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.

Why did they get rid of Heat and Velocity?

DonIffy wrote:Why did they get rid of Heat and Velocity?

Heat and Velocity were part of a long line of WWE tertiary shows which are introduced with much fanfare only to fade into obscurity. Superstars and NXT are two more recent examples, while Shotgun and Confidential are others from a few years back. Heat, which ran for around a decade, was an exception in lasting so long, but once the novelty of the show wore off after the first year or so it was more of an inconvenience in the schedule for the most part.

I think a lot of it comes down to Vince McMahon's attention span. He is notorious for getting excited about a concept (be it a wrestler, PPV, TV show or angle) only to quickly get distracted by something else and neglect it. In the cases of tertiary shows, once the ratings come in inevitably lower than Raw and Smackdown, and the show starts to interfere with the rest of the WWE schedule, it is soon left to go stale.

It's also important to remember that the company gets money from TV partners for producing extra content. WWE genuinenly wants its tertiary shows to succeed, but the biggest priority is to get them into a timeslot and then make a big fuss about wheeling them out. Like a lot of things, what starts out as a novelty soon gets forgotten about.

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 think they have only recently banned synthetic cannabis. My presumption was that Bourne and Truth had turned to the synthetic stuff to avoid failing a test, and perhaps still had it in their system when it was banned.

You'd think that an offence which took place before the ban would be overlooked, but it might be that the rules were tweaked without the full roster being informed and maybe those wrestlers genuinely didn't realise they were doing anything wrong.

It might be naive of me to think that, but like you say, why wouldn't they just smoke the real thing otherwise?....

Who have WWE invested the most time and money in to get the least back from ?

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Who have WWE invested the most time and money in to get the least back from ?

I can't say for sure, but Lex Luger is the obvious person who springs to mind. It must have cost an awful lot of money to set up the whole thing on the warship in 1993 where he slammed Yokozuna, and they even commissioned a bus for him, complete with nationwide tour. The WWF hedged all their bets on Lex and it spectacularly bombed.

Prior to this year, Mark Henry would have had to be up there too. Signed on a ten-year contract in 1996 just as he was about to compete in the Olympics, to ensure WCW didn't get their hands on him, Henry then proceeded to finish last in the Olympics before embarking on a wrestling career that didn't draw a penny for fifteen years. His performances in 2011 have gone some way to making up for it.

Some may suggest Goldberg or Brock Lesnar. However I think both did actually draw during their time in WWE, and therefore paid a large chunk, if not all, of the huge money they were earning. But certainly in Brock's case he was seen as a big long-term investment who didn't stay around to garner them the rewards they expected.

Finally, another candidate which springs to mind is WCW itself. WWE has definitely made a profit on its $5m investment, with the money they've earned from WCW's tape library. But the invasion storyline could have been the biggest of all time, and the company not only ran through it in six months but was critically panned for the way it did so. The Invasion PPV actually did a monstrous buyrate, but the storyline didn't do much for business otherwise when it should have earned them phenomenal money, and it also killed off any value in the WCW brand name once and for all in the bargain.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Who have WWE invested the most time and money in to get the least back from ?

I can't say for sure, but Lex Luger is the obvious person who springs to mind. It must have cost an awful lot of money to set up the whole thing on the warship in 1993 where he slammed Yokozuna, and they even commissioned a bus for him, complete with nationwide tour. The WWF hedged all their bets on Lex and it spectacularly bombed.

Prior to this year, Mark Henry would have had to be up there too. Signed on a ten-year contract in 1996 just as he was about to compete in the Olympics, to ensure WCW didn't get their hands on him, Henry then proceeded to finish last in the Olympics before embarking on a wrestling career that didn't draw a penny for fifteen years. His performances in 2011 have gone some way to making up for it.

Some may suggest Goldberg or Brock Lesnar. However I think both did actually draw during their time in WWE, and therefore paid a large chunk, if not all, of the huge money they were earning. But certainly in Brock's case he was seen as a big long-term investment who didn't stay around to garner them the rewards they expected.

Finally, another candidate which springs to mind is WCW itself. WWE has definitely made a profit on its $5m investment, with the money they've earned from WCW's tape library. But the invasion storyline could have been the biggest of all time, and the company not only ran through it in six months but was critically panned for the way it did so. The Invasion PPV actually did a monstrous buyrate, but the storyline didn't do much for business otherwise when it should have earned them phenomenal money, and it also killed off any value in the WCW brand name once and for all in the bargain.

