Questions about 1997

[d_henderson1810]

Leading up to RR 2017, I would like some questions answered about events in WWE from 20 years ago- 1997, specifically RR '97-WM13.

To preface, I have been a wrestling fan for over 30 years, since the mid-80's. But, living in Australia, we only got one television station who showed wrestling (only WWF, we didn't get WCW) at 1 in the morning. I had to VHS it and watch the next day.

In the 90's, this station stopped showing wrestling, and for a few years, we got no wrestling on TV. I had to follow wrestling by reading "WWE Magazine" and "Pro Wrestling Illustrated" (which were six months old by the time they arrived in Australia). Internet wasn't around then. We didn't get cable until mid-1997 (there had been two previous attempts to have pay, but both companies went bankrupt or got bought out), and I didn't get it until mid-1999. Now I could watch wrestling again.

I have been able to find out about most events during that period by reading websites, WWE Network etc.

But I have always been confused by the events of WWE 1997 Jan-WM13. Here are some questions I have:-

1) "Stone Cold" Steve Austin won the RR. Then why didn't he get a WM title shot?
2) I know that Shawn Michaels vacated the title to "find his smile". But why have Bret Hart win it at "Fatal-4-Way", if he would just lose it the next night on "RAW" to Sid? Why not have Hart carry it to WM13, and defend it there (any match Hart as WWE champion at WM13 would have been better than Taker v Sid). Why have Sid win it, and if so, why not have had Sycho Sid in the Fatal-4-Way match and win it then, rather than switch the belt two nights in a row?
3) Why did Undertaker get a WWE Title shot at "Wrestlemania 13"? What did he do to earn it? Why not just have Taker win the Rumble, and earn a legit right to compete for the belt?
4) Why not have had Bret Hart (who won the belt at IYH-F4W) versus SCSA (winner of the Royal Rumble) at WM13 for the WWE Title. They fought anyway, and the match wouldn't be diminished if they did the exact same match, but with the title on the line? If they did this, it would be in my top 5 WM main events of all time. You could have Hart retain, and Austin pass out, but not tap out. Austin would still get over, and it would only enhance both men's standing, and keep the integrity of the RR winner fighting for the belt (I know the RR winner didn't fight for the belt in 1999 either, but that was cleverly done, and used to further the Austin-McMahon feud).

You could still have Taker v Sid, and Bret v Austin, but Bret/Austin would be for the belt, while Taker v Sid is a grudge match. Why didn't they go this way?

Can anyone explain how this was explained in the storylines, and also, if there are backstage reasons for going this way (politics?).

 

[Garak]

At one time, the Royal Rumble didn't lead to an automatic title shot at WM. I've argued before that that was a better policy. Winning the Royal Rumble and having that make one headline WrestleMania ends up tying a lot of hands when it comes to booking. It's a hindrance. Winning the Royal Rumble used to be prestigious all on its own.

 

[d_henderson1810]

At one time, the Royal Rumble didn't lead to an automatic title shot at WM. I've argued before that that was a better policy. Winning the Royal Rumble and having that make one headline WrestleMania ends up tying a lot of hands when it comes to booking. It's a hindrance. Winning the Royal Rumble used to be prestigious all on its own.

I disagree with that, as I am someone who wants to see the winner of a RR, Battle Royal etc earn something. I think that the winner of the "Andre Invitational" at WM each year should earn a title shot, otherwise, what's the point?

Maybe they should have the winner of the RR get a title shot, which can use before WM as well. This way, the match at WM could change, but there is still something earned from winning a Rumble, other than bragging rights.

 

[d_henderson1810]

At one time, the Royal Rumble didn't lead to an automatic title shot at WM. I've argued before that that was a better policy. Winning the Royal Rumble and having that make one headline WrestleMania ends up tying a lot of hands when it comes to booking. It's a hindrance. Winning the Royal Rumble used to be prestigious all on its own.

I don't think that is right actually.

