Ask The Tart

By popular demand (Miky), here is a v2 verson of my 606 thread "Ask Me Ref".

As stated on the 606 version, this isn't just for people to ask me questions (I do not consider myself to be the biggest wrestling genius in the world contrary to the impression you get from some of my posts!), it's for people to ask questions and ANYONE who knows the answer to provide it.

This is not an opinion thread, per se. It is for those random wrestling musings you may have had but never got the answer to.

So if there's anything you ever wondered about wrestling, and never knew who to ask, go for it.

Edit - KRD. The first 1000 or so Ask the Tart posts can be found here https://www.606v2.com/t28548-ask-the-tart-archive-1

If Hogan and Bischoff could create their perfect wrestler, who or what would it be like?

2. Austin.
He’s widely regarded as one of if not the greatest ‘star’ to grace the industry. Whilst Hogan & HHH are often derided by the IWC for using their influence and power backstage, Austin seems above derision. Firstly what abuse of politics has Austin been guilty of, and why does he not fall into the Hogan/HHH category in the eyes of the IWC?

Hogans has to be Hogan

Bischoff's best Wrestling character he created was Goldberg whn was based as a cross between Ken Shamrock and Steve Austin

I've got a few questions;

An old school heel may rip up a fans sign to get heat, would that be scripted?

Because TNA do 3 tapings at once what would happen if, for example BobbyRoode got injured on the first set of tapings and has this happened before?

With Wrestlemania apparently having a 1.3 million buy-rate what other PPV's have drawn huge amounts of buy-rates, what were the buy-rates like 10 years ago and what PPV's have 'overachieved' in buyrates?

Hope this is the right place for this: who were the tag team partnership in the mid 90's consisting of two hillbilly brothers, and one of their moves was to throw a bucket of slop on the opponent? And one of them became smitten with Sable??

incontinentia wrote:Hope this is the right place for this: who were the tag team partnership in the mid 90's consisting of two hillbilly brothers, and one of their moves was to throw a bucket of slop on the opponent? And one of them became smitten with Sable??

 

That would be The Godwinns. Henry O Godwinn (HOG. Get it?)  had been around for a while when Hilbilly Jim brought in his cousin, Phineas I Godwinn (initials PIG. Hilarious) and the two formed a happy-go-lucky southern pig farmer babyface tag team. They had actually teamed in WCW in the early 90s with the even-more-ridiculous names of Tex Slazenger and Shanghai Pearce. They ditched Jim and turned heel in 1996 (and adopted one of my favourite entrance tunes of that time), and later renamed themselves Southern Justice, acting as Jeff Jarrett's lackeys. When Henry was released, Phineas went on to greater infamy as Mideon.

 

It was actually Sunny one of them became smitten with (I can't remember which), as part of a storyline in 1996 which saw her manipulate various tag teams in order to get her hands on the titles.

 

The gimmick continued Vince McMahon's long-held fascination with hilbillies, and who can blame him? After all, he grew up in a trailor park himself.

We Want Edge wrote:I've got a few questions;

An old school heel may rip up a fans sign to get heat, would that be scripted?

Because TNA do 3 tapings at once what would happen if, for example BobbyRoode got injured on the first set of tapings and has this happened before?

With Wrestlemania apparently having a 1.3 million buy-rate what other PPV's have drawn huge amounts of buy-rates, what were the buy-rates like 10 years ago and what PPV's have 'overachieved' in buyrates?

 

1) Usually when a fan becomes involved in some way, they are a plant. In the case of a heel ripping up a fan's sign, sometimes it will be a plant but I'm sure there have been plenty of times when it's been genuine, especially if it is a promotion or a wrestler where it's commonplace for that to happen (eg ECW). I'm not sure about you but I'd love to have my sign ripped up!

 

2) Obviously it would depend on what was planned for that wrestler for the rest of the tapings, to an extent. If the plan was for the wrestler to be involved in matches, they could change the booking plans and have that wrestler simply cut a couple of promos instead. If they picked up a serious injury that meant they would need to be taken off TV, it could be written into storylines and the commentators could mention it in the following episode. I don't think it would cause too many headaches, to be honest, because bookers are used to changing plans on the fly, and TNA's taping schedule means that there would be plenty of time for post-production and storyline-doctoring. Besides, I can't remember the last time TNA advertised a TV match in advance that hadn't already been taped, so I don't think there would be much danger of a fan backlash if a particular wrestler was absent from a couple of episodes of Impact. The way TNA is booked there isn't one major name who carries the whole show, so I don't think the fans are likely to feel cheated.

