Hogan Comments On Why Roode Wasn't Given BFG Win

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

In an interview with the Daily Star, Hulk Hogan explained why he didn't think Bobby Roode should have won the World Title at Bound For Glory:

"That’s true. It was my opinion, and it was a simple gut feeling to do what was best for the company. “I was sitting watching Roode’s parents saying what a great son he is and his wife saying what a great husband he is and his kids saying what a great dad he is. He’s the ultimate good guy. He’s going to win the belt!

But then what? Who does he wrestle? So I sat back and thought: ‘You guys have just done one of the best old school wrestling angles I’ve ever seen. If you turn him heel you give him that edge, give him that extra spice – then he’ll have everyone to work with, rather than throw him out there and set him up for failure."

I found this to be a very interesting interview and I kind of agree with Hogan I feel that Roode is a much more entertaining heel and I've really enjoyed this heel character he also makes a very good point when he said that if Roode won at BFG then what would've happened there weren't really any top heels that he could have feuded with in my opinion what happened at BFG and afterwards were for the best we now have a top heel in Roode and a top face in James Storm.

What do you guys think about what Hogan had to say?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

It was never Roode not winning that was the issue, IMO. It was the fact that it made the Bound For Glory series almost completely irrelevant, as the winner failed to capitalize when it mattered most.

I don't disagree with Hogan at all. TNA was lacking top-end heel's big time outside of Angle, Ray and Jarrett (who was leaving for Ring Ka King) at the time, so it made sense to want to establish a new heel. I just think the timing was poor.

 

[SpecialFNK]

I totally never thought about it that way before. not sure if many did.
I think many felt that Hogan not wanting Roode to win at BFG was saying Roode was not good enough. but that's not the case.
who were/are the top heels? Bully, Angle, and? Hardy was on his way back, but it was fitting for Hardy to return as face.

if Roode had won at BFG, would TNA have then in some way turned Storm heel?
so what is better. Roode heel and Storm face? OR Roode face and Storm heel?
I think it has worked out nice. although IMO I think Roode has been made to look a little weak early on in the ring winning dirty so often.

 

[SpecialFNK]

It was never Roode not winning that was the issue, IMO. It was the fact that it made the Bound For Glory series almost completely irrelevant, as the winner failed to capitalize when it mattered most.

I don't disagree with Hogan at all. TNA was lacking top-end heel's big time outside of Angle, Ray and Jarrett (who was leaving for Ring Ka King) at the time, so it made sense to want to establish a new heel. I just think the timing was poor.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree about the BFG series.
the BFG series is what established Roode and Storm as singles wrestlers. before the BFG series Roode and Storm were "Beer Money", and I think most viewers knew them as that, a tag team, rather than being individuals. the BFG series not only established them in singles, but they both went far and it established them as main eventers.

 

[LegendKiller716]

IMO the same thing could have been accomplished while having Roode win the tournament.

Have Roode win at BFG. He has the great moment at the end of the PPV with Fortune coming out and raising him on their shoulders, the whole feel good moment type deal. The next night on Impact you have Roode come out and say he wants his first defense to be against the man that deserves it most, his partner, James Storm. Have the same type of match Storm and Angle had. Roode Dominates, but Storm hits the kick out of nowhere and wins.

For the next month or two have Bobby keep asking for rematches and making comments about Storm behind his back, etc. Finally the rematch at a ppv, Roode hits Storm with the bottle and completes the heel turn, and now we're in the same spot and the BFG tournament doesn't seem useless.

 

[Aberle4Life]

It was never Roode not winning that was the issue, IMO. It was the fact that it made the Bound For Glory series almost completely irrelevant, as the winner failed to capitalize when it mattered most.

The BFG Series wasn't irrelevant. It made for months of something unique, all in the name of building up the World Championship belt itself. I'm not a TNA fan, but I thought that idea was quite innovative--certainly more creative than most of the things WWE has been doing. Plus, having whoever won the Series winning the championship would have been the predictable thing to do. The Series guaranteed a title shot and nothing more; the winner shouldn't automatically be slated to win the championship.