Hogan wins Rumble, fights Slaughter at WM7
Flair wins belt in 1992 RR
Yokozuna won '93 Rumble. Main event at WM9.
Bret Hart & Luger win RR '94. They both fight the champ at WMX.
Shawn Michaels wins both Rumbles in 95-96. Fights champ Diesel at WM11 and Bret Hart (Ironman Match) WM12.
Austin wins Rumble in 1997, Yet Taker vs Sid for title at WM13.

 

[MFR0mack]

Leading up to RR 2017, I would like some questions answered about events in WWE from 20 years ago- 1997, specifically RR '97-WM13.

To preface, I have been a wrestling fan for over 30 years, since the mid-80's. But, living in Australia, we only got one television station who showed wrestling (only WWF, we didn't get WCW) at 1 in the morning. I had to VHS it and watch the next day.

In the 90's, this station stopped showing wrestling, and for a few years, we got no wrestling on TV. I had to follow wrestling by reading "WWE Magazine" and "Pro Wrestling Illustrated" (which were six months old by the time they arrived in Australia). Internet wasn't around then. We didn't get cable until mid-1997 (there had been two previous attempts to have pay, but both companies went bankrupt or got bought out), and I didn't get it until mid-1999. Now I could watch wrestling again.

I have been able to find out about most events during that period by reading websites, WWE Network etc.

But I have always been confused by the events of WWE 1997 Jan-WM13. Here are some questions I have:-

1) "Stone Cold" Steve Austin won the RR. Then why didn't he get a WM title shot?
2) I know that Shawn Michaels vacated the title to "find his smile". But why have Bret Hart win it at "Fatal-4-Way", if he would just lose it the next night on "RAW" to Sid? Why not have Hart carry it to WM13, and defend it there (any match Hart as WWE champion at WM13 would have been better than Taker v Sid). Why have Sid win it, and if so, why not have had Sycho Sid in the Fatal-4-Way match and win it then, rather than switch the belt two nights in a row?
3) Why did Undertaker get a WWE Title shot at "Wrestlemania 13"? What did he do to earn it? Why not just have Taker win the Rumble, and earn a legit right to compete for the belt?
4) Why not have had Bret Hart (who won the belt at IYH-F4W) versus SCSA (winner of the Royal Rumble) at WM13 for the WWE Title. They fought anyway, and the match wouldn't be diminished if they did the exact same match, but with the title on the line? If they did this, it would be in my top 5 WM main events of all time. You could have Hart retain, and Austin pass out, but not tap out. Austin would still get over, and it would only enhance both men's standing, and keep the integrity of the RR winner fighting for the belt (I know the RR winner didn't fight for the belt in 1999 either, but that was cleverly done, and used to further the Austin-McMahon feud).

You could still have Taker v Sid, and Bret v Austin, but Bret/Austin would be for the belt, while Taker v Sid is a grudge match. Why didn't they go this way?

Can anyone explain how this was explained in the storylines, and also, if there are backstage reasons for going this way (politics?).

1. Austin cheated to win the '97 Royal Rumble. He was eliminated by Bret Hart, but the referees at ringside were occupied trying to separate Terry Funk and Mankind from fighting, so they didn't see it. He snuck back into the ring, eliminating Undertaker & Vader, then eliminated Bret Hart to be declared the winner. The next night, Bret complained how Austin had screwed him and "quit" the WWF (in storyline). So to keep him with the company, they made the Final Four match for February, with the winner getting to face Shawn Michaels.
2. Sycho Sid was not involved in the Royal Rumble, he faced Shawn in the main event of that PPV. The purpose of the Final Four matchup in storyline was that Austin was technically declared the winner of the Rumble, but all three other men were screwed out of their opportunity to win it and they felt they deserved another chance. Plus, the Final Four match was made when the plan was for Sid to have a rematch with Shawn. When Shawn refused to job and gave up the belt, Sid felt he too was owed a title match. So that's why he got a shot against the winner of the Final Four.
3. In storyline, after Sid won the title the night after Final Four, the Undertaker challenged him and Sid accepted. In reality, Vince was rewarding 'Taker for six years of hard work while never really having a world title run (not counting when he won it from Hogan in 1991, but lost it back to him two days later).
4. Again, because Vince was rewarding 'Taker. Plus, Austin wasn't ready for the main event of 'Mania at the time.

