Ask the Tart: Archive 1

First topic message reminder :

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.

theundisputedY2D2 wrote:

Hobo wrote:Supplementary question to the top guy one.

You mentioned that the wrestlers get a cut of merchandise sales and that people are less likely to buy your stuff if you are heel.

Is it therefore not better to be a midcard face than a topline heel?

On a similar note, would someone like Santino be getting paid more than Alberto Del Rio?

The thing with that though Hobo is that the top line heel will get a bigger slice of the pay per view bonus pie. The wrestlers get paid according to their position on the card so a main-event heel will get more than a mid-card babyface.

I wouldn't have thought that Santino would be getting a bigger downside guarantee than Del Rio, simply because Alberto was groomed for stardom from the beginning. He might have been on something lower during his FCW days but once he got called up to the main roster there either would have been a renegotiation of his contract or there'd have been a clause in his orginal contract e.g. once you get called up to the main roster your downside guarantee will become $$$$'

I was thinking of more from a merchandise point of view.

I guess Santino will sell a lot of gear but ADR wouldnt.

I suppose the question that comes from it, is how is a wrestlers salary made up (ie % of PPV/ TV/ Merchandise/ House shows/ flat salary etc)

I think Y2D2 is right, the great irony is that once Cena turns he will appeal to the very audience that forced the turn. The thing they hate most about him is his babyface act; if he's no longer doing that act, there's no reason to hate him any more.

It happened with Hogan in WCW. When he turned it was the hardcore, rebellious fans who cheered for him. These were the very fans that had got bored of the old Hogan act before anyone else.

This does make me wonder whether WWE would then turn him babyface again within a few months. I think that, whether face or heel, Cena will never appeal to the broader audience the way Hogan and Austin did. There will always be one vocally supportive section, and one vocally negative section.

From what I read somewhere wrestlers are employed as sub-contractors. This means that they will be paid per performance (probably with a minimum number of contracted appearances each year and a min salary if off injured). I suspect they get $x per house show, $2x per TV show and $10x per PPV performance with a sliding scale depending on place in the card.

I would also suspect that there is a small % of the merchandising revenue (similar to footballers) available with the % reflecting the status of that individual...

Again, I read somewhere that they don't get benefits (i.e. health benefits) beyond that - though I suspect that the top talent will have their various injuries treated at the expense of the WWE, the rest just need to do it themselves.

Hobo - Sorry mate, didn't realise you were talking just about merchandise. I reckon Santino probably is making more than Del Rio. I mean does Alberto even have a t-shirt?!?!

Hobo, the vast majority of a wrestler's earnings usually comes from their downside guarantee and match bonuses (eg from PPVs).

Merchandise earns Cena and Mysterio a ton of money without a doubt, but for a midcard babyface, even someone in the upper midcard like Kofi Kingston who is popular with kids, I don't see them earning as much from merchandise as they would from other avenues.

For someone like Santino, realistically they might sell 100 Santino t-shirts a week, at the most. That's 5200 a year. Even if he gets 5% of every t-shirt sold at $25, that comes to $6500 a year. Whereas his downside guarantee might be $200,000, and an average PPV match might earn him $2000. So for anyone on that pay scale, they'd have to be shifting hundreds of t-shirts every week to make a really major difference to their pay, which very rarely happens. It isn't to be sniffed at but it's hardly make or break.

I think outside of the top 5 or 6 merch sellers in the company, only a small proportion of the wrestlers' salaries is made up in t-shirt sales (and for that top 5 or 6, they are probably on a lot more money in the first place so it might even be the same for them!).

http://www.wweshop.com/search.asp?prc=n&searchterm=alberto+del+rio

In answer to your question look above Y2!

Also,

How much do you guys think Cena must be on at the moment and how much he has made as a rough estimate, out of WWE and out of films, he must be sitting on an absolute mint!

Fair enough! I stand corrected!

Cheers Miky

To be fair it is only a youth T though Y2 so you weren't wrong really considering he does not currently have a t shirt that's for sale that he wears on WWE TV especially as he usually comes out with no top on anyway lol.

Holymiky wrote:Also,

How much do you guys think Cena must be on at the moment and how much he has made as a rough estimate, out of WWE and out of films, he must be sitting on an absolute mint!

I would imagine for his in-ring work he his on a 10 year contract at around $250k(ish) per year, plus merchandising and revenue from outside work... though considering WWE probably takes a cut of any other gigs he has they probably recoup much of his wrestling contract price this way.

Only a guess though.

JoshSansom wrote:

Holymiky wrote:Also,

How much do you guys think Cena must be on at the moment and how much he has made as a rough estimate, out of WWE and out of films, he must be sitting on an absolute mint!

