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.

Who are your top ten world champions in the WWE of all time?

Send me your votes.

https://www.606v2.com/t27075-the-25-greatest-wwe-world-champions

sodhat wrote:

Spoiler:

Brock Lesnar was not widely liked during his first WWE stint. He was notoriously moody, didn't make many close friends, was strong-minded and stubborn, and his fast rise to the top was met with a lot of jealousy from veteran colleagues who had never had the opportunity he was given and considered him ungrateful.

Having said all that, he was clearly hugely talented and his rapid development as a performer in such a short time ensured that, while perhaps not well liked, he was almost universally respected by his peers.

Interestingly enough, according to the Pro Wrestling Torch, Brock did not like Cena at all during his previous WWE stint. In fact he would apparently go to Vince McMahon with any criticism of Cena he could think of. It is even alleged that he may have deliberately shown Cena up during their one and only PPV match at Backlash in 2003. It's fair to say that, if the stories are correct, Cena was pretty much his least favourite person in the company.

The insinuation is that Brock hated Cena because, while Brock was miserable and paranoid, Cena was the "good soldier" who did all he could to please McMahon and loved the WWE life.

If this is true, it will be fascinating to see how Brock and Cena interact in the coming months. If Cena was willing to show up The Rock, who had always been cordial with him and is known to be easy going and easy to work with, he could be on a major collision course with Brock, who actively disliked him and tried to hinder his progress to the top years ago.

It could also be that Cena is reluctant to provoke a man like Brock, who possesses none of The Rock's composure and isn't known for his sense of humour!

The_Rad_Russian wrote:To Mr Tart, I have heard a lot about shawn michaels being a master politcian behnind the curtain, and being liked very much by Vince Mcmahon. Have you any tales of his behaviour during this period? I admit, I have not read his autobiography, but I imagine that would only be wwe propaganda.lol.

I haven't read his book in its entirity but I flicked through a couple of chapters once in Borders, and Michaels is pretty honest about his personal failings in the 90s. It seems that his redemption has made him a lot more reflective, although you are no doubt right to suspect that the book involved a certain amount of company spin.

By almost all accounts he was a nightmare to deal with back in the day. Selfish, immature, sly, uncooperative, petty, drug addled, malicious, and also the best performer in the industry at the time, hence why Vince McMahon publicly supported him throughout all his wild excesses.

I would definitely recommend reading his book, but for starters here is a list compiled by somebody on a wrestlezone.com forum entitled "Is Shawn Michaels the biggest piece of s*** in wrestling history?". I'm not sure of the validity of all these claims, and I doubt they are all included in his book, but from what I've heard it's reasonable to assume most of this is true. Whether it makes him the biggest piece of s*** in wrestling history, and whether you think he can be forgiven now that he is older, wiser and apparently a very different human being, is up to you!

"Some are true, some maybe false.. I may have missed some out.. But..

But, here's the brief history of his backstage politics.

1) He refused to job to the British Bulldog even though Vince told him to in the European title finals, after BB dedicated the match to his dying sister..

2) Told Vince he's not "Doing no more jobs in the territory" (The USA)..

3) Refused to give Bret his win back at WM 13 so he forfiet the title and made up "I lost my smile" nonsense..

4) Was a jerk to The Rock, and tried to ruin his career so HHH could take his spot when they both came up in 1997.

5) Refused to job to Steve Austin THE NIGHT of WM 14, until the Undertaker threatened him that if he didn't job in the ring, he was gonna get f***ed up badly. (P***y)..

6) Said he was gonna show up on Nitro with the World Title, after he got into an altercation with Bret Hart backstage.

7) Was in cohoots with Vince to screw Bret Hart at Survivor Series 1997.

8) They pulled strings (The KLIQ) to get Bret Hart out of main events in his 1994/5 title reigns.

9) One of the Kliq members took a s*** in Sunny's food, and when Candido said he was gonna f*** Shawn Michaels up, Shawn said if he touched him, when they got back to the states he'd have Vince make them job the Body Donnas of the tag team titles, and HE DID.

10) Him and Marty Jannetty were shooting an anti-drug commercial for the WWF. They found out that the Road Warriors were getting paid more then them. Shawn got mad and told Jannetty to tell Vince "If you don't pay us more, we're leaving for NWA" when Jannetty told Vince, Vince said "Okay, good luck" and was about to release them, when Vince confronted Shawn about the situation, Shawn said "It was all Janetty's idea" and begged for his job back. (I think he even mentions this in his book, not sure)..

11) Refused to job the World title to Vader at SummerSlam, and said he would not show up. And threw a tamper-tantrum in the ring.

