If I Could Be Serious For A Moment 04.14.09: Seriously Talking Wrestling

Posted by Chris Lansdell on 04.14.2009

It's not often the stars align to allow me to do a column like this. In fact, it has never happened before and may never again. Come see!

Greetings, humanity! Welcome to a very special edition of If I Could Be Serious For A Moment, your weekly dose of intelligent wrestling discourse with me, Chris Lansdell. As is traditional for me, I watched precisely 1 hour of wrestling after WrestleMania week, and that was RoH. After 25+ hours of wrestling in one weekend, even a self-confessed über geek needs to spend some time doing other things. Like shooting mouthy 15-year-olds on COD4. However, I did manage to finally get something done that's been floating around my head for months, but the logistics never quite clicked. Until this week. We'll get to what exactly that was right after the

BANNER!

Meet the Wrestling Press

One of the things that first attracted me to 411mania as my site of choice for wrestling news was the different perspectives it offered. Most smark rags are entirely populated by workrate snobs and, well, smarks who can spell slightly better than other smarks. Even before I started writing here I was struck by the difference between the full-on comedy of a Jeff Small to the irreverence of a Larry Csonka to the intellectual criticism of Ryan Byers to the in-depth viewing of JT and Prag. Once I got on staff, I realised that the diversity went even deeper. Without naming names, we have on staff an ordained minister, a lawyer, a PhD candidate (possibly 2), a couple of games developers, a tax auditor, high school students, a professional wrestler, college students, salesmen, two teachers, and even one genetic scientist. Prize to the person who can name one from each profession! The upshot of it all is that we have some highly intelligent people on our staff, and as you will know if you read this column regularly (THANK YOU!) it is aimed at the intelligent fan. I figured that if I could get a few of those writers together and do an Around the Horn-style discussion, it would really give readers a chance to see some of their favourite writers in a different light. This week, I finally got 3 of them in the same place at the same time.

How relevant to today's landscape is Paul Heyman?

