Hey Scott,
I was recently watching the Fall of WCW DVD and the Goldberg segment made me think of something.
Is there a good way to end a face's undefeated streak?
Goldberg's ended with interference, Rybacks will probably end with interference. I can't remember any other major ones, but it seems like the face always needs to lose in a screw-job manner.
On the heel side, the face that defeats him would be a conquoring hero in the fans eyes (if done right), but don't think a heel ending a faces win streak can really do much for the heel.
Thoughts?
-RegalStretch
I don't think the issue with the Goldberg streak was HOW it ended, but rather that it ended way too soon. There was still tons of programs he could have done, he was still drawing money on top, and Nash didn't need or want the belt.
I think TNA kind of had the right idea with Crimson's streak in that they had him go on for so long as a babyface until people got sick of him, turned him heel and milked it for a while that way, and then had James Storm end it to get whatever rub they could out of it. The major problem was that Crimson is fucking awful and it was booked atrociously. Regardless of TNA's errors, I think that's how Goldberg's streak should have gone down: Ride that horse until it's dead, then turn the corpse heel and send it to the glue factory. Or some other metaphor that makes more sense. And if people DIDN'T get sick of the babyface winning streak, then all the better, because he would still be drawing money!
Check this out, what if they built two streaks at once? Have a face build his by destroying jobbers and gradually moving up the card, while a heel starts to accumulate underhanded wins over a slew of babyface jtts, eventually going over popular mid-carders like Santino and R-Truth. After roughly 6 months or so, they could start to acknowledge both guys as undefeated, progressively making a bigger deal out of it, until the two start noticing and commenting on each others' streaks. This could lead to a few matches with false finishes until they have a big "there must be a winner" stip match where someone is guaranteed to lose their streak. If they did it right, it could be a much bigger deal than the average title match.
ReplyDeleteThe art would be in keeping them separated long enough for this match to mean something, which is something this company doesn't seem to grasp. The idea that two guys could go more than a few weeks without fighting each other is a little foreign in the modern setting, but I don't think it's un-doable. Ryback and Del Rio's streaks weren't that far apart and I think those two could have carried this type of feud quite adeptly.
Speaking of The Ryback, it looks like he is going to face Punk at TLC for the title in a tables match. So that will probably be 3 title matches in a row where he doesn't win the title, and I would expect them to put him in one of the Elimination Chamber matches. So that makes 4 times he will choke.
ReplyDeleteThe night after HIAC, he should have won the World Heavyweight title off Big Show. Then they could have run a bunch of different stuff between him, Big Show, Sheamus, and Ziggler for a few months.
Dana White is already doing this with Silva and Jones.
ReplyDeleteProblem is now how to do end the streak but what do they do after the streak is over. Goldberg should have run through the entire NWO but he didn't. Look what happened to Brodus Clay or Tatanka after their undefeated streaks were over.
ReplyDeleteFor Ryback, he needs to look like a dominant guy even in defeat. Best situation after the tables match is to win the Royal Rumble and win the world heavyweight championship at wrestlemania.
I like this idea a lot, but I can't see WWE following through with such a long term plan.
ReplyDeleteIsn't Ryback's streak already over? Is Scott's inbox backed up again, or did they nullify the HITC loss because of the ref screwjob? And on a related topic, was it ever explained on TV why a developmental guy was reffing a PPV main event, instead of Mike Chioda or whoever?
ReplyDeletePaul Heyman got him the spot?
ReplyDeleteIs that what happened? I only saw the match itself and never watch Raw, so I'm clueless as to the whole angle, really.
ReplyDeleteSamoa Joe had a pretty good streak in TNA, though it had a bunch of not win in a 3-way but not get pinned cop out matches. I think his first official loss was to Angle which nobody liked.
ReplyDelete1 small chopped onion
ReplyDelete2 chopped gloves of garlic
1 cup ketchup
1/4 cup of water
1/4 cup of wine vinegar
3 tablespoons Brown Sugar
1 tablespoon White Sugar
2-3 drops hot sauce (Franks or Tabasco)
Brown onion (5-8 minutes)
Add garlic cook 1 minute
Add remaining ingredients
Marinate 12-24 hours
Grill as desired.
And that's how you make winning steaks!
Wait a minute... Scott, Nash didn't *want* the belt? I vaguely remember Nash being head booker at the time the ending of Goldberg's streak went down and I find it very hard to believe that they booked the ending of the streak with the Fingerpoke of Doom already in mind - at the least, I can't imagine Nash being that colossally stupid. What's the full story?
