Five-Star Conversation 11.17.09: Is Chris Jericho A Racist Homophobe?

Posted by Geoff Eubanks on 11.17.2009

Off the beaten path, or beating off the path, this week, we take a look at Chris Jericho's recent controversial appearance and look at WWE's developmental system in COMMENTPALOOZA.

DID YOU KNOW?: Mark Henry's drag career was short-lived:



This just in!: The Great Khali will be a special ambassador for the Special Olympics in India.
Make your own joke.

Is Chris Jericho a racist homophobe?
I saw you refer to Jericho as "the racist homophobe." Couldn't tell if it was a joke or not. If you don't mind, what are your thoughts on his choice words?
Posted By: Angry Bear

I considered this quite a bit last week. Part of me wanted to discuss it and part of me didn't, mainly because, although the discussion would be rooted in wrestling, it wouldn't really be a wrestling column, per se; that and I can see a ton of comments accusing me of selling out "my people" in favor of being a Jerichoholic fanboy. Obviously, my viewpoint would likely differ with any other columnist here at 411, so I do feel a bit of a responsibility to address this situation.

Originally, my greatest trepidation was that I'd not seen the footage of the situation in question, having scoured YouTube.com and come up empty, but, having lowered myself to check out TMZ.com, I found what I was looking for:



Having seen this, at first I thought he was intoxicated, just enough to be witty, and far enough gone to have made some poor decisions, and, despite the fact that, although he may have been drinking apple juice on the stage, it seems to me that apple juice hadn't been all he was drinking that night (and really, the Sacremento Horror Festival? I'd've hit the bottle myself). Besides, I've seen Jericho contribute in person to an improv show here in LA at The Groundlings during his WWE hiatus, and that doesn't seem to be really indicative of his style of comedy. I'm going to go with, yeah, he was a little tipsy.

However, as many of us invariably learn fairly early on in our high school/college careers, making the claim that "Oh, I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing/saying" doesn't hold any water unless one is, to use the vernacular, completely shitwrecked and on a special kind of auto-pilot, but I don't see Jericho falling under that category here. Rather, I think it's fair to say that, at this level of apparent intoxication, our inhibitions lower, our courage heightens and we feel more brazen about being our own true selves. So the question remains, is Jericho a racist homophobe?

Believe it or not, I'd be inclined to say no. Does Jericho have the propensity to exercise poor decision making after one too many? Apparently so, as is the case with all of us in a similar such situation (and if Jericho would deny that he was anything but perfectly sober, I'd suggest to him rethinking that position, because alcohol is a pretty damn good defense, as opposed to simply stating that, yeah, this is actually the real me, all things considered).

I think the terms he used bear examination, as well.

I'll be honest, I don't really know too much about the word hadji, other than the apparent generalized name that could be used to describe a man of middle-eastern descent, obviously in a derogatory manner. The first and only association that I, personally, made with that term was with Johnny Quest's best friend:



Now if that's the case and Jericho really was making a pop culture reference (although quite a dated one, a is evidenced by the quality of the animation), I can see how he could very possibly could have been making an ignorant and offensive error in judgment, although it wasn't for this term that he earned the greatest amount of heat.

After appearing to resemble a groom's best man after one too many when he's passed the mic at the wedding dinner, the man referred to as "Hadji" took Jericho's beverage and sniffed it, as if to check for alcohol (and it was here I was expecting him to recoil and ask if it was straight Jack), but instead, Jericho took back his cup and said, "It's apple juice, fag." As you may guess, the word for which he was targeted wasn't "apple". Obviously, this is the part of the situation that resonates negatively with me, but let's play devil's advocate and consider this before we get up in arms.

The term "gay" has been around since the 12th century, likely with Germanic origins and initially meant "bright and showy" and "carefree". In researching how the term acquired a sexual connotation, I was surprised to discover that it was the "carefree" part that was the culprit (as in to mean "uninhibited by moral constraints", ie, that a gay man didn't feel bound to express his sexuality in the traditional manner), as opposed to how I'd always thought the term was altered, in that many gay men are considered to be flamboyant, thereby drawing the "bright and showy" definition.