12) Said he's not going to feud with Owen Hart in the beggining of 1998 (When Owen was the second most over face in the company) because he didn't like him.

13) Had Shane Douglas de-pushed cause he didn't get along with the KLIQ, and pretty much had him fired.

14) Broke kayfabe the infamous night in MSG, when the whole KLIQ embraced in the ring and made Triple H take the punishment for it."

Hey Crips... was wondering about the relationship between the WWE and the various wrestling presses / dirt sheets.

Is this a cordial one, how are various guys such as Wade Keller or Justin laBar thought of?

Also, I am rather suspicious of the whole industry in terms of things being "leaked" to the dirt sheets etc. I am of the opinion that the journos are either deliberately fed lines by writers or are actively involved in the who show and therefore keep their positions by being the WWE's mouthpiece in a different environment. Is this true?

I imagine that nothing would get out (or very little) without the WWE allowing it out and that this could be their forum for engaging the smart fans while still allowing them to feel as though they are on the inside.

Is this the case? Cheers!

crippledtart wrote:

The_Rad_Russian wrote:To Mr Tart, I have heard a lot about shawn michaels being a master politcian behnind the curtain, and being liked very much by Vince Mcmahon. Have you any tales of his behaviour during this period? I admit, I have not read his autobiography, but I imagine that would only be wwe propaganda.lol.

I haven't read his book in its entirity but I flicked through a couple of chapters once in Borders, and Michaels is pretty honest about his personal failings in the 90s. It seems that his redemption has made him a lot more reflective, although you are no doubt right to suspect that the book involved a certain amount of company spin.

By almost all accounts he was a nightmare to deal with back in the day. Selfish, immature, sly, uncooperative, petty, drug addled, malicious, and also the best performer in the industry at the time, hence why Vince McMahon publicly supported him throughout all his wild excesses.

I would definitely recommend reading his book, but for starters here is a list compiled by somebody on a wrestlezone.com forum entitled "Is Shawn Michaels the biggest piece of s*** in wrestling history?". I'm not sure of the validity of all these claims, and I doubt they are all included in his book, but from what I've heard it's reasonable to assume most of this is true. Whether it makes him the biggest piece of s*** in wrestling history, and whether you think he can be forgiven now that he is older, wiser and apparently a very different human being, is up to you!

"Some are true, some maybe false.. I may have missed some out.. But..

But, here's the brief history of his backstage politics.

1) He refused to job to the British Bulldog even though Vince told him to in the European title finals, after BB dedicated the match to his dying sister..

2) Told Vince he's not "Doing no more jobs in the territory" (The USA)..

3) Refused to give Bret his win back at WM 13 so he forfiet the title and made up "I lost my smile" nonsense..

4) Was a jerk to The Rock, and tried to ruin his career so HHH could take his spot when they both came up in 1997.

5) Refused to job to Steve Austin THE NIGHT of WM 14, until the Undertaker threatened him that if he didn't job in the ring, he was gonna get f***ed up badly. (P***y)..

6) Said he was gonna show up on Nitro with the World Title, after he got into an altercation with Bret Hart backstage.

7) Was in cohoots with Vince to screw Bret Hart at Survivor Series 1997.

8) They pulled strings (The KLIQ) to get Bret Hart out of main events in his 1994/5 title reigns.

9) One of the Kliq members took a s*** in Sunny's food, and when Candido said he was gonna f*** Shawn Michaels up, Shawn said if he touched him, when they got back to the states he'd have Vince make them job the Body Donnas of the tag team titles, and HE DID.

10) Him and Marty Jannetty were shooting an anti-drug commercial for the WWF. They found out that the Road Warriors were getting paid more then them. Shawn got mad and told Jannetty to tell Vince "If you don't pay us more, we're leaving for NWA" when Jannetty told Vince, Vince said "Okay, good luck" and was about to release them, when Vince confronted Shawn about the situation, Shawn said "It was all Janetty's idea" and begged for his job back. (I think he even mentions this in his book, not sure)..

11) Refused to job the World title to Vader at SummerSlam, and said he would not show up. And threw a tamper-tantrum in the ring.

12) Said he's not going to feud with Owen Hart in the beggining of 1998 (When Owen was the second most over face in the company) because he didn't like him.

13) Had Shane Douglas de-pushed cause he didn't get along with the KLIQ, and pretty much had him fired.

14) Broke kayfabe the infamous night in MSG, when the whole KLIQ embraced in the ring and made Triple H take the punishment for it."

Hey Crips,

Nice piece yet again. I have read his book. I can confirm the following for you:

6) This was allegedly during the phase when both HBK and Hart were screwing Sunny. Problem was that Hart got Poopie about it even though at the time he was married. Shawn more or less taunted Hart because Sunny offered it on a plate to Shawn and Hart chased her.

