|
Endorph posted:This was brought up on Review an Impact, so bros... I'm almost positive that Triple H won his feud against Steve Austin in 2 straight falls in a 2 out of 3 falls match. Looking it up now, I'm wrong, it was No Way Out 2001 and Austin won the first fall and then lost the next two.... then went to Wrestlemania anyway and had one of the best matches in history in the main event 
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 13:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
Endorph posted:This was brought up on Review an Impact, so bros... This happened in Chikara a lot last year since the tag title matches are by default 2 out of 3 falls: The bad guy team would ambush the good guys for the 1st and beat them for the 2nd, usually cheating their asses off to do so or using a crooked ref.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 13:28
|
|
|
Endorph posted:This was brought up on Review an Impact, so bros... The Briscoes gimmick in 2007 was that they were "the masters of the 2/3 falls match." They would win 2/3 falls matches 2 falls in a row a ton, and it got a big reaction when they finally dropped the second fall. (now some allege that this was because they didn't want to lose clean but it was a good story and if true it was a good example of Gabe turning lemons into lemonade)
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 13:36
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:I remember a tag match in late 80's/early 90's WWF that did this, but for the life of me I can't remember the tag teams involved. Islanders/Young Stallions Royal Rumble 88
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 13:55
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I'm almost positive that Triple H won his feud against Steve Austin in 2 straight falls in a 2 out of 3 falls match. While Triple H's match at Wrestlemania for some reason no longer exists in 2011.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 14:43
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:While Triple H's match at Wrestlemania for some reason no longer exists in 2011. For some reason it only existed again AFTER Wrestlemania 27, casually mentioned by Triple H the night after he failed to beat the Undertaker for a second time
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:For some reason it only existed again AFTER Wrestlemania 27, casually mentioned by Triple H the night after he failed to beat the Undertaker for a second time I think they wanted people who didn't know about the first match to think it was the first time they ever fought... It seems pretty obvious to me. Yeah some people in the audience knew about it but to everyone else it was a new and unique match.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 15:13
|
|
|
Stunning Steve lost to Dustin Rhodes at Starrcade in two straight falls. One of which may have been an over the top rope DQ. WCW. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Endorph posted:This was brought up on Review an Impact, so bros... It happens a lot in Mexico. The Briscoes had a streak of winning 2/3 falls matches 2 straight in ROH, and I believe Foley and Flair had the same thing happen during their WWE feud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Stunning Steve lost to Dustin Rhodes at Starrcade in two straight falls. One of which may have been an over the top rope DQ. Was Dusty booking things at that point? Then again Stunning Steve and The Natural were both pretty bland gimmicks. It wasn't until Austin hit ECW that he started being interesting I don't think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Mr. Carlisle posted:Was Dusty booking things at that point? Hollywood Blonds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Hollywood Blonds. I always liked his stun gun finishing move. Checking on youtube only seems to show a couple of bad examples of it though. Also Austin beat Rhodes at Starrcade 93...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 18:46
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Hollywood Blonds. Although I appreciate that they were a good tag team I just couldn't get behind them for whatever reason. Probably because I was a young kid at the time and was too busy wearing Sting facepaint and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Mr. Carlisle posted:Although I appreciate that they were a good tag team I just couldn't get behind them for whatever reason. Probably because I was a young kid at the time
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
Endorph posted:... Weren't they heels? That might explain it, bro. Yeah, feuding with babyface Horsemen, I think. I think it was even the Roma lineup of the Horsemen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
Mr. Carlisle posted:Was Dusty booking things at that point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
Mr. Carlisle posted:Was Dusty booking things at that point? Yes, Dusty was booking although that was near the end of his run. He was replaced as booker a month later at Clash of the Champions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
