Question

Scott,

I was just watching a "Legends of Wrestling" show where the topic was overachievers and underachievers.  The panel proceeds to totally trash Lex Luger, portraying Luger as a total bust who never connected with any fan base. I mean, I never viewed Luger as a "Hogan" or "Flair" type player, but he was a solid main eventer for many years in both WCW and WWE, and I recall him being quite popular.

It seems like WWE has a revisionist history for everything. Maybe if they had given Luger a clean win over Yokozuna at SummerSlam '93 after an entire summer building him up with the whole "Lex Express" thing (rather than having him win by count-out, then celebrating like he just won the title), things could have been different for Luger during his WWE stint.

What say you?

​Vince McMahon would have sold his children into white slavery to draw the ratings that Luger was getting on top of WCW in 1997, so yes, they're very full of shit.  Luger made WCW some pretty serious coin during their hottest period and got a run with the belt by beating Hogan cleanly.  Not to mention that he did business with Flair for nearly a year straight in 1988.  Granted I've always been something of a Luger apologist, but they're clearly wrong here.  ​