7) The Screwjob in the book was more Pattison driving the scheme. According to Shawn in his book Vince feared Hart walking out with title and showing up on Nitro with it. Pattison liaised with Michaels and Hebner and was under the illusion that Michaels was going over cleanly. Later Hart agreed to be put in the Sharpshooter, but actually kicked out. What made it the remarkable was that Hart was offered a 20 year contract by McMahon in 1996. McMahon then told Bret he could not afford the contract as I think it was $10M over that period. Bret even agreed to take a pay cut and shorter contract. Vince more or less told him to go to WCW because of how good the contract on offer was. Bret was very reluctant to leave the WWE. I was amazed how loyal Bret was given how much Vince could've screwed him.

10) He actually in the book places Jannetty as the mouthpiece for any disagreements the Rockers had even though out of the 2 he seemed the quieter one of the 2. Jannetty was all for The Rockers and for me would not be stupid enough to jeoprodise that. Michaels very much seems to credit his push to McMahon's belief in his stock to be a main eventer one day and plays the dumb card through Jannetty wanting to break out as a singles star.

14) At the time Michaels justifys the whole MSG incident. HHH comes across as a massive booty kisser because the moment he arrived in the company he alligned himself with Michaels right away and he was always destined to take the punishment for that incident. Michaels feels a massive credit is due to him for how HHH got to the top of the company. HHH was always wanting to learn about the business and in his early years I actually credit the way towed line post DX 1998.

Overall in the book he really does try to play up to the 'Christian' angle and tries to dismiss most of his antics in the past. In a way religion bettered him as person overall as when he returned in 2002 to active wrestling, he avoided backstage politics and was very reluctant to re-form DX in 2006.

I have heard a lot of Shawn's past alleged back stage antics. My questions are pretty much the same thing but, how did he get away with it for so long?

Surely someone got fed up with his antics and tried to sock him one, or was he so protected by the Kliq/Vince?

VKM is actually a fan of backstage heat and seems to think that conflict creates competition. He has often frowned on superstars that haven't often tried to use politics to bolster their position. To Vince it makes good business because 'politicking' shows desire to be the best to represent and lead the company. It does sound like democracy. Back in the mid 90's when Shawn was top dog, from an investment perspective he didn't have to plough in as much money behind him compared with most superstars in the present. Vince was careful of who he pushed forward and nowadays it seems most of the talent have had a taste of main event. I dread to think what the atmosphere is like nowadays in the back because if you don't cut the main event scene, your very much out because of the bloated mid-card and their isn't the fortune and fame of WCW to fall back on either.

Shawn for his past actions has made up for a lot of stunts he pulled due to the new direction in his life and also the reduced schedule he was on. When he won the strap back in 2002, even though he dropped it to HHH a month later, in the old days may have had a different say on the matter. If you recall Wrestlemania 23 when he fought Cena and at the end of his match waived his finger, not sure how much of that was scripted. He clearly understood his position in the company because years ago at Mania I doubt he would've jobbed to Cena.

Thanks for clearing up the Shawn Michaels thing legendkiller, and that's a great answer about Vince McMahon's desire to see competition amongst his wrestlers. It's the way he has kept his locker room in check for years, and it is indeed a mentality he fosters. The more paranoid and distrusting of each other the wrestlers are, the stronger his hand. It's a large reason why wrestlers have never unionised; because he has created a system where selfishness is encouraged, and also where the rewards are so great that once a wrestler gets to the top he desperately wants to stay there.

I'm sure McMahon didn't always enjoy the headaches that Michaels gave him. I also have my own completely unfounded suspicions about the closeness of their relationship! But ultimately there was something in Shawn that drew Vince in every time. Also, the alternative was losing his best wrestler to a competition that was already giving the WWF one hell of a kicking, so he presumably felt that he'd rather have a problematic Shawn onside than gift him to WCW.

JoshSansom wrote:Hey Crips... was wondering about the relationship between the WWE and the various wrestling presses / dirt sheets.

Is this a cordial one, how are various guys such as Wade Keller or Justin laBar thought of?

Also, I am rather suspicious of the whole industry in terms of things being "leaked" to the dirt sheets etc. I am of the opinion that the journos are either deliberately fed lines by writers or are actively involved in the who show and therefore keep their positions by being the WWE's mouthpiece in a different environment. Is this true?

I imagine that nothing would get out (or very little) without the WWE allowing it out and that this could be their forum for engaging the smart fans while still allowing them to feel as though they are on the inside.

Is this the case? Cheers!

