Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jncuse, post: 3875601, member: 1969"] The use of the words "not very memorable" was certainly a poor choice on my part. He was certainly very memorable. Whether he is viewed as a great wrestler is in the eye of the beholder, because the definition of great can be viewed in many different contexts. And whether he would have been terrible in other eras, he was certainly good for that era. And you are all correct that his PPV matches did deliver for the most part. He was a character that was better as a chaser IMO, and that was better in small doses. And perhaps while he would not be great in other era's, that was the great advantage of 1980's / early 90's wrestling. They literally gave the TV viewer nothing months at a time other than character development / presentation which Warrior appealed to. There was no great matches on TV other than the odd SNME. You had 3 or 4 shows a year you get hyped about so things could be built. The Warrior or many WWE wrestlers from that era would not be able to work in an era of over exposure like today with weekly shows and Monthly PPV's (it was an era that worked for house shows not being on TV for the masses every week). I understand the modern day need revenue derived from weekly and monthly shows, but it does hurt the product. It seemed so much easier to build things back then -- or maybe I was young. I know I am just rambling at this point, so a few other random points on the subject: I went to a house show at the Montreal Forum in November 1987 to watch Hulk Hogan vs One Man Gang. It was a sell out (probably 17 or 18,000) -- I remember being in standing room and the crowd was nuts. Me and my dad were not huge Hogan fans (I was 12), but somehow in the electricity of the moment we got into Hogan. In May 1990 there was a house show at the Forum between, that featured Warrior vs Mr. Perfect and it drew less than 5,000 people (4,200 per Wrestling Data Com). Is that a shot at the Warrior? Not really -- he became the champion at the time when the WWE was already in a fairly quick declining period and was certainly less hot than 2 years earlier, so it was going to be difficult for him to thrive as a champion financially in that era like Hogan did. People may not remember but WM7 was supposed to be at the Coliseum but was simply not going to draw anywhere close to a sellout so they moved it. Warrior was walking into a tough period when he was champ, so to blame him for the financial difficulties may not be fair. The Roster also seemed to stink a bit in 1990. The roster built up quite well again by 1992 (remember all the talent 1992 Royal Rumble) but wrestling was still a flatlining business for the WWE despite that. And by 1993 the roster stunk again. Contrast the participants of the 1992 vs 1993 Royal Rumble and its shocking. And now my next rambling point. When the Warrior returned in 1996, we had all matured. I was in university at that point, and I could tell you that as me and my friends watched him come back we were not that excited about it (indifferent would be the word) -- the concept of "Warrior University" that they were pushing seemed a bit of a joke. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?