Joined
·
1,699 Posts
You do realize that people also trashed McMahon for putting the title on himself and all the other things you just listed.
Why is Vince Russo hated for putting the belt on Him and Arquette when...
Many say that Russo highly degraded the WCW World Heavyweight Championship by putting the belt on himself and Arquette. But Vince McMahon did the same thing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3B-afZT4Fk
IC Title was degraded as well, with a FAN winning it! (Santino was a "fan" at the time")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBClti8r6YY
ECW Title was degraded when McMahon won it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa2lUwwTa8U
Stupidest of all, McMahon Won the ROYAL RUMBLE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIN-xaKlWLI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3B-afZT4Fk
IC Title was degraded as well, with a FAN winning it! (Santino was a "fan" at the time")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBClti8r6YY
ECW Title was degraded when McMahon won it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa2lUwwTa8U
Stupidest of all, McMahon Won the ROYAL RUMBLE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIN-xaKlWLI
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Joined
·
1,257 Posts
Maybe so, but no one ever brings this up when discussing credibility of belts and such. All everyone talks about is "how stupid Russo is for making the WCW belt look worthless", and I rarely see anyone talk about how McMahon made the Royal Rumble, WWF, ECW, and IC title look just as bad.
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
A lot of it has to do with booking. Both winning it, handling of it, and loosing it as it relates to McMahon were all handled believably. Russo and Arquette weren't handled well.
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
I'll agree with that 100%No, the stupidest midcard/undercard devaluation was the Cruiserweight Chavo/Hornswoggle debacle.
![]()
Joined
·
1,257 Posts
I don't see how any of that was very believable compared to Russo and Arquette winning. Russo was kayfabe accidently speared through the cage wall and then vacated it next week, and Arquette pinned Eric Bischoff to win it. Not much different from what McMahon did I think.
Joined
·
4,774 Posts
At least Vince wrestled a few times prior to winning the belt and at least he had a long history in the wrestling business. David Arquette was a fucking actor with ZERO previous history in the wrestling business. And, it's not like he was some big action star or a big name actor. He's not even a good actor. And, he got it all because he was in Ready to Rumble which only recuperated half of it's budget. This was all a lame ploy to generate more interest into Ready to Rumble. And, Vince winning at least when along with him screwing Triple H. Both were horrible decisions that should never ever happen again. But, at least McMahon winning made a slight bit of sense.
Joined
·
800 Posts
Because McMahon controls the perception of characters and media. And perception is reality.
Joined
·
9,250 Posts
I made a similar thread some months ago. Here you can see some responses
http://www.wrestlingforum.com/gener...e-bash-vince-champion-not-vince-champion.html
Maybe McMahon was thrashed for winning the WWE belt but nobody thrashed him on the level like they did it with Russo and that´s what I can not understand.
Some people say it´s not so bad like with Russo because McMahon looked better, looked more like a legit wrestler than Russo and it has mainly to do with booking.
That means that people like Vin Diesel, 50 Cent or Terry Crews can win a title that legends like Jake Roberts, Rick Rude or Vader have not won because they have muscles and a writing team can write a storyline for them?
That means if Russo had a body like McMahon the title win would not be such a disgrace?
People who bash Russo but not McMahon are hypocrites
http://www.wrestlingforum.com/gener...e-bash-vince-champion-not-vince-champion.html
Maybe McMahon was thrashed for winning the WWE belt but nobody thrashed him on the level like they did it with Russo and that´s what I can not understand.
Some people say it´s not so bad like with Russo because McMahon looked better, looked more like a legit wrestler than Russo and it has mainly to do with booking.
That means that people like Vin Diesel, 50 Cent or Terry Crews can win a title that legends like Jake Roberts, Rick Rude or Vader have not won because they have muscles and a writing team can write a storyline for them?
That means if Russo had a body like McMahon the title win would not be such a disgrace?
People who bash Russo but not McMahon are hypocrites
Joined
·
277 Posts
McMahon winning the Rumble wasn't a big deal, I believed it at the time and he was the biggest heel the company had. Not like he actually went to Wrestlemania. Him winning the ECW title was supposed to devalue it, because ECW means nothing to Vince.
Can't defend him winning the WWF title, though, but after everything he did for the business, comparing him to Russo or Arquette is stupid. (Like to the guy above me, if all the guys you named had grew up in the business, been around it all their lives, owned the fucking company and weren't just a shitty booker, then yes that would be okay too.)
Can't defend him winning the WWF title, though, but after everything he did for the business, comparing him to Russo or Arquette is stupid. (Like to the guy above me, if all the guys you named had grew up in the business, been around it all their lives, owned the fucking company and weren't just a shitty booker, then yes that would be okay too.)
Joined
·
4,355 Posts
It's more of a "cherry on top" scenario. Russo put a belt that he basically made to be worth shit prior on himself as well as being instrumental with the downfall of the WCW company as a whole. Contrast that with McMahon's handling of WWF at the time and you can see the large difference. We had tons of years of entertainment out of Vince so it's easier to shrug it off where as Russo.. not so much.
Joined
·
5,005 Posts
Vince was feuding w/ Triple H when he won the WWE strap and then it put H over even more when he put all those hoops in his way of winning it back.
Vince "won" things but he only carried one thing (the ECW title) and he carried that with the intention of putting Lashley over...not himself. He was in the process of making Lashley a star when he did the ECW title thing, and Umaga did all the heavy lifting so it made sense.
And of course he was feuding with Austin when he won the Rumble match.
