Ask the Tart: Archive 1

Thread archived from https://www.606v2.com/t2445-ask-the-tart - Kiwireddevil

CrippledTart wrote:
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.

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

Hero wrote: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?

Good question. Steve Austin definitely used his political clout at times, but it was when he thought something was bad for business. Triple H and Hogan have a tendency to bury wrestlers they see as a threat, whereas Austin to my knowledge never acted that way.

He was fiercely protective of his character, and a student of the industry who had a good idea of what was good and bad for business. He was also accused of being paranoid at times.

Austin refused to work programmes with Jeff Jarrett and Billy Gunn in the summer of 1999. Gunn because he didn't rate him, Jarrett because the two had personal heat over Jarrett criticising the "Austin 3:16" gimmick as blasphemous. There were rumours he wouldn't put over Triple H in 1999 as well, but these are believed to be unfounded (he did a job for him at No Mercy). He also refused to do the job in an unadvertised match with Brock Lesnar on Raw in 2002, arguing that it would be bad for business. Austin's logic was that, as the biggest name in the company, it would have more effect if Brock ran through others on his way to a big PPV showdown between the two, where he would be happy to put Brock over.

The business he did in 1998 and 1999 was phenomenal, and meant that he had no political challengers. However Triple H's ascendance led to tension, and Austin felt insecure in his spot as the top guy. This led to a drastic change around 2000, when he suddenly became harder to work with. Austin did not take well to Vince having a new favourite, and protected his territory any time he felt challenged. He did not last much longer as a full-time main eventer, mainly because of his condition but also largely because the situation had diminished his passion for wrestling.

Another key was Austin's character: He was the toughest guy in the room. He took on all kinds of numbers and usually won. This made incredible money but did not lend itself to putting others over. In fact the WWF didn't want him doing jobs to anyone when they could help it - even tainted ones - while so much money was rolling in. Austin's character was dominant, not just physically but also in that he took up everyone's attention. This was a big plus for the WWF in his peak run, but in his latter years it became a hindrance. As the sheriff, when he was for all intents and purposes retired, he undercut every wrestler he came into contact with. And without great feuds to sink his teeth into, his promos suffered, he relied more on the tired beer drinking routine, and became something of a parody.

Austin didn't boost an awful lot of careers, but it wasn't with malice. Therein lies the difference between him and Triple H or Hogan. For the most part, he did what he thought was right for business.

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

He would be 7 feet of solid muscle, and he'd would raise the bar, brother. And in his promos he would be shooting, bro!

In all honesty I think if Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff had to invent their perfect wrestler it would be Hulk Hogan.

I think the fact that a lot of wrestlers say that Steve Austin always remained 'one of the boys' helps his standing somewhat as well. We've heard numerous stories of Hulk Hogan and Triple H playing politics, burying guys and talking about them behind their backs but outside their immediate circle of friends you very rarely hear other wrestlers say "Hogan is a good guy" or "Triple H is a good guy", unless they're towing the party line.

With Austin it's different because in shoot interviews etc. it's rare for someone to say "Steve Austin's an asshole, he did this, he did that blah blah blah".

Towards the tail end of his run within WWE it was apparent the relationship between Austin & WWE had become fractious and that he had several issues at home. Could you go into more detail about what was happening there?

What is the reason for Kelly Kelly not winning the Divas title (I don't know how many reigns she has had if any)? Is it because Vince sees her as his Cena type female character where she does not need the title to be popular?

Austin was in the process of divorcing Debra and there were numerous reports about him facing a criminal charge for assaulting her.

My understanding is that Vince tried to resolve the situation but to no avail and Austin went off on one, the WWE couldn't be seen to support a 'wife-beater' which Austin didn't take kindly to, he spiralled and had numerous fallings out with the likes of Vince and JR and hit the drink.

Was the botched ending to the 2005 ending legit?

Did / does JR have a role in the WWE beyond the commentary box? His TV gimmick is of the old Southern guy in the hat that everyone cheers... is this where things begin and end?

I read somewhere before that he was a booker for WWF at the time - I assumed all this would be done by Vince? Is this not how things work?

JR has been a booker, he's also been VP of Talent Relations.

Crips can probably go in to more detail than me.

Re Kelly Kelly, I wasn't aware there was much clamour for her to win the women's title to be honest. The general reason WWE doesn't focus on one female star over any others is because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that female wrestlers are more likely to develop big egos and become difficult to work with. Since the days of Chyna and Sable (who both left the company on bad terms) Vince has been reluctant to invest too much in one particular female, preferring a revolving door of women wrestlers who mostly are around for their looks.

