Does Backstage Hatred Give Potential For Better Feuds?

[Ferbian]

There's obviously some people that have backstage hate against each other. There always have been, much like Hogan and Flair doesn't like each other I bet, Edge and Matt Hardy had their problems, and I'm sure many many more people have had their backstage interactions that weren't all nice and cuddly.

A lot of these we have seen feud with each other. Hogan and Flair had some decent feuds in WCW, as well as Edge and Matt Hardy had quite a good feud in 2005 as well.

Backstage hatred will always be there, it'll always be used in one way or another I would assume, but does it give potential for better feuds? I mean we have yet to see two really hate each other and fuck up the feud, so I guess it really does? However I must not be the only one with an opinion on this.

So that's why I ask you to share yours - Does backstage feuding create for better on-screen feuds? Should WWE as well as TNA, hell any promotion capitalize a bit on it more than what have already been done?

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Depends, I'm pretty sure Matt Hardy forgave Edge as soon he got his job back. I'm sure there was still some anger there, but I'm more inclined to think Matt thought it was his ticket to the top and that that became his main focus. I think in that instance hatred probably turned to gratefulness rather quickly. Edge was on a roll and Hardy was allowed to tag along.

Booker T & Batista also didn't seem to cooperate together very well.

It's worth capitalizing on if there's a demand for it, as there was with Edge/Hardy.

 

[The Holy One]

Well if there the potential and chemistry is there for a great fued then yeah. From your examples Hogan/Flair and Edge/Hardy, these were guys who could actually work a match and get reactions from the crowd during their fued. However some backstage fueds won't necessarily generate the same outcome as seen in Batista/Booker T. It's all about if the wrestlers' style work well together and if they can actually get the crowd to care about their fued.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

I think the answer is yes. If you have a real life basis to go from, I think you can really help add that to a feud. Someone gave the Matt Hardy/Edge feud as an example and I think, without those real life incidents, we wouldn't have seen such a high quality feud out of those two. But I don't always think it happens in a two way hatred situation.


I'm (for the third time today) going to use Batista as an example here. The man was/is apparently a very grumpy, sulky and down-right arrogant man. He apparently in real life thought he should have been the face of the WWE. He thought he deserved it. Instead (as everyone under the sun knows) that went to John Cena. So he channelled that inner rage, that anger at being shunned from the job and he added it to his feud with Cena & added it to his character and he came across as an arrogant dick who had no real passion for wrestling and was in it for the money & fame. It was a caricature of his real life self.

So hatred can also be just as effective as a one way thing where one person hates the other but not the other way round just as much as a two way hatred can be effective.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think it can depend upon the situation. If the feelings of resentment and hostility are to such a degree that it's all but impossible to be around, then of course that's just simply not going to work. In the case of Edge and Matt Hardy, I think it's an example of just how professional they are because I don't think I could've handled it personally. They were able to do it and it turned out to be a great feud.

What Ric Flair said about the ECW guys in his promo last night I think is 100% how he legitimately feels and that can definitely be channeled into at least potentially making some aspects of the Fortune/EV2.0 feud interesting.

 

[LitasRevenge79]

I think there is a way to use it properly, but you have to make sure the people involved will not go over the edge. There are some people in old WCW days that looking back, even though it made entertaining tv, it was them just flying off the handle. You would see Scott Steiner/whoever he was angry at for the minute and that was prior to the FCC language edit. Then you have Flair/Foley & ECW. I think that Flair's 'disgust' with EV 2.0 and Foley, is coming from a true place, which stems back to like Foley said from their small tiff back in WCW when Flair showed some 'less than professionalism' and its a bit sad to see that it carried on for ump-teen years through their tenure in WWE, now to TNA... I think after some time, you would think that some people would just forgive and forget, but there are some people where egos are something you can't let go of. Then you see someone like Hardy/Edge, where they are able to work their differences out and make it a decent work environment. Maybe I'm the one who's confused, or is it just because it's from Old School-New School days? But call me crazy, I would think that you'd want to draw the line somewhere, even though we know that 'drama can be entertaining.' Everyone loves dirty laundry. But with this new PG era, I would say that we would probably see less of people's backstage emotions coming forth on WWE stage, and it would probably be handled in a more private setting after some of the previous history that has been played out. Now for TNA, since drama seems to be what they are thriving on after viewing the last few Impacts, and Reactions, it seems like they could be angling for more personal grudges, and I'm not sure how I feel about that just yet, it could blow up in their faces. I'm surprised they made it past the Angle-Jarrett-Karen thing. But only time can tell in this type of factor when trying to involve entertainment.

