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.

Larry Zbyszko filed a Law Suit on Chris Jericho when he started calling himself 'the larger than life living legend' because he 'won' the rights to the name living legend off Sammartino in a match, it got laughed out I think, the WWF also filed against WCW because Scott Hall showed up playing the Razor Ramon character just without the name

Is gail kim still dating bryan danielson now she is over in tna? Also do u know if there are any other inter promotional hook ups between superstars of the major leagues?

Lex, Gail Kim is dating a tv chef who is famous in america, i think

Why is Vince McMahon so keen on a 3-man commentary team? I don't think it works at all.

Probably because the individuals concerned need the protection of being in a three as opposed to two man team.

What protection Josh? Don't they get most of their lines fed to them through their headsets?

As in they aren't good enough to cover the commentary alone so they go for more voices to cover the deficiencies of the individuals.

Joey Styles used to cover ECW alone as he was good enough and most commentators have been good enough to in a pairing but I don't see a huge amount of talent on the panel at the moment.

I think it's because of Michael Cole, basically.

Vince McMahon loves Michael Cole and wants him on commentary, but there are two problems with that:
- Cole is a heel
- Cole isn't very good at play-by-play, and Vince knows it

You may ask "So why does he want Cole on commentary then?". The answer is that he was a WWE creation. Vince McMahon is responsible for Michael Cole. Jim Ross, by contrast, is an outsider; he was famous before he ever joined the WWF.

So Vince wants Cole to commentate, even though he knows Cole isn't as good as Ross. Therefore his solution is to add another face to the booth, to both contribute to commentary and give the commentary team a babyface slant.

It was similar when Styles commentated in WWE because Vince didn't rate him either, and likewise he had a "project" he wanted to protect (the heel Jonathan Coachman), therefore we got a three-man booth then as well.

Essentially, WWE knows that a face play-by-commentator with a heelish colour commentator is the best option, but ultimately Vince McMahon's whims and personal grudges override everything.

To be fair Vince has went for 3 commentators quite a bit in the past, this isn't a new thing, I remember back when Savage and Piper did it alongside Vince or in 93 when JR, Heenan and Savaged where puy together or when Vince, JR and King did it, Coach teamed up with King and Cole as well I think

Yep, it's far from an anomaly. The company has had three-man booths off and on for over twenty years. But Vince knows that his most successful and memorable combinations have been a face play-by-play man with a heelish colour commentator; Vince/Ventura, Gorilla/Heenan, Ross/Lawler. Even Cole's best work arguably came alongside a colour commentator with heelish tendencies (both Taz and JBL).

Piper, Savage and Honky Tonk Man were all in three-man booths to protect their flaws. The reason for the Vince/King/Ross booth in the mid 90s was that Vince didn't feel comfortable having Jim Ross as the face of his product, but valued his abilities as a commentator.

I definitely think that when they have a three-man booth, it is a sign that Vince isn't confident in one or more of the team.

I'd say thats a pretty fair assumption, can definitely see where you're coming from

New question - Regal. How far was his push going to go and last for?

I have read somewhere about the Undertaker being a part of a group backstage in the then WWF called the BSK. Is it true that it had members like Rikishi, Yokozuna, the Godfather, etc and was in effect the "Anti-Kliq", or is it just a load of rubbish?

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:New question - Regal. How far was his push going to go and last for?

When you talking about Hobo? If it's 2008 then they had pencilled in HHH vs Regal for the WWE Title at SummerSlam, it's impossible to say how far it could have went, some say Regal would have won the title some say he wouldn't have, the WWE where a bit short for main eventers though in 2008 with Edge and Taker taking time off and Cena doing a film while Orton lost a lot of time when he dislocated his shoulder, so there was space there for Regal and the fact he is close to HHH and Hunter wanted to work with him suggests he'd have had a good few months at least in the main event, whether that would have led to the title is anyones guess

Leone wrote:I have read somewhere about the Undertaker being a part of a group backstage in the then WWF called the BSK. Is it true that it had members like Rikishi, Yokozuna, the Godfather, etc and was in effect the "Anti-Kliq", or is it just a load of rubbish?

