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.

Holymiky wrote: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?

When did this happen?

If he was so over why would he be appearing on NXT redemption?... He is a novelty comedy act

Listen to the cheers he was getting when he was on RAW with dx as an example or even when his music used to start.

Larry Zbyszko has just started following me on Twitter and noticed he despises Chris Jericho with a passion, Superstar Billy Graham goes even further and shoots that he'd happily watch Jericho have his tongue pulled out with pliers and then bleed to death!
My question is two fold, what on earth did he do to pee off these guys and who else hates him?

Jericho ripped both of them in one of his books, Larry Zbyszko is brilliant, Jericho actually put me in mind of Zbyszko earlier in his career

Zbyszko is peed off with Chris Jericho for nicking the 'Living Legend' moniker back in 2002, which is ironic since he took the name from Bruno Sammartino.

Billy Graham was probably just trying to stay relevant.

Would Michael coles anal bleeding comment from raw monday have been approved by Vince or did he just ad lib on the spot. If he just done it off the cuff would he have been punished for it?

Loads of questions I never answered! See below...

“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 ?”

It’s really difficult to decipher whom WWE sees as the company’s future franchise wrestlers. My hunch is that it is nobody on the current roster; barring major problems, Cena and Orton are likely to be around for another 5-10 years at least. WWE has been very lazy in recent years with regards to creating new stars, and the likelihood is that habit will continue until Cena and Orton are falling apart and the company once again finds itself in desperate need for fresh blood at the top. The last time that happened, they rushed the pushes of Cena, Orton and Batista, and made pretty big stars out of all three of them (they all debuted in summer 2002 and by 2005 were bona fide main eventers). So my answer is that I don’t see the next Cena being a member of the present WWE roster.

“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?”

Hogan and Bischoff have always claimed that it was supposed to be a work, with Hogan returning triumphantly later in the year to regain his title, but that Russo double crossed them once they'd left the arena after the Hogan-Jarrett match. His story is that everything went as planned including the Jarrett match and his post-match comments, but Russo then made it real once they were out of the building with his infamous promo and by permanently writing Hogan out of storylines.

Hogan even sued WCW for defamation of character over Russo's scathing promo, although the case was dismissed as being part of wrestling storylines.

I don’t know what Russo and Jarrett claim about the incident, but the four are clearly able to co-exist today in TNA.

If it was a worked shoot, it was clearly one of many failed Russo attempts at that time to create a Montreal-esque buzz around WCW. I also wouldn't be surprised to hear they were all in on the whole thing together, as clearly it had at the very least started out as a work, and all four are obsessed with worked shoot storylines.

Russo was under considerable pressure at that time, and was experiencing his first fan backlash after getting a lot of credit for the WWF’s Attitude Era success. He was also butting heads with Hogan on a regular basis, due to Hogan’s creative control clause.

Russo has shown numerous times over the years to be extremely egotistical, immature and attention-seeking, with particularly bad judgment when dealing with high pressure situations. My hunch is that Hogan’s story was genuine, and Russo really did double cross him. Although I would also add that Russo probably did truly believe he was helping WCW by getting the promotion some much-needed attention, which never materialised.

My main reasons for believing it was genuine are twofold. Firstly, Hogan didn't gain anything from the angle. What did he have to gain from being written permanently off TV and made to look like a fool?

Secondly, Vince Russo is the world's biggest mark for controversy, shooting and the like. It would be his dream come true to have his very own legitimate screwjob to blather about. Given that the victim was Hulk Hogan, the most famous wrestling star of the 80s who had stayed around past his prime playing political games to stay on top, Russo would have salivated at the very thought of it!

“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?”

“Comping”, as it’s known, has been going on in wrestling for years, especially for TV events. Whenever there is a down period in business, it is very difficult to fill venues. WWE may seem like a juggernaught, but it struggles as much as anyone, mainly because its venues are so much bigger. It is crucial for a wrestling company to give the perception that it is successful, and one way to do so is to make sure that televised events are well attended.

When a wrestling taping is coming to town, it is not at all unusual for radio stations and local businesses to give away free tickets. Literally you can get a free ticket with every haircut if sales are bad enough, as once happened with a WCW taping. Not only does it mean more people attend the show, but it also brings potential or lost fans to the show, who then may stay loyal to the product, and furthermore it opens up the possibility of increased merchandise sales at the event. When the alternative is an empty seat, it’s an easy decision for the wrestling promotion.

