Tito Santana on Being Shortlisted to Win the WWF Championship Instead of BRET HART in 1992! 

Tito Santana would have been a great world Champion. A lot better than Sid Khali.. Warrior.

agreeed

Uhh...he hadn't even BECOME El Matador yet.

@@manuginobilisbaldspot424 Tito became El Matador in late 1991, he wrestled Michaels at Wrestlemania 8 with the gimmick. Bret won the world title later that year. He was El Matador at the time.

If not for the steroid scandal, I wouldve gone with Bulldog or Warrior as World Champ in late 92

@@Nostalgia9478 Yes, with Ultimate Warrior vs. Yokozuna at WM IX for the title. I heard, that the steriod stuff around Warrior and Bulldog wasn`t even serious. There was some issue, but not a big problem. So he could bring back both in January 93... by the way, Bret was WWF Champion before they fired both man. So the decision was made before.

Well Shawn was vince s toy boy after all.

Bret was big in Western Europe (Germany, Italy and UK being the biggest). When the American market dipped the European market soared.

WWF!!!

There is no chance that Santana was going to get the belt. He wasn't even winning a lot of his matches. That his name came up was more a sign of managerial reservation about putting the title on Bret Hart than it was about putting the title on Santana. Hart failed up to that slot, which is true for other title runs he had. What's true though is that neither Savage nor Flair were drawing much in the post-Hogan era, and both weren't getting any younger. Hart was a gamble with much reservation

@@vannavanity1195 Right. There was no chance Santana was getting the belt it makes no sense considering all the losses as you said. He would of had to of been repackaged. It seems like Vince was just trying to placate him since he was in the company so long and I'm sure they had given him so many promises that Vince didnt live up to. And I agree that Bret, Savage, and Flair weren't drawing however I don't believe it was so much about them as business was down in general in 1992. This was mostly due to the steroid and sex scandals as WWF was a dirty word at the time. Even when Hogan came back in 1993 he didn't draw and the houses were still not making money and he was the biggest name in the business..

@@justinmartin1831The ring boy and steroid scandals were stories that only a handful of smarks cared about or remember. You mean to tell me a bunch of Karen's had no idea that WWF wrestlers were on steroids? Did steroid use ever impact Arnold Schwarzenegger's career or governorship? Did steroid use get American Gladiator nixed from Saturday morning cartoon lineups? The whole argument is absurd, pushed by tone deaf editorialists like Dave Meltzer. These arguments need to be centered on causation. WWF business was declining as of Fall 1989. It was good but still in recession well into 1991, even after Hogan's gaffe on Arsenio. None of those scandals impacted the Hasbro toys lineup. What impacted WWF in 1992 were two things. First, Hogan left. Hulk Hogan was the star. No one else. Even in late 1989, if you look at the B show draws, limited as the numbers are, neither Warrior, Savage, Piper, nor Dusty pulled the numbers Hogan did. Same in 1991-92 with Savage, Flair, Undertaker, Piper, or Sid. B show numbers were about what, strangely, WWF drew on average after Hogan left. In other words, Hogan had a cult of fans, maybe comprising half of those attending, who attended shows. What's weird is Warrior did a better number in January 1991 than Hogan did against Slaughter. But the Hogan Paradox was weirder in that though he didn't strictly draw as much as Warrior did in 1991 when Warrior had a good opponent (Undertaker, Slaughter, Savage), there seemed to be a loud bunch who attended shows just to see Hogan. That fan base was 50% greater than the general WWF audience. Remember that McMahon openly promoted that Wrestlemania VIII would be Hogan's last match. Those fans left after that. In 1993, it's hard to say why Hogan didn't draw in North America. My sense is that a lot of those fans didn't know that he returned to television and that the general product became so different without the glam and without the bodies that they simply tuned out. I think Hogan did draw though when he was positioned to do so. He drew in Europe against Yokozuna. King of the Ring did a great number compared to other King of the Rings. Then he left. Otherwise, Hogan rarely appeared in WWF. I think the LACK of steroids hurt the company though. I'll get to the ring boys scandal Ring Boys scandal was weird. First, no one cared about that. Second, it wasn't unique for the period in a litany of Satanic Panics. Billy Graham got pwned on Donahue in front of everyone for the few who did care. Graham is the Ted Gunderson of pro wrestling. My view is that Tom Cole and Murray Hodgson were male prostitutes whom Terry Garvin and Mel Phillips knew, likely from bus stations where male prostitutes used to congregate in that period (and the 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s). Male prostitution is an underbelly not studied that much, but there is some literature about it. Cole wasn't even a kid when Garvin proposed sex to him in 1989. He was an adult. Hodgson was such a liar that even his own attorney saw him as incredible ans disavowed him. Like all prostitutes, Cole took a deal and sat next to Linda McMahon and Miss Elizabeth in the Donahue segment, sabotaging the case. Like a lot of male prostitutes and the drugs that come with that subculture, Cole died in his 50s of a suicide. I think Cole (and Hodgson) were predators who decided to extort WWF for millions. If you want a comparable case, look at the Franklin Boys Town scandal. The grand jury didn't believe any of the victims. They were prostitutes who used similar tactics. Now, I'm not making excuses for perverts like Terry Garvin and Mel Phillips. What I'm saying is that Cole and Hodgson grossly exaggerated the number of victims and misrepresented the power dynamics involved. Garvin and Phillips were predators. Cole was legal. Wrong as it is, he wasn't a kid. Cole was fleecing them for money and getting paid to sell his story to tabloids until WWF gave him a better deal. Note that Pat Patterson got implicated, and yet Patterson's only crime was being gay. I don't doubt Patterson was aware of Garvin and Phillips trolling bus stops for teenagers. I do doubt that Patterson was molesting kids. The whole case has no real credibility

