Around The Horn #1

Vince135792003

Ric Flair versus Dave Batista...Ric Flairs last match

I think there's a zillion to one chance this will happen but if they booked it right, it would be one of the very few stories left in wrestling that could hit a real nerve with fans. I posted this a while ago but here's how I'd book it:

Everyone watching wrestling knows that Ric Flairs best days are behind him but could he have 1 more great day at the biggest event there is? People can relate to stories like that and Flair even as he gets older has always had the ability to still draw..

You would have his opponent, say a borderline heel Batista sayings he's past it. He's no longer what he was and he's gonna hurt and embarrass him badly if Ric goes through with the match.

You could do backstage promos in the weeks leading up to it with wrestlers saying to Flair as great as he WAS he shouldn't go through with it for his own safety. His family are telling him not to do it too. Flair begins to question himself.

Out pops Arn Anderson (maybe bring in some of his former rivals too Steamboat, Rhodes etc...). Or you could do it with a younger wrestler who absolutely idolized Flair as a kid. They remind Flair what a legend he is and goes through with the match. He gets his ass kicked. He bleeds. But he doesn't give up. He fights back.

He wins (small cradle or some light interference to protect Batista). Flair gets his 1 last moment with the belt and retires at that very moment in the ring (I'm normally against the retiring with the belt thing but if anyone can get away with it, Flair can). All the wrestlers from his past carry him around on his shoulders. We get a moment people will remember forever and a legend gets to go out in a way that few have.

ShawnRaven

With all the Smackdown votes leaning heavily. I will have to disagree and say it will be a RAW one and it will involve Cena in some way. Now folks, bear in mind that last years Wrestlemania main event was billed as a haircut match. Vince, Trump and Austin being on the cover was pushed a lot more heavier than any of the title matches.

So i'm gonna give it to Orton v Cena in some sort of non wrestling role. Given WWE's track record in the last year, it could go from anything to a hair vs hair match to a pizza eating contest to a basketball game.

It will stink up the joint, but fans will eat it up because It's Cena and he can wave his hand in front of his face a few times and pump up his reeboks so yay. The actual title matches will make up for this farce, but it still won't stop Vince from pushing it.

VR!

Charlie

I'm gonna go for something different. HHH v. Orton.

Cena has main evented for too many years now, his last two Mania appearances have been somewhat dodgy with crowd reaction, there's no clear heel/face distinction in those matches. I was in MSG for Raw this summer, and the crowd popped crazy when he was RKO'd into the chair. Further, its not clear whether Cena will be back in time for Mania. The Mania main event has to be built up months in advance, at best Cena will be back a few weeks before Mania, thats no way to book a mania.

In relation to Batista, for me the jury is still way out on this guy. He can only really step up, when he is in the ring with someone good. Taker can do that in the ring, but no so much outside of it. Taker isn't a talker, and Batista sure as hell isn't so I could see the buildup to that match being weak. The main reason it worked last year was the momentum Taker brought with him from his rumble performance, you can't sell the same package two years in a row.

In relation to Flair/Batista, its almost the inverse of the Taker problem. Sure Ric could do a steller job building the match, but he's too old and not at a level where he could carry Batista, I could see that match being bowling shoe ugly.

In relation to Edge/Batista, I don't think it works because there is no A++ name there. The casual buyer who doesn't watch WWE that often but may be liable to be suckered in by he Mania hype isn't gonna get worked up by Edge/Batista. That person's not gonna fork out $60+ for that main event, these are the PPV buys WWE courts at Mania. Further, I think Edge's talent on the mic would be wasted on Batista, it would be too easy for him. He needs someone like Rock, HHH, Cena, Jericho, to spare with him verbally.

The reason you go with HHH/Orton is as follows;

Raw is the premier brand, the main event should be built around that.

Orton has proved in the last 4 months that he is a top level heel. He had botched it previously, but I think his program with Cena has proved he has figured his character out.

HHH, as good as he is as a heel, is reaching that flair status where no matter how much the fans are supposed to hate him, he will still get big pops because he is WWE, fans respect the hell out of him for the way he comes back form those injuries. Fans of all ages love to get behind HHH, look at the hype around his return at Summerslam.