 

3) Good question. I'm not sure how much use I'll be though. Until a few years ago, buyrates were notoriously difficult to gauge. They were given as a percentage of the available PPV audience. For example a 1.5 buyrate equated to 1.5% of people with PPV in the US. This itself was confusing, because PPV had grown immensely from its origins in the 80s, so the PPV audience was much bigger than it had once been. For example, Wrestlemania 4 did a 6.5 buyrate, compared to a 2.3 buyrate for Wrestlemania 14 a decade later, but the latter was considered the better buyrate because it was 2.3% of a much larger number.

 

It's only in the last couple of years that WWE has given an actual number, and they now count the global audience for PPVs where previously the buyrate was only calculated from the US audience. It's a pretty clever way of making it look like their viewership hasn't dropped too badly!

 

Having said that, I think Wrestlemania 28, if the 1.3 million figure is accurate, constitutes the most outstanding PPV success for WWE in the last decade, simply based on how much the number of buys jumped from the previous year. The last Wrestlemania to over-achieve was WM23 in 2007, which saw a similar jump. Summerslam 2005, headlined by Michaels vs Hogan, did a big number, as did the 2006 Royal Rumble for some reason. One PPV success which may surprise people is the Invasion show from 2001, which did far bigger numbers than the average PPV, but perhaps that's because the idea of a WWF vs WCW event struck a chord with the casual audience. Certainly the event was followed by a steady drop in business which suggested the PPV was only a success within certain criteria.

 

As for the comparison with ten years ago, it's probably best to compare with the Attitude Era. I think Wrestlemania PPV audiences (in the US alone) were around the million mark or a notch below, while other "big four" PPVs would get something in the 500-800,000 range, and the rest would get maybe 300-500,000 depending on the card. (I'm sure I answered a similar question recently so you can search the thread to see whether my answers are consistent!).

Hi, been following this forum for a while now and thought I'd create an account!

Apologies if this has been asked:

In your opinion, where/how/why etc did the WWE go wrong with regards to the tag team division? How did one of the most exciting and diverse elements of the attitude era become so stagnant?

I may be looking back with a slightly biased memory but even teams like the headbangers, the hollies....hell...even kai en tai and the mean street posse were more appealing than the tripe of today.

The big difference from then (c. 2000) to now is that tag teams were given TV time in order to develop, had regular PPV matches to keep up the importance of the titles and regular tag teams were not squashed by cobbled together mid card teams like Big Show and Khali!

The E&C, Hardyz and Dudleys matches are so well remembered because those guys were given so long to hone their tag team craft. It is a sad reality that if Edge & Christian were in their early 2000 version now they would probably be about to be split up so that an apparently more interesting singles feud could be developed.

For me the biggest disappointment is that tag team matches (whether they have a serious feud attached or not) are probably the most enjoyable matches around due to more participants and the fast paced style. I am not expecting the WWE to be able to go back to that time because all of those tag teams were exceptional and therefore put on great matches.

What I would like to see if more general tag team matches and teams being created. Not to sell PPV buys but because a 10 min, fast paced tag team match is a great way to open a PPV, get the crowd excited and therefore improve the rest of the product.

For me you could have:

Primo & Epico
Ryder & Marella
Hawkins & Reks
Usos
O'Neil & Young
Hunico & Camacho

As recognised tag teams and given that they are all doing very little at the moment combinations of Tyson Kidd, Tatsu, Trent Barretta and Justin Gabriel (when not injured) to make up some numbers in larger matches such as four corners matches.

DonIffy wrote:Crips,

Do superstars like Cena and Lesnar get their own locker room while the midcarders have to share a locker room , can you elaborate on this?

It tends to be the case that everyday members of the roster share the same locker room. I don't think Cena would have his own locker room, or that he would want that. Steve Austin almost always changed with the rest of the wrestlers.