Cheers crips , i was thinking either Luger or Henry but you make a very good point about the whole WCW invasion thing , done correctly that could and should of earnt serious money .

Bobby Lashley is another, they pushed him really fast to the top, and got nothing out of it.

I have a question that I've wondered about for a while, why do wrestlers wear so few clothes?

I mean I understand you can't wear baggy stuff because of the injury risk (Droz) but I can't see any logical reason to essentially just wear pants. Is it to make it look more of a sport?

Also, when a wrestler doesn't have a match but comes out in wrestling gear that bugs the hell out of me (what is the point of this?)

And to put a spin on the question above, why do the divas have to wear so much clothing?!?! Cant they all just come out in Sable hand prints!!!!

I have a random question just something I wanted to clarify in my own mind really.

As a youngster I recall taping and waching the old WWF programme that was shown on ITV. I have a distinct memory of being really shocked once when Iron Mike Sharpe, actually won a match!! (Was the programme wrestling challenge)? Can anyone confrim this and maybe who the opponent was (I expect a bigger jobber than even himself) or maybe I am wrong and Iron Mike actually won a few matches in WWF?

ITV did show WWF Wrestling Challenge, it was syndicated to the UK and ITV used to air it during World of Sport, that was between 87-89 so that would probably be the time you're thinking of, the only win I think he got on TV around that time was against Boris Zhukov, it was the first round of the 1988 King of the Ring and they basically needed a heel to progress to the next stage.

Is Hogan still contracted to TNA and what happened to Gen Me?

Hogan signed a new contract with TNA before Bound For Glory

Gen Me (The Young Bucks) requested and where granted their release from TNA because they weren't being used enough, unless you're a main player in TNA you only get paid if you're used in PPV's/TV's/Houses and they felt they weren't being used enough therefor making enough money to justify being with TNA

What was the deal with spirit squad?

Why do places like New York and Chicago always have great crowds? Why those and other places like Texas etc. Yet other places have a pretty poor atmosphere.

Also, probably a rubbish question.

Are Rumble entrant numbers ever actually random?

UpsideDownFace wrote:Also, probably a rubbish question.

Are Rumble entrant numbers ever actually random?

Nope, every detail of the Rumble is planned in advance, from the entrant numbers to the length of time each wrestler spends in the match to who eliminates them.

Thought so haha.

UpsideDownFace wrote:Why do places like New York and Chicago always have great crowds? Why those and other places like Texas etc. Yet other places have a pretty poor atmosphere.

It's much like certain places in Britian are 'football towns' or rugby tiwns certain places in the US of A are wrasslin' towns

If you could trade 5 superstars from WWE to TNA in a way that would benefit both companies who would they be and why?

Did John Cena pass the torch to Ryder on Raw?

Who out of Kofi, Santino, Bourne and Swagger need to turn the most?

Gregers...

- Did John Cena pass the torch to Ryder on Raw?

Ah, that overused phrase! I don't see how it could be considered passing the torch. If Cena had done a clean job and turned Ryder into the number one babyface for a new generation of wrestling fans then maybe, but I don't see that happening. In fact, the irony of the phrase "passing the torch" is that nobody has passed the torch to anyone in the truest sense since Sting beat Ric Flair in 1990. And even that bombed!

The whole point of the Cena-Ryder thing on last week's Raw was to once again hammer home that Cena is a sympathetic, honourable hero and that you and I should cheer for him.

- Who out of Kofi, Santino, Bourne and Swagger need to turn the most?

I don't actually think any of them need to turn! I can't think of any glaring examples of current WWE characters who need to turn. WWE just hasn't put much thought into their characters recently (and in fairness to WWE, perhaps the wrestlers themselves haven't put much thought into it either).

Going through them one by one, I think that Kofi and Bourne are natural babyfaces because of their size and movesets (and both very good babyfaces at that), Santino is too established as a comedy character to turn heel (it's too late to give him any edge, and if he stays a comedy character the fans will cheer for him regardless), and Swagger has perhaps the most natural heel look of anyone on the roster.

