't understand how people back Bret is that but to each its own.

Reply

Bret Hart is awesome that's why. So yeah.

Reply

I think you're wrong,

Bret was with the company up until In Your House , Springfield on 7th december 1997.

Raw was viewed by a much greater audience worldwide than Survivor Series.

Reply

1:11:52... "I said 'Fine. If you want me to drop the belt, I'll drop the belt. But not in Canada'."

1:12:48... "I told Vince that it would be a blow now to me to beat me in Canada with the momentum that I have as the Canadian hero and it'll be a blow to most of the people across the country which ultimately will effect my going into WCW now."

He may have changed his story up later... but those words came straight from him at the time.

Reply

Cena is pretty close to Rock. The one thing about Cena though, is he rarely is asked to put someone over multiple times in a program. Usually plan seems to be give the new guy a win, then have John come back and ultimately win the series.

However, I will say he should never be criticized just for how he put over Brock at Summerslam the one year. That shows to me he is extremely confident in his own ability to outperform the rest of the roster and stay on top

Reply

I love it when Montreal gets brought up.

Reply

I hear you, and I hear your opinion, I just come at it a little differently.

My thing is you cant go back and re-write history. You dont know who was right when they were playing politics. I am 100% against Bret Hart in the whole Montreal scenario, but at the end of the day, Bret's refusal to do business and Vince's decision to counter that sort of made Vince the star that catapulted an era in wrestling. So at the end of the day, I guess Bret did the right thing. My thing is nobody knows who was right, who played politics the right way. People bring up Brutus all the time, but few people bring up that Owen was going nowhere before Bret got on top, Bulldog was stuck in the mid card, and the Anvil probably shouldnt have had a job in the mid 90s. Its not a coincidence that much of Bret's runs on top revolved around those guys. But few people put Bret in the same category as Hogan when it comes to playing politics. In my opinion, he's just as big of a politician. And I think Austin trumped both of them the more I hear stories about Austin.

Reply

Bret admitted to politicking to get anvil work. However it was conducive to good business. When Hogans politics were the very same, I'm right behind him.

Reply

The stories of austin are jarrett and lesnar right? Are there others? Are there 2 pages worth like with hogan?

Reply