Raised my opinion of Warrior


the biased points raised by the Warrior detractors in this documentary were so arbitrary that it was almost laughable.

First Bobby the Brain Hennan, talking about the gorilla press slam he took from Warrior after he cost him the Intercontinental championship in the match with Rick Rude. Commenting on how Warrior's press slam caused him to land awkwardly because Warrior didn't know how to perform the move properly. To me the move was always performed the same way. The Warrior lifts someone over his head like nothing to showcase his strength then drops them thoughtlessly onto their face because they are a villain and deserve it. That's what was so likable about it. Didn't Hennan watch any film? It would seem that it would be up to the person on the receiving end of the move to make sure they land properly.

Next the stuff about the program with Andre the Giant pissed me off. About how Andre got fed up with Warrior being so fast and let him run into his fist. I don't think anybody in the wrestling business should brag about how guys act unprofessional in the ring. Why is it so compelling that Andre became fed up. The whole point of the program was to emphasize the drastic difference in styles: Warrior being a fast paced, jacked up maniac and Andre being a stationary, over-sized tub of lard. Again, didn't he watch any film? Warriors wrestling style was the whole point. I don't think Hennan's attempt to portray Warrior as incompetent was best illustrated by applauding the response of an over-sized oaf, who drank excessive amounts of alcohol before getting in the ring, then let his opponents do all the work to make the match exciting.

Then Jerry Lawler's exasperation over the Warrior coming into the ring for a promo with him wearing a hat. He acted as if it was difficult to recover from the shock and continue the show. His reasoning for the adverse reaction, according to his own words in the DVD, is that we had never seen the Warrior wear a hat before. Apparently we were supposed to believe that he wasn't capable of such a thing being an alien from outer space and all. Especially since as late as 1996 we all still believed that in our hearts considering the face paint. I think this segment was only including in the DVD because the company was bitter over the fact that Warrior came up with the concept on his own to promote his character and merchandise. But instead of admitting that and seeming rigid, they conjure up a petty reason for the outrage to make Warrior look bad, and end up just making themselves look bad.

The whole Hogan WCW thing was similar in that aspect. I don't see how Warrior's "big no-no" was even avoidable. The whole point of having the storyline between Hogan and Warrior was to play up their history. We're we supposed to believe that somebody Hogan had never had any confrontations with was coming to confront him now? The first match needed to be played up the way it was for any interest in the rematch to be generated. Can the villain Hogan avenge the earlier loss, or will the courageous Warrior further dominate? The fact that the match and segment didn't draw the desired interest has less to do with Warrior at the time, and more to do with the fact that his character and fan base simply stagnated. Plus everybody knew at that time that Hogan would probably win. It was also absurd the way Hogan admitted to messing up the most important spot in the match with the highlights included, then have Eric Bischoff talk about the lack of chemistry and timing in the match as if it was mostly Warrior's fault.

Not that Warrior didn't behave in offbeat ways which were detrimental to his own career at times. But his career was undeniably prolific and legendary. The spur of the moment blatantly slanted commentaries on the DVD only enhanced the Warrior's correctness in most of these situations.

reply

Im not reading att that *beep* no.

reply