- I didn't answer your other question because I wasn't entirely sure what you meant. Are we talking about wrestlers moving only from WWE to TNA? And when you talk about it benefitting WWE, do you mean because an act has got stale and the company would be better off without that wrestler on the roster? I can't really think of anyone who could be considered a negative influence on WWE TV and yet would benefit TNA, only people who fit into one category or the other.

If I had to name five wrestlers who are not being used properly in WWE, and could be major stars if handled properly in another promotion (though that likely isn't TNA!), Kofi and Swagger are the first that spring to mind. Sin Cara and Daniel Bryan are two wrestlers who I would love to see booked properly, though again that is unlikely to happen in TNA. And as long as Jon Moxley is "learning the WWE style" with a name like Dean Ambrose, his talent is being wasted. Finally, I think Jim Ross could be the biggest signing a rival promotion could make. I would take him over any of those five wrestlers in a heartbeat, and I think he would be the one with the biggest incentive to rise to the occasion. So let's leave Sin Cara off the list, as he is the one I care about the least of those five wrestlers, and replace him with Ross. I'm not sure if that is the answer you were looking for though.

Going back to the invasion storyline. Alot is made of the fact that alot of the WCW talent was wasted when WCW was bought out.

Is there a reason by Booker T got pushed so well despite him not being a WWE product?

Crips, I've seen a video of Jacques Rougeau going over clean on Hollywood Hogan in a house show event from Canada in 97 what was the story here?

Also in early 97 Bret Hart challenge HBK to a match where if Bret couldnt beat Shawn in under 10 minutes he would never wrestle on american soil again. This match never happened? Any ideas on either of these situations?

Hogan put Rougeau over in his back yard because he respected the Rougeau family and their code of honour to the business, they where very straight and very old school and Hogan appreciated that and his best way to show gratitude was by putting him over clean

As for the 10 minute challenge, was this not around the time Bret jumped Shawn backstage and Shawn quit (or tried to) and claimed it was an unsafe working enviroment, Vince had to fly out to Texas to talk him into coming back, I think Shawn and Austin were tag champs at the time and Dude Love ended up taking ovrer Shawns duties

Why did Kane only have the belt for one day when he beat Stone Cold?

psycho-gooner wrote:Going back to the invasion storyline. Alot is made of the fact that alot of the WCW talent was wasted when WCW was bought out.

Is there a reason by Booker T got pushed so well despite him not being a WWE product?

Great question actually. I think it helped a lot that Shane McMahon was a really big fan of his. Shane was responsible for a number of wrestlers' pushes around that time, usually the ones he ended up managing.

The other reason that stands out to me is simply that Booker was so much better than anyone else in the WCW crew. All the other drawbacks that were applied to other wrestlers just didn't apply to him. He had charisma, he could talk, he was good enough and experienced enough in the ring that he was able to slot into his WWF role easier than the younger wrestlers, and he had a great, unique look that stood out. Being black didn't hurt either, as the company didn't have any afro-carribbean main eventers and hadn't for years, so it was yet another thing that set him apart.

He also wasn't someone who made waves. He was humble and polite, and did as he was told.

The difference between Booker and the rest of the WCW crew was vast. Where others may have lacked charisma or mic skills, or been green in the ring, or just rubbed people up the wrong way, Booker didn't give them any excuse not to push him. He was head and shoulders above his colleagues, and that's why he got pushed. I would argue that Booker didn't actually fulfil his potential, and could have been a top, top act if he'd had the drive to work himself harder, and if the WWF had struck when he was hot.

DonIffy wrote:Why did Kane only have the belt for one day when he beat Stone Cold?

It didn't really fit the storylines to have Kane as any kind of long-term champion, but the WWF booked itself into a corner. Austin defended against Kane in a first blood match where Kane not only had very little exposed flesh but also had promised to set himself on fire if he lost!

Kane got to be legitimised by holding a world title (which was still quite a big deal at the time), if only for a day. Austin won the title back the next night on Raw, which in turn did a big TV rating, and the Taker-Austin feud that was planned to last the rest of the summer was furthered, so it was a win-win situation.

I'm not a fan of short-term title reigns as a rule, but this one was the way to do it.

When in a feud for the championship, has anyone legitimately injured the champion so they would become champion.

Nay Bother wrote:When in a feud for the championship, has anyone legitimately injured the champion so they would become champion.

