KB Answers Wrestling Questions

[MrHashasheen]

Many argue that the NWO while being a great idea ran its course far too long and ultimately can be contributed to the demise of WCW.

What would have been the best time to have had WCW defeat NWO and start to shift the main focus of the program away from NWO?

Can't speak for kb, but I'd say 1998, pending a Starrcade victory for Sting over Hogan.

 

[Alex]

Bobby Roode held the TNA world title for 9 months, however Jeff Jarrett held the NWA world title for around a year (I think) I'm just wondering how does this work. Do TNA recognise the NWA reigns as NWA reigns and not TNA reigns or something along those lines.

 

[Coco]

Since I started watch wrestling in 2001, I might as well ask. There have been guys over the years to win the Rumble but not get a title shot at Mania on account of it. Vince in 1999 and Austin in 1997 come to mind immediately. How were those instances explained?

I know 1992 was for the belt. In 1990, Hogan entered as champion, so I'm not entirely sure if winning Mania title shots was a thing connected to the Rumble back then. When did that start? With Yoko? Why did they bother before that?

Also, opinion question now: Savage vs Hogan or Warrior vs Hogan?

 

[klunderbunker]

KB -

2012: Did the WWE have a good or bad year

Good as far as PPV buys, bad overall for the most part though.

Should British Bulldog be in the Hall of Fame?

And if so, who would induct him? Bret Hart? Dynamite Kid?

No, but if so it should be Bret.

Many argue that the NWO while being a great idea ran its course far too long and ultimately can be contributed to the demise of WCW.

What would have been the best time to have had WCW defeat NWO and start to shift the main focus of the program away from NWO?

Also if that shift would have happened as you propose, do you think that owuld have been enough to keep WCW on top?

Starrcade 1997. LIkely so yeah, but not forever. Austin was coming and there was nothing WCW could do to stop him.

There's a report on the main page that WWE is considering making it's product more 'edgier'.What do you think it can be?

Unlikely is what I think it is.

Can't speak for kb, but I'd say 1998, pending a Starrcade victory for Sting over Hogan.

More or less.

Bobby Roode held the TNA world title for 9 months, however Jeff Jarrett held the NWA world title for around a year (I think) I'm just wondering how does this work. Do TNA recognise the NWA reigns as NWA reigns and not TNA reigns or something along those lines.

They call Abyss a Grand Slam Champion so yeah they consider it the same thing. I do as well.

Since I started watch wrestling in 2001, I might as well ask. There have been guys over the years to win the Rumble but not get a title shot at Mania on account of it. Vince in 1999 and Austin in 1997 come to mind immediately. How were those instances explained?

I know 1992 was for the belt. In 1990, Hogan entered as champion, so I'm not entirely sure if winning Mania title shots was a thing connected to the Rumble back then. When did that start? With Yoko? Why did they bother before that?

Also, opinion question now: Savage vs Hogan or Warrior vs Hogan?

The first title match being guaranteed at Mania wasn't until 1993. Before then the Rumble was just a thing for the sake of having a bit match. Once they realized that wasn't going to hook people, they started changing things in 1992.

99: Vince forfeited his shot and I think Shawn Michaels (Commissioner at the time) said the shot would go to the last man eliminated, which was Austin.

97: This is a lot more complicated.

Austin was actually eliminated but snuck back in and threw out Bret to win. Bret freaked out about it and at the same time, Shawn lost his smile and forfeited the bet. Since Austin had cheated to win the Rumble, the solution was to take the Final Four members of the Rumble (Vader, Taker, Austin and Hart) and put them in a mini battle royal in the main event of Final Four (I highly recommend that match. It's insanely awesome) for the vacant title. Bret won the title but had to defend the title the next night on Raw against Sid. Austin interfered and cost Bret the title, which was pretty stupid of him because he wound up facing Bret at Mania and it could have been for the title. Austin fought Bret and Sid fought Taker at Mania.