WWE does not officially recognise the wrestling media, and the relationship is not a warm one. However, it is fairly cordial. For example, if Wade Keller or Dave Meltzer were backstage at a WWE event, there wouldn't be open hostility towards them and they wouldn't be thrown out of the building. But they also might not get an invitation to Vince McMahon's office!

McMahon himself has, at times, reached out to the sheets at low points during his company's history. For example during the scandals of 1992 he gathered various journalists for a tour of WWF headquarters in what was either a gesture of openness or a desperation public relations ploy in the hope of favourable coverage!

Most wrestling news is indeed leaked, but in the case of the big guns like the Observer and the Torch there are an awful lot of sources, both wrestlers up and down the card and also backstage workers at various levels, right up to management. If WWE wanted to deliberately leak a story, it wouldn't take much. For example when Brock Lesnar and Dave Batista were at Wrestlemania, WWE clearly wanted word to get out, so it was simply not kept much of a secret backstage. Also, it's worth noting that every source has an ulterior motive of some description; if word gets out, about anything, it's because the source considered it newsworthy and because they wanted it out.

As for stooges in the wrestling media, I think in general WWE wouldn't bother to pay someone to run a favourable website, when probably 95% of their fans only bother with wwe.com in the first place. There have been a couple of examples of wrestling journalists who went on to work for companies (WCW especially), but I just don't think WWE deems it of great importance to infiltrate the world of insider wrestling fans. Maybe, again, it would become more of a concern to the company if business was really awful, but overall it just isn't something that's worth their time.

I'm pretty sure the major sheets can be trusted not to be puppets of WWE. The only concern is when they are deliberately fed the wrong information, but I think the likes of Keller and Meltzer are very good at ratifying and double-ratifying the stories they are given, and they make it clear when they are reporting rumours as opposed to facts. If a website or dirtsheet reports things that have a strong bias, they are probably worth avoiding anyway. I think the Torch and Observer have a long history of historical evidence that proves they get it right most of the time, and they aren't in the business of giving anybody favourable coverage.

Crips,

Your unfounded suspicions? Would they happen to revolve around alleged homosexual on goings between Vince and HBK? Or along similar lines?

King Beer wrote:Crips,

Your unfounded suspicions? Would they happen to revolve around alleged homosexual on goings between Vince and HBK? Or along similar lines?

Yep. Again, like I said, I've got no proof, but I always felt there was something about Vince's devotion to Shawn. And I think there was enough in Shawn's stripper act with his gyrations and dancing and little tight pants to justify the nickname HBgay...

I've heard the rumours myself. It's not the first suggestion of homosexuality in wrestling, Hogan has been the centre of rumours since his divorce from Linda, Warrior and Savage as well.

crippledtart wrote:

King Beer wrote:Crips,

Your unfounded suspicions? Would they happen to revolve around alleged homosexual on goings between Vince and HBK? Or along similar lines?

Yep. Again, like I said, I've got no proof, but I always felt there was something about Vince's devotion to Shawn. And I think there was enough in Shawn's stripper act with his gyrations and dancing and little tight pants to justify the nickname HBgay...

Can either of you go into anymore detail on this?

I probably shouldn't have said anything...

Like I said, it's purely a bit of a hunch I've always had. Nothing more I can add!

Lawsuit coming your way soon!

Crimey wrote:Lawsuit coming your way soon!

Quick, ask me a question that doesn't concern anyone's sexuality...

crippledtart wrote:

Crimey wrote:Lawsuit coming your way soon!

Quick, ask me a question that doesn't concern anyone's sexuality...

You know this Orlando Jordan....

Here is a question...with wrestlers travelling and performing so often, how do they find time to maintain their awesome physiques in the gym? After a heavy lifting session I couldn't bare to face being thrown about a ring!

UpsideDownFace wrote:

crippledtart wrote:

King Beer wrote:Crips,

Your unfounded suspicions? Would they happen to revolve around alleged homosexual on goings between Vince and HBK? Or along similar lines?

Yep. Again, like I said, I've got no proof, but I always felt there was something about Vince's devotion to Shawn. And I think there was enough in Shawn's stripper act with his gyrations and dancing and little tight pants to justify the nickname HBgay...

Can either of you go into anymore detail on this?

Vince may have liked HBK for more than just his in ring ability and HBK may not of just dropped to his knees to embrace god.

Although I'm sure HBK's in 'ring' ability was appreciated just the same.

The_Essence_of_Excellence wrote:Here is a question...with wrestlers travelling and performing so often, how do they find time to maintain their awesome physiques in the gym? After a heavy lifting session I couldn't bare to face being thrown about a ring!