@@vannavanity1195 I appreciate your detailed response. However, the scandals particularly the steroid scandal may not have completely led to drawing fans away but you can't say they didn't have a negative impact at all. These were scandals that were spread by the media and you can't say it didn't have any impact on WWF business at the time. As far as steroids, it did have a negative impact on several wrestlers as the bigger guys like Hogan, Warrior, Bulldog, Sid, LOD, Warlord, and Von Erich were gone by end of 92. WWF started pushing smaller guys or at least guys who didn't look like they were on steroids and started focusing on improved in ring action. The steroid scandal cost WWF millions and millions of dollars due to regulated drug testing and legal fees. This hurt their business for several years as ratings and house show attendance dipped for years and didn't really recover until 1997. Even if the steroid scandal didn't drive the fans away based on the scandal itself the results of it as far as revenue loss and loss of talent hurt them. The ringboy scandal is not as clear how it affected business but sure didn't help anything. But yes I agree that more of the issue was that all the old stars from the 80s during WWF heyday were gone or at least not in the same spotlight. WWF tried to create new stars but nobody could draw fans in until Austin and Rock took WWF to new heights.

@@justinmartin1831 Thank you, Justin. The way I read "the steroid scandal" from those like Meltzer is that the scandal itself frightened Karen's from bringing their yuppie kids to the shows. I'll be the first to say that smaller bodies don't draw as well. Business was bad from 1992-96 because of drug testing rather than the scandal itself. Zahorian got convicted in June 1991. That was well publicized. Hogan denied steroid use on Arsenio. He and McMahon made enemies with the wrong people for that appearance, but that's a different debate. I'll only say that I think snobs within the elite saw McMahon as a white tr-sh renegade pushing a seedy product, historically seen as exploiting yokels, to yuppie kids. Hulk Hogan's leaving did hurt business then since he had fans who watched only because of him. (I similarly only watched the Attitude Era to see the Undertaker. I'll enjoy the package and the variety show undercard, but the Undertaker was the only reason why I'd watch at all if I tuned out, only to see through his storyline whether I liked the general product.) Business did start to pick up in 1996 but only up to a point. I think the big bodies played a much bigger role in that period. Same with drug testing after Benoit died. CTE mattered more to the public than the steroid scandal did, but I think a much smaller Randy Orton doesn't draw as much as when he was juiced. It's just what the audience wants. I find watching wrestlers tethering at 200 pounds unappealing. People know it's worked. Wrestlers though can sell that they can crush people in bar fights and break a pool stick over someone's head.

Prime Tito from 84 to 88 was tremendous . Great feuds with Valentine, Muroco, Savage and even mini feud with Jesse which sold out Toronto on its own twice . A singles match and return tag with JYD v Jesse and Macho. The Jesse v Tito feud also helped set up the Tito v Savage feud. Then there was the tag title run with Martel which was really good to. Here is great match from first house show in Toronto after Mania 1. Valentine is still the IC camp...Ricky Steamboat is still from Honolulu Hawaii and isn't the Dragon yet and if the camera scrolled all the way up to the grey seats in the upper level you would see 12 year old me in post match orgasmic bliss asking my mom for a cigarette after the match. It was that good a match. Probably my all time favorite matches to this day. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pCV4An7clIQ.html

And that was a horrible booking decision that night. Bret should have won his match to advance and give the fans a taste of Bret in the main event and Slaughter should have won his match to advance since he was taking the WWF title just 2 months later.

