Ask the Tart: Archive 1

by crippledtart Thu 24 Mar 2011, 11:53 am

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.

by Kay Fabe Fri 10 Feb 2012, 12:35 am

Shawn never wanted the World Title despite being offered it on a few occassions, Shawn became content in his personal life and wanted to spend as much time as he could at home with his family and his Church, he worked minimum dates, TV's PPV,s and on the odd occasion he'd do an overseas tour but only on the very odd occassions, he didn't do houses which is a basic requirement for the World Champion

He was offered the WHC without doing houses in 2006 when Batista was injured but as SmackDown! was taped on a Tuesday it clashed with the day he devoted to his Church

He was also offered the WWE Title in 2007 when Cena got injured if he'd return ahead of schedule and while he came back early, he declined the title and pushed for him to put Orton over (which didn't go as planned)

by Kay Fabe Fri 10 Feb 2012, 12:40 am

Also as for the Rumble winner, you'd be hard pushed to find 4 guys in the Rumble who will know whose booked to win it, the last two obviously and maybe one or two others who'll do false finishes and help put the right people over near the end

by DDT Sat 11 Feb 2012, 2:17 am

Does anyone know what the thinking was behind Undertaker's biker gimmick, who came up with it, and did wwe think it was a success? Or do they regret doing it?

It just seemed stupid that a creepy guy from Death Valley, would then come down on a motor bike to limp bizkit, dressed as a biker. I think it kind of tarnished the whole super natural deadman image, as it was hard to take him seriously once he went back to his old gimmick.

by Shot 21 LCFC Sat 11 Feb 2012, 1:23 pm

I disagree. They did it well. Having Kane cost him that match and then being buried alive. That right there was the transition back to the deadman - being buried. They did it well IMO.

by psycho-gooner Sun 12 Feb 2012, 5:03 pm

No-one answered my question Sad

by DDT Mon 13 Feb 2012, 3:01 am

psycho-gooner wrote: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??

As the so called experts don't know, il offer an opinion, though im no expert. Id assume wrestlers are supposed to stay in character, when doing any public appearances.

I'm not sure how they are supposed to react, if approached in the street, but I'd assume they'ed react how they want to. I suppose if an 8 year old kid was to approach a wrestler in the street, then the wrestler may behave in character, but alot of wrestling fans are old enough to realise that's it's all acting, and the wrestler may just act his normal self around them.

For instance im 23, and if I was to see, let's say the Undertaker in the street, if I tried to talk to him. Personally I think he would act like a normal guy, as he knows im not going to buy that he's some sort of super natural nut job in real life.

by psycho-gooner Mon 13 Feb 2012, 10:03 pm

Thanks DDT!

and I hope you get to meet the Undertaker who does turn out to be a super natural nut job. Just so either of you can point to a Wrestlemania sign.

by Miz NG Wed 15 Feb 2012, 1:19 pm

For the jobbers who won against an established name, the first name that springs to my mind is Barry Horowitz and JR's immoral line "Horowitz wins, Horowitz wins Horowitz wins!"

by Kay Fabe Wed 15 Feb 2012, 2:13 pm

DDT wrote:
psycho-gooner wrote: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??

As the so called experts don't know, il offer an opinion, though im no expert. Id assume wrestlers are supposed to stay in character, when doing any public appearances.

I'm not sure how they are supposed to react, if approached in the street, but I'd assume they'ed react how they want to. I suppose if an 8 year old kid was to approach a wrestler in the street, then the wrestler may behave in character, but alot of wrestling fans are old enough to realise that's it's all acting, and the wrestler may just act his normal self around them.

For instance im 23, and if I was to see, let's say the Undertaker in the street, if I tried to talk to him. Personally I think he would act like a normal guy, as he knows im not going to buy that he's some sort of super natural nut job in real life.

It's not an opinion based thread

by DDT Sun 19 Feb 2012, 5:32 am

I often wonder back to 2002, when we had Hulk Hogan v The Rock at Wrestlemania. I've heard alot of roumers that it was supposed to be Stone Cold v Hulk Hogan, but both Hogan and Austin refused to lose to the other.