"Gay" becoming a synonym to "homosexual", though, didn't really become popularized until around the 1920s, although, apparently, well into the mid 20th century, a middle-aged bachelor could be considered to be gay without a strictly homosexual connotation, because he was unhindered by the constraints of marriage (and not because of the implication that an unmarried middle-aged man has to be homosexual), although it was around this time that "gay" started to become recognized as the opposite of "straight". Only recently, as in, with this generation coming up through the school system currently, has the term "gay" evolved to mean anything unpleasant or offensive.

As for the term "fag", obviously the shortened "faggot", originally, in the late 16th century, was meant to describe an old or unpleasant woman, likely shortened from the term "faggot-gatherer", ie, a poor woman who made her meager living from gathering and selling bundles of sticks, which is likely where the more traditionally known term of "faggot" originates. It's actually somewhat unknown exactly how the term became associated with homosexual men, although I'd always been of the belief that it became a euphemism for the practice of punishment for homosexuality by burning offenders at the stake, even though there appears to be no specific reference of homosexuality being punished so.

(I had also heard growing up that gay men were called fags because, although they weren't burned at the stake themselves for their "offense", they were used as kindling for offenders who were so punished, but, obviously, considering my incorrectness where the homosexual origins of "gay" are concerned, this could most definitely be wrong, as well.)

Nonetheless, the term "fag" certainly has become a derogatory synonym for a homosexual man, and is to my people what the "N" word is for those of African descent, despite how we've tried to "take it back", and believe me, that's a topic of heated discussion in gay circles, as well.

A recent episode of South Park displayed beautifully the manner in which kids of this generation are changing the meaning of the terms "gay" and "fag". They've pretty much always said "gay" to mean anything weak or lame, but this was the first time where the use of the word "fag" was featured in such pronounced light. Basically, there was a group of people the kids deemed to be selfish and irresponsible, whose own social behavior encroached upon their own and the term they chose to use to refer to them was "fag".

The rest of the episode was centered around the fact that the kids were attempting to drive the "fags" out of town for being so inconsiderate, but in so doing, incurred the wrath of the adults in town who were disbelieving and offended at the boys' apparent homophobia. The boys were forced to describe at length "their" meaning of the term to the adults, that it didn't mean they were anti-gay, just that the term had evolved to mean anything bad.

I can buy this, even though it bothers me quite a bit that homosexuality can be believed to be something so reprehensible that terms associated with it have come to be a catch-all for anything bad or stupid or wrong. However, there were lots of folks back in the day who were offended when the word "gay" went from meaning something colorful and joyful to meaning homosexual, and I'm cognizant of the fact that the English language is a living language and to remain such, words and the meanings of words must evolve and change. This, to me, is a sad example of that evolution in action.

So did Jericho mean to imply that the fellow who sniffed his apple juice was leering at his package? I don't think so. I think it's just an example of a changing language in action that some of us are just going to have to get over. If anything, in terms to homosexuals, it could be considered encouraging that the civil rights movement has come so far such that the same terms are still around, but mean something different.

And for those of you who are all "fagged" out, here's some pole dancing:



COMMENTPALOOZA!
Geoff, I have to agree with you about Knox's crossbody. It looks so damn brutal. For some reason, I'd like to see him bust one of those out during a MITB or TLC match. If done right, it could be a "HOLY SHIT!" spot. I know he isn't the best person for that type of match, but he could easily play the "Mark Henry at WM25" role.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth

I'm hoping Punk is sort of being protected by being away from Batista. Losing to Taker is no big deal. Maybe, just maybe, Vince and Company will not feed Punk to Batista and will allow him to continue to build heat in other programs. Once Batista gets injured, we all know he will, then Punk can slide back into the Main Event Picture.
Posted By: Iron Knee

Indeed, or Kane. You know, with The Undertaker back in a big way on SmackDown!, I can see Kane's proclivity changing to match more that of his brother's, ie, the dark, angry heel who is just on this side of "facedom" such that we see the annual Brother Of Destruction reunion, that would, in fact, make a whole lot more sense in the wake of Taker's World Title defense against both members of JeriShow.

You know, as long as we're on that path (and to continue on in the SD! vein we've been discussing over recent weeks), it makes more sense to me to have allowed CM Punk to have carried on as World Champion, establishing himself as a dominant entity by having defeated The Undertaker cleanly at Bragging Rights. Continue on in the same vein as we saw the Friday after the PPV (although, and this is important, The Big Show is NOT named as a #1 Contender to The World Title!), where Jericho and Kane find themselves at odds over who truly was the driving force behind Team SmackDown!'s victory, leading to a main event one-on-one between Jericho and Kane for #1 WT Contention to fill the third spot in the Triple-Threat.