@@mikewalsh1189 but Slaughter would have had to somehow lose in that grand finale and they had to keep him strong for that eventual title run.

@@MisterMagicMike Easy. Just have Slaughter brutalize the faces, get in a lot of violent offense and then have him go overboard, meaning attack Bret with a chair or something. Slaughter gets disqualified but still looks like a monster. Hell, he was DQed against Tito for crying out loud in the non-main event lol

To be fair Bret didnt draw either

Yeah, I've heard the European business saved the WWF, hence all the tours and Summerslam.

Bruce said, that Brets drawing power in Europe was maybe the biggest factor making him WWF Champion. Bret was huge in Europe, specially in Germany. The WWF switched over to Europe from 93-96, as business was down in North America. But the decline in Europe started in 1996 too. Too many shows.. I remember a card in Munich, with Diesel vs. Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart vs Steve Austin, Undertaker vs. Owen Hart, Jake Roberts vs. Razor Ramon with only 4.700 visitors.

So were you

He probably should have. Maybe in the mid 80s after his IC run but by 92 he was mostly a lower mid carder and had lost so much on TV, he wouldn't have been in position to do so. They would have had to build him up, repackage him, and start pushing him again because by 1992 Tito was unfortunately regulated to jobber to stars status and by 93 was losing to Damien Demento and out of the WWF.

Tito could have wrestled Shawn Michaels as champ and also reignited a feud with randy savage

Yep.... Essentially just a dark match booked to get a pop from the local fans.

No he wouldn't have lolololol! Especially not in the year they're talking about here. Tito was a glorified jobber at that point. He lost basically all his PPV matches. Take off the nostalgia goggles, he was never gonna be the fucking WWF Champion, get real.

@@dildonius you may have forgotten that Drew McIntyre is a former 3MB jobber. If Vince wanted to give someone a push, they give him a push and arrange to make it believable.

@@dildonius look up Jeff Hardy's first match in the WWF, it was against Razor Ramone (Scott Hall) who was pissed off because the guy he was originally supposed to wrestle didn't show up. He looks like just a jobber but he eventually got the straps.

@@HepCatJack ....Fucking what?! What relevance does that have whatsoever?? Jeff Hardy was literally *16 YEARS OLD* and a jobber with no contract when he wrestled that match. During the years being talked about in this video, Tito had already been in the business for like 20 or more years and his career was literally about to end. The fact that Jeff Hardy was a jobber when he first started wrestling (just like literally every single wrestler in the history of pro wrestling, everyone starts as a jobber) and then became WWE Champion like 25 years later is completely irrelevant and doesn't somehow prove that Tito Santana was ever worthy of being the WWF Champion - especially considering the fact that Tito primarily wrestled in the Hulkamania era and then by the time Hulk left and guys like Bret Hart & Shawn Michaels started getting pushed, Santana's career was basically over.

@@dildonius I remember very well the rivalry with Greg Valentine, how Macho Man 'stole' the IC title from him with a foreign object and the Islanders / strike force rivalry this is decades after it happened. They were some of the most interesting rivalries of the day which is why I think Tito could have been a good WWF champ. Lots of other rivalries since then on the other hand have been forgotten. I really don't care about the opinion of some random troll on RU-vid. Given your handle, you're not someone to take seriously.

I like Tito, great worker, but you're right. He was a step above being a jobber. And had been for quite some time. How do b you build a guy up and make him believable as top guy after that? Let alone put the world belt on him?

agreed, i wouldn;t have minded hennig either. great worker, could talk. i think his back issues and drugs may have played a part in that too,

Tito put on very good matches as well. I had a feeling the Bret Fangirls would get pissed off 😂