.If it's rubbish then at least it came from a good source, I heard an Interview Paul Bearer did a while ago where he spoke about the BSK (Back Stage Krew - I think) and said that it was formed because guys where worried how influential the Kliq had become, think they formed it in 95 and the better known members where Taker, Bearer, Yoko, Fatu, The Godwinns, Kama, Savio Vega and I think Men on a Mission where tight with it

Taker's got a big BSK Pride tattoo on his belly

the-gaffer wrote:

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:New question - Regal. How far was his push going to go and last for?

When you talking about Hobo? If it's 2008 then they had pencilled in HHH vs Regal for the WWE Title at SummerSlam, it's impossible to say how far it could have went, some say Regal would have won the title some say he wouldn't have, the WWE where a bit short for main eventers though in 2008 with Edge and Taker taking time off and Cena doing a film while Orton lost a lot of time when he dislocated his shoulder, so there was space there for Regal and the fact he is close to HHH and Hunter wanted to work with him suggests he'd have had a good few months at least in the main event, whether that would have led to the title is anyones guess

My guess is that he has never been considered a potential full-time main eventer, but was at various times seen as somebody who could occasionally be slotted into a short-term main event role. Something along the lines of what happened in the past with the likes of Booker and Benoit. However, given that Mark Henry's push probably started out in similar fashion, and now he appears to be establishing himself as a top tier star, who knows where Regal might have ended up?

When Christian lost the title 2 days after he won it, what was he like backstage?

I've got a feeling this has already been asked/answered so if it has just say so.

Why did JBL's title reign go on for so long? I found it mostly very boring. He played the character well, don't get me wrong, but I could never understand why he held the title so long! I know in the end it was used to get Cena over at Wrestlemania and cement him as a main eventer but did it have to wait so long?

How far in advance is the royal rumble winner picked? When does this person get told and is the decision changed much or do they just stick with their first pick? Who decides who will win it?

Not sure if this has been asked earlier, the thread is rather large now - so apologies if so!

How are matches determined? Are they practiced before hand at the bigger (PPV) events? Is there a lead in the match, i.e. does one wrestler call all the shots.

Also, how much involvement does the Referee have, does he 'direct' the match via Vince/MrEarPiece?

what move is the most dangerous if executed wrongly/botched?

What happens if a wrestler gets legit injured during a match, do they finish it as soon as possible with the originally planned winner winning or do they just try and play it out as best as possible whilst carrying the injury?

Don Corleone187 wrote:what move is the most dangerous if executed wrongly/botched?

Any move that requires the receiver to rely on the attacker to protect him from landing on his head/neck

steveo1986 wrote:What happens if a wrestler gets legit injured during a match, do they finish it as soon as possible with the originally planned winner winning or do they just try and play it out as best as possible whilst carrying the injury?

It depends on how serious the injury is and how the injured wrestler feels, the most experianced will probably call an audible, the most common is probably when Owen Hart broke Austin's neck, they went with the original result although it looked shoddy and unrealistic, which is ironic since it was one of the toughest things Austin's probably done, the most recent was when Orton damaged his shoulder when setting up the RKO for Edge, realising they couldn't finish the match as planned or realistic one of them called a double count out

uberkiwi wrote:Not sure if this has been asked earlier, the thread is rather large now - so apologies if so!

How are matches determined? Are they practiced before hand at the bigger (PPV) events? Is there a lead in the match, i.e. does one wrestler call all the shots.

Also, how much involvement does the Referee have, does he 'direct' the match via Vince/MrEarPiece?

Match endings and big spots will tend to be discussed beforehand. Major spots may have some degree of practice but the vast majority is done through the wrestlers calling as they go along. I believe this is typically done by the heel wrestler. The referees will pass on communications between the wrestlers and words from the back and typically let them know when they should arrive at a finish.

TopoftheChops wrote:When Christian lost the title 2 days after he won it, what was he like backstage?

It was all part of the storyline and the biggest of Christian's WWE career. I am sure that he and everyone else was happy that this happened.

UpsideDownFace wrote:How far in advance is the royal rumble winner picked? When does this person get told and is the decision changed much or do they just stick with their first pick? Who decides who will win it?

Many match decisions are changed even up to hours prior to the match. I am sure that the RR is no different and will depend on reactions prior, injuries and WM requirements.