We've discussed here in recent weeks how Jericho hasn't been able to beg, steal or borrow a victory on television for the life of him, though comes through when the UTTTs are on the line. Although many of those televised matches have had a short-term purpose, ie, getting Cryme Tyme to appear to be plausible threats to The UTTCs, in the end, nothing's really changed in the big picture, so, aside from hotshotting an angle to get a match on a PPV, why bother? Because, eventually the need arises to give Jericho a solid, clean victory, and it comes here when, I feel, things are continuing to go in the wrong direction.

Hear me out – a screwy, disqualification finish here works. If we're trying to steer Taker away from The WT to make sure we're cementing Punk in the role of new, viable main event talent, Taker's role in Punk's regard has come and gone, that being to prove that Punk can actually stand up to and defeat Taker. Thank you, Taker, time to move on. Therefore, to get there, we need a double-disqualification in the Kane/Jericho match, such that neither man goes on to face Taker at Survivor Series and we have some big time unresolved heat between Kane and Jericho.

So, back to Punk continuing on as World Champion, the following week, we should have seen Taker demanding to utilize his rematch clause to challenge Punk for The WT as that week's main event on SmackDown!. Long acquiesces and allows the match to go down. Taker is out for vengeance in a big way and is really laying into Punk and it appears as if he's going to take the belt back to The Darkside when JeriShow swagger down to the ring to a chorus of boos. In the end, Jericho distracts the referee as Show, on the other side of the ring, gets the attention of Taker and waffles him with one of those ham-fisted knock-out blows, staggering The Dead Man into the waiting arms of Punk, who picks him up and nails home The Go To Sleep as Jericho turns his back on the official and strides up the ramp, the ref returning his gaze back to the action in time to count the three, Punk successfully defending his title against The Undertaker.

This way, Punk gets that clean PPV victory over Taker, such that he earns a particular amount of credibility, but still maintains a wealth of heel heat, as well, for cheating to win in order to keep the belt over a beloved fan favorite. However, in true Punk fashion, he can smirk at the fans and claim innocence, because he was just having a match, it was JeriShow's decision to get involved, not his, and can the fans who deride his victory honestly say they're so magnanimous such that they'd alert the ref to the interference and call the match due to outside interference when their World Title was on the line? Yeah, not likely. It's character-consistent and, again, it helps to get The Undertaker out of the picture.

Furthermore, riding high on this new ego boost, after having defeated Taker twice in a row for The WT, interference notwithstanding, Punk feels invincible and, as he struts around the back, strap hanging proudly over his shoulder, he sees Matt Hardy in the back after having defeated Eric Escobar earlier in the night. He strides past him, snorting in condescending fashion and rolling his eyes, an action not lost on Hardy, who stops and questions him about it. The bullet points of the conversation are basically Punk Barry Horowitz-ing himself over having defeated Taker and then juxtaposing that with Hardy managing to "eek out" a win over some no-name like Escobar.

"You know, Matt," he'd say, "I gave your degenerate brother a ration of crap for being such a drug-addled loser that he didn't deserve to be on SmackDown!, much less be its' champion, and that's true, that's why I took his belt and ran him off the show. But, here you are, supposedly the brains behind The Hardy Boys, and you're calling it a night after beating some noob? How must that make you feel, Matt? I mean, weren't you co-main-eventing WrestleMania last year? Ah. But you lost that one, too, didn't you? To your brother. The same one I sent packing outta here. And he didn't break my hand on the way out."

So, Matt bows up and gets in his face, saying something about showing Punk exactly what kind of a win he has in him and maybe he should head straight to Teddy Long's office right now to secure a match against Punk? Punk replies not to worry, that he would ask Long himself for a match against Hardy next week, just for the pleasure of kicking his ass on television. I don't know if we'd want to go to the lengths of Long making the match a "Matt Leaves SD!" (just like Jeff) if he loses versus "Matt Becomes #1 Contender" if he wins sort of deal, because the outcome is too predictable, although, as I said last week, sometimes a predictable outcome must occur to advance a story where it needs to be, so maybe…

Obviously, Hardy ends up scoring a clean victory over Punk and going on to Survivor Series to challenge and lose to Punk, but in the interim, we see Hardy coming on strong in matches and rallying the fans in clever, brief promos that defy Punk's arrogance. For those who suggest this is just me, a devout Hardy fan, trying to book Hardy into a main event, I say honestly, no, that's not the case. I will admit that this is a step down for Punk, from Taker to Hardy, but, if we do indeed remove Taker from the WT picture, we're sadly not left with a whole lot of other options on Fridays. Besides, the story is pretty well built in and makes sense.

