www.411mania.com
|  News |  Columns |  TV Reports |  Video Reviews |  Title History |  Hall of Fame |  News Report |  The Dunn List | Search
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// New Moon Breaks Dark Knight's Single Day Box Office Record!!
MUSIC
// Pics From Miley Cyrus Indianapolis Concert
WRESTLING
// 411 PPV Roundtable Preview: WWE Survivor Series 2009
POLITICS
// 411 Politics RoundTable: Thoughts On The Ft. Hood Massacre
MMA
// 411's UFC 106: Ortiz vs. Griffin II Report 11.21.09
BOXING
// Ward Shocks Kessler
GAMES
// Top 10 Action Role Playing Games




 HOT TOPICS
//  Chris Jericho
//  Randy Orton
//  Triple H
//  Jeff Hardy
//  Edge
SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds





Follow 411mania on Twitter!




Add 411 On Facebook
 



 
 411mania » Wrestling » Columns
Advertisement
Please…Don’t Hate 6.08.08: Vince Russo
Posted by Julian Bond on 06.08.2008



Welcome everyone to Please…Don't Hate, the weekly column which takes a look at some of the most hated on and complained about wrestlers, companies, and topics within the wrestling world. This week is the first of what I dub the "Haters' Haven" series, in which I discuss easily the most, heated, controversial, and definitely hated on topics that have been talked about in the last few years. Vince…Russo. I've honestly never heard so much scoffing and loathing expressed with the mention of one person's name in the wrestling world. So the question I will explore is simply why the hate. Why is there so much sincere hatred towards the man who helped bring us the likes of Stone Cold Steve Austin and the Rock? Before we delve into the fire, we look at your responses from last week's topic.

Reader Reverb

This is the section where two reader comments, one being for last week's topic and the other being against, are chosen and I give my two cents on them.

Last week's topic: Hulk Hogan

Dan (Guest) comments:

I have respect for the impact on wrestling that Hulk Hogan has had. I don't know, if in this day and age here in the year of 2008, that Hulkamania is still running wild. I can see how some people detest Hogan due to him not putting over some stars (Dibiase, Hennig, Rude) and trying to bury others (Hart, Savage, etc) but without Terry "Hulk Hogan' Bollea, you wouldn't have had the Rock N Wrestling Connection and you might not have had a WrestleMania I, not to mention, 24 of them. Hogan is the most charismatic wrestler of all time but he is also probably one of the worst in ring workers ever. His personal problems aside (divorce, Nick in Jail, Brooke can't sing), he could be 100 years old and go out at a WWE event and still get a huge pop; just like Bret Hart could and so could Stone Cold Steve Austin. I would have liked to have seen Hogan drop the WWF belt to guys like Dibiase, Savage, Rude, and Hennig back in the late 1980s. Even in not doing so, he is still respected by millions of fans worldwide.


Respect. That's what I also believe is the absolute one thing that fans should at least show Hogan in the ring. Again, there's a whole laundry list full of crap that people can easily hate on the man for (and it's honestly just a waste of breathe just to repeat them again), but that isn't an excuse for people not to show him the respect that he should be due. He's had such an indescribably huge impact on the wrestling industry that it can really be said that if it wasn't for him, there wouldn't be such a thing as "sports-entertainment". So you can hate and spit on the man all you want, just be sure to give Hogan the right props when you see him in the ring.

HULKAMANIA IS DEAD! (Guest) comments:

What a load of crap! You can talk about the glory days of Hulkamania all you want, but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that Hogan is still an egotistical, self-serving prick who can't accept the fact that nobody cares about him anymore.

Hogan doesn't give a damn about anybody else in the sport of professional wrestling except himself. Even after his glory days of bodyslamming Andre The Giant and all that other fancy stuff, he has nothing to show for his wrestling career other than a truckload of money and a laundry list about as tall as The Big Show of all the enemies he has made. And you wonder why he's resorted to putting his spoiled rotten family on TV and hosting a third-rate version of American Gladiators.


Well, I can rightfully assume just by the name "HULKAMANIA IS DEAD!", that this person has some significant hate toward Hogan to say the least. What was said above is a perfect example of how people hate on Hogan. Instead of judging him based on his accomplishments and what's he done for the wrestling world as a whole (selfishly or not), they jump to point out either A) the drama that he's had backstage or B) his personal outside life. Sure American Gladiators kind of sucks and sure his family seems like spoiled brats to you, but WHAT THE HELL DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS? If a famous athlete gets in trouble with the law or simply acts like a jackass post-career, it shouldn't erase the memories that happened when they had happened. I'm not saying that Hogan is a saint by any means, but please don't hate on him based just on everything that happens outside the ring.

Let's now talk all about Vince.



Why People Hate On…Vince Russo

-Hate his "Crash TV" style of booking which includes: too many gimmick matches, run-ins, etc.
-Responsible for some of the craziest decisions made in recent wrestling history (aka actor David Arquette winning the WCW title)
-For currently burying TNA with his booking decisions

My Reasoning for Not Hating On…Vince Russo

In general, it seems like wrestling fans have always disliked the name "Vince". When spoken to some, it brings either a cringe or an angry stare from people's faces. The reasons for this are pretty simple. One is because of it being the first name of the current owner of the WWE, whom some dislike for his ego, unpopular decisions, and overall reputation. While the other reason is because of it being the first name of one of the most hated bookers/writers perhaps of all time. His last name is Russo.