So my question is why was Hogan happy to lose to the Rock, yet he wasn't happy to lose to Stone Cold?

by Shot 21 LCFC Tue 21 Feb 2012, 2:05 pm

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.

He did win the World Heavyweight Championship at the first ever Elimination Chamber though...

by **Kenny** Tue 21 Feb 2012, 3:08 pm

Am i right in thinking that if Big Show were to win the IC title he would become the first wrestler to win WWE , World , ECW , US , IC and World tag titles ? I think Kane only needs a US title to complete the set also ?
On the same line who has held the most different titles ?

by Beer Tue 21 Feb 2012, 3:17 pm

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:
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.

He did win the World Heavyweight Championship at the first ever Elimination Chamber though...

Michaels was offered the belt a few times and actually turned it down.

by Sarsippius Tue 21 Feb 2012, 5:28 pm

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Am i right in thinking that if Big Show were to win the IC title he would become the first wrestler to win WWE , World , ECW , US , IC and World tag titles ? I think Kane only needs a US title to complete the set also ?
On the same line who has held the most different titles ?

I can't answer with any certainty but I know Edge and Angle have held every male title currently in the WWE, so they would be up there (also Kurt has won the WCW World and US titles I believe). Big show would also be a shout for most different titles won (the ones you said plus his WCW titles). Also throw Benoit, Booker T and Bret Hart in there (I think, with Big Show, they are the only people to have completed the triple crown in WWE and WCW)

Anyway like I said I don't know, but if you include TNA I suspect Angle may just be the answer (Angle is a TNA triple crown champion)

by crippledtart Mon 19 Mar 2012, 9:50 pm

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?

Good question. Usually a promotion would keep the fewest possible people informed of the winner of a match. It's one of those things that are on a "need to know" basis. In the case of the Rumble, usually the winner isn't set in stone until very close to the event, and if it's not one of the top guys (eg Triple H, Cena, Undertaker) they might not even find out themselves until the day of the Rumble. Also, the winner of a big match may be determined but the finish hasn't necessarily been worked out.

It's not really the done thing for wrestlers to talk about these things. It would be seen as markish for, say, Dolph Ziggler to ask Cena who is winning his match with Rock. So, if it's revealed that Cena is beating Rock at Wrestlemania, the shortlist of possible informants would indeed be short.

Finally, it's one of those things that sound better in theory than in reality. There are loads of matches where you can be pretty sure of the winner ahead of time, but it doesn't stop them being fascinating. I remember in 2004 it was widely rumoured ahead of time that Chris Benoit was winning the Rumble, but that almost made the match more compelling to watch, to see how they booked it. And even if the outcome of a match was revealed ahead of time, there is nothing to say the promotion can't make a last-second change.

The fact is, until the bell rings to end a match, you can never say with 100% certainty who will win and how it will happen.

by crippledtart Mon 19 Mar 2012, 9:57 pm

JoshSansom wrote:
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.

I'd add that his 2002 title win was actually surprisingly anti-cllimactic. There was nowhere they could really go with a Michaels title reign. I think that in his "second coming" he found his niche as a guy who could have marquee, storyline-driven feuds where there was no need for the title to be involved. I would say that was actually a major factor in why his Wrestlemania match with Cena drew so well; because he had such a well-established character that wasn't a regular fixture in world title matches by that point.

by Utility-forward Mon 19 Mar 2012, 10:28 pm

Do the various champion actually get to keep the belts with them or do WWE look after them and give them to the champs as needed?

by crippledtart Wed 21 Mar 2012, 8:00 am

Utility-forward wrote:Do the various champion actually get to keep the belts with them or do WWE look after them and give them to the champs as needed?

In the majority of cases, the champion keeps the belt in their possession and is responsible for transporting it around the country.

However, one little know fact is that this is not the belt you see on TV. WWE has a pristine replica of each title belt which is used exclusively for TV and PPV. In the world of high definition, the company does not want its champions appearing on TV carrying beaten up and dented old title belts.