I didn't really like the Roode heel turn, but I admit he's doing a decent job with it. I just thought it happened way too fast, because he went from being the goody-goody face to the ruthless heel seemingly overnight. There should have been more of a transition. I still look at him and while he's doing a good job, he's simply not that believable as a heel because he was such a good guy before.

Overall though, it's different and Roode and Storm have each done a good job of stepping up.

 

[MrHashasheen]

It was never Roode not winning that was the issue, IMO. It was the fact that it made the Bound For Glory series almost completely irrelevant, as the winner failed to capitalize when it mattered most.

This, so I suppose one could make the argument that fighting others for a shot at the championship is in no way the same as fighting the champion himself. Ostensibly, while Roode had prepared himself mentally and physically, it just wasn't enough to overcome the reigning champion. Men fighting for a handful of points (and knowing they can still get more) wouldn't fight as desperately as a defending champion.

And personally, stating that Roode would have floundered as a face in a face-heavy main event (Roode, Storm, Styles, Hardy versus Kurt Angle and Bully Ray) is a bit difficult for me to swallow. They couldn't have done a storyline with Bully Ray, all the while slow-burning him to heel to both extend his reign and give him new opponents? Perhaps slowly growing weary of facing his friends in AJ and Storm, slowly getting frustrated with having to face off against them to establish himself as main-eventer and face of the company?

Or having Storm turn against him as the heel in the situation? The guy did turn on Chris Harris after all when they broke up America's Most Wanted.

 

[Cats Pajamas]

I don't have an argument for the way they handled Bound for Glory. The Bound for Glory series, however.... I just don't like Crimson. Actually, I thought it was a fine way to disband Beer Money and it did give Storm & Roode exposure with the Championship.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The BFG Series wasn't irrelevant. It made for months of something unique, all in the name of building up the World Championship belt itself. I'm not a TNA fan, but I thought that idea was quite innovative--certainly more creative than most of the things WWE has been doing. Plus, having whoever won the Series winning the championship would have been the predictable thing to do. The Series guaranteed a title shot and nothing more; the winner shouldn't automatically be slated to win the championship.

I didn't really like the Roode heel turn, but I admit he's doing a decent job with it. I just thought it happened way too fast, because he went from being the goody-goody face to the ruthless heel seemingly overnight. There should have been more of a transition. I still look at him and while he's doing a good job, he's simply not that believable as a heel because he was such a good guy before.

Overall though, it's different and Roode and Storm have each done a good job of stepping up.

If the winner shouldn't win, what is the point of the tournament. Notice how when WWE held their Money in the Bank gimmick, every briefcase holder won the World Title or WWE Championship when they cashed it in?

The point of a tournament like that where the winner gets a legitimate shot at the title is to put that guy over. Roode didn't get put over at Bound For Glory as well as he could have had he in fact won. It wasn't until weeks later when he turned heel that he and Storm were truly given that boost.

 

[Aberle4Life]

If the winner shouldn't win, what is the point of the tournament. Notice how when WWE held their Money in the Bank gimmick, every briefcase holder won the World Title or WWE Championship when they cashed it in?

The point of a tournament like that where the winner gets a legitimate shot at the title is to put that guy over. Roode didn't get put over at Bound For Glory as well as he could have had he in fact won. It wasn't until weeks later when he turned heel that he and Storm were truly given that boost.

That's the thing. The winner of a tournament shouldn't always win the title. I know the winner of MITB has always won the title, but I don't agree that it should ALWAYS happen. Some of these guys cashing in should lose--it will make the whole concept more unpredictable and realistic

I was happy to see that the Bound For Glory Series winner didn't win the title. Plus, you said Roode wasn't put over. In the long run, obviously he was and it all started during that Series. I don't agree with the execution of the heel turn, but that tournament was a crucial part of Roode's turn.

The tournament itself showcased a lot of guys--I think it more than did its job of putting several guys over.

We just disagree on the fact that the guy winning these things--BFG Series, MITB, Royal Rumble--should always win the championship. To keep things realistic and unpredictable, no, they should not always win the title.

 

[JJYanks121]

Two things here:

1) It wasn't a good decision based on what IDR said. You nullified a tournament by not putting him over. I'm not saying that if you do a yearly tournament that the guy has to win the title every year, but the first one you probably should put the guy over so it validates having to go through all those other guys. Basically, you had Roode get through 11 others only to lose by slight cheating. It didn't exactly do him wonders.

