Stephanie McMahon is totally right!

[d_henderson1810]

During a promo on "Raw", Stephanie told Daniel Bryan that he and the WWE Universe are only there because of the McMahons.

You see, this is what all of you (and ingrates like C.M. Punk) refuse to acknowledge. You blame the McMahons for everything that goes wrong in the WWE, but you have to give them credit for what they have done right as well.

Without Vince McMahon, there would have been no Daniel Bryan (he would still be Bryan Danielson, wrestling in some pool hall somewhere, rather than known globally). There would be "Stone Cold" Steve Austin (since, if there was no WWE, Steve Austin would still be the guy with long hair, who lost to "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan in ten seconds). There would have been no Rock, Mark Callaway would have been just another dime-a-dozen big guy, and Triple H would have been remembered as Terra Ryzing.

Without Vince, there would have been no "Attitude Era" (you could argue that WCW forced the change, but Vince changed it the way he did). There would have no Wrestlemania, no Hulkamania, no WWE.

Criticism I do not accept about Vince McMahon is when all his achievements are credited to others (e.g. SCSA made himself a star etc). When someone gets over, they are given the credit by the Universe. Yet if someone doesn;t get over, it is all the WWE's fault. The WWE has made a lot of guys stars, yet they are not given the credit for being the ones who made them stars. If you plan to criticize the bad things, you had better give credit for the good things too.

Your attitude shouldn't be that Vince McMahon was never any good. Your attitude should be that he is, therefore he is not meeting the mark now. So, your disappointment should that Vince McMahon can do better, but choses not to as this time. He is not incompetent, but has gotten lazy. This is why I don't lose faith in WWE. Vince was great once, he can be again, so that always gives me hope.

You have a right to criticize, but it should be because you expect better, because you got that in the past, not because you think that Vince McMahon was never that good. So, shouldn't you, next time you criticise Vince, think that he has the credits in the bank, so is owed the benefit of the doubt that he will do the right thing in the end, and that maybe he knows more about business than you. I think he deserves at least that.

 

[jc_ultimate]

So basically your argument is that once someone has achieved success that they are above criticism.

E.g. Joe Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls with the Redskins and was named two time AP coach of the year during his first stint with the team. During his second stint he was Joe Gibbs was 31-36. Despite this sub .500 record, Joe Gibbs could not be criticized for any of his failures as a coach because of his previous successes.

This is a simple example that I believe easily rebuts your argument, but it also assumes that you have even stated a valid argument in the first place. In my opinion you haven't. You basically just created a huge strawman in this post that doesn't even need to be addressed at all. Yes there is criticism of the WWE, but has anyone ever said that Vince McMahon is not accomplished, or has not done something beneficial for the business of wrestling? Unless you can point to any posts that make the claim that Vince McMahon was "never any good" I just really fail to see the point of this thread.

 

[tom9422]

I scoffed at you calling CM Punk an ingrate.

Regardless, people can be a bit hard on the McMahon's, but you're giving them too much credit though. Stone Cold created his own gimmick, as did Bryan, as did Punk, as did many greats past and present. All Vince did was give them a platform.

No one blames the McMahon's for a wrestler not getting over, thats nonsensical. What people blame them for is who and how they choose to push or not push the talent. Especially these days, they aren't the best man-managers. The problem is that they push guys who aren't over, or neglect guys that are.