I expect Brock negotiated his own locker room as part of his WWE return, but I might be wrong. It's not only seen as a luxury, but it's also just more practical for some wrestlers, especially if they aren't full time roster members. The Rock had his own locker room when he returned, simply because he didn't have the time to sit around and chat with people. There was a degree of resentment towards him though, and I'm sure there is resentment towards Brock if he has a similar arrangement, but it's not like Rock and Brock have to spend every day with the rest of the crew, travelling from town to town and working house shows, so it isn't particularly important what the roster thinks of them. Triple H and Shawn Michaels have tended to change apart from the wrestlers in recent years, but again this is because Triple H is involved in the running of the show.
 
On the other hand, there is no great need for the likes of Cena, Punk, Jericho or Orton to have their own locker rooms. Obviously if John Cena needs his own space at a show, and finds himself a quiet room, nobody will resent that, but if he were to insist on his own locker room at every show it could work against him and he might be seen as thinking he's above everyone else.

Tag team wrestling has never been considered a priority by Vince McMahon, even going back to more glorious periods for the division such as the late 80s or the Hardys-Dudleys-E&C era. But in recent years, with shareholders to answer to and the need to make a profit every quarter, it's become even more marginalised for a very practical reason: it means paying twice as many people to wrestle a match. If an act consists of two wrestlers rather than one, that's two salaries rather than one. So the WWE has instead gone the route of forming short-lived teams of under-utilised singles wrestlers.

Not that I agree with the philosophy, but that's the mentality behind it.

In the past months there has been an influx of squash matches on both raw and smackdown, would you agree that squashes are the best way to get new talent over and build momentum or would back and forth action with the eventual pin going to the new talent be a better way to put them over? Squash matches have been a tried and tested method in the past but are they still as effective? Wouldnt ryback and clay being put to the test make more entertaining angles?

MtotheC wrote:In the past months there has been an influx of squash matches on both raw and smackdown, would you agree that squashes are the best way to get new talent over and build momentum or would back and forth action with the eventual pin going to the new talent be a better way to put them over? Squash matches have been a tried and tested method in the past but are they still as effective? Wouldnt ryback and clay being put to the test make more entertaining angles?

 

Sorry it's been a while!

 

I am a fan of squash matches and I think their return could solve a few of WWE and TNA's problems.

 

If a wrestler spends four minutes beating up a jobber, with the commentators talking about his personality and his goals and treating him like a big deal, it makes that wrestler seem like a star and it provides the fans with a chance to imagine how he would fare against other members of the roster. If midcarders are all taking it in turns to wrestle each other on TV every week in even matches where wins are traded, nobody seems like a star and there are no dream matches left for them.

 

In WWE there is a group of wrestlers who seem to have faced each other in various combinations pretty much every week since about 2008. Not only that, but we've seen all of them beat each other. Not only that, but most if not all of those victories were forgotten half an hour later. I actually think that so much damage has been done to the WWE midcard that none of the current crop will ever reach the level of John Cena or The Rock or Triple H through very little fault of their own. Dolph Ziggler may reach the level just below, presently occupied by the likes of Punk, Bryan and Sheamus, but I think too much damage has been done in the last few years for anyone outside of the established legends to reach any higher now.

 

I just think that an evenly contested match between Kofi Kingston and Jack Swagger, or Santino and R-Truth, does nothing to get anybody over or make any kind of impression on the viewer, other than "these wrestlers are all evenly matched". Whereas a squash match would allow those wrestlers to be showcased, and - just as importantly - dominant. And it's not like this formula would drive away the audience because I personally feel that it would make the characters far more compelling. How can a wrestler possibly be considered a big deal if he barely wins half his matches? Look at the top boxers; most of them have won about 95% of their professional matches. In large part that's because boxing has its own equivalent of jobbers; competitors who posess a respectful amount of skill but who are outmatched by the big stars. I think wrestling promotions hugely underestimate the importance of presenting wrestlers as winners.

 

Another problem it creates is that there are so few dream matches left, because everyone's wrestled everyone countless times. And it's much harder to make a big deal out of a match, let alone use them to sell PPVs, when they've been on free TV. That is just a backwards promoting philosophy. Why would you pay to see a football match when you regularly see the same teams play each other on the park over the road free of charge?

 

Similarly, wrestling promotions have adopted the mentality that wrestlers need to be wrestling every week. Again, this simply does not need to be the case. Sometimes a wrestler would be better showcased via a live promo or a two-minute highlight montage than competing in the ring against a rival of similar stature in a throwaway match.

