Former WWE star Bob Holly recently spoke with Ross Williams, who helped write his book "The Hardcore Truth: The Bob Holly Story." The full interview can be read at this link where Holly talks about The Wyatt Family, Cesaro and more. Here are a few highlights:
Ross Williams: We've got to start with this - what did you make of the deal with Undertaker and Brock? Was ending the streak the right move?

Bob Holly: I think it was the right move with the wrong guy. Brock is a part time guy who wrestles what? Three times a year? They could have used that slot to make somebody who is full time. I think people would have accepted that more and wouldn't have been in as much shock if it had been somebody else.

Ross Williams: The comment one of my friends made, which I thought was quite interesting, was that if you gave the win to a lower level person to try and make him, you run the risk of the audience completely rejecting that guy. If they put over a guy like Roman Reigns to beat the streak, you could have the crowd piss on everything he ever does, you might put a cap on his career.

Bob Holly: I think it would have been good to have Roman Reigns go over on Taker. I think they're moulding their next big star there and it would have been perfect to have him work with Taker instead of Brock. That would have made Roman Reigns. Right into main event status. That would have made him and once he beat Taker, his next thing should have been Randy Orton, Daniel Bryan or John Cena. Go after one of those three.

.......

Ross Williams: How would you have done the match? Would it have been a long drawn out affair or would you have had Roman dominate Taker?

Bob Holly: No, it needs to be competitive. Long - at least 30 minutes because if Roman Reigns is going to beat Taker, it's not going to be easy. That's the way it should be - he should be fighting for his life and pulls out a win. People would have accepted that. I don't think people are accepting Brock beating Taker because of the part time thing. Hearing reactions and stuff, I don't think it's as big a deal as it could have been. If Reigns would have beat Taker, I think that would have been a bigger deal - I really do.

Ross Williams: They got a fair amount of press out of the result. Do you think that was because it was Brock Lesnar, former UFC Champion, beating the Undertaker or would they have got the press no matter who it was who ended the streak?

Bob Holly: I think they would have got the press no matter what.

Ross Williams: So in that case, they could have got Roman Reigns' name in front of millions of eyes - and he's the nephew of the Rock! People will go "oh, hey, let's check this guy out!"

Bob Holly: And it makes sense. Look at who the Rock is, and Reigns is following in his footsteps. It's a good story. The thing to do now would be to put Roman Reigns against Brock and have Roman go over on him. Hopefully he'll get a rub off that.

.......

Ross Williams: Well, they're bringing up a bunch of other people right now like Rusev, Bo Dallas, Adam Rose and putting the spotlight on them, so where does that leave them with guys like Dolph and Kofi Kingston, guys who are excellent wrestlers but never really got used to their full capacity?

Bob Holly: Kind of like they did with me? They're in the same boat as I was.

Ross Williams: I get angry for Kofi the same way I got angry for you!

Bob Holly: Kofi is always going to be doing what he's doing now. That's never going to change now. He's too far gone in terms of that role that it'll never change. Dolph - he's borderline. He's teetering on that - he's started getting wins again here and there but he's teetering on that fine line of that role that I was in and that Kofi's in. That's the nature of the business though - they bring people in and I can't blame them for doing it, they need to know if people are going to be star material or not. They constantly have to make new stars, so I don't blame them for doing it but on the other hand, you have to sacrifice talent that has been there for a while. It's a double edged sword.

Ross Williams: You're talking about top stars - their top stars now... much like 2004, ten years ago, Randy Orton, John Cena, Dave Batista, Rey Mysterio, the Big Show, Mark Henry, Kane... all of these guys are still there and Cena's not going away any time soon, Randy Orton's not going away any time soon - how are they going to get anybody over to that top level? Punk came in, got to the top and then decided he couldn't be bothered and left and part of it could well have been that he looked around and thought "is this still 2005?"

Bob Holly: It's just always been like that though!

Ross Williams: Go back and look at the 80s. Hogan left! Savage left! Warrior left! They weren't around for 10 years - with WCW, you could switch it up and move people in and out.

Bob Holly: The thing is the reason those guys, Cena, Orton, Batista are still there is because they haven't found anybody else to replace them. Punk could have but they're looking for something specific. It all comes down to politics. Look at Dolph. There's no reason this guy should be losing like he loses.

Ross Williams: I don't get it either, Dolph is everything they could want in a top guy.

Bob Holly: Exactly, Dolph has the same amount of charisma as Shawn Michaels. Look at when Dolph comes out - as soon as he comes out, instant energy! He grabs everybody, right out of the gate. He grabs your attention. Nobody will ever get it - the only people who will get it are Vince and Hunter but nobody will ever know why you have a guy who looks good and is a great worker but not up there and you've got a subpar worker up there on top. I'll never understand it.