 

[Anger]

I agree with your argument, as it's essentially how I view WWE/the McMahon's. They have done a lot right, much more than many give them credit for ( mainly Vince). But it is certainly true that they' ve- especially as of late-done much wrong, given the at times out of kilter creative direction under which the product currently exists. It isn't all of one, none of the other. It's all of a piece ; some good, some more bad. I also believe that many fans are simply impatient, seeking instant gratification, in a 'my way or the highway' sort of way. I do not care for the company's current state, but still love WWE , and always will, disappointed as I am in the situation as it stands.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I couldn't agree with the OP more! He is right. These IWC ingrates will never realize the value of the Mcmahons , the hard work they've done over the years to provide us a wonderful product and the glitter and glimmer of the WWE Universe. They should've been glad Batista came back and not whined about that tiny pipsqueak Daniel Bryan as he's too short and tiny to be a credible contender to the WWE WHC. Moreover, just as Stephanie said, he's a B plus wrestler at best. Just because guys like Dean Malenko and Daniel Bryan can stay on the mat grappling for 20 minutes, it doesn't make them better than A plus wrestlers like Sting, Goldberg, HHH, Orton, Shawn Michaels, and Bret Hart.

On a final note, "Praise" be the name of Vincent Kennedy Mcmahon!

 

[Anger]

If Goldberg was an A+ Superstar, so was Doink the Clown.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

If Goldberg was an A+ Superstar, so was Doink the Clown.

Except that Doink the clown wasn't the hottest thing in WCW in 1998 who went on to defeat Hogan to win the WCW championship and except that he represented the A+ superstardom in clownishness.

 

[d_henderson1810]

So basically your argument is that once someone has achieved success that they are above criticism.

E.g. Joe Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls with the Redskins and was named two time AP coach of the year during his first stint with the team. During his second stint he was Joe Gibbs was 31-36. Despite this sub .500 record, Joe Gibbs could not be criticized for any of his failures as a coach because of his previous successes.

This is a simple example that I believe easily rebuts your argument, but it also assumes that you have even stated a valid argument in the first place. In my opinion you haven't. You basically just created a huge strawman in this post that doesn't even need to be addressed at all. Yes there is criticism of the WWE, but has anyone ever said that Vince McMahon is not accomplished, or has not done something beneficial for the business of wrestling? Unless you can point to any posts that make the claim that Vince McMahon was "never any good" I just really fail to see the point of this thread.

Did I say that Vince is not up for criticism? No, in fact I criticized him myself, for not continuing to live up to his reputation.

But I have heard much criticism of the McMahons on this post, but very little commendation. Bruno Sammartino was pissed off with Vince for years, for shutting down the territories (yet the terrorities would have died anyway, because they didn't go global like McMahon). Mark Madden is always putting down the McMahons. I have heard some on these boards give 100% credit to SCSA for the "Attitude Era", but Austin without Vince would have been like Batman without the Joker. Also, people here gave full credit for Zack Ryder being popular on these boards, yet don't also blame him for not being on TV now, but blame Vince for burying him. A UK mag called "Power Slam" pisses on the McMahons and everything they do.

C.M. Punk doesn't appreciate Vince, because he walked out on WWE, even though Vince gave him a fourteen-month title reign. He pushed Punk, and yet Punk still walked.

On the other hand, John Cena gives the WWE and the McMahons credit, and he is booed, and seen as "brown-nosing". To say you like what the WWE does right is to be criticised. I'm not just imagining it.

 

[Anger]

I don't disagree with your highlighting Goldberg's career achievements, I merely meant that he was, at best, weak as a wrestler and performer, ala Ryback. Although Ryback is even more ineffectual in ring and on the mic.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I scoffed at you calling CM Punk an ingrate.

Regardless, people can be a bit hard on the McMahon's, but you're giving them too much credit though. Stone Cold created his own gimmick, as did Bryan, as did Punk, as did many greats past and present. All Vince did was give them a platform.

No one blames the McMahon's for a wrestler not getting over, thats nonsensical. What people blame them for is who and how they choose to push or not push the talent. Especially these days, they aren't the best man-managers. The problem is that they push guys who aren't over, or neglect guys that are.

But if a wrestler gets themselves over, they can also keep themselves over.

Do you think that maybe some of these guys don't get pushed because they SUCK! I know, hard to believe that your fave may not be the best superstar, but Vince will push who makes him the most money, not pandering to who the IWC like this month.