 

But I think the most important aspect of all is simply in the creation of stars and building those stars up where fans are desperate to see them compete against each other. I don't think wrestling programmes should be entirely comprised of squash matches, but I do think that squash matches should be a regular feature on TV, and that TV matches between established stars should have a reason to take place and should be treated as a major happening.

If Lesnar hadn't been so lucky with his botched shooting star press at Wrestlemania XIX and had suffered a career ending injury, what would have been the major short, medium and long term impacts for WWE?

Skyforger wrote:If Lesnar hadn't been so lucky with his botched shooting star press at Wrestlemania XIX and had suffered a career ending injury, what would have been the major short, medium and long term impacts for WWE?

 

Good question.

 

Perhaps the best answer is to fast forward a year to when Brock abruptly quit the company in 2004.

 

I think we witnessed the medium-term back-up plan when Brock quit: the elevation of Batista to main event status. It's likely he wouldn't have got the huge push he received were it not for Lesnar's departure. Not that the two were entirely similar, but it may be that they had too much in common to both be pushed as main eventers at the same time.

 

The short term solution was the push of JBL as a singles heel, which came as a direct result of Brock's departure and a thin Smackdown roster. It's almost certain that JBL's elevation would never have happened if WWE hadn't been desperate, and it's to his credit that he did an admirable job of keeping things ticking over in a main event role.

 

Long-term, they had to identify a new wrestler to be "the man". The chosen one turned out to be John Cena.

 

Who knows how different things could have been if Brock had ended up paralised after the botched SSP at Wrestlemania 19, but in general terms I think the answer would have been the same. Short-term, to squeeze as much as possible out of the wrestlers available and try to make the best of a bad situation; medium-term, to build up a new main event monster; and long-term, to showcase a younger wrestler as the face of the company.

 

If you are asking about the really, really short-term of how they would have ended the match, obviously the referee and Angle would have bought Brock some time while everybody worked out how badly injured he was (similar to the Owen-Austin scenario at Summerslam 97). My hunch is that, if he was really badly injured, they would have called the match off there and then. Given that the match was about the two wrestlers' backgrounds and mutual respect, I don't think it would have done too much harm to end the PPV on the sporting note of a concerned Angle helping tend to Brock. The Owen-Austin situation was unique in that Austin was receiving a certain type of push, and having him lose that match would have destroyed his mystique (given the stipulation that the loser had to kiss the winner's posterior). I don't think there would have been the same amount to be lost from Brock-Angle ending with a non-finish, and in a morbid kind of way it may have actually garnered the company some attention from casual fans coming out of Wrestlemania.

I realise how callous the above sounds, but I'm explaining it purely from a WWE business perspective. Of course a match should never continue when one wrestler is seriously hurt, but I can see why the Austin match required a finish from the standpoint of Vince McMahon watching millions of dollars potentially flushed down the toilet.

Crips I've heard a lot in the past about the heat between Shane Douglas & Triple H can you give me a brief rundown of why there's bad feeling between the 2

With HBK retired and Undertaker as good as, who are the head guys of the locker room? We know Undertaker served as judge in "wrestlers court" most of the time and HBK had alot of swing.

Who are the guys who are viewed as the leaders?

Who would you say is the one who garners the most respect from the rest of the guys?

Have Cena and Orton stepped up as leaders? We know they both have alot of say, especially Orton.

Brady12 wrote:Crips I've heard a lot in the past about the heat between Shane Douglas & Triple H can you give me a brief rundown of why there's bad feeling between the 2

I'm not sure about bad blood between those two specifically, but I know that Douglas had major issues with the clique back in his mid 90s WWF stint. The two would have crossed paths for a short amount of time, and, although Triple H was very much the junior member of the clique at that time, he would certainly have been an enemy of Douglas by default.

Given that the two have not shared a locker room since that period, I imagine any issues that exist between them would be very much down to Triple H's loyalty to the clique, and Douglas' hatred of that group.

When Douglas arrived in the WWF in 1995, he'd established himself as the top star in the hottest promotion in America, ECW. However, the clique didn't rate him. A poor match with Sean Waltman early in his tenure led the clique to question his abilities, and Vince McMahon lost faith in him as a result. Things escalated from there; in a locker room beset with warring factions, Douglas and his allies became the number one target of the clique's antipathy. The likes of Bam Bam Bigelow and Chris Candido - who, along with Douglas, formed the triple threat faction in ECW - also had major run ins with the group.

