The 4/12 issue of the National Enquirer will have a 2/3 page article on Steve Austin. The article will appear on page four and reports from those who have seen it say it will paint Austin in a very negative light.
-from wrestlingobserver.com
Booker T has been telling friends that while he's happy to be finally receiving a main event push, he's still going to retire sooner than later. Under normal circumstances, wrestlers believe the push would be enough to keep Booker around for another year or two. However, his back is still giving him a lot of problems and wrestlers believe the next big flare up could cause Booker to call it quits.
-from pwtorch.com
By the way, Storm's gimmick includes 1.) telling the audience to shut up, and 2.) occasionally making everyone stand for the Canadian national anthem. You know they don't know what to do with a wrestler when he's making fans stand for a national anthem. It's like waving a white flag and saying, "This guy has no personality -- we give up."
Originally posted by DirtyMikeSeaverTwo interesting tidbits:
The 4/12 issue of the National Enquirer will have a 2/3 page article on Steve Austin. The article will appear on page four and reports from those who have seen it say it will paint Austin in a very negative light.
First of when does the Enquirer ever put something in "positive" light? Might pick it up just to see how much "dirt" they do have on him.
Originally posted by DirtyMikeSeaverfrom wrestlingobserver.com
Booker T has been telling friends that while he's happy to be finally receiving a main event push, he's still going to retire sooner than later. Under normal circumstances, wrestlers believe the push would be enough to keep Booker around for another year or two. However, his back is still giving him a lot of problems and wrestlers believe the next big flare up could cause Booker to call it quits.
-from pwtorch.com
That would be sad. I have watched Booker since he was back with WCW and had that genric gimmick name. I'd really hope he can stick around before having leave because he's never really gotten his due in the WWE.
What does everyone think about why exactly Booker was never given the title at XIX? When it happened, I was fine with it because I figured they still had a bit of mileage to go with Booker's title hunt and there were more prolific events that evening to overshadow it anyway. But after March of last year, Booker was in that tag team main event at Backlash and then..nothing. Not a single title shot or main event after that.
I ask this because if in Vince's head he was split 50/50 as to whether to give Booker an eventual reign, could he have been swayed the other way with all of Booker's talk about retirement? And it's not like Booker T winning the title is/wasn't essential for business, unlike say, Foley, who had talked about retirement but was too over not to be given the ball during his last two years. I'm sure Booker's longevity was in question, but could that have played THE deciding role?
In my opinion, Booker T should have gotten at least one run with the belt last spring-summer. He's not the type of guy I would put the belt on as the year closes in on Wrestlemania, but for dead time when nothing's going on (April-October), he would have made a great champ.
I'm not naive enough to consider the possibility that it ever crossed Vinnie Mac's mind to give Booker T a title victory over Triple H. Triple H just made Booker his bitch, like he made Kane and Rob Van Dam his bitches.
“Chris Benoit, finally, is the Heavyweight Champion of this world!” --Jim Ross, WrestleMania XX
Wiener of the Day Title History:
Won the title on 5/27/02 from Lunacy in a hardcore match; lost the belt the following day to wheresitat42 via offbeat shenanigans
Regained the title on 7/3/02 by pinning SKLOKAZOID in a triple-threat match; lost the belt the next day to NickBockwinkelFan via heel chicanery
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
I really think they were planning on putting the strap on Booker, right up until they signed Goldberg. As soon as they signed him, I knew they were going to make him the man to beat HHH. As for his current situation, well, I wouldn't mind seeing him around for a few more years, but if his back hurts, I say get out. He may have never gotten the world title in the WWE, but he's one of the most decorated wrestlers I've ever heard of. Ten time WCW tag champ, seven time t.v. champ, two time U.S. champ, four time WCW World Heavyweight champ (not counting winning the WCW title in the WWF). Two (three?) time WWE tag champ, two time Intercontinental champ. That's a hell of a lot of championships, and I think anyone could be proud of that legacy.
