What If? - The Screwjob Never Happened

[bullyballmm]

The folks who claim Montreal was real wins the default position because the truth is on their side.

That's going into the argument thinking you are already right. The people who say the moon landing was fake would say theirs should be the default position "because the truth is on their side"

What determines what is the default position is what is logical to consider to the default position in the area you are dealing with. e.g. in statistics of any kind the logical position is almost always that the variable that we consider an independent variable will have 0 effect on what we consider the dependent variable before we collect the data and conduct a regression analysis

In wrestling the default position is that something is a work unless there is evidence to the contrary. We don't go looking around for evidence that everything that happens in wrestling is a work - on the contrary, when something appears to be a shoot e.g. Lesnar actually beating up on Strowman in a match, we (smarks but more importantly the dirtsheets) look for evidence that this is the case. If everything had to researched before it could be confirmed a work we would have no time to actually watch the product.

The interviews that you are providing are evidence that something is a shoot after the fact - it is assumed to be a work by the "marks" until some wrestler says it's a shoot and others corroborate their story.

You just proved my point with your last paragraph lmao. Why do so many other things in wrestling get to be treated as a work until someone says it is a shoot but the Montreal Screwjob gets to be some exception to the rule?

 

[Geese]

That's going into the argument thinking you are already right. The people who say the moon landing was fake would say theirs should be the default position "because the truth is on their side"

The truth is on their side because they have all the documented evidence which shows beyond a reasonable doubt the Montreal Screwjob was real. By your own admittance, evidence it was a work is "hard to come by." It's funny you bring up the moon landing because marks who believe Montreal was scripted should be lumped together with the conspiracy theorists who think the moon landing was fake.

 

[DualShock]

The folks who claim Montreal was real wins the default position because the truth is on their side.

Wrestling is a work but we know from interviewing the wrestlers that certain incidents are real and wasn't scripted. For instance, we know Rick Rude didn't like Lanny Poffo and the only reason he thinks Lanny had a job was because of his brother Randy Savage. We know there was bad blood and it wasn't kayfabe. We know the Sid Vicious-Arn Anderson stabbing incident in the hotel lobby really happened and it wasn't kayfabe.

The difference is Sid/Arn or Rude/Poffo didn't affect any storyline, was never mentioned on TV at that time and there was never a Savage vs. Rude feud at that time to make their feud personal so there was no reason to believe it was a work unlike the Screwjob and the aftermath. If you look back it was a win for everybody. Bret had the momentum going to WCW, he didn't really lost the title, ended the Bret vs. HBK fight with both men "not losing" their battle, made Shawn have heat going into Wrestlemania as heel champion, helped the Mr. McMahon character, helped the style of the Attitude Era, made Austin vs. the evil boss much cooler. The only risk was it could backfired with fans boycotting the WWE but back then during the nWo popularity WWE had nothing to lose anyway and it was the potential there for the Austin vs. McMahon feud and Stone Cold as the new star of the company so it was worth trying the Screwjob angle

 

[Geese]

The difference is Sid/Arn or Rude/Poffo didn't affect any storyline, was never mentioned on TV at that time and there was never a Savage vs. Rude feud at that time to make their feud personal so there was no reason to believe it was a work unlike the Screwjob and the aftermath. If you look back it was a win for everybody. Bret had the momentum going to WCW, he didn't really lost the title, ended the Bret vs. HBK fight with both men "not losing" their battle, made Shawn have heat going into Wrestlemania as heel champion, helped the Mr. McMahon character, helped the style of the Attitude Era, made Austin vs. the evil boss much cooler. The only risk was it could backfired with fans boycotting the WWE but back then during the nWo popularity WWE had nothing to lose anyway and it was the potential there for the Austin vs. McMahon feud and Stone Cold as the new star of the company so it was worth trying the Screwjob angle

The Mr. McMahon character had already been in the works several months before the Montreal Screwjob incident happened. Even without the Screwjob, Austin vs. McMahon would've been a hot storyline during the Attitude Era as Austin was an already "over" superstar. For instance, he received loud cheers even though he was a heel in his losing effort against Bret Hart at Wrestlemania 13. In January 1997, WWE was moving towards more adult themed programming so Montreal Screwjob had absolutely nothing to do with the Attitude Era or Mr. McMahon.
[automerge]1568913593[/automerge]

Why do so many other things in wrestling get to be treated as a work until someone says it is a shoot but the Montreal Screwjob gets to be some exception to the rule?

Because the only source of information you have is Scott Hall who's still irate for losing to Bret at the '93 Royal Rumble.