Re JR, he was originally brought in as a commentator, but rose to Head of Talent Relations in the mid 90s. In many ways he was Vince's right hand man, but the two were never particularly close and Vince always enjoyed playing mind games with him. A lot of people in power in WWE haven't been fond of JR, considering him too Southern and too old school. As these people cosied up to Vince, JR's power diminished. By the early 2000s he was back to being a commentator. However Vince didn't even want him doing that due to not looking and sounding "Hollywood".

He's never booked for WWE as far as I'm aware. He is widely respected by pretty much everyone except Vince and his cronies, although they know how good he is, hence why he is still contracted to the company despite rarely being used.

When wrestlers are on the road etc, do the RAW stars go with the Smackdown! superstars to the taping for example to help out backstage if needed or do each do thier own thing? Obviously if a RAW superstar is due to appear on smackdown then they would be there.

The RAW/SD guys don't travel together unless they are schedule to, SD guys usually have monday off and RAW guys have monday off, when they work America they work 4 days and off 3 Raw work Fri Sat Sum and Mon SD work Fri Sat Sun Tues

King Beer wrote:Was the botched ending to the 2005 ending legit?

What do you mean by this KB?

theundisputedY2D2 wrote:

King Beer wrote:Was the botched ending to the 2005 ending legit?

What do you mean by this KB?

The Cena v Batista farce? Vinnie blowing his quads?

When 'taker finally retires be it 19-1 or 20-0 or whatever, what cna you concievably see wwe or vkm doing to fill the void?

Ah right, didn't know what you meant by 2005 ending.

Everything at the end of the Rumble was legit, Batista was meant to eliminate John Cena and they botched it. Vince was so peed off that instead of just telling the refs to restart it from backstage he stormed out into the arena.

I'm not sure why he felt the need to get in the ring, I'm guessing that he was just so annoyed that he wasn't thinking properly. Also instead of stomping up the ring-steps like he usually does he decided to slide in inder the bottom rope. Maybe he planned on cracking some skulls!

Whatever his thinking, he ended up tearing both his quads and had to sit there like a lemon while they called an audible on ending the Rumble.

What about the endng to the 2000 Rumble with Rock and Big Show and the "who touched the ground first"? Meant to be or made up on the hoof? Also, which of those two is credited with that victory?

2005 Rumble: Vince legitimately blew his quads, yes!

Undertaker: I don't think WWE would attempt to fill any kind of void. I definitely can't see them introducing a new Taker-style gimmick, unless they can afford Brimstone. I think his eventual departure will and should be dealt with the same way as that of any top star: you just try to find a new star. They couldn't create a new Hulk Hogan, or a new Steve Austin, or a new Rock, and they shouldn't even try creating a new Undertaker. Just because they've had the Undertaker for 20 years doesn't mean that they need a spooky gimmick. If anything he's a throwback and when he goes, spooky gimmicks will go with him. The worst thing a wrestling company can do in creating new stars is try to recreate any kind of template, especially one as unique as Undertaker.

When 'taker finally retires be it 19-1 or 20-0 or whatever, what cna you concievably see wwe or vkm doing to fill the void?

JoshSansom wrote:What about the endng to the 2000 Rumble with Rock and Big Show and the "who touched the ground first"? Meant to be or made up on the hoof? Also, which of those two is credited with that victory?

The ending was supposed to be Rock keeping his feet off the ground and Big Show being eliminated, but Rock messed it up. He was announced as the winner and is credited with the victory, but technically Big Show should be.

WWE used the screw-up to re-work the main event of Wrestlemania, going with the "McMahon in every corner" gimmick. Ironically, Big Show had originally been pencilled in for the WM16 main event against Steve Austin when he'd signed with the company.

JoshSansom wrote:What about the ending to the 2000 Rumble with Rock and Big Show and the "who touched the ground first"? Meant to be or made up on the hoof? Also, which of those two is credited with that victory?

That was a botch by The Rock, he was meant to 'do a Shawn Michaels' and hang on but both his feet hit the floor. The original plan for Wrestlemania was a straight up Triple H v The Rock one-on-one match.

I think they realised there and then that it was a messed up finish because they sent the Big Show back out to attack the Rock. If you watch it, as the Rock is finishing his promo he turns really suddenly because he sees something out of the corner of his eye - the Big Show - but doesn't know who it is, whereas if it had been the plan all along he most likely would have kept his back turned.

The Rock is credited with that Rumble win, even though the Big Show proved he won it.

And Chris Jericho was originally going to be the 4th man in the Wrestlemania main-event but for whatever reason he was dropped in favour of Mick Foley.

And Chris Jericho was originally going to be the 4th man in the Wrestlemania main-event but for whatever reason he was dropped in favour of Mick Foley.

Was the reason a certain big nosed son in law of the boss?

Could well have been Hero, wouldn't put it past him.

My question is where was Shawn Michaels in 2000 to proclaim that in order to preserve the sanctity of the Wrestlemania main event it had to be a one-on-one match?

