Why doesn't Vince Russo get credit for the Attitude Era?

[Upgrayedd]

I can see where his critics will say he hasn't been successful since leaving the WWF. But what I don't get is how come they won't at least give him some credit for the WWF. Whether you're a fan or not you have to admit that when he was was on the writing/booking team in the WWF from 1997-1999 that was the WWF at it's very best. You could tell right after he left that the overall quality of the shows went downhill. You can say that 2000 was the WWF's most successful year but that was because of everything that was put in place already. The WWF just rode the wave. The Rock was the most popular wrestler in 2000 but he got there in 1999, Triple H was a great heel but again he got there in 1999. The quality of the stories went downhill right after Vince Russo left. I remember being in middle school and high school when Russo was writing for the WWF and everyone knew I was a wrestling fan so when it got popular they were all coming and talking to me about it and almost everyone who had recently become a wrestling fan back then said the same thing... they watched for the storylines. They watched to see McMahon vs. Austin and what they'd do to each other next.

I just don't get how Russo gets very little credit for the Attitude Era. I think it was just the absolute best mix when it was Russo and Ed Ferrara writing and McMahon running the show. Russo & McMahon were absolutely great together.

 

[justinept]

He doesn't get credit for a number of reasons.

1) He will forever be remembered for running WCW into the ground. WCW wasn't very good when he took over in 2000, but he made it completely unwatchable. After watching some of the dark and macabre story lines that wrote for WCW, it is really hard to imagine that this guy "made" The Rock or Austin ... the two biggest pieces of the puzzle for the WWE Attitude Era. It is more likely that Russo concentrated on gimmicks like Gangrel, the Brood and the Oddities. His style also shows glimpses in the demonic Undertaker character and The Ministry...

2) Vince McMahon has a reputation as the most tireless worker in the industry, a completely hands-on tyrant who oversees every aspect of every issue in his company. Russo might have had a hand in the WWE success, but anyone with half a brain knows that VMK had the final say ... include this with the first point, and you can only wonder the ideas Russo had for WWE that McMahon vetoed...

3) Go read Bischoff's book where he said that WWE wrestlers actually laughed when word got back to them that Russo was taking credit for turning around the WWE. Should we take Bischoff''s word for it? No. But, as someone who would have insights, it is an interesting claim. It is also damning in the fact that no one has really come forward to deny that claim.

 

[CuddleBuns84]

Vince Russo, was a writer. Not a wrestler, not a manager, but a writer. He wasn't a promoter, he wasn't an announcer, but just a writer. He wrote out some good angles, and the performers did it. The Rock, Austin, Taker, HHH, Mick Foley, etc and etc.

Russo, had a hand in it, but he didn't run the show. He had a role for the Attitude era, and that was writer. He got too many of his ideas that were crazy on air, and they sucked. In fact, talks about getting Russo out, after the Birth of Mark Henry's hand.

He had a hand in running wcw, and his booking was insane. He has some great angles and ideas, but he could only do so much.

The writer for Ace Ventura didn't get credit for Jim Carrey's career. The writer for The Dark Knight didn't get credit for Heath Ledger's performance. Vince McMahon still to this date didn't get credit for Hulk Hogan. So Vince Russo got his right place for wrestling history.

 

[holdingholder]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The attitude era was NOT great because of some awesome storylines it was great because of the incredible stars that it brought us. A monkey could have put on great shows with the Rock, Stone Cold, and the other awesome superstars available. Russo doesn't get credit because he doesn't deserve that much.

 

[Midnite Express 2009]

I can see where his critics will say he hasn't been successful since leaving the WWF. But what I don't get is how come they won't at least give him some credit for the WWF. Whether you're a fan or not you have to admit that when he was was on the writing/booking team in the WWF from 1997-1999 that was the WWF at it's very best. You could tell right after he left that the overall quality of the shows went downhill. You can say that 2000 was the WWF's most successful year but that was because of everything that was put in place already. The WWF just rode the wave. The Rock was the most popular wrestler in 2000 but he got there in 1999, Triple H was a great heel but again he got there in 1999. The quality of the stories went downhill right after Vince Russo left. I remember being in middle school and high school when Russo was writing for the WWF and everyone knew I was a wrestling fan so when it got popular they were all coming and talking to me about it and almost everyone who had recently become a wrestling fan back then said the same thing... they watched for the storylines. They watched to see McMahon vs. Austin and what they'd do to each other next.

I just don't get how Russo gets very little credit for the Attitude Era. I think it was just the absolute best mix when it was Russo and Ed Ferrara writing and McMahon running the show. Russo & McMahon were absolutely great together.