What a refreshing change of topic!

Wrestlers will usually find a gym the morning after a house show, before they head off to the next town. On days off, they might have a longer session in the gym. I'm not a weightlifter, but I believe that once you've built up the muscle mass it doesn't take hours and hours every day to maintain it; an hour each day (working on different muscles from one day to the next), combined with a good diet, should be enough. And given that a good physique is one of the major requirements of being a wrestler it is simply something that's got to be done as part of a wrestler's working day. Can anyone clarify whether an hour a day would be sufficient to maintain muscularity?

As for cardiovascular training, a lot of this would come in the ring every night. A wrestler may not be able to run a marathon but they'll certainly be 'match fit' from wrestling most nights, plus maybe two or three trips each week to a treadmill or exercise bike for a half an hour.

So in total you're probably looking at 10-15 hours in the gym each week, which is also about the same amount of time most wrestlers spend on twitter.

Cheers Crips.

I think a day is usually enough to recover from a session. Just wondered how they found the time and being on the road must make it tricky to eat well. To many sausage rolls on the motorway service stations for example haha!

As you say it's an investment in their future...perhaps someone should forward this to the Big Show

crippledtart wrote:So in total you're probably looking at 10-15 hours in the gym each week, which is also about the same amount of time most wrestlers spend on twitter.

Crips, before Vince got excited about Twitter, a lot of wrestlers were using it anyway. Were these tweets monitored by WWE staff and if they weren't are they now monitored by WWE staff?

Kurt Angle had one of the most impressive rookie years in the wwe with a long undefeated streak, european, ic and wwe title wins. Was Angle set from the get go to have such a monumental push due to his gold medal win or was this something the wwe reacted to due to his performances?

Also can you recall any other rookie years that would compare to this in terms of impact and title wins?

I think with Angle you have to look at the 3 former WWE champs that were out of the picture from February 2000. Undertaker was injured and required elbow surgery, Austin had his neck injury and Mick Foley retired in February in 2000. Benoit and the Radicalz didn't come onto the scene until prior to Wrestlemania XVI. Big Show won the WWE title at Survivor Series in 1999 and wasn't fully over. You had The Rock and HHH that was the main feud for 2000 up until Summerslam when HHH was going to feud with Austin and also Rock had upcoming film commitments with the Mummy Returns. Angle had the benefit of being in the right place at the right time. My understanding that Billy Gunn was due for a massive push post Summerslam 1999 after his match with The Rock, but injury and poor attitude backstage cost him that push.

I guess Goldberg's streak in WCW mirrors to Angle's undefeated streak. In terms of titles I would probably rank Orton and Lesnar. Brock broke through in 2002, won the KOTR and then the WWE Title at Summerslam. Orton won the IC title in 2003 and the WHC in 2004.

I'd say Brock had a better first year than Angle, beating the Rock for the title at Summerslam, he was then screwed out of the title by Heyman, so didnt lose clean. He then regained the title in the main event of mania against Angle. I don't think any debut year beats that.

I think Brock Lesnar wins it for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the fact that at Wrestlemania 18 he wasn't even a member of the active roster, but by Wrestlemania 19 he was regaining the world title in the main event. Secondly, if you compare him to Goldberg for example, his rate of progress as a performer was simply incredible.

I have to admit, when Lesnar debuted on Raw in 2002 I thought he was just another green stiff with no charisma, and for the first few weeks that remained in question. But once he built up some momentum, he became one of the very best in the industry. He had great matches, he oozed charisma, could play face or heel and he was a very good talker.

Kurt Angle's debut year was extremely impressive, and he was possibly a better performer than Lesnar, but I don't think he made the same impression as Lesnar where he seemed like he could be the top name in all of wrestling for years to come. The best performer, possibly, but not the top man as far as being someone you would build the top promotion around, like Hogan or Austin in their prime. For Brock to make that impression in his debut year was an amazing accomplishment.

I think what was so impressive about Lesnar is being 6'3 and 295 and being able to make guys who were taller and heavier than him look so 'small' take HHH and Rock who were 6'5 and 270lbs and they look small compared to Lesnar. I remember him F5ing Henry who was 400+ lbs and how easy that seemed to him. His match with Big Show just put him on another level. Wrestlemania as crip related to as well demonstrated how adapt Lesnar was, yes the botched 5 star press, but for a guy of his build to attempt that was brilliant.

Lesnar make no mistake is a phenominal athlete that combined power and speed and agility all together.

Miz NG wrote:Crips, before Vince got excited about Twitter, a lot of wrestlers were using it anyway.  Were these tweets monitored by WWE staff and if they weren't are they now monitored by WWE staff?