Basically, the main event for Wrestlemania 13 was supposed to be Bret vs Shawn in a rematch from the year before, with Bret getting the win this time. He was going to win the Final Four -- which wasn't for the title when it was announced, but for a shot at the champion at Wrestlemania -- then beat Shawn at 13. For some reason or another, Shawn decided he didn't want to do the job for Bret, so he made up a story about a knee injury and dropped the belt. This threw a wrench into all the plans. Taker/Sid was already going to happen at that point and Austin hadn't had a match established, so to appease Undertaker for his loyalty and hard work, it was decided that he would get the belt and Bret Hart would turn heel against Austin.

At one time, the Royal Rumble didn't lead to an automatic title shot at WM. I've argued before that that was a better policy. Winning the Royal Rumble and having that make one headline WrestleMania ends up tying a lot of hands when it comes to booking. It's a hindrance. Winning the Royal Rumble used to be prestigious all on its own.

The only time the Rumble didn't equal a world title/shot for the winner was 1990 when Hulk Hogan won it while already being the WWF champion. It's always been about getting a title shot.

 

[Garak]

I disagree with that, as I am someone who wants to see the winner of a RR, Battle Royal etc earn something. I think that the winner of the "Andre Invitational" at WM each year should earn a title shot, otherwise, what's the point?

I don't know when it changed, so my timing might be off as to whether or not the original question had anything to do with the WM main event. Take a look at the Royal Rumble, historically. Checking Wikipedia, at least, right now, shows it was around 1993 it changed. So, I was off on my timing, but there was a time when the Royal Rumble had nothing to do with getting a championship shot at WrestleMania. Big John Studd didn't get a championship match for his win, nor did Duggan.

In any case, not everything has to result in a championship match stake. The Royal Rumble lets a lot of people participate. There's a reason that recent Rumbles have been crapped upon, and that's because the winner is a foregone conclusion, and we didn't like the winner, to make matters worse. We have a ring full of guys, with only two or three having any real likelihood of winning, because the winner will be highlighting WrestleMania, which makes it a bit of a let down, unless they were to throw a surprise or two in there.

Is the entire undercard useless because it has nothing to do with earning a world title shot?

 

[Goldie]

I don't know when it changed, so my timing might be off as to whether or not the original question had anything to do with the WM main event. Take a look at the Royal Rumble, historically. Checking Wikipedia, at least, right now, shows it was around 1993 it changed. So, I was off on my timing, but there was a time when the Royal Rumble had nothing to do with getting a championship shot at WrestleMania. Big John Studd didn't get a championship match for his win, nor did Duggan.

In any case, not everything has to result in a championship match stake. The Royal Rumble lets a lot of people participate. There's a reason that recent Rumbles have been crapped upon, and that's because the winner is a foregone conclusion, and we didn't like the winner, to make matters worse. We have a ring full of guys, with only two or three having any real likelihood of winning, because the winner will be highlighting WrestleMania, which makes it a bit of a let down, unless they were to throw a surprise or two in there.

Is the entire undercard useless because it has nothing to do with earning a world title shot?

Back in 1988 to 1989 the Rumble was showcased as 'Anyone can win it'.
In fact the first Rumble which Duggan won was a cast of 20 midcarders... it didn't have Hogan, Savage, Andre, Dibiase in it.

However after that it has mainly been a top liner star who has won it... and usually the storylines depict that only 3 or 4 guys can realistically win it from the 30.

It wasn't until 1993 that there was a prize (the wrestlemania title shot) for winning the Rumble. This started with Yokozuna.