For those who aren't in the know about who Russo is or the reasons surrounding his bad rep, let me give you a quick history lesson. Vince Russo started off working for the WWE back in 1996 as a regular writer for their monthly magazine. Eventually Russo was given a main spot on the Monday Night Raw writing/booking team, which helped determine the matches and overall direction of the company, and that's when he made his mark in history. When the company was facing all-time low ratings, Russo wanted to create a different type of style that would set the WWE apart from the rest. This is when what people have dubbed "Crash TV" was born. Russo's writing took what was considered traditional in the wrestling world and added a new controversial, edgy twist to it. This new look and feel for the company was labeled as the "WWE Attitude Era". Under this era, Russo helped create characters such as the Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin, pushed for controversial antics like Goldust's cross-dressing and DX's crotch-chopping and started memorable feuds like the Undertaker vs. Kane series and the epic Stone Cold/McMahon war. All of these elements automatically placed the WWE on top in the Monday Night Wars with competitor WCW and changed the way the company did business from that point on.

So at the peak of this success, Russo (along with writing partner Ed Ferrara) left the WWE due to some internal disputes and defected to WCW in 1999. When he arrived, Russo attempted to take the same style that he made a name from and apply to the struggling WCW. This is when the severe hating on Russo began. Starting from Russo's first day, people started noticing the significant differences in WCW with some liking it and many simply hating it. Along with some questionable storylines ("The Powers That Be") and booking decisions (multiple title changes, confusing gimmicks and short title reigns), the two most controversial things that ultimately angered and then turned fans off were with the major "New Blood vs. Millionaires Club" angle, in which younger wrestlers such as Billy Kidman and Lance Storm battled with ring vets like Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair to varied results, and the crowning of the WCW Championship to comedic actor and anti-ring savy David Arquette. While these definitely weren't the only contributing factors to the company's demise, a lot of people lay some of the blame on Russo's head.

A couple of years after WCW's death, Russo joined up with the up-starting TNA Wrestling. He was again hired on a head writer, but also added himself in on a more on-screen role with teaming up with the likes of A.J. Styles and Jeff Jarrett. Once again, viewers had mixed reactions with some of the decisions that he made in his initial run there (S.E.X. faction, bringing in older wrestlers in limited roles). So after doing so much work for some many companies, Russo took a break from the wrestling world, became a "born-again" Christian, and eventually came back to TNA when he resides as one of its current head writers. Even with the ups and downs Russo has gone through with each of his employers, a lot of wrestling fans STILL carry the same hate that they've had against the man for several years and now currently blame for the pitfalls in TNA.

So here are the questions that I have for all of the haters. Why is everything remotely gimmick-like, "over-booked", and not liked in TNA, WWE, or any other company labeled "Russo-type booking"? Why is every single booking misfire in TNA currently Russo's fault? Why do so many people, particularly those from the IWC (internet wrestling community), constantly hate on Russo for every single misfire that he's had, but never mention ANYTHING good that he has done so far?

First of all, people need to remember the good Russo has done in the past. The man helped usher in the groundbreaking WWE Attitude Era. The same time that a lot of people have said helped pulled them into being full-fledged wrestling fans. And the same time in which legends like Stone Cold and the Rock blew up in the spotlight. In his WCW run, while people generally hated on the direction Russo took it in, you can't take away from the fact that the man had A LOT of (excuse my language) balls to make the creative decisions he did. Sure the David Arquette title reign was one of, if not, the worst in wrestling history, but to take chances like he did sometimes resulted in very good results (Booker T/Jeff Jarrett title runs, the New Blood push with having younger talent like Lance Storm and Kidman main-eventing). And this brings us to the good that he's trying to do in TNA.

While he may have had some bumps in the road with his first TNA stint, Russo came back to the company reportedly with new eyes. Instead of using the same "shock value" tactics he's used before, he wanted to help TNA push itself forward by establishing its brand name and developing the wrestlers' individual characters, which are the things that people often hate on. Fans see things such as the King of the Mountain match and characters like Stone Cold Shark Boy and automatically call out Russo's name in blood claiming that he's bringing the company down. Regarding characters, he even say in a past interview (read here) that it is his job to give everyone a vehicle to help get themselves over and give them the right opportunity to do so. But with these decisions (which by the way aren't just made by Russo, but also other people in TNA), people need to realize that all he's trying to do in TNA is help, not destroy or ruin it.

Good Reasons to Love…Vince Russo

Creating Unforgettable Moments with "WWE Attitude" Era

All the hate in the world can't take away the fact that Russo had help start one of the best times in professional history with the "WWE Attitude" era. In his time with the WWE, he helped create characters like the Rock and Degeneration X and orchestrated the memorable Stone Cold/McMahon war and the Undertaker vs. Kane brotherly feud.