It may seem crazy to think that you can go to a Smackdown taping literally free of charge, but it’s true. When you consider WWE tapes the show on a Tuesday night, usually in 5-10,000 seat venues, it’s not really a surprise that during times like this they often struggle to sell out.

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

I can’t describe how little I care about this, but I would say it was probably CZW because they were never under the same level of scrutiny that ECW was even early in its run.

“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?”

There was never a point that “got him over”. Obviously, he was involved in the major storyline about McMahon’s illegitimate child, but a character like Hornswoggle is clearly limited to being a supporting player.

People cheer when he comes to the ring, especially kids, but I think it’s mostly just a simple case of conditioning, the same way fans are conditioned to cheer any babyface to some degree. The fans have essentially been told to cheer for him, and kids are particularly susceptible to that.

I also think a big factor in Hornswoggle’s case is that he is the height of a child, and he is portrayed as childlike. He is someone a kid can relate to more than Randy Orton for example (at least I’d hope so!)

“Would Michael coles anal bleeding comment from raw monday have been approved by Vince or did he just ad lib on the spot. If he just done it off the cuff would he have been punished for it?”

I believe it was ad libbed to an extent. This could in theory result in punishment but word is that Vince McMahon and Kevin Dunn were both “ecstatic” with Cole for the line, and thought it was a moment of comedy genius.

I’m sure if Vince wasn’t happy, he’d have punished Cole. I would also find that much less disturbing than his actual reaction!

Following the 'anal bleeding' line of questioning -- was JR's response, which to me looked like disgust legitimate? And why would Cole come out with this line and antagonise his two Monday night colleagues? Surely that makes things uncomfortable between people that are supposed to sit together and work together!

sodhat wrote:Following the 'anal bleeding' line of questioning -- was JR's response, which to me looked like disgust legitimate? And why would Cole come out with this line and antagonise his two Monday night colleagues? Surely that makes things uncomfortable between people that are supposed to sit together and work together!

Great question. Yes, it was legitimate. Cole loves to needle Ross and Lawler, and Vince loves him to do it. Cole is basically the spoiled child who can get away with whatever he wants, because the "dad" will always side with him against Ross and Lawler.

I can't imagine wanting to antagonise my colleagues...! Credit to him, it was a hilarious line and he did very well to keep that face throughout, he must have been dying inside!

On the theme of announcers -- what are the WWE's long term plans?
JR and King can't go on much longer, and aside from Cole, do they have anyone to fill the void? Will they look for wrestling 'people' or just polished broadcasters a'la Adamle? (I used polished loosely here...)

1st time poster here and love reading the board. Crip just wanted to get your opinion of Chavo Guerrero and also how he hates Cena being on top. what do u think of this?

Just watched one of the double cage matches at WCW war games, didn't understand what was going off AT ALL! Could anybody explain the rules to me?

Also, who came up with the idea? Were there many matches with this stipulation and was the stipulation popular?

DonIffy wrote:1st time poster here and love reading the board. Crip just wanted to get your opinion of Chavo Guerrero and also how he hates Cena being on top. what do u think of this?

Well, as it's your first post I'll answer even though this isn't supposed to be an opinion thread!

I sympathise with Chavo. He's been brought up in the wrestling business. His father and uncles were all famous wrestlers. He respects the business. Technically he is very skilled. However, he has never made it to the very top of the industry.

Meanwhile, John Cena is making millions of dollars every year, travelling first class and has the love and respect of Vince McMahon, not because he is a more talented wrestler than Chavo but because, whatever WWE wants from its main eventers, Cena has it and Chavo doesn't.

It's akin to Wayne Rooney being replaced in the England team by Jeff Stelling because Jeff is funnier and more charismatic.

However, I think Chavo is wrong.

What Chavo overlooks is that, ultimately, wrestling is about making money. And WWE is far more likely to make money with John Cena on top than Chavo Guerrero, especially when the company has conditioned its fans for generations not to judge competitors on their mat wrestling skills. I'm not a fan of Cena at all, but I can completely see why he is pushed the way he is. He has a charisma and a presence that Chavo completely lacks. He portrays a booming, confident personality that Chavo doesn't. He's alpha male material. Chavo isn't.

In fact, some of my biggest criticisms of Cena would also apply to Chavo: He's a dork. His facial expressions scream "this man is not cool". He doesn't move gracefully; there's something a bit awkward about him. And he looks like an 8 year old.