ReplyDeleteUp until Sunday, John Cena was undefeated 7 - 0 at Survivor Series. I'm surprised Punk didn't at least hint at that considering I only got that info from WWE.com.
ReplyDeleteHe failed to help Wade Barrett win the WWE title as a referee and got fired as a result. That feels like a loss to me...
ReplyDeleteAs a wrestler.
ReplyDeleteThat did seem like an odd statement, but I do think the Fingerpoke was actualky booked and ready to go in advance of Starrcade. They made a big deal about Hogan coming back for that show to make an announcement, presumably in a nom wrestling role since he'd retired from wrestling to run for president of the USA in storyline terms.
ReplyDeleteIt was never explained. Phrederic was taking a stab at it and could be revealed at some point...maybe...probably not. :-)
ReplyDeleteDo you have a recipe for a chicken marinade?
ReplyDeleteSee above, add chicken.
ReplyDeleteI wish WWE would work as hard on winning streaks as they do on giving guys losing streaks.
ReplyDeleteSounds good, though I have to question why anyone would marinate a steak at all. A properly cooked steak should be able to get over on it's own, without any gimmicks.
ReplyDeleteDepends on the quality of the steak. A nice filet mignon and yeah, the KISS principle applies. But a low grade rib-eye is gonna need some softening up.
ReplyDeleteKISS principle?
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's what I figured. While I don't watch Raw I read pretty much everything here on the blog, and never saw anything about an explanation for that.
ReplyDeleteAh, OK... I thought is was in reference to the band. Yet another reason I shouldn't post here when I'm drunk...
ReplyDeleteThat's a good original fresh idea that is way too complicated for creative to focus on for more than two weeks
ReplyDeleteYeah, that hasn't been explained yet, that's currently my theory.
ReplyDeleteAnd while I'm not going to say "You have to watch Raw", a lot of shit that people say is stupid is actually explained on the fucking show, most people recapping the information miss shit cause they are either a) Bored/Lazy (Scott) or b) Stupid (most everyone else).
Speaking for all the poor motherfuckers out there.
ReplyDeleteMost meat we manage to scrounge up has the consistency and flavor of shoe leather. We need all the help we can get.
...they already have pieces in place with this in Ryback and Punk. Title Streak vs. Win Streak. It's right in front of their goddamn eyes.
ReplyDelete...or put him into an IC title program, or a US title program... just give him something to CHASE which can't instantly be telegraphed as a loss to the majority of fans.
ReplyDeleteI don't know the full story but Nash denies booking around this time. He claims if he was, then why the fuck would he beat Goldberg one night then lose the title to a finger the next?
ReplyDeleteGSP has first dibs on Silva.
ReplyDeleteAt least you're coherent.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Maddox cut a promo explaining that he was fired from developmental so he took a ref job and cost Ryback because he was bitter or something?
ReplyDeleteUhhh Ryback is on a 2 match losing streak
ReplyDeleteI honestly think it's too late for that. They could, probably should, have done that initially.
ReplyDeleteNow the only viable alternative that doesn't look like a giant step down would be the World Heavyweight Title.
I can see him taking out Show to win it. It's a good call. Plus, it'd inject a bit of life in to a largely lifeless SmackDown roster (do they even have separate rosters now..?).
Yeh, he lost at HIAC. Whether it was dodgy ref or not, he lost via pinfall, so it's streak over. You can't argue with that fact, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteI dont care what anybody says.
ReplyDeleteRyback as an experiment is over. Cuz if he loses again thats 3 in a row. He is a choker. and he doesnt have the mic charisma to shrug the losses off.
Ryback should have been IC/US champ for months and going over all the treadmillers instead of jobbing to Punk.
Of course he will have a great showing in the RUmble to keep his heat but the chamber match will fuck him over again so thats like 4 in a row he came up short. Then unless he gos for the WHC, he is treadmilling until May-June.
The thing with Joe is that while he went on a winning streak, he could wrestle and he could sell WITHOUT looking weak. So his matches weren't squashes, they were 'he's fighting a good wrestler and selling while STILL looking like an ass-kicker' festivals. Losing to Kurt didn't change that, it was then booking them in MORE matches that did. If Joe went down a 'I lost... and I'm going to train myself back up and kick his ass' path like Rocky Balboa, he'd have gotten supernova over.
ReplyDeleteGoldberg just couldn't show weakness, he couldn't work against a plethora of opponents, and essentially he was not someone who could afford to lose... which you can't have long-term in wrestling. If a wrestler cannot show weakness at all, then there's no comeback.