Lansdell: With us for this experiment is a veritable smorgasbord of wrestling Illuminati. From Ask411 and formerly of Evolution Schematic, Mr Mathew Sforcina.
Sforcina: Hello Readers.
Lansdell: From the ECW report, the Top 5 and Buy or Sell, Mr Michael Bauer.
Bauer: Hello everyone.
Lansdell: And from anywhere but in front of a computer writing about wrestling, Mr Ryan Byers.
Byers: Hola.
Lansdell: OK folks, let's kick this into gear. We've just had WrestleMania and the associated Hall of Fame festivities, and of course Bauer just led us in the Top 5 people in should be in the Hall. Paul Heyman is often named as one of those who should be. There's a school of thought, though, that says he's responsible for the "smarks" that boo Cena and cheer heels. Your thoughts, Ryan?
Byers: I would disagree with Heyman's inclusion. In terms of talent, he was a very good booker for a niche audience and an excellent manager/talker. However, it's a hall of FAME and not a hall of talented guys. I think Heyman is lacking the notoriety that this sort of honor requires outside of his hardcore market. And the notion that he spawned heel fans is insane. They existed well before he took up the book anywhere. Go back and watch the original tape of Hogan getting boo'ed at Royal Rumble '92, for starters.
Lansdell: Well not so much heel fans as people who go out of their way to boo the faces. Where do you think that started, Sforcina?
Sforcina: Fans going back against what the bookers wanted? Well, there's a certain level of that throughout the entire history of Pro Wrestling, but if you want me to nail a time period, probably in the early 90's when fans who had been into wrestling as a young teenager/kid began to become young adults. Up until then you occasionally had fans not cheering a face or not booing a heel, but in the early 90's, Hogan began to grate, Flair got misused and so on.
Lansdell: I think though that the phenomenon got exponentially worse as time went on, to the point now that there's an element that boo people just because it's the opposite of what the writers want, as opposed to doing it out of a genuine like or dislike. Cena is obviously the first name on that list right now, is it even a bad thing Bauer?
Bauer: I definitely don't think it is a bad thing. The WWE has been good at one thing and that is listening to the WWE fans when it comes to the reactions that are given to specific wrestlers. Think about this way. If the fans never booed Rocky Maivia for being too babyface, we would never had The Rock is all of his majesty. If the fans never turned on Bret Hart and jumped on the Steve Austin bandwagon, who knows how different the landscape of the WWE would have been going into the turn of the century? Now granted, Cena hasn't been turned heel yet and I doubt he ever will, but his continued mixed reaction will show that the fans will continue to define the road superstars of now and the future will take.
Byers: And, to put a more materialistic slant on it, the reaction doesn't mean a damn thing if the fans are still paying . . . and WWE's fans certainly are.
Sforcina: Especially when they can still make money off it. Cena draws as a face (to young kids) AND as a heel (to adult males), at the exact same time. Who cares what they do when they get in? People pay to see Cena, either to see him win or see him lose, but they still pay.
Lansdell: And really, that's what it's all about isn't it? The bottom line. The day Cena stops being a cash cow, he will be a heel before you can blink, and then the people booing him will start to cheer him just because they are contrary-minded.
Bauer: Or because Cena will finally be fresh and that is truly what the fans who boo Cena truly want.
Lansdell: Some of them do, some of them boo him because "he has no moves and he sucks", whatever that means. How much of it is true dislike and how much is bandwagon-jumping Byers?