You have tons of history with Orton and HHH that can be used, and also, in many ways Orton is resembling HHH of 6/7 years ago, that can also be used. Orton claiming that its time for HHH to step aside, he's past it, he's the future of WWE etc.

Finally, and crucially, both guys can work in the ring at main event level. They could put together a damn fine wrasslin match!

Vince135792003

charlie mchugh wrote: »

In relation to Flair/Batista, its almost the inverse of the Taker problem. Sure Ric could do a steller job building the match, but he's too old and not at a level where he could carry Batista, I could see that match being bowling shoe ugly.

You underestimate Ric Flair in big match situations even at near 60. Even so, IF they build the match up right, in my way or in another way that got over the emotion of seeing Ric Flair go for the belt one last time, the story would carry the match.

UFC in March had something similar. You had 44 year old Randy Couture coming out of retirement to fight the 6ft 7, young giant Tim Silvia. And he won and it was 500 shades of awesome because of the story, the emotion and personalities of the people involved.

Now if that fight in terms of quality had been with 2 nobodies, it could have been booed out of the building beacause at times not much happened. But it wasn't. It was Randy Couture going for the belt one last time and people cared.

If WWE gave Ric Flair the ball one last time, alot of people would care. And for the people that wouldn't? Flair could convince them with his promo work in about 2 weeks.

I really think they should do it. Wrestlemania is about moments and this would be a helluva one.

Charlie

Vince135792003 wrote: »

You underestimate Ric Flair. IF they build the match up right, in my way or in another way that got over the emotion of seeing Ric Flair go for the belt one last time, the story would carry the match.

UFC in March had something similar. You had 44 year old Randy Couture coming out of retirement to fight the 6ft 7, young giant Tim Silvia. And he won and it was 500 shades of awesome because of the story, the emotion and personalities of the people involved.

Now if that fight in terms of quality had been with 2 nobodies, it could have been booed out of the building beacause at times not much happened. But it wasn't. It was Randy Couture going for the belt one last time and people cared.

If WWE gave Ric Flair the ball one last time, alot of people would care. And for the people that wouldn't? Flair could convince them with his promo work in about 2 weeks.

I really think they should do it. Wrestlemania is about moments and this would be a helluva one.

Vince, I don't disagree with you per se. In topic 1 ,I was saying Flair was the most underutilized wrestler in WWE, and making the same points that you just said (although I gave the Rocky Balboa analogy). However, I don't think such a program works effectively with Batista, thats why I would argue against that as being the Main Event.

I believe your argument would be better suited to an Orton/Flair main event. Ric I believe still can carry himself well in a match, but I don't think he has it in him to carry Dave aswel, that chap is a total lummox in the ring. Further, I don't think Batista would be an effective heel for that match, hes just too one dimensional.

I still put forward Orton/HHH for the reasons I previously outlined.

Vince135792003

charlie mchugh wrote: »

Vince, I don't disagree with you per se. On topic 1 I was saying Flair was the most underutilized and making the same points that you just said. However, I don't think it works that well with Batista, thats why I would argue against that as being the Main Event.

I believe your argument would be better suited to an Orton/Flair main event. Ric I believe still can carry himself well in a match, but I don't think he has it in him to carry Dave aswel, that chap is a total lummox in the ring. Further, I don't think Batista would be an effective heel for that match, hes just too one dimensional.

I still put forward Orton/HHH for the reasons I previously outlined.

I call rule break! Orton works too though I agree. I just picked Dave really because of his size differential to Flair and the fact that I wouldn't want to hurt a guy like Orton losing in that way.

I think they could job out Batista and in the end it wouldn't hurt the company long term in the way it would if they did it with Orton. Also to me, the story would be all about Flair.

Charlie

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I think they could job out Batista and in the end it wouldn't hurt the company long term in the way it would if they did it with Orton. Also to me, the story would be all about Flair.

Fair point.