I would imagine for his in-ring work he his on a 10 year contract at around $250k(ish) per year, plus merchandising and revenue from outside work... though considering WWE probably takes a cut of any other gigs he has they probably recoup much of his wrestling contract price this way.

Only a guess though.

I think you're way off mate.

2 years ago Cena was on $1,000,000 a year, plus benefits.

WWE don't do 10 year contracts anymore, i think the last person to have one is Mark Henry.

Wow, OK, didn't realise that they were on contracts like that. Thanks for the insight.

I'll try and find the link for you mate..

Here you go...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_do_WWE_wrestlers_get_paid

Hi,

Great threads and always enjoyed reading them on the old 606.

My question is, when did the streak become The Streak?

Obviously from his very first victory the streak began but when did the WWE start promoting it so heavily?

I think the first time they really promoted it prior to the match was at Wrestlemania 21 when Randy Orton was 'trying to do something no man had ever done'. Before that it was usually a throwaway line - like a fun trivia fact - that the Undertaker had never been beaten at Wrestlemania.

When he beat Ric Flair at Wrestlemania 18 to go 10-0 Taker held up both hands signifying '10' as Jerry Lawler yelped "10 and 0!" but that was about as far as it went back then.

Yeah I remember they used to mention it sometimes, even as far back as WM14 against Kane I think. But they only started using it as a draw around the Orton match. I think it's something they stumbled upon really, I don't think it was an intentional long-term thing. It was only when he got to 11 or 12 wins that they started thinking "we've got something here".

It was mentioned (that he was undefeated) as early as his match with Bundy (was that 10 or 11?) but they never really started promoting it until much further down the line. I remember HHH alluding to it 10 years ago in his promos building up to 17, but the fued wasn't built around it.

Wasn't Bundy originally supposed to beat 'Taker?

more_awesome_than_a_ri wrote:
My question is, when did the streak become The Streak?

as far back as 1995 at WM11 against King Kong Bundy it was highlighted he was undefeated and it was also made an issue of against Diesel but i dont thinj the really marketed it until after he beat HHH

In the Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior why was Jesse Ventura's commentary cut from the Hogan match?

When he was renengotiating his WWF contract he was told that he wouldn't get any royalty payments from video sales because he wasn't a 'featured performer'. He was alright with this until he learned guys like Mean Gene Okerlund got royalty payments for appearing on PPV tapes etc. and he quite rightly got annoyed. He went to Vince to sort it out and it all blew up.

Eventually it went to court, Jesse won and was awarded something like $800,000 and the WWF weren't allowed to use his likeness or voice on any of their releases again.

Just to add to that, WWE is allowed to use his likeness and voice, but has to pay him royalties for doing so.

Therefore whenever there is a match with his commentary, he is usually dubbed out (which makes the commentary sound a little bit ridiculous), but he is featured in the AWA DVD, for example. In fact it may just be that they have to pay royalties only if they use his commentary, as there are a few matches where you can't hear his commentary but can still see him at ringside (Pillman vs Liger, on the Pillman DVD, is one example off the top of my head).

Why do such a large proportion of wrestlers, even today, have long, perfectly-conditioned, Videl Sassoon hair?

Hardly a hard-man, look is it!

bernard black wrote:Why do such a large proportion of wrestlers, even today, have long, perfectly-conditioned, Videl Sassoon hair?

Hardly a hard-man, look is it!

As a man with long, perfectly-conditioned Videl Sassoon hair, I am too hurt and angry to answer this question.

Haha, any other takers? I'm genuinely curious why so many wrestlers have this look!

Could understand it in the 80s when glam rock was big. The only two reasons I can think why this look is still prevalent are either that it's down to tradition, or it's an easy way for the heel to look ruthless and get heat (grab the face's hair when applying moves).

The hair today is far different than the 80s, in the 80s almost everyone had long hair, today tho the WWE are more focused on actors and models so with that in mind it maker sense that they would be trimmed to the E's idea of perfection

Yeah I think it's definitely not as much the case these days. I think in the 80s it was a fashion thing; pre-80s there wasn't much long hair either. Many wrestlers seem to be fans of rock music and that is obviously linked with the long-haired look.

I also think that, as a general look, it is more rebellious and nonconformative, so in that sense it does fit the classic image of a wrestler. Bruiser Brody wouldn't have been quite the same if he had a nice short back and sides.

On the otherhand Stone Cold Steve Austin wouldn't have been so badass if he didn't shave that beautiful head of hair

Can you imagine WORYAH! in his heyday with a buzz cut?

He'd have never made it past curtain jerking status!

It was all about the hair, man.

Buzzcut Warrior would have been jobbing to Hercules and Bravo

Question for you Crips!

Can you tell me all you know about the build up to the slam on Andre The Giant at that Wrestlemania (I think it was the first one?) like was it a can he/can't he sort of story? Or was it a can he/can't he beat him story?