Byers: That's a hard question for any of us to answer because we're all a bit disconnected from the average WWE fan, so in some ways we don't know how their minds work. However, I think that a fair amount of it is bandwagon jumping. If you go to shows, there's a pretty strong herd mentality amongst teenage and young adult male wrestling fans. After all, we're talking about the same basic group of people who shat all over Sid Vicious when he was working in the NWA and WWF but suddenly decided to fall in love with him when he came to ECW . . . only to shit all over him again when he jumped back to Turner.
Lansdell: And that's the crux of what I'm getting at here, the ECW fans. In my opinion they are the ones who turned into and/or trained today's smart mark fans. If we can slide back to the Hall of Fame for a second...one thing the commenters on Bauer's Top 5 seemed to say was that it's ultimately a worked Hall of Fame for a worked "sport" and too many people put too much emphasis on it. This was mostly said in reaction to Koko B Ware's induction. I'll throw this one open: Do we care too much, and really? Koko?
Sforcina: Do we, the IWC/Smart Fans/Fans who think too much? Yes, we probably do. But they can't throw in every big name star every year, and there are plenty of names in the WWE HOF that are questionable. But if you want them to respect the big names, then little names have to make up the difference. And your average fan probably didn't even know Koko existed, and still doesn't care.
Byers: Okay, I've wanted to comment on the Koko comments for a while now. I'm sick and tired of pretending that the WWE HOF has gone downhill because Koko B. Ware has been inducted. Koko B. Ware is FAR from lowest-ranked inductee of all time. He accomplished worlds more than Johnny Rodz. He did more than Mikel Scicluna. He did more than SD Jones. Ladies and gentlemen, VINCE MCMAHON SENIOR'S LIMO DRIVER IS IN THAT HALL OF FAME. The WWE Hall was never meant to be a serious Hall the way the NFL or MLB Halls are. The sooner people realize that, the happier they will be.
Bauer: I mean, I am the probably the one who is most against Koko being in the WWE Hall of Fame. When I think of a Hall of Fame, baseball, football, rock and roll, or anything, I simply think about the best ever in the history of the sport or organization. Koko B. Ware, while entertaining and popular, was nowhere near the best of the WWE of that time frame. Especially when you have Ted DiBiase still not in the Hall of Fame.
Sforcina: But if Ted went in this year, then that's one less 'draw' name for next year.
Byers: Exactly. People need to look at the WWE HOF for what it is - a marketing tool.
Bauer: There are plenty of "draw" names left and I think the Top 5 list this week proved that.
Byers: Nothing more, nothing less. Never has been, never will be.
Lansdell: But as a marketing tool, shouldn't it have a physical location?
Byers: Not at all. You don't need a physical location to get over the concept of wrestling history for the purpose of selling DVDs, books, dolls, and 24/7 subscriptions.
Lansdell: I have to agree with Byers, the Hall of Fame was a joke long before this year, and you have many fans saying that and complaining about it every year. When you look at who is in and who isn't, it's obvious it's not serious. Sure they've put some people in that would be on anyone's Hall of Fame list (Hogan, Flair, even Piper), but at the end of the day it's just Vince rewarding people for service.
Sforcina: But on the other hand, a WWE HOF as a physical building somewhere in New York might be a good idea now, make it a place WWE fans can take a trip to see, in these hard times.
Byers: I don't know Sforcina . . . let's not forget how much money the company lost on WWF New York in Times Square.
Sforcina: It doesn't have to be in prime real estate, it can be out in the Burbs of New York or in Connecticut or anywhere. New York failed for different reasons, this would be a bigger draw card and be less expensive to run.

