The W
Views: 95756345
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.4.07 0831
The 7 - Pro Wrestling - What happened to Stone Cold?
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(9392 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (55 total)
Travis
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 297/385
EXP: 502778
For next: 18588

Since: 7.3.02
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 4355 days
Last activity: 4291 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#21 Posted on 17.4.02 1218.11
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1229.01
You don't seem to get it- the H is porking (get it?) the "top brass". And judging by the Triple H Appreciation segment on Raw, that doesn't look like it's gonna change anytime soon. You're absolutely right- business sense it would be wise to continue to rely on Rocky and Austin to put asses in seats ( Tony Schiavone) but realistically we'll simply have more of the H trouncing all comers. Unless Hogan can use the godlike magic he has to convince VinMan to give him the strap- in which time he'll feud with heel Triple H until the H either annihilates him like he did Foley or Hogan retires before having to do the job.
The moral of the story- it may be shameful to bone a fat chick, but it can also be rewarding.
Excalibur05
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 467/2916
EXP: 10535490
For next: 182222

Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#22 Posted on 17.4.02 1252.14
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1253.45

    Originally posted by DMC
    for Rock or Austin to continue their legacies.


They don't have much of one left.

Austin is what, 36, 37? Ok, maybe he's got another 3-4 years left, but not at a top level, especially with the number of injuries he's had over the last few years.

Rock is off to Hollywood. No matter if Scorpion King bombs or not (which early indication is that it won't). He doesn't want to wrestle, he wants to make movies. He might come back a couple times a year, but I honestly think that Rock's days as "the guy" in the WWF are drawing to a close.

HHH, whether he's with Stephanie or not had a very successful first run with the title, and there's NO reason why he shouldn't have a second. None.

As for Austin, I think that the wear and tear of the business is getting to him. He's hurt, he's tired, but most of all he isn't on top anymore, which is hard for him to accept. He's had all these problems before, but the only time he decides that he's pissed off at McMahon enough to go home is when he doesn't get to main event WrestleMania. The first one he didn't main event for a few years (save for 2000 when he was hurt). Austin's lost his smile, and I think it'll take a while for him to get it back, but until then he figures that he might as well just run with the "What" thing, because it's all he's got going for him right now.
Travis
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 298/385
EXP: 502778
For next: 18588

Since: 7.3.02
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 4355 days
Last activity: 4291 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#23 Posted on 17.4.02 1354.40
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1355.15

    Originally posted by Excalibur05
    HHH, whether he's with Stephanie or not had a very successful first run with the title, and there's NO reason why he shouldn't have a second. None.


Fully Loaded 1999
WWF World Champ Steve Austin Beats the Undertaker
Buyrate: .94 (previous year: .9)

SummerSlam 1999
Mankind beat Steve Austin and HHH to win the WWF World Title
Buyrate: 1.61 (previous year: 1.63)

(the next night on Raw, HHH wins the World title from Mankind)

(before the next PPV, Vince McMahon wins the World Title, then vacates it)

Unforgiven 1999
HHH beats the British Bulldog, the Rock, Big Show, Mankind and Kane to become WWF World Champ.
Buyrate: .85 (previous year's Sept. PPV: .86)

No Mercy 1999
World Champ HHH beats Steve Austin
Buyrate: .84 (previous year's Oct. PPV: .89)

Survivor Series 1999
Big Show beats the Rock and World Champ HHH to win the World title
Buyrate: 1.14 (previous year: 1.3)

Armageddon 1999
WWF World Champ Big Show pins Big Bossman in the Semi-main to retain. In the main event HHH pins Vince McMahon.
Buyrate: .94 (previous year's December PPV: .44)

(Triple H defeats the Big Show on 1/3/00 to regain the world title)

Royal Rumble 2000
World Champ HHH beats Mick Foley
Buyrate: 1.58 (previous year: 1.88)

No Way Out 2000
World Champ HHH beats Mick Foley
Buyrate: 1.2 (previous year's February PPV: 1.21)

