Jump to content

Wrestling Counterfactuals


Dearly Devoted Dexter

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

I was talking to someone today about what is known as the "Cleopatra's Nose" theory of history (as one does) - the idea that small events have large repercussions - and the subject turned to counterfactuals ("what if?") in wrestling. I guess the biggest one is "what if there was no Montreal screwjob?" No Mr McMahon character in the short term presumably. Similarly, what if Shawn Michaels hadn't injured his back in early 1998? Presumably there would have been all sorts of drama over dropping the belt to Austin (not that there was no shortage of that anyway), and then the question of what Michaels would have done if he'd stuck around.

 

One my mate bought up was "what if the invasion had been booked successfully?", but personally I don't think it would have had long term consequences for the business if it had been a success, I still think we'd have had the wrestling depression that occurred anyway - Rock would have still gone to Hollywood, Austin's neck was still shot. On the other hand you might argue that a successful invasion would have made stars out of certain guys that could have gone on and carried the company.

 

Other possible counterfactuals to consider :

 

What if Paul Heyman had gained creative control of TNA in 2010?

 

What if HHH had won the 1996 KOTR as planned (i.e. no Austin 3:16)

 

What if Ted Dibiase had won the WWF title at WM 4 as planned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always need to ask how would people book the Invasion angle differently? I dont think there were people they didnt try to get that would have made a difference, I get the impression the guys that didnt come didnt want to therefore you have to work with what you have got. Other than not doing the Invasion angle and keeping the two companies going separately I cant see another way to book it, WWE need to come out on top and protect its made stars. I have never seen a way of doing it that wasnt going to result in a one side anti climax. Even if bigger stars had joined it would have ended the same way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
What if Paul Heyman had gained creative control of TNA in 2010?

 

They'd be the number one company in the world. Doing 15.5 ratings and selling out 500,000 seater arenas every week. His planned "get rid of all the recognisable names and have Daniel Bryan beat everyone left in a 38-on-1 handicap match, in a minute, by submission" storyline would have ushered in a new boom period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

And they say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit....

 

So is your argument that it wouldn't have made any difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I'm saying we'd be in for some shitty television. The thing he'd be responsible for putting out in this alternate universe of yours.

 

Would it make a difference? I don't know. I can't see it making a positive difference, anyway. They'd instantly be 10% of the entire company's revenue down, if they gave him control. And I can't see his plan increasing their business or making good television.

 

So, worse off, probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One that has always interested me is "What if Brock Lesnar didn't leave in 2004?".

 

Arguably before he left Brock was the number 1 guy in the company. If he had stayed what would have that meant for the likes of John Cena, Batista and Randy Orton? Would they have had as many title reigns? Would Cena have become the face of the company? Where would have Brock gone after the feud with Goldberg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Invasion storyline, I thought Lance Storm made a good point on his shoot interview. The locker-room was impacted in a way I never considered before and they had a right to be pissed with all the new guys all coming in and stealing there jobs after all the effort they put into making the company a success. Especially if you paid over a million for Goldberg and have him run over Rikishi who was over and did it for significantly less pay.

 

I don't think I've worded this quite right, basically loads of new guys come in having failed to draw money and steal established people's jobs for tons of money= bad morale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
I always need to ask how would people book the Invasion angle differently?

By pretending that getting Goldberg and co was feasible at the time.

Of course it was feasible. It was expensive but it was feasible. You say "and co" but I'm not sure that's true. The invasion didn't need everyone, it just needed someone. If they'd paid for Goldberg, Sting and Kevin Nash, for instance, they would've created at least 15 matches people would pay to see, the WCW brand would've had star power and leadership and they would've made a lot of money. Whatever Goldberg's price was, Goldberg vs. Steve Austin would have paid for it and more.

 

I'm not sure history would've been much different in the long term, we'd still be out of stars by now but I think they'd have made an awful lot more money in 2002 and 2003 than they did.

 

On the other hand, had they made more money in 2002 & 2003 they may have put much less effort into diversifying the product and increasing their other revenue streams and then they would've been hit much, much harder by the financial collapse in 2008.

 

On the other hand, Steve Austin vs. Goldberg might've piqued the interest of 8 billion Chinese and WWE could be the biggest brand in the world right now.

 

So, basically, fuck knows. But the angle would've been better in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would have took stupid unrealistic fees for any of those three though rick as they were making a mint sitting at home, it wasnt a case of matching their deal, they all need a massive incentive to get off their arse as they were gonna get say $1m for sitting at home so they werent gonna hit the road for $1.2m for example

 

the figures I am using are total guesses mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I just remember being so into the Invasion storyline until Austin turned. They did a really good job of spiking my interest at the time. It was an awesome PPV as well. There was enough free agents to get by until Goldberg was available. It was only Goldberg who was under lock and key for a long term deal. Bischoff was available, Scott Hall was available, Hulk Hogan was available, Ric Flair came available in November, they had DDP and Booker T, Sting was in negotiations to wrestle Kurt Angle at WrestleMania X8 so he was free, Nash came available in March, Rey Mysterio was around at the time. Scott Steiner was doing WWA tours, so he must have been available. They could have introduced a big star every couple of months. Imagine having that luxury now? Would have done some great business. They should have had enough quality to tidy themselves over until 2003 when Goldberg came available. Shame it turned out how it did.

 

It all went tits up when they couldnt find a decent timeslot for WCW on their network. It says a lot about the damage that was done to the brand name that TNN, UPN and Viacom didnt want the name "WCW" associated with their prime time programming. It wasnt like they originally set out to bury it. They supposedly had current Strikeforce commentator Mauro Ranallo (who was MatRats and Stampede's top man at the time) in waiting to do the broadcasting on the new WCW show. If they'd have got regular TV show for WCW, who knows if they'd have done better with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
it would have took stupid unrealistic fees for any of those three though rick as they were making a mint sitting at home, it wasnt a case of matching their deal, they all need a massive incentive to get off their arse as they were gonna get say $1m for sitting at home so they werent gonna hit the road for $1.2m for example

That money was short term. Working for WWE was worth lots more in the long term. They all needed to work, either for money, ego or both, evidenced by the fact that everyone of them has been working most of the last 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian makes a better point than I do, they should have brought them in as they became available, they eventually got Flair and Nash but they were post-invasion angle. Nash said loads of times that he had no intention of working when he was getting paid to sit at home and I am pretty sure Sting would have been the same and Goldberg obviously did just that to. I would imagine everyone else was recruitable. Would I be right in think Sting is the only WCW headliner around the time WCW died that didnt eventually show up anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...