The 2008 Royal Rumble is a good example, Triple H was the clear TV favourite to win it, all the angles pointed to him but apparently Mr Kennedy was going to get the win as late as the morning of the Rumble but John Cena at the 11th hour announced he was fit, only HHH who everyone was told would win it knew Cena was returning to take the Rumble

Damn. They should have kept with the Kennedy idea.

How much are commentators told concerning matches?

Do they know everything that is going to happen or are they not told anything?

I was thinking this because J.R was always so passionate and I thought it must be quite hard to act suprised if you knew it was going to happen, if he did then it just shows you why he is one of the best.

They would be briefed on everything, Jerry Lawler managed to get out of this because he claimed he worked better on the fly, since JR got drafted to SD in 08 Lawler became the senior commentator and had to be filled in.

The commentator has to be in tne know because he is the main guy who puts people over, he needs to be aware who he is supposed to be selling for

Not sure if already been asked but i have a couple:

Watching the Hogan vs King Kong Bundy match at Mania 2 and there was an English fella commentating with Jesse Ventura, who was he?

I could only ever remember Monsoon, Heenan, Ventura, Mcmahon as commenttators so was shocked when heard this english voice!!

Another is regarding the cage itself, i watched a fight involving Sammartino in a cage match during the 70's which looked more like the ones we see now a days, yet during the 80's and some of the 90's it was that blue cage which had the bigger holes. any reason why the 70's version Sammartino wrestled in was phased out into the blue style and then a very similar style phased back in?

more_awesome_than_a_ri wrote:Not sure if already been asked but i have a couple:

Watching the Hogan vs King Kong Bundy match at Mania 2 and there was an English fella commentating with Jesse Ventura, who was he?

I could only ever remember Monsoon, Heenan, Ventura, Mcmahon as commenttators so was shocked when heard this english voice!!

I think that would have been "Lord" Alfred Hayes. He did a lot of heel commentating in the early 1990s.

I could have swore Hayes was pro-face. Could be wrong though...

I agree S21. I am sure Hayes was a 'face' commentator.

Taken of hayes wiki page re. face/heel


As a commentator, Hayes maintained his reserved mannerisms; though not specifically a heel, he would be quicker to give praise to heelish characters, though disapproving of underhanded methods (in one match, after being told by Gorilla Monsoon that the Hart Foundation had "broken every rule in the book," he replied with a conceding "yes, they've done that."). He was jokingly referred to by Hulk Hogan as "Awful Alfred" during interviews. It was during this time that his hearty uproarious laugh would become his trademark. Normally bursting into laughter after a witty comment by his regular broadcast partner Gorilla Monsoon. He would quietly absorb criticism and insults from heel commentators such as Heenan and The Honky Tonk Man. However during the end of his WWF run he quietly shifted to a more heelish style. Where he would be quicker to take the sides of heels (such as Owen Hart after he turned on Bret) and quicker to insult the faces (calling Paul Bearer a "little toad".) He would later appear as a full on heel commentator along side Mick Karch, calling the action in 1996 for the short-lived AWF (American Wrestling Federation).

By the time the WWF started being shown in the UK regularly in the late 80s Lord Alfred Hayes was a face, particularly when they toured the UK but he was a heel before that

When Sheamus won the WWE title in a table match v John Cena was this how the match was due to end? It looked very much like there was a botch of some kind.

Yeah, many assumed that it had to be a botch, simple truth is that it finished as planned, however in true John Cena fashion he made the table spot look as awkward and horrible as possible

UpsideDownFace wrote:I've got a feeling this has already been asked/answered so if it has just say so.

Why did JBL's title reign go on for so long? I found it mostly very boring. He played the character well, don't get me wrong, but I could never understand why he held the title so long! I know in the end it was used to get Cena over at Wrestlemania and cement him as a main eventer but did it have to wait so long?

Good question. And sorry for not being online much recently, the site has been banned at work!

The JBL title reign was a throwback to the classic vulnerable heel champions from the territory days. In many ways it was reminiscent of another memorable WWE title reign, when The Honky Tonk Man held the IC belt during the 80s.

The promoting philosophy is pretty obvious: Fans will pay to watch a champion who they believe can lose the title at any minute. In fact, JBL has been the template for most WWE heel champions since.