Endorph posted:... Weren't they heels? That might explain it, bro. That could be. My young markish brain couldn't see the talent in heels back then. Gotta represent the Stinger, Ricky Steamboat, The Steiners and The Road Warriors. I do remember that even though they booked The Great Muta as a heel I still thought he was the most amazing dude ever, though. Between his flippy moves, face paint and mist spitting I was always looking forward to his matches.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Mr. Carlisle posted:Was Dusty booking things at that point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
Perigryn posted:No, that was Bill Watts' doing. IIRC, he also had the ringside mats removed (top prove how tough wrestlers were), made it illegal to do moves off the top rope and forced everyone to stay to the end of the show (even if they never had anything to do after their matches) Yes, Dusty was booking although that was near the end of his run. He was replaced as booker a month later at Clash of the Champions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
Speaking of the Blondes, they also lost 2 straight falls at a Clash match against Flair/Anderson for the tag titles. Lost first fall via pin, then Windham jumped Flair to DQ them for the second fall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
What bought X-Pac back from WCW to WWF? He seems like the kind of guy who'd prefer the lax WCW environment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
Sue Denim posted:What bought X-Pac back from WCW to WWF? From Wikipedia: During that October Waltman injured his neck and was forced out of action, but continued to appear on camera for several weeks after. While recuperating from his injury, Waltman was fired by then WCW President Eric Bischoff as a show of force to keep Hall and Nash in check due to locker room instability caused by the three, as well as Waltman's lack of commitment. Bischoff claimed that Waltman was a competent performer "when sober," but that these periods were "few and far between." He asserted that "in many ways, Sean was lucky to even have a job."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:The Briscoes gimmick in 2007 was that they were "the masters of the 2/3 falls match." They would win 2/3 falls matches 2 falls in a row a ton, and it got a big reaction when they finally dropped the second fall. (now some allege that this was because they didn't want to lose clean but it was a good story and if true it was a good example of Gabe turning lemons into lemonade) It was also neat because this gimmick came about after they FINALLY regained the Tag Belts, then lost them on their first defense. So the night after the loss, the Bricoes have this crazy match against each other and absolutely destroy one another, going to a no-contest. Then they get the belts back (in a match where Mark Briscoe nearly kills himself), and dominate for the rest of the year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
Grant DaNasty posted:From Wikipedia: It probably worked out better for him in the end though, he may not have had those last few years of WWE pay cheques if he had of still been employed by WCW during the buy out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Why is Austin's winning of the championship at Wrestlemania XIV considered the beginning of the attitude era? Weren't they into risque storylines and stuff well before that? DX with Shawn Michaels ended there, and I kind of consider that to be Attitude Era stuff, so what gives?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:Why is Austin's winning of the championship at Wrestlemania XIV considered the beginning of the attitude era? Weren't they into risque storylines and stuff well before that? DX with Shawn Michaels ended there, and I kind of consider that to be Attitude Era stuff, so what gives? It's the point where momentum started to shift to WWF in the ratings war, or at least a major point. I mean, I suppose the Attitude Era officially started when they started using the now-blurred logo, and by XIV they were using that alongside the mid-90s slanted logo (and the old logo was still on the turnbuckles.) It was sort of a transitional event in that way, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:Why is Austin's winning of the championship at Wrestlemania XIV considered the beginning of the attitude era? Weren't they into risque storylines and stuff well before that? DX with Shawn Michaels ended there, and I kind of consider that to be Attitude Era stuff, so what gives? It is one solid date that people can point to and that we all remember. Montreal is also used as a starting date. I remember that during the Monday Night Wars some people pointed to the interview Vince McMahon gave about the new direction of the company in late 1997 talking about the shades of gray (this may have also been the Bret Screwed Bret interview, not sure) as the start of the era. Austin winning the title is just an early defining moment, on top of the fact Wrestlemania is such an important event that it is easy to look to Wrestlemania as the start or end of an era.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