The truth is none of this really stacks up and relies exclusively on a couple of booking anomalies: I've seen shoots with Tito before and no disrespect to the guy, but he comes across as loyal to a fault and quite easily 'worked'. 1. Tito's comments clearly depict that they were just going round 'smooth talking' certain guys with the "it's you or Bret" line to keep them sweet at a time where good, loyal, reliable un-roidy workers suddenly became a premium. 2. The whole 1990-ish "push" (if you could even call it that) was seemingly nothing more than a minor 're-hab' as since Strike Force dropped the belts Tito had been little more than a jobber to the stars. If you re-watch SS90, you'll see the finish is an unconvincing DQ which was more about putting heat on Sgt Slaughter than pushing Tito. Furthermore, after Survivor Series '90, there was no notable upturn in his fortunes: Post-StrikeForce - Lost his big fued with Rick Martel. WM 6 - Loss (Barbarian) Sslam 90 - Loss (Warlord) SSeries 90 - (See above - The booking was about Slaughter, not Tito.) RR 91 - 0 eliminations / 30mins WM 7 - Loss (Mountie) SSlam 91 - No match Series 91 - 1 pin / Jobber match - His whole team survived RR 92 - 1 elimination / 13mins WM 8 - Loss (HBK) SSlam 92 - Loss (Papa Shango) >>>> Bret becomes champ a month or so later. 3. That Taker match was essentially just a dark match booked to get a pop from the local fans (at a time before the Taker character had any real gravitas). It wouldn't have meant anything in the grand scheme of things. 4. The fact remains he was already working as El Matador (an absolute jobber gimmick with booking to match) since Autumn 91.... That's a whole 12 months before Bret became champ; between which time Flair (twice) & Savage both held the strap. Tito's record before, during and after was dreadful.... He was barely a notch up from Koko B Ware by then.

Santana had no top spot at Survivor Series 90 any more than the Red Rooster main evented in the 1988 one. Santana got beat by Warlord in a squash in August 1990.

@@airfixx_8952 Yes, Santana's beating the Undertaker in Barcelona meant as much as Bulldog beating Bret Hart in London or the British Bulldogs being heels in Montreal against the Can Am Connection

@@vannavanity1195 the last match was the only time in Survivor Series history where they did the “final match of survival.” With all the faces that weren’t eliminated, going against all the heels that were not eliminated… The only three faces were warrior, Hogan, and Santana… The fact that they selected Santana to be with Warrior and Hogan was not random

@@vannavanity1195 Bulldog win was a big deal due to it being a Summerslam title change, but I get your point.

That's because smarks love martyrdom and affirmative action for midcarders, which is half of what they write about, which is subsumed fantasy booking. They were never going to expand into South and Central America anyway. They couldn't have without rewriting syndication. They couldn't even do it under Guerrero, much less a guy who regularly got beat in minutes on Pay Per Views in the two years prior 🤣

Tito was super over he was a very popular wrestler. In 1992 bret wasnt as over as his fans think. It felt weird seeing him as wwf champ and then when he went to headline mania9 with yoko no one was interested yoko was a rookie basically whom most ppl didnt know and bret was a midcarder still in most ppl's minds...atleast tito was seen as a legit singles competitor who drew as an i.c champ

@Awesome Sauce yeah you right his team did win even tho he got pinned on the grand finale

Neither could be heels, would not be believable.

Bastion Booger.

The rumors are Tito, Bret, Ted DiBiase, Warrior and Undertaker. Warrior was unreliable, Undertaker did not need it, Vince was not prone to putting the belt on heels for to long back in those days…. Truth is, it’s just a show of how bad the roster was in 92… a lot of the old guard had left, just look at Royal Rumble 92 against 93, there is probably less than 10 guys who are in both

My guess would be Curt Hennig Roddy Piper Davey Boy Undertaker I have no proof to back any of this up of course.

1. Bret. 2. Tito. 3. Mr Perfect 4.undertaker. 5. Kerry von Erich. That would be my guess

@@anthonystanek1212 perfect was on the shelf for most of 92 due to back surgery in 91… I really doubt Tornado, as he was unreliable and effectively out the picture by the end of 91

It makes sense on the surface until you realize that it doesn't. WWE has never expanded into South or Central America, and barely runs Mexico as it is. Why would they have made such a choice in 1992? They weren't drawing great but business wasn't catastrophic. They were just drawing on A shows what they were doing for B shows before Hogan left. They were still touring and milking Europe into 1993. They had no reason to reinvest in markets WWF didn't understand

@@vannavanity1195 I think that is ultimately why they decided against it. Like Japan, those fans already had their own style of wrestling and WWF wasn't going to cut it for them. But they were absolutely trying to open new markets with domestic business tanking. To this day Bret is one of the best overseas draws for them, in a way Diesel or HBK could never sniff nevermind match.