The replica has a name but I can't remember what it is! I think it might be called something as simple as the HD belt.

by crippledtart Wed 21 Mar 2012, 8:14 am

DDT wrote:I often wonder back to 2002, when we had Hulk Hogan v The Rock at Wrestlemania. I've heard alot of roumers that it was supposed to be Stone Cold v Hulk Hogan, but both Hogan and Austin refused to lose to the other.

So my question is why was Hogan happy to lose to the Rock, yet he wasn't happy to lose to Stone Cold?

The rumours you've heard are half right. Hogan was willing to job to Austin, but Austin had no desire to work with Hogan. He didn't trust him not to show him up, and wasn't comfortable working with someone he didn't personally like. In fact, it says a lot that he even felt more comfortable putting his damaged neck in the hands of Scott Hall than Hogan.

At that time Austin had lots of personal problems, which would manifest themselves soon after Wrestlemania. He was also rapidly losing political power within the WWF as Triple H gained more clout. He felt very paranoid and, perhaps understandably, Hogan was not high on his list of people he felt he could trust.

Hogan had returned to the company with pretty much zero political leverage and was grateful to Vince McMahon for giving him a job, so he was on his best behaviour. He's always had more of a reputation for being selfish than for refusing to do jobs; Hogan does what benefits Hogan. In the case of a potential match with Austin or Rock, it was more beneficial to lose the match than not have the match at all.

by MetalMotty Wed 21 Mar 2012, 4:52 pm

Having watched the the latest stone cold dvd. when austin talks of this he said he wanted to work with Hogan and was a little put out that Vince chose the Rock.

He felt that his place as the face of the wwe, he should be working with Hogan rather than scott hall, which he said wasnt a great match.

by crippledtart Wed 21 Mar 2012, 5:18 pm

psycho-gooner wrote: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??

There has been a gradual evolution ever since dirt sheets first appeared in the 80s, accelerated by the arrival of the internet in the 90s and wrestler autobiographies being widespread. But I would say that only in the last few years, since the advent of social networking (and especially since it was embraced by Vince McMahon), has kayfabe gone almost completely out of the window.

Even now though, wrestlers will show confusion as to how they speak about a current rival. For example, you're not likely to hear CM Punk go on a chat show and say "I'm really enjoying the current storyline about my dad's alcoholism, and Chris Jericho has cut some really good promos about it", because that could damage business. After all, they're trying to sell the PPV on the notion that Punk and Jericho hate each other.

But at the same time, if Punk was asked "are the matches for real?", he would skirt around the issue. There is a grey area that nobody is consistent about.

I think that a large part of the confusion is precisely because there has never, to my knowledge, been any policy about it. It seems to be the individual wrestler's prerogative as to whether he maintains kayfabe. And, of course, the more you hear wrestlers speak out of character, the harder it is for any of their colleagues to pretend. How can anyone suspend their disbelief when they've seen Kane on Sky Sports News just being a regular bloke?!

As for whether you would be able to speak in kayfabe terms with a wrestler, it obviously depends which wrestler. If it's someone who is a bit of a tool, they will probably treat you like a mark whatever you say. If it's someone who is a nice person, they would speak to you on your level. For example if you told Daniel Bryan that he's nasty to AJ and you hope he loses the title, he might react in-character. Whereas if you told him you were enjoying his heel work, he might thank you.

One thing I would avoid though is using too much "insider talk" to prove your knowledge of the industry. If you tried too hard you could end up coming across as a wannabe! The fact is that none of us have the faintest idea about a lot of the things involved in being a wrestler.

But like I said, it is different from one wrestler to the next. As the years have gone by, kayfabe has slowly been eroded, but there is no specific policy in place.

by crippledtart Wed 21 Mar 2012, 5:24 pm

DDT wrote:Does anyone know what the thinking was behind Undertaker's biker gimmick, who came up with it, and did wwe think it was a success? Or do they regret doing it?

It just seemed stupid that a creepy guy from Death Valley, would then come down on a motor bike to limp bizkit, dressed as a biker. I think it kind of tarnished the whole super natural deadman image, as it was hard to take him seriously once he went back to his old gimmick.

It may seem like a strange thing to say a dozen years later, with Undertaker perhaps as beloved as ever, but in 2000 the gimmick was getting a bit dated.

