Wrestling Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,148 Posts
Because they had the tournament planned for WM4 to get the belt on Savage while protecting the Hogan character for his eventual return as the champion. Also in those days big time matches were frequently on TV. Not everything had to be PPV only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,665 Posts
At that time the WWF only had 2 PPV's (Wrestlemania and Survivor Series.) Survivor Series was a show where all the matches were tag-team elimination, so that rules out a singles match. Then at Wrestlemania is where they planned to have the WWF title tournament so they had to drop it somewhere in the meantime. The pro wrestling business was a totally different animal at the time with the TV shows at the time being all about squash matches rather than the competitive match system that we see today. So what they did was put on a television special and have the title change on there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,346 Posts
It seemed like a non event and not on PPV either. I haven't seen it but the finish with Andre sounds confusing.Why didn'the drop the belt at WM instead?
It was all about the tournament for the title and them getting the title to Randy Savage without him facing Hulk Hogan. They built that storyline brilliantly - it's my favourite of all time. They spent over a year building up the inevitable Hulk Hogan/Randy Savage match and it was brilliant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
It's impressive none the less since the ratings system is based on percentage of viewers and not so much the actual number (which increases as the years go by, population increases).

Still, i wouldn't be surprise if even during the heights of the Monday Night Wars Raw didn't get as many viewers as they got there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,999 Posts
About the rating the Andre/Hogan match drew: wrestling was a different thing in the 80s and so was the technology and mind set. Vince put a WM main event (that drew huge) on free TV and scored a 15.0 rating in a time where not everyone had VCRs, there was no such thing as TIVO or DVR or youtube. There was no widespread internet to spoil it or stream it. "Time-shifted viewing" barely existed, so it was must see match that could only be viewed at that particular time.

The story line:
Vince wanted Hogan to get a clean win over Andre, which he got at WM3. It was a huge rub for Hogan and solidified him as their top guy. After Hogan got his rub and his establishing win they could move the title and begin to establish other guys.

The "other guys" ended up being DiBiase & Savage who were the biggest beneficiaries of the screwy title decision. DiBiase skyrocketed to main event level heel by getting a rub from Andre and Savage shot up there card after winning the strap at WM4.

It was a brilliant 2 years from WM3-WM5. Some of the best long term booking ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
About the rating the Andre/Hogan match drew: wrestling was a different thing in the 80s and so was the technology and mind set. Vince put a WM main event (that drew huge) on free TV and scored a 15.0 rating in a time where not everyone had VCRs, there was no such thing as TIVO or DVR or youtube. There was no widespread internet to spoil it or stream it. "Time-shifted viewing" barely existed, so it was must see match that could only be viewed at that particular time.

The story line:
Vince wanted Hogan to get a clean win over Andre, which he got at WM3. It was a huge rub for Hogan and solidified him as their top guy. After Hogan got his rub and his establishing win they could move the title and begin to establish other guys.

The "other guys" ended up being DiBiase & Savage who were the biggest beneficiaries of the screwy title decision. DiBiase skyrocketed to main event level heel by getting a rub from Andre and Savage shot up there card after winning the strap at WM4.

It was a brilliant 2 years from WM3-WM5. Some of the best long term booking ever.
I agree. My biggest beef with the entire thing is the handling of Hogan. Granted I was a huge, huge Hulkamaniac as a kid... but looking back on it I can't help but think they could have went in so many different directions. I'm sure there was probably lots and lots of backstage politicking going on, but I don't understand exactly why Hogan had to be attached to Savage's rise. The whole Mega Powers thing - to me - came off solely as a way to make sure Hogan remained in the spotlight. And you know what? I can see why the WWF (and certainly Hogan) would want that. And yet at the same time I don't think Savage necessarily needed Hogan. He never really got his glorious shine as champion the way he probably should have.

And furthermore I'm still not 100% sure they had to turn Savage heel. I think it should gone face v. face... but if they absolutely were hell bent on having a heel it probably should have been Hogan, not Savage. That's the more intriguing plot twist. Lol I imagine it would have been financial suicide, but nonetheless it would have made for the more engaging angle. The former champion grows jealous of the rising star, becomes hell bent on restoring his former glory, and turns on his friend who he feels is taking his spot.

What's funny is that even though Hogan was the face for that feud, his actions kind of dictated otherwise. The cynic might assume that Hogan was in it for himself the whole time, purposely came in between he and Elizabeth, and manipulated Savage into granting him the title shot. Savage was the one who was right all along lol. Too bad he was "heel".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,119 Posts
I agree. My biggest beef with the entire thing is the handling of Hogan. Granted I was a huge, huge Hulkamaniac as a kid... but looking back on it I can't help but think they could have went in so many different directions. I'm sure there was probably lots and lots of backstage politicking going on, but I don't understand exactly why Hogan had to be attached to Savage's rise. The whole Mega Powers thing - to me - came off solely as a way to make sure Hogan remained in the spotlight. And you know what? I can see why the WWF (and certainly Hogan) would want that. And yet at the same time I don't think Savage necessarily needed Hogan. He never really got his glorious shine as champion the way he probably should have.

