Paid Members air_raid Posted February 6, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2015 Running out of time would just make the holder look stupid. You've got an entire year to do it, but don't? WWE book their guys like geeks enough, let's not have that with a side of cretinous. Definitely. Seth has been de facto top heel when Brock hasn't been around. When Brock leaves, it's time for Seth to shit or get off the pot. I imagine the plan for it originally was him facing Hogan at Summerslam 1993 with Hogan putting him over. Looking back on it now, with all that not happening, it does look rather hilarious. Hulk done him up like a kipper. Bret says in his book Vince told him that was going to happen but then near the PPV told him Hogan didn't want to and wanted to drop it to Yokozuna instead. Bret confronts Hogan, Hogan takes Bret to Vince, Vince tells Bret "I don't know what you're on about." Hogan says in his book that there was no original plan for him to take the belt but he suggested to Vince that he take the belt from Yokozuna then lose it back to him to make Yoko look better before he left again because he knew his glory days were over (LOL) and sold it to Vince as a way of getting one last (LOL) rub off him before he went off into the sunset, and him losing the belt to Bret was never even a consideration. If you believe The Hulkster, it's actually Vince that did Bret up. Told him "lose the belt to Yoko, don't worry, you'll get to win it back from Hogan" despite never planning to do that or even hold the match. Even though the company did that photo shoot with Hogan and Bret staring at each other with the belt in between them, which was published in WWF Magazine. Seems a lot of effort to convince one bloke the match is going to happen if it never was, but I wouldn't put it past Vince, on account of him having pretty much always been cream crackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted February 6, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Hogan held the cards when he came back. I honestly dont see any reason for him to lie about putting Bret over. The mentality was way different in 1993. I could never see Hogan wanting to put Bret over, let alone agree to it before his return. Hogan wouldn't put Shawn Michaels over when he was in his mid-50s. There's no way he was putting Bret over in 93 clean in the middle. I was always of the believe that Vince was trying to stir Bret up because he knew Hogan was done and dusted with the company. I mean, Vince didnt even want Randy Savage putting people over in 93/94, let alone Hogan. I actually have the WWF Magazine issue Bret always references, and I see no belt pulling. All I see is a picture of Bret and a picture of Hogan and some article about "could the Hitman beat Hulkamania" or something like that. The month before was debating whether High Energy could win the tag belts, so those magazines aren't that credible a source. Bret is probably lucky Hogan didn't wrestle him. Bret might have been back in tag matches in 94 if Hogan pulled his tricks, as he does in babyface vs babyface matches. Even if Hogan took the loss, putting him over is a whole different thing. Edited February 6, 2015 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Quick question about Hogan's '93 run, a few people on here were moaning about Lesnar not defending the title every 30 days at the end of last year, did Hogan defend his title at all between Mania 9 and KOTR? Given there was a lot more kayfabe going on then you'd think more people would've mentioned it at the time Not really related but while trying to find an answer to the above, came across this article, pretty sure even Bret would think this was a bit over the top http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/122461-the-match-that-never-happened-hogan-vs-bret-hart-wrestlemania-vi Edited February 6, 2015 by Dr.PeterVenkman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Nope, unless he defended it in Japan. The US matches he had as champion were tags with Beefcake against Money Inc. I think at the time though, people who cared about the 30 day rule would have just assumed he was defending it on live events. Keep in mind that in that era, we didn't get title matches every month anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted February 6, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2015 Hogan did do a house show run during that period, but it was just rematches of him and Beefcake against Money Inc for the tag titles with screwjob finishes and much dicking about every night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 6, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2015 Quick question about Hogan's '93 run, a few people on here were moaning about Lesnar not defending the title every 30 days at the end of last year, did Hogan defend his title at all between Mania 9 and KOTR? Given there was a lot more kayfabe going on then you'd think more people would've mentioned it at the time I'm fairly sure the "30 day" rule didn't exist on TV at the time anyway and was only introduced as the storyline reason to take the Intercontinental title off the steroid-suspended Shawn Michaels later that same year. Even in kayfabe it's a bullshit rule that they only ever enforce when it suits them. As soon afterwards as 1995 they were taking the title off Shawn for not being able to defend the title against Dean Douglas at the October In Your House even though 30 days had not elapsed since his last televised title defence, and they took the Big Gold Belt off CM Punk in 2008 for being injured for about an hour. The Lesnar anomaly should come as no surprise, the "30 day rule" has hardly ever been a rule, even in the storyline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 In the case of '95 Michaels and '08 Punk, though, the case could be made that they were stripped because they couldn't make their contracted defence. Same for Cena when he got injured and they did three title changes in a night at No Mercy in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted February 6, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2015 Exactly. In the pretend world of wrestling, its Jack Tunney's fault for not giving Hogan any title matches between Mania and King of the Ring. If Hogan no showed the King of the Ring, he'd have been stripped of the belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted February 7, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 7, 2015 Was listening to Bauer and Pollock today and Court told a story where they were having a meeting at Titan Towers and Vince got frustrated with something about developmental (before NXT) and decided to shut the program down. Developmental was saved only because Vince couldn't work out how to get an outside line. I love you, Vince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Your Fight Site Posted February 7, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 7, 2015 Was listening to Bauer and Pollock today and Court told a story where they were having a meeting at Titan Towers and Vince got frustrated with something about developmental (before NXT) and decided to shut the program down. Developmental was saved only because Vince couldn't work out how to get an outside line. I love you, Vince. I love that image. “Press 9, Vince.” “I did, dammit.” “No, before the number.” “I've already punched it in! Get out, you’re firedddd!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladiesman345 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I now think it would've been a great idea if Seth Rollins defeated the streak. A curb stomb on the commentary table. Takers a bloody mess. 1,2,3! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninevisions Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 On the subject of the Undertaker, and pardon moi if it's already been mentioned will WWE still make Undertaker's Wrestlemania W-L record a big thing? like graphics with '22-1' or 21-2'? or even a graphic that says '22 victories?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted February 7, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 7, 2015 I'm assuming that his next Mania match (if he does one) will be his last. I dout they'll do the graphics or anything, but I'm sure they'll say something on commentary about him only having been beat once before at WrestleMania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undefeated Steak Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I'm with Riot on this. He should only have one more outing and that should be his retirement match next year in Texas. The story running up to that writes itself. You could even add a dimension and give a nod to the final HBK/Taker feud by having WWE refuse him a final match on medical grounds, but Taker doing whatever he can to get the match. Has anybody ever had a better WWF/E career than Undertaker? He is Wrestlemania. There wouldn't be a dry eye in the building if he lost a retirement match in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Your Fight Site Posted February 7, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 7, 2015 I'm not feeling a near-seven-foot tall phenom having to fight to be medically cleared to wrestle one more match. He's larger than life, a phenom, the dead man. Having him being forbidden from wrestling on medical grounds just makes him look weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts