Did The Dying Days Of WCW Hurt Legacies?

[Mitch Henessey]

I've been obsessed with watching a bunch of old WCW stuff for the past couple of weeks, and I've been focusing on the time where WCW began its colossal collapse. Now during these days, the World Heavyweight Championship would change hands frequently. Some title reigns would last a week, some would last a couple of days. The title was awarded, vacated, and yes, even David Arquette and Vince Russo were world champions during this time.

Did this constant title swapping hurt legacies? Was it just too much? When I talk about legacies, I'm of course referring to some of the biggest names in pro wrestling history such as, Jeff Jarrett, Booker T, Scott Steiner, Kevin Nash, Sid Vicious, and Diamond Dallas Page. I'm asking this question because you have to remember, there really wasn't another time in some of these mens career's when they were on top. They weren't looked as "the guy" until the end of WCW. Why might this be a bad thing you ask? Because, these men were given world title runs when there was nobody left in the company.

Now of course Jarrett would go on to be one of the co-founders of TNA, and enjoy more world title reigns, but still, he was another one of the guys in WCW who received title runs towards the end. Then there's Booker T. Booker was pretty over with the fans during this time, but his rise to the top was overshadowed by the incident at Bash At The Beach 2000. He can thank Vince Russo for that. Booker would go on to win the WWE's version of the world title years later, but that reign wasn't too good or memorable.

I do think these title reigns can be looked at as a stain on these men's careers. They don't take away from everything they've accomplished in their long careers, but they'll always be looked at as the guy who only got the strap because their was nobody left.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Tenta]

The only thing that was legitimately hurt by the swapping of the titles was the World Heavyweight Championship itself, which we all knew was dead and buried long before anyone admitted it.

If anything, the reigns of Booker T and Jeff Jarrett, to a lesser extent, made me appreciate their work more. Really, everyone was aware of how badly the titles were crippled by the time Booker got to hold it. The fact that he still went out there, and held the title with at least a shred of class made it worth the time he held it. Here was a guy who wasn't handed the belt, like every other wrestler before him, but a guy who legitmately worked to earn his spot in the company, and had finally been rewarded with the title for how hard he worked in the company. I truly do feel that Vince Russo made the right decision giving him the belt.

As for everyone else... When it comes to Nash, Sid, DDP, we all knew that they did nothing to earn the belt. DDP actually may have earned it, but everyone else was given the belt not because they were the best worker, but because of politics. We were all aware of what was going on, so for me, it was just another passing of the title, and nothing more. We knew that the wrestlers couldn't work, and in that way, maybe their legacies were tarnished. But legacies were tarnished far earlier, when we were aware of the politics going on in WCW. Once we knew Nash had booked himself to beat Nash, or that DDP won the belt by swapping wives with Eric (Something I do believe, for the record), then they're legacies may have been tarnished a smidge. But realistically, the title reigns themselves really did nothing to tarnish theur legacies. What did tarnish them was when workers were far past their prime, like a Steiner or a Nash, and still trying to wrestle. That in itself was the fall of these men's legacies.

 

[Big Sexy]

I honestly hate when people try telling me that Booker T wasn't that great and his reigns mean nothing because WCW was in its dying dies. Bull fucking shit. Booker was over and he was long over due for a World Title reign. He won the title 4 times and was one of the main reasons I still enjoyed WCW during it's dying days. He proved in the WWE that it wasn't a fluke as he went on to have a very successful and entertaining career their. He was really the only Invasion guy from WCW to have major success once the angle ended. People may look at the WCW main eventers during 2000 and 2001 and see a negative towards their legacy but I for one think that theory is complete shit.

 

[a0161613]

I dont think the wrestlers will be blamed but Russo should carry the can. Guys like Jarrett and Booker were always likely to get their main events runs at some point, not least because they were over with Russo.

A little like Jericho now, you could book them in the ME for a run on a PPV to give some credibility to the champ and they could get their run with the belt to put someone over. However to give them the extended reign and have them suffocate the main event spots was wrong.

Booker should never have been a five time champ and Jarrett was never more than a semi main eventer at very best either.

The manner of WCW demise and the general state of affairs meant the place was a mess. While this meant the TV product was shoddy, they could only do what they could, which was watch the sinking ship.

The legacies may mean that they get more credit than they deserve because of their being multi-time champions of a company which still had name value. But I doubt legacies will suffer because they and their efforts didn't kill the company.

