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.

Crips , You have probably been asked this before but did the WWE ever try to sign Bob Sapp ? Watched a film with him in it last night and it just got me thinking .

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Crips , You have probably been asked this before but did the WWE ever try to sign Bob Sapp ? Watched a film with him in it last night and it just got me thinking .

They made him an offer in 2003 or 2004 to come in but Sapp decided to stay in Japan as he was making a truckload of money over there, was a household name and would have been starting from square one if he joined WWE.

theundisputedY2D2 wrote:

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Crips , You have probably been asked this before but did the WWE ever try to sign Bob Sapp ? Watched a film with him in it last night and it just got me thinking .

They made him an offer in 2003 or 2004 to come in but Sapp decided to stay in Japan as he was making a truckload of money over there, was a household name and would have been starting from square one if he joined WWE.

cheers

How come the WWE decided to package Kevin Nash as Diesel for his return at the RR this year?

Crips - If WWE do go turn their back on PG, what effect will it have on the Matel contract? I thought they only recently signed an extension.

In the thread on those who are respected you state that:

"I can't decide on a winner (although Charles Wright is an inspired bit of comedy). Well done everyone."

Care to explain why he isn't respected? Thanks.

Bonesaw's ready wrote:How come the WWE decided to package Kevin Nash as Diesel for his return at the RR this year?

I have a theory on this, and it's probably way off the mark, but here goes. I think it was the entrance music. They knew the truck horn would get an instant pop so they sent with Diesel instead of Nash. That, and Diesel is the actual WWE character as opposed to the Nash moniker which was only around for a few months in WWE.

I'd assumed that Diesel was at the Rumble for nostalgic reasons, it was at the 94 Rumble where Diesel truly arrived as a potential top face

I think liverbnz and gaffer are spot on with their assessment re Diesel. A combination of factors but probably mainly because of the nostalgia factor and the fact that, in the WWE universe (small "U"), Diesel was a far bigger deal than Kevin Nash.

Why has he now returned under his real name? I guess it's because the Diesel gimmick is fine for a one-off return but if the plan is a full-time run in the company they would prefer to go with the more famous and successful (and more three-dimensional) Kevin Nash character.

JoshSansom wrote:In the thread on those who are respected you state that:

"I can't decide on a winner (although Charles Wright is an inspired bit of comedy). Well done everyone."

Care to explain why he isn't respected? Thanks.

I didn't say he isn't respected, and I didn't mean to suggest he personally is a joke, but the thread was entitled "five most respected wrestlers ever". It's comical to suggest he would be in such a list.

Charles Wright was legitimately tough, but that doesn't put him in the top five most respected wrestlers ever, more respected than Lou Thesz and Buddy Rogers! For years his nickname, according to Mick Foley, was "the black hole of charisma"; does that sound like a man whose colleagues looked up to him?!

Obviously such a list is subjective; there is no such thing as a definitive list of the top five most respected wrestlers ever. But if there was, Charles Wright wouldn't be on it. He never drew money, never headlined anywhere, wasn't very good in the ring, and had one successful gimmick that was over for about 12 months. Like I said, his only claim to respect was being legitimately tough, and it's not like he's even particularly famous for that! (Haku, for example, is more famous for his toughness, as are many others).

xTwisTx wrote:Crips - If WWE do go turn their back on PG, what effect will it have on the Matel contract? I thought they only recently signed an extension.

They are clearly being very careful to just about remain within the realms of PG. I think if they decided to scrap the PG rating it would have implications on not just the Mattel deal but various sponsorships. Therefore the only chance they will ditch PG is if they discover that pushing the boundaries leads to substantially increased business (similar to the mid to late 90s), which isn't happening at the moment. Otherwise it isn't worth it.

So, to answer your question, it would have a big effect and would only be considered by WWE if they see proof that business would surge upwards under a different rating.

Do you know what the relationship between Nash and Vince is like?

Sean Waltman is a guy that in the past got a fair bit of stick yet over the past few years he's seemingly turned a corner. He's obviously still good friends with the Kliq of Hunter, Michaels, Nash and Hall, but he's also good friends with guys that over the years have had major fallings out with the Kliq like the New Age Outlaws and Scott Steiner. Add to that he's more than happy to do his trade in the proper indys like CHIKARA and seemingly gets on well with these guys.
Basically I'd just like to know more about where he stands in the back nowadays with guys, I've always rated him as a wrestler and think he could have still offered a lot to WWE barring his Hep C.

Which superstars have been successful at other sports?

I heard Ken Shamrock was pretty good with MMA...

