Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyman
Think in terms of doing the right thing morally, as opposed to "what's best for business."
I get that many people believe that Bret jobbing cleanly to Shawn that night was the best thing to do from a business perspective, but let's consider a few things:
1) Vince and Bret almost had a father-son type relationship. They were THAT close.
2) Shawn was a complete dick to Bret and acted unprofessionally towards him in the past.
3) Shawn wasn't being built as a badass heel that could destroy everyone anyways (i.e. his 'fluke' win over Taker at Survivor Series due to Kane interference).
Given all of this, I think the best solution here would have been the Bret-Undertaker scenario. Even if Bret wasn't under contract, Bret had enough of a strong moral character to 'give back' to the WWE. HBK didn't need to go over Bret cleanly because he was being booked as a cowardly pussy anyways (i.e. his victory over Taker at Survivor Series).
|
Taker would have been a decent backup plan, and it would have been hard for Bret to refuse to JOB to him.
Problem with that is you let Bret leave the territory without putting over his main rival. It leaves a void. Similar to when Hogan left, he didn't put over the next big star (ie Bret) so it really hurt the company trying to establish Bret as the to guy.
And then the other problem is they clearly wanted to get to HBK v Austin, so if you have Taker win the title and drop it quickly to Shawn it hurts Taker and makes Shawn look like a paper champion. Whereas at least with how it all went down it got heat on Shawn and ultimately Vince, which was a catalyst for future success. I don't think Austin v McMahon works as well without Survivor Series.