 

[harrythem]

If you go way back to 97 and simply state Bret Hart Vs Shawn Michaels then, hell yeah, it added something extra tasty to sink your teeth into. When it gets too personal, it can ruin a feud (Bischoff Vs Flair could've been WCW's Austin Vs McMahon but for egos).

If it's common knowledge about the heat then it can make something more interesting for sure

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I think this can be a hit or miss type of situation. As others have already mentioned, Booker T and Batista's dislike for each other didn't actually translate into good matches. Then there's also Triple H and Scott Steiner. Steiner's real life hatred for Triple H is well known, but the match they had at Royal Rumble 2003 was FUCKING TERRIBLE beyond belief. It's been a long time since I've seen their match from No Way Out, but I've been told that one wasn't good also. There's also Shawn Michaels VS Hulk Hogan. I know a lot of people dislike the match from Summerslam 2005, but I enjoyed it, because I was just so thrilled two see these two in the same ring together. But HBK wasn't too happy about having to lose to Hogan or play the bad guy, and he decided to stick it to Hogan by overselling like crazy during the entire match. Shawn was in the wrong here, and it's kind of shame because I believe this mach could've been remembered as something classic, but instead, we all remember this match for HBK bouncing around and trying to make Hogan look like a fool.

Then of course there's Matt Hardy VS Edge. This feud could be considered Hardy's best feud of his career. The matches between these two were pretty good, and you could just feel the hate these two had for each other when you saw them wrestle or cut promos against each other. Another example of hatred being good for a feud would be Mick Foley VS Ric Flair. We all know about the problems these two had in WCW, and we know about the shots they took at each other in their books. I really enjoyed their I Quit match from Summerslam 2006. It was brutal and bloody. Plus, some of the trash talking they threw at each other while asking the other man to quit was just classic.

 

[MOExecution]

But HBK wasn't too happy about having to lose to Hogan or play the bad guy, and he decided to stick it to Hogan by overselling like crazy during the entire match. Shawn was in the wrong here, and it's kind of shame because I believe this mach could've been remembered as something classic, but instead, we all remember this match for HBK bouncing around and trying to make Hogan look like a fool.

Watch Shawn Michaels My Journey and you would get the whole story. It wasn't that he didn't want to be the bad guy (which he didn't) and that he was going to lose, but it was because Hulk Hogan was being difficult to work with. He asked Hogan on multiple occasions if it would be okay with whatever he was going to do and Hulk Hogan replied, "It's cool brother." So HBK went back to 97' Michaels (liked asked by the WWE) and ripped Hogan a new one. Then Hogan began to rip Michaels a new one (off screen) questioning his faith and beliefs etc. This lead to Hulk Hogan refusing to have another match (which was planned) in which HBK was suppose to win. Shawn Michaels felt like he was getting the short end of the stick so that's why he did what he did at SummerSlam to get back at Hogan and embarrass him which I do not blame Michaels for at all. If Hogan was on Monday Night RAW more often they could've worked together more and all of this could've been avoided. So Hulk Hogan really has no room to complain. Shawn Michaels worked the whole angle by himself while Hogan was away with his show Hogan Knows Best and etc. Shawn Michaels said it in the DVD, "If you were a good worker I would make a DVD and say, "Yeah, he was a good worker I liked him." But if you were a dick I would make a DVD and say, "Yeah, he was a dick." It just shows how Hulk Hogan works. So Shawn Michaels wasn't in the wrong in this situation in my opinion.

So to answer the question... It depends on exactly who the personal feud is against. Like what people said; Booker T vs Batista didn't work, Hulk Hogan vs Shawn Michaels didn't work, (and I'm surprised nobody brought this up), but The Big Show vs The Great Khali didn't work (got into a backstage fight), and Triple H and Undertaker won't even get into the same ring together. But you have people like Edge vs Matt Hardy that did work. So Backstage Rivalries could be good when it comes to them working together, but when it comes down to it also depends on In-Ring Ability and whether their styles would compliment each others and I think that is what made Matt Hardy's and Edge so memorable.

 

[LigerBomb]

So that's why I ask you to share yours - Does backstage feuding create for better on-screen feuds? Should WWE as well as TNA, hell any promotion capitalize a bit on it more than what have already been done?

As with everything else: "It Depends". Jake said it best so why rehash it.

Moving on to the second question: No. They most certainly should not. As stated above it does not always guarantee a high yield on the initial investment.Getting people who legitimately don't like each other—and for potentially highly personal reasons—to play nice, and literally hold each others' lives in their respective hands sounds like a recipe for utter disaster.