Hulk Hogan in the 80s was far from a technically gifted worker, but if you wanted someone to make you a shedload of money, Hogan was your man. And there were plenty of wrestlers around in the 80s too who, like Chavo, resented Hogan being on top. But seriously, if you had to go with either Hogan or Greg Valentine as your top star you'd have gone with Hogan every time.

It's unfortunate for someone like Chavo who only ever wanted to be respected as a great wrestler, but it's a harsh reality of the industry. In "real" sports, you can be the ugliest, most boring, least cool person in the world but if you are faster or stronger or more skilful than the rest you will get to the top. In wrestling, the booker gets to choose who is the best. And naturally they are going to choose the person who they feel - rightly or wrongly - has the personality and presence to make the most money. Chavo should know this, and in criticising it now having happily cashed a WWE paycheck for ten years he sounds bitter and naive, in my opinion.

Crips, when do you think Vince will actually retire his on-screen character as he has seemed to attempt so often?

It's clear from dirtsheets and the way the Truth/Miz/HHH/Laurinaitis angle is shaping up that he will have yet another return...is it ego or just the fact he's a damned useful component in angles?

should chavo guerrero(spelling) jump ship and head over to TNA to get his career back on track? There is an added bonus of Hector Guerrero working as an announcer there.

UpsideDownFace wrote:Just watched one of the double cage matches at WCW war games, didn't understand what was going off AT ALL! Could anybody explain the rules to me?

Also, who came up with the idea? Were there many matches with this stipulation and was the stipulation popular?

Ha! Wargames is very fondly remembered by many fans, largely because it looked so brutal and gritty compared to anything else going on in wrestling at the time, but also because it simply produced some great matches.

Dusty Rhodes invented the match format in the mid 80s. The rules were that the match was contested between two teams of four or five. One man from each team would start. They would wrestle for five minutes before another entrant joined the match, depending on a coin toss, which the heel team always won!

The wrestlers then entered one by one alternately every two minutes. So the heels would get a 2-on-1 advantage, then the faces would even it up, and then the heels would have a 3-on-2 advantage, and so on until all members of both teams were inside the cage. Then, "The Match Beyond" would begin. It was only when everyone entered that either team could win. The match was settled by one fall. In its early days you could only win by submission, but I think that rule was relaxed a bit as time went on so that teams could also win by pinfall. I see your point about it being overcomplicated now, as I finish my third paragraph!!

There was a lot going on at once, but this added to the chaotic nature of the match at a time (and in a promotion) where it was unusual to see such chaos. The two rings were for two reasons: Firstly, to give the wrestlers twice as much room to work in, and secondly, to make the cage look even bigger and more imposing.

The match was the antithesis to the kiddie-friendly WWF, which had Hogan on top and outlandish gimmicks on the undercard, and generally a product that lacked such a strong level of violence.

The idea has been used by TNA for Lethal Lockdown. It's been mooted as a potential WWE offering ever since the buyout of WCW, but as yet we haven't seen it, largely because two of their own match stipulations (Hell in a Cell and Elimination Chamber) are so heavily influenced by Wargames.

On the September 3 episode of Raw, London and Kendrick defeated The World's Greatest Tag Team once again to earn a World Tag Team Championship match at Unforgiven against Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch,[45] in which they lost.[46] Two days later, they defeated Cade and Murdoch for the title at a house show in South Africa.[47] Three days later, at another house show, Cade and Murdoch regained the title in a rematch.[48]

So my question is why was it only a 3 day reign?, I remember them saying about it on the raw on the monday after, so it wasnt just for the crowd was it?

ncfc_Tooze wrote:On the September 3 episode of Raw, London and Kendrick defeated The World's Greatest Tag Team once again to earn a World Tag Team Championship match at Unforgiven against Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch,[45] in which they lost.[46] Two days later, they defeated Cade and Murdoch for the title at a house show in South Africa.[47] Three days later, at another house show, Cade and Murdoch regained the title in a rematch.[48]

So my question is why was it only a 3 day reign?, I remember them saying about it on the raw on the monday after, so it wasnt just for the crowd was it?

Yes it was. They may have mentioned it on TV, but that helps to give the impression to fans that house shows aren't a waste of time and that, as the old saying goes, "anything can happen in WWE".

The title change were a little bonus for the South African crowds, probably because it's a fresh market and WWE wants the fans in that market to think that, if they don't attend a house show, they might miss out on something meaningful.

