Ask 411 Wrestling 10.31.12: HHH Swearing, Eugene Ribbing, Trish Laying On Her Back, More!
Posted by Mathew Sforcina on 10.31.2012
How did Triple H nearly end up working for ECW? Should WCW have held off Goldberg vs. Hulk Hogan until a PPV? Was the Undertaker's WrestleMania Streak planned? All this and more covered this week in Ask 411 Wrestling?
This is The ECW Arena! Ask 411 Wrestling! I am your usual writer, Mathew Sforcina, back from the deary boredom of ‘working double shifts at the day job', and ready to knock this thing right out of the park!
Or, at the very least, get a solid double.
First of all, big ups to Craig T Nelson Wilson for filling in for me last week. He was so good, a couple of the comments didn't even notice it wasn't me! What better compliment can you get than that?
Will not be seen this week, since I don't like talking about other people's work.
Your Turn, Smart Guy…
Who am I? I debuted in Continental Wrestling Association in 1988. I am an alumni of WWE, ECW, SMW and TNA. I have been in a stable with a former WWF tag team Champion. I have also held a tag team title with Chris Candido. I was also the first wrestler to be managed by his future manager Sunny. I have headlined a Summerslam event wrestling a member of my family. I appeared on the big screen playing a wrestler I previously feuded with and in 2004 I retired from wrestling.
Maravilloso has it, from where I sit.
I have been in a stable with a former WWF tag team Champion.
DISCIPLES OF APOCALYPSE, WITH CRUSH (WWF Tag Champion as a member of Demolition)
I have also held a tag team title with Chris Candido.
SMOKEY MOUNTAIN WRESTLING TAG TEAM CHAMPION
I was also the first wrestler to be managed by his future manager Sunny.
I have headlined a Summerslam event wrestling a member of my family.
THE UNDERTAKER, Mark Calloway is Brian's cousin and they headlined SUMMERSLAM '94
I appeared on the big screen playing a wrestler I previously feuded with
AGAIN, THE UNDERTAKER, in the movie "Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi"
and in 2004 I retired from wrestling.
it's Brian Lee.
So these are getting too easy? OK…
Who am I? I am a former holder of a title that is current vacant. While I changed my ring name slightly, I always kept the same first name in all my various gimmick names (and it was also my shoot first name as well, sort of). My finisher was a submission hold, and my most famous signature move is as basic as you get in wrestling. In one of my world title runs, I won and lost the title to the same guy. In another, I lost it to that same guy, although it was a different world title in a different wrestling group. I once stood for public office, and I had to retire due to a car accident. From Up North, I am who?
Questions, Questions, Who's Got The Questions?
Edgar starts us off with some ECW. Sort of.
Hi, long time reader, first or perhaps second time question asker but it's been long enough that I've forgotten. I have two questions to ask, the first one may have been asked before:
1.) Why exactly was Tazz hired away from ECW back in 1999? He is fairly short and just far from the kind of look Vince likes. Was it just because he was a hot commodity in ECW?
There's two sides to this. Well, actually, three, Taz has an opinion too. But his side is pretty easy to understand, in that WWF offered more money and also helped him get over a certain malaise he was having in ECW (the ‘Now What?' mentality).
The positive/WWF viewpoint is that Tazz was very over with the ECW fans and had a unique look and appeal. This, coupled with his obvious in-ring ability, at a time when WWF was becoming much more realistic and heading to that technical style, meant that Tazz was a good fit for what the WWF wanted in wrestlers at that time.
The negative/ECW/me viewpoint is that Tazz was hired because ECW was about to go onto TNN, and so, as Heyman says in the Rise and Fall DVD, ECW lost their World Heavyweight Champion and Tag Team Champions in three weeks. Tazz was hired, along with the Dudleys, specially to screw Paul Heyman. Which was different, Heyman was used to WCW stealing and WWF taking, but WWF stealing was new, and was a factor in ECW's death (along with, you know, a thousand other ones, most of which started with ‘Heyman's a genius, but…')
2.) Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, but given that it's fair to say that Paul Heyman is one of the best managers professional wrestling has seen, why is it that ECW had so many worthless managers and valets? Did guys like Judge Jeff Jones, Jack Victory, Jason Knight, or hell, even Bill Alfonso actually add anything to the product? Why were some of them kept around?
