[The Definition of Technician]

I'm sorry if this was discussed before, if it was can someone send me a link to the thread?

If not, I would like to hear people's opinion

I read that, if blame is to be assigned to anyone, it should be mostly to Hogan and Nash..

-Hogan came to WCW, the Southern WCW fans booed, he didn't like that
-He and Nash created NWO
-They pushed Eric to spend Ted Turner's money more and more
-Hogan had a no-cut guaranteed contract(giving him "creative control" over his gimmick, storylines, and match outcomes could do anything he wanted) , if he didn't get his way, he'd take off usually with the WCW title till he gets his way.
-Nash with the same contract, made himself head booker
-They killed Flair's character by putting him in ridiculous storylines and made Sting disappear for like a year
- Killed the Goldberg character
- Fingerpoke of Doom

anyone has anything to clarify of what I read or has an opinion on this..?

 

[Flair Flop]

As much as I am willing to defend Hogan on topics that many bury him on, this is one that I feel he deserves every bit of heat that he gets. The irony that the same guy that was responsible for the huge boom being the same guy that killed it is astounding. I always will be of the opinion that had Hogan not botched the Starrcade 97 match that WCW would be where WWE is now. No one wins in an argument of "what ifs", though.

WCW had the talent to successfully win the war had they allowed it to shine instead of Hogan refusing to let go of the top spot. Hogan, Nash, and Hall could have still shined, but it was simply time to let Sting, Bret, and later Goldberg have the ball and let them run with it. If Bret had been in a larger role, then I am pretty sure that at least Benoit and Jericho would have gotten pushes which would have opened the door for even more talented wrestler to get a chance.

It was already over by the time of the Fingerpoke of Doom happened. That was just a desperate attempt at recreating 96 after they had blown all other opportunities.

Bischoff and Russo get so much heat for this, but at the end of the day, it was Hogan that was responsible for the death of WCW. Russo was brought in to clean up Hogan's mess and it was already too late.No one could have brought WCW back by that time as the WWE juggernaut had already built too much momentum and the fan's confidence in the WCW product had already taken too much of a hit.

I hope Nick Partick enjoyed the motorcycle Hogan supposedly got him for botching what could have ended up as the greatest feud ever. As I previously stated, it all comes back to that one night and what could have came from it had it been done right.

 

[reDREDD]

management. or more accurately, the lack of management. its why Vince always survived. he always had absolute control and when someone challenged that control, they knew what was coming

it always bugs me when people blame the merger. They sold the company because it was fucking haemorrhaging money. any sane person who isnt a raging fanboy would have done the same. that or gutted it, slashed the budget and talent and started from scratch

 

[austin316 G.O.A.T]

WWF

It was a war for wrestling supremacy.WWF was a better product and won the Monday Night Wars.People like to blame numerous things for the demise of WCW.One thing they forget is WWF was a much better product and that the better company won.Every company has small problems.As long as it is doing well,nobody gives importance to such stuff.But when it isn't doing well,all those small problems are blown out of proportion.

It happens in sports as well.Example:When Barcelona plays wins,people say it's due to Messi and Barcelona's unique style.When Barcelona loses,people blame Barcelona's style of having flair but not enough punch.

 

[Boots2Asses]

First the popularity of Austin really stabilised WWF against the mighty WCW(1997-98),and the popularity of Rock from late 1998 onwards literally killed it.


When you have two megastars of the caliber of Rock/Austin at the same time,then until the opponent is something special(which WCW afterr 1998 wasn't),you're gonna get beat,and that's exactly what happened.


I don't blame Hogan or Nash or anyone else.Sure there were booking blunders,but the biggest game-changer was the sole fact that WWF had two of the most POPULAR wrestlers EVER at the same f'n time in their roster,which made watching WWF extremely cool vis-a-vis WCW.


PSersonally,I stopped caring for WCW/quit watching once the Rock became popular in early 1999.

 

[GL]

As much as it is impossible to clearly say, I do not believe the WWF had as much to do with it as the previous posters think. I think the WCW could have survived and thrived in spite of Austin and Rock's popularity. Heck I really think the WCW had more to do with the rebirth of WWF than vice versa.

The nWo was every bit as over as Austin or Rock. If they meaning Hogan and Hall been so darned determined to make themselves look good and crush the faces, on top of the bad contractual decisions, we might still be watching Nitro. Almost a century of wrestling history says this country is large enough for multiple nationwide promotions

 

[TheLoneShark]

Jamie Kellner. Next...

 

[austin316 G.O.A.T]

I do not believe the WWF had as much to do with it as the previous posters think.

