Ask The Tart

First topic message reminder :

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

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:Why does Fandango make me feel funny in my pants?

I think you answered this question in a different thread!

yeh but I was looking for a more specific reason

?

Korankye88 wrote:Thanks for that crippledtart

another question off the back of that

you said that the rock was always proffesional, Is there any rumours or stories about the brama bull using politics backstage the way a lot of the big names have as I have never really heard much about him backstage

I know that some wrestlers werent happy last year with him for his lack of appearances and being able to wrestle in the main even at mania, but I cant imagine that had much to do with rock and it was more to do with Mcmahon

There really aren't any examples I can think of where The Rock has been known to play politics. I'm sorry if that's a boring answer!

He's by no means a pushover - wrestlers have apparently found it frustrating to plan matches with him at times because he is very specific about what he will and won't do. For example he has always tried to avoid taking any risks, or blading - but he is not known as somebody who would ever hinder another wrestler's career.

I think he is simply a person who is extremely comfortable with his own abilities. He never really had to fight his way to the top; he was a main eventer within two years of his WWF debut, at a time when the company was experiencing its best business ever. And once he got to the top, he stayed there. As a result, I don't think he's ever experienced the kind of paranoia and self-doubt that plagues many wrestlers' rise to the top.

He's also very aware of how big a star he is, and how much of an impact his presence has on WWE business.

I actually think there is another factor which may not be obvious. When The Rock broke in, while the likes of Michaels and Hunter tried to hold him back and sabotage his push, Bret Hart took him under his wing. Whatever criticisms there are of Bret, he has always abhorred backstage politics. I imagine that Bret had a big influence on The Rock's outlook on the business; that it's not just about plundering the wrestling world for everything you can make, but helping to create new stars and trying to make everyone richer as a result.

Crips: What was the reasoning behind the WWE killing off the cruiserweight division?

Last year, Daniel Bryan went into Wrestlmania holding one of the world titles. This year he is heading into Mania holding one of the tag team titles.

Has there ever been another wrestler to achieve this feat (if you wanna call it that)?

Eddie Guerrero was WWE Champion heading into Wrestlemania 20, by Wrestlemania 21 he was WWE Tag champs with Rey Mysterio (although they didn't defend the belts, instead facing each other).


The only other guy I can think of who comes close to this is Yokozuna, who entered Wrestlemania 10 as WWF Champion, then won the WWF Tag titles at Wrestlemania 11 alongside Owen Hart.

I would also add Hogan at Wrestlemania 9 where he competed for the tag belts but ended the night as WWE champion despite not being in the match!

Nice one lads. I will use Eddie Guerreron. I have a mate who thinks he knows everything about wrestling so I will use trivia such as this when i go down for Mania to see if he gets them right.

This is the other one I have. Feel free to answer yourself if you know it (I already do):

Name me the 2 supersars to lose to both of the Brothers Of Destruction at Wrestlemania. I think there are only 2 anyway so I would appreciate a few of you answering this question to see if there is anyone I have missed...

Triple H lost to Kane at 15 and has obviously lost to Taker 3 times now
Big Show lost to Kane at 17, Big Show lost to Taker in the 2 on 1 match with A-Train
Kane beat Randy Orton last year, Taker beat Orton at 21

So there's 3 in total that both of the Brothers have gone over.

Nice one Hero. I only thought it was Triple H and Randy Orton. Didnt realise Big Show lost to Kane at Mania. You have saved me from getting egg on my face. I would have sat there all smug and then been made to look a fool lol!!!

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:Nice one Hero. I only thought it was Triple H and Randy Orton. Didnt realise Big Show lost to Kane at Mania. You have saved me from getting egg on my face. I would have sat there all smug and then been made to look a fool lol!!!

Raven v Kane v Show for the Hardcore Title involving a rather awesome spot through a window and Kane pinning Show after a spot off the stage.

I thought Raven won that one??

Nope, both Show and Raven got forced into some weird case beside the stage which Kane then leg dropped into and got the pin

Samo wrote:Crips: What was the reasoning behind the WWE killing off the cruiserweight division?

I answered this at the end of the podcast this week, and it turned into quite a long discussion. Enjoy!

Probably already been answered before, but I read somewhere that Randy Orton was booked to end the Undertakers streak, but declined to take it. Is this true?

The story goes that the Undertaker offered to lose to Randy Orton at Wrestlemania 21 but Orton declined out of respect for the Undertaker. As far as I'm aware though the story has never been verified.


Kurt Angle has said in the past that the Undertaker wanted to work with him at Wrestlemania 22 and offered him the Streak but for whatever reason the match took place at No Way Out 2006 instead and we got the 5 star classic Undertaker - Mark Henry Casket match at WM 22 as a result.