2) I don't buy a word Hogan said. Heck, I never buy anything Hogan says these days. You could have a contest as to who talks more out their ass between Hogan and Kurt Angle and you'd lose either way. The guy yanked the plug last minute, changing around months of booking. Somewhere after that, a decision was made to do the next couple of shows the way they went and it was pretty poor. I don't think Hogan said "turn him heel" when he suggested that Roode lose. I think he just wanted him to lose. Then someone came up with the Roode/Storm series which happened too fast and lacked a bit in storytelling.

It wasn't the best way to do things and while the end result is ok, the execution wasn't great to get there.

 

[ABMorales787]

It was never Roode not winning that was the issue, IMO. It was the fact that it made the Bound For Glory series almost completely irrelevant, as the winner failed to capitalize when it mattered most.

Umm, I disagree. That tournament is sole reason James Storm and Robert Roode went from a tag team to 2 main event guys in a blink. It was just like WWE's Rumble. Win or lose, the winner of that thing always plays a large part of the year.

As for Hogan, he did say he saw different things for Roode. He should've probably have been more specific. He wasn't all that good saying what he had to say about Storm either.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

That's the thing. The winner of a tournament shouldn't always win the title. I know the winner of MITB has always won the title, but I don't agree that it should ALWAYS happen. Some of these guys cashing in should lose--it will make the whole concept more unpredictable and realistic

I was happy to see that the Bound For Glory Series winner didn't win the title. Plus, you said Roode wasn't put over. In the long run, obviously he was and it all started during that Series. I don't agree with the execution of the heel turn, but that tournament was a crucial part of Roode's turn.

The tournament itself showcased a lot of guys--I think it more than did its job of putting several guys over.

We just disagree on the fact that the guy winning these things--BFG Series, MITB, Royal Rumble--should always win the championship. To keep things realistic and unpredictable, no, they should not always win the title.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the first ever incarnation of the tournament, and the first winner fails to capitalize on it? Makes it out to be just another tournament, not one really worth paying more attention to than others. The only difference is that this one gives the winner a chance at Bound For Glory.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

I don't necessarily disagree, but the first ever incarnation of the tournament, and the first winner fails to capitalize on it? Makes it out to be just another tournament, not one really worth paying more attention to than others. The only difference is that this one gives the winner a chance at Bound For Glory.

You gotta remember that Roode was probably going to win the tournament, but they changed their minds in the last few hours before the match at BFG. Of course, one can argue that they could've still let Roode win an do the storyline, and I completely disagree.

The motive for Bobby Roode to turn on his friend and become such a slimy cheater is because he lost at Bound for Glory, because he played by the rules and because Kurt Angle had to cheat to beat him. It showed him that you have to be a selfish cheater like Angle, otherwise you're not going anywhere regardless of how passionate you are. So that's what he did.

It worked out great because, think about it, how many times have you failed to accomplish something in your life and got pissed at the entire world? I know I have. Many times. That's what happened to Roode, it's only amplified because it's pro wrestling. His heartbreaking loss to Angle, in such a fashion, was the catalyst for him changing his mind and becoming what he became.

See, if they had Roode lose and remain face then it would've been a waste. But now? Not at all. It led to something, therefore it was successful. Otherwise - Roode wins the series, Roode beats Angle .. then what? Even if he turns heel it wouldn't have as good of a story leading up to it. It's just another AJ heel turn. "Oh I'm the Champ and I realized I'm the shit just now, so I'll be cocky out of nowhere". AJ's heel turn back when Flair came along was the epitome of how not to turn a person. He has no reason. AJ was always a humble guy, loving the company a lot, came from a poor background and so on. Then Flair comes along, AJ turns heel and all of a sudden develops pride for who he is. It's random. Roode, on the other hand, has motives and a plot. You can clearly see how his personality changed and why it did. It's humaan nature. Roode has a backstory to his character. Few wrestlers nowadays do.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

That's the thing. The winner of a tournament shouldn't always win the title. I know the winner of MITB has always won the title, but I don't agree that it should ALWAYS happen. Some of these guys cashing in should lose--it will make the whole concept more unpredictable and realistic

There's a a major difference between the two concepts. MITB has been an establishment in WWE since the mid 2000s and this past year was the first time for the BFG Series. Whenever, and if ever, WWE decides to have an MITB winner cash in and lose, it won't get the same sort of flack that TNA has gotten for not having the first ever BFG Series winner win the title.