 

[Spencesc11]

I think when WWE was losing the ratings to WCW Nitro they were trying to do anything to bring back the casual fan even if it meant dumb title changes. But eventually they got it right developing characters such as Stone Cold, DX, The Rock, etc... Now we have that new era again where the Main Eventers are getting older and a new crop of top stars needs to carry the brand. In terms of the Rumble a little controversy always keeps the water cooler chatter the next day going. This year's Rumble should have plenty of that. But for me there should be only 1 possible winner of the Rumble and that's the Undertaker. He should have his last match at Mania be on the big stage for a Major Title. Have him face Reigns for the Universal Title to close the show. But to build on some of the points I think another thing that makes the Rumble special is the underdog. When Santino almost beat Del Rio a few years back that was awesome and the crowd was very into it. Rumble gives WWE a barometer to see how the crowd would react to a push for guys otherwise not normally getting one.

 

[Makaveli31]

1) "Stone Cold" Steve Austin won the RR. Then why didn't he get a WM title shot?
2) I know that Shawn Michaels vacated the title to "find his smile". But why have Bret Hart win it at "Fatal-4-Way", if he would just lose it the next night on "RAW" to Sid? Why not have Hart carry it to WM13, and defend it there (any match Hart as WWE champion at WM13 would have been better than Taker v Sid). Why have Sid win it, and if so, why not have had Sycho Sid in the Fatal-4-Way match and win it then, rather than switch the belt two nights in a row?

Both questions one and two have the same answer. To set the Stone Cold v. Hitman match at WrestleMania 13. Stone Cold was never going to get the WWF title shot. His character was still relatively new in early 1997 but there was no question he would be the man sometime down the line so they had to switch him from a heel to a babyface and what better way to do that than against Bret Hart to was already starting to turn heel himself so they did the double turn at 'Mania 13. In order to set this up they had to make Bret look like the "whiny" heel talking about getting screwed over by the boss (ironic) so they had Austin cost him the win at Royal Rumble and the subsequent WWF title shot in the process and then cost him THE WWF title on RAW. So they had to put these things in place to heat up the feud between Bret and Austin.

3) Why did Undertaker get a WWE Title shot at "Wrestlemania 13"? What did he do to earn it? Why not just have Taker win the Rumble, and earn a legit right to compete for the belt?

'Taker was just a place holder. The WWE was in transition from the "New Generation" to "Attitude." It was an upheaval. Shawn Michaels was out he was going back to heel after a disastrous run as babyface. Bret Hart was turning heel for this first time as a singles. Austin was becoming a babyface. So the only steady pillar in all this was the Undertaker. Again, they NEEDED Austin to screw Bret out of the Rumble win in order to advance his feud with Bret and continue the storyline of Bret getting screwed over. 'Taker winning or losing was irrelevant. No one was going to question his shot at the World title.

4) Why not have had Bret Hart (who won the belt at IYH-F4W) versus SCSA (winner of the Royal Rumble) at WM13 for the WWE Title. They fought anyway, and the match wouldn't be diminished if they did the exact same match, but with the title on the line? If they did this, it would be in my top 5 WM main events of all time. You could have Hart retain, and Austin pass out, but not tap out. Austin would still get over, and it would only enhance both men's standing, and keep the integrity of the RR winner fighting for the belt (I know the RR winner didn't fight for the belt in 1999 either, but that was cleverly done, and used to further the Austin-McMahon feud).

Again LOL, they wanted to Austin COST Bret the WWE Championship. There is no greater heat than someone costing someone the WWE World title and that's what Austin did. It got Austin MAJOR heat with Bret fans and it made Austin even more popular with the American fans. Bret turned into the raging lunatic after he lost the WWE title so it played into his Anit-American heel character even more. It was BRILLIANT booking.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

The answer to that question is because the WWE wanted to change things up, starting from 1997, so they created this complicated storyline, in order to compete with WCW. That complicated storyline created awesome TV and that's something you don't see every day. The best thing about it, was that it was also logical from a storyline perspective.