I've heard that strong consideration was also given to Mark Henry ending the streak too.

crippledtart wrote:I've heard that strong consideration was also given to Mark Henry ending the streak too.

Jeezo that would have been something!


I remember prior to the Undertaker vs. Big Show / A-Hole match at Wrestlemania 19 being absolutely convinced that ShowHoles would win in a lame attempt at pushing the Artist Formerly Known As Albert for the 832nd time.


Seems really strange now looking back at it but that was my thinking at the time!

crippledtart wrote:I've heard that strong consideration was also given to Mark Henry ending the streak too.

I always thought of Henry as abit of a jobber when he faced Undertaker at Wrestlemania, so that really does suprise me. Admittedly since the whole hall of pain gimmick Henry's stock has risen!

The Taker Henry match came a few years too early.

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:The Taker Henry match came a few years too early.

Or Henry finally found his character a few years too late.

He'd have been a serious contender to end the streak if he'd had his current persona seven years ago.

I would mark out if he went back to the Sexual Chocolate gimmick and ended the streak.

A couple of questions about WCW. I didn't watch it as I was young so just wondered about a couple of things.

1) Why was there a match between Eric Bischoff and Vince McMahon that Bischoff won by forfeit? What was the story behind it?

2) Who were rumoured people that would end Goldberg's streak and why was it Nash that they finally went with?

1) Why was there a match between Eric Bischoff and Vince McMahon that Bischoff won by forfeit? What was the story behind it?

Bischoff challenged Vince McMahon to a match via a Promo on Monday Night Nitro for an upcoming WCW PPV

There was absolutely no chance Vince would show up for it, its illogical to expect that to happen, when two companies are going head to head then only a fool would go to the other company for a confrontation, McMahon would no doubt have engaged with Bischoff if it'd been done on WWF TV and not WCW

Also, when DX showed up in Atlanta and tried to incade Nitro, it was moronic of WCW to close the shutters, what would you have watched as a viewer? RAW where it was WWF guys vs WWF guys or Nitro where it could have been WCW guys vs WWF

That was a ballsy move by McMahon which could have backfired spectaularly

Gavin

Where was the match with Brodus Clay and Tensai and the funk girls vs Rhodes & Sandow and the bellas??????

I'm Outraged!!!

Kay Fabe wrote:

1) Why was there a match between Eric Bischoff and Vince McMahon that Bischoff won by forfeit? What was the story behind it?

Also, when DX showed up in Atlanta and tried to incade Nitro, it was moronic of WCW to close the shutters, what would you have watched as a viewer? RAW where it was WWF guys vs WWF guys or Nitro where it could have been WCW guys vs WWF

That was a ballsy move by McMahon which could have backfired spectaularly

According to Nash alot of the WCW guys wanted the shutter up, saying that not only would it make Nitro get better ratings but would make WWF look weak. Especially when he said him and scott hall would go hug there pal HHH

Probably Nash talking nonsense but would have been so good if the wrestlers had come face to face

It was literally weeks after Bischoff had fired Sean Waltman in a power play against Nash and Hall. He couldn't trust them to act in the best interests of WCW.

Those two looked out for their own selfish interests at the best at times, so I can only imagine how disloyal they'd be to their employer if they had an axe to grind and an opportunity to make their point on live TV.

Do you remember Kizarny? If so do you have any idea why he never made it to TV. We saw a couple of vignettes then he disappeared for good. Also any info on what he is doing now would be appreciated.

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:Do you remember Kizarny? If so do you have any idea why he never made it to TV. We saw a couple of vignettes then he disappeared for good. Also any info on what he is doing now would be appreciated.

I'm pretty sure he was only ever employed because he was mates with Edge, so I imagine they gave him a gimmick that was bound to fail so that they could just drop him quickly. He did make it to TV I believe, he lasted about 2 weeks.

That gimmick wasn't far off what he used on the indy scene as Sinn Bodhi, he was last seen on a semi big stage at Chikara, now he's properly in the minor leagues though.

A bit of a weird one (its from my fragile mind) - I seem to recall that Cesaro was once involved in a altercation with the Bogeyman at a house show? I am sure it had something to do with the Bogeyman wearing deer antlers to scare people and Claudio just laughed instead of running.

From memory, Jim cornett lost the plot and slapped him.

Please note that all of the mentioned people above might have been someone else!

it was santino, and jim cornette slapped him about 3 times apparently. which was a good thing cause allergedly boogie man was about to kick his ass till cornette interveened

Cornette talks about it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26uu4-0kxjA

Similar to my Kizarny question I have another one:

Do you remember Phantasio? What happened with his WWF career? Where is he now?