I'd imagine that any heat between Douglas and Hunter is no doubt related to seventeen years of residual bitterness. Given that Hunter is now the most powerful wrestler in the industry, and Douglas is trying to scrape a living, not to mention that the clique are all somehow still alive while Bigelow and Candido are sadly no longer with us, it could be argued that Douglas in particular has a lot to feel bitter about.

Olympic themed question.

Apart from Angle, are their any notable wrestlers that have also took part in the Olympics for their country? I am sure there would be a few weightlifters. Didn't Mark Henry compete in the Olympics for USA?

Bad News Brown won a judo bronze medal at the 1976 Olympics.


Ken Patera competed in the 1972 or 1976 Olympics in weightlifting.

How do they come up with wrestlers names? I know some are obvious where did 'The Undertaker' come from?

Samo wrote:With HBK retired and Undertaker as good as, who are the head guys of the locker room?  We know Undertaker served as judge in "wrestlers court" most of the time and HBK had alot of swing.

Who are the guys who are viewed as the leaders?

Who would you say is the one who garners the most respect from the rest of the guys?

Have Cena and Orton stepped up as leaders?  We know they both have alot of say, especially Orton.

With WWE having much more of a corporate mentality these days, and increasing numbers coming through the company's own system, the locker room is much less like it was ten years or so back.

The likes of Undertaker, JBL, Ron Simmons, Chris Benoit and Bob Holly were products of the territory days, eager to instill the kind of locker room atmosphere and heirarchy they'd experienced early in their own careers. In particular, toughness was valued; when they were starting out, you had to be tough to survive. Rookies were tested, physically and mentally, and there was a firm emphasis on locker room etiquette and discipline. It was considered almost a time honoured tradition for veterans to make life unbearable for newcomers.

Whether their actions constituted bullying is questionable, but management was happy with this system. The locker room essentially managed itself, and these veteran wrestlers were the 'bad cops'.

Now, the atmosphere is a very different one. Very few wrestlers in the company were ever part of the territory era, and those that were (Kane, Christian) have always been known for keeping to themselves and not being leaders. For the most part, the role of locker room leader has been assumed by John Cena, the ultimate WWE cheerleader but also someone who is respected by his peers. Cena fits the mould perfectly of the ideal corporate WWE citizen, he's a leader, and he's got enough experience that his colleagues look up to him.

The likes of Orton and Punk definitely command respect, especially in the way they challenge authority, but generally the heirarchy speaks for itself and there is no longer a desire to make the locker room quite the lions' den it used to be.

TwisT wrote:Olympic themed question.

Apart from Angle, are their any notable wrestlers that have also took part in the Olympics for their country? I am sure there would be a few weightlifters. Didn't Mark Henry compete in the Olympics for USA?

The Iron Sheik represented Iran in Olympic wrestling, I'm not sure whether it was 1968 or 1972.

Mark Henry was a funny story. In the build-up to the 1996 games he was signed by the WWF to an unprecedented ten-year, multi-million dollar contract, the company believing that they had a huge mainstream sports star on their hands. However, he finished last in the Olympics (in his defence, he had an injury).

It is believed that many of the storylines given to Henry in the late 90s (sleeping with his sister, getting Mae Young pregnant, having it off with a trannie) were a deliberate attempt to encourage him to ask for his release. But Henry stuck it out and eventually established himself as a solid part of the roster.

Mackem wrote:How do they come up with wrestlers names? I know some are obvious where did 'The Undertaker' come from?

In general, when a wrestler first meets with management there would be a discussion about what direction each party would like them to take, including name, outfit, finishing move, etc. Obviously, management ultimately decides, but the wrestler's input can alter that direction to varying degrees. Mick Foley talks a lot about the process in his first book.

At one time the WWF would brainstorm gimmicks and keep them on file for when the right wrestler came along. Big Bossman and Mr Perfect are two examples (there is a famous story of Curt Hennig and Terry Taylor both starting with the company on the same day. Hennig got the Mr Perfect gimmick and Taylor ended up being The Red Rooster). I believe The Undertaker was probably also one of these gimmicks.

Sometimes these gimmicks would be tweaked in the first few weeks. Undertaker initially debuted as "Kane, The Undertaker" before shortening his name. Similarly, Earthquake started out as "The Canadian Earthquake". Foley detailed in his book that Mankind was not the original name for his character either.