People like to blame WCW for going bankrupt but they don't want to accept WWF was a better product.It happens in Indian cricket as well.When we lose a cricket match,the media blames everything starting from the pitch to the batting,bowling and damn even the weather.But they forget the important thing,the other team was simply better

Almost a century of wrestling history says this country is large enough for multiple nationwide promotions

Times have changed.The number of wrestling companies have been decreasing over the years and now,only one company matters.Survival of the fittest

 

[Flair Flop]

WWF

It was a war for wrestling supremacy.WWF was a better product and won the Monday Night Wars.People like to blame numerous things for the demise of WCW.One thing they forget is WWF was a much better product and that the better company won.Every company has small problems.As long as it is doing well,nobody gives importance to such stuff.But when it isn't doing well,all those small problems are blown out of proportion.

IMO, WWE did not have the better product in 96-97 and speaking for myself only, I can honestly say that had it not been for the decline in the quality of the WCW product that I probably would have never started switching the stations back and forth. In 97, during the Sting/NWO days,I could have cared less what was going on in WWE. To me, Sting/NWO, with the exception of the botched payoff is better than Austin/McMahon.

WWE deserves credit for stepping up their game and making a better product, but had WCW kept the momentum by making better business decisions we may still be watching Nitro. Impossible to say.

 

[Palahniuk]

Whoever kept purchasing all them monster trucks.

 

[GL]

People like to blame WCW for going bankrupt but they don't want to accept WWF was a better product.It happens in Indian cricket as well.When we lose a cricket match,the media blames everything starting from the pitch to the batting,bowling and damn even the weather.But they forget the important thing,the other team was simply better



Times have changed.The number of wrestling companies have been decreasing over the years and now,only one company matters.Survival of the fittest

The WWF was a better product, but it did not lead to the death of WCW. The two could have coexsisted. There are more wrestling companies running right now in America than there were 20 years ago.

I don't really even think its debatable, and I love a good debate.

 

[Flair Flop]

People like to blame WCW for going bankrupt but they don't want to accept WWF was a better product.It happens in Indian cricket as well.When we lose a cricket match,the media blames everything starting from the pitch to the batting,bowling and damn even the weather.But they forget the important thing,the other team was simply better



Times have changed.The number of wrestling companies have been decreasing over the years and now,only one company matters.Survival of the fittest

WWE became a better product and was there to capitalize on the many poor decisions that WCW made.

 

[GL]

WWE became a better product and was there to capitalize on the many poor decisions that WCW made.

Exactly...thank you for explaining it better than I could.

BTW Austin GOAT are you not from the States? That totally explains your anti-Ric Flair thing.

 

[austin316 G.O.A.T]

BTW Austin GOAT are you not from the States? That totally explains your anti-Ric Flair thing.

It has nothing to do with the current topic.

I place Flair quite high in my GOAT list.I just don't believe he is the GOAT.That doesn't mean I am anti-Flair.You place Ric Flair number 1 in the GOAT list ahead of Hogan and Austin.Does that mean you are anti-Hogan and anti-Austin?

WWE became a better product and was there to capitalize on the many poor decisions that WCW made.

When something is good,it just means the other isn't.

The WWF was a better product, but it did not lead to the death of WCW. The two could have coexsisted. There are more wrestling companies running right now in America than there were 20 years ago.

I don't really even think its debatable, and I love a good debate.

There is no way WWF and WCW could have co-existed.They wanted to be the best and did everything to destroy the other company.

Only one wrestling company matters

 

[Flair Flop]

When something is good,it just means the other isn't.

I have come to expect much more than this from you in a debate. There have been a plethora of times in wrestling's history where there were multiple products that were great.

 

[TSE]

WCW had the more talented roster on average up until early/mid-1999 when Jericho, Malenko, Saturn, Raven, Giant, Benoit, etc. all switched. After that as far as I am concerned WCW couldn't win. No major wrestling promotion can lose that much talent to it's competitor and win. 1998 WCW was the most talented roster of all time in wrestling history. 2000 WCW was a barren wasteland.

Where WCW went wrong was not making new stars. You don't have to bury or demote your current stars to put over new stars... You just have to shine the spotlight on new guys occasionally if they are over enough. DDP and Goldberg were both successful signs of this with WCW. Unfortunately those are the only two examples. Jericho and Giant especially had main event potential. The Goldberg Streak had the potential to create a new megastar in addition to building up Goldberg himself to compete against Rock and Steve Austin. Imagine if Jericho pinned Goldberg clean. Instead the angle was awfully executed and didn't really put over anyone.

A lot of WCW's storylines weren't bad. In fact in my opinion better than most of WWF's during the Attitude Era. Which leads me to the conclusion: WCW had a ton of great build ups and story lines, with very little payoffs. Sting-Hogan. Goldberg's Streak. Wolfoac-Hollywood. All examples of good storylines, great build ups, with shitty, shitty endings.

 

[GL]

It has nothing to do with the current topic.

I place Flair quite high in my GOAT list.I just don't believe he is the GOAT.That doesn't mean I am anti-Flair.You place Ric Flair number 1 in the GOAT list ahead of Hogan and Austin.Does that mean you are anti-Hogan and anti-Austin?



When something is good,it just means the other isn't.





There is no way WWF and WCW could have co-existed.They wanted to be the best and did everything to destroy the other company.