I heard XPac was good at snooker in the Far East.
Well he potted both the pink and the brown in China anyway.

Hero wrote:I heard XPac was good at snooker in the Far East.
Well he potted both the pink and the brown in China anyway.

Holymiky wrote:Do you know what the relationship between Nash and Vince is like?

It's a funny one, and not dissimilar to Nash's relationships with most of wrestling's powerbrokers over the years.

Nash is a manipulator. He's an imposing physical specimen, he's extremely intelligent, he's funny, he's charming. He talks a good game, he knows how to plant seeds of doubt in people's minds, and he usually gets his own way. Vince is as susceptible to that as anybody.

However, more often than not over the years Nash has been a failure. He failed as WWF champion when he was Diesel, he failed as a world title contender in WCW, he failed when the NWO reformed in the WWF, he failed in his WWE singles run, and he failed in TNA. His only success was the original NWO. If you took Kevin Nash's career outside the years 1996-1999, he has been a complete and utter failure. He doesn't sell tickets, he doesn't sell PPVs, he doesn't draw TV viewers, he doesn't draw people to house shows, and so on.

Where most bookers have given him what he wanted and watched him fail, the difference with Vince is that, while he is usually charmed into giving Nash what he wants, he is also quick to pull the plug when Nash almost inevitably delivers a sub-par performance.

The best example is the Triple H vs Nash world title match in 2003. Vince was so disappointed in Nash's performance in the build up to that match that he completely lost faith in Nash on the mic and wouldn't let him talk, and instead shifted the focus to Triple H and guest referee Mick Foley. This just a year after the NWO reunion lasted all of four months and various line-up changes.

It seems that, eight years later, Vince has been manipulated by Nash again.

Hero wrote:Sean Waltman is a guy that in the past got a fair bit of stick yet over the past few years he's seemingly turned a corner. He's obviously still good friends with the Kliq of Hunter, Michaels, Nash and Hall, but he's also good friends with guys that over the years have had major fallings out with the Kliq like the New Age Outlaws and Scott Steiner. Add to that he's more than happy to do his trade in the proper indys like CHIKARA and seemingly gets on well with these guys.
Basically I'd just like to know more about where he stands in the back nowadays with guys, I've always rated him as a wrestler and think he could have still offered a lot to WWE barring his Hep C.

He's hugely liked and respected. Other wrestlers think very highly of him, even enemies of each other, as you point out.

Waltman had such a wise wrestling mind at such a young age, and did so much to help his opponents and colleagues; even during the worst days of the Clique, Waltman wasn't considered a politician. He's also far more intelligent than you might assume, which I think helped him a lot when he started out.

Obviously he's got a reputation for partying, and it cost him the best years of his career (can you believe that in his DX days he was still in his 20s?! Younger than Alex Riley and Kofi Kingston are now). But even at a young age he was seen as a veteran, such was his poise in the ring.

He does help out WWE assessing developmental wrestlers in Florida. I think it's the best role for him; no doubt he could help immensely on the road and in the creative team, but he's struggled with the daily grind before and I think he's best used in a casual role where he doesn't have to travel or work long hours.

Without a doubt though, he is afforded the highest respect by his colleagues, for all his faults, and is seen as one of the nicest men in the industry.

What was the point of Gillberg?

UpsideDownFace wrote:What was the point of Gillberg?

It was just a small dig at the competition. The Monday Night Wars were genuinely heated and extremely petty - it was felt that one of the great tools in getting ahead (or at least one of the most enjoyable) was to mock the other promotion's main acts. It's not dissimilar to the Billionaire Ted skits in the WWF around 95/96, the Bret Hart midget after Montreal, or the Oklahoma character in WCW. In fact, compared to those three, it was pretty tasteful!

WCW had a hot act in Goldberg and the WWF felt that by doing a Goldberg parody they could take away some of his mystique, and possibly throw both Goldberg and WCW off their game a bit. It was a compliment to him really, especially with the WWF ahead in the ratings war at that time and really not needing to play dirty.

Cheers crips. I obviously knew it was a dig at Goldberg and wcw but just wanted to know the reasoning behind it

I never really understood the mentality of the whole Nacho Man, Huckster & Gilberg thing. Really it only highlights your competition and wastes your own time during the show. Honestly what WWF viewer at that time would have thought 'this is hilarious, good on you WWF for showcasing all that's wrong at WCW, I'll never watch that two bit broadcast'?! Whenever I saw Gilberg it just reminded me how awesome Goldberg's rise was.

Probably just an example of Vince and co. wanting to slap themselves on the back. Why they devoted tv time to it is beyond me.