It's similar to the way they often have midcard title switches in this country to stop UK fans feeling like they aren't part of the bigger picture.

crips , do you think Mark Henry should have a lengthly title reign? and how long? do you expect him to go to WM as World Champion?

When did the Miz start saying he was awesome. Was it after him attacking morrison?

He started saying he was awesome after his feud with John Cena in 09 when they re-did the whole Jericho/Goldberg gig

Miz Came To Play wrote:crips , do you think Mark Henry should have a lengthly title reign? and how long? do you expect him to go to WM as World Champion?

It's a possibility. I personally think he's doing a great job as a throwback to heels of the past, and recent Smackdown ratings have been good with him as the centrepiece, so there's no reason for WWE to panic about him. With his physical dominance being a major part of his gimmick, WWE can't afford to have him trade too many wins and losses, and they may feel that his best use is as an undefeatable monster.

I think Henry could go one of three ways. It might just be that it's "his turn on top", like Christian before him, and that he'll feud with Orton for another couple of months and then return to the midcard, like Christian before him!

Or, he could be used to make a star out of somebody. It could be that we see Henry steamroller his way to The Royal Rumble or Wrestlemania only to drop the strap to Daniel Bryan or Sheamus, maybe even Wade Barrett, or perhaps CM Punk, launching them to permanent main event status in the process. This would be my personal preference, as it's a proven way to make a new star, and it doesn't have to weaken Henry in the process.

The third option, and the one that would perhaps earn Henry the biggest payday and solodify him as a top star more than anything, would be for him to keep the belt all the way until Wrestlemania and then take on Randy Orton or Undertaker. I imagine WWE is split between this option and the second one. I don't think they see him as a short-term champion, but then again WWE doesn't have a track record in recent times of competent long-term booking.

With Cena vs Rock headlining Wrestlemania 28, it does give WWE far more scope to experiment with the rest of the card. Mark Henry vs Sheamus might not seem like a WM-worthy world title match, but with the right build-up it could be a match that establishes Sheamus, if not both of them, as major players in WWE going forward.

I predict that, if Henry keeps delivering good performances, and if his title reign doesn't have a negative effect on business, he will keep the belt until Wrestlemania. I also predict that, if that happens, he'll lose at Wrestlemania!

great read crips , and totally agree with you

When did Cena stop using his "pump up the shoes" gimmick before a FU? Was there any reason for this?

What was Kurt Angles career post Olympics but pre WWE?

Did he work the indies for example?

He went along to an ECW match and was nearly put off pro-wrestling for life I know that much.

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:What was Kurt Angles career post Olympics but pre WWE?

Did he work the indies for example?

No he didn't work the indies. He was in WWF developmental for about a year I think, joining in 1998 despite not debuting until late 1999.

I don't know what he did between 1996 and 1998, except for his ill-fated visit to the ECW Arena! I imagine he was something of a local celebrity in Pittsburgh after the Olympics, and maybe he made a living just from "being Kurt Angle" before pro wrestling came along.

He tried his hand at sports reporting on a local news channel but by all accounts he wasn't very good, although I'm sure if you asked Kurt he'd tell you he ranked in the top 1 of all sports reporters ever. And he did it all with a broken freakin' neck!

I think he also did a few rounds as a motivational speaker.

Why was CM Punk able to keep using the name CM Punk instead of being given a rubbish WWE name?

Apologies if this has been asked before but I've always wondered....

What was the public or media reaction and fallout to Savage being tied up on the ropes and getting bit by Jake Roberts' snake all those years ago? Do you know who came up with the idea? Back then it must have generated huge negative reaction from the general media?
That incident has always stuck in my head and even years after there can't be many things that the WWF/E has done that was more graphic and risked more negative exposure.
It scared the crap out of me when I was a kid!

JoshSansom wrote:Why was CM Punk able to keep using the name CM Punk instead of being given a rubbish WWE name?

I believe josh it is because he came up with the name, WWE didnt, so is copyrighted to him not wwe. Im sure crips will say if i'm wrong .

Firstly crips after ready your thought on mark Henry and how he might be booked up to wrestlemania what are your thoughts on D.Bryan and how his money in the bank shot might pan out? Will he cash in a mania? Before? Or drop the case like Anderson did to edge?