Wrestler names are much less cartoonish these days, in general, but I'm sure there is still a file with potential wrestler names in it. How else can you explain Michael McGillicutty?!

I watched Wrestlemania 24 last night and my question is based on the Big Show - Floyd Mayweather match.

How careful does the WWE have to be in these situations to not make them look weak when they are trying to look "real"

You look at the size difference between the two and logically is should be a big show win, no matter the rules. Obviously it's pretty much a non starter to phone Mayweather and ask if he wants a match but is expected to lose. Watching the match I noticed that Big Show actually got very, very little offence in.


So the pros of having Mayweather there are the fact they have one of the biggest sportsmen there to pull in numbers and help them become more respected and mainstream.


But the cons being this guy who is tiny comes in and KO's their biggest "athlete", making them look weak to "real" fighting companies like the boxing world and UFC. Also losing $20 million in the process.

They've hardly protected Big Show over the years though.

Yeah I know but whoever Mayweather would have a match with, he would win. Obviously Lesnar comes back from a UFC career and isn't to bothered about losing as long as he is getting decent money for it.

Hey crips, this is more of an opinion piece but I wanted to hear your thoughts on it given your knowledge of the wrestling industry:

In light of WWE's move to a three hour edition of Monday Night Raw and the probability that this will result in more of the audience watching through DVR / Sky+ etc will this see a reduction in the value of advertising space on the show and therefore a negative impact on revenue for the company compared to a two hour show?

Furthermore, in the long term will this result in a move for the show onto a WWE network (if it happens) or merely a general transition of programming away from set time slots onto a more flexible, viewer focused, basis?

Finally, what is the likely effect of this going to be on WWE revenues? Presumably their tv contracts and advertising revenues could be affected but do they make up a substantial proportion of revenue, or do you see them moving to alternative forms of advertising and revenue?

Anything on my question tart?

Whats the best bit of merchandise that you have seen?

Adam D wrote:Whats the best bit of merchandise that you have seen?

Definitely my Kevin Nash wig

UpsideDownFace wrote:Anything on my question tart?

Sorry mate, will try to answer yours and Josh's questions in the next couple of days

Josh:

I’m not sure how regularly advertising income is renegotiated, but long-term it’s definitely true that revenue could suffer from the rating going down. A TV programme with a 3.0 rating is going to get more money from advertisers than a programme with a 1.5 rating; indeed WWE’s selling point to sponsors has usually been that – in spite of a perceived low-income audience – they average 3.0+ TV ratings and attract a strong 18-40 male demographic, something which advertisers covet.

The problem may not fully manifest itself until the Raw contract is renegotiated with USA Network. If ratings for the three hour show have plummeted to the 2.0-2.5 range, Raw will not be considered as valuable a commodity. However, my understanding is that it’s USA Network that pushed for the show to expand to three hours, not WWE. It may be that WWE was fully aware of the potential long-term damage to revenues when the idea was mooted, and could have covered its back.

One thing that’s certain is that, right now, they will be making substantially more money from USA and advertisers by increasing the length of the show. Even if ratings drop 20%, they would still be making substantially more money. But long-term, I think they should definitely be aware – and hopefully they are – that severe damage is possible.

As for how much income they make from TV, recent quarterly financial reports suggest that it is one of their biggest earners, on a similar level to PPV and live show revenue. So it’s definitely something they don’t want to jeopardise.
 
I think you bring up some very interesting questions about the network, and about the future of WWE programming. I think that, until an alternative becomes more lucrative, they’ll stick with a good old fashioned regular TV timeslot. If general TV viewing habits change, they will not doubt consider a more flexible approach, but I think we’re still some distance from that being the norm (I may prove to be very wrong on that front!). After a lot of WWE network bluster, things have gone very quiet recently. I have no doubt there will be a WWE network some day, but I think they have realised in the last few months that the idea needed a lot of tweaking. I’m sure they would love it if eventually the only place to watch Raw and Smackdown is the WWE network, but I think we’re at least 2-3 years from that becoming a reality, and again it comes down to one thing: maximising revenue.

Upsidedownface:

Thanks for giving me an excuse to watch this match. It’s amazing how much Big Show has aged/grown in the last four years.

I saw the match in pretty much the opposite way you did – the story they told was that Mayweather had zero chance against Big Show in a fair fight. Right from the start, Mayweather was trying to run from Big Show; throughout the match he only got an advantage when there was some kind of distraction.

