WrestleMania VII Main Event

[THTRobtaylor]

Originally Posted by TheHitMark-SirJoseOle

Brain, your posts speak for themselves, you always have solid points and offer an objective and solid viewpoint without being influenced by what the dirt sheets say. It's mind numbing how people wants to always cite politics affecting incidents and outcomes of the WWF's creative direction, that they weren't there to actually witness. That's not to say I don't agree with fans that have those opinions because I do believe politics exist in practically all walks of life. But seriously, let's just stick to what happened on the air and not behind the scenes, because there is so much conjecture and speculation.

Would I have liked Rude and Hogan at WM VII? You damn bet. But do I still think Hogan and Slaughter was a memorable angle? Absolutely. Bottom line is this, Rick Rude had left the WWF, and Warrior was on his way out that same year that Mania VII happened. Hogan for all that people say about him was willing to keep running with the ball, and he met his contractual obligations from what it seemed. As opposed to Warrior, who maybe was telling the truth about his business dealings with Vince. However, considering that after 1991, all of his runs were very brief and amounted to nothing.

The smart and safe bet was on Hogan, and we can use hindsight all we want, but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Wrestling itself was not at its best in a commercial sense, but things worked out and the company evolved. No harm, no foul.

Make no mistake Rude left cos of the politics and he wasn't going to be pushed as both Hogan and then Warrior nixed it. Rude talked at length about it later on and used the opportunity in WCW to "stick it to Vince". The irony was had he stuck it out in WWE a little longer then he would have been there once the Roid scandal hit and Hogan and Warrior became damaged goods. Bret would still have been the top guy but you could guarantee he'd have been working Rude and/or Flair.

I can see why you'd want to "stick to what's on screen"... but I watched it all as it happened as an eager fan of 14... by 90/91 I was into the sheets, the Apter mags, videos anything I could as I knew there was more than just the show. The knowledge was out there for fans who were interested enough to find it, just as Trekkies knew every backstage issue George Takei and Shatner had or why a certain costume was chosen.

We weren't in the room, but it has since been borne out that the info that was coming out via Meltzer and even the Apter mags in subtle work/shoot format was pretty accurate to what people call "the truth" of most of that era. There will always be tall tales, but on the whole the backstage stuff stopped being "secret" in the 80's.

These kind of threads and responses inherently have to be based on the poster's knowledge and experience. In some cases that'll be just "I saw this...I think this...", someone like me "I saw this, read this, heard this and this has been said by those concerned..."

It's not really right to say "stick to the facts" cos what was presented was not "the facts" but Vince's version of them... I was influenced by sheets the moment I read one at 14 and worked out that politics happened. Now, 22 years later having seen more, wrestled myself and been a featured writer on the main site here I'm not gonna "suspend" that side of my opinion or "stick to anything", I'll use all my sources, opinion, knowledge, rumors I heard and yes sometimes speculate on what might have been or happened. After all, I'm a reasonable guy, enough is out there about so many wrestlers that it is possible to "put yourself in their shoes", you might make the same call or a different one but ultimately that's what forums like this are for... we're all here cos we wanted to be in that room/ring/bar/hotel with them or be making the decisions that affected them... anyone who says they don't is lying.

[The Eighties]

The angle wouldn't work now because fans are way too cynical (Myself included) to get into it IMO, but at the time I seem to recall it being pretty hot and fans being into what happened, they must have been for Vince to draw it out until Summerslam that year instead of booking Hogan in a title defense against Warrior in MSG.

Not much has been said about the actual match but I thought it was a solid brawl with Slaughter working some of the dirtiest heel tactics I'd seen at the time, the spot where Slaughter lays the US flag over a bloody Hogan, leading to his comeback was cheesy but effective.

Looking back now it's strange to think Vince didn't book the Hogan vs Warrior rematch as it seemed a license to print money even if Warrior's run had not been the best and he had become increasingly difficult.

I don't think Savage vs Warrior would have worked as the main event under the career match stip and I'm not sure Rude winning the title at Summerslam 90 and defending against Warrior at WrestleMania VII would have done great business, even though it would have been a great match and I personally would have loved to see Rude as WWF champion.

[The Brain]

I don’t know why anyone has a problem with Hogan and Slaughter going on last with the title on the line. Slaughter already had a lot of heat going into 1991 but he had nuclear heat when he became champion. It was bad enough having a wrestler support the enemy during the war but to have it be the WWF champion put the angle on a whole other level. A level worthy of a WrestleMania main event.

Warrior and Savage were the ones that didn’t need the title. That match was epic as it was, without the title. Every part of Warrior vs. Savage was perfect. It is fondly remembered as one of WrestleMania’s all time biggest matches. The title was completely unnecessary. Hogan and Slaughter needed the title a lot more than Warrior and Savage did.

[Judah's Lion]

Originally Posted by The Brain

I don’t know why anyone has a problem with Hogan and Slaughter going on last with the title on the line. Slaughter already had a lot of heat going into 1991 but he had nuclear heat when he became champion. It was bad enough having a wrestler support the enemy during the war but to have it be the WWF champion put the angle on a whole other level. A level worthy of a WrestleMania main event.

