Why does Vince Russo receive hate?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Sage., Jan 13, 2012.

  1. He's the guy that basically booked the attitude era right? His idea. Yet people mock him, why is that?
  2. He's a one trick pony. He can do car crash tv and thats it. With a filter he's a decent right but leaving him as head booker is asking for trouble.
  3. What seabs said. The show would become a full soap-opera with him in charge.
  4. He did not basically book the Attitude Era. He created the characters from the Attitude Era that were raunchy such as Goldust and Val Venis. Personally, I didn't like the Attitude Era because of the raunchiness, I liked it because the product was good. You had the best wrestlers in the world, wrestling their best on a weekly basis.
  5. It was Vince's idea though the attitude era...
  6. He didn't book the Attitude Era though... well the whole thing anyways.

    If you wanna see corny gimmick matches, Vince Russo is your guy.
  7. I assume you're not a fan of over-exaggerated gimmicks? I personally think the WWE lacks gimmicks in this day and age.
  8. Personally, I'm a big advocate of wrestling and not so much of your gimmick. If you can put on a good match, you can have the most retarded gimmick in the world and I won't care.

    That's why I like AJ Styles gimmick, The Phenomenal One. His gimmick is basically he is a phenomenal wrestler and he damn well proves it in every match.

    Brodus Clay's gimmick is good because it's different. He would have been written off in a month if he came with the Mark Henry gimmick.

    I give Russo his due, he had his time of greatness but that was a decade ago. He ran off Cornette from TNA & Heyman doesn't want to work with him.

    I've seen multiple TNA matches with his shitty booking that the fans call him out on it.
  9. This is correct Russo gave ideas but the actual booker was McMahon. It's always been that way and will right up until his death day Vince McMahon chooses what happens on WWE television.
  10. Completely fair enough. There's two types of wrestling fans I feel. The type that predominantly care about the wrestling only, and the type that care more about the story-line and character. I fit into the latter. For example, Miz is an average wrestler, used to be poor but he's improved a lot. I'd rather see him cut a promo and build a story-line than a random Daniel Bryan vs Tyson Kid match. I understand the complete frustration of pure wrestling fans at something like that, but there is two separate styles of fans.

    As the years have gone by I'd say I'm in the middle now. I can't watch an unbearably bad match, hence why I stand any match with Jerry Lawler and Michael Cole. But I do definitely think WWE lacks gimmicks now. 80% of them just seem to be fake tan + lots of muscles = gimmick. That's not going to get anyone over. Look at TNA now, they have a lot of interesting gimmicks in my opinion. What young talent of WWE has a "weird" gimmick now? Brodus Clay yes, heel R-Truth... literally can't think of anyone else.

    Gone slightly off-topic I know. I'm in the middle overall. I love crazy-booking as long as it isn't insane like Vince Russo is, but I'm also a fan of pure wrestling matches which WWE are providing us weekly at the moment.