Bonesaw's ready wrote:I never really understood the mentality of the whole Nacho Man, Huckster & Gilberg thing. Really it only highlights your competition and wastes your own time during the show. Honestly what WWF viewer at that time would have thought 'this is hilarious, good on you WWF for showcasing all that's wrong at WCW, I'll never watch that two bit broadcast'?! Whenever I saw Gilberg it just reminded me how awesome Goldberg's rise was.

Probably just an example of Vince and co. wanting to slap themselves on the back. Why they devoted tv time to it is beyond me.

The Billionaire Ted stuff was pure desperation, unmatched until last year's "Stand Up For WWE" campaign!

Like I said, the Monday Night War was incredibly petty. I totally agree that time would be much better spent making your own product look good than making the competition's product look bad.

You are exactly right that of all things in WCW worth mocking, Goldberg was one of the few things they did right and there really was nothing about him to mock! The WWF looked stupid for parodying something so cool.

Get this article going again. Couple of questions for you Crips. What was the "Stand up for WWE" campaign? I wasn't watching at the time so have no idea what it was. Also, what happened on the post-9/11 Smackdown? I have heard it was cancelled and bought back again. Did anything happen on the show that was significant, or is just remembered so much because of the tragedy that had happened?

UpsideDownFace wrote:Get this article going again. Couple of questions for you Crips. What was the "Stand up for WWE" campaign? I wasn't watching at the time so have no idea what it was. Also, what happened on the post-9/11 Smackdown? I have heard it was cancelled and bought back again. Did anything happen on the show that was significant, or is just remembered so much because of the tragedy that had happened?

Stand Up For WWE:

This was a short-lived campaign to counter-act a lot of 'negative reporting' that was surrounding Linda McMahon's ill-fated Senate election campaign. A lot of newspapers and TV stations started saying bad things like 'Lots of former wrestlers are dead!', criticising the working conditions (you know, by WWE classifying it's wrestlers as independent contractors they avoid paying an awful lot of tax) and other such stuff. WWE's idea was to get a lot of wrestlers saying how awesome the WWE is, and encouraging any fans who read such false reporting to contact the newspaper and put forward WWE's opinion of how awesome the entire company is...

Post 9/11 Smackdown:

It was the first mass public meeting in America following the event, basically. Everything else was cancelled, until WWE filmed Smackdown.

UpsideDownFace wrote:Get this article going again. Couple of questions for you Crips. What was the "Stand up for WWE" campaign? I wasn't watching at the time so have no idea what it was. Also, what happened on the post-9/11 Smackdown? I have heard it was cancelled and bought back again. Did anything happen on the show that was significant, or is just remembered so much because of the tragedy that had happened?

The "Stand up for WWE" campaign came about as a result of Linda McMahon's run for Senate. Vince McMahon felt that the media were portraying the WWE in a negative light in order to reflect badly on Linda. They did a bunch of videos where WWE superstars talked about how WWE was the best thing ever and the media was nasty and that you shouldn't believe anything they said about WWE because it was all lies. That kinda stuff.

The Smackdown 9/11 tribute show took place 2 days after the attacks. The show itself has been remembered more for Bradshaw's promo on the Taliban and for Stephanie McMahon's vignette where she compared the 9/11 attacks to what her old man went through when the Feds were after him in the early 90's.

Crips, out of all the potential talent in FCW who do you think we will be most likely to see in the future on raw or smackdown? Also has any talent been directly brought from CZW to WWE, John Moxely i know has previously wrestled in that promotion but i can't think of any others. Also in the last 5-10 years who in your own personal opinon think has been the most criminally underused wrestler(s) in the WWE product.

Also i've gained alot of wrestling knowledge thanks to this very thread and for that i would like to thanks crips and anyone else who has contributed to this thread, thank you

1891_Eniluap wrote:Crips, out of all the potential talent in FCW who do you think we will be most likely to see in the future on raw or smackdown? Also has any talent been directly brought from CZW to WWE, John Moxely i know has previously wrestled in that promotion but i can't think of any others. Also in the last 5-10 years who in your own personal opinon think has been the most criminally underused wrestler(s) in the WWE product.

Also i've gained alot of wrestling knowledge thanks to this very thread and for that i would like to thanks crips and anyone else who has contributed to this thread, thank you

Thanks, it's good to hear.

I've heard that Richie Steamboat could be a huge star when he is eventually called up to the main roster. Seth Rollins aka Tyler Black is another candidate to be a big star, but his background in ROH works against him, whereas Steamboat has heritage on his side and is a WWE creation. I actually think Moxley (Dean Ambrose in FCW) could be a dark horse. He's got size working against him but he's such a good talker that I could see WWE eventually getting behind him a few years down the line as a Roddy Piper-style agitator.