Holymiky wrote:Question for you Crips!

Can you tell me all you know about the build up to the slam on Andre The Giant at that Wrestlemania (I think it was the first one?) like was it a can he/can't he sort of story? Or was it a can he/can't he beat him story?

You mean the bodyslam Hogan gave him at WM3? It's gained mystique over the years because of Hogan's ridiculous interviews on the subject, in which he's claimed that Andre passed the torch to him that night, and nobody knew whether he would co-operate until he said "slam me, boss".

Hogan had been a bigger star than Andre for at least 3 or 4 years by that point. There was no torch to be passed. Furthermore, Andre was in the biggest match of his career and getting the biggest payday of his career for it, and was friendly with Hogan and Vince. There was no reason why he wouldn't co-operate.

I don't know why Hogan insists on embelleshing the story. Then again, WWE has still never admitted, 24 years later, that the attendance of 93,000 was a made up number; there were actually around 78,000 in the building that night.

As for whether Hogan could slam Andre, there was no reason he wouldn't be able to manage this with Andre's co-operation. Of course if Andre had deadweighted on him, it wouldn't have happened. But I don't see any reason why Andre would have done such a thing. As long as he took the bodyslam the correct way, there was no reason why a man of Hogan's strength couldn't play his part in the move.

Cool.

Were you ever a fan of Hogan Crips?

Was Hogan always a bad guy backstage?

What was Warrior like?

Holymiky wrote:Cool.

Were you ever a fan of Hogan Crips?

Was Hogan always a bad guy backstage?

What was Warrior like?

Even when I first got into wrestling at 11 years old, I hated Hogan! I can appreciate now looking back that he was excellent at times during his career, especially in the WWF in the 80s and as a heel in WCW in 1996-98. But he has shown very little aptitude for the business for someone with such a long career, and if I was running a wrestling promotion I wouldn't want him anywhere near it.

Backstage he was by all accounts cordial with colleagues but wouldn't hesitate for a second to screw them over if it benefited him. More so in WCW where he had the power written into his contract.

Warrior was not popular backstage. He was considered by many to be very disrespectful towards the business (especially those beneath him in the heirarchy) and ungrateful for his push, not understanding at all just how much every other wrestler was doing to help him look good. I think his legacy has been tainted somewhat by this.

Who else has had attitudes that stink backstage?

Teddy Hart is the one that instantly springs to mind and I wouldn't mind knowing a bit more about what he got up to.

Everyone has forgotten about this topic! This is a topic i would like to revive for my good and everyone elses. Reading it has allowed me to learn soo much about Wrestling and there are some knowledgeable people on here so why not join in too?

What was the story behind Lawler turning face on commentary i think someone said it was in 2003?

I'd still like to know more background on Teddy Hart!

Teddy Hart has a reputation for making up injuries to avoid doing a job and for trying to steal the spotlight from other wrestlers.

The most famous example of the latter was after a cage match (which Hart didn't win) where he started performing moonsaults off the cage and a shooting star press off the cage onto his opponents - without their foreknowledge. He then threw up at ringside. Hart claimed that his actions after the cage match were the result of a concussion he'd suffered during the match.

Who were the original Hollywood Blondes before Austin & Pillman in WCW?

Think their might even have been 2 teams previously not sure though.

Jerry Lawler always played the heel on commentary for his first few years in the WWF. However, the familiarity of his voice and a slight toning down of his heel act around 1999 led to the fans gradually warming to him. Much like Bobby Heenan before him, some of his jokes were terrible but often he was genuinely fun to listen to, even when rooting for the heels.

In 2000, the WWF imitated an old angle from Mid South Wrestling. Back in 1983 I think, Don Muraco attacked the loveable babyface commentator Gordon Solie. Colour commentator Roddy Piper, who was a heel himself, came to Solie's rescue. The crux of the angle being that Piper may be a bit dastardly at times, but he had a sense of decency and a moral core. Piper's stint on commentary had given the fans an opportunity to warm to his act, and while they might not always agree with him, they liked him. It was the perfect time for a babyface turn.

Fast forward to 2000, and replace Solie with Jim Ross, Piper with Lawler, and Muraco with Tazz.

Lawler was in the position that he continued to side with the heels on commentary, but was loved by the fans and cheered as a babyface. This often happens with heel commentators - the fans listen to their voices for 2-4 hours every week, plus PPVs, and if they are good at their job they become liked over time even when they are sding with the heels.

Around 2003 he dropped the heel act from his commentary, gradually becoming a straight up babyface. I think this was due to the heel turn of Jonathan Coachman, who the company had high hopes for as a commentator, but who was floundering in the role due to the fans' rejection. It didn't make sense to have two heels on commentary, so Lawler became fully-fledged babyface.

