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

He's actually Good Ol Jim Ross.

I should know, I'm an admin.

Crips....

Was the original plan in 91 for Randy Savage to retire after Wrestlemania 7 or was the 'retirement' just an angle for a face turn & a subsequent comeback?

There is a common misconception that Vince forced Savages retirement onto him due to his age, it was rumoured that Vince wanted to move him away from the ring due to being to old, considering he was only 38, Hogan and Piper where 37 (although Piper was injured) and they'd go on to sign 42 year old Ric Flair dispells that theory

The truth is Savage had a long standing knee injury, he was due to go in and get it repaired in 1990 but was led to believe he was going to be involved in the World Title match at WrestleMania VII so worked on, plans changed and when the title was moved away from Warrior/Savage feud they worked in the retirement angle to allow him the time off he would require, given that The Macho Man/King had been the company workhorse since 85/86 and had very little time off other than the annuel post WrestleMania 'off season' he was granted the time off with McMahon's blessing (although he still worked the overseas tour after his defeat to Warrior

There's also belief although impossible for me myself to prove that he and Elizabeth wanted to start a family and would require more time off to do that, which would coincide with him recovering from whatever plan of action they'd take on his knee

Legend has it that the original plan to get him reinstated would be for Warrior to make the save at the wedding party instead of Sid and since Warrior retired Savage he would be the one to ask Jack Tunney to reinstate him

Thanks pal, excellent response as always

No worries mate, that's my kinda question

I altered a bit and added some info I forgot by the way

Yeah just noticed the new bit. Interesting that he worked the overseas tour after Wrestlemania wonder how that was explained to the live audience, although I guess they weren't complaining

I remember watching one of the matches on an old VHS, I'm sure he faced Rick Martel, anyway from what I remember Sean Mooney and Alfred Hayes said it was his farewell match as he was contractually obligated to appear...I think, mind might be playing tricks on me

My mind and memory is scarily good by the way, I even got the commentators right

Just searched YouTube for Savage Martel 91 and got this http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MRZOw3BWRKE&api_format=3&vndel=watch

Amazing memory! Equally memorable footage, never seen or heard about this match, although when you said World Tour I expected that UK Rampage event from 91, not something that looked like a Superstars taping. Mooney & Hayes were very unrated summarisers back in the day. Remember that Battle Royal from The Royal Albert Hall around this time I'm pretty sure The British Bulldog won it(surprise, surprise!)

This was around the time I first discovered wrestling I remember my first experience of Superstars on Friday night was when Bossman was attacked by the Nasty Boys & tied in the ropes so the Mountie could stick the cattle prod into him... If only a return to the good old days

Yeah I was sure it was an over seas tour, either like the UK Rampage they did that year or the European tour they did in 89 when Savage/Hogan headlined every event, I was disappointed when they said it was in Vegas...I'm still counting that as a win though

They did a US Rampage too though, I'm guessing this was the US Rampage, or I might just be clutching at straws

I liked Mooney and Heyes, Mooney was like Michael Cole back in the day but without the need to go over the top, he was clear, imformative and a decent straight guy, Heyes could be a little eccentric but you always felt he got the match or at least the Wrestlers over, which has to be the main focus of any announcer

I had that Royal Albert Hall VHS years ago, it was on an ordinary tape though so I'm guessing it was on SKY, yeah Bulldog won it, pretty sure it wass a 40 man battle royal, the only other thing I remember was the Nasty Boys beat The Rockers....canny beat a good Cattle Prod, excellent

I've always liked Chris Jericho but never been overly sold on Y2J as a top main event guy, he was given a massive opportunity post invasion to become the first ever undisputed world heavy weight champion. With The Rock off to Hollywood and Stone Colds injuries Jericho beat them both on the same night, a huge achievement but something that has always bothered me...I didnt actually think Jericho was that over at the time, why was he given this opportunity and who else could/should have been in that spot

MtotheC wrote:I've always liked Chris Jericho but never been overly sold on Y2J as a top main event guy, he was given a massive opportunity post invasion to become the first ever undisputed world heavy weight champion. With The Rock off to Hollywood and Stone Colds injuries Jericho beat them both on the same night, a huge achievement but something that has always bothered me...I didnt actually think Jericho was that over at the time, why was he given this opportunity and who else could/should have been in that spot

It's funny because I remember at the time Jericho was something of an internet darling and I was delighted when they gave him the undisputed title. I thought he'd finally made it to the top. By the end of that title reign I think he'd been marked down forever as someone who would never quite reach the elite level.