Thank you for your time,
Dog and pony shows! Man, I love those!
Anyway, the point with the managers and valets depends on the guy in question, but most of the time, it was to give Heyman lots of outs. If he needed Justin Credible to cheat to win, he could have any one of his flunkies interfere in the match and it would be ‘fresh' since the last time it was a different flunky. It's basically a more ‘realistic' take on stables really. If you have 3-4 good friends who you trust and who have your back, why wouldn't you have them with you all the time?
Although that said, managers in ECW did tend to get heat and help set up spots/get weapons and generally act like facilitators for the matches, so they weren't totally useless.
Apart from Missy Hyatt.
Ross has two separate questions.
Here is something that has, for whatever pointless reason, left me scratching my head for almost 8 years. On January 9th 2005 Trish Stratus won her 6th WWE Women's Championship. She would go on to hold the title for 448 days which is the longest WWE Women's Championship reign this side of The Fabulous Moolah. She evetually dropped the title at Wrestlemania 22 to Mickie James after a fairly entertaining fued. The problem is, "Canada's Greatest Export" was missing for almost half of this reign due to injury. She was out of the ring from April 2005 until September later that year. So my question is, why was the title not vacated? Did they simply not care enough to take it off of her or was it maybe a backstage/respect issue? I take it Trish was fairly well liked by this stage of her career by how the division was built around her so I always though maybe that was why they decided to not strip her of the belt. However, I can't imagine Vince would allow anyone else to sit out for five months while holding a title. Maybe it was because the divas division was fairly shallow at this point, but I've never had a concert answer to this question. Can you possibly shed some light on this?
Shallow is something of an understatement. There was Victoria and Christy, who were feuding, and then there was… Well, Lita was a manager… You basically then had fricking Lillian Garcia in angles, due to the sheer lack of divas. There just wasn't anyone around to have as champion. Yes, I am legally required to say Victoria should have held it, but it was a judgement call, in that by having Trish hold onto during the rough patch, it would mean more when she did lose it, rather than stripping her of it and having one of the two other women available hold it.
Although Lita wouldn't have been a bad choice, even if she'd never defend it…
I have one more question, however I think this one may be a tad more tricky to answer. The Undertaker went 20-0 at this years Wrestlemania. It has taken just over two decades to reach this feat which has always made me wonder...how long had this been the plan? Or was it a plan at all? Part of me has always thought it just sort of happened that way and eventually it McMahon realized that Undertaker's "Streak" could become a big selling point for Wrestlemania. Interestingly however, the earliest reference I can find to his "Streak" is somewhat surprisingly early in his run. Vince, while on commentary at Wrestlemania XI, mentioned that he was "a man who has never lost at Wrestlemania" during his entrance before facing King Kong Bundy when he only had three victories to his name at Wrestlemania. This leads me to believe that it was planned from early on. Then again, how could have McMahon foreseen Mark Calaway becoming one of the most tenured, dedicated, and respected employees he has ever had? Especially when talent was hoping back and fore between WWE and WCW like crazy. In that respect, it leads me to believe Undertaker's never losing sort of just happened and then developed into a big deal story line wise. However, I still feel like I'm missing insight or information. Solid information pertaining to The Undertaker is hard to come by due to his being under a tight contract for 22 years and the fact that he rarely ever gives interviews .If you have any insight on this, it would give my brain some much needed rest.
For many years, The Streak was nothing more than a trivia factoid. In the same sort of category as "The name of the Ho who was WWF Hardcore Champion is BobCat" and "Bossman raised the Briefcase", was "Undertaker has never lost at WM". It was never planned out, it was just that, when it came time for WM, it made sense for Undertaker to win. Had they been planning this out, he wouldn't have won by DQ at IX, they'd have had him win by pinfall so he could claim that he's totally undefeated, 100% victories every one of them.
The comment at XI was just a throw away line, certainly it's not like Vince saw that the Streak would be something to sell the show on later on.
It wasn't until X7 that it was every really brought up in the lead up, but the Streak as, well, The Streak didn't begin until 21, when Orton challenged him. That was the first match that was built with The Streak being front and center. And that was #13.