I can't think of any CZW wrestlers who went straight to WWE except maybe Claudio when he initially joined WWE developmental a few years ago? I'm not too clever about CZW though so I might be way off the mark there.

As for the most underutilised wrestler, this isn't supposed to be an opinion thread so hopefully my answer won't take it off topic, but in my opinion the most underutilised wrestler in WWE for the past 5-10 years is CM Punk. Punk has absolutely everything you look for in a wrestler: he's the best talker in the promotion, he has charisma, he has a unique and memorable look, and he's capable of great matches. But, because the people at the top of WWE are obsessed with size, he has never been pushed as a physical threat to anyone. Even now, in the midst of the greatest push of his WWE career, his main selling point is that he's unpredictable and controversial on the mic. I've said it before: WWE has never really had 100% faith in Punk. They know how good he is, which is why he is so heavily featured on TV, but they don't really want to push him. If you gave Vince or Stephanie McMahon or Triple H or Kevin Dunn a pen and paper and asked them to draw their perfect vision of a WWE main eventer, you wouldn't get CM Punk. Contrast with John Cena, Triple H or Undertaker, who completely fit that mould, and look how easy it is for WWE to book those three wrestlers strong compared to Punk, who in my opinion is just as talented as any of them (and, at this point in time, has greater potential to be a long-term draw if booked correctly, if only because we already know the limits of the other three in that regard) but whose direction is constantly plagued by signs of second-guessing from the creative team.

Who do you think is the best reviewer of the WWE product? Whose opinion do you value the most?

Is it my Fast forward review?

Is any of this anomosity between CM Punk and Triple H real?

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:Who do you think is the best reviewer of the WWE product? Whose opinion do you value the most?

Is it my Fast forward review?

Number one is obviously Hobo's Fast Forward review. I don't spend a lot of time on wrestling websites, so I don't know everyone out there, but I really like the stuff Wade Keller of the Pro Wrestling Torch has got to say. I think he makes a lot of sense and is very persuasive in his arguments. I don't always agree with his opinions but I agree with most of them. So he would be number two.

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:Is any of this anomosity between CM Punk and Triple H real?

They haven't always got along, and some of the things they have said about each other echo what they've said in private, but the whole thing is still an angle. Either the lines are pre-approved (most likely), or they have made a broad agreement on what can and can't be referenced.

They are both very opionionated people with strong personalities who some may call bullies. However, they are also both very intelligent and I'm sure they respect each other even if they don't personally like each other a great deal. They are collaborating on this angle and even if some of their accusations and insults are based on reality it's still all a work.

I got one for you Crips, what do you think was the thinking behind putting RVD in the latest wwe game because he would of been in tna for a good 6 months (guess work) before production would of started on the game.

My guess would be wwe dont see tna as a threat so it was a subtle point of that they were making

bretmeharty wrote:I got one for you Crips, what do you think was the thinking behind putting RVD in the latest wwe game because he would of been in tna for a good 6 months (guess work) before production would of started on the game.

My guess would be wwe dont see tna as a threat so it was a subtle point of that they were making

I think it was too late to take him out, according to the internet the roster was finished by March around the same time Van Dam joined TNA. I'm assuming a contract must have been signed and he did voice work for RTWM so it was too late to take him out. WWE would be very unlikely to make a dig like that, they don't need to.

When Paul Bearer was encased in concrete, does anyone know how they may have done this?

It's been mentioned before on other threads regarding there only being Cena Orton and now Punk of main event status , Who do you see WWE pinning their hopes on as an eventual long term successor to Cena or Orton ?

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:Who do you think is the best reviewer of the WWE product? Whose opinion do you value the most?

Is it my Fast forward review?

Number one is obviously Hobo's Fast Forward review. I don't spend a lot of time on wrestling websites, so I don't know everyone out there, but I really like the stuff Wade Keller of the Pro Wrestling Torch has got to say. I think he makes a lot of sense and is very persuasive in his arguments. I don't always agree with his opinions but I agree with most of them. So he would be number two.

Boris from Chicago?

JoshSansom wrote:When Paul Bearer was encased in concrete, does anyone know how they may have done this?

The WWE pre-recorded Bearer in the glass case before the event, they had a stunt double during the PPV, they kept cutting to the pre recorded piece during the live segment

I've been massively critical of WWE's emphasis on worked shoots lately. Personally I think it's a counter productive technique, but I've been thinking about the Hulk Hogan/Jeff Jarrett moment in WCW, where JJ lay down and Hogan's 'this is why this company is in the state it's in' (paraphrasing) promo. What was the thinking between this, did HH have knowledge of this before, was it a worked shoot or was HH genuinely caught off guard?