When you say the quality of the stories went down "right after" Russo left is completely false and unfounded. In fact, the WWE's storylines were pretty good and up to par all the way into 2005, years after Russo left and 4 years after WCW fell apart. Russo does get credit. No one's really taking anything away from the man, I mean, from what I've heard, he's a prick, but that's his business. The thing is that McMahon was the fliter by which Russo ran his ideas through, so when you have a filter, the filter gets more of the credit, obviously. The bulk of the credit, IMO goes to McMahon because (a) he made sure he kept Russo in check, something WCW couldn't seem to do or want to do or care to do, and (b) McMahon actually gave a damn back then. McMahon knew that times were changing and he changed with them. Russo could have been anybody else with some over the top ideas and a good way of broadcasting them. He wasn't anyone special IMO, just a guy in the right place at the right time. Don't believe me, check the last time WCW actually was on air lol.

 

[Trill Co$by]

I honestly love Russo's bookings. I think they've all got some interesting plot going into them. I mean sure he might book a little too much of the gimmick matches, but his storylines all play out well.

I mean the Main Event Mafia storyline launched AJ Styles to the first (and only) TNA grandslam champion for christ's sake. The guy is a genius in the art of booking and deserves a lot more credit. He did, in fact, put Austin in the position to be the best tweener ever. He did, in fact, put The Rock in with Austin and HHH to be the best face of the attitude era. And he did, in fact, put Triple H as the dominant heel of said era.

His stuff in WCW wasn't too bad, and I mean, it's not like he had any help when it was passed down to him from bischoff. I mean anybody else remember the finger poke of doom? Who's booking was that under? Oh that's right... Bischoff's

So yeah I think Russo deserves a lot more credit then given. Especially since he's been single handedly booking TNA for the past few years before Hogan and Bischoff even considered the product.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

The fact that Russo isn't modest in the slightest and claimed he was the one who took the WWF out of 'the darkness' and led it to 'the promised land' (which in itself is laughable because he was one of many writers and as someone said before, it's all overseen by Vince) doesn't help but the fact that he's done so much crap elsewhere in WCW and some stuff in TNA AND the WWF itself. I mean remember the Kennel from hell match between Big Boss Man & Al Snow? Or the reverse battle royale? I mean this guy put the WCW title on HIMSELF AND David Arquette. I know Arquette was to sell a movie that featured WCW wrestlers but come on. Their's too much crap in that water to see anything clear in it.

 

[WWEWrestleFest]

simply because of what he did to wcw. wcw, despite what some people might argue, was BETTER than wwf from like 96-97, and probably just as good as wwf during 1998. wcw's quality started to drop in 1999, but it was still better than wwe or tna today. but then when russo went to wcw, it fell strait to sh*t.

 

[shattered dreams]

He doesn't get credit for a number of reasons.

1) He will forever be remembered for running WCW into the ground. WCW wasn't very good when he took over in 2000, but he made it completely unwatchable. After watching some of the dark and macabre story lines that wrote for WCW, it is really hard to imagine that this guy "made" The Rock or Austin ... the two biggest pieces of the puzzle for the WWE Attitude Era. It is more likely that Russo concentrated on gimmicks like Gangrel, the Brood and the Oddities. His style also shows glimpses in the demonic Undertaker character and The Ministry...

2) Vince McMahon has a reputation as the most tireless worker in the industry, a completely hands-on tyrant who oversees every aspect of every issue in his company. Russo might have had a hand in the WWE success, but anyone with half a brain knows that VMK had the final say ... include this with the first point, and you can only wonder the ideas Russo had for WWE that McMahon vetoed...

3) Go read Bischoff's book where he said that WWE wrestlers actually laughed when word got back to them that Russo was taking credit for turning around the WWE. Should we take Bischoff's word for it? No. But, as someone who would have insights, it is an interesting claim. It is also damning in the fact that no one has really come forward to deny that claim.

It really comes down to him being the scapegoat for wcw. The fans needed a face to put there frustrations onto and Russo provided a truly hateable character at that time and was likely plenty hateable in reality anyway. It is still a vast exaggeration of the effect he had during the end. It is just boring to hate and blame faceless suits and fun to go after Russo for many fans.

I have never understood why McMahon deserves more credit than Russo because he "filtered" his ideas. Do we celebrate the editor/publisher or the author when someone writes something that is good? As far as McMahon making it happen by being a tireless worker, it is no small secret that adding in some ECW flavor was a big part of the attitude era's success and before Russo McMahon had never even seen ecw.

As far as wrestlers and writers they never seem to have a high opinion of one another. So it is hardly surprising they would have differing opinions.

I also found it amusing where someone said the writer of ace ventura did not get credit for Jim Carrey's career. In a way he did because Carrey was one of the screenplay writers. This type of knee-jerk reaction with incorrect data became passed down and repeated so often that it became reality for what Russo did and did not do. Both are exaggerated. The expression history is written by the winners comes to mind because until recently it had to be more than a coincidence that everyone that crossed McMahon was basically vilified as soon as they left. In fact it is still happening with practically every ex-wwe wrestler. Can we stop pretending McMahon is infallible?