Wrestlemania 2000
HHH beat the Rock, Mick Foley and the Big Show to retain the World Title
Buyrate: 2.08 (previous year: 2.32)

Backlash 2000
The Rock beat HHH to become World Champ
Buyrate: 1.62 (previous year: 1.06)

Judgment Day 2000
HHH beats the Rock to become World Champ
Buyrate: 1.05 (previous year's May PPV: 1.1)

King of the Ring 2000
the Rock pins Vince McMahon in a six-man gimmick match to become World Champ (Rock, Kane & Undertaker vs. HHH, Vince and Shane McMahon)
Buyrate: 1.19 (previous year: 1.14)

Fully Loaded 2000
the Rock beats Chris Benoit to retain the world title
Buyrate: 1.04 (previous year .94)


so we have Triple H outselling Ken Shamrock vs. Shawn Michaels (the H was NOT champ at that time), and otherwise almost consistently dragging down the buyrates during his main event run

money in the bank baby





TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 108

Posts: 650/3386
EXP: 13208276
For next: 312267

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 14 days
#24 Posted on 17.4.02 1529.05
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1529.51
First off, Shamrock/Michaels headlined the 1997 Dec PPV, not 1998, which was Mankind/Rock and Taker/Austin.

Second, how well the PPV did money-wise the year before is irrelevant to how well a certain wrestlers does the following year at the same PPV.
Travis
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 300/385
EXP: 502778
For next: 18588

Since: 7.3.02
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 4355 days
Last activity: 4291 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#25 Posted on 17.4.02 1538.36
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1544.20
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    First off, Shamrock/Michaels headlined the 1997 Dec PPV, not 1998, which was Mankind/Rock and Taker/Austin.

    Second, how well the PPV did money-wise the year before is irrelevant to how well a certain wrestlers does the following year at the same PPV.



OK, my mistake, I had a piece of bad data. What was the buy rate for the actual previous PPV (and what was it called? I can never keep all the changes straight)?
and if you're telling me that the H's consistently lower buyrates aren't a sign that he's a poor draw, you're insane

what more do you need? signed affidavids from the thousands of people who ordered the 1999 Wrestlemania (a truly hideous card featuring only one good match- Michaels/Austin)who chose not to order the 2000 Wrestlemania (by all accounts a stronger undercard)?
and the point I was disproving was actually the matter of Triple H as a "success". I'd hardly refer to lower buyrates as "successful"
but I guess I'm wacky.

/edit grammar 3:16
-T

(edited by Travis on 17.4.02 1639)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 108

Posts: 651/3386
EXP: 13208276
For next: 312267

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 14 days
#26 Posted on 17.4.02 1546.45
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1548.19
I see it as a sign that the WWF as a whole (not just Tripel H) was telling better stories for Wrestlemania in 1999 (which was Austin/Rock, with Austin/Michaels being WM in 1998) than they were for Wrestlemania in 2000. The four way killed WM 2000, IMO. Just look how well they did the following PPV when they went just one-on-one, with Triple H vs The Rock.
sergeial
Boerewors
Level: 40

Posts: 8/343
EXP: 423170
For next: 18143

Since: 27.2.02
From: Minneapolis

Since last post: 2854 days
Last activity: 2770 days
#27 Posted on 17.4.02 1603.12
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1608.50

    Originally posted by Travis
    The moral of the story- it may be shameful to bone a fat chick, but it can also be rewarding.


Man, that has to be the most asinine statement I've read or heard all week. I hope you realize that you are implying that every woman on this forum who is bigger than Steph (and most women in America are) is too fat to f**k, and that every man on this forum whose wife or girlfriend is larger than Steph, should be **ashamed**!

This is only the worst example--every post I've ever read from you has been filled with smug sarcasm masquerading as wit, and a deeply unwarranted air of superiority.

To heck with you. I don't need to stop reading this forum to avoid your posts; you have a distinctive sig, I can skip all of your posts from now on--just like fast-forwarding through a least favorite wrestler's match in order to better enjoy an otherwise entertaining show.