 

[Tenta]

I honestly hate when people try telling me that Booker T wasn't that great and his reigns mean nothing because WCW was in its dying dies. Bull fucking shit. Booker was over and he was long over due for a World Title reign. He won the title 4 times and was one of the main reasons I still enjoyed WCW during it's dying days. He proved in the WWE that it wasn't a fluke as he went on to have a very successful and entertaining career their. He was really the only Invasion guy from WCW to have major success once the angle ended. People may look at the WCW main eventers during 2000 and 2001 and see a negative towards their legacy but I for one think that theory is complete shit.

This.


Look, everyone else I'll agree on may have had tarnished legacies. Not Booker. He was the only person in WCW at the time who actually worked to get to where he was, and you can't take his titles away or lessen them because the work, or lack thereof, of others. He suffered through the fight over the "T" initial, and GI Bro, and still was loyal to the company, let alone being brought in to work as a slave for Colonel Parker. Yeah.... Ole Anderson's worst idea ever. Still, Booker did everything he could for WCW. I'll agree on everyone else but Booker T.

 

[klunderbunker]

Not really no.

The company was a complete joke by this point and it's not like the belt meant anything. Guys like Jarrett and Booker and Steiner were world champions in name only in a sense. The WCW Title stopped meaning anything around the year 2000 and anything after that just meant nothing. You can't blame them for sticking around an organization that was dying. You can blame guys like Hogan and Nash and Russo and Bischoff for the collapse and their legacies are hurt, but guys like Jarrett and Booker were just around at the wrong time. I wouldn't say they're hurt, but it's not like being WCW Champion around that time means anything anyway.

 

[Tenta]

Booker should never have been a five time champ.

I'll defend this to the day I die. Big Sexy, I'll need your help on this.

Maybe you're right, only in that he shouldn't have lost the belt five times. But he was the only man fit at the time to have a legitimate run with the title. Maybe Goldberg should have had a run, too, but Booker deserved every bit of the championship reigns he got. He was the most over face, who worked the hardest in his matches, and really gave a damn for the audience. I'd say his time as champ, frankly, was long overdue, and that this is merely a makeyp for fucking around with him so long. At the least, he carried the torch with pride and dignity, and feel as though if there were at least five more Booker Ts in WCw, maybe they'd be around longer.

Alas, that isn't the case. Still, Booker deserved everything he got in WCW, no questions asked.

 

[Big Sexy]

I wouldn't say they're hurt, but it's not like being WCW Champion around that time means anything anyway.

I disagree that it meant nothing. Sure the number of reigns they had were excessive because of the time, but there are few instances where being a World Champion in a major promotion means nothing. Around 1996 the WWF was in serious financial trouble and was close to going out of business. Does that mean the World Title reigns of Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels meant nothing? Surely those guys will never be seen in the same light as guys like Hogan and Austin in terms of world champions but there reigns still meant something. They still busted their ass and deserved the reigns they got. The same way that guys like Booker T and even Scott Steiner deserved to be world champion in WCW.

 

[a0161613]

Don't get me wrong, I like Booker and loved him after the Invasion, thought he was short changed for a lot of his run. When he was King Booker I thought he had found his niche. Even in TNA I felt disappointed because i thought he would do better.

But yeah, it's the Edge syndrome, unless there is a major problem, nobody should lose a belt 4/5 times in the space of 3/4 years. It was poor, unimaginative and uncreative booking. Harsh on the Book though.

 

[klunderbunker]

The company meant nothing. The belt really meant nothing. WCW in 2000 was nothing more than a joke. It wasn't a serious wrestling company anymore. With all the worked shoots and Judy Bagwell on a forklift matches, it was a comedy/reality show with wrestling thrown in. WWF in 96 never got close to being this bad, either from an on camera perspective or a business perspective. Booker deserved his world title reign. Other than his first win, none of the title changes taht year meant a damn thing. When a belt changes seven times in a month (which is did in both January and May of 2000) how in the world can you take it seriously? With people just choosing to not want the title or handing it to someone else, it was made to look like something with no value. The title became worthless. For the entire final 15 months of the company, Booker's first win was the only one with any meaning to it.

Like I said though, all the title reigns and wins and changes don't hurt the title holders. It wasn't their fault that the booking made no sense at all and the title was treated like a napkin.

 

[Tenta]

But yeah, it's the Edge syndrome, unless there is a major problem, nobody should lose a belt 4/5 times in the space of 3/4 years. It was poor, unimaginative and uncreative booking. Harsh on the Book though.