(Undertaker vs. Kane Feud)


Taking Unpredictable Risks In WCW

For his stint in WCW, Russo should be given kudos because he had the balls to take unpredictable risks and not fall into the mold of the same old crap. People complain about companies often doing the same old booking over and over and when Russo shocks everyone by doing something unexpected it makes people cringe, stare, and more importantly take notice. A big example of this in WCW was with the Millionaires Club/New Blood feud which had the mainstay cruiserweight Billy Kidman vs. the legend Hulk Hogan

(Hogan Vs. Kidman Skit)


Helping Establish TNA Brand

Russo have stated before in the past that the main thing he wants to do help TNA push itself forward and get to the top. One major way of doing is to help establish who TNA is and push who they are as a brand. With their current "Cross The Line" slogan, TNA is trying to state that their characters don't fall into the same old mold of "good and evil", but instead are a very varied bunch of different characters and personalities.

(TNA "Cross The Line" Promo)


Overall, haters need to finally let go of their stored hate of Russo and look at the positive points in his career. People need to stop nitpicking his every single past mistake and need to stop blaming him for everything horrible in TNA all on his shoulders. Vince Russo is definitely one of the most creative and most controversial wrestling writers ever and really shouldn't be cursed or damned for everything deemed "Russo-like" by people who don't even know what exact decisions he makes. So PLEASE stop getting so angry with the mention of the name of "Vince". Well not every "Vince", just really the one with the last name of Russo.

On The Next Episode of…"Please…Don't Hate"

As if the haters weren't already heated up after this topic, I turn up the heat even more next week. In part 2 of the "Haters' Haven" series, I talk about one of the most controversial topics of wrestling discussion since the day this idea was born. I look at the WWE's revisioning of "The New ECW". I can already hear the boos now.


Post Comment (42)  |  Email Julian Bond  |  View Julian Bond's 411 Profile

  Send To Friend  |    Stumble It!  |    Digg It!  | 



Please add your comment below.
If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.
 
Name : 
Comment : 
Remaining Characters : 
2800
 

Comments (42)

 
russo is god

Posted By: sss (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 10:17 AM

 
 
Something Russo did that doesnt seem to happen these days is give everyone a storyline but he never let divisions interact. An example being: Austin and Vince where having their war over the WWE title. Other wrestlers came into it but it was ALWAYS about the WWE title.

Rock and Triple H were having their war over the Intercontinental title. Other wrestlers came into it (never Austin, Foley, Taker, etc) and it was always about the Intercontinental title. These days the titles mean jack because everyone just fights and its never about the titles and what the title is worth or what it has meant is never mentioned.

I was thinking about what the WWE could do and for a huge feud, based on what happened on Raw, they could have a heel Cena against a face Hardy. The problem they have with that is turning Cena heel would make him the number 1 heel in the company and Hardy then becoming the number 1 face would leave no room for Triple H and WWE, Stephanie and Triple H won't allow that to happen. I think people don't mind cheering Triple H, but dont want him to be Champion (kind of like Hogan.) He's main evented enough Manias and realy didnt need to be in Mania 24.

Sorry for going off topic there :o)


Posted By: FDuk200k (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 11:42 AM

 
 
I enjoy TNA, but the 'Cross The Line' era has only been created because 'We Are Wrestling' is now a blatant lie. I still enjoy the PPVs but the two hour Impact is now just a bunch of skits and other WWE Car Crash TV era boredom. I was looking forwards to a Samoa Joe World Title reign in which he continued to bulldoze the talent, instead I have Joe in a suit talking lame smack. I've also noticed a tendancy to blur the lines between Heels and Faces and turn people at the drop of a hat - suffice to say I didn't give a hoot about the last Cage vs. Angel feud because both guys came across as arseholes I'd rather see lose. I suspect that the problems with TNA aren't all Russo's, but the product has gone down hill since he was employed. Thankfully I get the PPV's on free(ish) TV in the UK, I'd not fork out for any of them otherwise.

Posted By: JAK (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 11:54 AM

 
 
For every "enemy" that Hogan made, Ric Flair has two. I hate that Hogan catches all of this hate when Flair is treated like an angel when he wasn't.

As for Russo, its a love hate thing for me. With the attitude era, while similar to ECW's style of booking, Russo was able to take it and implement it in a way that colorful characters were given a real life edge to them. Cartoons like the Undertaker were put in Marvel Comic-like situations that transferred into great television. Who woulda thought that the Undertaker was almost responsible for killing his own brother and then that brother would extract revenge years later. It gave the Undertaker more than just being "the deadman." It suspended disbelief, sure, but did so in a cool way that entertained the masses. Russo was able help take a dying product and make it something that everyone could enjoy again. The one thing that I give Russo credit for is really pushing for realism in wrestling. I give the same credit to Heyman. Russo recognized that people didn't want to see the blonde-haired, blue-eyed face triumph over the evil villains all the time. Fans connected to fully fleshed out characters that possessed both good and bad qualities. We liked rebels and renegades who were anti establishment because there's a little anarchist in all of us.