I apologize to the rest of the forum for the flame-like qualities of this post, but, honestly... "it may be shameful to bone a fat chick"? That's just asinine.

sergei
Papercuts!
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 320/684
EXP: 1199079
For next: 34798

Since: 3.1.02
From: Springfield, Mo.

Since last post: 4282 days
Last activity: 4192 days
#28 Posted on 17.4.02 1624.41
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1629.01

    Originally posted by Travis
    what more do you need? signed affidavids from the thousands of people who ordered the 1999 Wrestlemania (a truly hideous card featuring only one good match- Michaels/Austin)who chose not to order the 2000 Wrestlemania (by all accounts a stronger undercard)?
More bad data in favor of shoving your opinion down everyone's throats. Wrestlemania 1998 was Austin/Michaels, 1999 was Austin/Rock. 1999 was a LACKLUSTER ppv show (just like, in your opinion, WM 98) featuring Bossman vs. UT in Hell in a Cell, saved by the main event.

If anything, this would indicate that customers felt burned by the prior two Wrestlemania PPVs and opted not to order WM2000.
Excalibur05
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 470/2916
EXP: 10535490
For next: 182222

Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#29 Posted on 17.4.02 1735.34
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1738.41
And of course, those 1998-1999 numbers were terrible comparisons.

Why? Because (getting back to the original topic!) that was the top of the arc of the Austin v. McMahon storyline when the WWF was at it's highest point in popularity.

Of course, you'll just blame it on HHH for not being a draw enough to hold up to Austin's numbers, but it'd be hard for anyone to draw like that angle. The undercards were typically horrible on all of those shows, but everybody who bought the PPV bought it for the main event anyway. Which was usually Austin v. McMahon in some way shape or form.

The fact of the matter is that HHH was able to draw good television ratings and strong buyrates even over a down turn in the wrestling business (especially with the implosion of WCW and ECW over 1999-2001). The fact that he had solid matches with excellent crowd involvement with TAKA(!), The Brooklyn Brawler(!!), and Rikishi over that period of time furthers my point.

I think the problem with HHH is that as a face, he's not much of a face. His interviews aren't full of that genuine rage that he used to elicit as a heel, and he's not trying to be a wiseass like he was in DX. So he's just another generic 'Bad Ass' face, which have been all the rage over the past few years. However, I still think that he can draw as champ as is, I just think that his character benefits more from being a heel.
Sean
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 25/88
EXP: 54824
For next: 3527

Since: 26.3.02
From: Mastic, NY

Since last post: 4302 days
Last activity: 3391 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#30 Posted on 17.4.02 1823.20
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1824.15

    Originally posted by Excalibur05
    And of course, those 1998-1999 numbers were terrible comparisons.

    Why? Because (getting back to the original topic!) that was the top of the arc of the Austin v. McMahon storyline when the WWF was at it's highest point in popularity.

    Of course, you'll just blame it on HHH for not being a draw enough to hold up to Austin's numbers, but it'd be hard for anyone to draw like that angle. The undercards were typically horrible on all of those shows, but everybody who bought the PPV bought it for the main event anyway. Which was usually Austin v. McMahon in some way shape or form.

    The fact of the matter is that HHH was able to draw good television ratings and strong buyrates even over a down turn in the wrestling business (especially with the implosion of WCW and ECW over 1999-2001). The fact that he had solid matches with excellent crowd involvement with TAKA(!), The Brooklyn Brawler(!!), and Rikishi over that period of time furthers my point.

    I think the problem with HHH is that as a face, he's not much of a face. His interviews aren't full of that genuine rage that he used to elicit as a heel, and he's not trying to be a wiseass like he was in DX. So he's just another generic 'Bad Ass' face, which have been all the rage over the past few years. However, I still think that he can draw as champ as is, I just think that his character benefits more from being a heel.



Your logic here is irreparably poor, since you operate under the assumption that HHH _had_ to be pushed at the top of the cards.

See, one of the main points of your argument is that a downturn in wrestling is inevitable, as if there is some higher power watching over the wrestling industry that periodically decides to destroy business.