In hindsight, he wasn't as good as my 21 year old self thought he was. Clearly he was, and still is, an extremely talented and versatile performer. But I think that, especially back then, he didn't really carry himself like a top star. He was a bit too light hearted in everything he did. He wasn't serious enough. He was good as a cool but plucky underdog babyface but he was nowhere near the level of others on the roster at that time. He didn't have that aura about him that Austin, Rock, Undertaker and Triple H had; he also wasn't great in the ring. He was very athletic and high flying but his psychology wasn't particularly good. He didn't wrestle in a way where it looked like he was hurting his opponents. It all looked too light and soft. He had lots of catchphrases, and undoubted charisma, and he was an entertaining part of the WWF, but he didn't feel like a top star.

When the WWF put him over The Rock and Austin in the same night, it should have felt like a huge deal, but it didn't. For me, it was the first example of something we'd see many times for years afterwards: the apologetic push. The push that says 'We don't really believe in this wrestler, but a few people have demanded we push him, so here you go'. The fans were given no reason to take Jericho seriously as champion; he was presented as a complete fluke who was nowhere near the level of Rock, Austin etc in any way. Despite all his other drawbacks, I think this was the main factor that ensured his run was doomed to failure. It also didn't help that his reign was then used to get over the on-screen bickering between Triple H and Stephanie. It was clear at the time and it's clear looking back that some of the things they did in their Wrestlemania buildup were deliberately designed to emasculate Jericho. Sadly, they were succesful in that.

I actually think the Jericho character of the late 2000s could have made that title run work, but the 2001 character didn't have a chance; it was just too similar to the wacky midcard WCW Jericho. The red highlights didn't help either!

As for who would be better options, I think the whole situation was a mess by that point anyway. The invasion angle had been hotshotted, and it had bombed. WCW was shorn of what remaining credibility it had left, so the WCW title was worthless anyway, and it had no real link to the old promotion any more considering that The Rock had never wrestled there and Jericho - who had never been a main event act in his time there - was very much established as a WWF act.

If I had to make the best out of that bad situation, I'd have kept the WCW title on Booker T right from the start of the invasion. The announcement of a title unification match could then have pitted Booker, the closest thing the WWF had to a main event WCW guy at that time, against perennial WWF champion Steve Austin, who he'd been feuding with throughout the invasion angle without the two having faced each other in a one on one match. In an ideal world, Austin's heel turn of 2001 would also have never happened, but I'm reluctant to go back and change too much as that would defeat the point of the question!

As for who else I'd have chosen to elevate ahead of Jericho at that time, clearly RVD was crazily over. I think the WWF could have made a lot of money out of him, by accentuating what made him unique. But it wasn't the right time and place for him; late 2002 was the time when I think they missed the boat there. I think serious damage had been done to Angle by that point, but if I could rewind a few months I'd have never turned him babyface and given him more of an edge as a heel. I think his rushed face turn and sudden change back to a heel again was really damaging, and it took him years to really find the right character again. And, for all his qualities, I believe that's why he was never really a draw.

For all the faults I mentioned, Jericho would certainly have made the shortlist, but I just don't see how he, Angle or RVD would have suited the role of heel WCW champion as well as Booker did. I think that, given the context of the match, Booker would have been the best bet, and Austin should have gone over him to "prove the WWF was better", and set up a face vs face match with Triple H at wrestlemania 18.

I would have then spent 2002 trying to find the right niche for Jericho, RVD, Angle and Booker (and Brock Lesnar, of course) with the aim of building them all up to be the next level of main eventers.

Excellent take on the Jericho title run, "the apologetic push" if that's not coined get it coined because its one of the most accurate phrases I've heard and sums up many pushes of guys the fans like but not always the office

Looking back and knowing how much Vince liked to build things and given that the competition was now dead I can't believe they rushed the undisputed Championship of the World, this was what long time fans had wanted to see for 20 odd years and many younger fans had dreamed about since 1996 when WCW brought their A-game

Knowing now that Vince was in talks with the nWo to bring them in early 2002 I've always felt that they should have held the WCW Title up for some reason for the 2002 Royal Rumble, given it was the 10 year anniversary since the last time the World Title was at stake in the Rumble would have also given Vince the excuse to do this...