(BTW, where is your anger on Vince not pushing Dolph Ziggler, you know, the guy who was the "Daniel Bryan" of twelve months ago? Could it be that Dolph no longer gets any love here because he was overrated by the lot of you?)

Austin may have come up with his gimmick, but how come he didn't come up with that in WCW? Could it be that maybe Vince helped out with it? Like I said, look at where most of those guys were in WCW, ECW and ROH, and look at them now. I mean, look how worse they have it, the less exposure and the less money than they used to get in these oh so superior companies.

If it wasn't for Vince McMahon, you would shout "Yes!" at Daniel Bryan, you would shout "Who are you?"

 

[Anger]

But weren't many WCW wrestlers stifled by some of the Mensa candidates involved in creative at the time ? If I recall correctly, was it not part of Austin's argument- his reasoning-upon debarking WCW ; the lack of creative input with WCW brass ?

 

[d_henderson1810]

Stephanie was right about something else. She said that if Bryan wins the title, the fans will turn on him, and she has seen it many times before.

That is right. I tip that if Daniel Bryan reaches the top, in one year's time, he will be the new Dolph Ziggler to you people.

Remember Dolph Ziggler? He was a guy you all loved, wanted pushed, and someone even wanted him main-eventing Wrestlemania 28, and pushing the year-long anticipated Cena-Rock match to second-last on the card.

Yet, he won the title, finally came through, and where is he now? Furthermore, where is your support and love for him now? Threads about Dolph Ziggler main-eventing have been replaced by threads about Daniel Bryan main-eventing. Back in 2012, it was Punk everyone wanted pushed, and then when he won the title, and held it forever, you all turned on him too. Zack Ryder is another one.

I wonder who will the "flavour-of-the-month" headed into Wrestlemania next year? (Maybe Roman Reigns).

(BTW, who was the gutless wonder who got the mods to remove my post about "the IWC being wrong" the other day? It has been deleted from my posting history).

(Now, you may intimidate the mods here, but you don't intimidate me. If you can't argue back, just say so, but asking for my post to be removed was cowardly, and an infringement to my freedom of speech).

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I don't disagree with your highlighting Goldberg's career achievements, I merely meant that he was, at best, weak as a wrestler and performer, ala Ryback. Although Ryback is even more ineffectual in ring and on the mic.

Alright man. My mistake. I knew something was wrong the minute I included Goldberg in the same list as Orton, Sting, Angle, Michaels, Hart, etc. anyway. Don't tell me you wouldn't call Brock an A plus wrestler! His match with Angle is still one of the greatest matches ever. But he sucks on the mic.

 

[Anger]

Ziggler was derailed by a concussion. Had he not had lingering issues thereof, his reign may well have lasted longer, and his current status more highly situated.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Stephanie was right about something else. She said that if Bryan wins the title, the fans will turn on him, and she has seen it many times before.

That is right. I tip that if Daniel Bryan reaches the top, in one year's time, he will be the new Dolph Ziggler to you people.

Remember Dolph Ziggler? He was a guy you all loved, wanted pushed, and someone even wanted him main-eventing Wrestlemania 28, and pushing the year-long anticipated Cena-Rock match to second-last on the card.

Yet, he won the title, finally came through, and where is he now? Furthermore, where is your support and love for him now? Threads about Dolph Ziggler main-eventing have been replaced by threads about Daniel Bryan main-eventing. Back in 2012, it was Punk everyone wanted pushed, and then when he won the title, and held it forever, you all turned on him too. Zack Ryder is another one.

I wonder who will the "flavour-of-the-month" headed into Wrestlemania next year? (Maybe Roman Reigns).

(BTW, who was the gutless wonder who got the mods to remove my post about "the IWC being wrong" the other day? It has been deleted from my posting history).

(Now, you may intimidate the mods here, but you don't intimidate me. If you can't argue back, just say so, but asking for my post to be removed was cowardly, and an infringement to my freedom of speech).