The fact of the matter is, it is perfectly legitimate to compare the previous year's business with current business - every single industry on this planet does the same thing to determine their growth or decline from year to year. The WWF does not operate on some mystical plane on which this basic economic principle does not exist.

You argue that it would be "hard for anyone" to draw numbers similar to Austin's, but nobody else was given the chance! There was one giant HHH push throughout this entire period, and business has fallen to the point where it is today, at low ratings and house show numbers and a bloated payroll.
The Vile One
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 124/262
EXP: 284269
For next: 23844

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 4262 days
Last activity: 4139 days
#31 Posted on 17.4.02 1850.00
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1850.16
Keep in mind that Wrestlemania 17 had a huge main event of Rock vs. Austin. And you know what? The buyrate was lower than Wrestlemania 14, 15, and 16.
Excalibur05
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 471/2916
EXP: 10535490
For next: 182222

Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#32 Posted on 17.4.02 1906.40
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1912.05
Except that it wasn't just one big HHH push through this period. (and boy how we ever complain about how mid-carders are NEVER pushed now, and at that time we were SO EXCITED to see HHH being pushed).

Foley, Big Show, Rock, and later Kurt Angle were all heavily pushed during HHH's run toward the top. Of course this was the beginning of the "Big Five" run at the top with Austin/Rock/HHH/Undertaker/Foley main eventing every card.

The fact of the matter is, it is perfectly legitimate to compare the previous year's business with current business - every single industry on this planet does the same thing to determine their growth or decline from year to year. The WWF does not operate on some mystical plane on which this basic economic principle does not exist.

Of course I could say that your logic here is "irreparably poor". Why? Because the wrestling industry has proven over the last several decades to be as cyclical business. Up at times, down at others. No, it doesn't have to be a "mystical force", it's fans getting really interested in a product for a short period of time (usually do to some tremendously popular wrestler or angle like Hulkamania in the '80s, the nWo in '97, or Austin/McMahon circa '98-'99), and that popularity falling off when the newness of the angle wears off. There's nothing mystical about that.

So when the WWF rides an unpressidented wave of popularity when Steve Austin starts sticking up his middle finger and beating the living hell out of his boss, yes, the WWF will have higher than usual buyrates and TV ratings. But, a year or two later when the newness of the angle has fallen off, the fans who tuned in JUST for that angle gradually tune out until a new hook comes along. Foley worked in the short term, but his retirement run was short lived.

The fact that HHH's run kept a great majority of fans that tuned in for the Austin Boom, even after the reason alot of them tuned in, Austin, went down with his injury, is impressive. I don't think that's poor logic at all. That's just the way it works.
Saruman
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 109/215
EXP: 210782
For next: 18400

Since: 25.1.02
From: Kirksville, MO

Since last post: 4272 days
Last activity: 4242 days
AIM:  
#33 Posted on 17.4.02 1916.16
Reposted on: 17.4.09 1926.01
WMXIV was pretty good, imo. I don't know wazz you be talking about...
Anyway, If Austin doesn't want to put over new potential star guys (*ahem Lesnar and RVD ahem*), then he'll be canned, regardless of how popular he is. I know it's not quite the same situation as Brett, but it's similar to where Shawn Michaels was in 98. Granted, Shawn hurt himself, but he likely would have been put on the backburner after the Austin win anyway. Now, Vince probably doesn't care just yet, since it's only oldies like Hall and Hogan (ie, short life span and not future investments) that he's not putting over, but if Vince comes to Austin and says "Hey, we've built up Brock, we're gonna get the title on you then job you out to him," and SCSA refuses, Stone Cold is gone.
All SCSA is to Vince now is maybe one more title run and "talent enhancement," since he's gotten too old. Just like Vince is trying to get one last run out of Hogan/NwOld.
And I'm all but guaranteeing the Lesnar really is the next big thing.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 153/763
EXP: 1411783
For next: 74154

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 398 days
Last activity: 13 days
AIM:  
#34 Posted on 17.4.02 2005.17
Reposted on: 17.4.09 2010.11

    Originally posted by Excalibur05
    The fact that HHH's run kept a great majority of fans that tuned in for the Austin Boom, even after the reason alot of them tuned in, Austin, went down with his injury, is impressive. I don't think that's poor logic at all. That's just the way it works.