Bounty Hunter

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I call rule break!

yup shouldent have really counterd vinces arguement twice there charlie so lets leave it there now that your seemingly in agreement.

edit: this thread is funny when i browse it i feel like a moderator

Charlie

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

yup shouldent have really have counterd vinces arguement twice there charlie so lets leave it there

Bubs101

I really think the analagies between Flair and Couture and Balboa are flawed. Couture is in great shape and Flair just isn't. He looks terrible in the ring and really is past it.Beside Batista he looks ridiculous, let alone against him in the flagship Pay-Per-View. Also, Couture's record backed him and people knew he could still wrestle. People don't know that Flair can do anything other than a crotch chop and Wooooo.

As for the Rocky Balboa angle, he retired and came back to defend his pride, not for one last payday. Flair on the other hand has hung around, not because of passion but because he keeps wasting all his money and has to go back. I remember seeing someone post www.ricflairfinance.com a while back which is clear exploitation of the people who idolize him in a money making scam. Couldn't imagine Rocky peddling a pyramid scheme.

HHH vs. Cena would sell the most. The 2 biggest names, the biggest show for the most important belt

Vince135792003

Bubs101 wrote: »

I really think the analagies between Flair and Couture and Balboa are flawed. Couture is in great shape and Flair just isn't. He looks terrible in the ring and really is past it.Beside Batista he looks ridiculous, let alone against him in the flagship Pay-Per-View. Also, Couture's record backed him and people knew he could still wrestle. People don't know that Flair can do anything other than a crotch chop and Wooooo.

His record didn't back him. He had lost his last 2 fights at heavy weight, hadn't fought in a year and was coming off a knock out loss to Chuck Lidell.

People do not know who Ric Flair is? What? If they treated Flair with respect, they might bring back alot of fans who have long since stopped watching. A 3.3 for Raw is pretty crappy with no competition.

By the way, Flairs still moves ratings. Always has and always will. Get a copy of any observer with quarterly tv ratings with a show Flair was on if you don't believe me. Apologies if I'm not supposed to come back here but I don't really care. Your post is so far off the mark.

Questioning his passion? This was a guy who outworked everyone except Kurt Angle at the last house show I saw him at in Dublin (2005 when he actually worked twice that day) at aged 57. Ric Flair is built on passion.

Bounty Hunter

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Apologies if I'm not supposed to come back here but I don't really care. Your post is so far off the mark.

your always allowed to defend your own arguement just not repeatly contest anothers.

flahavaj

Wuhoo! Does that make me current, reigning and defending champion?:D Just home after a really long day I'll post my answer to question 2 in a little while. Quick question though. Do I now have to chose a different answer to others?

Bounty Hunter

flahavaj wrote: »

Wuhoo! Does that make me current, reigning and defending champion?:D Just home after a really long day I'll post my answer to question 2 in a little while. Quick question though. Do I now have to chose a different answer to others?

you dont actually although in the first round everone did. Although obviously its harder to win a debate when your making the same points someone else already made. Your not the current/defending champ though you are one fifth of the way to being crowned the innagural ATH champ.

flahavaj

Again i've ben screwed over by everyone taking all the good options.

However, just to be different i'm gonna go with Edge Vs HBK.

I don't see how they are going to be able to hold off on the Undertaker/Edge feud until wrestlemania, still 6 months away. The last time Edge was seen he was screwing Taker out of the title on Smackdown. Edge is due to return at Sur Series. The taker's character, being the unforgiving bastard that he is will no doubt want to exact immediate retribution. That feud will rumble on for a few months, with Edge eventually screwing taker out of the gold somewhere around the Rumble. In the Rumble, meanwhile, HBK goes one step further than last year for an emotional win that blows the roof off the stadium.

So now we have HBK Vs Edge for the gold. Firstly there's the obvious face/heel dynamic. The lead up to the feud can have edge claim that HBK is a washed up has been. That he, Edge, has now become everything that HBK once was. He is now the cocky brash, sexy superstar that the women want and that men want to be. That Rated R is the new moniker for the Sexy Boy. Have him do over the top parodies of the Heartbreak Hotel. Have him dress in gear mocking HBK. The best thing is that in many ways the Rated R gimmick actually does resemble the gimmick of the old cocky, brash HBK from back in the day. Hell, they could even bring Lita back and dress her up as a parody of Sherri. Tastless i know, but hey, you know Vince would do it if it meant dollars. This whole approach could lead do some great promos, which i believe Edge has the skills to carry off. They would even have that element of truth that Foley has said that truly great promos need to get over properly. Both guys even had similar career paths, both werein highly successful tag teams before branching out on their own to multiple IC title runs.