Let's get back to the JeriShow situation. Obviously, Taker and Kane have a wealth of rage to set forth against The UTTCs and it makes sense to see The Brothers of Destruction reunite to face JeriShow in this instance. Too, we also have seen JeriShow have issues with D-Generation-X on Raw, so why not book a Triple-Threat match for The UTTTs at Survivor Series with JeriShow defending against The Brothers and DX? HBK and HHH could walk the winners and new champions with little really settled between JeriShow and The Brothers, and that feud could continue on SmackDown!, Taker leaning on Long to buy out Show's contract such that he can legally seek vengeance on he who wronged him?

I'll grant you, it's not air tight by any means, but it sounds appealing…or is it appalling? I'll let you make the call.

Eubanks, you're maybe the only dude I know with the ability to make topical jokes about the likes of Lindsey Lohan, Kanye West, etc WITHOUT coming across with that approval-seeking, "HEY, I WATCH T.V. TOO!!" vibe.

Also, how terrifyingly painful does McIntyre's version of the underhook DDT look? Saints preserve us...

HERE's a question (of course you could say that about *any* question): Do you think it has even OCCURRED to Hulk Hogan that his presence could in ANY way be a liability to TNA? Y'know, just based on his decisions, history and comments... do you think the thought even crossed his mind? Or has he fully moved into bottling-his-own-farts territory...?

Actually, here's something else that just sprang to mind: how many guys do you expect Hogan to somehow alienate and drive back to WWE? He alienated plenty of people back in WCW, but they had Ted Turner's checkbook as backup. I mean, it's not like TNA can offer pay that's competitive with what Vince offers, so it's a whole different ballgame than back then... Hell, maybe he'll finally provide the straw that breaks the camel's back and send AJ Styles packing....
Posted By: KanyonKreist

Thanks, Kanyon! I really appreciate that quite a bit. If I make comments like that, it pretty much comes from having spent a good amount of time watching "Chelsea Lately" and "The Soup" and scribbling some notes if they discuss/make a joke about a topic and I have a comment they didn't touch on that I thought was funny and then I share it with you and keep my fingers crossed. It helps to know someone I respect thinks I'm on the right track.

Oh, GAAAAAAWWWD, I'm sooo tired about reading and hearing and talking and thinking about Hulk Fucking Hogan. This is nothing on you, buddy, it's a fair question, which I'll just have to simply answer with a no, I don't think Hogan could possibly consider the possibility that his name attached to anything could render it a liability because that's not how egomaniacal minds work. I have to think he sees his name as the equivalent of magic Disney pixie dust that will make dreams come true and turn wishes into reality.

The rest of it, really, falls under that wait and see category I mentioned last week. Right now, we don't really know if he'll be appearing as an on-screen character, although one who "knows" him has to assume that he'll not be able to resist the applause and adulation. Hell, and not to go all gay on you, but when Joan Crawford's daughter, who was starring on a soap opera in the ‘60s, fell ill and couldn't perform, old lady Joan used her reputation to replace her daughter on the program, despite the 20 year age difference. It's the same mentality at work.

Sure, AJ Styles could remain on as The HWC, but if his (and, thus, the belt's) programs are overshadowed by whatever concoction Hogan dreams up and decides to push and feature as the tacit real main event, will he get fed up? I can see Hogan shrugging his shoulders and saying innocently, "What do you want, DUDE, you're still the champion…?" Never mind that Ed Leslie is going over Matt Morgan in the main event…

The other question is that talent who may potentially be alienated by whatever quality of booking Hogan plans to bring in will be forced to look in a very real mirror should they send feelers Vince's way, because the bulk of the TNA roster (not already having been under Vince's employ) do not fit the typical stereotype of the kind of performer Vince likes to push. Notice I didn't say hire, just push. Sure, Daniels and Styles might find themselves signing on the dotted line for Vince, but do you think they'll be upper-mid-card on SmackDown!, or lackies for a William Regal-level performer on ECW (nothing against Regal, I particularly think he deserves better and always has, but it's a statement of fact). True, Punk came from RoH and made quite good for WWE, but I'd suggest that he's the exception rather than the rule.