At WrestleMania IV back in 1988, there was a tournament to determine a new champion for the then vacant WWF Championship. While this isn't an identical example, there could be similarities in the outcome. Say that despite all the hype, all the build surrounding the tournament at WM IV that ultimately nobody wound up being crowd the champ at the event. Say that Randy Savage & DiBiase both got counted out or were both disqualified. Such an ending at your biggest show of the year could make all the hype & build and the tournament itself seem like something of a waste of time. A lot of people feel that way about BFG as there was no pay off for all the time & build TNA devoted to the BFG Series. The first winner of the BFG Series, namely Bobby Roode, should have won the title at BFG, thereby establishing a kind of relevance & excitement for the BFG Series in 2012 should TNA decide to use the concept again. Since Roode didn't win, it could be harder for TNA to get people overly interested in the concept again if they decide to use it.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Have to agree with JH here because Roode losing did make the whole BFG tournament irrelevant. At the same time it did help elevate Roode and Storm and gave Roode some momentum to turn heel. The problem is that fans who wanted a pay off at the biggest show of the year, had to wait to see it on Impact. It was great to see Storm win the title and to see Roode turn and take the belt off Storm. It was just hot shot booking. It would have been great to see Roode and Storm have this feud over the course of a few months to build up to Roode turning heel.

I know that this isn't really how things work in TNA and maybe in the wrestling world in general. Even Hogan said that in the 80's and 90's angles would last for months and now most feuds would start and be over with on Impact. The end of BFG did leave a lot of people disappointed even if they brought the fans back on Impact. It just seems more exciting things happen on Impact nowadays then TNA PPVs.

 

[Jackal960]

Aftermath of losing at BFG was actually better for Roode and TNA. It gave hime an edge and some interesting feuds to work with. Also, it basically gave Roode a reason to become heel. His passion for the gold made him try any single way possible. Unfortunately, heel or face turns can sometimes have stupid reasons, and this is not one of them.

The series he won was more like a Royal Rumble, more than MITB, only consisting of more matches than one. Winning the series gives you the mainevent of the biggest show of the year in TNA. That alone is a serious reason to follow up the winner of the series. I would prefer the first winner of the series to win at BFG, but the aftermath of the loss made everything better so I can't complain.

 

[New Hot Fed]

IMO the same thing could have been accomplished while having Roode win the tournament.

Have Roode win at BFG. He has the great moment at the end of the PPV with Fortune coming out and raising him on their shoulders, the whole feel good moment type deal. The next night on Impact you have Roode come out and say he wants his first defense to be against the man that deserves it most, his partner, James Storm. Have the same type of match Storm and Angle had. Roode Dominates, but Storm hits the kick out of nowhere and wins.

For the next month or two have Bobby keep asking for rematches and making comments about Storm behind his back, etc. Finally the rematch at a ppv, Roode hits Storm with the bottle and completes the heel turn, and now we're in the same spot and the BFG tournament doesn't seem useless.

That would have been great.

Hogan and Impact Wrestling management keep saying they did this because they wanted Roode as heel. Who said he couldn't have been a heel anyway? It's just that they screwed people out of their money, that's what is the problem. They acted like immature children running a big company. The problem was in the whole finish. Hell Roode could have lost anyway but do it in a memorable, creative fashion. TNA as usual went for their typical letdown finishes wich is usualy a member in the ropes or a roll-up. Who are these stupid uncreative agents handling these things?

 

[New Hot Fed]

You gotta remember that Roode was probably going to win the tournament, but they changed their minds in the last few hours before the match at BFG. Of course, one can argue that they could've still let Roode win an do the storyline, and I completely disagree.

The motive for Bobby Roode to turn on his friend and become such a slimy cheater is because he lost at Bound for Glory, because he played by the rules and because Kurt Angle had to cheat to beat him. It showed him that you have to be a selfish cheater like Angle, otherwise you're not going anywhere regardless of how passionate you are. So that's what he did.

