|
|
Post by Cap on Mar 27, 2021 10:15:02 GMT -5
I watched that fall brawl match not terribly long ago and thought it over-delivered in a lot of ways. I'd still say this one is my #1 becuase of how masterfully they were playing the crowd by the end with that cutter. Obviously the Brock/Goldberg bombfest is in the running too, but I do not have the same love for that angle that some folks do.
I think NL raises a good point about the end of WCW. I don't really blame Nash for that in the end (though his hands aren't clean). The demise of WCW was over-determined, having probably more causes than needed for the effect.
I don't think Nash ending the streak was a great idea, but they could have absolutely done worse. The short term pop was there, but did it give them anything long term to build off of or work with? It speaks to my larger point, which is that Goldberg was great at first, but they didn't have a plan for him and in turn they didn't get much long term return on investment. Even if DDP wasn't going to be the guy to end it, they could of and should of done more with what they had in Goldberg because... to say this kindly... Goldberg is one dimensional. They had lightening in a bottle and they tried to keep it.
|
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Mar 27, 2021 10:20:27 GMT -5
A few things: The better metaphor is beating Goldberg in Fall/Winter 1998 is like making Stone Cold the corporate champ at Survivor Series 1998 and joining Vince. Its doing the exact specific thing you would have to do if you wanted to kill your hottest gimmick. Worse even because WCW didn't have a rising star like WWF did in the Rock to a least mitigate some of the nuclear bomb level damage you've done.  I understand you think unbeatable champ is a one dimensional gimmick and you'd have to add layers to the character to keep him fresh. And you're right. We just hadn't reached that point yet. Fans were still eating up the Who's Next shit. Hogan & Nash were conspiring to beat him because they were threatened that he was the most over guy in the company with minimal effort. In a real company, this is when you'd start developing his character more. Let him talk and discuss his motivations, goals, and obstacles hes overcome on the way to making himself the unbeatable champ. You can humanize him without beating him. Start putting him in more competitive matches too. WCW stars have had to adapt to Goldberg and guys are training more and honing their craft to take him down. There's a host of hot PPV matches you can still run. DDP can get a rematch based on having pushed Goldberg further than anyone else to this point. You run the Nash match but have Goldberg beat him obviously without all the nonsense. You have the big PPV rematch with Hogan. You have Goldberg win to show everyone once and for all that it was a new era. Have him beat the entire previous generation of headliners. Have him run through Savage, Luger, Piper, Giant before he leaves, Sid when he comes back, Hall if he can make it to the ring. Flair vs Goldberg couldve been a big PPV. Bret Hart. Maybe Bret Hart beats Goldberg by DQ. That way you can run a rematch without GOldberg actually having to lose. You run a no-dq match and Goldberg can win that one. You can run a Triple Threat match. GOldberg might lose the title without actually losing!! OMG ORDER THE PPV! Theres the inevitable Goldberg vs Sting face vs face super match. Maybe you run a tournament for a #1 contender and someone like Booker T wins and when he gets his match against Golberg he pushes him further than anyone expected. Thus getting himself more over without having Goldberg lose. You don't just beat him because he might run out of steam one day in the future so we may as well beat him for the surprise factor. Thats horrendous put your company out of business booking....oh wait...what happened to WCW? Theres plenty of things you could have done to keep him interesting without literally killing the gimmick. And I know you said fans wouldn't turn on him "if they told the right story after." But you've also said you didn't trust WCW booking at the time so you can't have it both ways Lastly. I promise. Is having 42 year old DDP beat the streak smart? 39 year old failure as a world champ Kevin Nash? 45 year old stale as fuck 2 years after the heel turn Hulk Hogan? If those are the options, shouldn't you just keep running with the brand new fresh 32 year old mega star who the fans loved? Hindsight is one thing, but you have to remember Hogan, Nash, DDP these guys had been around forever by this point. You might have been tired of it, but Goldberg was still fresh as a wrestling star and was getting real mainstream publicity. Goldberg was actually the perfect opportunity for WCW to switch gears and go in a more serious direction and get away from people like Hogan and Nash. But of course. WCW wasn't a real company. |
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Mar 27, 2021 10:21:52 GMT -5