Originally posted by asteroidboyWas Booker interviewed on the Monday Night Wars DVD at all? I don't think he was, and that seems like a HUGE oversight. Ditto for Austin.
Nope, neither of them. Neither was Rock but I guess that's understandable.
Booker was supposed to go over at Wrestlemania. Then HHH changed his mind, deciding that they shouldn't switch the title in between then and his big match with Goldberg at Badd Blood. Then he decided to extend his program with Nash through June, so dropping the belt to Goldberg was pushed back to SummerSlam. Then he got hurt so it was moved back to Unforgiven. At least it worked out better for ... nobody.
In reference to Austin, today on WWE.com's By the Number's sidebar, it states Austin as the only WWE superstar in history to capture the WWE Title in three WrestleMania appearances, 14,15,17.
I guess the WWE forgot Hogan winning it 5,7, and 9.
Gotta love those history re-writes, unless they are counting Hogan's WM9 win not as an appearance.
Originally posted by ParagonOfVirtueWhat does everyone think about why exactly Booker was never given the title at XIX? When it happened, I was fine with it because I figured they still had a bit of mileage to go with Booker's title hunt and there were more prolific events that evening to overshadow it anyway. But after March of last year, Booker was in that tag team main event at Backlash and then..nothing. Not a single title shot or main event after that.
I ask this because if in Vince's head he was split 50/50 as to whether to give Booker an eventual reign, could he have been swayed the other way with all of Booker's talk about retirement? And it's not like Booker T winning the title is/wasn't essential for business, unlike say, Foley, who had talked about retirement but was too over not to be given the ball during his last two years. I'm sure Booker's longevity was in question, but could that have played THE deciding role?
In my opinion, Booker T should have gotten at least one run with the belt last spring-summer. He's not the type of guy I would put the belt on as the year closes in on Wrestlemania, but for dead time when nothing's going on (April-October), he would have made a great champ.
The reason I feel that Booker T wasn't given the belt was because he simply wouldn't draw. Not really his fault, because who would he face? Triple H was the biggest heel in the company, and he had just lost, so Booker T wouldn't really have to face him again. Also, the way they set up that match, you had to feel that Trips was going to keep the title.
Historically, WWE always did its best business when a heel champion was being chased by a face. Now, of course, that good business didn't last too long, because WWE is a babyface company, and they win the belts. The only exception was during Hogan's title runs. He sold out whether he was the champ or not. Also, his programs were set in a way where you wanted to see Hogan keep his title. That's why he would face guys like Bundy, Slaughter, One Man Gang. Tough, big guys, but who would want to see them with the belt?
That's why I think when Savage dropped the belt, he was put in that retarded feud w/Dusty. If he faced Hogan again, people might actually want to see Savage win, because he wasn't a traditional heel. He didn't cheat, lie, or steal. He was just a jealous, paranoid man. Anywho, WWE needed guys who would elevate Hogan as 100 % hero.
The reason I feel that Booker T wasn't given the belt was because he simply wouldn't draw. Not really his fault, because who would he face?
They could have had him defend against Jericho, then against a heel-turned Kane. Maybe throw in Steiner in a short program to bridge between Jericho & Kane.
Of course, that would depend on: 1) Jericho going over HBK at WMIX (which should have happened anyway) 2) HHH yielding the spotlight (Ha!)
Booker T was going to win the title at WrestleMania from Triple H then drop it back to him at Backlash. Then WWE signed Goldberg and Booker got the shaft because Triple H thought it was better to keep the title strong for when he would drop it to Goldberg at Bad Blood (They even announced the match in the magazine and sent out T-shirts and PR posters). As we all know, Goldberg was deemed "not ready" and didn't get the belt until September anyways.
It's not like they planned on giving it to Booker for any length of time. He was just gonna hold it for HHH and drop it back.
It was posted in the editorial section. I think they wanted to make people THINK perhaps that's what Hunter was eluding to, so as to get people more on Booker's side, without actually DOING a racist angle.
#
#