I'd have liked to have seen the nWo debut during that Rumble and have Hogan win the WCW Title on his first night back in the WWF, I'd have kept the WWF Title on Steve Austin and then had the match up everyone wanted to see, Austin vs Hogan to Unify the World Titles in the Main Event of WrestleMania, I felt this would have been a far more appropriate way to combine these Titles with the two biggest draws in history on either side vying for the right to be The best ever

I know there were some contractual issues but given the nWo were back a few weeks later I think it could have been resolved, I also feel that Hogan would have been more than happy to do business for Austin at Mania if he knew he was coming back in to win the Rumble and the Title and the Main event spot at WrestleMania

Only trouble there KF is that Austin didn't want to do business with Hogan, hence why we ended up the Hogan versus the Rock at Wrestlemania 18. Maybe with the Undisputed title on the line Stone Cold would have changed his tune though.

Yeah I knew that, I was thinking that if it were Austin as the WWF Champ vs Hogan as the WCW Champ and for it to be the Unification match Austin would have had no choice but to take one for the team although he'd be the one being Championed as the hero so it'd hardly have hurt his character, infact I think it would have been the icing on the cake for the Stone Cold character

Punk's 414+ day title reign got me wondering about ranking title runs. Are there any statistics for the number of successful TV/PPV title defences within a reign?

I am interested in the light of Punk's comments of his reign against Sammartino etc... has CM Punk had more successful title defences in his reign than any other superstar yet or not?

Tart, Tartus, you big smelly retart, with TNA getting all romantic I wondered how many weddings have been planned and aired on TV in wrestling? I dont want to look myself and you're a genius n all.

There's been a a lot of talk recently about how TNA could be doing more to recruit from the indy scene but does anyone know what the pay and general working schedule of a top indy performer are compared to that of an average TNA performer?

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:Tart, Tartus, you big smelly retart, with TNA getting all romantic I wondered how many weddings have been planned and aired on TV in wrestling? I dont want to look myself and you're a genius n all.

Nine

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:There's been a a lot of talk recently about how TNA could be doing more to recruit from the indy scene but does anyone know what the pay and general working schedule of a top indy performer are compared to that of an average TNA performer?

It would depend on a number of factors but generally I think a top name Indy wrestler would earn more than a lot of TNA wrestlers.

TNA's top stars are on decent money. It's believed Sting's contract is worth around half a million dollars a year. That's way more than anyone can conceivably earn on the Indy scene (if John Cena worked an Indy show every night for a year he would earn more than that, but that's not realistic). AJ Styles earns, I believe, somewhere in the region of $300k.

It's once you get to that area of the midcard that isn't populated by ex WWE names or long term main eventers that things become a little more comparable. There are wrestlers in TNA who are on substantially less than a hundred grand, definitely. Jesse Neal once infamously said that he was earning so little he was claiming food stamps (although this later turned out to be an exaggeration).

The amount an Indy wrestler can earn varies hugely depending on not only their popularity and fame, but how long they've been on the independent scene, how often they wrestle, what stage they are at in their career (is it someone like John Morrison who has name value and hasn't yet peaked, a nostalgia act like X-Pac, or an "indy darling" like Jack Evans), how many other options they've got, how much they are likely to add to the gate, and numerous other factors. If John Cena left WWE tomorrow, he could name his price. But if Rey Mysterio, who has probably outstayed his WWE welcome by a couple of years, and is not the same spectacular, ground-breaking worker he was in the 90s, were to hypothetically fail a third wellness test and find himself unemployed and unable to go back to WWE, he'd be able to charge a lot less that he might have done five or ten years ago.

It also depends on how much money the promoter has got, how much he wants to make a profit or whether the event is more of a vanity project; many an Indy promoter has been willing to make a loss in order to be the toast of the town because they managed to put together a star studded wrestling card.

Mainly though, it comes down to the classic rule of supply and demand, and timing.

I think it's certainly fair to say that there are a handful of wrestlers on the independent scene who can charge on average $2000 for an appearance. If they worked two nights a week, fifty weeks of the year, that would come to $200k for two days' work each week, without having to answer to a boss and without having to represent a promotion by doing media and meet-and-greets, and knowing that any merchandise sales go straight into your own pocket. And two hundred grand is definitely a lot more than a lot of people make in TNA. In fact I would guess that there are a couple of wrestlers quite near the top of the card in TNA who barely make that much.

However, TNA offers the security of a guaranteed income without having to book your own dates. In addition, the potential amount of money that can be made in TNA is much higher than on the indy scene; it's not unimaginable that the company could experience a big improvement in business and its top wrestlers could end up earning a million dollars a year. So the whole thing is a balancing act. Certainly, the indy scene does not offer the security that a guaranteed contract offers, and neither does it present the same potential to earn a lot more.