@@kevinwillette5161 They were always open to new markets. Look, Bret Hart might have had a period where he was hot in 1992. If you can point to other tours, I'm open. Bret Hart was absolutely not the European draw in 1993. That was Hulk Hogan and Yokozuna. I was in France in 1993 where a spot show of that tour was running in the Southeast, way removed from Paris. Hogan was the promoted one. WWF was touring Europe in 1988 and in 1989 too, well before business was down. The general WWF product was hot in the UK in 1992. I don't remember the story now, but I recall it being that Britain didn't have a deal until 1991. Something like that. The product just got super hot. If you look at the Royal Albert Hall event in 1991, it was the British Bulldog who topped the show, not Bret Hart, just as in 1992, it was Bulldog who won. WWF made similar plans in 1997 with the European Title, One Night Only also being topped by Bulldog. Bret was part of the package but no more than the Undertaker was.

@@vannavanity1195 you're not wrong at all. But you are overlooking 94-96 into 97. Look at the India tours, for example, or the middle east. The European title was created for the sole purpose of being defended overseas because they were planning to spend a lot more time there, but domestic business started to turn around at just about the same time and the title became a joke. Actually to be as accurate as possible and give credit where it's due, houses started to turn around at first during the HBK/Bulldog feud in 96 (why I cant tell you because I thought that whole thing was garbage) then really started to swing in early 97, especially after the Raw reboot and Austin getting hot. By the time they upped the price of PPV in the fall they were making money again and ironically could have afforded to keep Bret in hindsight, though that also could have stifled the Austin era if Bret didn't want to go along 100%.

@@kevinwillette5161 In 1994, Bret toured Japan as their headliner, and they drew barely better than in North America, the company then choosing not to return until 1997 without Hart. Hart failed in Japan, but that was a hard one to pull since AJPW and NJPW were both hot. I think Hogan was the only plausible draw there in 1993 when he went against the Great Muta. As for India, I don't think Bret was the draw there. Attendance was massive but it's significant to me that they didn't return. Why WWF bothered in the first place is beyond me past just getting a TV deal. I think WWF just going there was the draw since it was novel for a poor country that was allied to the USSR during the Cold War. I'd wager that they lost money on that tour but it was money invested regardless for greater international exposure. Same with the Middle East. I'm not aware of any time when WWF went there before that point. The product does the drawing, they lose some money because they don't have as much expendable income, but they're getting TV deals in the hopes that their economy will grow for the next tour. Remember in the 90s, post-Cold War, the was a very real sentiment amongst the leaders in the West that we'd experience perpetual economic growth and a Brave New World for a post-authoritarian world. I think the view was silly, but that was the sentiment - see Fukayama's End of History. You're reconstruction of the European Title in terms of the business model sounds correct - same as my view. Business turned around in January 1996 with the MSG show there. A heel Diesel, a returning Shawn, Bret as a placeholder foil, Undertaker, and Goldust as an underrated edgy character paid off after a few years of creating a dozen stars from scratch (not all of them drawing, of course, but part of the package, so even people like the 1-2-3 Kid). My view on Bret Hart's 1996 contract is unique. McMahon pays attention to his revenue streams. He deals with his CFO - a non-wrestling guy. I think Hart was sabotaged from the start and that almost no one in McMahon's wrestling inner circle knew that since they didn't need to know that. Think about it. On what planet was Bret ever worth what he was paid, then to get a guaranteed job for life for jobs in which he had ZERO experience! You don't just sign on people for road agent or booker gigs, much less for over 15 years, without experience or qualifications. The whole idea is absurd. Bret extorted McMahon on that contract deal - and McMahon knew it. McMahon wasn't going to risk talent inflationary costs like that. Bret had to go My view doesn't require that McMahon be far-sighted. He has always booked in terms of his revenue streams- very formulaic, shrewd, calculated to maximize revenue. McMahon would not have committed a gaffe like "Bret, I'm going to let you out of your contract while you're still the champion." What Bret didn't know is that McMahon was protecting him - keep the belt on him so he can get a deal from Bischoff at maximum value. That was a two-pronged strategy. First, Bischoff would have to eat that cost. Second, ethically, it would help Bret get what he was offered the year prior. None of that inevitably leads to the Screwjob. I take Prichard's view that McMahon felt he could negotiate a finish and that it didn't happen, even if there was an insurance policy conceived one week prior to get the belt à la Wendi Richter. Had Bret gotten his way and business didn't turn around, much of the undercard would have been cut or sourced from Memphis, or wherever he could get a low cost deal. In any case, I don't think McMahon ever intended to honor that contract. He simply wasn't going to allow that kind of talent inflation to occur on a guaranteed deal. He didn't have the money to do that. Some counter that Mike Tyson got paid $4 million. The difference is that McMahon calculated that Wrestlemania XIV would be hot. Paying Tyson that one-time deal was no different than bringing in Muhammad Ali for Wrestlemania I (and Liberace and Cyndi Lauper). The turnaround was palpable. Tyson's function was to get mainstream publicity, then to draw in casual viewers.