 

[DualShock]

The Mr. McMahon character had already been in the works several months before the Montreal Screwjob incident happened. Even without the Screwjob, Austin vs. McMahon would've been a hot storyline during the Attitude Era as Austin was an already "over" superstar. For instance, he received loud cheers even though he was a heel in his losing effort against Bret Hart at Wrestlemania 13. In January 1997, WWE was moving towards more adult themed programming so Montreal Screwjob had absolutely nothing to do with the Attitude Era or Mr. McMahon.

Yep, that's something we both agree but why is it that most people say the Montreal Screwjob created the McMahon character because of the boos he received for screwing Bret and use it as argument for some reason why the Screwjob really happened?
btw. if the McMahon character was already in the works just like the Austin vs. McMahon feud (which I agree with you 100%) that means there must be a point for a heelturn of Vince McMahon and the ending of Survivor Series 1997 was the perfect timing

 

[Geese]

but why is it that most people say the Montreal Screwjob created the McMahon character because of the boos he received for screwing Bret and use it as argument for some reason why the Screwjob really happened? if the McMahon character was already in the works just like the Austin vs. McMahon feud (which I agree with you 100%) that means there must be a point for a heelturn of Vince McMahon and the ending of Survivor Series 1997 was the perfect timing

As Jacob Fox pointed out in an earlier post, Austin stunning McMahon in September '97 to the delight of the audience created the Mr. McMahon character, not the Screwjob.

McMahon was receiving boos after the Survivor Series '97 match was over because he changed the scripted ending of the match without Bret's knowledge. That's why he was getting booed.

 

[DualShock]

As Jacob Fox pointed out in an earlier post, Austin stunning McMahon in September '97 to the delight of the audience created the Mr. McMahon character, not the Screwjob. McMahon was receiving boos after the match was over because he changed the scripted ending of the match without Bret's knowledge. That's why he was getting booed.

Do you think it's coincidence that the Screwjob happened between that first Stunner and the official start of the Austin vs. McMahon feud after WrestleMania XIV?

Like I have memtioned in my earlier post, McMahon character was in the making the year before in the late 1996.

 

[Geese]

Do you think it's coincidence the Screwjob happened between that first Stunner and the start of the Austin vs. McMahon feud after WrestleMania XIV? Like I have mentioned in my earlier post, Mr. McMahon was in the making the year in late 1996

1996 was the child friendly New Generation era. Ratings were low during the era and it's doubtful any Mr. McMahon persona was in development by Vince McMahon.

Yeah, I do think it's a coincidence because there's no evidence to back-up the claim the Screwjob was a work.

 

[bullyballmm]

As Jacob Fox pointed out in an earlier post, Austin stunning McMahon in September '97 to the delight of the audience created the Mr. McMahon character, not the Screwjob.

McMahon was receiving boos after the Survivor Series '97 match was over because he changed the scripted ending of the match without Bret's knowledge. That's why he was getting booed.

You can't read.

DS is saying that the Mr. McMahon becoming a true heel character happened with the Montreal Screwjob. He is not disputing that the Mr. McMahon character was introduced before the Screwjob. Austin being a jerk and stunning Mr. McMahon to pop the crowd didn't mean Mr. McMahon was the dastardly heel that he is known for being today.
[automerge]1568963630[/automerge]

Because the only source of information you have is Scott Hall who's still irate for losing to Bret at the '93 Royal Rumble.

You completely ignored me and my point re: burden of proof. You can't talk about evidence or lack of evidence that I have when you have not explained why the people who assert Montreal was a shoot do not have to have the burden of proof in this debate, but those who assert it is a work do.

I'll repeat again: Every moment in wrestling is assumed a work until confirmed otherwise by verifiable sources. Prove this statement wrong, or shut up.

 

[Geese]

You can't read. You completely ignored me and my point re: burden of proof. You can't talk about evidence or lack of evidence that I have when you have not explained why the people who assert Montreal was a shoot do not have to have the burden of proof in this debate, but those who assert it is a work do.

I'll repeat again: Every moment in wrestling is assumed a work until confirmed otherwise by verifiable sources. Prove this statement wrong, or shut up.

I didn't ignore your point. I answered it word-for-word. You're too stupid to know what the meaning of burden of proof is. You are engaging in the logical fallacy of proving a negative.

The Mr. McMahon heel character was done several months before Montreal Screwjob ever happened.

Montreal Screwjob is, in fact, confirmed by verifiable sources that it is a shoot. Every employee who worked for the WWE, who knew and worked with Vince McMahon at the time, has been on-record to have said Montreal is legitimate. You clearly have no clue what scientific evidence is which is why you have been saying the same exact argument over and over again for the past two days. Jim Cornette, Vince McMahon, Bret Hart, Vince Russo, and Shawn Michaels have all been on-record saying it is legitimate.