Is there such a thing as the "Smark City Effect"?

Lansdell: New York! Excellent segue. One of my pet theories is that there are several "smark cities" - New York, Philly, Detroit, Chicago, Toronto - that pretty much determining the wrestling landscape and who is popular. What are your thoughts, Sforcina?
Sforcina: Well, it's a trick question in a way. Does being a big city mean you control the rest of the fanbase? I mean, those are 5 of the biggest markets for Wrestling, so they'd have a pretty big sway over the fanbase even if they were straight. And I'll agree that, since they are such big markets, the percentage of fans that go to wrestling is probably larger than in other places. Calling them 'Smark Cities' I'm not sure about (Canada as a whole is it's own thing), but I'll agree that big towns can create chants, ideas and such that flow on. Most of the time they are smarky, sometimes not.
Lansdell: Well when you look at people like The Rock, Kennedy, even Orton to a degree, their turns were precipitated by the unusual reactions they got in these cities. Because they are such big markets and more shows are put on there, the fans tend to be more "educated" about wrestling and thus less likely to cheer for whoever is put in front of them. Bauer?
Bauer: I'm not sure if that is exactly the cause of the turn to occur. I tend to think that these cities do factor into the decision making, but it is not the end all into these decisions. I mean, Cena gets the unusual reactions just about everywhere, but he hasn't been turned yet. And keep in mind that while the perception is that more shows are done in these areas, it is not always the case. While New York has several stops along the way, many times some of the more "smarky" locations are skipped over.
Lansdell: Byers, your thoughts?
Byers: Bauer pretty well nailed it. There are times that reactions in these cities are taken in to account, but I think that, by and large, WWE turns people when it wants to turn people and sticks to its guns in the face of adverse crowd reactions when it wants to do that. Otherwise, turns would be far more frequent.
Sforcina: Which is not to say crowd reactions don't help turns along at times.
Bauer: No question about it. Let's not forget that one specific reaction at MSG did bring Matt Hardy back to the WWE.
Lansdell: The reaction to Matt Hardy is an excellent example, and one I'd forgotten. If you discount the effect of these cities, how then do you explain all the premature turns that ruined the heat of Kennedy, Umaga, and others? What about the reactions that MVP was getting that forced a hard change in his character?
Sforcina: Because there's a different between a turn and a character change
Byers: Umaga turned?
Sforcina: He had that brief 2 week run as a babyface.
Bauer: I honestly don't even remember that Umaga face turn, but I guess the WWE realized that it was a bad idea real fast.
Byers: Ah yes, that. I don't think the intent there was ever to turn him. The idea seemed to be to make it look that way for a little while because he was getting babyface reactions while doing his heel shtick. To get him back to being a heel, they made it look like he might be turning, only to solidly re-establish him as a heel a couple of weeks later.
Lansdell: Exactly, Byers. And those reactions started in either Detroit or Chicago, I forget which. Why would they need to "get him back to being a heel" if the fans hadn't decided he was a face now?
Bauer: Wait a second, I think I remember now. He was getting cheered because he was kicking Santino Marella's butt.
Byers: I don't think that the city had a damn thing to do with Umaga's babyface reactions. If you take any marginally talented wrestler and book him to win all of the time and squash people more often than not, he will eventually get babyface reactions, no matter what the alignment of his opponents is.
Sforcina: Well there was the Santino period, plus there was a period when he didn't like being ordered around by Orton and Carlito, I think.
Lansdell: I eagerly await the cheering of Vladimir Kozlov.
Byers: I said the guy had to be marginally talented.
Lansdell: Oh come now, Kozlov is more than marginally talented. Bret Hart or Ric Flair he is not, but he plays his role very well.
Sforcina: Back to the question, Kennedy is the perfect example of a bad turn. They assumed that they were reacting to him as a person and not his characteristics. So when they turned him, they changed around his character, and suddenly he was no longer being cheered. Plus his injuries didn't help.
Bauer: With Kennedy's turn, I think his heat was more killed by the steroid leaks and the freak injuries than anything else.
Byers: Yeah, there were too many starts and stops with Kennedy. They were pushing him, then they weren't. They were pushing him, then they weren't. Fans lose faith in a guy when you do that too many times. See Benjamin, Shelton.
Lansdell: It wasn't even so much the on-and-off pushes, it was the injuries and the fact that the crowd started loving him, then when the writers tried to run with that the fans turned on him. The combination of those two things may well be what keeps Kennedy out of a prominent role in WWE.