It would be a worthy main event in that HBK is a proven draw over the years. The match itself woulf be incredible as HBK ALWAYS brings the WM goodness and Edge is more than capable of an excellent match as he has proven time and time again. Its a fresh match as far as i know, i don;t recall any high profile singles matches between the two in living memory and Edge is just the type of young hungry competitor to bring the absolute best out of HBK.

flahavaj

charlie mchugh wrote: »

I'm gonna go for something different. HHH v. Orton.

Cena has main evented for too many years now, his last two Mania appearances have been somewhat dodgy with crowd reaction, there's no clear heel/face distinction in those matches. I was in MSG for Raw this summer, and the crowd popped crazy when he was RKO'd into the chair. Further, its not clear whether Cena will be back in time for Mania. The Mania main event has to be built up months in advance, at best Cena will be back a few weeks before Mania, thats no way to book a mania.

In relation to Batista, for me the jury is still way out on this guy. He can only really step up, when he is in the ring with someone good. Taker can do that in the ring, but no so much outside of it. Taker isn't a talker, and Batista sure as hell isn't so I could see the buildup to that match being weak. The main reason it worked last year was the momentum Taker brought with him from his rumble performance, you can't sell the same package two years in a row.

In relation to Flair/Batista, its almost the inverse of the Taker problem. Sure Ric could do a steller job building the match, but he's too old and not at a level where he could carry Batista, I could see that match being bowling shoe ugly.

In relation to Edge/Batista, I don't think it works because there is no A++ name there. The casual buyer who doesn't watch WWE that often but may be liable to be suckered in by he Mania hype isn't gonna get worked up by Edge/Batista. That person's not gonna fork out $60+ for that main event, these are the PPV buys WWE courts at Mania. Further, I think Edge's talent on the mic would be wasted on Batista, it would be too easy for him. He needs someone like Rock, HHH, Cena, Jericho, to spare with him verbally.

The reason you go with HHH/Orton is as follows;

Raw is the premier brand, the main event should be built around that.

Orton has proved in the last 4 months that he is a top level heel. He had botched it previously, but I think his program with Cena has proved he has figured his character out.

HHH, as good as he is as a heel, is reaching that flair status where no matter how much the fans are supposed to hate him, he will still get big pops because he is WWE, fans respect the hell out of him for the way he comes back form those injuries. Fans of all ages love to get behind HHH, look at the hype around his return at Summerslam.

You have tons of history with Orton and HHH that can be used, and also, in many ways Orton is resembling HHH of 6/7 years ago, that can also be used. Orton claiming that its time for HHH to step aside, he's past it, he's the future of WWE etc.

Finally, and crucially, both guys can work in the ring at main event level. They could put together a damn fine wrasslin match!

The problem with this is that its been done before. They feuded for the belt after HHH threw Orton out of Evolution after Orton beat Benoit in late 2005. To me a WM main event should be a fresh match. It should be the first time they have ever laid hands on each other. You should have that big match feel where they are kept apart week after week like they did with Cena/HBK last year, so that by the time that bell rings you are DYING to see them get their claws into one another. I wouldn't even book my main event opponents in tags or six man matches against each other in the weeks building up to Mania;Its all about building anticipation for that final in-ring blow off. You want the sight of both men going nose to nose in the Mania Event to be a unique moment for the ages like Hogan/Rock was. You don't want something thats a re hash of a two year old storyline.

Hell, HHH and Orton were in the ring together last Monday on RAW and will probably face of in a tag match in the Survivor Series main again. HHH/Orton is gona be WELL played out by the time Mania rolls around in April. We need fresh matches!!!!

Bounty Hunter

Just MNG (who had a decent showing) and Minto (who if he expands on his answers could still easily compete) that participated in round one left to go.