So no, The Streak wasn't planned, it was just a happy co-incidence up until they began to push it in 2005. And now it's the single biggest thing ever in WWE. Just a lucky chance thing.
Norma asks a VERY popular question.
If you take the Bryan/Kane partnership as a sort of friendship...especially since Kane made the save on Monday when Big Show was about to attack Bryan post-match...and assuming Bryan is still a heel (ripping kids signs, etc) is this the first time a face has been friends with a heel? Not counting when a heel is underhanded behind a naive face's back...but like when a heel is blatantly a heel but the face is cool with it.
West Oz wrestling fan and blb1983 and Mr. Ace Crusher all asked roughly the same question.
The most famous example of this is Sting and Lex Luger, 1995/1996. When Luger came back to WCW, he was aligned with Hogan, Savage and Sting against the Horsemen and The Dungeon of Doom, but bickered with Hogan and Savage and eventually joined Jimmy Hart and turned heel on Hogan.
Sting and Luger continued to team, however, and ended up winning the tag titles, despite Sting being face and Luger being heel. It only ended up being sorted out with the nWo.
You then have friendships that sorta kinda fit, ones that are long term and that may be tense but don't really break, stuff like Flair and Arn, and Punk and Colt. Technically you could also argue stuff like RVD and the rest of the Alliance would also count, given that he was practically a face in a heel stable, but that doesn't really count. Although I suppose The Clique might count, if you include cross-company friendships that aren't addressed.
But Sting/Luger is really the only straight ‘a heel and a face who are still best buds' relationship I know of off the top of my head. I eagerly await correction below/to my email.
Mark asks about Vince losing it and companies finding it.
I was laughing recently about the whole WWE/don't say wrestling shtick. McMahon seems so desperate to not be a just a wrestl...uh...sports entertainment company...and yet most of his big non-wrestling moves have been failures (Boxing promoter, WBF, XFL, WWE Films...straight to DVD, etc). Is Vince showing early signs of Alzheimer's or is there something I'm missing?
No no, for years Vince has wanted to be more than ‘just' a Wrestling Promoter. He wants to be a media baron, he wants to have a media empire. Every attempt to diversify, to move into another field, has been another attempt at transcending wrestling and becoming a Media Giant. Hell, the Network's pretty much his last big attempt at doing so.
I would say that it's a shame that Vince can't accept what he has and who he is, but on the other hand, that drive, that determination, that probably was the same fire and drive that made him expand and drove him to create Wrestlemania and to take over the industry, so it clearly can help him out. It's just that now that he's on top of this mountain, and owns it, he wants another one…
I don't know if you saw Josh Barnett cutting promos the other week for Strikeforce Grand Prix, but they were pretty damn good. It got me thinking, does WWE or TNA ever try to recruit. If I were running either company, I would take a look at college football players (who've shown charisma), amateur wrestlers (for the ease with which they could adapt to the physicality), and even MMA guys who you might be able to lure away (Tito Ortiz, Barnett, Josh Koszchek) I know you could make the argument that guys without passion for the business don't last (Goldberg, Lesner, Warrior), but to me the upside makes it worth the risk, especially when you think of guys who were recruited (in a sense) that developed a passion (Sting, Road Warriors, Kurt Angle) What are your thoughts about recruiting in wrestling
That used to be Jim Ross' job when he was head of Talent Relations, hell, that WAS the job of Talent Relations, to find new talent and look after the current talent. But yeah, Jim Ross used to go around colleges and talk to the sports stars and get them interested in wrestling. He got Brock and Shelton Benjamin, for instance, via recruiting. The problem is that, in the past few years, Johnny Ace went from scouting for talent at college sports arenas and female bodybuilding and fitness expos, to scouting from bikini magazines and male bodybuilding expos.
But as for the idea in general… It's a double edged sword. You do get a higher quality of athlete, you'll get wrestlers who are superb athletes, and who can, probably, do incredible acts of strength and who will perform great. But you also get guys who have no love nor passion for the business. And that, in my mind, is more important.
Wrestling is tough. Physically, mentally, both in terms of doing it and sticking to it, it's a very, very hard thing to do. Being able to do it and wanting to do it, those are different things. So I think that while you should have scouts out there looking at the young kids, you need to focus more on the guys and girls who have grown up watching and loving wrestling. If you love wrestling, then you're much more likely to handle the grind. Hell, that's probably a big reason why WWE is going after all the 2nd/3rd/4th generation stars, if they grew up in the business, then they're likely to stick with it, right?