In WCW, he was hired based on his reputation for pushing the envelope and was expected to do the same thing for WCW. At this point WCW was desparate to reclaim the edge in the Monday Night Wars so it called for Russo to make some pretty irrational decisions i.e. David Arquette. But one thing I will always commend him for was his push for the younger talent to get over. Until now, the last time i ever cared for Chuck Pulumbo was when he was a part of the New Blood. Speaking of the New Blood vs. Millionaires Club, it's an angle that most IWC smarks would call for today. While the execution was a bit confusing, the IWC always complains that the younger stars should get more time and the older stars should step aside. That was the premise of this angle.

In TNA some of his overbooking problems still haunt him. But he should be commended for helping to flesh out the characters of the younger guys a bit. He took a character stale baby face AJ Styles and made him a sympathetic heel. Now, not only am I amazed by his athleticism, but I also have reason to care about his character. He changed Joe from being the unstoppable Goldberg/Cena bound character, to being a man conflicted and saddled him with Kevin Nash. Now, Nash is helping Joe develop a business sense to compliment his unbrideled competetiveness. What a great way to integrate both characters. For all the bad that Russo may or may not be doing he does a helluva lot of good.


Posted By: bighustle (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 11:57 AM

 
 
Now, I understand that you are saying we shouldn't hate Russo. I don't hate Russo personally, but I want to provide a counter argument.

I'm a wrestling purist. I watch wrestling for the sake of wrestling. I am a man of faith, and want my wrestling to be mostly clean. I am a man who respects all wrestlers and want them to live healthy lives.

So I see little value in the attitude era. Brawls, run-ins, outrageous characters, pointless storylines, little to no actual wrestling, girls acting like sluts, guys doing crotch chops, porn stars, tranvestites, pimps, hardcore wrestling, people getting thrown off of cages and nearly killing themselves.

How exactly is the attitude era a positive thing? I understand that some people love it, but I for one believe that 1998-1999 were the two worst years in WWE history, aside from 1995, but at least it was clean.

Just providing a counterpoint to say that a lot of people who are wrestling purists think the attitude era sucked.

At any rate, good article, I can't rate to see you defend the New ECW. I've always felt that it gets too much hate.


Posted By: Aaron Hubbard (Registered)  on June 08, 2008 at 12:30 PM

 
 
ECW started the attitude area, Russo was just copying and pasting what he was seeing. I would give Pat Patterson more credit for the Rock then I would Russo. I would say Steve Austin just started being himself as we saw the glimpse of the character in ECW. But for all my hate of him, he has done some good things I guess. I would say as it stands right now its a 70/30 split. I would be curious how much of the stupidity he's responsible for in TNA. I would be willing to guess it's less then half but he draws the majority of the fire.

Posted By: Amp (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 12:40 PM

 
 
Good Point, He's a great Idea machine, and can write some interesting lines, but without somebody to keep him in check and filter out some of his really bad Ideas, he hurts companies. McMahon managed to do Crash Style Wrestling because McMahon was better at keeping Russo from going absolutly too nuts, while Bischoff and Dixie Carter let him run roughshot and never even said "Wait dude this is way too confusing" the result was the WCW and TNA we've gotten from him.

Posted By: Davis (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 12:41 PM

 
 
I always thought it was funny that so many always blame Russo for everything wrong in a wrestling promotion. Ever since his WCW Fiasco. He has turned into everyone's favorite scapegoat. If there is something the IWC doesn't like and Russo is employed at the place. They just blame Russo.

The one thing alot quickly forget. He is just employee like the rest in TNA. It is the Owner's that have last call on everything. Russo does.


Posted By: Guest#8670 (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 01:16 PM

 
 
Big Hustle,

Yes, Flair did hold a lot of people down in his prime, but he is trated with the level or respect he has now because instead of clinging to the top like Hogan did, he spent the twilight of his career putting other people over. The whole "Win or retire" angle was basically one long going away party.


Posted By: dan (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 01:36 PM

 
 
"How exactly is the attitude era a positive thing? I understand that
some people love it, but I for one believe that 1998-1999 were the
two worst years in WWE history, aside from 1995, but at least it was
clean."

So because the content was more mature, it was terrible?


Posted By: JJ (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 01:39 PM

 
 
David Arquette = EPIC WIN!

As a matter of fact... Billy Kidman in a dumpster has to be considered somewhat of an epic win aswell...

:D


Posted By: Serotonin (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 02:35 PM

 
 
The way I see it, Russo damned himself to hell when he booked himself to be WCW world heavyweight champion. Think about it - that is arrogance gone wild. What a slap in the face of all the wrestlers in the back that this man, this fucking spineless slug, should book himself to be the WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION, after having already booked DAVID ARQUETTE as champ just a few months earlier!!!

You can say what you want about Vince McMahon, but he'd never book himself to be champ... oh wait a minute, hang on... I guess they are both fucking assholes.


Posted By: The Truth (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 02:41 PM

 
 
"I am a man of faith, and want my wrestling to be mostly clean."

Aaron Hubbard you are so pathetic its borderline ridiculous. The way you have to bring your faith into everything you say, wearing it like some badge of honour - get over yourself already chump, or can you not accept the fact that people here don't want to hear about your crappy existence?