Charlie

flahavaj wrote: »

The problem with this is that its been done before. They feuded for the belt after HHH threw Orton out of Evolution after Orton beat Benoit in late 2005. To me a WM main event should be a fresh match. It should be the first time they have ever laid hands on each other. You should have that big match feel where they are kept apart week after week like they did with Cena/HBK last year, so that by the time that bell rings you are DYING to see them get their claws into one another. I wouldn't even book my main event opponents in tags or six man matches against each other in the weeks building up to Mania;Its all about building anticipation for that final in-ring blow off. You want the sight of both men going nose to nose in the Mania Event to be a unique moment for the ages like Hogan/Rock was. You don't want something thats a re hash of a two year old storyline.

Hell, HHH and Orton were in the ring together last Monday on RAW and will probably face of in a tag match in the Survivor Series main again. HHH/Orton is gona be WELL played out by the time Mania rolls around in April. We need fresh matches!!!!

Have to disagree with you on this point. Rock/Austin Foley/rock, Bret/Shawn, HHH/Foley are all prime examples where the two men competed against each other numerous times and it worked. In fact their history as opponents is what made the future programs so interesting.

As I stated in my previous argument, I believe that Orton and HHH's ast can be used as an element of the feud.

Vince135792003

flahavaj wrote: »

The problem with this is that its been done before.

But so has your pick of Edge and Michaels. They feuded along with Orton and Triple H (and then after Triple H got injured too) for about 5 months.

Bubs101

I think that it's a given that the main event has happened before when you consider how old most of the possible main eventers are

Vince135792003

Bubs101 wrote: »

I think that it's a given that the main event has happened before when you consider how old most of the possible main eventers are

Cena v Batista.
'Taker v Edge.
Flair v Batista.

There's still a few they have left.

Bounty Hunter

ATH:Round 3
Q. Who was the best GM/Commisioner in the WWE/F in your opinion? and why choose this person above the other possibilities?

---

current leader board
1. Flahavaj (38)
2. Vince135792003 (36)
3. Gimmick (34)
4. Charlie McMugh (29)
5. validreasoning! (26)
6. Bubs101 (25)
7. Mr Nice Guy (16)
8. Minto (10)
9. Callaway92 (9)

----

Again im going to avoid for the most part justifying scores so as to avoid arguements but 1 or 2 points. high profile, prehaps original matches that could sell and maybe create a WM moment would be ideal obviously. VR although i could imagine WWE doing that, Is that really what you would book and deem worthy of main-eventing WM as was the topic? VR's Hornswaggle a.ka Callaway92 you will never win a debate with just two lines unless they are decidely profound which yours sadley were not. a

now as MNG just showed people may miss rounds meaning the gap on the leaderboard could be easier closed than expected, and im sure you each would like to finish ahead of certain posters so lets kick on with rd3.

ShawnRaven

Mick Foley, In a Nutshell

Foley was one the fans could relate to. Jack Tunney as president didn't really have much say in the matter unless it was extremely controversial. Monsoon's was too short. Nobody gave a crap about Slaighter, unless HHH was taking the p*ss out of him. Michaels was good in the role, but got stale pretty fast. I'm surprised he lasted two years in the role, but he only appeared every three to four months to the point people had forgotten WWE even had one.

Foley's commissionership, as short lived as it was, it was memorable. He was funny/smart about his decisions but at the same time, he was human. He wasn't regimented. He was able to rule with the iron fist, while still bringing the funny.

Regal comes close second in terms of funniness, Bischoff after that just for sheer surprise value.
VR!

Bounty Hunter

validreasoning! wrote: »

Mick Foley, In a Nutshell
Will post now and edit before someone else gets it

go ahead and smart move. although your chosing Foley doesent mean nobody else can but they will hardley sound as good if they are making the same points youve already made.

gimmick

For me, it is an easy question - Eric Bischoff. From the get go, he was exciting television.

His was the perfect heel GM/Comissioner type, who the fans genuinely hated. his promos didn't have to rely on anything in particular get get him over, his just being there almost did that. He is also the person, who storyline wise at least, gave us the Elimination Chamber, and I still maintain the first one was the only good one. He was the man who had the honour of handing HHH the title, leading to much debate about how undeserving HHH was for it. He brought in Eugene, and for the first while at least, he worked fantastically together with him.