I'm sure The Young Bucks mentioned that they had to get out of TNA because they where losing a lot of potential earnings by not working the indy scene, while they accepted they'd make less in TNA, they only made bare minimum if they weren't used on TV and they said they could make far more doing their own bookings

JoshSansom wrote:Punk's 414+ day title reign got me wondering about ranking title runs. Are there any statistics for the number of successful TV/PPV title defences within a reign?

I am interested in the light of Punk's comments of his reign against Sammartino etc... has CM Punk had more successful title defences in his reign than any other superstar yet or not?

Punk was definitely being facetious; as a student of the industry, he knows and respects that the likes of Flair, Bruno and Hogan (and indeed "Superstar" Billy Graham!) worked extremely hard and demanding schedules, and I have absolutely zero doubt that his boasts were merely part of his act as a deluded heel.

The comment about Bruno only wrestling once a month in MSG was a reference to the WWWF's big monthly shows at their home arena in New York. What he didn't mention was the monthly shows at Philadelphia, Baltimore, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Boston and Washington DC!

I don't know of any statistics relating to the number of title defences in the company's history. I'm pretty sure Punk is nowhere near the top yet though. In his reign he has made, what, maybe a dozen PPV defences and perhaps another half dozen on TV. In addition, he probably averages three defences each week at house shows. I would guess he's defended the title more than a hundred times, but not more than two hundred times.

I don't know what Bruno's exact schedule was, but I know he drove a hard bargain and he had a lot of negotiating leverage because he was such a huge draw as champion. It may very well have been that, particularly during his latter years as champion, he was more selective about the dates he worked. Certainly though, during the era in which he wrestled it was far from unusual to wrestle over three hundred dates in a year. The current WWE schedule, while not ideal, is nowhere near as gruelling (and the lifestyle and general conditions much safer) as during the territory days, or the 80s.

Ric Flair, for example, famously worked almost every night at his peak, often as the defending NWA champion. Given the number of reigns he had and the fact he wrestled well over three hundred nights a year, I think it's fair to say he would have easily defended the title over a thousand times, if not several thousand times.

In fact, if I was putting money on it, I would bet that Flair almost certainly holds the record for most world title defences in the US over the last 30 years, if not ever.

Question!
When Glen Jacobs debuted as Isaac Yankem, Jerry Lawler had teased that a former Superstar would be returning to rid WWF of Bret Hart. Was there ever a former Superstar lined up and the deal fell through? If not, why did WWF go with the "returning Superstar" angle in the first place?

I'm almost positive I remember reading Shane Douglas was the original guy they planned to go with for Isaac Yankem, I don't think they had him signed by the time time they had to introduce the character so Glen Jacobs got the gig, Dustin Rhodes was another guy they where in talks with at the time and he was put forward as well but I don't believe he was ever truly in the running for that particular role

Watching WM26 and like so many others someone came out and announced an attendance record (what are the chances eh)

Now i know that these attendances are often exaggerated (unless there really were 93000 at WM3)

My question is do you have a list of the claimed attendances and the actual attendances for mania's or have any idea where one might obtain this information?

Kay Fabe wrote:I'm almost positive I remember reading Shane Douglas was the original guy they planned to go with for Isaac Yankem, I don't think they had him signed by the time time they had to introduce the character so Glen Jacobs got the gig, Dustin Rhodes was another guy they where in talks with at the time and he was put forward as well but I don't believe he was ever truly in the running for that particular role

Cheers Kayfabe!
Ok, that leads me to a follow up. If Shane Douglas was meant to be Isaac Yankem, was the Dean Douglas character an after thought, or was THAT character going to be for Glen Jacobs?! Dean Jacobs. Did they perform the ol' switch-a-roo?

Kid Vicious wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:I'm almost positive I remember reading Shane Douglas was the original guy they planned to go with for Isaac Yankem, I don't think they had him signed by the time time they had to introduce the character so Glen Jacobs got the gig, Dustin Rhodes was another guy they where in talks with at the time and he was put forward as well but I don't believe he was ever truly in the running for that particular role

Cheers Kayfabe!
Ok, that leads me to a follow up. If Shane Douglas was meant to be Isaac Yankem, was the Dean Douglas character an after thought, or was THAT character going to be for Glen Jacobs?! Dean Jacobs. Did they perform the ol' switch-a-roo?

Is that a Seinfeld reference. If it is, well done sir!