And anyone who says 'why does he have to show weakness' should go watch TDKR. Batman got his ass kicked, and then came back and kicked Bane's ass. It meant more because he had to fight like Hell to retrain himself. Even Hogan showed weakness in the 1980s,,,
Scott's inbox must be backed up, I sent this prior to HiTC
ReplyDeleteI didnt hate it, i just thought that Angle going over Joe first match was dumb. Angle is bulletproof, and Joe was the indy darling, they could have been kept split until BFG when it really would have meant something, but they wanted to strike while the iron was hot. It paid off but subsequent matches didnt and Joes title win over Angle was anti climatic
ReplyDeleteYou've obviously never had Undertaker Steak.
ReplyDeleteI always thought that Goldberg's streak should have ended with Sting. Goldberg blows through everyone, wins the belt, beats all the top heels (Nash, Hogan, etc.), then Sting challenges him. Sting beats him with experience by avoiding his main moves, dodging the spear so Goldberg hits the corner pole and then working the arm. Finally Goldberg goes for the Jackhammer, but Sting reverses into the Death Drop because Goldberg's arm gives.
ReplyDeleteThen you build to the rematch where Goldberg is able to meet Sting's experience.
That's actually a good idea...they eventually reveal that Heyman didn't think that punk could beat ryback so without punk knowing he bribed the referee and the nxt guys to ensure punk would still win.they should keep doing screwy finishes with punk getting a bigger and bigger ego until he eventually finds out accidentally that it was Germans doing
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, I think one of the reasons they hot-shotted Joe v. Angle was because there was such a fear at the time that Angle was bound to get hurt/break down and they didn't want to miss the opportunity to run the match. Hindsight being 20/20 it looks dumb since Angle has largely been healthy (I don't follow TNA or wrestling now as much as I did then so I could be wrong) and they could have really built it up to something special, but if the worries about his health were true, it kinda makes sense.
ReplyDeletethat does and i wanna say angle was on death watch... so in that respect it does make sense.
ReplyDeleteand he has been working hurt the whole TNA tenure.
You know whats funny. next year angle will have been on TNA tv longer than he has been on WWF tv but i still see him as a WWE guy.
Nash was definitely booking by this point -- or at least he was a new member on the booking team. I'll have to see what I can dig up.
ReplyDeleteJBL and Cole mentioned it a couple times during the show. Also JBL helps the announcing on shows something like 349%
ReplyDeleteThe Goldberg/Sting match on Nitro was actually pretty good, and you bought the fact that Sting might beat him. Alas, as usual it was not to be for the Stinger. Always deserved so much better
ReplyDeleteAnd keep the two apart on separate shows as well. One on RAW, the other on Smackdown so when they do collide, it would feel even more special because they weren't even in the same atmosphere for so long.
ReplyDeleteThe choker label can be rubbed off since today's audience doesn't have much of a memory, it seems. But Ryback sucks, plain and simple. You take him to bigger markets for PPV events and he gets booed.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it was weird they gave away the Goldberg-Sting match so quickly. But I also think that Sting wasn't really all that motivated back then, either.
ReplyDeleteAs someone else noted, it's not necessarily how you end a winning streak as much as how you follow it up. The problem with Goldberg losing was never him losing. He had to lose at some point. Everyone wants to play revisionist history and act like he was so massively over that no one ever wanted him to lose. BS. There was already significant backlash (20% or so, maybe more) of the crowd not on the Goldberg train anymore. And the more faces like Sting and DDP that he beat, the more people jumped off. Also Nash was HUGELY over at that time. I'm no fan of his, but to deny otherwise is to simply not face the facts of late 98. There was nothing wrong with Nash winning, particularly in such a screwjob fashion. What was wrong was no follow-up. If Goldberg goes through the NWO and then gets a hold of Hogan at GAB or BAB or something, maybe even Starcade 99, no one talks about the fingerpoke of doom as the seminal moment in the demise of WCW. Instead Goldberg wrestled Bam Bam at Superbrawl, then Hall, and long past when the heat was gone, Goldberg beat Nash while the entire focus of the company was on Hogan turning face and feuding with Flair. I know one issue was Goldberg needing time off to film a movie, but that is what injury angles are for. You get the time off, the character freshens up as absence makes the heart grow fonder, and you get major face pop when he returns. It ain't rocket science. But instead of focusing on this, everyone wants to act like Goldberg should have remained undefeated forever. Sorry but that was already starting to wear fans out. And who was left to beat? Bret? Flair maybe? He had already beaten so many top guys, including the dominating performance in the 9 man "battle royale" at Fallbrawl 98 (or maybe it was roadwild, either way he went through 8 ppvs were of opponents in 1 night).