Exactly. I've been wondering where that Thread went because I'd read it and found it interesting and true and just before I could reply to it, it was removed not much to my amazement or wonder. It's a shame these Mods or whoever runs the show here will remove any threads which doesn't fit their "worldview" which basically means you've to conform to the status quo and not create threads which might disrupt it significantly.

As for all other points you make here, I agree too. But then, Many fans were still behind Punk until the Rock debacle who stole the title and that historic reign from us at the Rumble. And I do not think for a minute that any FAN, Real-life or IWC, wanted a bum like Zack Ryder to be pushed to the mountains. And I can't wait to see what happens to Bryan once he does win the title and gets a long reign. I myself would abhor that.

 

[Rich the UK WWE Fan 2k14]

I don't disagree with your highlighting Goldberg's career achievements, I merely meant that he was, at best, weak as a wrestler and performer, ala Ryback. Although Ryback is even more ineffectual in ring and on the mic.

Yes, but Ryback, Batista and Brock Lesnar, are Goldberg wannabes, so he must've done something right.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Daniel Bryan is an underdog. Most people, especially the internet wrestling community like underdogs. When Bryan wins the title he will no longer be the underdog, many people will stop supporting him and get behind another underdog. Thats what happened with CM Punk.

Criticism I do not accept about Vince McMahon is when all his achievements are credited to others (e.g. SCSA made himself a star etc). When someone gets over, they are given the credit by the Universe.

In Austin's newest DVD, Vince says- he saw Steve in WCW and was impressed with his mechanical skills, but didn’t see any charisma (Yes,Vince never saw any charisma in Steve Austin) Austin said Vince wanted to keep him heel with Ted Dibiase as his mouthpiece but Austin hated it and he told Vince he doesn't like the Ringmaster gimmick and he came up with the whole "Stone Cold" gimmick. After Dibiase went to WCW, Austin started cutting promos, the character started to grow and WWF had no choice but to turn him babyface. So yeah, Austin made Austin. If it was for Vince, Austin would have still been a heel playing The Ringmaster gimmick and the whole Attitude era etc would have never happened.

 

[Gibby]

Daniel Bryan/Bryan Danielson has been completely over everywhere he's been by wrestling well in an intense, likable, popular style. Sure, WWE has offered a mountain of greater financial security for him to climb, but it is grossly overestimating the McMahons contribution to Bryan to say that they effectively made Bryan. For a start, they fired him and then have Michael Cole continually perform a hatchet job on him whilst acting as the play-by-play announcer after he was rehired. Bryan could make serious money if he walked tomorrow. Not as much, sure, but he'd be at the top of the free agency pile internationally.

That said this whole thread is predicated on taking what was said as kayfabe on TV as a shoot which just made my eyes roll into the back of my head.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

No, it's not ALL because of the McMahons. If it was simply all because of them, then they'd be able to crank out stars on the level of Hulk Hogan, The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin whenever they damn well pleased. Hell, they could crank out main event level stars of that caliber off an assembly line if it was all due to them.

I do agree that Vince McMahon gets a lot of criticism and some of it's undeserved. Some people have this image of Vince as this demonic figure who screws wrestlers, fans and the business itself over because it gives him pleasure or that he's some geriatric incompetent who has no idea what he's doing. A lot of the time, that criticism comes from former wrestlers holding a grudge against WWE as a whole, but the buck ultimately stops with him. That's not to say some of these claims aren't valid, but that's also not to say that maybe these guys just weren't as talented or drew nearly as much money as they think or want people to believe.