My theory as to why Lawler doesn't play the heel today is twofold. First, I suspect Vince McMahon and Kevin Dunn view the traditional heel commentator role as too "old school". Michael Cole has turned heel recently but is not playing the role in its traditional sense; he is more a heel character who just happens to be on commentary. He isn't there to put the heels over, rather to get himself over. My second theory is that Lawler has just been around too long for people to hate him now. He's too beloved by the fans. WWE feels more comfortable utilising him as the trusted voice of the product, especially given that the other commentary positions have changed so regularly in recent years.

So basically this is a really long way of saying that I'm not 100% sure of the reasons behind it.

There were 2 teams who used the name before Austin and Pillman, I'm sure I read that Buddy Roberts was in one of them before he joined the Fabulous Freebirds. No idea who the other 3 guys were though.

prettyboykev wrote:Who were the original Hollywood Blondes before Austin & Pillman in WCW?

Think their might even have been 2 teams previously not sure though.

I can't remember the exact identities of the wrestlers but they weren't huge names.

I think at least one of them was a regional territory around the early 70s. The Austin/Pillman tandem was definitely the most famous team to use the name, but I think at least one of the previous teams had a pretty decent run in their day.

Just how busy would someone like Vince Mcmahon be?

Do the superstars/wrestlers get to take bumps and actually get any chance to rehearse before shows are broadcast? Like with no cameras?

By all accounts Vince McMahon is the hardest working man in WWE, he barely ever stops. He might delegate jobs to other people but he oversees every department in his company, so it's no wonder he works insane hours.

In some cases wrestlers might go over their match before the paying public are allowed into the building, if for example one or all the participants in the match are fairly inexperienced or if a 'non-wrestler' is going to play a part in a match. Maybe also if a wrestler is coming back from injury and is suffering from ring rust. For the most part though, wrestlers don't want to use up their 'bump card' wherever possible i.e. they don't want to take any unnecessary bumps in order to prolong their in-ring careers.

Wrestlers are more likely to rehearse promos or specific spots (without the bumps) so they get their timing right for the show. For example some specific parts of the Rumble are rehearsed (without actually taking the bump over the top rope) so the wrestlers know where to be for the big spots.

Also bear in mind that a lot of matches are honed on the house show circuit.

Wow cheers Y2 and Crippled!

I wan't to know more about the "Wrestlers Court" can anyone shed any light of an incident which has gone through the "Wrestlers Court" and what the punishment was?

I remember Melina was up in front of the Wrestler's Court in 2005 or so because of her attitude backstage, she was going around like she was better than everybody else and it got on a lot of people's nerves.

JBL was the judge that day (Taker must have been on hiatus or something) and he basically tore her a new one for 2 hours and she had to stand there and take it. There was also a side bet on between a few wrestlers to see how long it would take Melina to cry. Not sure if she actually received a punishment or if the 2 hour verbal beatdown was seen as punishment enough.

Mick Foley and A Snow got taken to Wrestler's Court for leaving Bob Holly without a ride and going to a fairground instead. Their punishment was something like paying Holly's travelling expenses for a week.

One of the Hardys (think it was Matt) had to carry Kane's bags for a week after taking Kane's seat in first class on a flight. Kane had been delayed waiting for D'Lo Brown? and Matt tok his seat on the advice of Michael Hayes (thinking that it was a spare seat), Kane then showed up and Matt tried giving him the seat back but Kane declined and took Matt's original seat.

theundisputedY2D2 wrote:One of the Hardys (think it was Matt) had to carry Kane's bags for a week after taking Kane's seat in first class on a flight. Kane had been delayed waiting for D'Lo Brown? and Matt tok his seat on the advice of Michael Hayes (thinking that it was a spare seat), Kane then showed up and Matt tried giving him the seat back but Kane declined and took Matt's original seat.

I would say that hardly (or Hardy ) seems fair - but then again, maybe they all hate Matt as much as the rest of us?...

JoshSansom wrote:

theundisputedY2D2 wrote:One of the Hardys (think it was Matt) had to carry Kane's bags for a week after taking Kane's seat in first class on a flight. Kane had been delayed waiting for D'Lo Brown? and Matt tok his seat on the advice of Michael Hayes (thinking that it was a spare seat), Kane then showed up and Matt tried giving him the seat back but Kane declined and took Matt's original seat.

I would say that hardly (or Hardy ) seems fair - but then again, maybe they all hate Matt as much as the rest of us?...

Wrestlers' Court is rarely fair. It's usually an excuse to bully someone, hence why JBL and Bob Holly had such a prominent role. I can understand why it takes place, it's a good way to deal with big egos, but as in the Hardy case above it's often just a way of bullies feeling better about themselves.