I dont agree with ya here. People tuned in in 2000 because of the Rock. The Rock as unquestioned #1 Face was the reason that WWF stayed riding high when Austin went down.

And I dont think theres anyway Vince fires Austin. The fact is that Austin has a spot in the WWF as long as he wants it. Vince isnt stupid yall, stupid people dont become billionaires, and Vince will show loyalty to all who show loyalty to him. Hell never forget that Stone Cold is the reason that the WWF is where it is. Also Brock Lesnar is years away from being able to carry the torch in WWF. I mean the guy has yet to wrestle one match yet. And already were saying Austin wont job to him. It takes years to be the top guy, Look at Angle, as good as he is hes STILL not ready to be the #1 guy.
Excalibur05
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 473/2916
EXP: 10535490
For next: 182222

Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#35 Posted on 17.4.02 2013.11
Reposted on: 17.4.09 2026.55
Eh, you're mostly right about Rock, but HHH was the champion at that time, and was thus responsible for carrying alot of the shows. But Rock was (and in many ways still is) the face du jour.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 108

Posts: 655/3386
EXP: 13208276
For next: 312267

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 14 days
#36 Posted on 17.4.02 2014.01
Reposted on: 17.4.09 2027.12

    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    And I dont think theres anyway Vince fires Austin. The fact is that Austin has a spot in the WWF as long as he wants it.


You mean like Bret Hart?
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple
Level: 114

Posts: 69/3844
EXP: 15831333
For next: 478284

Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 268 days
Last activity: 229 days
#37 Posted on 17.4.02 2021.04
Reposted on: 17.4.09 2029.02

    Originally posted by Travis
    so we have Triple H outselling Ken Shamrock vs. Shawn Michaels (the H was NOT champ at that time), and otherwise almost consistently dragging down the buyrates during his main event run

    money in the bank baby







And of course *everyone* buys the PPV solely for the main event. Yep, I bought X-8 to see Jericho vs. Triple H. To heck with Hogan/Rock, Nash/Austin, and all the other matches. I paid $40 freaking dollars for ONE MATCH! No, I don't think so.
Kawshen
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 210/1201
EXP: 2790097
For next: 79661

Since: 2.1.02
From: Bronx, NY

Since last post: 1775 days
Last activity: 35 days
AIM:  
#38 Posted on 17.4.02 2025.35
Reposted on: 17.4.09 2029.07
Four simple words:

I miss Heel Austin.
Excalibur05
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 474/2916
EXP: 10535490
For next: 182222

Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#39 Posted on 17.4.02 2320.38
Reposted on: 17.4.09 2325.51

    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo

    And of course *everyone* buys the PPV solely for the main event. Yep, I bought X-8 to see Jericho vs. Triple H. To heck with Hogan/Rock, Nash/Austin, and all the other matches. I paid $40 freaking dollars for ONE MATCH! No, I don't think so.



Personally I don't think anybody paid $40 to see Nash/Austin either, but then again I'm just being snarky .
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 154/763
EXP: 1411783
For next: 74154

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 398 days
Last activity: 13 days
AIM:  
#40 Posted on 18.4.02 0000.36
Reposted on: 18.4.09 0000.59

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

      Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
      And I dont think theres anyway Vince fires Austin. The fact is that Austin has a spot in the WWF as long as he wants it.


    You mean like Bret Hart?



Bret Hart didnt make Vince Mcmahon a billionaire. Stone Cold did. Was Bret really "fired" ? I dont think so, but thats another thread.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: If you stole Shawn Stasiak's bag this week, please return it!
Next thread: Triple H property of Smackdown?
Previous thread: WWF: Bad to the bone (boooring)
(9392 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Pro Wrestling - What happened to Stone Cold?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.447 seconds.