i heard martel was on the list too

There have been so many names tossed around other than Tito - Warrior, Taker, Crush, Bob Backlund, Bulldog, Rick Martel just to name few. If I had to guess based on the names heard I would say Bret, Warrior, Taker, Bulldog, and Tito are the most logical.

Not as El Mat though, Tito was over not El Mata, and its not his fault, given ZERO angle in 92 and 93, I mean cmon now.

@@LooseCan88 you have to look at the wrestling landscape in 1991 to see why he got that gimmick.... look what they did to Ricky Steamboat at the same time... he came back in 1991 think he was still in his 1987 spot and would be on a par with Flair as well (given their matches in WCW).... the El Matador gimmick was certainly over in 1991, it just did not get the full push (it should have debuted at Summerslam 1991, and let Tito get a PPV victory over someone like Barbarian or Haku, then build from that).

@@clark82 i agree and well stated info

2 things: - "Incredible"??? That's quite a stretch........ From 1988 > 1993 Tito was a jobber. The early IC run was good, but even his tag title run with Strike Force was because of Tom Zenk walking out. - EL Matador was a crap gimmick, but it wasn't racist. It was just an example of the cartoon world of 90's WWF.......... Who else you gonna get to portray a Matador if that's a character you want to create? Someone of Caribbean descent? ......A Russian?

I wouldn't go as far as incredible. By the late 80's he was a glorified jobber. Nothing against Tito, but I have a hard time believing that the WWF was considering a guy in his late 30's who had been jobbing for 4 years for a title run.

@@airfixx_8952 Very good points.

Vince has childish taste and likes silly wrestling, guy destroyed the business.

That's incorrect empirically. Business did not get significantly impacted by steroids. No one but smarks run these things matter. Business was in decline as of Fall 1989 with Hogan v Perfect. Warrior got the belt but with no fresh opponents, and Hogan didn't really bump up numbers by much when he returned. The steroid scandal was a bigger deal when Hogan came on Arsenio Hall. Business did not drop by that much. Hogan and Flair were pulling 10,000 in a few arenas. Business fell when Hogan left. It's that simple. He still had a loyal fan base who had no reason to watch without him. Look at house show numbers before Wrestlemania VIII. Compare the A to B shows. Hogan did double what Piper, Sid, Flair, Undertaker, and Savage were doing, which was often about 3,000. Audience dropped in 1992 insofar as the company aggregate average became what they'd do on B shows prior to Hogan's leaving - in other words, the fact that Hogan left is what hurt the company. Don't forget that McMahon openly promoted Wrestlemania VIII as Hogan's last match

he said it dropped in barcelona spain

I think people didn't like the El Matador gimmick. Tito was over pretty big from 84-88 , but by 92 not so much.

He was getting something of a push in 1991, and going into 1992 was suppose to go into a long feud with Ted DiBiase, and they had a house show run where Tito was getting the upper hand, but seems like by RR92 they got cold on that feud, and his push was basically stopped after that

Tito would be 40 years old at that point. Just like hogan. So they had alittle younger with brett then shawn.

@@briangoodie3420 Bob Backlund and Bret would have once of the best feuds on 1994, and Bob is 4 years older than Tito. They were never going to give the belt to Shawn right off the bat from splitting from Marty. This is party the reason why Brets 1992 run with the belt is so forgettable, the roster was so poor and they did not know who they were going to have week to week (there was a period in late 1992 where the pushed Jim Powers up the card, brought back Terry Taylor for a cup of coffee, and think even Sam Houston had a short run… just how desperate they were, and pretty much why the likes of Yoko, Headshrinkers and Steiners were pushed so fast once they came into the company

Two time IC champion and world tag team champion, some jobber.

This story is 100% true. WWF where going to take over the Spanish Market and have Tito be the face. They opted for the European market and with Bret.

Tito may not be lying, what’s to make you think that Patterson wasn’t bullshitting Tito?