With all the news about Edge dropping his championship title I was wondering about the two championships. What is the history with the two heavyweight titles in the WWE? I know there is a WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship. Do they come from any old titles from any other organizations? Can they be called legit "world" championships? Have the two champions ever faced each other since the brand split while still holding their respective titles? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
BoboGo posted:With all the news about Edge dropping his championship title I was wondering about the two championships. What is the history with the two heavyweight titles in the WWE? I know there is a WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship. Do they come from any old titles from any other organizations? Can they be called legit "world" championships? Have the two champions ever faced each other since the brand split while still holding their respective titles? Thanks. When WCW folded, the WCW championship (the Big Gold Belt) became a thing on WWF TV. Eventually Chris Jericho won both championships in a feat that neither he nor WWE programming lets us forget to this day, and together the belts were known as the Undisputed Championship. The visual appeal of this was a guy walking to the ring with two enormous world titles. After this went on for a while the two titles were unified into a single belt, under I believe Brock Lesnar. Then, when the brand split occurred in 2002, the WCW belt was re-introduced as the World Heavyweight Championship, while the WWE belt was simply the WWE Championship. The WWE Championship stayed on Brock, while the World Heavyweight Championship was simply awarded to heel Triple H by heel GM Eric Bischoff, with no tournament or anything, in order to make it clear that these heels were indeed heels. For about three years the WHC was associated with Raw, and the WWEC with Smackdown. Ironically, this would make the WCW belt far more important than the WWE belt in terms of booking emphasis, since the champion was on the show that far more people were watching and WHC feuds typically got a lot more time. In 2005 the belts began switching shows back and forth, so currently the WWE Championship is the Raw belt. There is some confusion as to whether or not the World Heavyweight Championship officially has WCW lineage among fans and some inconsistency as to how it is regarded by WWE programming. There was a "Champion of Champions" match in 2006 between Booker T (Heavyweight Champion), John Cena (WWE Champion), and Big Show (ECW champion). Booker T won, but it was on a low priority PPV and not much was made of the feat. Since the split there has been no official unification match, although there have been brief teases. The champions have met a couple of times, mostly in tag matches in the leadup to Wrestlemanias. Name Change fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:There is some confusion as to whether or not the World Heavyweight Championship officially has WCW lineage among fans and some inconsistency as to how it is regarded by WWE programming. Yeah. The title has a separate lineage according to not only wikipedia  but also more legitimately, WWE.com. While closer to when the belt was introduced, it was occasionally referenced as having WCW lineage, I can't remember the last modern time it was and I think its safe to say it is it's own belt by this time that just shares a similar design to the last WCW World Title.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
edit: I was good at geography in the fifth grade. I won a sticker once.
DEAR RICHARD fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
BoboGo posted:With all the news about Edge dropping his championship title I was wondering about the two championships. What is the history with the two heavyweight titles in the WWE? I know there is a WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship. Do they come from any old titles from any other organizations? Can they be called legit "world" championships? Have the two champions ever faced each other since the brand split while still holding their respective titles? Thanks. A slightly longer history: The WWWF Championship was created in 1963 as a result of a dispute between Vince McMahon Sr. and the NWA. Buddy Rogers, who at the time had a claim to the NWA World Heavyweight title, was recognized as the initial champion. Bruno Sammartino quickly beat him and held the title for most of the next 15 years. That is the belt that became the WWF title and has a straight lineage through the Winged Eagle and Smoking Skull belts right to 2001. In 2001 WWF acquired WCW, and with it the WCW World Heavyweight title. The WCW title was broken off from the NWA title in 1991, and reunified with the