It worked out great because, think about it, how many times have you failed to accomplish something in your life and got pissed at the entire world? I know I have. Many times. That's what happened to Roode, it's only amplified because it's pro wrestling. His heartbreaking loss to Angle, in such a fashion, was the catalyst for him changing his mind and becoming what he became.

See, if they had Roode lose and remain face then it would've been a waste. But now? Not at all. It led to something, therefore it was successful. Otherwise - Roode wins the series, Roode beats Angle .. then what? Even if he turns heel it wouldn't have as good of a story leading up to it. It's just another AJ heel turn. "Oh I'm the Champ and I realized I'm the shit just now, so I'll be cocky out of nowhere". AJ's heel turn back when Flair came along was the epitome of how not to turn a person. He has no reason. AJ was always a humble guy, loving the company a lot, came from a poor background and so on. Then Flair comes along, AJ turns heel and all of a sudden develops pride for who he is. It's random. Roode, on the other hand, has motives and a plot. You can clearly see how his personality changed and why it did. It's humaan nature. Roode has a backstory to his character. Few wrestlers nowadays do.

While I liked the whole AJ-Flair act, I think the flaw in the heel turn was that they should have had Angle beat AJ in their first match. So that it would make sense if in their second match to have AJ turns heel because he realises he cannot beat Angle in an honest fashion.

 

[New Hot Fed]

Two things here:

1) It wasn't a good decision based on what IDR said. You nullified a tournament by not putting him over. I'm not saying that if you do a yearly tournament that the guy has to win the title every year, but the first one you probably should put the guy over so it validates having to go through all those other guys. Basically, you had Roode get through 11 others only to lose by slight cheating. It didn't exactly do him wonders.

2) I don't buy a word Hogan said. Heck, I never buy anything Hogan says these days. You could have a contest as to who talks more out their ass between Hogan and Kurt Angle and you'd lose either way. The guy yanked the plug last minute, changing around months of booking. Somewhere after that, a decision was made to do the next couple of shows the way they went and it was pretty poor. I don't think Hogan said "turn him heel" when he suggested that Roode lose. I think he just wanted him to lose. Then someone came up with the Roode/Storm series which happened too fast and lacked a bit in storytelling.

It wasn't the best way to do things and while the end result is ok, the execution wasn't great to get there.

Looking at the BFG series it felt like they had a horse at the beginning probably Gunner or Crimson or Morgan and changed their minds in the middle of it and after a while they had nobody, they did not have a clear winner in mind. I think they picked Roode as a last resort but Hogan was never feeling it. Even after the management and bookers did this whole celebration of Roode for the big push with Fourtune in the ring, I bet Hogan was not in it in his mind. Still we can't forget that TNA did go all the way to at least give Roode a push. I think Hogan was not stupid enough to not realise that TNA had something special with this whole pimping of Roode but the thing that was not clicking with him became clearer as it came closer to the big match. And then he thought "Roode should be heel".

Now I have no problem with this but I just think it was not handled too well at BFG itself. And that was the problem. Even by having Roode being happy that Storm won the title doesn't make sense given that he stabbed him in the back soon after. Remember Storm handed Roode the belt after winning because he felt he did not deserve it and Roode refused it!

 

[shattered dreams]

Here is how I see it. From the perspective of just the BFG show it was not the best decision. From the perspective of what happened afterwards it absolutely was. So a call has to be made if TNA gave enough to entertain people at BFG to justify focusing on the product moving forward over that one night. I think they did when you consider the Hogan match and that TNA PPVs aren't as big a part of their business model as a WWE. It didn't nullify the importance of the BFG series because the whole story was how hard Roode worked for that chance and then it disappeared in an instant. How hard he worked was the BFG series. The importance of every title shot puts over something like the BFG series. The resulting story built up Roode, Storm and the TNA WHC, which was more than the alternative would have.

 

[Aberle4Life]

There's a a major difference between the two concepts. MITB has been an establishment in WWE since the mid 2000s and this past year was the first time for the BFG Series. Whenever, and if ever, WWE decides to have an MITB winner cash in and lose, it won't get the same sort of flack that TNA has gotten for not having the first ever BFG Series winner win the title.