As far as I know, never. It would be a huge breach of trust, and if the promotion had an inkling that such a thing was done deliberately they would almost certainly punish the wrestler in question and not give them the title.

Of the group of labelled "next breakout star" from a few years ago which of the following do you think should have been more successful in the WWE and why?

Carlito
Chris Masters
Mr Kennedy
Montel Vontavious Porter
Matt Hardy

If you could change one World Title match result in history what would it be and why?

Umaga v John Cena - Royal Rumble 2007.

When matches (such as Orton v Barrett) go backstage is this live action or do the WWE pre-film these and then play the tape and give the wrestlers a few minutes off or shoot them live?

I was reading about Ziggler and how he's become much better on the mic and it got me wondering:

How exactly does a wrestler ''train'' on how to be good at promos? Some argue that you have ''it'' or you don't but I find it interesting that Ziggler can suddenly become good at promos in the space of a few months yet Morrison cant cut a promo to save his life since he's turned face. Surely as the WWE was high on Morrison a while ago they would have invested some time in helping him become better at promos?

psycho-gooner wrote:I was reading about Ziggler and how he's become much better on the mic and it got me wondering:

How exactly does a wrestler ''train'' on how to be good at promos? Some argue that you have ''it'' or you don't but I find it interesting that Ziggler can suddenly become good at promos in the space of a few months yet Morrison cant cut a promo to save his life since he's turned face. Surely as the WWE was high on Morrison a while ago they would have invested some time in helping him become better at promos?

Most people are better at doing things with practice and confidence. Given that writing the promos would not the wrestlers' job the things they have to work on are delivery and confidence. When it was said that Zig previously struggled on this it was because of this. If you have noticed his evolution in recent months he has slowly been given more chances to promo...

Firstly he watched Vickie deliver promos, then he was given the opportunity to add a parting shot to one of hers, then he was given the opportunity to promo as part of a multi line up of heels and then was given the opportunity to promo more and more without Vickie or with her being the intro to him. If you will she is now his prefix as opposed to him being her suffix.

The thing with this is that it has seen him build from having a line or two to a longer and longer promos and you can see that his confidence has built. After all, if you haven't spoken to a live audience or on TV before it must be nervewracking, right? He has, though had his confidence built up and has overcome this so far.

Now, the differences to JoMo are numerous, but I would make the following points:

a) people will often get better at things with practice, but, some people naturally aren't good at things no matter how much they practice
b) it is harder (in my opinion) to put a face with a manager who can allow them the slow promo build up that Zig has had
c) JoMo was good at doing promos as a heel alone, with a manager or the Miz - maybe he struggled to get the right tone as a face?
d) we do not know what goes on backstage - maybe Zig sought out help from established or retired stars to help him while JoMo didn't? (leaving all wardrobe jokes aside)

Overall I would say that it is likely that Nic Nemeth has more natural ability in this area and that it is also likely that as a heel he knew that he would have to be able to sell in this area while for a long time JoMo was able to get by on the reaction from his moves etc and didn't have to work on the other side of the business, by which point it was too late for him to do anything about it.

The big test will be seeing if Dolph as a character can sustain or improve his promos, continue it after his Vickie association ends and if he is able to translate these into interesting face promos if and when he ever turns.

Not to mention Ziggler had the chance to get some extra practice on ZTLIS, which also gave people a chance to notice his improvement more.

Gregers wrote:Of the group of labelled "next breakout star" from a few years ago which of the following do you think should have been more successful in the WWE and why?

Carlito
Chris Masters
Mr Kennedy
Montel Vontavious Porter
Matt Hardy

If you could change one World Title match result in history what would it be and why?

I think there are very good reasons why none of the five wrestlers never made it to main events. The failure of Kennedy was probably the most surprising, given that he seemed to have all the tools WWE looks for in main eventers. However, I think time has proved that he flattered to deceive early on. Of the others, only MVP, in his early heel persona, ever seemed to me somebody who might have potential to make it above midcard status. Carlito was always too cartoonish, and Masters was devoid of charisma. As for Hardy, I think there was a period around 2002/3 when he evolved into a very enjoyable performer, but I don't think he was ever going to get anywhere near a main event.

So my answer would be that Kennedy was the biggest surprise, but only because he seemed to fit the WWE mould better, and in hindsight I don't think many people would consider it a wasted opportunity on WWE's part.