The finish saw Big Show beat up the entourage before Mayweather KO’d him with brass knucks, so it wasn’t even a clean win.

I think they kept Big Show strong throughout the match, and it’s actually surprising to me how much Mayweather was willing to sell, and how much WWE was able to protect “their guy” in defeat.

You’re right, though, that there is a danger in having non-wrestlers – even if they are undefeated boxers – beating wrestlers. The fact that somebody like Snooki can be in a wrestling match and not just be beaten to within an inch of her life, let alone win, does reflect badly on the industry, somewhat.

However, WWE feels the celebrity association is worth the risk. In their eyes, having footage of Mayweather at Wrestlemania on ESPN or TMZ gives the company a credibility that it strives for. It makes the product seem like a major part of current popular culture. They hope that the public will take notice of what a major deal WWE must be to have stars of Mayweather’s ilk associated with it.

As for winning and losing, I think WWE accepts that the public ultimately knows wrestling is staged and match outcomes are predetermined, so it isn’t seen as a black mark against the industry. Certainly there was a time when wrestling felt the need to prove its legitimacy and protect kayfabe; in the territory days, it was considered crucial to maintain the mystique. There are many tales of wrestlers being extremely reluctant to sell for boxers (including an infamous match between Antonio Inoki and Muhammad Ali in the 70s) because they didn’t want to appear inferior. But WWE themselves consider the business to be far more about “entertainment”, and they feel the trade-off is worthwhile.

Cheers Gav, great read.


Another one for you.


Do you the reason/s for Christian making the jump to TNA and then, eventually, the jump back?

Hi Crips.

I would just like to say a massive thank you for putting in the time to answer all these questions.

I'm not really a massive wrestling fan but I've found this thread absolutely fascinating. I like to hear about all the 'behind the scene' news and the different personalities involved.

Is there any other threads/blogs/books etc that are worth a read? I'm not really interested in current storylines and rumours, more about what's happened in the past.

Evening,

What do you think about CMLL trying to get Sarita blacklisted in Mexico? Is it the 1st time they've done this to a wrestler?

Upsidedownface and PledgeX, I've answered your questions in a special audio version of Ask The Tart in this week's podcast! Keep and eye/ear out for that.

Fernando, I'm sorry but I don't know about the Sarita/CMLL situation! You have stumped the Tart...

crippledtart wrote:

Fernando, I'm sorry but I don't know about the Sarita/CMLL situation! You have stumped the Tart...

Slipping from your perch as Mr Knowledge

I shall clear it up their upset she organized her own booking whilst working for them and is now booking her for events they know she's not going to make cos she's in Japan

Long time lurker first time poster so firstly hi everybody!

Couple of questions:

First just watched judgement day 2004 Eddie v JBL was this a blade job or hardway blood? If it was a blade job what went wrong i have never seen juice like that.

Secondly was HBK repremanded in anyway for his 'performance' against Hogan @ Summerslam 2005 and did this lead to any heat between these 2.

Cheers

PS Crips you sir are a legend!

Hey there Tart, such a big fan of your work, keep it up playa!

Quick question for you that I hope you can get round to answering for me. With rumours of a Heyman Guys v Good Guys match at SS, who realistically has history of being a Heyman Guy? He obviously has history with Lesnar, but who else still working in the business, except those tied down to TNA.

Of course they could create some new followers for him, but is there any history of current roster members and Heyman, or even some unsigned guys?

Cheers pal, all the best xoxoxo

am i being naughty by offering an answer?
big show is the main one of the current roster.
also, lord tensai when he was a-train.

he also managed bob orton, so you could tie randy in some how.
with punk and lesnar, that'd give 5 for survivor series.

You would also have guys like the Dudleys, RVD and Rhyno though they are all currently tied to other promotions

what if they brought back Austin as a Heyman guy?
damn his knees.

I didnt know the Albert or Bob Orton links, interesting. I knew about Show, as well as Angle RVD Dudleyz Rhyno. Could be a perfect way to drop the Tensai gimmick. I dont know if they'll turn Randy heel before he goes off filming again, which I think is the plan soon.

I just wanted to ask the tart so I didnt forget when I spoke to him

Heyman rechristened Albert A-Train back in 2002. Him and Big Show went on to fight Undertaker at WM19.