Warrior and Savage were the ones that didn’t need the title. That match was epic as it was, without the title. Every part of Warrior vs. Savage was perfect. It is fondly remembered as one of WrestleMania’s all time biggest matches. The title was completely unnecessary. Hogan and Slaughter needed the title a lot more than Warrior and Savage did.

totally agree here. like, totally. Warrior/Savage already had the career vs. career stipulation going in. plus, the feud was born around the title as Savage wanted the shot, Warrior refused and then Savage cost Warrior the title. so it kinda centered on the world title to begin with. then the careers were put on the line.

add into this match the fact that it ended with the Savage/Elizabeth reunion and this match was stacked as it was. plenty of action, story, etc. EPIC is definitely the right way to describe this one.

on the other hand, Slaughter/Hogan would have been a good story and still a decent match without the title, but the world title just gave it the icing on the cake. to be honest, i'm a bit surprised this main event gets as much debate as it does. i found it super satisfying and enjoyable as a kid and recently revisted the tapes and still found the storyline and match to be a story well-told with a logical payoff that i wanted to see. wrestling 101.

[spaldoni]

In my opnion, the only main event that had a chance at drawing 100,000 fans was Hogan/Warrior 2. Hacksaw Duggan could of fought Slaughter at Mania in a bootcamp match. That would of been an epic old school brawl. Duggan was a blue collar die hard patriot. The match would of had tremendous heat. I don't think Hogan/Slaughter was bad but in terms of drawing a bigger gate they should of went with Hogan/Warrior 2.

[deanerandterry]

Slaughter was a villain that people legitimately hated. I don't know if any of the stories are true such as a disgruntled patriot threatening to kill Slaughter, his family, Vince and blow up Titan Tower or the fact they moved WM7 from the Colosseum because of worries someone will try and kill Slaughter but in any event the guy had mad heat, the likes I've seen very few wrestlers get.

Warrior vs. Savage was the match everyone remembers and rightfully so but at the same time Hogan/Slaughter going on last went with the buildup of the event and the symbolism of the American defeating the Iraqi sympathizer. Warrior vs. Savage would have been a fine main event, it certainly had enough emotion to warrant such a spot but it makes perfect sense that it ended with Mr. America himself standing tall. Also it would be a little weird in 91 for Hogan to have a WWF title match in the middle of the card.

[Owen 3:16 says I just stole your Slammy!!]

Originally Posted by The Death Rattle

I have no actual problem with the match being booked, or how it played out in the ring. My only issue with the match was where it was on the card. I think that Warrior-Savage should have closed the show.

The Warrior and Savage match was bigger then one match or the title, it was billed as the final fight in their war. Savage had cost Warrior the title, which gave it that deeply personal edge. With the stipulation of career vs. career, it was a truly unique event between two major stars. I feel those factors outweigh what was essentially another Hogan overcomes evil storyline. I don't mean that as a shot either, more so that it was something that was already presented multiple times.

Hindsight does strenghten my argument when you factor in overall match quality, but you would likely need a slightly stronger finish. I love that match. I love the idea of putting over Warrior as strong as they did. I just don't feel that Savage crawling into the ring was a truly appropriate finish. That would be even more pressing if this closed the show.

I think Slaughter/Hogan was a great match. But, I agree with you about Savage/Warrior should of finish the show. They had a great feud, and this would be the perfect way to end the feud. I think if it was the main event, it would of been a great moment, it would end Macho's career, but he would see the light at the end of the tunnel and reunite with Elizabeth. Wrestling's best couple reunites at the biggest event. That would of been a great ending to the event.

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I think the fact that they moved the event from the L.A. Coliseum to the L.A. Sports Arena spoke volumes.

You don't move an event from a location with a potential capacity of 90,000+ people to one that holds about 17,000.

You just don't...unless your event is a complete dog.

Now, I don't think Hogan and Slaughter was bad. I think they made the best of it. It had a good build, and both guys sold it well. I think the problem is that this was a Summer Slam worthy feud, not a WrestleMania worthy feud.

My opinion:

1) McMahon realized the Warrior wasn't nearly the draw that he was before he got the World Title. Whether it was poor booking of Warrior, or the guy's own incompetence and inability to work with guys, Warrior's title run was a complete dud. McMahon was banking on a rematch between Hogan and Warrior to draw a crowd akin to Hogan and Andre in 1987, and he realized that wasn't going to happen.

2) McMahon thought that he could get more relevancy for his main event feud by tying Slaughter to Iraq, and using Desert Storm as the backdrop for a match between Hogan and Slaughter, and that this would draw better than Hogan and Warrior. I think that too speaks volumes about how far McMahon's opinion of Warrior had fallen over the course of a year. Obviously, at some point, McMahon realized that he wasn't going to get the draw necessary to make fill the Coliseum and moved the venue.

In the end, the actual PPV was fine. The main event was entertaining, but a foregone conclusion. Savage sold like hell to the Warrior and helped make the match of the night. The expectations coming into WrestleMania 7 were just far too high, and predicated entirely upon the continuing popularity of the Ultimate Warrior.

[berlinbrawler]

I never had a problem with Hogan vs Slaughter headlining the event.
I mean, it wasn't perfect by any stretch - No Hogan match was ever perfect because he was a terrible wrestler. And the Slaughter/Iraqi sympathizer thing seemed a bit forced and Slaughter had not been relevant in the WWF for years, yet suddenly he had a main event push due to a controversial storyline. (*cough* Jack Swagger *cough*) But it worked in this instance. Business was declining for the WWF and they needed

Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to say NOW that Ultimate Warrior vs Randy Savage should have been the last match that night. By far the best match of Warrior's career and a very emotional affair it was.

Would Hogan/Warrior II for the title have been a better idea? Probably not. Warrior as champion was already deemed a failure and it was a minor miracle that their first match was actually GOOD. It's unlikely that lightning would have struck a second time. It would never have been as good as the first