As for changing the finish of a world title match, one that springs to mind is a certain Survivor Series main event in Montreal, though that would be more for ethical reasons than business ones. It's a good question. Looking at WWE in particular, most of the wrestlers I'd have had win title matches (Bret against Yoko at WM9, Punk against Taker at HIAC 2009) ended up doing ok for themselves anyway. Looking at TNA, there are no specific matches in particular, but I'd have had Samoa Joe win a lot more title matches! I would have revolved the whole show around him in 2007 and given him a long title run. I truly believe Joe could have broken out as a major star at that time and attracted a lot of fans to the product.

There were multiple WCW world title matches that should have ended differently, and one of them came only a month after the Montreal screwjob. In fact, I think the right man won, I just think the booking was dreadful and got the ball rolling on the company's downfall. Hogan vs Sting at Starrcade 1997 was Sting's return as the hometown saviour who would finally end the NWO's dominance. It got the biggest buyrate of any WCW PPV ever. Sting had to win, and did win, but the finish was so convuluted that nothing was resolved at all and he was seriously damaged. The belt was held up afterwards, the NWO continued to dominate WCW programming for another year and more, and the company slipped to number two in the Monday Night War. I believe a decisive Sting victory and the disbandment of the NWO would have been a fitting conclusion to a great run, and would have set in motion an intriguing 1998 for WCW, rather than the repetitive, self-indulgent tripe that lost them the war.

One other finish I would definitely have changed would have been at the following Starrcade. There is no way on earth that Kevin Nash should have been the man to end the streak, and no way on earth it would have happened had he not been booking it.

JoshSansom wrote:When matches (such as Orton v Barrett) go backstage is this live action or do the WWE pre-film these and then play the tape and give the wrestlers a few minutes off or shoot them live?

It would depend on whether they could get away with pre-recording it. I'd say if they can get away with it, they usually would, in case they need to do any retakes. I don't know for sure though.

Certainly some of the backstage skits are pre-recorded, for example a lot of the comedy skits.

Regarding Ziggler's improvement, one thing Josh hints at which I think is really important is a desire to improve. Morrison is not considered to be a student of the game or somebody who worked hard to improve. He was good enough to get a reaction from the fans, and unique enough that he didn't have to try too hard to get noticed.

Jack Swagger is viewed similarly as a wrestler who just doesn't show enough urgency. He seems too content to coast. These kind of wrestlers hit a glass ceiling eventually because, however talented you are, you usually have to work your backside off to make it to the very top (unless you are a freakish physical specimen).

Ziggler has fans in very high places within WWE because he has shown a desire to push himself, and as a result of pushing himself he has got better. He has clearly studied old tapes, spoken to veterans of the business and honed his act.

You can compare it to footballers really. Some players work hard to identify and rectify weaknesses in their game, stay late at training and watch videos of their performances and other players' performances to try and improve. But a lot of players, if they are good enough in the first place, have no real desire to get any better. I think Ziggler has benefitted, in much the same way Zach Ryder has, from starting at the very bottom and being forced into self-evaluation. Morrison and Swagger on the other hand, may have inadvertedly suffered from being too talented and too highly praised in the first place.

Hey Crips, long time no speak hope you're well buddy.

I had a question, my favourite type of match when I was younger was when a well known wrestler would wrestle some jobber who didn't even have an intro (they'd just be standing in the ring) and the match was always an absolute squash. Do you know if the jobber has ever won before in this type of match?

hey Crips

Not sure if this has been asked before but do you think WWF/WWE dropped the ball by having Hogan help eliminate Sid in the 92 Royal Rumble thus having Rick Flair Win.

At the time watching i was kinda peeved as Sid was on fire at the time, seemed strange for hogan (face) to help get rid sid (face). Also the crowd reacted by booing Hogan.

Do you think Sid Should Have Won?

RE Starrcade 98, I can see where Crip is coming from but don't necessarily agree - nothing wrong with Nash being the man to end the streak, the crowd were already into booing Goldberg by that point and were happy for the change, going from reactions.

The problem, as everyone knows, came at the next Nitro (which was actually going quite well until the finish) so the downward spiral began in the January, not at the ppv for me.

Like putting a rizla between the 2 dates, I know, but WCW were far from buried going into that first Monday of 98. By the second Monday of 98 everyone wanted to see what was happening with Rock and Mankind, mainly due to the Nitro booking (and WWF-spoilering) of the week before.