Just quit already, so many readers of this site are sick of your bullshit. And don't bother with your whiny, overbearing, inevitably pompous reply, because I dont give a shit.


Posted By: Valkamor (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 02:47 PM

 
 
Sorry man but you do not make a very compelling arguement. Just because Russo had some good TV in his WWE stint is no reason to give him credit for all the bad he has done since then.

You look at some of the PPV's from Russo's day and while it was different and exciting at the time, except for some of the main event stuff, a lot of it did not stand the test of time. You don't believe me, read some of the PPV reviews from his stint on this site.

The problem with Russo is that while you say he does things differnt to shake things up, he really isn't doing all that much different. With WCW and TNA, they don't need a bunch of crazy gimmicks and ideas. They need sound booking to get people over. Russo does not have that capability. He hasn't progressed as a creative mind since the WWE days. That type of humor and booking now is boring and does no good for a product as eviden by his stints in WCW and TNA. Not only does he need to be removed but the rest of the TNA creative.


Posted By: Willie D (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 03:02 PM

 
 
i know wrestling is fake. but when i watch the actual show. i dont need to be reminded of that. i remember during his nitro days, there was a segment that showed wrestlers getting upset after READING THE SCRIPT ON AIR!!! they then confronted him about their respective parts. that was just too much for me.

Posted By: rey (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 03:25 PM

 
 
Nicely done Mr. Bond. This article concisely shows that the Russo hate is for the most part unwarranted. I maintain that Russo could prove a valuable asset to TNA if and when their production values are high enough to be able to deliver a live TV show.

Posted By: The Ratings Killer (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 03:34 PM

 
 
i have bad memories of the attitude era as well. i remember at its height, this was a typical raw match:
Entrances, collar-elbow tie up, finisher. then to the next backstgae skit.

matches would last 5 minutes at the most.

then i heard his interview on wrestlecrap. it was infuriating! he cant see why the wrestling business and fans put so much value on wrestling titles. "It's just a belt, who cares!!!"

look at his time in wcw and wwf. championships were changing hands on a weekly if not daily basis. it was a complete joke.


Posted By: jd (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 03:35 PM

 
 
hey aaron hubbard, i totally agree.

i've seen several shoot interviews with russo. it gets my blood boiling. he forgets that the reason why people watch wrestling is for...(wait for it)...WRESTLING!!! not 20 minute promos, or 3 minutes matches, or convuluted storylines with more twists and turns than the might mississippi. wrestling fans like myself watch for wrestling matches. yes rock and austin waere gold on the mic. but they could bring it in the ring. russo just doesnt get it.


Posted By: reh629 (Registered)  on June 08, 2008 at 03:48 PM

 
 
No one in this business is perfect so I can't lay any major blame on Russo. Especially with the New Blood/M Club angle, the ego of the older guys killed that idea.

One thing about Russo, he does a great job of getting mid-carders opportunities to shine. Up until now no one cared about Lethal or Shark Boy until they became Black Machismo and Stone Cold Sharky. Same with Daniels who became Curry Man.

Yes I know it's IWC policy to talk about pole matches and relate them to Russo, but give him credit for how he has made AJ Styles a sympathetic character and adds personality to guys like Petey Williams and Kaz.

The only thing I would say about him is that he needs someone to keep him corraled the way McMahon did in the WWF.


Posted By: Ryder (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 03:58 PM

 
 
People that get on me for using my faith as a basis for what I like in wrestling are really pathetic, especially the ones that won't read my retorts. If you don't have the balls to get into a debate, don't post a smart alec comment. You just come off looking like a coward.

And, since Russo himself is a "born again Christian" maybe someone like myself has freaking authority to question the content of the man's booking when he's a freaking hypocrite? If Russo is a man of faith as I am, then he's probably not very proud of his "attitude era", which is the only thing people ever praise him for. And if he is, then he's a hyprocrie as well as an idiot. It's another kink in what little armor he has.


Posted By: Aaron Hubbard (Registered)  on June 08, 2008 at 04:04 PM

 
 
JJ the issue a lot of people have with the Attitude era was it's workrate declined. Loads of promos and fights, but even less actual matches and shorter ones on Raw and WCW. now the PPVs were amazing. But if you compare the amount of wrestling on smackdown today to the amount of wrestling on Smackdown during the Attitude Era, you might realize why some people who perfer in ring wrestling to backstage stuff, don't remember the attitude era fondly.

Posted By: Davis (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 04:10 PM

 
 
but the beautiful thing i'd say about Aaron's argument is that in the post Attitude era we get a good mixture of both. We get glimpses of what made the attitude era great storyline wise and great pure wrestling. I love the era that we're in now because the stories are mature and edgier yet the wrestling is way better than the Attitude era. yet we still have people who say the Attitude era is the best. I'd argue that minus the politics and occasional bad booking decisions we're living in pretty decent wrestling era. A nice combination of pure wrestling and edginess without being gratuitous.

Posted By: bighustle (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 04:33 PM

 
 
I think one of the main reasons people hate Russo is indicated by the fact that most of your defense seems to consist of, "Hey man, how much ass did he kick in '96? Huh? Huh?"

