examples of masterful politicking ?

[#1-norm-fan]

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?

[hb2k]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan 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?

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.

Originally Posted by The MAC 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).

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.

Originally Posted by Smelly Meatball 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.

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...