The attitude era had seen a shift towards more true-to-life characters in wrestling. The Undertaker, by contrast, was very much a remnant of a time when the WWF was the domain of plumbers and tax inspectors. The promotion had tried to humanise the character by giving him a family and backstory, but in trying to keep him fresh and relevant his storylines were increasingly outlandish, far-fetched and out of step with the rest of the promotion.

Enter the American Badass, a Texan tough guy who loved motorbikes, hard rock music and his ropey wife, in that order. It was a character with wide appeal, a character people could relate to, but it didn't quite click. Eventually, to his credit, the evolution into a heel bully worked quite well, but the character's initial babyface run didn't catch fire as much as it should in theory have done. It was an exception to the rule that the best wrestling characters are an extension of the performer's true personality.

Mark Callaway himself was the driving force behind the change (Vince McMahon wasn't a fan of the American Badass gimmick). My guess is that there were two main motivating factors. Firstly, as aluded to, he may have felt a pressing need to change with the times. Secondly, I imagine there was a desire to prove himself as more than a one trick pony; to show that he could perform at a main event level on his own two feet and that he wasn't defined by the gimmick. A third possible factor is that he had little name value outside the gimmick; it was heavily rumoured that in the mid 90s he had negotiated with WCW, but Eric Bischoff had no interest in Calaway as he wouldn't be able to use the Undertaker gimmick in WCW. By making the character more realistic and human, Calaway was opening up the possibility that he could take it elsewhere. This soon became pretty much irrelevant due to the demise of WCW soon after the American Badass debuted, but at the time it could have been a factor.

It's hard to believe looking back that it lasted so long; he was the American Badass for over three years, and in fact there was almost a five year stretch from late 1999 to spring of 2004 when he didn't play the classic Undertaker character. And I think that, supernatural gimmickry aside, he has actually done a very good job of humanising the character in recent years while staying true to its core appeal. Maybe it took the American Badass experiment for Calaway to realise that he didn't have to completely renovate the character in order to incorporate elements of his own personality. The Undertaker as a strong, silent type who commands respect and authority is very much in the mould of Calaway's real life personality.

by imprettyfly Thu 22 Mar 2012, 3:21 pm

BIG Question!!

For the Massive Matches, where there is no title, maybe something like Hair vs Hair...

Do they toss a coin to decide who wins?

or any match, that doesnt really have meaning, like a dark match, toss a coin to determine the winner?

by Fernando Thu 22 Mar 2012, 4:41 pm

What does the WWE look for when recruiting people in the Indies? (ROH,CZW,NJPW etc. )

by JoshSansom Thu 22 Mar 2012, 7:20 pm

imprettyfly wrote:BIG Question!!

For the Massive Matches, where there is no title, maybe something like Hair vs Hair...

Do they toss a coin to decide who wins?

or any match, that doesnt really have meaning, like a dark match, toss a coin to determine the winner?

If there was a match like hair v hair then it would have been pre chosen as a stipulation. The example would be Edge v Angle where Kurt lost and was shaved bald because he was going bald anyway. It isn't left to chance.

by crippledtart Sat 24 Mar 2012, 7:19 pm

imprettyfly wrote:BIG Question!!

For the Massive Matches, where there is no title, maybe something like Hair vs Hair...

Do they toss a coin to decide who wins?

or any match, that doesnt really have meaning, like a dark match, toss a coin to determine the winner?

I would be pretty concerned about a wrestling promotion that determined the winner of any match by the toss of a coin!

Basically, the answer is no in 99.9%+ of cases. It may sometimes seem that a match is pointless, but in pretty much every case some thought has gone into who should win and why.

Bear in mind, even if two wrestlers seem like they are as low on the card as it's possible to be, chances are the promotion rates one of the wrestlers higher than the other. As for dark matches, it may be that the babyface is booked to win to give the crowd a lift, or that the heel is being considered for a future push and the promoter wants to see how a live crowd reacts to him.