So yeah, do cast a wide net, but try and get the guys with the passion first. Although honestly? I'd not only look at the sports stars, but also the actors. Yes, most actors aren't going to be able to nor want to handle the physicality, but I think if more actors tried wrestling, they'd be hooked, it's like no other art form, it's a unique performance style that might well appeal to some actors. And they'd be able to talk, you'd imagine…
Mike asks about swearing. Warning, naughty words ahead.
The famous worked shoot HHH did on a Sunday Night Heat in the summer of 99 was at one time well documented, especially on the first video he and Chyna had called Our Time (by the way the best wrestling song still to this day). Two questions regarding this. One, as you could ask with any promo of this kind, what were the details of it? How much leeway did HHH have for the promo? Did they know what he was going to say? How real was it etc. etc.
As he says in the video, it was a quasi-shoot. Hunter was very much cutting a heel promo, but he was using real emotion behind it, he was using stuff that really happened and that he was really angry about as fuel for the promo. WWF at the time knew roughly what he was going to say I'm sure, and even if they weren't, it wasn't live, it was taped, so they could have cut it or edited it if they so wished.
So quasi-shoot and WWF approved since they put it to air.
Part 2, I mentioned the VHS tape I saw this on oriinally. Not only was this on the tape uncensored, but so was the DX state of the union address. I actually remember my 12 year old mind thinking, "Wait, the box says TV 14 but they dropped the f-bomb like 20 times on this tape. That can't be right" The original DX tape was TV-MA but this tape is TV-14 and I thought (as with PG-13 movies) that you could only have certain words a couple times. I just always wondered if the WWF video got away with one somehow or it was a mistake or whtever. Keep it up man.
Well it would depend on the letters below the TV 14 rating. If there was a D and an L, then you can have some suggestive dialogue and infrequent strong coarse language respectively. However, what that means is up for negotiation, there is no fixed ‘3 you're ok, 4 you're fucked' ratio, it depends on context and situation. In this case, I can only assume that given that the words mostly happen one after each other, many are used in a clinical way, and that it's over relatively quickly, that it gets by as some sort of group booking. That the ratings board decided that it was acceptable given the context.
I mean, if it was somehow a wrong rating, they'd be sued and stuff. So I can only conclude it passed the test, somehow.
More videos you say? Well certainly! Have a wrestling/video game cross over!
Yeah, this is actually fairly close to how wrestlers act, albeit not in those surroundings…
… How the hell did I not find this earlier?
I never get tired of this song.
Steve asks about where ECW was heading.
Really enjoy the article and hope you could answer my question regarding the original ECW. I saw last week you answered a question on the futue of WCW after the Greed Pay Per View in 2001 towards the Bin Bang Pay Per View. I was wondering if you knew what the future plans were for ECW after the Guilty as Charged Pay Per View towards the promoted Living Dangerously 2001 Pay Per View. I know some things had been put in place; Rhino had won the ECW World Title and unified it with the Television Title along with Jerry Lynn starting his 'Main Event Only' gimmick; with both in the Network stable with Cyrus. They had also formed the New Impact Players with Justin Credible, Steve Corino and Jack Victory that night - although ive been lead to believe Corino left that night for WCW. Do you know where the storylines where heading for the next 2 months?
No, I don't, on the basis that ECW didn't know either. The writing was on the wall after Guilty As Charged, what with no house shows, few TV outlets (that was just showing the same show over and over) and no arena booked, it wasn't going to happen. The New Impact Players teaming would be logical, except….
At the time, of all people, Triple H had, the story goes, volunteered to, if need be, work the PPV. Hunter V Corino was thus a possible match on the card. At the time, thinking was that Hunter made this offer on the basis that he knew it would never happen.
So, supposedly, Hunter V someone, Rhyno defending (although really, he combined those belts so that he would be more likely to get a job elsewhere, it was a favor by Heyman) and possibly the New Impact Players V Doring/Roadkill for the belts, maybe? RVD V Lynn again since that match always works?