At WrestleMania IV back in 1988, there was a tournament to determine a new champion for the then vacant WWF Championship. While this isn't an identical example, there could be similarities in the outcome. Say that despite all the hype, all the build surrounding the tournament at WM IV that ultimately nobody wound up being crowd the champ at the event. Say that Randy Savage & DiBiase both got counted out or were both disqualified. Such an ending at your biggest show of the year could make all the hype & build and the tournament itself seem like something of a waste of time. A lot of people feel that way about BFG as there was no pay off for all the time & build TNA devoted to the BFG Series. The first winner of the BFG Series, namely Bobby Roode, should have won the title at BFG, thereby establishing a kind of relevance & excitement for the BFG Series in 2012 should TNA decide to use the concept again. Since Roode didn't win, it could be harder for TNA to get people overly interested in the concept again if they decide to use it.

I'm just a fan of as much realism in professional wrestling as possible. If this was a real life situation, the chance of the challenger beating a champion would be about 50/50 in a one-on-one match, or something like that. Many like to think though, that just because Roode won the BFG Tournament he should automatically win the title in the championship match. That's not realistic. The fact he lost leaves the aura of unpredictability alive and doesn't guarantee anything other than what was advertised--a title SHOT.

I get that it's the first time the BFG Series happened and for optimum promotion the winner should win the title to highlight the importance of the tournament. I just don't agree with it because it really just highlights the fact the pro wrestling is scripted if it's executed that way. I'd rather be left guessing right from the start.

The WrestleMania tournament, as you said, isn't quite the same scenario. That tournament's purpose was to crown a new champion. BFG Series' purpose was to get the winner a title match, nothing more. If no champion had come out of WrestleMania, yes, it would have been poorly-executed because the tournament did not serve its purpose. If the BFG Series winner didn't become champion, no harm done because that wasn't the tournament's purpose--it only guaranteed a shot.

Plus, as previously stated, the tournament was a crucial factor in Roode's heel turn. Thus it served an even bigger purpose as it gave TNA its hottest heel and effectively one of its biggest faces in singles currently in James Storm.

If TNA continues the BFG Series next year and beyond, they simply need to market the fact that Bobby Roode became a huge singles star upon winning the tourney. Sure he didn't win the title, but he's the champion now and doing just fine. The first few Royal Rumbles didn't guarantee anything but it was still a hugely anticipated match from the start; if they do BFG Series right, they'll have no problems getting it over.

 

[Defekt]

At least some thought was put into what was a mind bogglingly stupid decision.

If the company had those concerns, they should have either given the match to someone else, or turned Roode months before his push.

Regardless, the booking of that match and the weeks that followed were textbook TNA, and exactly why people criticize them so much.

 

[MB1025]

I think a lot of the comments of saying the BFG series is now a joke is a little premature. How do we know they are going to even do that again? They may have just used it as a tournament this past year. To me I don't see any reason to have the series again. It isn't like a PPV themed series like the Rumble, KOTR, or MITB. This was something going on on TV, house shows, and PPV's over the course of 3-4(?) months and we ended up seeing the same 3 guys wrestle for the title for a long time while the rest of the top guys wrestled in a tournament.

In the sense of the BFG series of course it hurt that, but as far as the wrestlers go Bobby Roode, James Storm, and Bully Ray all became bigger stars because of the series and follow up to the PPV.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

It was never Roode not winning that was the issue, IMO. It was the fact that it made the Bound For Glory series almost completely irrelevant, as the winner failed to capitalize when it mattered most.

I don't disagree with Hogan at all. TNA was lacking top-end heel's big time outside of Angle, Ray and Jarrett (who was leaving for Ring Ka King) at the time, so it made sense to want to establish a new heel. I just think the timing was poor.

This is exactly what I was thinking. They put too much effort in to the BGF series to not have the first winner of it go on to be successful at Bound For Glory. I also believe that Hogan is exactly right here. I don't think Roode would have been half as interesting as champion as face as he would be as a heel. Not only did not putting the title on him at BFG work, but it made him into a legit superstar. Just at the sake of an awesome concept in the Bound For Glory series.