WWE Hall of Famer and former WCW President Eric Bischoff discussed various topics on an episode of his 83 Weeks podcast, including his thoughts on the “always do the honors” philosophy.
Bischoff said, “I don’t believe in that. That’s old school. That’s just country boy stuff. That’s the way the business used to be, and if you’re going to operate in today’s world [in] the way the business used to be, good luck with that.”
On whether he would have ended The Undertaker’s WrestleMania streak:
“I would have left the Streak intact. I was disappointed. It was a golden opportunity to create a Babe Ruth, a character that lives forever. Not that Hulk won’t, or when the time comes Ric Flair or Steve Austin. So many of the real legends, the guys that were on top for a long time, in main events for a long time —- we’re not talking about professional mid-carders that had a 20-year mid-card career. All of those guys will be remembered for generations. But only one could have been remembered for being undefeated, and I just wouldn’t have given that up for a match.”
On why Brock Lesnar didn’t need it:
“Brock didn’t need it. Why did Brock need to be the guy? Brock was already at 100% of his maximum over ness. He wasn’t going to get any more over by defeating Undertaker and breaking the Streak. No, I would have preserved it, especially knowing that you’re going to be working with Mark Calaway in the future. Not as The Undertaker in the ring necessarily, but as the guy that played that character. He’s very active in WWE. So the Hall of Fame is one thing, but an undefeated streak and the Hall of Fame — that’s a conversation piece.”
On the business reason it likely happened:
“I don’t know what the financials were for that. Did Vince feel from a revenue point of view that he needed to put the Streak up as stakes, and really focus on it and then deliver on it as he did with Brock?”
On it being the first WrestleMania on the WWE Network:
“He was hedging his bet. So it was a financially driven decision. And look, you can criticize that all you want, but this is a business. It’s about making money. It’s about making the maximum amount of money that you can. It was a judgment call. So strategically it probably made a great deal of sense in the short term because of launching the WWE Network, needing to make a big bang, and establishing your new network as big as you can right out of the chute. I get that strategy, and it was probably a smart one. But from a fan perspective and a long-term perspective, I think there would have been more long-term value in Mark Calaway’s undefeated streak than the short-term gain that may or may not have been realized.”
On whether a new streak could work today:
“I think it could still work, but you’d have to let more time go by. Doing it too quickly, rushing into a streak, you’re not going to achieve what Undertaker achieved in the near future. But trying to create a streak of sorts, more like Goldberg than Undertaker’s — is it possible? Yes. I would probably wait another year or so because if you do it too soon, it doesn’t feel authentic. It has to be done really carefully so that people don’t see through it and immediately say they’re just trying to rerun a Goldberg angle. You want it to almost come from out of nowhere in order for people to believe in it.”
On what made Goldberg’s streak work:
“Bill worked in his role because we realized how limited he was. That wasn’t his fault, he was just new. You can’t pack 10 years of experience in front of a live audience into 12 months in a Power Plant or anywhere else. But we were smart enough to recognize — at least occasionally — that Bill had certain limitations, and to build his story and his matches around what he could do while minimizing the risks of including things he didn’t do very well. Keep it simple, stupid is about the best advice you could give somebody who’s going to try to build that streak-type story.”
You can check out the complete podcast in the video below.
(H/T to 411Mania.com for transcribing the above quotes)