 

[Upgrayedd]

When it comes to actual story lines you can't compare anything the WWF has done in the past 11 years to the "Attitude Era". They've had some great feuds here and there. But from 1997 through 1999 the whole show had that "can't miss" feel to it. It started off in '97 with Bret Hart turning heel and reforming a new Hart Foundation and their feud with Austin. Hart turning heel only in the U.S. and being a baby face in Canada wasn't done before. Undertaker/Kane, the original DX all started it off in '97. In '98 it was Mr. McMahon and the Corporation vs. Austin, DX vs. The Nation of Domination, Undertaker/Kane/Mankind. In '99 it was the Ministry of Darkness vs. Vince McMahon/Austin story line. It was really like watching a soap opera for guys. It wasn't just a wrestling show, the writing could compare to just about any sitcom/drama on TV at that time.

In 2000, like I said yeah they had a successful year and even into 2001 but again everything was already put into place. It was more back to the basics in 2000/2001. The shows were still very entertaining but not as well written as the shows were from 1997 through 1999.

Yeah, you can also say that Russo wrote for some of the most talented wrestlers in the history of the business. But why can't the WWE do anything that special with a talented roster that they have right now? Sure, they're still successful but nowhere near as successful or creative (IMO) as they were during the "Attitude Era". The shows were just brilliant back then and Vince Russo WAS writing for them so I think he deserves a lot more credit than he gets. Like I said maybe it was just the perfect mix but I think McMahon needed Russo and McMahon helped Russo.

 

[Attitude_Raven]

maybe because he made some mistakes in WCW, anyways i dont think that the Russo stuff in WCW was that bad (except for him and Arquette winning the world title, and the Goldberg heel turn), but everything else he made was overall entertaining and was willing to do what was needed to be done, pushing (then) young guns, we saw the rise of Mike Awesome, Kanyon, Hugh Morrus, Lance Storm, Buff Bagwell, Billy Kidman, Vampiro, we saw Booker T finally getting the world title. i know the virgin smarks don't like hardcore matches, crazy storylines and objects on a pole, but this is pro wrestling, it's fiction and the goal is to tell a story, not to display real competition, and if they don't like it they should go watch amateur and greco roman wresting, period.

going back to the topic. i think it's because of the fall of WCW that eople forgets that Russo was the brain behind the Attitude era, altough it's a big misunderstood, we know russo wasnt the one who killed WCW, i know some people turned off because they didn't understand/like some of Russo's ideas, but even from that a company can get up and move forward.... it's no secret that both Russo and Ferrara were big ECW fans and wihout their ideas WWF would've still been boring and then folded, in faact Russo said this at this year early: "before Russo and Ferrara came to WWF, Vince McMachon thought ECW was a protein supplement)". Russo deseves the credit for making the Attitude era, he was the one that said "let thewrestlers be themselves" so Austin came from being the midcard at best character of "Ringmaster" to the one and only "Stone Cold", The Rock who started as the one dimensional babyface Rocky Maivia became "The Great One" and his career skyrocketed, thanks to the concepts that Russo brought in back in the day letting the Wrestlers be themselves and bring that realism that Wrestling fans like me love. so yes, Russo deserves more credit

 

[BWEEZY2009]

He doesn't get credit for a number of reasons.

1) He will forever be remembered for running WCW into the ground. WCW wasn't very good when he took over in 2000, but he made it completely unwatchable. After watching some of the dark and macabre story lines that wrote for WCW, it is really hard to imagine that this guy "made" The Rock or Austin ... the two biggest pieces of the puzzle for the WWE Attitude Era. It is more likely that Russo concentrated on gimmicks like Gangrel, the Brood and the Oddities. His style also shows glimpses in the demonic Undertaker character and The Ministry...

2) Vince McMahon has a reputation as the most tireless worker in the industry, a completely hands-on tyrant who oversees every aspect of every issue in his company. Russo might have had a hand in the WWE success, but anyone with half a brain knows that VMK had the final say ... include this with the first point, and you can only wonder the ideas Russo had for WWE that McMahon vetoed...

3) Go read Bischoff's book where he said that WWE wrestlers actually laughed when word got back to them that Russo was taking credit for turning around the WWE. Should we take Bischoff''s word for it? No. But, as someone who would have insights, it is an interesting claim. It is also damning in the fact that no one has really come forward to deny that claim.

This... Great points

Russo kind of had the ego to where he was running sh*t. And He didn't have a Vince McMahon to filter out bad ideas. Don't get me wrong.. he does deserve a little bit of respect, but until he admits mcmahon was calling the creative shots.