 
No, I don't think they were monitored, and I doubt they are now. I think there would only be a problem if a wrestler tweeted something negative the company then found out about.
 
That's the thing about Twitter; it's so easy to get in trouble because there is no kind of filtering. Wrestlers tweet whatever comes into their mind at any given moment. It’s a bit like talking really! There isn't really a way to police it; WWE just has to trust its wrestlers' judgment, and hope that, if a tweet does get out that is potentially damaging to the company’s reputation, nobody notices it! And if a wrestler tweets something that could be considered critical of WWE, the likelihood is that the wrestler would suffer most!
 
Part of a wrestler's job, especially in a corporate wrestling promotion like WWE, is to be an ambassador for that company; to know the right and wrong things to say when dealing with the media. In many ways there aren't set rules about what to say or do, it's just something they pick up as they go along. And if they don't pick it up, it is a black mark against their name. For example Mr Anderson could never quite work out the correct way to present himself in interviews, and it eventually worked against him once the knives came out on other matters. It’s just another thing, like getting a lot of injuries, that rightly or wrongly leads to management losing trust in a wrestler.
 
One thing I can say for sure is that tweets aren’t pre-approved by WWE; with that being the case, it is inevitable that sometimes a wrestler will say something on Twitter that lands them in hot water. But that’s the nature of Twitter, and the biggest loser is usually the person who tweeted it in the first place.

I dont know if this has been asked but I'll go for it.

Do you think the attitude of the Attitude Era will ever return? What's gonna have to happen for that to return, or even even half way there?

Maybe not the blatant sexism, but the blood, the risktakers, the sheer violence it seemed to be.

Also, opinion one. Why do you think Foley tainted his reputation? It's never really crossed my mind for that to have happened

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:I dont know if this has been asked but I'll go for it.

Do you think the attitude of the Attitude Era will ever return? What's gonna have to happen for that to return, or even even half way there?

Maybe not the blatant sexism, but the blood, the risktakers, the sheer violence it seemed to be.

Also, opinion one. Why do you think Foley tainted his reputation? It's never really crossed my mind for that to have happened

 

 

This will be a long answer!

 

 

Question 1:

 

I think the attitude, with a small "a", can return to the WWE product, or indeed any wrestling product. More than anything, I think that during the Attitude Era, the attitude in question related more to the confidence and swagger of a promotion that knew everything it touched turned to gold. I really don't think the things you mentioned were the crucial aspects in making the Attitude Era a success. ECW featured blatant sexism, blood, risktakers and sheer violence, moreso than the WWF in fact, and ECW went out of business after a predominantly unprofitable run.

 

The success of the Attitude Era came down to two things, for me. And in fact they are the same factors that made a very different WWF product successful in the mid-to-late 80s too. The promotion was main evented by extremely charismatic, relatively fresh faces at the peak of their careers. And, once they started to get noticed and plaudits started flooding in, there was an intangible confidence and coolness to the product that was contagious. It's sort of like asking how come a footballer can score for ten games running, only to then go ten games without scoring. When you're riding the crest of a wave, and everyone thinks you're great, you get a swagger and confidence that just can't be manufactured.

 

At that moment in time, everything just clicked. The WWF had the right roster, with the right people in the right positions, the right storylines, and an attitude that captured the zeitgeist of late 90s America. Just as the mid-to-late 80s had all of those same factors. One of the common things you hear is that the business is cyclical; that it will have good times and bad times, and wrestling promotions are almost helpless to stop that. I don't agree. I think that, if you are putting forth a consistently good product month after month after month, with big stars at the top of the card and compelling storylines, people won't just switch off. The problem is when the swagger and confidence turns to complacency, and that complacency leads to laziness, and you don't create new stars or new compelling storylines, and then you start to lose fans and you get desperate, and then you're not cool any more. So, while I agree that business is cyclical, I don't think it has to be. I think it's only cyclical because wrestling promotions make the same mistakes.

 

I recently watched D'Lo Brown vs Val Venis from Summerslam 98 (don't ask why, I have no idea) and I couldn't get over how much the promotion felt like it was the coolest thing going. Bear in mind, it was D'Lo Brown vs Val Venis. There was no blood. There was no violence. There were no highspots. There were no women. It was an average match. But the whole thing felt like such a big deal. The wrestlers and commentators and crowd had an edge and an energy to them that can't be replicated. You could have that exact match now, with the same storyline and the same commentary in the same building, between two wrestlers of comparable stature (and it's important to establish, these were not huge stars, they were talented mid-carders but they were nowhere near the level of many of today's WWE roster), and it would never have that energy to it.