Only one wrestling company matters

TNA exsists and has for quite some time now. It is obviously not on the same level as the WWE and never will be but it exsists.

The fact is that the WWE made it's comeback only after the WCW dropped the ball. This is more of a WCW thing and not keeping their own house in order, I don't think you will find a wrestling insider or historian would disagree.

As far as Flair, Hogan and Austin go, I have been pretty consistent in saying I think they all three belong in the top 5 of all time. if you truly consider Flair a goat then I think maybe I have been reading into your posts incorrectly, sorry. I have just noticed over the last few months that posters from outside the States usually downgrade Flair compared to the Austin's, Hogan's, and Rock's. Mainly because they did not grow up exposed to Flair's days in the territories and NWA, simply because they did not have the ability to see it when it happened.

I enjoy and respect your posts. Hope you know I just like debating with you because you can carry on an intelligent disscussion.

 

[austin316 G.O.A.T]

I have come to expect much more than this from you in a debate. There have been a plethora of times in wrestling's history where there were multiple products that were great.

What you say may have been true years back.Many many years ago,various wrestling companies co-existed.But after Vince McMahon Jr. took over,he wanted to prove WWF's supremacy over the others.WCW and WWF wanted to put out each other out of business in the 90's.They resorted to many dirty tactics as well.In the end,the better company won.

Let me ask you this.If WWF went bankrupt by 1997,what would have been the biggest reason for it?I would have said WCW killed it.

Not a single company(not just wrestling companies) is run perfectly.But only when it something bad happens,people attribute even the smallest of things to a contributing factor for it's downfall

TNA exsists and has for quite some time now. It is obviously not on the same level as the WWE and never will be but it exsists.

The fact is that the WWE made it's comeback only after the WCW dropped the ball. This is more of a WCW thing and not keeping their own house in order, I don't think you will find a wrestling insider or historian would disagree.

As far as Flair, Hogan and Austin go, I have been pretty consistent in saying I think they all three belong in the top 5 of all time. if you truly consider Flair a goat then I think maybe I have been reading into your posts incorrectly, sorry. I have just noticed over the last few months that posters from outside the States usually downgrade Flair compared to the Austin's, Hogan's, and Rock's. Mainly because they did not grow up exposed to Flair's days in the territories and NWA, simply because they did not have the ability to see it when it happened.

I enjoy and respect your posts. Hope you know I just like debating with you because you can carry on an intelligent disscussion.

I can't take TNA seriously.They are just a B grade wrestling company.As far as WWF picking up only after WCW fell down,I will partially agree.Though WWF was gaining huge momentum in 1997 with Austin vs Bret and there was a slight improvement in live attendance etc even though WCW was probably at it's peak in 1997.

As far as Flair is concerned,I place him quite highly in my lists.I place him behind Hogan and Austin because they revolutionized the business.I place him behind Rock because of Rock's star power.Though at times,I do place Flair above Rock considering Flair kept NWA floating in the 80's while Rock pretty much had Stone Cold setting him with a huge momentum.Recently,I placed Ric Flair among the top ten of all time in a list that included Hogan,Austin,El Santo,Rikidozan etc.So I don't think I have been biased against Flair.

 

[reDREDD]

i believe there was room on the market for two products. hell, possibly more

wcw died because it was losing a fuckton of money, and vince happened to be the guy who bought it. simple as that. had not been such a colossal waste of money to run, wcw could have been able to survive. maybe not to challenge WWF again but it had its fans and provided and alternative

 

[Flair Flop]

What you say may have been true years back.Many many years ago,various wrestling companies co-existed.But after Vince McMahon Jr. took over,he wanted to prove WWF's supremacy over the others.WCW and WWF wanted to put out each other out of business in the 90's.They resorted to many dirty tactics as well.In the end,the better company won.

Let me ask you this.If WWF went bankrupt by 1997,what would have been the biggest reason for it?I would have said WCW killed it.

Not a single company(not just wrestling companies) is run perfectly.But only when it something bad happens,people attribute even the smallest of things to a contributing factor for it's downfall

While Vince Jr. didn't work with the other territories the way Vince Sr. did I don't think it was until Bischoff started the war of dirty tactics that Vince became dirty himself. I can't recall any downright nasty blows being thrown in the 80's. If I am wrong here, please correct me.

If WWE had fallen in 97, I would have said that WCW played a strong indirect role, but the bottom line is that it isn't Ted Turner's fault that Vince didn't have the money at the time to pay the wrestlers the way he did. I get your argument here and agree that the better run company did win. I am not disputing that and am aware that my entire argument here is based on what ifs. I just can't ignore the lead that WCW lost due to horrible business decisions and will always wonder if WWE could have overtaken them had such decisions not been made.

With TNA, I blame poor booking and storylines for their lack of success. They have had the star power over the years to be competitive post Ruthless Aggression WWE. There is still a large faction of wrestling fans that crave another Monday Night Wars story.