 

[CleverName51]

I think it was 94 or 95, when Lex Luger and someone had a draw in the Royal Rumble match which led to the 1996 (I think) finish with HBK only having one foot and eliminating Bulldog...anyway,

my question is, what were the rules of the Rumble before "over the top rope and both feet hit the floor"

 

[klunderbunker]

94 was Luger and Hart, 95 was Shawn.

It was always both feet.

 

[MrHashasheen]

Starrcade 1997. Likely so yeah, but not forever. Austin was coming and there was nothing WCW could do to stop him.

Disagree with that. They had Sting at the height of his popularity, Bret Hart after Montreal when he was the name on everyone's lips, the nWo's biggest guys still relevant and semi-useful in the ring, the entertaining cruiserweight and a good roster of young guys ready to step up who became the core of the WWE after 2000.

Granted, the WWE had Austin, Rock, Foley, Triple H and Vince, and more than a few good wrestlers on their own, but considering they had the lead for six or so more months before the WWE started pulling ahead and WCW was shooting themselves in the feet every chance they got before even Starrcade, it wasn't a lost cause.

I've spent more than a few hours looking over WCW 1998 and plotting out feuds and angles to know that much.

 

[klunderbunker]

Disagree with that. They had Sting at the height of his popularity, Bret Hart after Montreal when he was the name on everyone's lips, the nWo's biggest guys still relevant and semi-useful in the ring, the entertaining cruiserweight and a good roster of young guys ready to step up who became the core of the WWE after 2000.

Granted, the WWE had Austin, Rock, Foley, Triple H and Vince, and more than a few good wrestlers on their own, but considering they had the lead for six or so more months before the WWE started pulling ahead and WCW was shooting themselves in the feet every chance they got before even Starrcade, it wasn't a lost cause.

I've spent more than a few hours looking over WCW 1998 and plotting out feuds and angles to know that much.

They didn't have the lead for six months. They had it for four, by which time Austin was rolling. WWF was goign to win out, if nothing else based on how stupid WCW could get.

Note that I mean by that point it was clear WWF was going to win out. Through most of 1997 it wasn't all that clear.

 

[Coco]

Austin was actually eliminated but snuck back in and threw out Bret to win. Bret freaked out about it and at the same time, Shawn lost his smile and forfeited the bet. Since Austin had cheated to win the Rumble, the solution was to take the Final Four members of the Rumble (Vader, Taker, Austin and Hart) and put them in a mini battle royal in the main event of Final Four (I highly recommend that match. It's insanely awesome) for the vacant title. Bret won the title but had to defend the title the next night on Raw against Sid. Austin interfered and cost Bret the title, which was pretty stupid of him because he wound up facing Bret at Mania and it could have been for the title. Austin fought Bret and Sid fought Taker at Mania.

I knew all of this. For some reason, I still felt like I missed part of the story.

 

[#MrScissorsKick]

KB -

I'm a huge fan of the Royal Rumble. although it's early, do i have a reason to think it's gunna be solid overall?

 

[klunderbunker]

The Rumble is usually fun but they've taken away the idea of "anybody could win", which is the most fun part of it usually.

 

[Coco]

When they teased Santino winning in 2011, did you really think they'd pull the trigger and do it? I know I bought it.

 

[Stormtrooper]

The Rumble is usually fun but they've taken away the idea of "anybody could win", which is the most fun part of it usually.

Did they really take it away? I don't at all recall thinking Alberto Del Rio would win it. And before Cena entered the 08 Rumble, I had zero belief he would win it. Same with Edge in 2010.


And if you really think about it, the "anybody could win" went away once they put the Title Match with it, as the only guys that we expect to win would be people that belong in World Title Matches.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

Did they really take it away? I don't at all recall thinking Alberto Del Rio would win it. And before Cena entered the 08 Rumble, I had zero belief he would win it. Same with Edge in 2010.