 

So I totally think that WWE, and wrestling in general, can experience another boom period, and if that happens they will have their attitude back, however violent or bloody or "adult" the product is. But they have to get everything lined up, and at the moment I think there are so many things wrong with the WWE product that even if they made the product twice as violent and had naked women running around, it would not result in a long-term increase in business. In fact, the company has definitely relaxed its PG rules a little bit in the last few months, with Brock Lesnar for example cutting some decidedly non-PG promos, but I don't think that in itself is anywhere near enough to move the needle.

 

I do think, however, that the company realises the violence of the Attitude Era was unsustainable. In fact, the whole mentality of the Attitude Era was unsustainable! It was a style that couldn't last for 20-30 years, both from a wrestling standpoint and a booking one. Particularly, though, the violent in-ring style had severe repercussions for the wrestlers, and led to increased scrutiny on the industry. I would think (and hope) that WWE wouldn't want to go down that path again, and that if it did go down that path it would meet with strong resistance both within the industry and from the media. But if business got bad enough, I wouldn't put it past them to have a bash...

 

Which leads me to my last point. At the risk of sounding pedantic, you asked if it will "ever" return. I'm sure at some point there will be another boom period, and I'm sure at some point - if business gets bad enough and when Linda McMahon is done with politics - WWE will consider another bash at making the product more "adult", but if you're asking whether that will be in the next two or three years, I lean towards that not happening. If you're asking if it will ever happen, I would say it probably will!

 

 

Question 2:

 

I find it really interesting that you'd ask about Foley, only because I assumed it was a common perception that he has tainted his legacy.

 

There are a number of reasons why I consider his legacy to be tainted, and they all go back to what he used to be. Mick Foley was the darling of the hardcore fans because of more than just his wild bumps. He was considered a great wrestling mind, who got to the top of the WWF against all the odds because of the awesome psychology of his character and interviews, and who seemed to remain genuinely humble and relateable (if that's even a word!) even when he was part of a WWF main event scene that boasted Steve Austin and The Rock, during the hottest run of business the company ever had. He also played a hugely important role in changing the audience's perception of The Rock and Triple H, in taking a floundering Undertaker and making him relevant and interesting again, and in establishing the dynamics of the crucial Austin-McMahon feud. His first book changed the public perception of wrestlers, and was the work of a man who showed a true understanding of the wrestling business, as well as a warm wit and bags of humility and gratitude for how far he'd come.

 

The problem was, somewhere along the way he became a parody of himself. Now, I can understand that seeing "Foley is God" signs must have skewed his self-perception somewhat, but I feel that Mick began to coast on his reputation way too much. It didn't help that, after making a big deal about his retirement being forever, he came out of retirement six weeks later, but it wasn't just that. It's more that, as the years have passed, Foley has become more and more desperate for attention and desperate for everyone to see how funny he is and hear how humble he is. The man who once upon a time would have pitied the veteran wrestler hanging around beyond their sell-by-date living on past glories has become exactly that. Now he dresses up as Santa for the Smackdown Christmas show, and takes part in comedy plugs with Santino. The man who would have once relished the chance to help TNA make ground on WWE got to Orlando and became another lazy, broken down and overpaid obstacle to the progression of talented, more athletic, more relevant younger wrestlers.

 

I think the reason I would say he's tainted his legacy is that, if he'd ridden off into the sunset 12 years ago, he would be considered a bona fide legend. Everything he's done since has been slightly less important than the last thing. Now, he's mainly part of unadvertised comedy skits; his name means nothing to the bottom line. And he seems to have adopted the very mentality he used to mock in others, specifically with regards to lazily coasting on his past glories, desperate to be what he once was, and unable to walk away. The fact that, at his age and in his condition, he clearly still wants to wrestle, says a lot about Foley's inability to move on in life. And the fact that WWE doesn't appear too interested in putting him back in the ring says even more about how his stock has plummeted.

Beautifully answered as ever. You are right, those mid card matches used to matter, now they are just something that happens to some extent. In my mind that comes with the brand splits, I've never liked it. The intercontinental title matters so little now. In many ways I can see why they'd give it to Big Show, he's popular and it brings some fans into that story, but I want to see the guys just outside the main event using it to break in. Cody Rhodes has done that a bit, but hes never had a great feud. Leave the US to the likes of Santino and, get Ziggler, The Miz and Rhodes desperate to take on Show. In my mind the World Heavyweight Championship is what the intercontinental title was, but the brand thing spreads quality too thinly.