Yes, Russo was a huge part in creating the Attitude Era, and for that he deserves credit. But then every other stop he's made since then he's just tried to shoehorn his '96 Raw scripts into the shows, with diminishing results. To me, Russo is like George Lucas; he had one really great idea years ago, and he's been crap since then.


Posted By: Decky (Registered)  on June 08, 2008 at 04:42 PM

 
 
This is just depressing. The argument that the Attitude era is overrated is such a crock of shit that I won't acknowledge it with a response. You couldn't have been watching the television every week in 1998 and say that it was lousy. I refuse to accept that. HEY HUBBARD I'M BEING POSITIVE ABOUT SOMETHING WWE DID ONCE.

And can we PLEASE get the fuck away from the religion issue. Pro wrestling, people. I...don't....CARE what you believe. That goes for any of you, not just Hubbard.


Posted By: MP (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 05:36 PM

 
 
I can't argue with a single point in this article. So the question becomes "What happened to Russo post-WWE?" Why did he do magnificent work there, but almost crap afterwards.

Posted By: JLAJRC (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 05:50 PM

 
 
JLAJRC- here's what i'll say happened to Russo. WCW was desparate to catch back up to WWF in the ratings war. So they hired Russo expecting him to get them great success the same way he did for the WWF. Russo might've been fine, but you have to factor in the fact that everyone had their hands in the creative process and politics ran rampant in WCW.

When ideas didn't work, he resorted to publicity stunts such as David Arquette winning the belt. Pushing the creative envelope even further, he thought it would be a good idea to appeal to the smarks. It could've worked, but when you have the boys involved in the creative process as well, it ended up exposing the boys insider knowledge. So while the wrestlers probably got a kick out of reading scripts on the air, this did not appeal to the mass audience who still wanted that element of disbelief. Poltics lead to bad booking decisions, which lead to bad television. This coupled with a bunch of financial factors is what ultimately killed WCW. To blame Russo for the death of WCW is extremely narrow-minded. He played his part, but the company was bound to go under way before he got there.

In TNA, its a slightly different story. Here's a company that in 2005 found much of its appeal in the internet fans. The summer of internet Impacts and Samoa Joe's arrival lead to some pretty incredible matches. Creatively the company would be in a rut after they hit Spike TV. Spike TV wanted big name stars to rival WWE. Russo was re-hired and was responsible for implementing characters and storylines. He's done his part in trying to develop characters, but his main flaw is match making and segment scripting. His ideas are good, but his execution needs work. Either that or he needs a filter to weed out the bad ideas.


Posted By: bighustle (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 07:03 PM

 
 
"To me, Russo is like George Lucas; he had one
really great idea years ago, and he's been crap since then."

HELL YEAH!


Posted By: guy incognito (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 07:22 PM

 
 
I will always have fond memories of the Attitude Era. It was the only period where I felt that, if I missed a show (WWE or WCW), I would miss something happening. I can go weeks without watching WWE now and have reasonable expectation that the status quo will still reign.

I still enjoy WWE, and enjoy plenty of other wrestling as well (even TNA, no its not paradoxical to enjoy both!) its just that I no longer HAVE to watch it though maybe that reflects a change in myself as I've grown older just as much as it reflects a change in the business.


Posted By: Dr Domino (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 07:22 PM

 
 
Most of this has been covered, but I've got to say it:
Vince Russo is a fire hose. A constant stream of insane ideas with no focus. It may be hard to believe but VKM was the strong personality needed to control his nonsense and pick out the few ideas that would work. I'm not universally defending VKM, but after leaving the WWE Russo hasn't done anything but produce wrestling shows that aren't even slightly about wrestling.

His core ideals of writing a show are insulting to fans and he is of the mind that the whole wrestling audience is an active part of the IWC. He brings in celebs and people like Tank Abbot to make wrestling look like legit fighting. But guess what? It's NOT, and we all know that and like it anyways. So when you keep saying, essentially, "look how real this is", it becomes tiresome very quickly. And at the same time he writes tv referencing other companies, talks about ratings and "shoots" and "legit heat" on air, or uses people's real names and stories from backstage that confuse the casual fan (majority of the audience). This crap makes me cringe, seriously.

Finally, while Russo may take chances, the application is shit. The New Blood era of WCW was HORRIBLE, even if the basic idea that new stars needed to fight old stars was good. Part of this is related to the above idea, assuming the audience is knowledgeable about political ongoings that most of them are not. The other part is just careless booking. Please watch some of the PPVs from this era and try to defend PAY SHOWS where only 1 match ends clean and there are a bunch of no contests. No Buys does not cover it, perhaps a new catch phrase like Anal Cancer! is emphatic enough. Seriously, watch New Blood Rising. I dare you.

Once again, a brave topic to undertake. But I promise you that I dislike Russo for perfectly legit reasons. Remember how funny it was when he mocked Jim Ross' Bell's Palsy? You know, making a tv character to mock a disfigured man? Yeah, me neither. He can LITERALLY find God and I'm not going to change my mind about the guy.