JBL stumbled into the position because the company was short of full-time main eventers, especially on Smackdown. Brock Lesnar had quit and Kurt Angle was going through all sorts of problems, so Smackdown needed a top heel. JBL, a loyal, veteran company man who Vince McMahon trusted, was given his chance to run with the ball, and he got over.

Why did he hold on to the belt for almost a year? Well, first of all he was the best heel on Smackdown. Secondly, there weren't too many obvious candidates to take the belt from him. Eddie Guerrero hadn't coped well with the pressure of being champion, Angle was too much of a liability to hold the strap, Undertaker could draw without it, and Rey Mysterio wasn't yet seen as a main event level wrestler by the company. There was simply no need to pass the title around when JBL was doing a servicable job, and when an eventual title switch would have maximum impact the longer he held onto the belt.

This gave the company time to gradually build Cena up to main event level, culminating in his crowning as world champion at Wrestlemania 21. The timing couldn't have worked out more perfectly, as the fans had been waiting almost a year to finally see JBL toppled. It also made far more of a statement for that to be Cena's first world title victory than if he and JBL had exchanged the title five or six times already on off-brand PPVs.

It was a great example of how to make two new main eventers with a little bit of solid long-term booking.

more_awesome_than_a_ri wrote:i watched a fight involving Sammartino in a cage match during the 70's which looked more like the ones we see now a days, yet during the 80's and some of the 90's it was that blue cage which had the bigger holes. any reason why the 70's version Sammartino wrestled in was phased out into the blue style and then a very similar style phased back in?

There were a few reasons for the blue cage:
- In the 80s and early 90s, the WWF was marketed towards children and the company wanted to present a family-friendly image. The old-style cage was considered too gritty and too reminiscent of wrestling's seedy past to appeal to the mainstream audience.
- The viewers, particularly those in the arena, could see the action better when a match was taking place in the blue cage. Whereas with a traditional cage, they were essentially watching a match through wire mesh, the blue cage had big gaps and the view was barely obstructed.
- It was much easier to climb than wire mesh. This was far less important to the WWF than the two aesthetic reasons above, but nonetheless it meant there would be less chance of wrestlers getting injured, which benefited the company.

The main reason the company returned to using old-style cages was that during the attitude era it wanted to be gritty again. One thing about the blue cage was that it did undeniably look a bit cartoonish; it wasn't a particularly scary-looking structure. Once the hell in a cell concept was introduced (with the very reasoning that WWE wanted something that looked demonic and genuinely unwelcoming), it would have been comical to use a cartoonish blue cage to settle anything. Indeed, cage matches in WWE have become gradually redundant - even with the more gritty-looking structure - because they pale in comparison with hell in a cell and the elimination chamber.

I actually preferred the big blue cage or big black one it morphed into, I felt it was far easier to climb and use and it also looked a helluva lot more dangerous IMO, it looked solid steel

I always thought the WWF changed the cage due to an opponent Hogan was facing, at least in storyline terms, not sure if it was Bundy or not

If Wrestler's are being wellnessed and suspended for smoking weed substitute Spice, why don't they just smoke sweet Mary Jane?

Who is tougher Stone Austin or Triple H?

the-gaffer wrote:If Wrestler's are being wellnessed and suspended for smoking weed substitute Spice, why don't they just smoke sweet Mary Jane?

My thoughts exactly!!!

Which leads me to a question: Has there ever been an instance of a retired wrestler turning to heavy weed smoking to help ease the pain of living a wrestlers life? Ive heard of old people smiking it for arthiritis etc so I wonder if any wrestler has taken it to help them?

the-gaffer wrote:If Wrestler's are being wellnessed and suspended for smoking weed substitute Spice, why don't they just smoke sweet Mary Jane?

I believe it's because people were taking advantage of the fact it was only a fine and abusing the system. Brian Kendrick was renowned for it. I think it now carries a 30 day suspension.

Yeah I know the punishment for weed but I mean if the fake weed has the same punishment, which I'm sure it does then why not just do the real thing

Don't quote me on it but i believe its to do with that fake weed isn't as addictive as normal weed it just stimulates the same kind of high you would get from normal week

I don't even think Spice is illegal which makes fining and suspending people for it utterly ridiculous

Is it not to do with the chemicals they use? Cause it's synthetic? They could just be treating it like any other banned substance as they don't know the effects?