Double turns and matches we remember too fondly

Lansdell: Would anyone care to disagree that the Austin-Hart double turn was the best example of said booking device?
Byers: I don't think that there have been too many, so sure.
Sforcina: I'm trying to think of another one, and apart from Hogan/Flair, and Roberts/Honky, I can't think of any others.
And when your competition is either forgotten about or used as the punchline for a joke, it's not hard to be the best.
Lansdell: Well there was also Demolition/Powers of Pain
Bauer: I think it was the best non-intended double turn ever. As far as ones that they planned on doing, I might have to look outside the WWE or WCW for that.
Sforcina: Which was unplanned, Demo or Hart? Because Hart/Austin was planned...
Bauer: I always had the belief that it was never planned before that epic WrestleMania match.
Lansdell: Fortunately though, my actual question is only tangentially related. Many people rate the WMXIII match between Austin and Hart as one of the best ever at Mania. A lot of those people say this despite not having seen the match more than once, and that was 10 plus years ago. Does the hype for a match's quality tend to make us remember it more favourably?
Byers: That happens with every good match in history, to a certain extent. I mean, really, how many matches are there that the majority of wrestling fans have watched more than once or twice?
Sforcina: It shouldn't, I mean if we used the logic of Smark Cities then the more a match is hyped the more likely we should to hate it.
Byers: But, with that being said, I've watched that match within the last year or so, and it lives up to the hype.
Bauer: Many of these matches that are rated as classics do tend to live up to the hype. Just think of Bret vs Owen or the Iron Man Match.
Lansdell: Thank you Bauer. The Iron Man Match is a perfect example of matches I think are overrated because of influence. Everyone says it's great, so everyone agrees it's great, even though some might not have seen it in years or understand why.
Sforcina: Plus, matches with that much historical significance get more favourably looked at. Actually I don't like the Bret/Shawn Iron Man match, oddly enough.
Lansdell: I watched Mania XII the other day, and the Iron Man match was nowhere near as good as I remembered. Whether that's because of the legion of people saying "ZOMG BRET-SHAWN WAS TEH AWESOME"and I was expecting more, or because it's just not that good, I couldn't tell you. That's what led to this question: are the matches of those days just not as good now that our standards have changed, or do you paint those matches favourably because everyone says they were classics?
Bauer: Well, keep in mind that back then, it was a one of a kind match that had all sorts of expectations. Now, when 13 years have gone by, people look it in in comparison to many more matches and events that have occurred. Likewise, when people say something is overrated, that means something else is underrated. And honestly, when I rank this in my list of Top WrestleMania matches, I don't think there is any match below it that I consider underrated.
Byers: I have watched that one recently, and I think that the problem is that it's patterned on matches form a different era. Keep in mind that this was before the WCW cruiserweights and ECW and ROH making people fall in love with mile a minute matches. If you judge it as an hour long match from the 1970's or early 1980's, it is awesome. And it worked for the crowd at the time.
Lansdell: It would have worked for the crowd regardless, you had the two biggest babyfaces in the company competing at a time when kayfabe was still alive. OK, another example, and to some these two will be sacrilege. Kobashi-Joe and Misawa-Kawada do nothing for me. I went into both of them having heard nothing but how they were the epitome of five star matches, and how Misawa-Kawada especially was the perfect match...and I doubt I would have either of them crack 4 flakes.
Bauer: Of those two, I only saw Kobashi vs. Joe. And yes, it was an outstanding, superb match, but I definitely agree with you that is wasn't a five star match. But I would definitely give it four stars.
Sforcina: No two people on earth have the exact same tastes in anything, and in the rare cases you find it, one is copying the other. Hence you will find matches groups of people love that you hate, and vice versa. Doesn't make either one wrong, just means you have different tastes. Now I happen to really like that match, but again, that's just different tastes. Taste is subjective.
Lansdell: I don't think it can be passed off as simply different tastes. For example, I also dislike Kobashi-Misawa, but I can appreciate it as a match others would find good. I think atmosphere can make a good match better, but I don't think it's the most important thing in a match. I'm sure we've all got a similar match, that is almost universally loved and you don't enjoy at all. Byers?
Byers: A lot of the response to your question here depends on what the individual match rater wants to take in to consideration in coming to a rating. If you think it's fair to consider the atmosphere that has been built up around the match or the history of the two competitors, then you're likely to rate matches like Misawa/Kawada and Kobashi/Joe higher than you would otherwise. It's the difference between watching Hogan/Warrior from 'Mania VI with the sound on - in which case it is awesome - or watching the same match with the mute button on, in which case it is ridiculously boring.
Lansdell: I could never mute a match with Monsoon on commentary. Bauer, your thoughts?
Bauer: There is no question about that. For some reason I seem to find the best in most matches where others try to find the downside to everything. For me, I don't have a specific match that sticks out in my mind as the most overrated piece of work ever. If I had to pick one, I guess I would choose the very first Hell in a Cell between Shawn Michaels and the Undertaker.
Lansdell: Yes indeed, especially in light of the superior ones that followed. Sforcina?
Sforcina: Well, apart from Bret-Shawn Iron Man, if I had to pick a match I really didn't like but most people loved to bits... Taker-Batista. None of them did it for me.
Lansdell: I will never understand what anyone sees in Batista. Byers?
Byers: I don't think that it's overrated in 2009, but, at the time, I could not understand why the Rob Van Dam/Jerry Lynn matches were as special as everybody made them out to be.