Adam D wrote:

Kid Vicious wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:I'm almost positive I remember reading Shane Douglas was the original guy they planned to go with for Isaac Yankem, I don't think they had him signed by the time time they had to introduce the character so Glen Jacobs got the gig, Dustin Rhodes was another guy they where in talks with at the time and he was put forward as well but I don't believe he was ever truly in the running for that particular role

Cheers Kayfabe!
Ok, that leads me to a follow up. If Shane Douglas was meant to be Isaac Yankem, was the Dean Douglas character an after thought, or was THAT character going to be for Glen Jacobs?! Dean Jacobs. Did they perform the ol' switch-a-roo?

Is that a Seinfeld reference. If it is, well done sir!

Haha, maybe!

Kid Vicious wrote:

Kay Fabe wrote:I'm almost positive I remember reading Shane Douglas was the original guy they planned to go with for Isaac Yankem, I don't think they had him signed by the time time they had to introduce the character so Glen Jacobs got the gig, Dustin Rhodes was another guy they where in talks with at the time and he was put forward as well but I don't believe he was ever truly in the running for that particular role

Cheers Kayfabe!
Ok, that leads me to a follow up. If Shane Douglas was meant to be Isaac Yankem, was the Dean Douglas character an after thought, or was THAT character going to be for Glen Jacobs?! Dean Jacobs. Did they perform the ol' switch-a-roo?

I've got no idea although from what I read that at that actual time Vince was a big fan of Jacobs thus why he was used so regularly in various roles and if the Kane character fizzled out which was the expected plan, Jacobs would probably have been repackaged later down the line

The biggest travesty in the history of the sport of professional wrestling is that a larger audience didn't get to witness Glen Jacobs as the Christmas Creature.

shortnuff wrote:Watching WM26 and like so many others someone came out and announced an attendance record (what are the chances eh)

Now i know that these attendances are often exaggerated (unless there really were 93000 at WM3)

My question is do you have a list of the claimed attendances and the actual attendances for mania's or have any idea where one might obtain this information?

Well, you could get the claimed attendances easily enough (Wikipedia for a start!). As for the actual attendances, I think it'd be pretty much impossible to get hold of those. Even to this day there is great debate about the WM3 attendance, indeed some people claim the 93k figure could actually be legit.

I think the actual attendances, and the accuracy of those claimed, may forever remain a mystery.

How did Teddy Long go from Referee to being Smackdown GM for what seemed like forever.

I think in a non kayfabe sense he has some very incriminating photos of Vince McMahon

Haha I did mean in a non kayfabe sense. Would the plan have been for him to eventually be an on screen character or did someone see something in him that could be used on tv?

This is probably a tenuous wresting question, but do other big events work around WrestlMania, eg NASCAR look to see when not to hold the Daytona 500 (on Oscar night etc)?

I know in America that a lot of dates are set in stone on a yearly basis, so I just wondered if WrestleMania date is as respected like the date for the Oscars, or Grammys or other big events.

Has Tart stopped answering questions now?

BD21 wrote:Has Tart stopped answering questions now?

No he hasn't. Sorry, I've been a bit busy recently!

No worries. It's not your job to answer these questions. Just not usually waited this long for a response

Whoah, dont go easy on him BD21. It is his job to answer these questions. He started this thread!! I demand that he answers every question within a 24 hour turnaround. Everything else in his life should be dropped to satisfy our curiosity! He made his bed so now he has to lie in it.

I demand to know within 24 hours how many hours Ric Flair has wrestled inside a ring throughout his career! Clock is ticking crippledtart...

Miz NG wrote:This is probably a tenuous wresting question, but do other big events work around WrestlMania, eg NASCAR look to see when not to hold the Daytona 500 (on Oscar night etc)?

I know in America that a lot of dates are set in stone on a yearly basis, so I just wondered if WrestleMania date is as respected like the date for the Oscars, or Grammys or other big events.

I don’t think it would affect the likes of the Grammys or the Oscars, unless it was in the same city. It’s part of the culture, but it’s not like the country stands still for Wrestlemania.

It’s a big thing for the city it takes place in, as an event that pulls in 50,000+ spectators plus maybe a few others who just want to be in town that weekend. Obviously in New York/New Jersey that makes less of a dent than in other places, but it’s still a sizeable public gathering. 90,000 spectators at Metlife Stadium will have a huge effect on public transport, for example. I know the Knicks are playing at MSG the night before the Hall of Fame, and the latter would have been booked first, but basketball fixtures are pretty flexible; it wouldn’t be viewed as unusual that they are playing on a Friday night (it’s not the equivalent of moving Chelsea out of Stamford Bridge on a Saturday at 3pm!).