I watched that fall brawl match not terribly long ago and thought it over-delivered in a lot of ways. I'd still say this one is my #1 becuase of how masterfully they were playing the crowd by the end with that cutter. Obviously the Brock/Goldberg bombfest is in the running too, but I do not have the same love for that angle that some folks do. I think NL raises a good point about the end of WCW. I don't really blame Nash for that in the end (though his hands aren't clean). The demise of WCW was over-determined, having probably more causes than needed for the effect. I don't think Nash ending the streak was a great idea, but they could have absolutely done worse. The short term pop was there, but did it give them anything long term to build off of or work with? It speaks to my larger point, which is that Goldberg was great at first, but they didn't have a plan for him and in turn they didn't get much long term return on investment. Even if DDP wasn't going to be the guy to end it, they could of and should of done more with what they had in Goldberg because... to say this kindly... Goldberg is one dimensional. They had lightening in a bottle and they tried to keep it. They literally opened the bottle and shook the lightning out. |
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Mar 27, 2021 10:32:45 GMT -5
There was a vocal anti-Goldberg contingent at Starrcade, although it was clearly a minority. I'm not going to defend Nash ending the streak or the Fingerpoke of Doom as good booking decisions, but their role in WCW's demise is overstated. In fact, the aftermath of the latter led to Superbrawl doing either the third or fourth-highest buyrate in the history of the company. The wheels didn't really start to come off until the Hogan/Flair double turn at Uncensored. It's been a good bit since I've seen this match, but I'll try to check it out this weekend. I will say that I've always been partial to the Steiner match at Fall Brawl as Goldberg's best. Re: vocal anti-Goldberg fans. Eh. That doesn't really mean much. We can point to a host of examples of top babyfaces being booed by fans and still being huge draws. re: Beating the streak & Fingerpoke being overstated in the demise. Agreed. I think you can point to those things as the beginning of a steady decline with a few upticks, but certainly more damaging stuff came later. Things were still salvageable until Russo. |
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Mar 27, 2021 10:36:02 GMT -5
Oh! Shit! I forgot! WHen fans started to turn on him...TURN HIM HEEL!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Mar 27, 2021 14:29:21 GMT -5
Oh! Shit! I forgot! WHen fans started to turn on him...TURN HIM HEEL! no one said that, ya dork. Does this look like twitter? |
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Mar 27, 2021 14:46:34 GMT -5
Also.... I agree with your substantive post:
1) I don't trust the booking of him and that is primary, but if we are In hindsight then we blow up the logic. Me saying, "if they did this thing" is already booking a fantasy so it already assume they make better decisions (to me and for my taste) in hindsight (and also decisions devoid of all kinds of money/legal decisions). So come on... not a great shout for contradiction. its all made up dork horseshit anyway.
2) I don't think Goldberg is capable of sustaining the kind of character building you described... so, no... let alone in the late 90s.... which is why I think doing something radical at this point was needed
3) I just don't see there being a an alternative. There aren't a lot of Rocks just floating around. I'm not saying DDP was the Rock by any means, but - again, of what we know (with lots unknown) - he seems like a perfectly reasonable choice in terms of using this amazing resource to build more resource. His age is unimportant and is in fact, if it does matter, is part of why folks loved him.
|
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Mar 27, 2021 14:57:09 GMT -5
WCW had a young megastar on the rise. His name was Goldberg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Mar 27, 2021 15:04:39 GMT -5
And he wasn't Austin... or The Rock.... or, well, I'll leave that be
|
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Mar 27, 2021 15:07:45 GMT -5
RIght...because WCW wasn't a real company and booked to kill their golden goose because Hogan and Nash were jealous of his stardom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Mar 27, 2021 15:24:15 GMT -5
This is maybe more to the point. He just wasn't as good. He wasn't as good as lots of people who have a lesser profile than him. He is a big time name and presence... but a small time wrestler.
If, in the late 90s, you can't "lose" and still be a star... fuck off
|
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Mar 27, 2021 15:33:49 GMT -5
Got it. You don't like him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kadaveri on Mar 27, 2021 15:41:03 GMT -5
I don't remember Steve Austin losing much from late 1997-2001 either. There's Summerslam 1999 where he gets pinned in a three way after taking two guy's finishers and that's basically it without outrageous shenanigans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Mar 27, 2021 15:47:13 GMT -5
Austin was a character. He had goals. He had a personality. He COULD have lost and moved on from there.
Austin had also lost tons before that. The two aren't really all that comparable to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Mar 27, 2021 15:48:39 GMT -5
Got it. You don't like him.  |
|