Inflation-adjusted ratings and the next big thing

Lansdell: Excellent. Change of pace now. Ever since the Monday Night Wars, our fellow wrestling journalists have been obsessed with ratings. From days when Raw and Nitro used to draw 6s and 7s, we're down to 2s and 3s for Smackdown and Raw. As ratings are expressed as a percentage of possible viewers who watched the show, and the number of TVs has increased greatly, could these numbers be affected by "TV inflation"?
Byers: Doubtful. Generally raw numbers of viewers are provided right alongside ratings for those who actually care to look, and the raw viewership has been significantly down from the Monday Night War period as well.
Bauer: There is no way it is due to "TV inflation". If that was the case, the numbers for Monday Night Football would be down also. It probably has to do with the fact that many fans back when I first started watching have grown past the days of wrestling and there just haven't been as many younger "replacement" fans to come in and provide the same ratings the Monday Night Wars were used to.
Lansdell: All those new TV viewers have to watch something though, and even at wrestling's peak MNF was beating it. It's only logical that a portion of new viewers would watch football. Also, at the time of the Wars many networks were afraid to put top shows against MNF, especially when wrestling was taking up a large chunk of viewers. Now with more TVs and more quality choices, Raw is taking a hit.
Sforcina: 2s and 3s are actually the long term, unchanging level of ratings wrestling historically gets. It's just that no-one had tried it in prime time before, just on the weekends. Around a 3 appears to be your average level fanbase. All those 6s and 7s from the Monday Night Wars were the so called Casual Fans, who tuned in because it was cool and might tune in again, it's hard to say.
Lansdell: 4 million viewers 10 years ago was a higher rating than 4 million viewers is today. What would the ratings be like if they were inflation-adjusted? They'd still be lousy, but they'd be less lousy is my thinking. Is it all cyclical? Will wrestling emerge on its own? Can it even emerge? Byers?
Byers: First of all, I have a hard time accepting the "wrestling is cyclical" argument. Wrestling has been cyclical, but there's nothing that says wrestling HAS to be cyclical. Wrestling has cycled because, when something gets hot, promoters run it in to the ground instead of creating new, compelling characters while their prior main event act is still red hot. Can wrestling get back up to where it was ten years ago? Probably. What will it take? I don't know. Nobody knows. It's something that is going to have to grow organically and not be forced, as was the case with Austin, the nWo, and, to a lesser extent, Hogan.
Lansdell: I touched on this with my column on the next big thing, but does WWE even have that person under contract Bauer?
Bauer: I think they might if Jack Swagger continues to improve as much as he has in the past five months. Other than him, not 100% knowing everything going on in FCW, I don't see anybody right now who can take the ball and run with it like the WWE thought they had with Brock Lesnar or Bobby Lashley. But even I was very sceptical of either of those two being the next big thing.
Lansdell: What about TNA, Sforcina? Are they any closer to striking gold?
Sforcina: Well, part of the problem is how now a wrestling character is now dependant on so many factors. To work, they need talent in the person playing them, PLUS good writing PLUS a push PLUS everyone else working well together. So it's damn near impossible to point to one guy and say he will be IT, since it depends on so many factors. In TNA, they'll continue to strike enough metal to keep chugging along, but striking gold... Unlikely. But not impossible.

Lansdell: I think AJ Styles is a lot further along the road to being a megastar than anyone not named John Cena. Byers?
Byers: There's a difference between "being a mega-star" generally and "being a mega-star to professional wrestling fans." Styles has all of the talent necessary to be the latter, but he can't get there unless TNA does something to significantly increase the profile of the company. You can't be a "mega-star" in a particular entertainment industry when you're part of a brand that is roughly one fourth as popular as the biggest brand in the industry . . . and I would be saying that regardless of what I thought of the TNA product. As far as Styles being a crossover Austin or Hogan level star, I don't see anybody doing that in 2009 if guys like Cena, who are featured far more heavily both on wrestling programming and in the mainstream media, can't do it.
Lansdell: That's very possibly true, but does professional wrestling need crossover stars to succeed?
Sforcina: As a professional wrestling company? Absolutely not. As a media entity? Absolutely.
Byers: If your definition of "success" is making enough money to remain profitable, absolutely not. WWE doesn't have anybody that I would consider a crossover star right now, and 2008 was an extremely good financial year for them.
Lansdell: John Cena doesn't fit that bill?
Sforcina: When Cena cameos on Saturday Night Live and gets NO reaction, he's not a crossover.
Byers: Exactly. Cena does the media rounds and has that sort of exposure, but he's not a household name like Rock was in his heyday. He's only a household name amongst people who watch the wrestling product regularly.
Lansdell: I commented on this when it happened, but another indicator is Ashley Massaro's Survivor appearance: nobody knew who she was. Even a minor star from 10 years ago would have been recognised by someone else in the game.
Bauer: Cena also hasn't made a movie yet that has crossed the $20 million threshold.
Sforcina: Because he's making the wrong kind of movie, but that's another issue.
Lansdell: That's a great point Sforcina. WWE is catering to a younger crowd, basically pointing the Cena Water Cannon at kids and pulling the trigger...then they put him in R-rated action flicks. That said, if a wrestler achieves the sort of crossover success that Rock did...won't they just follow his path?
Byers: Of course they will, but that doesn't mean that WWE should stop trying to cultivate crossover stars. To do otherwise would be to cost them millions of dollars in revenue.
Sforcina: You'd think so, in that Rock was a third generation star who grew up in the business and thus, if he's willing to leave, who wouldn't be. Depends on how they cross over though.