For a feud to get as far as a hair vs hair match it would - if booked properly - be a major part of the storyline, if not the culmination of the entire feud. In which case, I'd damn well hope they didn't toss a coin to determine the winner. Although it may seem inconceivable that a wrestler would agree to have their head shaved for a storyline, it really isn't much different to an actor changing their appearance for a movie role. It's all part of the job. Not to mention that, as Josh said, often it's simply that the wrestler wants to change their appearance anyway and they might as well get some storyline mileage out of it!

Absolutely definitely though, it would be a really bad sign if a wrestling promoter was so ambivalent about match results - at any level on the card - that they were determined by the toss of a coin.

by crippledtart Sat 24 Mar 2012, 7:40 pm

fernando wrote:What does the WWE look for when recruiting people in the Indies? (ROH,CZW,NJPW etc. )

I would say, aside from the obvious qualities such as athleticism, charisma, etc, there are a couple of intangibles WWE looks for.

First, is the ability to tell a story in a match. That means no spot monkeys. It's one thing to be able to perform a shooting star press, but that in itself doesn't mean much to WWE if the wrestler doesn't know how to sell, slow things down, and tell a logical story in a match. They would prefer a wrestler who was plodding but methodical to a wrestler who could do a standing backflip. Clearly, if you have great athleticism and you can tell a story, even better.

Second, is the ability to 'play to the back row'. WWE wrestlers need to be able to engage a large arena full of fans in their matches. That means their body language and facial expressions need to be easy to read, without being overly cartoonish.

People sometimes talk about 'WWE style'. This refers to the company policy on how it wants its wrestlers to wrestle. Essentially, it comes down to making matches as accessible to as wide an audience as possible. That means each wrestler having three or four signature spots that an audience will instantly recognise in a match, and being able to convey emotions and tell a story in a way that is easily deciphered. I would say that if a wrestler possessed the two qualities above he might not grab the company's attention like a colleague with huge muscles and nothing else, but would stand a much better chance of progressing further in the long term.

by bretmeharty Wed 28 Mar 2012, 7:39 pm

Crippletart,

How do you know all these things, are you a wrestler or a guy on the inside, because how an earth do you know something like an HD belt because in all my time I have been following the business I never have heard of something like that.

by crippledtart Thu 29 Mar 2012, 8:35 pm

bretmeharty wrote:Crippletart,

How do you know all these things, are you a wrestler or a guy on the inside, because how an earth do you know something like an HD belt because in all my time I have been following the business I never have heard of something like that.

Ha, no I'm not on the inside. I have set foot in a wrestling ring once, when I was 11, at the Regal cinema in Minehead. I wanted Giant Haystacks' autograph.

I never set out to know a lot about wrestling. I was the same with football as a kid - I can still tell you the result of every FA Cup final since 1970, off the top of my head. I never learnt them, I just know them. The wrestling industry fascinates me.

I guess I have just read a lot of stuff about wrestling, and soaked it up like a sponge. Many years ago, I had a job where I would spend my entire lunch hour reading wrestling stuff I'd found on the internet that morning. I would squeeze as much as I could onto a few A4 pages in size 7 font, drive somewhere quiet nearby, park the car up and read about wrestling. TV reports, PPV reports, opinion pieces, news, old stuff, new stuff, just anything I'd found. This went on five days a week for about three years.

I used to spend regular Saturday afternoons looking around the shops for second hand wrestling videos. It's amazing how many I managed to seek out.

Even now, I spend about ten hours a week commuting. Pretty much the whole of that time, I'm listening to wrestling shows. That's how I heard about the HD belt, in an interview with a former WWE writer (I think it was John Piermarini on the Pro Wrestling Torch livecast).

Surprisingly, I have slept with women.

I probably don't watch as much wrestling as the vast majority on this board. I don't religiously watch Raw, Impact, ROH and Smackdown every week and I never have. I read about the shows and then look on youtube if anything sounds worth going out of my way to see (for example all of the recent Rock/Cena stuff). It might seem weird but I just don't feel the need to "be there". I'll be watching Wrestlemania, of course, but I don't feel that it is necessary for me to watch all wrestling shows. I know a lot of people will find that strange and some will think it doesn't make me a "proper fan", but I think I've just got used to the situation having never had Sky and so never getting into the habit. Plus, as you have probably gathered from this post, I'm not a normal person.