I think a large part of the reason they went with Foley was because they could. Foley had promised not to come back from retirement, and Vince, known to be the type who enjoys screwing with people (especially people who try to operate with a degree of integrity) knew that he could convince Foley that he was needed in the main event, and publicly make an idiot out of him in doing so.

My question is where was Shawn Michaels in 2004 to say "No Vince, it should be the champion Triple H against the Rumble winner Chris Benoit, straight up, one on one"?

I wouldn't have thought Jericho would have been ready for a main event WrestleMania spot however with Foley 'retired' Austin and Taker injured they might not have had a big choice, Kane wasn't booked near enough correctly for that kind of spot

I don't think that they had too many choices though it would probably have been best to have had the playoff match at No Way Out and just left the winner of that in the one on one v HHH instead of Show winning and then the bizarre McMahon plot.

From what I read Triple H wasn't keen on putting Beniot over one on one and didn't feel he was believable, Vince though was high on him and wanted him over, Shawn was brought in to do the job so Trip could claim he didnt lose the title, it was very late in the day that Hunter decided with Shawns advice apparantly that HHH doing the tap would mean more for the match and when he finally got the belt back

the-gaffer wrote:From what I read Triple H wasn't keen on putting Beniot over one on one and didn't feel he was believable, Vince though was high on him and wanted him over, Shawn was brought in to do the job so Trip could claim he didnt lose the title, it was very late in the day that Hunter decided with Shawns advice apparantly that HHH doing the tap would mean more for the match and when he finally got the belt back

but on the Benoit tribute show Triple H said he loved and respected Benoit?! You're not suggesting he's in any way dishonest are you?!!

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:but on the Benoit tribute show Triple H said he loved and respected Benoit?! You're not suggesting he's in any way dishonest are you?!!

I refuse to believe that! There's just no way in hell Triple H isn't the most honest, selfless sonofabitch to ever walk God's green Earth!

Benoit Tribute show?

There was no tribute show.

There was no Benoit.

He also said he loved Owen on his tribute show but I don't thin he would have tapped for hìm for the title in the main event of WrestleMania

HHH is my best friend!

What was the reason that Steph and HHH got together anyway in real life, was it due to thier on screen relationship or was it before that?

Triple H was in a real-life relationship with Chyna when he got together on screen with Steph. Eventually, due to all the time they were spending together, they hooked up and Chyna found out about it when she found a letter from Steph to Hunter saying all sorts of lovey dovey things.

Think it's safe to say that Trips traded up on that one!

"What was the reason that Steph and HHH got together anyway in real life, was it due to thier on screen relationship or was it before that?"

It was because they fancied each other!

I think it was because they were put together in the storyline and got to know each other better and one thing led to another. Triple H was with Chyna for a long time before breaking up just before he was paired with Steph. On screen there was no kind of break up, they just stopped appearing together in autumn 1999.

Chyna later claimed they'd been seeing each other behind her back, but officially they weren't revealed to be a couple until mid-2000 if I remember right.

The truth will probably never come out, but one thing that's certain is that Triple H wasn't single for long.

How many children do they have together? 2 or 3?

3 now

They've got 3 girls.

Oh cool.

And hi KB!

My question - What actualy is a rat Bar Steward?

It's a rat whose parents didn't marry.

Why does Vince not want JoMo to ever win a world championship?
IMO He is one of the greatest talents in the WWE at the moment.

Legend Today - I heard a rumour that Vince doesn't think he is man enough to be a top face or have the aggression of a heel. Plus (again rumoured) he didn't say anything when Melina and Batista got it together and Vince thought he should have ... or something

JoshSansom wrote:Legend Today - Plus (again rumoured) he didn't say anything when Melina and Batista got it together and Vince thought he should have ... or something

Yeah and what's the bets if Morrison had said anything to him, Big Dave would have gone running to Vince and JoMo would have got a bollocking (or worse)?

What kind of guy is JoMo that just lets Batista bang his bird? If you cant man up to someone who mugs you off then your position in a testosteron filled company is never going to say TOP MAN

JoMo probably thought he was doing a sensible thing - Batista was a big part of HHH's clan, and having a go at a friend of the boss's son in law wouldn't seem like a bright career move.

Plus the fact that Batista could probably rip off both of JoMo's arms and beat him around the head with them without breaking a sweat....

There is more than one way to skin a cat and if JoMo genuinely didn't do anything because Batista is a big guy then its no wonder Vince wont push ìm

There is more than one way to skin a cat and if JoMo genuinely didn't do anything because Batista is a big guy then its no wonder Vince wont push ìm

If that's Vinces view then why didn't Booker T get 6 world titles for decking Batoaster!

Book did win 6 World Titles

I know what you mean by the way i was just being facetious, I guess Book had nothing to prove to Vince

Yeah, well Turner and Hooch is better than The Ultimate Warrior!