ReplyDeleteAh, I was watching at a bar and couldn't hear the commentary too well at points. I did hear JBL mention Punk's undefeated streak in triple threat matches since he became champion though.
ReplyDeleteWhat's with all these qualifiers? When did this place become ESPN?
ReplyDeleteYes, don't believe the man himself. Instead, look for facts on the internet!!
ReplyDeleteWinning streaks mean nothing. Its undefeated streaks people care about
ReplyDeleteGoodness knows there's no one as trustworthy as a wrestler talking about their career.
ReplyDeleteWhat's Andre's WM3 weight up to these days when Hulk tells the story? 4 tons?
I was reading Scott's first review of Wrestlemania 8 - and he admitted in his 2012 speak that he was confused when he wrote it. He thought he had written it in 1998, although there was a XFL reference. He thought the mention of him dreading "next month" was a mention of the Hogan/Warrior rematch in 1998 - but I think he was referring to the Hogan vs. Sid match at Spring Stampeed 2000 that never happened because of the reboot. Even I am not 100% sure about this, but I thought I'd at least mention it.
ReplyDeletesince you brought up the WCW NBC special that never happened, I wonder if you remember this obscure gem that didn't happen. Do you remember that WCW was supposed to have a PPV on New Years Eve 99? And the only thing I had heard that was rumored for it was a HUGE Demon vs Vampiro match/KISS concert...oh my what a disaster that would've been
ReplyDeleteI remember that. New Years Evil, right?
ReplyDeleteCool, so we can safely say that HBK lost to the Undertaker three times at Wrestlemania then? And Mankind won the main event of Wrestlemania XV? And AJ won or lost that match between Punk and Bryan?
ReplyDeleteHow about (if Brock lasts past wrestlemania) punk gets a big head, issues an open challenge on raw at heymans urging. He then clocks punk from behind with the title belt, lesnar runs out, accepts the challenge, pins punk. You then have punk v Brock, after punk has to go through Ambrose e.t.c
ReplyDeleteBischoff also says he was booking at that point. Sorry Nash is a big stinky liar
ReplyDeleteyep, got canceled as soon as Bill Busch took over and sent Bischoff off to Wyoming to fish.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point. I'm not sure most people realized that Sheamus went on a 25-match winning streak.
ReplyDeleteI remember a Howard Stern PPV doing big numbers on New Years Eve one year in the 1990s. I wonder if that is where they got the idea for that one.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I wouldn't rely much on Nash's memory, he can't even remember which year Goldberg cut his arm up punching out the limo window.
ReplyDeleteand helped finish the company off. It is amazing how fast the ratings, attendance, and buyrates went down from January 99 until August.
ReplyDeleteI now report to you that, yes, another joke has been taken seriously at the BoD. Back to you Tom.
ReplyDeleteHold on, Tom. I have reports that more people have taken a joke seriously at the BoD. Word is that at any moment someone will get "baked". Not sure what that is, but I'll keep checking it. Back to you.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I actually did a comparison once of the numbers and as I recall, numbers were actually up a few ticks in January and February 1999 over the average of the previous year and basically the best business WCW did during their whole run, but dropped at a phenomenal pace, especially once you hit May.
ReplyDeletenice try
ReplyDeleteI rate this rebuttal two watermelons.
ReplyDeleteAnd heels can't y'know...lie?
ReplyDeleteWho is saying that?
ReplyDeleteThe reason people were beginning to turn on Goldberg is because WCW ruined his title reign. He had potential feuds with Sting, Jericho, a rematch with Hogan, and a longer feud with DDP that got no play so Hogan could have celebrity tag matches and then crush the hopes and dreams of children everywhere with his travesty against Warrior.
ReplyDeleteYou're acting like because Maddox said he did it for one reason, he didn't do it for another reason.
ReplyDeleteI am?
ReplyDeleteSocrates is a faggot. And his method is gay.
ReplyDeleteAnd perhaps I'm assuming, but that's what I got out of your "Didn't Maddox cut a promo..." post. And the whole "villains never lie" cliche pisses me off to to no end.
Wait...what? I honestly thought that's what Maddox's explanation was. I didn't see it so I was asking a question. And when did I say villains never lie?
ReplyDeleteOkay...
ReplyDeleteMaddox said that was his motivation, he could've lied about that though, or at least left out the fact that Heyman paid him off to screw Ryback.
My point is that people are writing off the Maddox-Heyman connection because Maddox (a heel) cut a promo that had nothing to do with Heyman or Punk.