They also lack variation, lazy like you say. The attitude era threw up cage fights and ladder matches just to pull in the viewers for Raw, now they don't have that competition for viewers it seems PPV are the only time they are desperate to bring in someone new. And even those are samey. Granted there was bundles of talent around then, I dont think there is that level anymore. It's why I'm never too anti-Cena, he hasnt had the people around him to feud with. At times 10-15 years ago any 1 of 6 or 7 men could be champion, now they either arent good enough or the stories darent be written to involve too many. I think its why they have to bring back the old guys, although they manage that wrong, never making the effort to put over the midcarders (they dont even need to win, if Taker beat Ziggler at WM he'd still get a massive boost and the experience).

I think theres a balance between this and then that could be found, but they're making money from the kids so why stop (from their position).


Not to take this over too much (Ok I have already with this long reply, i'll edit it out in a week!) I'd say tainted was a little harsh. Certainly not to Flair or Hogan standards. In a way I'd love to see them give him a chance to be a part of things properly, he could be a great asset. Sadly, the new era doesnt suit him. Theres a role there that keeps him in the picture for a reason, but neither he or the company seem to be able to find it. He does well for them, but hes stuck in a role the times have created, a PR role. Kids club comedy for Smackdown, talking to Sky sports news before WM. But he accepts it, whereas Flair and Hogan have always had attitudes. Funnily enough, I think the only way back in the ring for him would be Mankind, cos he doesnt have to be athletic, he has to be mad. But I dont think the company dare. A mankind promo could turn the 1 hour mark of Raw that gets stale in between the big matches into interesting TV. And I think he could certainly turn the likes of Ziggler and Rhodes into bigger players (I mention them again). They'd have to learn to sell a story. If Show can still do it I think maybe Foley can. I suppose it comes down to how you remember people. I just see it as a man who loves the business. Its like when footballers retire at the top of the game. As a fan it drives me mad. I love seeing older guys keep playing at lower levels, showing they love the sport for more than the acclaim.

Or maybe its cos him and Taker are just my all time faves so im excusing them too much! Cheers though!

Mate, if Foley's legacy isn't tainted in your eyes don't let me stand in the way! I'm pleased for those who still view him as fondly as they did in his heyday and I can see why they do - I think he's a decent bloke with a great body of work.

It does help that I've just finished watching every Raw from 99 and now im onto Raw and Smackdowns of 2000. And just reread his first book. I really should catch up with the world of today

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:It does help that I've just finished watching every Raw from 99 and now im onto Raw and Smackdowns of 2000. And just reread his first book. I really should catch up with the world of today

We have iPods now!

Me and my cassette player are doing great, you should hear my mixtape

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:Me and my cassette player are doing great, you should hear my mixtape

Cass? Ette?

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:It does help that I've just finished watching every Raw from 99 and now im onto Raw and Smackdowns of 2000. And just reread his first book. I really should catch up with the world of today

Where did you watch these raws? If its online I'd be interested.

Ent wrote:

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:It does help that I've just finished watching every Raw from 99 and now im onto Raw and Smackdowns of 2000. And just reread his first book. I really should catch up with the world of today

Where did you watch these raws? If its online I'd be interested.

Good question

Crips,

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

DonIffy wrote:

Ent wrote:

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:It does help that I've just finished watching every Raw from 99 and now im onto Raw and Smackdowns of 2000. And just reread his first book. I really should catch up with the world of today

Where did you watch these raws? If its online I'd be interested.

Good question

I downloaded them, but if thats not your thing then you can get quite a lot through youtube and dailymotion, but not always every week. If you use torrents pm me and i'll try find the link I used and send it to you. The files are massive though.

Also, this website (http://stagevu.com/search?x=0&y=0&for=wwf+raw+1999&in=Videos) seems to have a lot from before as well as the 1999s and PPV. Most of the PPVs can be found on the net, if not the whole things then the significant matches. Without downloading though you will probably have to jump around a bit through sites, and remember the US do their dates different

This has gone well over 20 pages, mods/admin can you please lock this topic please and author please create a new one.

An no one answered my question from months back who is tougher The Rock or Stone Cold.

What are you talking about?!

VivaPaulScholes wrote:An no one answered my question from months back who is tougher The Rock or Stone Cold.

The best advice I could give would be for you to go up to both of them, pretend to shine their heads and grab their noses and see who has the stronger reaction...

VivaPaulScholes wrote:This has gone well over 20 pages, mods/admin can you please lock this topic please and author please create a new one.

Why?? This could potentially be the biggest thread in forum history! Let it be I say.

VivaPaulscholes, you worry about your own threads going over twenty pages and I'll worry about mine

crippledtart wrote:VivaPaulscholes, you worry about your own threads going over twenty pages and I'll worry about mine

You probably should start a new one. The forum software will split this off after 23 pages.