Austin cheats to win the Rumble, causes controversy.
The fatal-4-way is announced in order to have a clear winner.
HBK forfeits the belt.
Hart wins the four-way.
Sid is owned a rematch, which he gets against Bret Hart, who he beats due to Steve Austin.
This causes Bret and Austin to get personal - That was the big moment of this entire thing. Months of frustation for the Hitman, he finally blows up in a manner that has never been seen before on WWF TV, going after Vince McMahon and blaming the entire company.
Sid has no challenger, so Taker steps in to challenge him.

It's so good, because at the same time, it seems legit. Like a legit story, like those things really happened and they were not scripted, but also, they never forced to the viewer the fact that it was a "pipe-bomb".

The fact that they planned this on the whim, after HBK gave up the belt, is amazing.

I think Austin was always supposed to win the Rumble and him and Hart would wrestle a match at the PPV before 'Mania. Hart would win and would go on to face HBK at 'Mania. That seems like the original plan to me. Also Sid vs Taker was always supposed to happen in a monster vs monster match. Judging by Austin's position at the time, he would most likely be in a midcard match.
After HBK left though, they knew that Hart vs Austin and Sid vs Taker were the only logical choices. However Austin couldn't be in a title match yet. So they came up with the story.

 

[Garak]

It wasn't until 1993 that there was a prize (the wrestlemania title shot) for winning the Rumble. This started with Yokozuna.

And this is where they tie their hands. It's one thing to give a title shot, since you can realistically have anyone get a title shot with no chance of winning. That was the modus operandi of most of Hogan's WWF reign. However, when you have a WrestleMania title shot up for grabs, yes, it really limits who can win, unless you want one of those undersized underdog scenarios.

And, of course, having someone like Rey Mysterio winning a battle royale really limits the suspension of disbelief, but that's another matter altogether.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The official "winner goes to Mania" stip started in 1993 with Yoko. I'm not sure at the time they envisioned it still being in place in 2017, as they also started King Of The Ring that year and I am sure had hopes that would also lead to creating new stars.

Yeah, Hogan won in 1990 as WWF Champion and again in 1991 to then face Slaughter. In reality the reason for making the winner go to Mania was to add stakes to the Rumble match, when they started having the title defended at the show regularly. Remember then title matches were a MUCH bigger deal than they are today and changes, like Slaughter winning in 1991 were rare.

As for 1997 - most guys here have got a version of it right but the main one missing (and the truth) is they wanted to set the double turn up. The only way to make it work was to have Austin be "SO bad that he could drive the ultimate whitebread Babyface crazy".

WWE didn't push right to the title or only have short midcard runs in those days, it had been proven not to work with Flair, Taker, Yoko and Diesel. Bret and Shawn's runs, where you had to spend a good year building in the IC division was the template. So the easiest way to get Austin ready for WM14 was how they did the 97 Rumble.

Sid v Taker was partly because Sid had done a much better job the second time around since Mania 11 and was now seen as safe hands to drop the belt convincingly to Taker. Vader had only been in a year and wasn't impressing as hoped and would have seen it as "demotion"... Sid had been around in 91 when Taker had his first short run and it made sense for that to be revisited.

Taker wasn't being "rewarded" as such - they just changed tack with him from attraction to legit main eventer.

After Mabel nearly killed him in 1995, they stopped him fighting monsters and put him with solid workers like Foley, Goldust etc.
His improvement was that marked (Taker's true talent - he did 5 years of ring growth in 18 months) from working with those people that he was now able to be a true main event talent and given that honor of the title run on those terms. Not cos "it was his turn" or he'd "earned a try", he was just about the best in the company at that time. It's a bit like Jericho in 2008.

By October 97 and Bad Blood, he's the legend we know as Taker... at Summerslam 1995, he still could have been gone to WCW by 1997 or lost to Diesel at WM12.

The Rumble and Final Four helped set all that up in one match -the main story arcs for the WHOLE of 1997 for most of the top guys. Only really DX came after/was added to the mix.