The Bob Orton link is way out there cos it's not WWF, WCW or ECW. It's at the end of Bob's career and during the rise of Heyman's. It'd be really hard to link it to Randy Orton, but for the smarks it is a tie if they wanted to have a 5man team at SS.

I leave the rest to CripT.

re Heyman guys, I think in the case of A-Train it was more of a case of the two being associated to try to get him over, rather than Heyman actually being a backstage proponent of Matt Bloom. I remember it was around the same time that Nathan Jones and Matt Morgan were associated with Brock and Heyman, and I think it was simply about giving them a mouthpiece who could cut their promos while they stood around looking impressive, rather than him vouching for their abilities. He's never prioritised height or muscularity in rating talent. But from an on-camera standpoint, you could definitely say Tensai is/was a Heyman guy.

 

I've always found the Big Show association a little strange, but I think it's partly the case that Big Show always responded well to working with Heyman, and Heyman is known for accentuating the strengths of wrestlers who perhaps are known to be flawed in some ways. He's also an intelligent man with a good wrestling mind, so the two have more in common than you'd first think.

 

Heyman is definitely a fan of Daniel Bryan. A couple of years ago when there was talk of him becoming the general manager of TNA he pitched the idea to them of signing up Bryan with an MMA gimmick and having him run through the roster with decisive victories to set him up as their top star. This was rejected because TNA prefers to push people like Devon and Brooke Hogan.

 

He was also a big supporter of Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Angle and RVD when those wrestlers were trying to break into the WWE main event scene, and going back even further he was a huge fan of both Steve Austin and Mick Foley when they were WCW midcarders. I think it's therefore fair to say he's got an eye for talent!

 

Given the people he has tended to champion over the years, it's therefore probably fair to assume that the type of wrestlers he would rate highly in today's WWE are the more technically gifted ones, particularly if they have good mic skills. At a guess, I would say that he'd enjoy working with the likes of Jack Swagger, Antonio Cesaro and Dolph Ziggler.

Shortnuff:

“First just watched judgement day 2004 Eddie v JBL was this a blade job or hardway blood? If it was a blade job what went wrong i have never seen juice like that.

Secondly was HBK repremanded in anyway for his 'performance' against Hogan @ Summerslam 2005 and did this lead to any heat between these 2.”

1)      It was a blade job, but he messed it up. Sometimes wrestlers accidentally cut a bit too deep or catch an artery and that makes them bleed profusely (it happened to one of the Mean Street Posse at Wrestlemania 16, which I referenced on the podcast the other day). Often when you see blood in a match it is intended to either heap sympathy on the babyface, or to add a bit of extra juice (literally!) where it is perceived that maybe the match itself is not particularly compelling; in this instance, it was a relatively new world champion defending against a lifetime midcarder, at a time when WWE was seriously low on star power. Brock Lesnar, Goldberg and The Rock had just left, Angle was injured, and WWE was still pretty serious about the brand split so the likes of Triple H and Michaels were exclusive to Raw. Smackdown was struggling, and the PPV wasn’t particularly compelling. So by having Eddie bleed, they the goal was to put sympathy on their babyface champion, while also getting JBL’s main event push off to a newsworthy, attention-garnering start.

However, Eddie, who was an experienced pro but was struggling badly with the pressures of being champion, cut too deeply and the blood was spurting out of his head. After the match he was hospitalised, not only because of the blood loss but because he was in a state of shock.

At the next Smackdown PPV, JBL was given the title.

2)      I don’t believe there were any recriminations for Michaels after Summerslam 2005. After such tense negotiations leading up to the event, I think Vince McMahon was probably just happy that he’d carried Hogan to a good match and done the job as requested. In fact, the next night on Raw Michaels cut a promo where he made a number of anti-Hogan references, and he got away with that too. I’m not sure about the Summerslam match leading to any heat; there had been heat between them for years, and they are still not friends. I don’t think it helped their relationship, but they would dislike each other regardless of what happened in the match.

There were serious concerns leading up to Summerslam about what Michaels would do to Hogan during their match, and his over-selling was in some ways a best-case scenario. It was a subtle way of showing that he had the ability to make or break Hogan, without actually sabotaging the match itself. I imagine Vince and Hogan were probably both a little relieved that things turned out the way they did.

Heres a question I've been wondering for a while now; just how DO you know so much about the ins and outs? Its actually pretty bloody impressive.