I think this spells out the problem of WCW more than anything else; hot shot booking. There were so many times the WCW Title changed, just for having a new face carry the belt. And again, who do we have to blame for that?

Russo is ultimately the reason the belts lost their credibility, more because of his need to water down the belts. To him, belts weren't rewards for good work, as much as they were the start to angles. Thus, you have less the over wrestlers getting titles, but more the title used to get the wrestler over. His plan backfired, and caused the belt to mean less, even in the WWE, where they're just starting to get over the funk of what Russo did to those belts.

So again, if you want to blame someone, blame Russo. God I feel like a broken record...

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I honestly hate when people try telling me that Booker T wasn't that great and his reigns mean nothing because WCW was in its dying dies. Bull fucking shit. Booker was over and he was long over due for a World Title reign. He won the title 4 times and was one of the main reasons I still enjoyed WCW during it's dying days. He proved in the WWE that it wasn't a fluke as he went on to have a very successful and entertaining career their. He was really the only Invasion guy from WCW to have major success once the angle ended. People may look at the WCW main eventers during 2000 and 2001 and see a negative towards their legacy but I for one think that theory is complete shit.

Bash At The Beach 2000 could've been a great moment for Booker, but we all remember this PPV because of the clusterfuck situation between Hogan, Jarrett, and Russo. When you think about Starrcade '83, you think about Flair defeating Harley Race, when you think about Wrestlemania 12, you think about Shawn defeating Bret in the Iron Man match, and when you think about Wrestlemania 14, you think about Austin's rise to the top. Bash At The Beach should've been a great and memorable moment for Booker, but the only thing that sticks out in every one's minds about that night is one of Russo's horrible attempts at shocking everyone.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

No the dying days of WCW did not tarnish any legacies, for two reasons. One they were already tarnished and two, it just simple did not tarnish them.

Lets look at number one. The OP mentioned guys like Nash and Sid, saldy their legacies were already tarnished long before the dying days of WCW. Everyone already new Nash was a complete puppet master who manipulated his way to the top and abused his power to get what he wanted. He didn't earn it, while he may have been entertaining, he got where he was because of his connections not because of his skill or ability. He legacy was forever tarnished when it came to light how bad of politics he played in the locker room and how he would hold people down who deserved to be pushed and vice versa. The only part of the dying days days of WCW that might tarnish Nash's legacy even more is the fact he was involved with helping to kill WCW. Then look at Sid, since he went pyscho on Arn Anderson his legacy, what he had of one was tarnished. Sid is a hot headed moron who has burned more bridges than he has built. Toss is Steiner, who became some a steriod abuser, his career sank faster than the Titanic. Yes he still has some name value, but by and by his legacy has crumbled by the way side as his arms get larger. DDP, well I liked DDP, but in my honest opinion, I'm just gonna state, to tarnish a legacy you have to have one first.

Then look at some of the others who were there on the dying days as well. Sting, Flair, Booker T, just to name a few. Sting and Flair's legacy were already cemented before WCW died, we all knew their legacies long before the plug was pulled on WCW. Flair is perhaps the greatest entertainer to ever wrestle anywhere. Sting will also be remembered as a great wrestler because of his accomplishments in WCW, not because it died. Booker T will be remembered for his outstanding title reigns in WCW and trying to help keep it alive and by his achievements in the WWE and even TNA.

So as you see legacies weren't tarnished in the dying days of WCW, there were already set, already tarnished or set in other promotions after WCW died.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I think for Jarrett, it may have hurt his "legacy" a bit, as people now think of him as a guy who has many undeserved title reigns, and whos title history looks much more impressive than it should. People think of Jarrett as a midcarder who should never have held the world title at any point in his career in WCW. There is some resentment towards him for this, but if he had left WCW without those few-day-long title reigns, he would probably be held in higer esteem than he is now.

Booker T on the other hand, i think was helped by his world title reigns. He was someone who had slowly climbed up the rankings, got over with the audience and truly deserved his run at the top. He didnt jump ship when WCW started dying, he stayed til the end and I think Booker has the respect of wrestling fans everywhere for how he attemped to give some degree of prestige back to the belt, when Russo was trying to destroy it

 

[TRoN]

Most of the top stars in WCW had their legacies and backstage reps tarnished with all the bs that went on there especially during the last couple years. (Nash,Hogan,Russo,Bischoff) But then their were some other guys like Sting,Flair and Booker T who were still looked at in a positive light by most in the wrestling community.