 

[d_henderson1810]

The answer to that question is because the WWE wanted to change things up, starting from 1997, so they created this complicated storyline, in order to compete with WCW. That complicated storyline created awesome TV and that's something you don't see every day. The best thing about it, was that it was also logical from a storyline perspective.

Austin cheats to win the Rumble, causes controversy.
The fatal-4-way is announced in order to have a clear winner.
HBK forfeits the belt.
Hart wins the four-way.
Sid is owned a rematch, which he gets against Bret Hart, who he beats due to Steve Austin.
This causes Bret and Austin to get personal - That was the big moment of this entire thing. Months of frustation for the Hitman, he finally blows up in a manner that has never been seen before on WWF TV, going after Vince McMahon and blaming the entire company.
Sid has no challenger, so Taker steps in to challenge him.

It's so good, because at the same time, it seems legit. Like a legit story, like those things really happened and they were not scripted, but also, they never forced to the viewer the fact that it was a "pipe-bomb".

The fact that they planned this on the whim, after HBK gave up the belt, is amazing.

I think Austin was always supposed to win the Rumble and him and Hart would wrestle a match at the PPV before 'Mania. Hart would win and would go on to face HBK at 'Mania. That seems like the original plan to me. Also Sid vs Taker was always supposed to happen in a monster vs monster match. Judging by Austin's position at the time, he would most likely be in a midcard match.
After HBK left though, they knew that Hart vs Austin and Sid vs Taker were the only logical choices. However Austin couldn't be in a title match yet. So they came up with the story.

Thanks for explaining this. It does sound like a good storyline,and makes things clear now. It doesn't make sense when you just look at cold, hard results, but now that I know the context, it makes sense.

Maybe I will watch some of the RAWs during that period after all, as it sounds interesting, on the WWE Network, as well as everything else I missed out on over the years.

That's why I am a fan of WWE Network. A lot of their classic content is new stuff for me.

 

[Makaveli31]

The fact that they planned this on the whim, after HBK gave up the belt, is amazing.

I think Austin was always supposed to win the Rumble and him and Hart would wrestle a match at the PPV before 'Mania. Hart would win and would go on to face HBK at 'Mania. That seems like the original plan to me. Also Sid vs Taker was always supposed to happen in a monster vs monster match. Judging by Austin's position at the time, he would most likely be in a midcard match.
After HBK left though, they knew that Hart vs Austin and Sid vs Taker were the only logical choices. However Austin couldn't be in a title match yet. So they came up with the story.
sendpm.gif

Well I don't if it was planned a whim. Storylines for WrestleMania are planned six months in advance so once Shawn nixed the idea of working with Bret at WM 13 it was on to plan B with Stone Cold. Stone Cold was white hot at the time. Everyone knew it but he had already lost to Bret at Survivor Series so they needed to "reheat" the feud. Kevin Sullivan thinks of heat like a hot-air balloon and every incident between Bret and Austin would add more heat into the balloon.

So Austin screws Bret at the Rumble. It adds heat to Bret v. Stone Cold
Bret talking about Steve Austin screwing him over (MORE HEAT)
Austin talking about the Bret being a whiny bitch (SUPER HEAT)
Stone Cold costs Bret the WWF title (MEGA SUPER HEAT)

So by the time WrestleMania 13 rolls around the heat between Austin and Bret had reached a fever pitch. It was also around this time when Vince first approached Bret about turning heel (since the babyface v. babyface match with Shawn was out the window) Hence the double turn. So Shawn was really never involved. Once Shawn took himself out of the picture he was no longer needed.

It was clear Shawn would have to drop the strap for good at some point so my suspicion is that at the meeting with Vince or shortly after Shawn "forfeited" the title. He would work the Rumble but forfeit the belt shortly after.

 

[FlairFan2003]

It wasnt promoted that the R-Rumble winner got the Mania title shot till 1993, although the winner of the 92 event won the at that time vacated title.