|
rotinaj posted:And see a young Terry Crews in one of his first roles. I don't know why I loved Battle Dome as a kid. Because Terry Crews is extremely cool.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
rotinaj posted:And see a young Terry Crews in one of his first roles. I don't know why I loved Battle Dome as a kid. I know I watched it because American Gladiators didn't satisfy my graphic ankle break lust.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
cunny mcalister posted:I know I watched it because American Gladiators didn't satisfy my graphic ankle break lust. That's sids purpose in life
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Because Terry Crews is extremely cool. I never saw battlebowl but I saw the odd clip and Terry Crews looked great and like a star in it. I remembered him from that when he was in other things, which is a testament to how Terry Crews Terry Crews is. I never remember anyone from anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Von Linus posted:I never saw battlebowl but I saw the odd clip and Terry Crews looked great and like a star in it. I remembered him from that when he was in other things, which is a testament to how Terry Crews Terry Crews is. I never remember anyone from anything. hey I know this is a typo but I'm watching wcw ppvs from the early 90s right now and is there anyone, anyone who defends battle bowl as a concept? it's the only parts I've skipped so far because it's a terrible idea and takes forever to get through. the end match is fine, and a twist on the rumble concept which I can appreciate, but having a dozen tag matches with jobbers filling out most of it just kills a ppv dead e: the first one put some story around sting at least, but lordy it just looks like covering for an extremely thin roster
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
shiksa posted:hey I know this is a typo but I'm watching wcw ppvs from the early 90s right now and is there anyone, anyone who defends battle bowl as a concept? it's the only parts I've skipped so far because it's a terrible idea and takes forever to get through. the end match is fine, and a twist on the rumble concept which I can appreciate, but having a dozen tag matches with jobbers filling out most of it just kills a ppv dead If you've got a fuckhuge roster it seems like a rad idea which you can get multiple stories out of: established tag teams being forced apart for one night, unusual combinations that work surprisingly well, feuding dudes teaming up, that one heel team who somehow against the odds managed to
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
I don't know about the subsequent ones, but apparently the first Battle Bowl the teams were truly drawn at random at the start of the show, so nobody had any time to prepare. There could almost be a intriguing concept in there. A tournament where the partners are chosen at random, and as each round progresses, the teams get chosen at random again. The finals could be the winning team facing each other in a singles match Davros1 fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Manic_Misanthrope posted:If you've got a fuckhuge roster it seems like a rad idea which you can get multiple stories out of: established tag teams being forced apart for one night, unusual combinations that work surprisingly well, feuding dudes teaming up, that one heel team who somehow against the odds managed to Except it always made for terrible PPVs that no one bought. You can't fit that many matches on one show and random teams with no chemistry lead to no matches. Imagine paying $30 and not knowing what the show will actually be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:Except it always made for terrible PPVs that no one bought. You can't fit that many matches on one show and random teams with no chemistry lead to no matches. Imagine paying $30 and not knowing what the show will actually be. It's a great idea for the Network, since we are all paying anyway. Give me a random match generator PPV!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
It's a great concept for an undercard if you have a strong draw match on top, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Pinstripe Hourglass posted:It's a great concept for an undercard if you have a strong draw match on top, I think. the strong draw match on top is a battle royale where no one knows the participants before buying the match
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Pinstripe Hourglass posted:It's a great concept for an undercard if you have a strong draw match on top, I think. Except it has never ever been good and as a concept doesn't even sound good. You either get random seeming match ups which exist for no reason or wacky enemies teaming that seem completely contrived. The matches also have almost no heat because who could possibly care about the format.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:Except it has never ever been good and as a concept doesn't even sound good. You either get random seeming match ups which exist for no reason or wacky enemies teaming that seem completely contrived. The matches also have almost no heat because who could possibly care about the format. But enough about the Royal Rumble
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:Except it has never ever been good and as a concept doesn't even sound good. You either get random seeming match ups which exist for no reason or wacky enemies teaming that seem completely contrived. The matches also have almost no heat because who could possibly care about the format. The final Lethal Lottery (1996) was the latter. They announced the pairings on Nitro and nothing seemed random about it. Almost every pairing had a split tag team or enemies on the same side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Didn't cyber sunday also draw poor in comparison when WWE ran those random match concepts? Its always a good idea on paper but people want to know what they're getting into before dropping what was probably 30/60 bucks at the time. Agree with the network era and the fact we're all in anyway its a concept which could work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