And judging from the length of this answer, I am rather a self-indulgent person too. Sorry!

by DonIffy Thu 29 Mar 2012, 8:44 pm

Crippled Tart,

Is there legit heat between Rock and Cena?

by Fernando Thu 29 Mar 2012, 8:44 pm

In the run up to PPV's how often do they change their minds on plans i remember reading i think it was a Wade Barrett vs John Cena match, finish changed 4 times in 3 hours.

by Shot 21 LCFC Fri 30 Mar 2012, 9:42 am

Why have you shortened your name and how do we know this is the real you?

by MIG Fri 30 Mar 2012, 10:21 am

Cause all his posts have changed to that name?

by crippledtart Fri 30 Mar 2012, 1:02 pm

Shot 21 LCFC wrote:Why have you shortened your name and how do we know this is the real you?

I chose the longer name because it was a combination of the names I'd used on 606, and because some people called me Davies and others called me crippled tart.

But recently I was thinking it's quite a long and clunky name so I got rid of the first bit. Well, I asked hobo to do it...

I don't really like using the tart name any more as it's a band I was in that doesn't even exist any more. I'd like to use my real name but 'ask gav' doesn't have the same ring to it.

by Guest Fri 30 Mar 2012, 1:18 pm

It works for me Very Happy

by bretmeharty Fri 30 Mar 2012, 2:07 pm

At the risk of sounding like a little school boy which isn't the intention, I think having a conversation with with you and your knowledge for even just an hour would be fascinating Tart.

by UpsideDownFace Fri 30 Mar 2012, 2:34 pm

bretmeharty wrote:At the risk of sounding like a little school boy which isn't the intention, I think having a conversation with with you and your knowledge for even just an hour would be fascinating Tart.

I agree mate. Glad he has started coming on here more frequently again.

by sodhat Fri 30 Mar 2012, 2:38 pm

Crips, do old guys (in a wrestling sense) like HHH, Rock, Taker and Austin get along personally? Is there some in-built respect between them all for what they've done or is it more like a rivalry between them all?

by crippledtart Fri 30 Mar 2012, 4:09 pm

DonIffy wrote:Crippled Tart,

Is there legit heat between Rock and Cena?

There is legitimate heat between The Rock and John Cena. How much heat is questionable, but I have no doubt that the two don't get along.

I'd say the most telling thing of all is the fact that they have traded insults both on the air and in interviews that just don't generate money. In other words, they have said things about each other that seem designed to create resentment. The fact that they are both babyfaces means that this doesn't make any storyline sense. Unless Rock is a heel, why would Cena constantly bring attention to the fact that he supposedly 'abandoned WWE'?

Similarly, John Cena is presented as the ultimate babyface by WWE. The intention behind his portrayal is essentially for the fans to like him more than anyone else on the roster. So what storyline sense would it make for The Rock to ridicule anybody who likes him?

I realise they're trying to make things seem as real as possible, but there is no reason that realism should involve both men trying to tear down each other's acts. They can make the feud personal without resorting to that.

With all the noises coming out of WWE about Cena and various other wrestlers resenting and criticising Rock, it's also worth bearing in mind that he's very protective of his image, as much as any wrestler who's ever set foot in the ring. Why, in that case, would he agree to be portrayed as an aloof traitor, especially when his character is supposed to be a babyface?

I'm not suggesting there will be any kind of shoot element to Sunday's match. And it's far from all-out warfare between them backstage; they're cordial but not close, by most accounts. But I think that, given the things they've said about each other and the fact that none of those comments actually enhance either man's reputation, there is personal resentment between them.

by UpsideDownFace Sat 31 Mar 2012, 10:14 am

I know this isn't an opinion thread but just wanted to ask you crips. Who is your personal favourite wrestler of all time, and for what reasons?

by **Kenny** Sat 31 Mar 2012, 11:44 pm

Again just your opinion , do you agree with former stars being brought back into WWE rather then the young guys being given a break ?

by We Want Edge Sun 01 Apr 2012, 10:41 pm

Hi crips,

Why do the WWE make matches with celebs in?

I understand that they do it to increase publicity but do the people who are interested in Maria Menounos want to spend $60 (or however much it is) to see wrestling or even worse her wrestling?