Vince's greatest love?

Lansdell: This has been great fun guys, but if I can move us to our last topic...Vince McMahon loves money. He also loves punishing people who dare to succeed outside his company. Which one influences the other more?
Byers: Money. You have to look no further than Hulk Hogan for that one. Arguably, nobody was more successful than Hulk Hogan outside of the WWF. After all, he was headlining the first company to beat Vince at his own game since the national expansion in the 80's. Yet, when Hogan wanted to come back and play ball, McMahon saw dollar signs and didn't bother to "punish" him at all.
Sforcina: The first one ALWAYS overrides everything else at the end of the day. If Vince sees money in someone, he'll bring them back eventually. The only people still on the outside are those who choose to be or who won't make money for him. And if someone is brought in and, despite being punished, still gets over, Vince will eventually change his tune. Christian, if he still gets a reaction in 6 months time, will get pushed.
Bauer: I think Vince McMahon said it best when he started that give away stuff last year... "It's all about the money!" Vince McMahon sees dollar signs and he doesn't care what you used to do or where you did it.
Sforcina: But in all probability, it'll be Steph that will hold grudges past all sanity and logic.
[e-mail] (12:04:46 AM): I'd agree wholeheartedly, but look at Scott Steiner, DDP, Goldberg...all were treated pretty shoddily when they came over after WCW's collapse. What was the reason for that? It's not like they couldn't draw.
Sforcina: Because Vince sees more money in rebuilding them HIS way.
Byers: For the record, Steiner was treated very well until he stunk up the ring.
Bauer: Well, Goldberg was given a run with the title, something that very few people who came over to the WWE after the WCW buyout was given a chance to do. Eddie and Benoit crossed over long before that and had great runs.
Byers: WWE just didn't understand what made Goldberg great in the first place. To be a WWE babyface - even Cena or Hogan - you've got to be beaten down a little bit but always win in the end. Goldberg's whole hook was that he NEVER showed weakness, and for some reason the company was unwilling to go full bore with that.
A Scorn Film (12:07:39 AM): Sure, on some level Vince loves putting down his competitors talent, it's natural. But it's more a fact that Vince has his own vision of the wrestling industry, and by gum, he'll keep going until it kills him or threatens to kill his business.
Lansdell: Eddie and Benoit never had the level of WCW success that the other three did. Steiner got buried whatever the reason for it, and Goldberg's title run is often filed under "Get HHH another title run to his name", which is ludicrous in itself. If Vince was GOING to build them his way I would agree, but he never did anything with them. Possibly excepting Goldberg, and what they did there failed.
Bauer: Well, he signed Goldberg to a one year deal, what did you expect to happen in just one year?
Sforcina: Yes he did, he just didn't do anything on the same level as WCW did, because Vince didn't see them as true top talent.
Lansdell: And that's my point. He didn't see them as true top talent...because they weren't, or because he couldn't get past the fact that he didn't make them?
Bauer: If Vince McMahon could never get past that point, then almost nobody would ever be able to be champion in the WWE. Not Flair, not Eddie Guerrero, not Booker T, not even CM Punk.
Lansdell: How many of those people had significant title runs in WWE?
Byers: It's not because he didn't make them. It's because they didn't fit in to his formula. Goldberg needed to take a beating and come back in the end to fit Vince's formula, but that's not what Goldberg was. Scott Steiner needed to be able to have a twenty minute main event to fit Vince's formula. Steiner couldn't do that.
Sforcina: A little from column A, a little from column B in my opinion. WCW and to a lesser extent ECW were different from WWE. Ergo, it's not automatic that you can just take a guy from their top level and slip them into the top level of WWE. It's not impossible, but it's not automatic. And DDP didn't look right.
Lansdell: Neither did Foley, whose elevation I see as a bird-flip to WCW as much as a nod to Foley.
Bauer: The difference between DDP and Mick Foley is the fans loved Mick Foley in the WWE. I don't think DDP ever had the same level of support.
Sforcina: Foley did look right to Vince as Mason/Mankind. Vince totally reworked Mick, and in that case, it worked. Sometimes Vince reworked guys and it failed.