And secondly, this one is a bit random but it's always interested me and I never found the outcome, just before vince was 'blown up' in his limo there was an exchange between him and Paul London were London was grinning from ear to ear. The next week on raw king made a huge deal out of this and said 'that young man has a lot to answer for' they even played back the clip, nothing was ever followed up? why? Did they have a plan for london? Was this just coincidence, if so why did king make such a big deal out of it?

ncfc_Tooze wrote:

JoshSansom wrote:Why was CM Punk able to keep using the name CM Punk instead of being given a rubbish WWE name?

I believe josh it is because he came up with the name, WWE didnt, so is copyrighted to him not wwe. Im sure crips will say if i'm wrong .

Thanks tooze - just meant that most other indie wrestlers get given a new WWE name when they come in so that the WWE does own the rights to it. That was why Colt Cobana was named Scotty Goldman and Claudio Castagnoli has been renamed Antonio Cesara or something.

MtotheC wrote:Firstly crips after ready your thought on mark Henry and how he might be booked up to wrestlemania what are your thoughts on D.Bryan and how his money in the bank shot might pan out? Will he cash in a mania? Before? Or drop the case like Anderson did to edge?

And secondly, this one is a bit random but it's always interested me and I never found the outcome, just before vince was 'blown up' in his limo there was an exchange between him and Paul London were London was grinning from ear to ear. The next week on raw king made a huge deal out of this and said 'that young man has a lot to answer for' they even played back the clip, nothing was ever followed up? why? Did they have a plan for london? Was this just coincidence, if so why did king make such a big deal out of it?

The first one, you have to remember that they thought Anderson was going to be injured for a while which is why he dropped the briefcase, as well as the fact I'm fairly sure he was heel at the point anyway so would have probably cashed in earlier and just say he lied.

With London, I have a feeling they could have just been humiliating him for doing something so stupid. He never did recover from that moment.

JoshSansom wrote:Why was CM Punk able to keep using the name CM Punk instead of being given a rubbish WWE name?

I've always wondered this too. Funnily enough, I think it's a pretty bad name! I guess the people high up in WWE loved it and felt that he should keep it. If they feel that someone has a good name when they come into the company, they sometimes just stick with it. Similar to the way John Cena and Randy Orton kept their real names, which can't be copyrighted either.

Also, Punk was a darling of the indy scene. WWE may have thought that he had a small amount of name value and may attract new fans.

With Colt Cabana and Jon Moxley, they probably felt that those wrestlers weren't particularly big stars where their previous name value meant anything. Also, Colt Cabana sounds too much like an 80s comedy gimmick, and they already have two Johns on their roster.

There also may have been an element of nonchalance about it, because they may not have considered Punk to be a future main eventer, or they may not have considered that he could move the needle much if he later returned to ROH or TNA with the same name, especially given those companies are so far behind WWE from a business perspective. So maybe they just thought, we like his name, and it's unlikely to come back to haunt us.

silverfox wrote:Apologies if this has been asked before but I've always wondered....

What was the public or media reaction and fallout to Savage being tied up on the ropes and getting bit by Jake Roberts' snake all those years ago? Do you know who came up with the idea? Back then it must have generated huge negative reaction from the general media?
That incident has always stuck in my head and even years after there can't be many things that the WWF/E has done that was more graphic and risked more negative exposure.
It scared the crap out of me when I was a kid!

I don't know of any media backlash against it. You're right, it is possibly the most extreme angle WWE has ever done. I don't know who came up with it but Vince McMahon did most of the writing at that time. I expect Roberts and Savage had their say as well.

The reason there was no media backlash is presumably because, while it may have been very graphic, it wasn't scandalous in any way. It didn't really offend anyone. It wasn't politically incorrect. There was no sex or drugs involved. Nobody died, except, ironically, the snake itself.

To the media, wrestling was still a vulgar carny show. The WWF was under the radar at the time; it was no longer "cool", as it had been in the 80s, but it wasn't yet corporate, as it would become at the end of the 90s. There was also a reluctance at that time in the media to treat anything that happened in wrestling seriously. In some areas, there still is - imagine how much the media would be all over the NFL or NBA if they had similar death rates to wrestling! They know it's "fake", but they're not sure how fake. I would guess that a lot of journalists didn't want to treat the snake bite as real for fear that they would later be exposed for being conned by "the wrestling show".

It would take more than using a live animal as a prop to grab their attention, as the WWF found out a few months later with the sex and drug scandals of 1992!