I watched a bit of the OMG DVD on line last night... One of the moments featured The Main Event from 88 where Dibase bought the ref & Andre ended up screwing over Hogan for the title only to sell it to the Million Dollar Man seconds later....

On the narative they claim over 33 million viewers watched!! I know WWE is the king of hyperbole but surely considering around 4 million watch Raw every week it was nowhere near this figure. Any ideas on this Crips?

Crips, I have noticed on other threads that WWE and TNA usually give out free tickets to their shows so that the arenas look full. Can you diverge into this a bit more?

xTwisTx wrote:Crips, I have noticed on other threads that WWE and TNA usually give out free tickets to their shows so that the arenas look full. Can you diverge into this a bit more?

I dont think the WWE give out free tickets.

But TNA dont charge to get into the impact zone. Fans have to pay to get into Universal Studios but with that comes access to the impact zone. Id imagine TNA get a cut of what Universal Studios charge though.

The WWE tends to selectively seat its audience as well so that the sides showing to the camera always look the most full

Mr H wrote:

xTwisTx wrote:Crips, I have noticed on other threads that WWE and TNA usually give out free tickets to their shows so that the arenas look full. Can you diverge into this a bit more?

I dont think the WWE give out free tickets.

But TNA dont charge to get into the impact zone. Fans have to pay to get into Universal Studios but with that comes access to the impact zone. Id imagine TNA get a cut of what Universal Studios charge though.

Did the 'E never then? Not even for PPV's? I must be wrong then, I thought it was a usual practice.

Mr H wrote:

xTwisTx wrote:Crips, I have noticed on other threads that WWE and TNA usually give out free tickets to their shows so that the arenas look full. Can you diverge into this a bit more?

I dont think the WWE give out free tickets.

But TNA dont charge to get into the impact zone. Fans have to pay to get into Universal Studios but with that comes access to the impact zone. Id imagine TNA get a cut of what Universal Studios charge though.

A couple of smackdowns ago it was reported an all time low in attendence there were only 3800 in the building with only 1700 paying the rest were free.

bretmeharty wrote:

Mr H wrote:

xTwisTx wrote:Crips, I have noticed on other threads that WWE and TNA usually give out free tickets to their shows so that the arenas look full. Can you diverge into this a bit more?

I dont think the WWE give out free tickets.

But TNA dont charge to get into the impact zone. Fans have to pay to get into Universal Studios but with that comes access to the impact zone. Id imagine TNA get a cut of what Universal Studios charge though.

A couple of smackdowns ago it was reported an all time low in attendence there were only 3800 in the building with only 1700 paying the rest were free.

So missing out on 2100 ticket sales makes me believe it is much more frequent, even if the number of free tickets given out are only in the hundreds.

Brady12 wrote:I watched a bit of the OMG DVD on line last night... One of the moments featured The Main Event from 88 where Dibase bought the ref & Andre ended up screwing over Hogan for the title only to sell it to the Million Dollar Man seconds later....

On the narative they claim over 33 million viewers watched!! I know WWE is the king of hyperbole but surely considering around 4 million watch Raw every week it was nowhere near this figure. Any ideas on this Crips?

I don't know for sure that 33 million is correct, but they did an astronomical number. It was, I believe, the return of wrestling to prime time national Saturday night TV after about 20 or 30 years. The WWF was at the absolute peak of it's 80s boom period. The rating was something like a 15.0!!!

It seems unimaginable now that a wrestling show could draw such a number, but many things came together. It was at a time when there was far less choice on TV (and in home entertainment in general - the internet included), it was in the winter time when TV viewing figures tend to be higher, it was at a time when the company had a huge mainstream presence as a result of the first three Wrestlemanias, and it was also incredibly rare to see a match of such magnitude on free TV. I think that, with all these factors taken into account, it is possible that one in six Americans might have watched SNME that night.

23 years later, after a decade of barely satisfactory business, when big TV main events are a weekly occurance, and when there are so many other options available to occupy our lives, it seems unbelievable that 33 million people would watch a wrestling match on TV. It is almost certainly a number that no wrestling company will ever manage again, but I can believe it might well be true for the Hogan-Andre match.

what was more violent - ecw in their peak or czw.

Simply - Why is Hornswoggle so over? I think he is funny sometimes and a good sideshow but what got him so over as i don't believe i watched at that point in time?