I think what he means, and correct me if I'm wrong KB, is that with Rock/Punk for the title, Cena will more than likely win the Rumble and face one or the other or a combination of the two.

Anyway, Kurt Angle recently stated that Steve Austin was an underrated wrestler (not entertainer, but wrestler as Kurt put it). Agree or disagree?

 

[Martin Gabriel]

Would you like to see Raw become more edgier?

 

[klunderbunker]

When they teased Santino winning in 2011, did you really think they'd pull the trigger and do it? I know I bought it.

My exact quote when it happened:

"THEY WOULDN'T! THEY COULDN'T! Oh thank goodness they didn't." Yeah I thought they were considering it.

Did they really take it away? I don't at all recall thinking Alberto Del Rio would win it. And before Cena entered the 08 Rumble, I had zero belief he would win it. Same with Edge in 2010.


And if you really think about it, the "anybody could win" went away once they put the Title Match with it, as the only guys that we expect to win would be people that belong in World Title Matches.

That's what I mean. Today, it's lik five people max that are potential winners. Back in the day, they played it up like a midcard guy COULD win. You knew no one would, but buying into the chance that it could happen was one of the funnest parts.

I think what he means, and correct me if I'm wrong KB, is that with Rock/Punk for the title, Cena will more than likely win the Rumble and face one or the other or a combination of the two.

Anyway, Kurt Angle recently stated that Steve Austin was an underrated wrestler (not entertainer, but wrestler as Kurt put it). Agree or disagree?

Not exactly but close enough.

He is. Austin's in ring work is often forgotten, but he could flat out go in the ring.

 

[Martin Gabriel]

Would you like to see Raw become more edgier?

 

[klunderbunker]

Yeah a bit but I'm not dying for it or anything.

 

[Martin Gabriel]

Would you like to see Randy Orton vs. Sheamus at WrestleMania for the WHC with Orton being the heel?

 

[klunderbunker]

He needs a new character and if that means a turn then so be it.

 

[Martin Gabriel]

Do you think The Rock will wrestle at Elimination Chamber? Word going around WWE is saying that he will.

 

[Danger Burger]

He is. Austin's in ring work is often forgotten, but he could flat out go in the ring.

I've been told that austin was much better in ring before the Owen Hart neck incident, and he became much more focussed on the brawler style (which obviously suited his character much better too) I only started watching when Owen had the Owen 3:16 T-shirt. Is there much truth to this??

 

[klunderbunker]

Do you think The Rock will wrestle at Elimination Chamber? Word going around WWE is saying that he will.

It's possible but I'd be a bit surprised.

I've been told that austin was much better in ring before the Owen Hart neck incident, and he became much more focussed on the brawler style (which obviously suited his character much better too) I only started watching when Owen had the Owen 3:16 T-shirt. Is there much truth to this??

Yeah he used to be a much better technical guy who even came off the top on occasion. The brawling style worked a lot better for him though.

 

[Stormtrooper]

That's what I mean. Today, it's lik five people max that are potential winners. Back in the day, they played it up like a midcard guy COULD win. You knew no one would, but buying into the chance that it could happen was one of the funnest parts.

See, the thing is though that happened back in 1992. All the awesome Royal Rumble Matches all happened AFTER 1992, when the match meant something. I'd argue not a having an "anyone can win" mentality has helped the rumble immensely.

Besides, the Rumble ends a PPV, and no one wants to see Santino or Heath Slater celebrating to close out a PPV (or a RAW, Smackdown, Main Event, Superstars, NXT, etc).

 

[klunderbunker]

Well even before then no midcarder ever won the thing (Duggan not included as he was basically the third biggest face in the company and by far the biggest star in the match). It's the way the announcers talk about it that makes it more interesting. Now the guys in the match with no chance are treated like they have no chance. Gorilla talking about how it's a golden opportunity for someone like Ron Bass didn't give Bass a better chance, but it made him feel more important. Does that make sense (not meant to be patronizing)?