In the case of Daniel Bryan, just like in the cases of CM Punk, John Cena, Brock Lesnar, The Rock, The Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Shawn Michaels, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Bret Hitman Hart and Hulk Hogan, he was given opportunities to be elevated and he's made the most of those opportunities. He was given a platform in WWE that he wouldn't have gotten anywhere else, but Bryan has the ESSENTIAL ability needed to connect with the fans on a level that most other wrestlers aren't able to. Bryan's great inside the ring, he's generally accepted as one of the top in-ring guys in wrestling and has been for years. That in & of itself, however, isn't enough without the ability to make fans care about you and rally behind you. If a wrestler isn't able to do that, if he's not able to perform his role in a way that makes the fans interested in what it is that he's doing, then it doesn't matter how great of a technical wrestler he is. It doesn't matter how chiseled his body is, how handsome his face is, how strong he is, how fast he is, etc. If the fans aren't interested, then there's no money. If there's no money, then somebody else is gonna get pushed into your spot. It's possible that someone is booked poorly in some instances, but hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to look back on something after it's already gone down and say "they should've gone this route with him."

The McMahons can't dictate who the fans do and don't care for no more than any other wrestling promoters these days, fan reaction to the return of Batista and his insertion in a spot that most fans prefer to see Daniel Bryan in is proof of that. It's not 1985 anymore, it's just not as simple as it used to be. In those days, the promoter would, metaphorically speaking, say to the fans "Listen up everyone!!! This guy's a good guy, so cheer your heads off for him!!" and the good guy would do the usual good guy stuff, fans would like that and, sometimes, the good guy would get over big time.

The McMahons gave Daniel Bryan the ball, but Bryan is the one who ultimately had to run with it. When a coach puts his star running back into the game, the coach gives him an opportunity to show what he's got. If he's able to make the most of that opportunity, such as taking the ball for a touchdown when he gets it, it's not the coach that's gonna get the credit for the running back's athleticism. It's the coach's play the team uses, but it's ultimately the team that makes the coach's play into reality rather than squiggles on paper.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

WWE provides you with an opportunity. Whather you made it or not depends on a lot of factors. Mainly on you and your skills but depends a lot on WWE as well. If they book you bad or lost faith in you in process because they think its maybe better to push wrestler B instead of you then you could never even have that opportunity to shine with. So they are to criticise for bad things they do. As they are to praise for good things and in that I agree with you.

Oh, and CM Punk and Danyel Bryan where "selfmade" before they comed to WWE. WWE gaved them chance to shine, yes, but they were established names before they got there. On WWE NXT first season whole issue WWE had with Bryan is that Bryan was big "indy" star that cant hang with WWE stars. He got a pop and certanly was biggest name there. Whole reason they pushed that two is because they were "internet darlings" and both of them used that opportunity to shine. Ziggler, Ryder, any other who IWC considers great and that hasnt been given opportunity are just someones who didnt showed themselves that good. Which doesnt mean some of them might wont, just that they didnt till now.

But WWE does make mistakes a lot when it comes to talents. Ryback was pushed heavily, where is he now? Sheamus is still there but they oushed him heavily and still dont get much reaction for crowd. So they make mistakes as much as they make good calls...

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Wait, get out of town. Are you telling me that performers don't do everything by themselves? I'm stunned. I thought McMahon just collected the money at the door and DB drove all the truck and set up the lighting and cleaned the toilets.

It obviously a group effort to put on a show. The McMahons have been a constant in that for many years. My only question is how much of the off screen creative side is really coming from the performers? Cena's, Punk's, SCSA's, and DB's stories sound so much better if they did it all themselves despite the lack of approval from the cold, distant, out of touch management. Sells more t-shirts.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

NO...she isn't right for a simple reason.

Vince himself has always said all he does is provide opportunity. It is up to the talent to "grab the brass ring", in the case of guys like Bryan and Punk they have done so inspite of Vince's opinions and preconceptions. While Vince deserves credit for the drive and inspiration that led to Wrestlemania and wrestling becoming what it is it was the talents who made it work. Now he doesn't want to be wrestling, he wants to be a soap based in the world of wrestling so while he wants different things he doesn't deserve ANY credit for doing so.