And furthermore I'm still not 100% sure they had to turn Savage heel. I think it should gone face v. face... but if they absolutely were hell bent on having a heel it probably should have been Hogan, not Savage. That's the more intriguing plot twist. Lol I imagine it would have been financial suicide, but nonetheless it would have made for the more engaging angle. The former champion grows jealous of the rising star, becomes hell bent on restoring his former glory, and turns on his friend who he feels is taking his spot.

What's funny is that even though Hogan was the face for that feud, his actions kind of dictated otherwise. The cynic might assume that Hogan was in it for himself the whole time, purposely came in between he and Elizabeth, and manipulated Savage into granting him the title shot. Savage was the one who was right all along lol. Too bad he was "heel".
After reading your post I must say that I can see that you dont like Hogan.

But fact of the matter is that, despite Savage being mega over. Hogan was still the man and mcuh more main stream star than Savage ever was up to that point. Hogan was the man that brought the big money to Vince.

Vince had Hogan to go shoot No Holds Barred, making him to miss out a lot of wrestling in 1988. So it would be perfect to build the second biggest guy in the company and then have him turn on the no one face

Its been done before and its been done after.

(Sammartino - Zsbysko in 1980 and Rock - Austin in 1999)

It made perfect sense to have Hogan as the main guy and build towards a feud with Savage upon his return
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,119 Posts
I agree. My biggest beef with the entire thing is the handling of Hogan. Granted I was a huge, huge Hulkamaniac as a kid... but looking back on it I can't help but think they could have went in so many different directions. I'm sure there was probably lots and lots of backstage politicking going on, but I don't understand exactly why Hogan had to be attached to Savage's rise. The whole Mega Powers thing - to me - came off solely as a way to make sure Hogan remained in the spotlight. And you know what? I can see why the WWF (and certainly Hogan) would want that. And yet at the same time I don't think Savage necessarily needed Hogan. He never really got his glorious shine as champion the way he probably should have.

And furthermore I'm still not 100% sure they had to turn Savage heel. I think it should gone face v. face... but if they absolutely were hell bent on having a heel it probably should have been Hogan, not Savage. That's the more intriguing plot twist. Lol I imagine it would have been financial suicide, but nonetheless it would have made for the more engaging angle. The former champion grows jealous of the rising star, becomes hell bent on restoring his former glory, and turns on his friend who he feels is taking his spot.

What's funny is that even though Hogan was the face for that feud, his actions kind of dictated otherwise. The cynic might assume that Hogan was in it for himself the whole time, purposely came in between he and Elizabeth, and manipulated Savage into granting him the title shot. Savage was the one who was right all along lol. Too bad he was "heel".
After reading your post I must say that I can see that you dont like Hogan.

But fact of the matter is that, despite Savage being mega over. Hogan was still the man and mcuh more main stream star than Savage ever was up to that point. Hogan was the man that brought the big money to Vince.

Vince had Hogan to go shoot No Holds Barred, making him to miss out a lot of wrestling in 1988. So it would be perfect to build the second biggest guy in the company and then have him turn on the no one face

Its been done before and its been done after.

(Sammartino - Zsbysko in 1980 and Rock - Austin in 1999)

It made perfect sense to have Hogan as the main guy and build towards a feud with Savage upon his return
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
After reading your post I must say that I can see that you dont like Hogan.
Uh... Hulk Hogan is my favorite wrestler of all time. I grew up watching Hulk Hogan. I was Hulk Hogan for Halloween in the 1st grade. I cried when he lost to Ultimate Warrior. Years later I marked like hell for the nWo. I marked again like hell when he returned to the WWF. To put it bluntly... no, I don't dislike Hogan.

And yes, I understand the financial ramifications of turning Hogan heel at that time. I was just merely pointing out that it might have been a more engaging storyline, money and politics aside. I think purely from a storytelling standpoint, Hogan turning heel on Savage made for the better development. But I absolutely understand why such an option was not on the table, and I absolutely understand why the WWF felt the need to keep Hogan at the forefront.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,581 Posts
This was at a time when WWE only had WrestleMania, The Royal Rumble and Survivor Series and they actually had Saturday Nights Main Event or The Main Event as a tv special that had the biggest matches similar to how NWA/WCW had Clash Of The Champions as well. It was the biggest rated wrestling show ever with 33 million viewers so was hardly a non event and was a good way of transitioning the WWE title from Hulk Hogan to Randy Savage without them facing each other, a fun rumour is that Randy Savage was only given the WWE title because The Honky Tonk Man refused to drop the Intercontinental title to him at WrestleMania 4.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top