.......

Ross Williams: What did you make of the Warrior tribute?

Bob Holly: It's great to see WWE do a tribute to Warrior but I question why they only do that for certain people? Only people who've made that company tons of money. It's like, in other words, his life is more valuable than a mid carder's life.

Ross Williams: Many of those people on stage this Monday for Warrior - many of them probably worked with Viscera or at least met him whereas maybe what? 10% of those people on that stage ever knew Warrior?

Bob Holly: Yeah, if that. What pisses me off is that these guys that don't get acknowledged when they pass, they sacrifice for that company, they sacrifice their body, they sacrifice their family, they sacrifice so much to work with WWE and for WWE to not acknowledge people but acknowledge Warrior, that's a travesty to me. It's wrong. They're saying Warrior is more important than Viscera. Every human life is just as important as the other. What makes Warrior's life more valuable than Viscera?

Ross Williams: You feel it should be a rule for everybody?

Bob Holly: Yes, for whoever worked for WWE because you do make a huge sacrifice. It should be acknowledged.

Ross Williams: You don't have a problem with what they did for Warrior, they should just do it for everybody the same?

Bob Holly: Exactly. And they should do that. What they did for Warrior, they should do that for everybody that worked for the company and made sacrifices.

Ross Williams: Did you ever meet Warrior?

Bob Holly: Yeah, I did. He was a very pleasant man - VERY charismatic and intense! That man could sell out an arena! I feel real bad for his family, his wife and children - it's a great shame he died so young.

The more I think about Brock going over the more I like it. Brock is going to do the job to a young guy at Wrestlemania to MAKE them which will give them all of the rub of breaking the streak with none of the stink of ending the legend of the Undertaker. If we get to WM31 and Brock isn't on the card vs. Reigns or Cesaro, I'll be right on board with having him killed.

The plan right now is Brock vs Rock lol.

#ZigglerIsBetter

Am_Dragon wrote:

The plan right now is Brock vs Rock lol.

Dirtsheets reported Steve Austin vs. Triple H and Punk/Bryan vs. D-X. They're not exactly the source of reliable info when it comes to Mania a year in advance...

Giggity Gopher wrote:

#ZigglerIsBetter

God they wasted their chance with him.

Going into Royal Rumble 2013 they could have left the title on Punk (IE, not had Rock challenge for it) and played up his 'greatest reign in modern history.' They could have put the WHC on a big monster (Read: Mark Henry)

Dolph wins the Rumble. Punk and Heyman insult him on Raw. "He's smarter than to challenge him with his Royal Rumble win. He should try his best with Mark Henry instead!" Dolph says "At Wrestlemania, I'm going to use the stipulation of my Royal Rumble victory to beat Mark Henry... (Punk and Heyman smile, blah blah blah) .... but I'm cashing in Money in the Bank on you. Both matches. Both championships."

Then he fucking does.

Not because he's an underdog overcoming the odds of the authority...

But because he's the fucking show off and CAN win both in one night.

Still could have done Rock/Cena. Still could have done Del Rio/Swagger.

God it would have been awesome.

I would've came 37 times if that happened.

Reindeer McAwesome wrote:

Am_Dragon wrote:

The plan right now is Brock vs Rock lol.

Dirtsheets reported Steve Austin vs. Triple H and Punk/Bryan vs. D-X. They're not exactly the source of reliable info when it comes to Mania a year in advance...

Rock's already came out and said that this past Mania it was supposed to be him vs Lesnar

^That. And the fact that WWE values buy rates over anything. It's not shocking at all that WWE would want those two to have a match just to make $$$ off of it.

How would the buy rate differ from, say:

Reigns vs. Lesnar / Rock vs. Sting / Cena vs. Bryan

to

Lesnar vs. Rock / Sting vs. Orton / Cena vs. Bryan

Serious question. I don't see where it would differ much...

The buy rates would differ because of who the two names were. There is a big reason why the last two previous WM's did so well in terms of buys (Cena vs Rock) opposed to this year. And let's be fair, you don't have to be a Rock/Brock fan to understand that both of these guys can outdraw the entire locker room. You may not like it but it's the reality.

Giggity Gopher wrote:

#ZigglerIsBetter

Than Santino? I agree.

Am_Dragon wrote:

The buy rates would differ because of who the two names were. There is a big reason why the last two previous WM's did so well in terms of buys (Cena vs Rock) opposed to this year. And let's be fair, you don't have to be a Rock/Brock fan to understand that both of these guys can outdraw the entire locker room. You may not like it but it's the reality.

I think you missed the point. What would be the difference between Rock vs Sting with Brock dropping the belt to Reigns compared to Rock vs. Brock with, say, Sting vs. Orton.

How is Brock/Rock a huge draw but Sting/Rock isn't?