I'll repeat again: The burden of proof lies entirely on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists to provide evidence the Montreal Screwjob was a work.

 

[bullyballmm]

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of proving a negative.

Take a step back. I am not talking about approving/disproving something. I am talking about what the null hypothesis and who gets to determine what the null hypothesis and the standard of proof to reject it is. There is no "negative" like the God does/Doesn't exist argument, as we all know the events in Montreal happened, there is just a dispute whether it is a shoot/work.

The Mr. McMahon heel character was done several months before Montreal Screwjob ever happened.

Yes. We all know that. Nobody is disputing that. What we are saying is that the ultra-heel Mr. McMahon didn't happen until after the Screwjob. The character Mr. McMahon existed beforehand, but the character pre-screwjob and post-screwjob are very different.

Montreal Screwjob is, in fact, confirmed by verifiable sources that it is a shoot. Every employee who worked for the WWE, who knew and worked with Vince McMahon at the time, has been on-record to have said Montreal is legitimate.

You keep being willfully ignorant about how works work. You do know Vince has worked is performers, not just the dirtsheets/fans, before? Like I said, Vince and Bret are really the only two people who needed to know that the "shoot" was actually a work, if it was a work. Others could be oblivious and are just saying what Vince and/or Bret told them.

The burden of proof lies entirely on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists to provide evidence the Montreal Screwjob was a work. Prove this statement wrong or shut up.

Yeah using your opponent's rhetoric only works when you're right.

We have provided evidence - logical argument is a type of evidence, not just reports from wrestlers who were either worked themselves or are also trying to work the smarks.

But if you want evidence, address this that I mentioned but you never chose to deal with last time Earl Hebner Is ’Not Going To Lie Anymore’ About The Montreal Screwjob



I didn't even come into this thinking the Montreal Screwjob was a work, I just wanted to play devil's advocate and address the question re: Why people think "creative control contracts" actually mean anything when Vince would rather just break them and pay the monetary consequences to get his way.

But since you are so butt hurt over people possibly thinking a shoot was actually a work I feel like actually believing it was a work just to spite you. Because you debate in bad faith and only address the points you think you combat (and you even fail at that).

I'm giving you a pre-preemptive turtle unless you actually offer something of quality that justifies the time I spent writing out this long post.

 

[Geese]

Take a step back. I am not talking about approving/disproving something. I am talking about what the null hypothesis and who gets to determine what the null hypothesis and the standard of proof to reject it is. Yes. We all know that. Nobody is disputing that. What we are saying is that the ultra-heel Mr. McMahon didn't happen until after the Screwjob. The character Mr. McMahon existed beforehand, but the character pre-screwjob and post-screwjob are very different. You keep being willfully ignorant about how works work. Others could be oblivious and are just saying what Vince and/or Bret told them. Yeah using your opponent's rhetoric only works when you're right.

We have provided evidence - logical argument is a type of evidence, not just reports from wrestlers who were either worked themselves or are also trying to work the smarks.


I didn't even come into this thinking the Montreal Screwjob was a work, I just wanted to play devil's advocate and address the question re: Why people think "creative control contracts" actually mean anything when Vince would rather just break them and pay the monetary consequences to get his way.

But since you are so butt hurt over people possibly thinking a shoot was actually a work I feel like actually believing it was a work just to spite you. Because you debate in bad faith and only address the points you think you combat (and you even fail at that).

I wasn't behaving butthurt, you were throwing a childish temper tantrum. I watched that same Viceland documentary and practically everybody involved said it was a shoot, not a work. Since you didn't read the link which you provided, Earl Hebner said he heard "rumors" for the past eighteen years that maybe it could've been a "work." The second half of his answer he gets less specific in details. Hebner merely thinks Bret had a sneaking suspicion he was going to get screwed at the ending of the match. This proves my point Bret was not in cahoots with Vince McMahon before the match began.

If you bothered to scroll down the bottom half of the article it noted Hart has held the same position for years and Cornette says the screwing aspect of the match is legitimate. Neither men have worked in the WWE in decades and neither men have any motivation to lie.

When you provide evidence, it's a good idea to read the evidence before you present it. That way, I won't think you're a complete and total dumbass.

 

[DualShock]

1996 was the child friendly New Generation era. Ratings were low during the era and it's doubtful any Mr. McMahon persona was in development by Vince McMahon.

Yeah, I do think it's a coincidence because there's no evidence to back-up the claim the Screwjob was a work.