Not to mention, he was the longest serving GM/Commissioner in a long time, and in that time, he did not get stale in the slightest.

ShawnRaven

Given my position on the leaderboard, i'll take every opportunity I can get
VR!

ShawnRaven

gimmick wrote: »

For me, it is an easy question - Eric Bischoff. From the get go, he was exciting television.

His was the perfect heel GM/Comissioner type, who the fans genuinely hated. his promos didn't have to rely on anything in particular get get him over, his just being there almost did that. He is also the person, who storyline wise at least, gave us the Elimination Chamber, and I still maintain the first one was the only good one. He was the man who had the honour of handing HHH the title, leading to much debate about how undeserving HHH was for it. He brought in Eugene, and for the first while at least, he worked fantastically together with him.

I will agree he was exciting Television, but as you just said, being one of the longest serving, all he gave us was the Elimination Chamber and Eugene. Eugene has come and gone and as you said, the only EC match worthwhile mentioning was the original. To me, it left his GM status as something that faded away mere months after he was fired.

VR!

Danger_Dave

I shall jump into this late, always read rarely post. My pick is Regal. Although not the best GM yet i think hes got ability to be the best GM of the WWE. He's got all the skills on the mic , and he's the heat from the crowd thats needed and hes a wrestler to boot a very underrated one at that. I do not think we've seen close to the best of regal as GM.

Two thinks That i think are required for Regal to become a great GM . One being, a heel GM needs a face Champion for a long period of time or at the least a good period of time to give it to a heel. Randy Orton is becoming a great champ dont get me wrong but if were just talking about GM's purely this would be the best line for Regal. So HBK, HHH ( or the widowmaker as i like to call him) or you never know Jeff .

Two Vince is holding Regal back, With Vince McMahon in the picture, i do not think Regal can become anything more than a comedy punchline like Coach with Vince in the picture for much longer. Vince is in control and is telling Regal what to do. Regal is Vince's whipping boy and without a long enough period of absence from Vince we wont see the full potential from Regal.

P.S I loved Foley as GM but i do not think he was there long enough which was a real pity.

Charlie

This round is a little challenging as the choices are ltd. but i'll give it my best anyways. For me it was HBK.

With Michaels as commissoner you never really knew what was going to happen. While the fans wanted to cheer for him, he was ambiguous as to whether he was a heel or face commish, a classic tweener character made famous during the attitude era. His swerve on the corporation was genius.

However, with the likes of Foley, Bischoff and Regal, they were quite predictable. Foley would crack an Al Snow joke and milk the crowd by giving their hometown a shoutout. Bischoff, as goodas he was in the role, was alwyas going to be a coniving heel, you knew which superstars he would feud with, and what way he would go ( a bit too panto for my liking). They just played sterotyped characters. With Michaels, you didn't get this, his character wasn't as simple as this.

Whilst Michaels could have been around a little more, I believe the presence of a commissioner should be more sparse than it was during Foley, Regals, and Bischoff's reign. The program shouldn't revolve around the commish, as it did many times durig their reigns.

When his appearances are limited, it really does make the appearances he does make that much more special, exciting, and engaging. Wrestlemania 15 is a fine example. Michaels turns up after not been seen in weeks, to a huge pop, to put Vince in his place. This was a great segment as Michaels hadn't been seen in a while, but importantly, it was not a given that he was gonna strip Vince of being the referee in the main event. Michaels had openly flirted with the corporation previous to this. This made it all the more exciting to the fans, the unpredictability of it all.

Finally, if for no other reason, Michael's was rocking a kick ass look back in his commish days, if only I could grow stubble like that :rolleyes:

ShawnRaven

charlie mchugh wrote: »

Wrestlemania 15 is a fine example. Michaels turns up after not been seen in weeks, to a huge pop, to put Vince in his place. This was a great segment as Michaels hadn't been seen in a while,

Not strictly true, he was practically on RAW every second week at that time, if not in the ring, he was on screen "Live from San Antonio"

VR!

Charlie

validreasoning! wrote: »

Not strictly true, he was practically on RAW every second week at that time, if not in the ring, he was on screen "Live from San Antonio"

VR!