Who made Stone Cold?

Lansdell: Would anyone object to one last question, as it's a fairly quick one?
Bauer: Of course not.
Sforcina: Shoot.
Byers: Go for it.
Lansdell: Jake Roberts has said that Vince McMahon was about to go down the Eric Bischoff road and give up on Stone Cold, but Jake talked him out of it and showed him how to get Austin over. Do we believe this? Byers?
Byers: Obviously none of us were backstage, so we can't know for sure. However, Austin has never gone on record saying anything remotely like this, nor has it come out anywhere but from Jake's mouth in the thirteen years since Austin's first big push with the WWF. That makes Jake sound like an old worker trying to get himself over.
Sforcina: Who HASN'T at some point claimed that they 'made' Austin, and/or that they said how they just 'knew' he'd be a Superstar?
Lansdell: I'm pretty sure Jim Neidhart hasn't, you're correct. Do you believe it though Sforcina?
Sforcina: No. Jake helped make Austin, both in the intended way (his jobbing to Austin was a launchpad) and in an unexpected way (3:16). But I don't believe Jake convinced Vince to go with Austin.
Lansdell: Bauer, last word to you sir.
Bauer: I'm not sure I believe it, but it does make sense. Think about it. Steve Austin was the freaking Ringmaster with a gimmick that seriously was going nowhere. Then he goes on the win the King of the Ring and go nuts with Jake Roberts in the promo. So, Jake very well could have lit that fire, because if Vince McMahon is down on you, there is very little chance normally of getting out of the doghouse. Just look at every person who has been released over the years.
Lansdell: That's kind of my take on it. Unlikely, but possible. Jake does have an eye and a mind for the business, when it's not pickled, and it's not crazy to think he might have spotted something in Austin. Thing is, if Vince didn't already have an inkling, I doubt he would have gone through with it. Well gentlemen, I won't take up any more of your evening/afternoon. Thanks for joining me, and I hope we can do it again.
Bauer: Any time.
Sforcina: Thanks
Byers: Not a problem.

As reported Saturday, Big Vision is releasing an Amy vs Joy DVD chronicling not only a match between them but their preparations. In addition to this, Big Vision will be releasing a 20-pack: "Forgotten 5-stars – The Hidden Classic Matches" featuring Mordecai, Braden Walker, the Ding Dongs, Friar Ferguson, The Goon,Giant Gonzalez, Phantasio, and others! It will retail for $9.99 and is expected to compete with Memorex in the blank DVD market. Sales of this series may well beat the Best of Al Snow DVD set.

Why hasn't Vince signed Octo-Mom yet?

Dixie Carter moves Bonaduce match to pre-show - Thank God for that sharp wrestling mind with years of exper...oh, right. So why could none of THEM see it? Now if only she had enough sense to cancel it altogether...

News coming out of RoH is that Mike Hogewood dropped his ice cream at Sea World when he was 11. Hence his hatred towards aquatic mammals.


Picture courtesy of ARI

MVP says a prison guard got him into wrestling - I didn't know he ever took a trip down to Cobb County, GA...

Vince McMahon says he will not die - In other news, Matt Hardy has been seen power walking backstage.

Well that's it for me boys and girls. I'm off to enjoy some Spectral Force 3 before 3 hours of Raw. Enjoy your week. Stay Cool, Rock Hard.

Lansdellicious – Out.