5 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

10 years ago @ - MR. TITO STRIKES BACK ... · 1 reply · +14 points

Agreed on all, especially the managers fighting, Heyman vs. Cornette with the Zack Morris era cell phone as a weapon was hilarious back in the day

10 years ago @ - Backstage News on the ... · 1 reply · +19 points

I actually don't find it disrespectful, at major league level WWE has put out a crappy product and basically favored HHH's friends instead of a meritocracy. At the NXT level, I sympathize with these guys trying to get their shot, but they need to learn to deal with the fans and this is a great opportunity to practice. Would be pretty cool if one of these NXT guys taunted the fans about CM Punk not coming back, I'm the new sheriff in town, etc ...

10 years ago @ - MR. TITO STRIKES BACK ... · 0 replies · +13 points

According to Triple H's behavior, "what's best for business" in 1998 would have been having McMahon pull a fast one on Austin , and then decide to have Austin feud with Val Venis.

10 years ago @ - Mr. Tito\'s PHAT 15 Ye... · 2 replies · +9 points

WWE should give you a royalty, as without your commentary I wouldn't even casually watch. I watched in 80s/90s but stopped when the product started to decline during HHH megalomania after he started dating Stephanie (like you mentioned recently, he's good but not as good as some others, no non-wrestling fans tune in to see HHH like they did Hogan, Rock, etc ... I liked the "what if" idea of no Wrestlemania 3 success, how about "what if" HHH doesn't date Stephanie ...). Nevertheless, I can read your columns and quickly catch up right away - the history columns (including older ones like your one on the NWO) are especially nice, and I like the use of economics whenever it appears. Well done, take care of yourself, and thanks for the years of enjoyment.

10 years ago @ - MR. TITO STRIKES BACK ... · 2 replies · +11 points

Agreed about the McMahons ... dare I suggest taking them out of the televised WWE product entirely.

There are 3 reasons for this:

1. People didn't tune in to see Vince on TV, they tuned in to see the boss try to get Steve Austin in trouble and then Stone Cold's creative ways of pulling one over on the boss. People aren't interested in the McMahons per se, people just recognize the current McMahons on TV as vestigial elements following the original Stone Cold feud.
2. Reason #1 is highly dependent on Vince willing to be humiliated to further storylines (e.g., shaving head with the Donald). To Vince's credit, he has taken the stunners and earned his profit this way. Triple H and Stephanie have not shown a willingness to do this. To be honest, there is a conflict of interest in particular with Triple H the wrestler (desire to be shown strong) with Triple H the boss character on TV (where being humiliated is what sells). Triple H needs to pick one or ther other at this point, or else he harms the product (as he arguably has already). People aren't going to tune into see the boss win every time and not have a 100% humiliation catharsis at some point. Don't give me 2-3 losses here and there as evidence, do you honestly see Triple H being embarassed by the likes of The Shield/Daniel Bryan week after week.
3. The WWE did GREAT in the 80s without McMahon involvement (not to mention the video libraries you mention) - THE MCMAHONS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR A GREAT PRODUCT

The Vince vs. everyone storyline was a great one, but has run its course (perhaps the ratings bump was over by 2001 as you mention). Triple H is not well suited to continue the inherent nature of the role on TV, so let him try to be a good boss behind the scenes. I don't care about real or fake McMahon drama unless there's a reason as good as Montreal/Stone Cold behind it.