I’m not sure whether NASCAR would bear it in mind. My feeling would be that they probably wouldn’t pay attention to it unless there was an actual incident where the scheduling clashed and their viewership was affected as a result. I don’t think they would take notice of it otherwise, or try to avoid clashing.

Even UFC, which is far more of a competitor to WWE, had a PPV the night before Wrestlemania 26, with buyrates indicating WWE suffered far more than UFC.

I think competitors would be far more concerned about avoiding a clash with Raw than with Wrestlemania, given the size of the audience for each. And, as we know, the NFL doesn’t seem to mind going head-to-head on a regular basis.

BD21 wrote:How did Teddy Long go from Referee to being Smackdown GM for what seemed like forever.

He started out in the NWA (later WCW) in the late 80s, first as a referee and then a manager. My guess is that, like a lot of referees, he got into the business because he wanted to be a performer and ended up falling into it. Presumably he was a good enough employee and showed enough personality that management decided to try him out as an on-air performer, and he did a pretty good job as the manager of Doom.

When he went to the WWF they would have been aware of his background and credentials, and when a roster spot opened for a heel manager, he was an obvious candidate. In this role he showed his ability on the mic despite being given plenty of dross to work with.

I presume he got the Smackdown GM role initially because a) WWE was pleased with his mic work as a manager and b) WWE doesn’t care about Smackdown too much, and didn’t want to “waste” other non-wrestling characters such as Vince McMahon and Eric Bischoff on the B Show.

I think Teddy has made a good career for himself by grasping opportunities when they’ve been presented to him. I like the fact that he plays a supporting role where his job is not to talk about himself a la Vince, Bischoff and John Laurenaitis, but to put over the storylines and the wrestlers as a secondary character.

Is it true the rock and michaels never worked together properly because michaels tried to get him fired and also disrespected his mother.

I don't know how much truth is in this, I know they briefly worked together when the rock was in the corporation and michaels had some kind of authority on screen (gm or whatever they were calling it then

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:Whoah, dont go easy on him BD21. It is his job to answer these questions. He started this thread!! I demand that he answers every question within a 24 hour turnaround. Everything else in his life should be dropped to satisfy our curiosity! He made his bed so now he has to lie in it.

I demand to know within 24 hours how many hours Ric Flair has wrestled inside a ring throughout his career! Clock is ticking crippledtart...

BTW I added a winkey smiley emoticon to this to imply I was joking but for some reason they dont appear to be going through when I post. So I apologise if you though I was being serious.

Too late, you're now on my enemies list.

Why does Fandango make me feel funny in my pants?

crippledtart wrote:Too late, you're now on my enemies list.

You havent puy a smiley emoticon to insinuate that you are joking!!!! I am now worried...

Korankye88 wrote:Is it true the rock and michaels never worked together properly because michaels tried to get him fired and also disrespected his mother.

I don't know how much truth is in this, I know they briefly worked together when the rock was in the corporation and michaels had some kind of authority on screen (gm or whatever they were calling it then

There is definitely some truth to the rumours that they didn’t particularly get on. I’m not sure about Michaels disrespecting his mother or trying to get him fired, but he certainly tried to cut The Rock’s legs out from under him when Rock was a rookie. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if either story was true.

The Rock and Triple H mirrored each others’ rise up the card in the WWF. I don’t doubt at all that Triple H saw Rock as a threat, and that Michaels, as his best friend and somebody with serious political power, tried to undercut Rock as a result.

I believe Bret Hart talks about it in his book. There was one particular incident where Bret was to face Rock on Raw in 1997 and there was a lot of lobbying by Michaels and Triple H to have Bret win clean (bear in mind, this was at a time when Michaels and Bret hated each other). Bret actually had the finish changed as he felt it harmed Rock for no reason to have Bret beat him clean.

You’ve also got to remember that Michaels, by his own admission, was a horrible person at that time. He was selfish, mean-spirited and deliberately spiteful. It would have completely fitted his personality to sabotage the career of a young wrestler who had never done anything to offend him.

When Michaels was GM he had quite a marginalised role. The Rock has always been a professional and worked alongside him without any fuss, but he did not have any interest in wrestling Michaels at the time (he said so in an interview with the Pro Wrestling Torch in 1999) and I’m not sure he would now. The two have had very little crossover in their careers, especially since Michaels’ personal life changed dramatically around 2002, so I doubt Rock has spent enough time in his company to be convinced either way about how much he has changed.

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

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!

Hahahaha yes he did