On-screen ain't there though, the Rock does on screen occasionally, but you wouldn't expect to see him anytime soon. Point was, his appearance was quite a surprise.

Vince135792003

I hope this is allowed. I would go for Jack Tunney as the best commissioner/figure head the WWE has ever had.

For anyone that didn't watch back then he was a grey haired man who was the figure head of the WWF when anything controversial happened.

The simple reason why I think he was the best was because of how he was portrayed. He was portrayed as a serious, somewhat bland figure head but they protected his character so much that when he came on tv it was always a"Shhh, something important is gonna happen moment".

You listened because you knew it would be a big deal. He was always serious and only appeared ocassionaly so as a result you as a fan treated it seriously.

I never got that feeling at least on a long term basis from any of the other GM's. Most of the time, the role was reduced to comedy filler which is fun but doesn't really have much of a long term impact.

ShawnRaven

Vince135792003 wrote: »

The simple reason why I think he was the best was because of how he was portrayed. He was portrayed as a serious, somewhat bland figure head but they protected his character so much that when he came on tv it was always a"Shhh, something important is gonna happen moment".

You listened because you knew it would be a big deal. He was always serious and only appeared ocassionaly so as a result you as a fan treated it seriously.

My arguement with Tunney is, pretty much all the heels argument. He was one sided as hell. When the faces did heelish stuff, and it happened a lot in his era. The likes of Savage, The Harts and Demolition still wrestled as heels and he never did anything about it. Also he let a lot of stuff slide before he actually did something about it. In the case of Danny Davis, he waited months before he actually banned him from refereeing. In the case of Jake Roberts, two people were bit with snakes!

Hence why i really don't think Tunney was best at his role. He was he perfect character, but didn't always get the job done

Foley on the other hand... even if it was in a comedic way, still ruled with his iron fist!

VR!

Vince135792003

He didn't and thats why I think he was great. His role was limited which meant that when he did show up it was like "Holy ****! The president is on tv!" At least thats what my reaction was when I was a kid.

Less is more when it came to Jack Tunney. When he showed up it really meant something.

ShawnRaven

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Less is more when it came to Jack Tunney. When he showed up it really meant something.

I will give you that, but the same could have been said for Gorilla Monsoon and Shawn Michaels. But this is definitely the best question we've been given out of the series so far, i think. Will be interesting to read the upcoming opinions.

VR!

Vince135792003

validreasoning! wrote: »

I will give you that, but the same could have been said for Gorilla Monsoon and Shawn Michaels. But this is definitely the best question we've been given out of the series so far, i think. Will be interesting to read the upcoming opinions.

VR!

I never got that with Gorilla. I loved the guy but he appeared much more regularly.

Bounty Hunter

validreasoning! wrote: »

I will give you that, but the same could have been said for Gorilla Monsoon and Shawn Michaels. But this is definitely the best question we've been given out of the series so far, i think. Will be interesting to read the upcoming opinions.

VR!

im currently trying to give questions that everyone will have knowledge of and that everyone should be able to answer as this is like a trial run for ATH. Hense thus far i have not strayed from WWE and probably wont during this tournie.

also Tunney is acceptable, I might have only said GM/Commisioner but many names have been given to this type of role in the company over the years and all are acceptable (except Vinne Mac).

ShawnRaven

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Hense thus far i have not strayed from WWE and probably wont during this tournie.

Good idea, most people had access to WWE for the past 20 years, whereas not everyone had access to NWA/WCW all the time, and a lot of people get their stuff through WWE documentaries, which most often have their own spin on it. Maybe with the exception of the ECW and AWA DVDs.

VR!

Charlie

Vince135792003 wrote: »

He didn't and thats why I think he was great. His role was limited which meant that when he did show up it was like "Holy ****! The president is on tv!" At least thats what my reaction was when I was a kid.

Less is more when it came to Jack Tunney. When he showed up it really meant something.

This was one of my arguments in favour of Michaels, but i feel that was only one facet of his success as a GM, whereas with Tunney, this was all that can be said in his favour.

callaway92

This around the HORN THING SUCKS !!!!

Charlie

......roiggghhhhhhht?!