Vince did all this to put other guys over not himself. He created more convincing characters because he had the ability to make life miserable for other characters on the show (as he did for everyone he feuded with).
Also and this is the cherry on top: Vince was already a viable in ring character. He had main evented RAW & PPV events (St. Valentine's Day Massacre & King Of The Ring) before he won any titles or other acknowledgments.
You can be upset that Vince won ANY match as a non-full time competitor but he always did things to make it look believable and his character had the clout to make other characters look good, so him winning only boosted interest in seeing him made a fool of.
Vince "won" things but he only carried one thing (the ECW title) and he carried that with the intention of putting Lashley over...not himself. He was in the process of making Lashley a star when he did the ECW title thing, and Umaga did all the heavy lifting so it made sense.
And of course he was feuding with Austin when he won the Rumble match.
Vince did all this to put other guys over not himself. He created more convincing characters because he had the ability to make life miserable for other characters on the show (as he did for everyone he feuded with).
Also and this is the cherry on top: Vince was already a viable in ring character. He had main evented RAW & PPV events (St. Valentine's Day Massacre & King Of The Ring) before he won any titles or other acknowledgments.
You can be upset that Vince won ANY match as a non-full time competitor but he always did things to make it look believable and his character had the clout to make other characters look good, so him winning only boosted interest in seeing him made a fool of.
Joined
·
8,793 Posts
McMahon was one of the biggest heels in WWE so its OK for him and it makes sense. Neither was made to be believeable with the title, but Vince McMahon was one of the most over heels at the time so it made for a good program. No offense but Arquette winning it and Vince Russo winning the World title is the equivalent of Ed Koskey (Raw writter) and some guest celebrity host winning the WWE title. You can't compare Vince McMahon to some wrestling writer and a C list celebrity.
Joined
·
9,250 Posts
So you rather want to see someone crap on a part of this business just to see 5 minutes someone cry?
At least I know why wrestling is in such a shitty state. No wonder with such wonderful new fans
Joined
·
7,589 Posts
Not that it makes the whole thing any better but because the storylines in which Vince McMahon won the WWE title, won The Royal Rumble, beat Stone Cold Steve Austin in a Ladder match and won the ECW title in better storylines people don't hate as much on Vince McMahon as they do Vince Russo. I mean everyone knows that all the cool kids hate John Cena, hate Hulk Hogan and hate Vince Russo whilst also knowing how to run WWE or TNA better than the people that do run the companies.
People just love to hate on Vince Russo and blame him for everything that is wrong in wrestling, it surely won't be long before he is revealed as the man on the grassy knoll as i think that's about the only thing he hasn't yet been blamed for. Right now TNA is just as bad booking wise as at any point when he was booking yet now he isn't there it's as if it's all being overlooked because Vince Russo isn't there to blame.
It's so often forgotten that the majority of great things we saw in WWE in between 1997 and mid 1999 was down to Vince Russo like Austin/Rock, Austin/McMahon, Undertaker/Kane, Undertaker/Michaels, Rock/Triple H and Rock/Foley just as a few. A lot of the hate he gets for WCW is unwarranted because WCW was already fucked before he got there and whilst there were certainly some horrible things when he was there it wasn't any better after he went with Kevin Sullivan and at least he wanted to push the younger wrestlers. No matter what people say Vince Russo isn't the worst booker in the world, he just isn't a great head booker and needs to have people to filter him at times.
People just love to hate on Vince Russo and blame him for everything that is wrong in wrestling, it surely won't be long before he is revealed as the man on the grassy knoll as i think that's about the only thing he hasn't yet been blamed for. Right now TNA is just as bad booking wise as at any point when he was booking yet now he isn't there it's as if it's all being overlooked because Vince Russo isn't there to blame.
It's so often forgotten that the majority of great things we saw in WWE in between 1997 and mid 1999 was down to Vince Russo like Austin/Rock, Austin/McMahon, Undertaker/Kane, Undertaker/Michaels, Rock/Triple H and Rock/Foley just as a few. A lot of the hate he gets for WCW is unwarranted because WCW was already fucked before he got there and whilst there were certainly some horrible things when he was there it wasn't any better after he went with Kevin Sullivan and at least he wanted to push the younger wrestlers. No matter what people say Vince Russo isn't the worst booker in the world, he just isn't a great head booker and needs to have people to filter him at times.
There is definitely a pro WWE bias out there, so WCW gets a harsher critique while WWF/E gets more of a pass on a lot of of issues. For instance if you go back to the RSPW archives around the start of the NWO angle in 1996, a lot of weeks those people would say WWF was the superior show. Which considering WCW had a revolutionary angle/television show in Nitro, and a superior talent roster with superior matches, it's ridiculous in hindsight(Bodydonnas vs Godwins).
The other and probably the main reason is WCW in the end, died. WCW in the end lost a rumored 60 million dollars in the year Russo/Arquette were crowned World Champion. In the end when something has disastrous outcome, it is judged with that taken in to consideration. If the Hindenburg never becomes a horrific tragedy, then history would have thought of it as a technological marvel, rather than a disaster.
The other and probably the main reason is WCW in the end, died. WCW in the end lost a rumored 60 million dollars in the year Russo/Arquette were crowned World Champion. In the end when something has disastrous outcome, it is judged with that taken in to consideration. If the Hindenburg never becomes a horrific tragedy, then history would have thought of it as a technological marvel, rather than a disaster.
Oh yeah I'm a new fan started watching in 1998
Anyway I don't really care about ECW
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