I agree completely with your statement that McMahon always had the advantage of hiring experienced performers in the territory/Monday Night War days. And when did people start complaining more about new wrestlers looking generic, with no personality of their own? I mean, until recently the only real difference between Dibiase and Rhodes was hair color. Shortly after he killed his feeder system. When did ratings really start to take a hit? Pretty much the same time, though they had dipped a bit before. I don't think this is a coincidence. Guys like Angle and Lesnar who are natural as characters and can translate their amateur experience are rare. Look at how dead-eyed Swagger can be on talking segments. WWE can't depend on the next one showing up when needed.

The territories let somebody else foot the bill of training new guys, who would develop their skills and try out different personas until they found one that fit. When Vince wanted to have some sort of character turn, they had something to draw upon. When they needed to talk, they had worked out their issues on the mic somewhere else.

What WWE has never done is adequately built a replacement system. I don't think the indies are big enough. They really don't seem to have enough continuity to help teach what is needed for sports entertainment.

Building a territory in one of the traditional places seems like a good start. Hire some speech and acting coaches from local community colleges to speed up the experience. Pay guys like Anderson and Steamboat to teach the in-ring stuff. Jericho and HBK too, when they want a break.

Then when a guy like McIntyre or Escobar debut, they might set the crowd on fire.

Properly built, the territory might make money. Put the WWE name on it to help it get regional TV coverage. Use some of that promo expertise and they will probably draw bigger crowds than any indy (I bet there are wresting fans who don't even know the name of their local indy or when it has shows).

It is a lesson that can be drawn from the major sports. The NFL and NBA has the NCAA develop and promote new players. They let others do the heavy lifting, cherry pick the best, and finish off the training.
Posted By: Guest#4903

It's gratifying to know someone else feels the same as I do in this regard. You know, I can see the purchasing of WCW was something to which Vince perhaps aspired at some point, but that Bischoff's short-sightedness to yield relative short-term results resulting long-term disaster turned a dominant product into a casualty of war in a short amount of time. Thus, Vince was presented with a deal too good to pass up, even if it ultimately was a poor decision in the long-term, as well.

But then we start to get into that "What if" territory of which we spoke last week, where we can't say how one different decision might have affected the entire business and the ultimate pointlessness of such speculation. Should Vince have allowed Fusient Media Ventures to purchase WCW, allowing it to have possibly have been resuscitated? After Ted Turner basically declaring war against The WWF by claiming he'd put The McMahons out of business when Vince adamantly refused to sell the company to his competitor, was the option of turning those tables so completely too sweet a revenge to let pass?

I will say this in Vince's defense on this subject. The Monday Night War was called such because it was indeed war, and all of the ruthlessness implicit in such. Eric Bischoff displayed how badly he wanted not just to win, but to annihilate Vince and his product, and vice-versa each chance they were allowed. For one to finally be rid of the other, to decapitate he who would do the same if given half a chance, I wouldn't blame the other for doing so in the interest of simple self-preservation.

However, in so doing, Vince also, as 4903 so astutely puts it, killed his feeder system, thus forcing him to start from scratch, again, a concept I think Vince would have liked to have eventually self-implemented at some point, but, with the "necessary" death of WCW and the fall of ECW, Vince was then forced to manufacture his own talent. Unfortunately, when being forced into a situation, it then doesn't have a chance to experience a trial-and-error period before it really has to produce and show real, bankable results.

Too, when one person is masterminding a "production plant", as it were, an ideal is set forth, and only those who best represent that ideal appear to get the nod, as opposed to the proverbial feeder system, where any number of different and varied talents have the opportunity to find their own way and, especially, fan support. I know I've given WCW a lot of shit in this column (although only after the Crockett years, and even then, selectively so), but they did give talent such as Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Booker T, Chris Benoit, Rey Mysterio and many impressive others their first real big-time televised break in the business (although, of course, what they've chosen to do with that break obviously varies greatly). Would Vince have done so? Again, "What if?", but, the fact remains that, with WCW around, he didn't have to be that first person. Now we see a different story and I have to wonder how much talent that doesn't "measure up" to Vince's personal "Legacy"-type standard is being bypassed?