Crips,

Everyone always talks about "the Attitude era". Can you pinpoint a particular moment, event or sequence of events or storylines that heralded the end of "the attitude era". And was there a name for the "era" that followed it?

MtotheC wrote:Firstly crips after ready your thought on mark Henry and how he might be booked up to wrestlemania what are your thoughts on D.Bryan and how his money in the bank shot might pan out? Will he cash in a mania? Before? Or drop the case like Anderson did to edge?

And secondly, this one is a bit random but it's always interested me and I never found the outcome, just before vince was 'blown up' in his limo there was an exchange between him and Paul London were London was grinning from ear to ear. The next week on raw king made a huge deal out of this and said 'that young man has a lot to answer for' they even played back the clip, nothing was ever followed up? why? Did they have a plan for london? Was this just coincidence, if so why did king make such a big deal out of it?

I can see them losing faith in Bryan, but I don't know when it'll happen. It could be that they randomly have him drop the briefcase on an eposide of Smackdown with no build up, or it could be that he gets his crowning moment at Wrestlemania only to be booked as a weak champion, or something in between. But it's clear to me that WWE just doesn't believe in Bryan and aren't prepared to go all the way with him. At this moment in time, he's not being booked at all like somebody who will be sat at ringside for the world title match at Wrestlemania, waiting to face the winner. I would put the odds at 25% that he even gets to Wrestlemania with the briefcase.

It's too late now to give him a believable push, not that they won't necessarily try. WWE has made a habit in the last year especially of not protecting midcarders, and then being surprised when a midcarder is given a random PPV title shot and a last-minute push, and fails to draw. But this is different because it's Wrestlemania and I just don't see where Bryan fits into the title scene on Smackdown.

London wasn't supposed to laugh, and got a lot of heat for it backstage. It was very unprofessional of him, but given his bleak prospects at that point he may have felt that going into business for himself was the best option. Management were furious, but it may be that by the next Monday they decided to turn it into an angle, only to give up on the idea again.

Electric Demon wrote:Crips,

Everyone always talks about "the Attitude era". Can you pinpoint a particular moment, event or sequence of events or storylines that heralded the end of "the attitude era". And was there a name for the "era" that followed it?

I would say it ended at Wrestlemania 17. The Monday Night War was officially over. The Rock went off to Hollywood and would never be a full-time wrestler again. Steve Austin's white-hot babyface run had come to an end. In addition, the XFL had got underway and Vince McMahon's attention was diverted away from the WWF product considerably.

Where everything the company had touched for the past three years had turned to gold, suddenly there was an uncertainty from which it has never recovered. Where they expected to gain viewers from WCW's demise, they lost them. Where the top stars were all great characters and great fits in their roles a year or two earlier, they suddenly seemed stale whatever the company did with them. Vince McMahon got desperate; he brought back Flair, Hogan and the NWO, but none of it was new any more. Austin turned face again, but his act was tired.

I would say the period lasted until Wrestlemania 21, when Cena and Batista were crowned as champions. Things may not have got much better since then, but I think the two eras are distinct from each other because 2005 was when WWE's next batch of main eventers came along: Cena, Batista and Orton.

Not every era needs a name, but if I was to christen the period 2001-2005, I would call it something like The "Is there any oxygen left in the room or has Triple H sucked it all out?" Era. Or maybe The Hangover Era.

TNA BFG spoiler question:

Spoiler:

I agree it makes no sense whatsoever Don, but Person X is a very manipulative person and has manipulated his boss, DC, into believing that he will be the person to lead DC's company to the promised land.

Person X managed to do this first by promising DC that he could emulate his previous success 15 years ago as part of a successful faction, but that failed. Person X then assured DC that if he can only turn babyface again he is sure to recapture wrestling's lost audience who loved him a quarter of a century ago. I hereby predict this will also fail.

DC's company was stupid enough to let Person X completely control the situation, to the extent that he got himself booked into a high profile match at Bound For Glory despite having a contract that was about to expire before the match, thus ensuring that he would be guaranteed a new contract on the same big money that was agreed two years ago when he made a boatload of proclamations about the future of the company with him at the helm, none of which have come to fruition.

The company continues to be hindered far more than helped by Person X's presence, as he now bigfoots and buries yet another generation of wrestlers who could make a real difference because the wrestling audience hasn't seen them in every possible storyline already, and because they don't look like a 90 year old leather handbag.