1996 was also the year when WCW kicked their ass with being more realistic and ECW being the new cool kid in town, so WWE had to react. 1996 was also a year where WWE as a result still was family friendly but they introduced stuff that had less cartoonish 1995 stuff like Stone Cold the anti-hero, Goldust becoming more extreme, Loose Cannon Brian Pillman, Nation of Domination, Sable and Sunny getting more air time and the Taker-Mankind feud with matches like buried alive and boiler room brawl, worked-shoots, Vince Russo was given also more control.
In 1996 Vince McMahon was also officially announced for the first time as WWE owner, but that wasn't enough, the moment he was announced as owner a bunch of wrestlers appeared constantly on WWE TV blaming him for all the bad things that happened in WWE making him a controversial owner from day one.
This is a great example


Austin giving Vince the Stunner in September 97 was not the start of their feud because Austin was giving Stunners to officials all the time during that period, Jim Ross, Brisco, Slaughter, Hebner. The McMahon character was 1 year in the making, he was a controversial figure all the time since he was revealed as owner
Here is a video from July 97


Since we all agree that the McMahon character and the Austin vs. McMahon character is supposed to happen anyway no matter Screwjob or not, they still had to do an official heelturn for Vince to make it work, what would be for you the perfect time to turn him heel? Here is a hint, in the second video (2 months before the first Stunner on Vince and 4 months before the screwjob) the wrestler who is supposed to leave WWE anyway at the end of 1997 said something to Vince how he was screwed by him all the time

 

[bullyballmm]

-Bret has a reputation to retain. If it was a work he would have basically been lying to the fans all this time. The only way I see Bret revealing it was a work (if it was a work) would be on his death bed/in his will

-Anybody who knows Cornette knows that he values kayfabe over everything else (well, except for being able to shit on Russo). Even if Cornette knew the truth about the Screwjob (which I doubt), if it was a work he wouldn't want to reveal it was one because he honors kayfabe.

-The only difference between whether the MS was a shoot or a work is whether Bret was in on it or not. Re-read what the second part of Hebner's statement said: "Like I said, just hearing rumors for the past eighteen, nineteen years, it’s almost been questionable, in some sense, that both of them knew." He is saying that he thought both knew at the time but over the past 20 years that view has been questioned. And if the work was true, people that Hebner trusted like Bret, Vince etc. telling him it was a shoot would make him question his orginal feelings, even though they are just working him and therefore us.

 

[Geese]

-Bret has a reputation to retain. If it was a work he would have basically been lying to the fans all this time. The only way I see Bret revealing it was a work (if it was a work) would be on his death bed/in his will

-Anybody who knows Cornette knows that he values kayfabe over everything else (well, except for being able to shit on Russo). Even if Cornette knew the truth about the Screwjob (which I doubt), if it was a work he wouldn't want to reveal it was one because he honors kayfabe.

-The only difference between whether the MS was a shoot or a work is whether Bret was in on it or not. Re-read what the second part of Hebner's statement said: "Like I said, just hearing rumors for the past eighteen, nineteen years, it’s almost been questionable, in some sense, that both of them knew." He is saying that he thought both knew at the time but over the past 20 years that view has been questioned. And if the work was true, people that Hebner trusted like Bret, Vince etc. telling him it was a shoot would make him question his orginal feelings, even though they are just working him and therefore us.

You're willfully dismissing two verifiable sources of information because they're not giving you the answer you want to hear. So you pick apart their character in a specious attempt to prove they are wrong.

Bret has remained steadfast in his position that it was a shoot, not a work. He would have no reason, at this stage in his life, to continue to keep this charade up.

Jim Cornette has also said repeatedly he believes the Screwjob was legit in interviews. He longer works in WWE and has been out of the business for well over a decade. Cornette often times goes into specific details about the behind-the-scenes politicking (i.e. Shawn Michaels behavior) which went on when he used to work in the WWE. He talks about various performers attitudes, whether they were a prick or not. That does not constitute respect for kayfabe.

Earl Hebner vacillates frequently in his answers. Hebner has doubts it was legit but the second half of his answer he is less specific. He hears "rumors" for the past eighteen or nineteen years which maybe it was a work. I just listened to Hebner's full interview on youtube. "I have feelings that he did know but he didn't know. To be honest with you." When the interviewer asks Earl whether he shares Scott Hall's view it was a work. Earl first responded, "No," then said "yes."

After the interview was over, Diamond Joe said: "I think Earl is getting old. That's what I think. I think he's old and I think a lot of people over the last twenty years have been going up to him and asking him if Bret was in on it, if the whole thing was a work. And it's finally gotten to the point where he started believing it because he kept hearing it over and over and over again."