A crucial cog in the successful machine that is missing from 4903's post, though, is Jim Ross in his former role as Executive Vice-President of Talent Relations. Ross has a solid eye for talent and was actively recruiting the names enumerated above from WCW over to The WWF and I don't think it's any coincidence that The WWF saw its' greatest years of revenue while the roster shaped in part by Ross. Say what you might about Ross' ability as a commentator these days, but his eye for talent and love of the business (one begetting the other, I'd venture to say) is above reproach. If you're lining those proverbial ducks in a row as did 4903, I think the institution of John Laurenitis as Ross' successor (I refuse to refer to him as a replacement), that's big mother quacker that can't be ignored in the overall formula, as well.

(We can all suggest it's got a lot to do with the fact that, around the time Vince purchased WCW, his ego swelled to such an extent that, ridding himself of his competition afforded him the professional leeway such that he didn't have to worry about being competitive any longer and could concentrate on having people under him who had the candy-like propensity to tell him what he wanted to hear as opposed to the troubling glare of the truth about the manner in which he chose to hence run his business.

That's also why I think, should Vince retire and hand Stephanie, and, ostensibly, Triple H, the keys to the Kingdom, The IWC would likely be in for a shock, because I think Steph is smart enough to give her dad what he wants in the board room, so that he's happy and she remains in his good graces long enough to get her hands on those keys, so that she can implement her own vision when the company is hers to do with as she pleases. Just a theory.)

I really don't think the implementation of local community college acting coaches is the proper way to go, IMO, mainly because that quality of acting needs to be made redundant in the first place. This "handing wrestlers scripts written for them by Creative" is a good portion of what needs to fall by the wayside in the first place. A lot of the reason these noobs pop up on TV without a sense of character is because they're disallowed from the start from ever developing one for themselves, or so goes the story. OR, if they are allowed such in developmental, it's certainly not a preferred practice if they get the call to come up to TV.

It's pretty unanimous that there appear to by myriad issues working against WWE's developmental system, which is likely why we see such a reliance upon second- and third-generation performers, because at least they grew up with the business and have it in their blood and it's assumed that they'll "get it" through the immersion process. Great post!

What? Do I detect a little Batista love coming from your direction, Geoff? I can picture you standing in front of the mirror, playing your batista ringtone, and doing the "metrosexual machine gunner dance" getting out of the shower. What's next, a tattoo of a sun around your belly button?
Posted By: Angry Bear

Oh, can you now, Bear? I'll let that be your own personal trauma. Have you, by chance, seen "A Dirty Shame"?



That clip always makes me go ::THEW!::.

Seriously, though, I'm optimistic about this Batista turn and WWE appear to be putting quite a lot of stock in it, as well, as it was without a doubt the lead story being pushed on SmackDown! last Friday (it appears that the WT picture will be taking over as the big news this week, which is the basics of good episodic television writing). Dave gave us a better performance on the mic last week alone than we've seen out of him since just before he turned on Haitch-n-Naitch back at the dissolution of Evolution. It strikes me that he's a much better heel than face, although it could simply be a matter of change being inherently refreshing. Time will tell, although, as Iron Knee said earlier, another injury is likely a matter of "when" as opposed to "if" in his regard, so invest tentatively in his regard.

Your 2002 rosters are bad.
Posted By: Kent Baker

fantasy roster must have been from 2002. Xavier? what were you thinking?
Posted By: Guest#8866

Looking back on those after having unearthed them, I was amazed and disappointed in them myself, I will admit, although I think that was a product of the state of the business, as well as my immature scope. I've learned a lot writing for 411, receiving feedback from readers and, especially, sitting under Larry's proverbial learning tree, listening to the right and wrong ways to construct a match, story, PPV, etc.

Those rosters were my attempt to follow the original differentiation of branding between Raw and SmackDown!, to make one the sports entertainment brand, the other to feature wrestling (although, obviously, I've learned since that pruning popular names from the indies doesn't necessarily equate to creating a "wrestling" brand!). Also, bear in mind, much of the talent we see on WWE-TV today hadn't really surfaced in 2002, so I didn't have them as options. But I don't feel really compelled to defend those rosters, I thought I'd just slap ‘em up there and see what happened.



RESPECK!

HAPPY SECOND ANNIVERSARY, KEVIN & MONIQUE!
GET WELL, BROCK