DC is the very definition of a mark. Person X really isn't too bright himself, but he's dealing with people so stupid and naive he doesn't have to be.

Crips,

I heard Michaels originally refused to put over Austin at Wrestlemania 14.... He only agreed to do the job when Taker threatened him back stage any info on this rumour?

Brady12 wrote:Crips,

I heard Michaels originally refused to put over Austin at Wrestlemania 14.... He only agreed to do the job when Taker threatened him back stage any info on this rumour?

The story is that Michaels was running his mouth backstage at Wrestlemania 14, suggesting that he might go against the company's wishes and decide not to put Austin over. Taker, who was taping his fists, calmly but menacingly told Shawn he would put Austin over, and that was the end of it.

It may be true. Michaels was frustrated about his back injury and felt like he'd become yesterday's news, with Austin the undisputed top star and most of the promotion's energies focused on him. It also may be that he was just trying to get under people's skin; Michaels did have a tendency to mouth off about things to try and get a reaction.

My feeling is that he knew he had to do the job to Austin but - like a spoiled child who misbehaves to get attention from their parents - he wanted to be the centre of attention and remind everyone he was still there. The Shawn Michaels of 1998 really was that self-centred and immature.

In a lot of your posts mentioning backstage issues, it seems like Taker is the man that sorts it or wields some authority on the matter. Is this true, and if so, why is he so listened to and respected?

sodhat wrote:In a lot of your posts mentioning backstage issues, it seems like Taker is the man that sorts it or wields some authority on the matter. Is this true, and if so, why is he so listened to and respected?

I've read in interviews various wrestlers say that he commands respect. It doesn't hurt that he's legitimately tough, that he was one of the last wrestlers to come through the territory system, and that he was a main eventer very early in his WWF run and has remained there for two decades.

He came into the company in 1990, and there was a massive roster turnover in the three or four years that followed. It's hard to imagine now, but if you compare the line-ups of Survivor Series 1990 (Taker's debut PPV) with Survivor Series 1994, it really is incredible how many faces changed. Contrast with the difference between Summerslam 2007 and Summerslam 2011. Summerslam 2007 had a Cena vs Orton main event, Triple H in the second match from the top, John Morrison vs CM Punk in the midcard, along with the likes of Kane and Rey Mysterio and a diva battle royal won by Beth Phoenix. Things have changed in four years, but it's hardly unrecognisable. 7 of the 16 wrestlers on the Summerslam 2011 card were on the card four years prior; 8 out of 17 if you include Triple H. Of the wrestlers on the Summerslam 2011 card, only Del Rio, Barrett, Bryan and Sheamus feel at all like fresh faces, and even that is questionable.

Taker's early years in the WWF were very different. He witnessed the departure of Hogan, Savage, Warrior, Jake, Flair, Perfect, Dibiase, Andre and Piper as active competitors. Spots were opening up at the top of the card, and he grabbed one. By 1994 he was a locker room veteran and the most tenured main eventer in the WWF. The likes of Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels had been around longer but only main eventing for a couple of years. He'd gained respect for doing a phenomenal job with what could have been a very limited gimmick, for always doing what was asked of him and for never taking any time off.

He's also someone who doesn't make a big fuss about things. He doesn't throw his weight around the way Bradshaw or Bob Holly did. But he had a quiet authority to him that even Vince McMahon respected.

I'm not a huge Taker fan and I've heard stories that suggest he can sometimes choose undeserving targets to intimidate, but I think he has also been a godsend for Vince McMahon; like an old-fashioned "shooter" he kept the locker room under control at the boss' behest, allowing it to largely manage itself. Whatever it is he does, I've never heard a bad word said about him by any of his colleagues past and present.

Following on from that with Taker...

Heard in the past he was often in charge of the Wrestlers Court backstage and that it was used as an inhouse discipline with humiliating punishments if found guilty.
Not heard much of it being used in the last few years though, do you know if they still use it and if so who are the judges?

Another Taker related one...

What's his relationship like with Kane? I've always wondered considering their gimmicks are so intertwined and they must have spent a great deal of time together over the years working on matches and as a tag team.

What is W12? It's an advert that keeps popping up with Randy Orton and that MMA / American Football guy.

That's WWE 12 the video game. Supposed to be a reboot of the franchise, and a different direction from the others. It won't be.

Could the WWE buy TNA and make it cease to exist so it doesn't have any major rivals?