Posted By: Andy (Registered)  on June 08, 2008 at 07:40 PM

 
 
I get the sense, always do, that Russo gets way too much credit for the Rock and Austin "characters" --

1. Vince McMahon was always tightly involved with those characters before Russo's departure -- feuding with Austin, taking Rock as his corporate champion. I reckon he's the man who crafted that storyline more than Russo.

2. Giving anyone credit for those "characters" is like giving a promoter or booker credit for the "character" of Ric Flair. Rock and Austin worked because they stopped being gimmicked Ringmasters and Blue Chipper Rocky maivia's -- as JR has said a million time - they were themselves with the volume turned up. They ad-libbed like hell too.

No way Russo made Austin -- Austin made Austin at Jake Roberts expense. Rock made Rock with his rightful disdainful reaction to "die Rocky die"

As JR said about rock - he was booked as a heel and the people made the choice -- and they were right.

Painting Russo as the Uta Hagan of method promos in order to paint a defense is thin -- especially when you then watch him rock out with David Arquette, Master P, and Flair in an asylum and Oklahoma once he got away from McMahon.

Always nice to see a devil's advocate but Russo is someone who seems useful as one voice among many. As a lead dog he has ADD as a booker and can't commit to anything long enough to gain traction.


Posted By: Train Man (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 08:06 PM

 
 
Russo had done a few good things, but when he had dominant control over the program without anyone to filter out his bad ideas, things usually tended to go to hell.

Russo's biggest problem is his attention deficit disorder. If something isn't working NOW, he'll change it again--and again, so the fans eventually give up. Look how many title changes there were in 1999-2000 (both WWF and WCW). ANd how many pointless turns did we get.

The New Blood v. Billionaire's Club was a very interesting angle that had a lot of potential--and it could have easily helped to save WCW, if not for three things.

1. With just the right amount of tweaks, this could have worked if the face/heel positions were reversed and the Billionaire's Club consisted of older guys clinging to their positions, while the New Blood had hungry young lions who had been kept down. Booker could have lead the New Blood along with Mysterio, Jarrett and others.

2. Along with the title changes, they had too many tweeners and face/heel changes, making it hard to keep track of who was where anymore.

3. Finally, they pulled the plug on the angle without ever really getting the proper payoff. Instead of a big concentration between the two major factions, it broke down into individual feuds. WHy not have a Wargames to resolve it (a real one, not the triple-tower they used on one Nitro). By the time the New Blood Rising PPV came around in August, the angle had died, rendering the title of the show moot.


Posted By: Michael L (Guest)  on June 08, 2008 at 09:04 PM

 
 
to MP:

Not to point fingers, but did you not write a response by telling people that we are full of s*** for thinking the attitude era sucked? Yet you said you weren't going to respond...generally, when something isn't worth a response, you ignore it and don't respond to it. I don't know if you are ignorant of the oxymoronic nature of saying "I'm not going to respond to it" in a RESPONSE, but seriously, that really makes you look like a hypocrite.

And yes, the attidue era sucked. Notice the only things from that era that Vince McMahon talks about on his DVDs are the McMahon-Austin feud, DX, Foley nearly dying and then winning the championship in a few meaningless runs, and Kane-Taker? Nothing else from that era was worth watching. And the wrestling was atrocious.

And yes, we can get off the "religious" thing. It's dropped.


Posted By: Aaron Hubbard (Registered)  on June 09, 2008 at 01:47 AM

 
 
Ok then, so we're done here. No more discussing wrestling with Hubbard since all credibility flew out the window. It's been nice owning you, but I'm sure you'll enjoy the peace of MP-free commentary in your columns from now on. But you'll probably never find that peace when about a hundred like-minded commentors take my place, and flame with you with way more harsh and less-reasoned hatred.

One final note: I know you didn't actually watch the Attitude era (what were you, five years old back then?) if the only things you can cite from it are what VINCE MCMAHON talks about in the DVDs HE produces. Christ, why don't you just quote Steve Lombardi while you're at it.


Posted By: MP (Guest)  on June 09, 2008 at 02:51 AM

 
 
Ok then, so we're done here. No more discussing wrestling with
Hubbard since all credibility flew out the window. It's been nice
owning you, but I'm sure you'll enjoy the peace of MP-free commentary
in your columns from now on. But you'll probably never find that
peace when about a hundred like-minded commentors take my place, and
flame with you with way more harsh and less-reasoned hatred.

someone thinks he's a bad ass


Posted By: Barbecued Ribs (Guest)  on June 09, 2008 at 03:07 AM

 
 
I think Vince Russo has his heart in the right place but he over/underthinks most decisions. TNA needs to bring in a wrestling purist to work with him. No doubt they'd clash at first, but given a chance it could work.

Posted By: Darren (Guest)  on June 09, 2008 at 04:11 AM

 
 
Russo sucks, he proved that without someone keeping him on a leash like WWF did he's a detrament to the business.

He contributed to the downfall of WcW and he's been slowly killing or at least hurting the potential growth of TNA for the last 2 years.

The guy's a one-trick pony who's "Shock TV" booking style is played out and the sooner Dixie realizes it and gives him the boot the better.


Posted By: Angry_Stoner (Guest)  on June 09, 2008 at 04:14 AM

 
 
Not convinced.