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:Similar to my Kizarny question I have another one:

Do you remember Phantasio? What happened with his WWF career? Where is he now?

That question has completely stumped me! I googled him and found out that he had one match in WWE in 1995. I'm not sure I was aware of his existence before now.

Hes losing it

Master Tart I have a question.

Do you agree with Dave Melzer's 5 star rating for the CM Punk vs John Cena match, at MITB 2011? If so/not, why?

Also your thoughts on what I think is the greatest match of all time, the bout between Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker at WM 25

crippledtart wrote:

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:Similar to my Kizarny question I have another one:

Do you remember Phantasio? What happened with his WWF career? Where is he now?

That question has completely stumped me! I googled him and found out that he had one match in WWE in 1995. I'm not sure I was aware of his existence before now.

Am I the first one to pose you a wuestion you cant answer? If so I want some sort of prize.

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:

crippledtart wrote:

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:Similar to my Kizarny question I have another one:

Do you remember Phantasio? What happened with his WWF career? Where is he now?

That question has completely stumped me! I googled him and found out that he had one match in WWE in 1995. I'm not sure I was aware of his existence before now.

Am I the first one to pose you a wuestion you cant answer? If so I want some sort of prize.

No you suck your 2nd at the least although you can claim a wuestion he couldn't answer

I remember Phantasio, but if you watch the WWE show Are you serious? He was featured on there as was Kizarny.

Looked quite a cool gimmick. Just like Max Moon

crippledtart wrote:

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:Similar to my Kizarny question I have another one:

Do you remember Phantasio? What happened with his WWF career? Where is he now?

That question has completely stumped me! I googled him and found out that he had one match in WWE in 1995. I'm not sure I was aware of his existence before now.

You're not alone, I've got no recollection of him at all

Olly wrote:Master Tart I have a question.

Do you agree with Dave Melzer's 5 star rating for the CM Punk vs John Cena match, at MITB 2011? If so/not, why?

Also your thoughts on what I think is the greatest match of all time, the bout between Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker at WM 25

Here's one I can sink my teeth into!

I have only watched each match once; there is too much “new” wrestling for me to go back and re-watch matches too often!

I watched both matches in similar circumstances, the day after the event, not knowing the result. I guess the only difference is that I was eagerly anticipating Punk-Cena, whereas I wasn’t particularly bothered about the build-up to Undertaker-Michaels (not that it was bad, I just don’t feel particularly passionate about either of them).

Clearly, both were classics. I would put them both easily in the top 20 matches I’ve ever seen. I also think both had minor faults.

The problem with the star rating system is that there is no science to it. In my mind, for a match to be five stars it has to be the absolute perfect match. Perfect matches don’t come around very often, if ever. A perfect match needs to be flawless throughout, it needs strong characters fighting for good reason, it needs a hot crowd that is engaged in the action, it needs to tell a great story that fits the context of the competitors and their rivalry, and it needs every move and every hold to mean something and be perfectly executed. I don’t believe in “rounding up” to five stars; if a match comes in at 4.9999 stars, that’s a ****¾ match in my eyes.

Dave Meltzer is a lot more qualified than I am to talk about wrestling, and I completely respect his judgment. If he chooses to rate matches differently, or show a little more leniency, it’s up to him.

I usually give matches rough star ratings in my head when I am watching a pay-per-view, but it’s not something I think about too much, and I would only be able to recall what sort of rating I gave only the most memorable matches. I have probably seen less than half a dozen matches I would rate five stars, but that’s because I have ridiculously high standards of what makes a five star match. Similarly, I think there are probably less than half a dozen albums I’ve ever heard that I would describe as perfect.

If I was grading matches like exam results, where the top 2% of matches get five stars, the next 2% get ****¾, etc, those two matches would definitely be in the top 2%. But that’s not how I roll!

I would give both matches ****¾, because they were both incredible, near-perfect masterpieces, but I think there are small details which could have been done better.

In the case of Undertaker-Michaels, the botched suicide dive stands out in particular. Not just the move itself, which was badly screwed up (and Sim Snuka wasn’t solely at fault), but the lull that followed as first it appeared the match may end in a count-out and then the wrestlers needed a few minutes to get the story back on track. I would never want to criticise such an amazing effort by both men, but I just can’t rate it five stars given that the botch was so damaging to the early flow of the match.