And also why do the WWE have a celebrity wing of the HOF?

It's ridiculous that they can think that William Perry is on par with the likes of Stone Cold Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan etc.. in terms of wrestling

by The_Rad_Russian Mon 02 Apr 2012, 3:24 pm

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

by sodhat Tue 03 Apr 2012, 11:15 am

Spoiler:

by crippledtart Fri 06 Apr 2012, 10:05 pm

Fernando wrote:In the run up to PPV's how often do they change their minds on plans i remember reading i think it was a Wade Barrett vs John Cena match, finish changed 4 times in 3 hours.

I think that, in this day and age when WWE booking is so short-term, every PPV main event finish is the subject of some degree of discussion. Very rarely, if ever, does WWE have its next few months or even weeks of booking all planned out, so there is no set direction. Even with the Nexus storyline, the booking was week to week, hence why the angle never properly ended!

Cena-Barrett was a huge match with important storyline ramifications, so it doesn't surprise me that they dithered over the finish so much. I have even heard that Vince McMahon considered turning Cena heel around that time (it may have been the Barrett-Orton match I'm thinking of though).

Title belts - and even wins and losses, to a degree - are also so devalued that main event finishes are not generally considered as newsworthy as they once were, so nothing is out of the question when discussing plans. For example we are not completely shocked when Cena does a clean job, whereas the legs could have been cut out from the entire product if, say, Hulk Hogan had lost to King Kong Bundy in the Wrestlemania 2 main event.

Another fairly recent phenomenon is that Vince McMahon is desperate to avoid hi s product being predictable, especially since the internet came along. It may seem crazy, but sometimes he might change the planned winner of a main event match purely to surprise people.

So in summary I think that there is at least some discussion about what route to take, and consideration given to alternatives, and the main reason for this is that storylines are not booked far ahead that any option can be completely discounted.

by crippledtart Fri 06 Apr 2012, 10:26 pm

We Want Edge wrote:Hi crips,

Why do the WWE make matches with celebs in?

I understand that they do it to increase publicity but do the people who are interested in Maria Menounos want to spend $60 (or however much it is) to see wrestling or even worse her wrestling?

And also why do the WWE have a celebrity wing of the HOF?

It's ridiculous that they can think that William Perry is on par with the likes of Stone Cold Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan etc.. in terms of wrestling

I think it all comes down to Vince McMahon's desire for mainstream acceptance.

You're totally right that celebrity wrestling appearances are unlikely to add anything to the buyrate, but for Vince McMahon the quest for mainstream acceptance is about more than financial gain.

There has often been a sense that Vince is ashamed of being a wrestling promoter. From coining the term "sports entertainment" to the XFL to the WWE film studios, Vince doesn't want to be seen as just a wrestling promoter.

McMahon hopes that if the company associates itself with enough celebrities, it will become accepted in the mainstream. It's become an obsession. A couple of times, he got close to a degree of acceptance, but even when his company was hot in the mid 80s and the late 90s it was always seen as something of a joke in many media circles.

The celebrity wing of the hall of fame is Vince's way of saying "Look how acceptable we are". Basically it's the WWE equivalent of a restaurant owner putting polaroids on the wall showing that Les Dennis went there once.

by crippledtart Fri 06 Apr 2012, 11:13 pm

UpsideDownFace wrote:I know this isn't an opinion thread but just wanted to ask you crips. Who is your personal favourite wrestler of all time, and for what reasons?

This seems like a fitting question to answer for the one thousandth post!

The quick answer is I don't have a favourite of all time. There is nobody I would consider myself "a mark for". I try to judge every wrestler's work without any bias.

If I absolutely had to narrow it down, it would be Randy Savage.

But I also would say that there are other wrestlers who, at certain points, I have liked just as much.