Completely right about 97 though - a complete balls-up from all angles.

When a wrestler is approached by a fan and is asked something like ''when are you going to turn heel?'' or ''What was it like working a program with <insert wrestler here>?''

Is the wrestler supposed to be like ''what's a heel?'' or give a response to the fan knowing everything is scripted?

Did Vince have a different view of how the wrestlers talk to fans compared to whomever ran WCW/ECW back in the 80s/90s/00s??

Crips given that the Horsemen are being inducted into the hall of fame this year , do you think this might jog a few memories at the top and we might see another dominant group in wrestling formed ?

Dexter Morgan wrote:Hey Crips, long time no speak hope you're well buddy.

I had a question, my favourite type of match when I was younger was when a well known wrestler would wrestle some jobber who didn't even have an intro (they'd just be standing in the ring) and the match was always an absolute squash. Do you know if the jobber has ever won before in this type of match?

Yes, but only on those occasions where the promotion had plans for the jobber.

Often, especially during the territory days, a newcomer would be presented as though he was a nobody, only to pick up a shock win over an established star. Another variation is the wrestler who starts off as a "member of the crowd", seen as recently as Santino Marella's debut.

Perhaps the best example since wrestling's national expansion was this. The jobber ended up having a pretty decent career too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghoAFLkFqPo&feature=related

If I remember correctly, Goldberg on his wrestling debut with WCW was just standing in the ring, as if he was a jobber, and didn't have any entrance or music, and he won the match against an established wrestler. Can't remember who the established wrestler was mind.

Do you reckon that The Rock and John Cena already know who is going to win there match at Wrestlemania, and do you reckon any other guys backstage know the planned result?

I only ask this as I've never known of any big match results being leaked out before an event. The Royal Rumble must be the most difficult result to keep quiet, as it only takes one of the 30 guys to say something to the wrong person, and it would be all over the Internet.

Do you know of any cases were things like this have happened?

DDT wrote:If I remember correctly, Goldberg on his wrestling debut with WCW was just standing in the ring, as if he was a jobber, and didn't have any entrance or music, and he won the match against an established wrestler. Can't remember who the established wrestler was mind.

It was Hugh Morrus.

DDT wrote:Do you reckon that The Rock and John Cena already know who is going to win there match at Wrestlemania, and do you reckon any other guys backstage know the planned result?

I only ask this as I've never known of any big match results being leaked out before an event. The Royal Rumble must be the most difficult result to keep quiet, as it only takes one of the 30 guys to say something to the wrong person, and it would be all over the Internet.

Do you know of any cases were things like this have happened?

With many PPV's the dirt sheets seem to suggest that the proposed finishes change numerous times in the build up to a PPV. One that sticks in the memory is the RR that John Cena won where he declared himself fit only a few hours before the event (apparently).

That said I always think that the WWE will either leak deliberately, or have journalists on staff to leak rumours to increase the hype to smart fans. This would drive their desire to buy the PPV and therefore see if the rumours were correct.

I think it is the type of industry whereby things can be guessed at, but if the company wants something to be kept silent it will. Plus, if something does get out they can always change their plans as a result nullifying that story line!

In terms of Rock/Cena it is similar to an Undertaker streak match, we basically know that John Cena will win, the only consideration is *how* he will win. There is little conceivable way to me that they would allow a part timer who will not be coming back in a full time capacity to beat the biggest and best star in the company.

Thanks to the reply to my last question, but ive got another one. Why do you think Shawn Micheals was never given the wwe title in the 2nd half  of his career? He had alot of feuds over it, with the likes of HHH, Orton and Cena but they never gave him the belt. 

DDT wrote:Thanks to the reply to my last question, but ive got another one. Why do you think Shawn Micheals was never given the wwe title in the 2nd half  of his career? He had alot of feuds over it, with the likes of HHH, Orton and Cena but they never gave him the belt. 

Michaels was a huge star and one that never needed the title to be a star and probably had learned by that stage of his career that he didn't need it to validate him as a performer. Also, with HHH being top dog by that point maybe there wasn't the room for Michaels to be holding the title in the same way he did previously?

He was obviously involved in some title story lines and that said I am surprised that he didn't get one reign at some point.