Bounty Hunter

callaway92 wrote: »

This around the HORN THING SUCKS !!!!

sorry i gave you a low score but i explained why which usually i dont, I would like to welcome you to the site (as i didnt previously), but please there is no need to post things like this if you dont like a thread dont post in it. I actually do intend on asking peoples opinions about this and wether its worth doing it again sometime, but was waiting till it had finished.

Vince135792003

charlie mchugh wrote: »

This was one of my arguments in favour of Michaels, but i feel that was only one facet of his success as a GM, whereas with Tunney, this was all that can be said in his favour.

I think if you had what Tuney have, you have everything you need to make the role as meaningful as possible (if thats the objective which I think it should be, there are other places for comedy). He had a legitimacy and a believability about him that when he made a decision or appeared on tv it resonated with the viewer at home that something important was going to happen. That's a pretty big deal to have that and nobody has quite had it like him since in my opinion.

Shawn Michaels never did that for me. He came out too "I'm just a sexy boy" entrance music! Tunney was a suit, serious voice, straight and to the point. And it worked.

ShawnRaven

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Tunney was a suit, serious voice, straight and to the point. And it worked.

Not to mention the over-use of the word "however".
VR!

Vince135792003

validreasoning! wrote: »

Not to mention the over-use of the word "however".
VR!

Jesus, the minute I read that Jack Tunney's voiced boomed into my mind.

Charlie

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Shawn Michaels never did that for me. He came out too "I'm just a sexy boy" entrance music! Tunney was a suit, serious voice, straight and to the point. And it worked.

But wrestling is supposed to be amped up. Ideally the character or storyline should have their basis in reality, but just with the notches cranked up a few levels. Thats what HBK as a commish did. The fact that he wasn't around too often gave his position credibility, importance, a seriousness (much like Tunney), but when he did make an appearance, you knew that not only was it going to be important, but that it would be exciting and unpredictable, as HBK would be laying down the law, as he said himself, "the sherrif's back in town"

ShawnRaven

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Jesus, the minute I read that Jack Tunney's voiced boomed into my mind.

You try watching WWE from 1991-92 when Tunney is often on....

"The referee's decision is final, and cannot be contested as such... however!"

Memories
Sorry Bounty Hunter, i'll shut up now
VR!

flahavaj

Well if Jack Tunney counts as a legit answer, then surely the only answer to this question is Vincent Kennedy McMahon himself.

The Mr. MacMahon character is one of the greatest characters in the history of wrestling. When he first transformed from a rather inept commentator to the on screen role we now know so well Mr Mcmahon immediately became a unique character in the wrestling world. He struck a chord with the everyday man on the street, who hated his boss, who hated how his boss used his position of authority to be an asshole and who basically wanted to kick his bosses ass. Mr Mc Mahon was the embodiment of this. His character was a stroe of booking geius. What beter way to put a talent over than to have them beat the ****e out of the repulsive Mr Mc mahon? Who will ever forget the unbelieveable pop when Stone Cold finally hit a stunner on VKM after months of build. It was the Mr McMahon character more than any other that tipped Austin over the edge from main-eventer to a household name and one of the biggest superstars in history.

One of the reasons that the greatness that is VKM has endured for so long is that he is genuinely one of the greats at cutting a hate filled promo. In addition,his facial expressions, that goofy look he gets when he realises he's been duped, the outrageously over the top strut, the kiss my Ass club, his egotistical frolicking with the Diva-sluts, the delicious utterance "Youuureeee fiirred....." all combine to make up not just a great character, but one of the greatest and most long lived heels of all time.

He also must get credit for his repeated willingness to get his hands dirty with the talent. Literally every top face in the company has had amatch with mcMahon. Here you have a real-life billionaire who is prepared to bleed, take outrageous bumps and make a complete show of himself all to put his talent over with the audience. It is this willingness to go above the call of duty time and time again that make Mr mcMahon the greatest authority figure of all time.

Charlie

^^^:p Oh no

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

also Tunney is acceptable, I might have only said GM/Commisioner but many names have been given to this type of role in the company over the years and all are acceptable (except Vinne Mac).

flahavaj

Aw S***E. There's no mention in the original question that VKM wasn't allowed,. Can i stick with this one? Pretty please?:o