I think Terry Funk was amazing in his 1989 NWA feud with Ric Flair (plus he might have had the greatest entrance music of all time!), the evil Jake Roberts in 91/92 WWF was possibly the greatest heel I've ever seen, I love ECW Cactus Jack, I really enjoyed Bret Hart during his 1997 Hart Foundation run, I thought Edge was the best heel of his generation during the first couple of years of his WWE main event stint, and I thought CM Punk was awesome in his Straight Edge Society days. As far as TNA is concerned, I think Samoa Joe could have been the breakout star to establish the promotion as a legitimate contender to WWE in 06/07, and the LAX gimmick from around the same time might have become my favourite ever if the company hadn't disbanded the act for no apparent reason (maybe they were getting too over...).

Obviously, Ric Flair's body of work throughout the 80s and into the early 90s was phenomenal, and will almost certainly never be matched. Both his matches and promos were of a quality and consistency that has simply never been seen in wrestling. But he's stayed around so long, his abilities have naturally diminished as he's got older, his performances became so cliched, and the more I got to know about him personally the more I've disliked him. There was a time when I referred to him simply as "the man", but now he's more like "the joke". The sad thing for me is that I don't think a lot of recent fans will ever realise just how great he once was.

So it's Savage for me. The first feud that really reeled me into wrestling was Savage and Jake, so I might be biased, but I just don't think there were two better wrestlers at telling a story in their promos and their matches. And, even if Flair had four-to-five star matches every night for ten years, there was something about Savage. When he really turned it on, he did it better than anyone. The intensity, the believability, the fact he was such an utterly compelling character, and the fact that he was a great in-ring worker and an incredible promo. He had the look, the charisma, and one other thing that sets him apart from most of the others I've mentioned is that he was a truly great babyface and heel. I still can't tell you which role I preferred him in, he was so good at both.

Unfortunately, like most of the people I've listed, as his career progressed he probably tainted his legacy rather than adding to it, but much less so than the likes of Flair, Funk, Roberts and Foley. Only in the last couple of years of his career did he begin to outstay his welcome a little, which is actually quite impressive considering how long Savage was at the top. And even in those years, he remained hugely popular.

But like I said, I wouldn't say I have an outright favourite wrestler. I just think that, at his best, Randy Savage was the best I've ever seen!

by UpsideDownFace Sat 07 Apr 2012, 10:05 am

Thank you

by crippledtart Sat 07 Apr 2012, 12:39 pm

sodhat wrote:Crips, do old guys (in a wrestling sense) like HHH, Rock, Taker and Austin get along personally? Is there some in-built respect between them all for what they've done or is it more like a rivalry between them all?

In general, the veterans of WWE tend to get on well. As you say, it's largely built on respect. In the above cases, they are part-timers or semi-retired, so there is no longer a battle going on for main event positions. Where Austin and Rock and Triple H were once all battling for the top babyface spot (culminating in Austin's 2002 walk-out), now there is little need for politicking, their legacies are established and their full-time careers are way behind them. Similarly, the scene after Hell in a Cell at Wrestlemania was a genuine show of mutual respect between three men who have not always got on well; Undertaker, while never an enemy of the clique in the 90s, was far from a friend. However, over time, especially given Michaels' transformation from selfish brat to company man, rivalries have thawed immensely. Don't forget as well that the faces in the WWE locker room are almost entirely different to their early years - as time has gone by, Undertaker has found himself with more in common with the likes of Triple H and Michaels - two men of a similar age and similar experiences - than the majority of the roster.

One relationship that may never be a truly warm one is that between The Rock and Triple H. There are numerous stories, dating back to the start of both men's WWF careers, where Triple H is alleged to have tried to hijack Rock's push. He was often rumoured to be jealous of Rock's success both in wrestling and movies. And I have no doubt personally that John Cena was at times acting as a mouthpiece for others with some of the digs he made at Rock during their Wrestlemania build. Most of the criticisms he levelled at Rock presumably came straight from Vince McMahon, but I would not be at all surprised if Triple H revelled in the situation just as much, and made a few suggestions to Cena himself. In interviews he has also taken a couple of subtle digs at Rock which I would interpret as resentment.

I'm sure the two are cordial, but under the surface there is no friendship between them.

by crippledtart Sat 07 Apr 2012, 1:04 pm

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Again just your opinion , do you agree with former stars being brought back into WWE rather then the young guys being given a break ?

That's a good question, and I will be writing an article about it!

by Sponsored content