Eric Bischoff Explains Why Lex Luger Was So Valuable To WCW
When naming the biggest stars of WCW, minds might wander to the likes of Sting, Ric Flair, Hollywood Hogan, or Goldberg but Eric Bischoff has now explained just how valuable Lex Luger was to have on his star-studded roster.
To some WWE fans, Luger might best be remembered for the man who wildly celebrated not winning the WWE Title at SummerSlam 1993 but in WCW, it was a very different story for the Total Package.
Lex Luger captured the WCW World Heavyweight Championship twice over his two different spells in the company, the second of those coming at the expense of Hollywood Hogan in one of the most memorable moments in the history of WCW Nitro.
Speaking on his 83 Weeks podcast, Eric Bischoff noted that the value in having Luger on his roster came from his versatility and enthusiasm no matter what situation he was put into:
“What stood out to me about Lex is his gear. When he shifted into a gear and he knew he was gonna wrestle and he had a match or whatever, it didn’t matter if you were downshifting him and asking him to put somebody over or if you’re putting him in fifth gear and putting him pedal to the metal with him. He was equally as enthusiastic about either situation. That’s a very valuable asset in and of itself.
“When you’ve got somebody that you know is gonna draw, you know is gonna get attention, you know you can plug him into a story, you know you’re gonna get what you want out of him, but you can also just, you know, again, utility player is not the right way to say it, but being a great and versatile, mentally and physically and technically, being as versatile as Lex was, I think made him one of the more valuable talents on the roster in that respect.”
Eric Bischoff also recently warned Tony Khan that he sees AEW making the same mistakes WCW made over twenty years ago that led to that company going out of business.
If you use any quotes from this article please credit original source and then h/t with a link back to TJRWrestling for the transcription.