The changes in TNA product were blatant enough at the same time Russo joined the writing staff that it's naive to think he isn't responsible in some way. Yes, he helped created Attitude, but that was in the past and while wrestling has changed his ideas of booking have not and have lead to intelligence insulting angles like the Sting/Abyss World title feud.

The difference between Russo-hate and Hogan-hate is that Hogan appears sparodically whereas Russo is still causing folk to forget his legacy. People are harsh, and don't give him credit for the GOOD stuff he's done, but that isn't a defense for the mockery he turned late-WCW and TNA into.


Posted By: mr_wishart (Guest)  on June 09, 2008 at 06:54 AM

 
 
i love the "don't hate" columns. i generally agree with their assessments. but the last two, there is no convincing me.

Hogan-i dont like him solely on his in-ring career. i could less about his family turmoil. when compared to other all time greats, there is no comparison. his faux knee injury right before summerslam prior to his rko match was the final straw for me.

russo-i dont need to be told during raw, sd or impact that wrestling isnt real. I KNOW THAT!!! also, i heard what he had to say about wrestling championships. it is total BS. i tell non-fans that a wrestling title is the equivalent of an oscar or an employee of the month award. there is no "real" competition for it. but when you get it. it means something. he doesnt see that.


Posted By: FIRERUSSO (Guest)  on June 09, 2008 at 07:24 AM

 
 
Why some of us despise Russo:

1) Overbooks matches that can easily get by on simple story-telling or angles. Run-ins, a longtime Russo staple, only cheapen the ending and the wrestlers who are wrestling. Stop trying to swerve us, alright?

2) Overbooks angles on television and turns even the simplest promo into a verbal cluster-ffff of epic proportions. If only Russo could believe that Less is More.

3) Tries to blur the line between Heels and Faces for the sake of being Edgy and resurrecting the Attitude Era. When everyone came across as the same (Tweeners) then it diluted attempts at story-telling or caring about the wrestlers.

4) In Russo's world, no one, especially tag teams, can get along. Another attempt by Russo to force edginess and 'tude into story-lines and character building.

5) Booked himself, David Arquette, and non-deserving others into the WCW championship role.

6) Believes that good TV and story-lines include breaking kayfabe on TV and trying to insert as many insider references as possible. Yes, Vince the IWC knows that Abyss's name is Chris. Way to kill his mystique.

7) Uses a Back Asswards form of booking and uses PPVs to pop TV ratings, rather than using TV to get PPV buys. TNA doesn't need additional viewers at this stage because Spike is happy with TNA. TNA needs to convert a higher amount of their 1.0+ million audience to buying their PPV products. Their highest PPV is around 50,000 viwers. That's only 5% of the audience. As it is, TNA gives away too many PPV caliber matches for free on TV. Back asswards!


Posted By: Guest (Guest)  on June 09, 2008 at 10:36 AM

 
 
I think guest summed everything up perfectly in his post there... so yeah, in reponse to the title of article, I'm sorry but I will continue to hate Vince Russo!!!

Posted By: Killah (Guest)  on June 09, 2008 at 11:41 AM

 
 
The base fallacy of most of these "Don't Hate" articles is that they focus on the past. To the common wrestling fan, who may have only been watching wrestling for a year or two (like me,) the past doesn't mean a whole lot. History is exactly that. It doesn't effect the truth of what is being done CURRENTLY, which is not good at all. You don't think that Russo overbooks? Have you seen any of the cards for the past three or so PPVs? It was 4-5 matches, more than one of which involved more than two members. The Sacrifice had TWO Battle Royals. The occasional free-for-all is fun, but two in the same PPV is simply too much. BRs lack the personal touch of one-on-one matches, essential for character building and getting over with the crowd. When you have a bunch of men (or women in some cases,) it just becomes a jumbled mess. THAT is overbooking by definition. Moreover, Russo is missing opportunities which McMahon would have had a field day with, such as the Makeover BR at Sacrifice. When Roxxi was the one that lost, the heat could be best be described as thermonuclear. This was an excellent time for Roxxi to become the chief face of the Knockouts division, and maybe even make a heel-turn out of Gail Kim for going for a title shot instead of humiliating a hated heel (I always thought Gail was better as a heel.) What are we getting now? A so-so faction vs. faction with an almost randomly thrown in new heel just before another PPV. And don't get started on the current AJ vs. Angle fued. No matter what Russo is doing in the past, what he is doing NOW, the time that is important to the wrestling world, is unpardonable crap, what he makes is why non-wrestling-fans think that wrestling is a soap opera for men, and he needs to be either fired, or bumped down to make room for a more able-bodied promoter. (I'm in favor of Paul Haymen, here.)

Posted By: LoneWolf (Guest)  on June 12, 2008 at 02:26 PM

 
 
I have, and never will like vince russo, because he took a company like WCW, which was failing because of Eric Bishoff, and drove it to it's extinction by trying to turn it into another WWE. The attitude era was the best time for the WWE, and I'll give russo credit for it, but I'll never forgive him for what he did to WCW

Posted By: ningcaptor (Guest)  on October 09, 2008 at 08:27 AM

 


www.41mania.com
Copyright © 2005 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.