Big Gold Belt and the best claim to the NWA title (although not the NWA name itself, as the title was confusingly recognized as the WCW International World title by that point) in 1994. For most of 2001, both the WWF and WCW titles were defended in WWF. At Survivor Series 2001, WCW was disbanded, so now the WCW title existed in a company where WCW itself didn't. The next PPV in December, Vengeance, featured multiple title matches, where Chris Jericho surprisingly won both the WCW and WWF titles in the span of a half-hour to unify them as the WWF Undisputed World Championship. Jericho carried around both the WWF belt and the Big Gold Belt through WrestleMania. When Triple H won the unified Undisputed Championship, he retired the Big Gold Belt and carried around one belt as Undisputed Champion, quickly renamed to WWE Undisputed Champion (Get the F Out!). The title passed from Triple H to Hulk Hogan to Undertaker to Rock to Brock Lesnar over the course of just a few months. In the fall of 2002, Eric Bischoff as RAW GM withdrew recognition of the WWE Undisputed title and awarded Triple H the Big Gold Belt as the World champion. At that point Brock Lesnar, now SmackDown exclusive, was billed as holding the WWE title and no longer as the undisputed world champion. Triple H then unified the new World title with the Intercontinental, European, and Hardcore titles in an attempt to give it more credibility. The titles have switched between brands, but except for the spinner belt coming into play in 2005 have remained static in terms of lineage and belts ever since. WWE usually claims the WWE title (the spinner belt on RAW) as having the lineage dating back to Buddy Rogers/Bruno Sammartino and the WWWF title, and the World title (Big Gold Belt on SmackDown) as having lineage not just including the Big Gold Belt but also the WCW title and both versions of the NWA title. However, officially according to both WWE and most wrestling historians, the World title is a new title created in 2002.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
DEAR RICHARD posted:Kofi faced Ezekiel Jackson on Smackdown last night. Zeke is from South America.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
TheOneTrueKing posted:Yeah. The title has a separate lineage according to not only wikipedia It's sort of an "angels on the top of the pinhead" argument since it's plainly the WCW championship in appearance (and anyone can think anything they want about it and it changes nothing in practical terms). WWE sort of ignores, downplays, or emphasizes the lineage at its convenience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
crankdatbatman posted:Why is Austin's winning of the championship at Wrestlemania XIV considered the beginning of the attitude era? Weren't they into risque storylines and stuff well before that? DX with Shawn Michaels ended there, and I kind of consider that to be Attitude Era stuff, so what gives? It isn't, at least it's not by anyone who knows what they're talking about. If Wrestlemania XIV was the start of the attitude era, then that means the edgy DX with Shawn Michaels wasn't a part of the attitude era. That would mean the first Hell in the Cell wasn't either. Or Austin confronting Tyson on Raw. That's pretty silly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
Don't forget "Pillman's got a gun", Goldust-Ahmed Johnson, and the Austin-Bret feud (and that cage match where Bret worked-shootedly said "bullshit" and "goddamn" a few times on live TV) took place in 96/97. Pretty attitudinal if you ask me. But WM XIV was the first appearance of the scratch logo in the corner of the screen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
Bikeage posted:Don't forget "Pillman's got a gun", Goldust-Ahmed Johnson, and the Austin-Bret feud (and that cage match where Bret worked-shootedly said "bullshit" and "goddamn" a few times on live TV) took place in 96/97. Pretty attitudinal if you ask me. But WM XIV was the first appearance of the scratch logo in the corner of the screen. My favorite part of that Bret Hart work-shoot was Sycho Sid declaring on his way to the ring "I DON'T KNOW poo poo!!". Even as a 4th grader I found that whole segment kinda hilarious/awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 02:10
|
|
|
I guess you can say Crash TV began in 1996 but the Attitude Era started in 1998. I guess it might be forgotten by some people that we call it the Attitude Era because that was the WWF's slogan at one point. Soon replaced by, "Get it?". Good thing we don't call it the Get it? Era.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:I guess you can say Crash TV began in 1996 but the Attitude Era started in 1998. I guess it might be forgotten by some people that we call it the Attitude Era because that was the WWF's slogan at one point. Soon replaced by, "Get it?". Good thing we don't call it the Get it? Era. They were one in the same sir: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30Ve9vP5Q6Y
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 02:24
|
|