As for Punk-Cena, my main problem with this is a creative one. I think the match told a great story of how Punk wasn’t quite good enough to beat Cena, and needed to capitalise on a distraction to get the win. I don’t even mind the clumsiness of some of the moves near the end, as it fitted the context of an epic battle. The match itself was enthralling throughout. My issue is that Punk was supposed to be a heel. It’s not Punk’s fault, or the fault of the Chicago crowd, but I think that, as good as the story of the match was, it just didn’t fit the wider story being told. WWE was portraying Punk as a heel because he was stealing the title and leaving the promotion, and he was happy to cheat in order to do that. The story was presented as “Punk hates WWE, and by extension he also hates you, the fans”. But they didn’t account for the obvious fact that the Chicago crowd would be absolutely rabid for him.

Hence I think the match was not perfect. Because, if it was perfect, there would be a complete synergy between the narrative and the response of the crowd, and the crowd would either have been angered by the thought of Punk winning, and furious when he cheated to do so, or the storyline would have been befitting for Punk challenging for the title as a beloved homecoming hero. As compelling as the match was, I can’t rate it five stars because that synergy just wasn’t in place.

Just to reiterate, I absolutely respect the abilities of the wrestlers involved and I loved both matches. This is in no way a criticism of them, merely my own view that for a match to achieve a five star rating it has to be absolutely perfect in every way, and I don’t think those matches quite achieved perfection.

Following on from that then Gav, what are your three favourite matches in history and why?

Sink your teeth into that one!

Are all PPVs going to be on sky box office now?

Got it late feb and since then had elimination chamber, Wrestlemania, Extreme Rules and Payback all of which are box office shows.

Will none be on sky sports now?

Would you rather shag Layla or AJ Lee?

Layla. But would happily do both.

Are there many examples of wrestlers debuting at as early an age on national television as Bo Dallas (22) did recently? What kind of ages do wrestlers usually debut at? And what would you expect in terms of age? I find some of the criticism towards him to be extremely harsh as someone younger than me. He probably doesn't even know dolphins are mammals yet but he's been in a Royal Rumble!

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:Are there many examples of wrestlers debuting at as early an age on national television as Bo Dallas (22) did recently? What kind of ages do wrestlers usually debut at? And what would you expect in terms of age? I find some of the criticism towards him to be extremely harsh as someone younger than me. He probably doesn't even know dolphins are mammals yet but he's been in a Royal Rumble!

I think age in wrestling is secondary to level of experience, I don't think it is a coincidence that the vast majority of wrestlers we see debuting in WWE at an early age are 2nd/3rd/4th gen workers like Dallas, Rhodes, Dibiase, Orton and further back Rock etc, with their parentage they do have a tendancy to enter the business earlier and gain more national exposure earlier in their development, I think it's because of this we get a more of an insight into their learning curve that would normally be spent in lower card spots in smaller promotions.

With the parentage of these guys giving them an easier in to the business it isn't uncommon to see them starting out in their mid/late teens, for the average person entering the business I think once the details like schooling/jobs/commiting to the career choice/finding & financing training, early to mid 20's is seen as a more realistic time scale for them, with anything earlier resevered for the truley hardcore (I read an interview with ROH's Micheal Elgin saying he started at 16).

I'd say a wrestler's prime is a combination of when they are still young enough to be athletic and have enough experience to form a character and work a crowd. For the average wrestler I'd say this would be late 20's to early 30's though with the next gen wrestlers we've seen cases of the likes of Orton, Rhodes and Rock becoming acomplished in their mid 20's, to me this proves that age is only relative to experience, thouse who start earlier will normally become fully formed ealier owing to them gaining more experience at a younger age.

Obviously their exceptions to the rule, with genuine wonderkids like Adam Cole, Noam Dar and Katsuhiko Nakajima, while there are those who will probably never have it like DiBiasie, obviously this is apliccable to those who entered the business later, with some blossoming qucikly and those taking longer to figure it out.

At the moment I don't think Dallas is doing to bad, he's athletic but not got really much special about him, but neither was Cody Rhodes age 23, I think in the next 2-4 years though, if everything I've just written proves to be corrct, we should start to see if he's got a bit more about him.

Following the interview with Zach Gowen, are there any other examples of wrestlers overcoming such extreme physical problems and making it to a major company?

Kevin Nash being unable to move faster than a shuffle?

Enforcer wrote:Following the interview with Zach Gowen, are there any other examples of wrestlers overcoming such extreme physical problems and making it to a major company?

Two I can think of but neither are as extreme as Gowen's

Kerry Von Erich lost his foot in a motercycle crash in 1986 (it was amputated at the time or just after) but still managed to carry on as a top star in World Class and was signed to WWF and became Intercontinental champion in the early 90's with a prosthetic foot.

Flair was told after a plane crash he would never wrestle again aged 26, that doctor needs sacked.