The McMahon's alone are a poor reality show...with the talents of the WWE they become more than the sum of their parts. Vince needed Hogan to make it work, he needed the symbol... he needed Piper to be the antihesis of that, he needed an undercard of guys who could make Hogan and Andre's limitations fade away... He STILL needs all of these types, unfortunately they don't conform to his "view" of what works in the modern era. Someone like Bryan isn't 6ft 7", buillt like the proverbial shitehouse or movie star material... but he is a great wrestler... The core fans come back to wrestling, they don't want what McMahon is cooking with his desperation to become Disney (or be bought by them more accurately) they WANT wrestling... and Bryan and Punk are the two best of their generation. Unfortunately Vince wants to feed you the "not so greats" of the last Generation like Bootista in the absence of Rock and Austin... and Vince's and thus Steph's mentaility is you should be grateful for that... it's wrong... He should be grateful that he has a company still after pursuing a deliberate alienation game against his consumers for the last 9 months and he's only lost a guy who was gone in 3 months anyway.

 

[haydo 434]

I agree 100 percent with what you're saying.
The mcmahons have created the business from the ground up and we as fans should be thankful toward them, I mean the attitude era was so damn good why? Because the mcmahons seen what was needed and gave us what we wanted. All the big stars that were made down through the years also a result of vince and co, and also just look at the set up with nxt, I mean it is a huge stepping stone for talent to be built from and the facilities are great.

 

[Eyebrows]

Let's separate Vince from 'The McMahons'. Vince deserves the credit for turning the WWE into the juggernaut it is today. He didn't create the company from scratch or from the ground up, his Dad did, but he took his father's vision and transformed it into something spectacular. The rest of the McMahons? Stephanie and Shane hit the gene lottery and ended up being born into the family but they have done nothing to build the product or to develop the company that couldn't have been done by anybody else. People always talk about how no wrestler is bigger than the WWE. Neither are Steph, Shane, Linda, Triple H. Vince is the only one you could make any kind of argument as to being bigger than the WWE.

The WWE is bigger than any one talent but the wrestling business is bigger than the WWE. If they disappeared something else would eventually take it's place. People act as if wrestling was invented when the WWE came along.

It's obviously a joint effort as most creative ventures are. A director gets credit for a film but without all the people working to fulfill his vision he's got fuck all. The WWE provides an opportunity for wrestlers to gain national exposure but it's the wrestlers that make money for the company. I don't think anybody has said that Vince was never that good. That doesn't make him immune to criticism for the current product.

People won't turn on Bryan. People didn't turn on Punk, only the people who never liked him to begin with didn't want him as champ. Obviously people stopped calling for the WWE to put the belt on him AFTER they put the belt on him. Last I checked Ziggler also got good reactions still. The live crowd reaction isn't a reflection of the IWC and since they still cheer for Punk and Ziggler they clearly haven't turned against them.

 

[streicher187]

This thinking is the American way - just like with a lot of peoples lives

If you become rich and successful you did it on your own, if you failed it the governments fault.

I give Austin/Rock etc. credit for becoming as big as they are but as you point out NONE of it would have happened w/out the WWF and Vince McMahon.

I do think that today success/failure is more the result of McMahon and what the WWE has become, it's so scripted now wrestlers have little chance of becoming the next Rock or Austin. IF they let people be themselves like they did more during the attitude era I think we would have a whole different cast of stars and mid carders. I think Ryback and Ziggler would be more over while Randy Orton and Batista would be mid carders because of their failure on the mic and ability to get over with the fans.

Ultimate say goes to the fans though - I'm sure Vince thought Rocky Miavita (sp) was a great character and would get over because of his family history but fans just saw a bland character and didn't react. If he wasn't allowed to become the Rock he would have vanished. I give vince about 60% of credit but w/out fans buying PPV, shirts, fingers etc. there would be no Vince McMahon