The Croc posted:Didn't cyber sunday also draw poor in comparison when WWE ran those random match concepts? Very poorly. I've seen bits of this Bagwell interview posted before but here's a couple paragraphs from the 11/6/00 Observer with more details quote:Buff Bagwell did an interview before the PPV with Alex Marvez on wrestlingobserver.com which is sure to cause a lot of controversy due to the pointed remarks and also the appraisal of where he and others stand as far as being top talent. He ripped on Vince Russo, saying his tenure has broken everyone down, noting in particular Luger, Page and himself. He complained about the WCW fining system for wrestlers showing up late. Just a few day before the match, he said he had no idea what a DNA match is and that he's never been so confused about wrestling in his entire life. He said that he missed out on a big raise because he had a neck injury in 1998 when Bischoff was giving out all the big raises. He said Bill Busch was going to give him a raise but he was fired (Busch actually quit when Bischoff and Russo were brought back in April). He said, "Out of all the `A' talent, I can say this with confidence. I was the only guy that is up for a raise; definitely underpaid as far as talent goes." He complained about how screwed up the company is, citing that Luger is being paid $1.3 million per year and doing jobs for Hugh Morrus. "Are you kidding me? Hugh is a great guy and all that, but he's not A talent. I love him to death, but he's never going to draw a dime we're talking about drawing money and he's never going to draw a f---in dime. And Luger is putting him over at house shows? Nothing is adding up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
He's not wrong about Hugh Morris.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
buff bagwell totally had A talent potential when wcw was hot
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Eh, he was kind of a "B+" guy on the cusp for awhile, but they never pulled the trigger on him. His closest shot at breaking through was in Spring 99' during his feud with Piper at which it seemed like he was going to breakthrough, but they never followed through their push to the next level like they did for Booker T and Scott Steiner in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Shiki Dan posted:Eh, he was kind of a "B+" guy on the cusp for awhile, but they never pulled the trigger on him. Uh, what? His closest shot was coming back from his neck injury in 98, he was going to be The Rock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Favorite Buff Bagwell moments. - Bagwell gets beaten up for real by Ernest Miller - Bagwell gets beaten up for real by Scott Steiner - Bagwell gets beaten up for real by Shane Helms
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Buff was the stuff
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Say Nothing posted:Favorite Buff Bagwell moments. -Buff Bagwell sucks so bad that Vince flushes his entire Invasion plan
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:Uh, what? I will never understand why they turned him heel when he returned. It was a Russo turn before Russo even joined the company.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Max Coveri posted:I will never understand why they turned him heel when he returned. It was a Russo turn before Russo even joined the company. Maybe they thought a face couldn't pull off his entrance ramp dance
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
That stupid dance was big enough I remember NFL mascots doing it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
i went to the Thunder where Buff broke his neck and they kept replaying it on the tron like the drat zapruder film
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Max Coveri posted:I will never understand why they turned him heel when he returned. It was a Russo turn before Russo even joined the company. This is a company that loving loves its heels. It's like inverse WWE where the bad guys are cool and dominant and the faces are total idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
I think I've posted this before but I've been kind of following this in the back of my head during Tuesday Nitro and tonight was an important night in the chronology. WCW debuted the Big Gold Belt in 86. It cost about $12,000 and featured fake jewels that the wrestlers apparently kept trying to steal and sell, which had to be replaced. It had one distinctive feature later on, a bend in the top of the belt. This first appeared in 89 when Muta used it as a weapon but got much worse as time wore on. By 98-99 the belt was looking pretty worn. Around the filming of Ready to Rumble WCW had some casts of the belt made. They went to Nash, DDP, Scott Steiner, the movie and one later to Jeff Jarrett. This becomes important later on. At Bash at the Beach 2000 the bent belt is switched with the cast Jeff Jarrett has. Hogan wins it after Jarrett lays down for him and then both sides work themselves into a shoot. Hogan thinks he has the original belt, but he doesn't. The original belt is awarded to the winner of Booker vs Jarrett on that show, you can tell because Hogan's looks new and Booker's doesn't. So that belt gets swapped around until the final Nitro when Scott Steiner, then the champion switches the original belt for his cast and Booker T wins that one to take to the WWF. Scott Steiner then keeps the original and has it in his personal collection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Scott Steiner you crafty bastard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:This is a company that loving loves its heels. It's like inverse WWE where the bad guys are cool and dominant and the faces are total idiots. But that's WWE right now
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Scott Steiner you crafty bastard. For as insane and carny Steiner appears to be, he's actually a pretty intelligent bastard
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
I don't think anyone underestimates Big Poppa Pump's intelligence other than the fact that we're more scared of the steroids.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:I think I've posted this before but I've been kind of following this in the back of my head during Tuesday Nitro and tonight was an important night in the chronology. Do you have any good pictures of them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Wow like I needed another reason that Scott Steiner kicked rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
stab posted:For as insane and carny Steiner appears to be, he's actually a pretty intelligent bastard I can't tell if Steiner is crazy or crazy like a fox.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
ChrisBTY posted:I can't tell if Steiner is crazy or crazy like a fox. Yes
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
So ok, Scott Steiner moments of legitimate brilliance. 1) The drug test gambit with HHH. 2) The belt switcharoo. 3) Reinventing himself a decade into his career when he came to realize that he couldn't rely on his athleticism anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Don't forget Steiner realized his value as a meme and got paid by TNA in 2017
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
ChrisBTY posted:So ok, Scott Steiner moments of legitimate brilliance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFoC3TR5rzI
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:29
|
|