But again, unlike The Big Bang which was built to and would have happened if Kellner hadn't cancelled, ECW died a longer death, with writing on the wall, so there was much less booking done.
Matt also asks about booking.
1) I had asked this question a while ago and may have just missed the answer...a few years back, cena was involved with crime time, were they ever planning on joining them, since cena wasn't too far removed from the rapper gimmick?
Not anything permanent to my knowledge, no. It was just a case that Cena needed some back up for 6 man tags and the like, and Cryme Tyme fit, so there you go. I found no evidence of any plans for them to be a permanent fixture. Faces don't tend to have lackeys, unless they are fighting other lackeys.
Andrew has yet another booking question.
Why did WWE put Bill Goldberg over so much in 2003-4. I have all the dvds from 2003 until WrestleMania XX and i don't at all remember the Raws, Smackdowns, or live events in between. Why put him over The Rock (maybe right call at the time but looking back it's unfortunate,) invest a lengthy feud with World Champ HHH with title exchanges, and have him beat Brock at the WM XX all in an 11 month span? While I understand and remember how huge he was in WCW, I can't recall the exacts of 2003 WWE, and don't understand the idea behind the investment. What I want to know, did the company know all along it would be short term and just ride it out and make the most of it, or did they hope to renogogiate and continue a run of his (plenty more superstars he could have feuded or with,) or did they think that highly of him? Could you explain his tenure in the WWE more because quite frankly, I don't understand it. Thanks. Awesome column.
Goldberg only won at Wrestlemania because Brock leaving was a bigger stab in the gut to Vince.
But the investment was an attempt at getting the WCW audience that had vanished and not come over during the InVasion to, you know, turn back up again. WWE wanted to get that extra 2.5 or whatever rating Nitro was getting at the end back to wrestling and watching their show. And to do that with Goldberg, you kinda need to push him. So they did push him.
Now, they knew that the original plan was for 1 year, but had WWE and Goldberg both been making squillions of dollars and everything was wine and roses, a continuation was very possible. But Goldberg didn't draw like they hoped and he HATED his booking and the backstage stuff (understandable) so both sides agreed to head off. But the idea was certainly to regain the WCW audience and make lots and lots of money.
Tends to be the goal most of the time, really.
Henry asks about a possible rib.
Thank you, sir, for providing your unique insights and opinions into the wacky world of rasslin'. Yours is truly among the most useful columns on 411mania in particular and the internet wrestling community in general.
My humble question is this: Was the character of Eugene, Eric Bischoff's storyline nephew, an attempt by Vince McMahon to subtly insult (or at least gently poke fun of) the Internet Wrestling Community?
Consider, for instance, (1) the fairly substantiated rumor that McMahon (or, by some accounts, Bobby Heenan, named Ted Dibiase's bodyguard "Virgil" as a jab at Dusty "Virgil Runnels" Rhodes, and (2) the late-90's IWC nickname for Eric Bischoff as "Uncle Eric." Thank you for any answer you can provide for my question.
Normally I'd say yes, that Vince is exactly the sort of guy to make that sort of joke, but in this case, it's a more specific rib. There was a kid named Eugene who was mentally challenged who always hung out backstage at WWF shows in the North-East of the US as a guest. Presumably he was the son of an arena owner or something.
But the fact is, while everyone was polite and respectful to his face, he was routinely parodied and insulted behind his back (and sometimes to it), as wrestlers are nothing if not classy.
Now, of course, this is just the name and, perhaps, the general idea of Eugene. So it might well be, on some level, Vince laughing at us. But I doubt it. That's Zack Ryder's role really.
Statement asks about worth.
Hi Matt, love your work.
I have a question that has been burning me for sometime now. How does the WWE value what each wrestler's brand is worth to them. In the past, the have indicated that Cena's brand was worth $106 million in revenue.
How is that figure likely tabulated (it can't just be for merch, and how do they attribute ratings and PPV buys to their talent).
Also, do you know what the revenue value is of other stars in the company?
Thanks and keep up the good work,
To answer the second part first: No, I have no idea about the revenue value of anyone, since I don't have the full, detailed financial records of WWE. However, I am confident that WWE does know exactly how much everyone is worth. They have to, since they have to pay everyone.
See, as we've discussed in the past, a WWE contract says that you, as an independent contractor, get a cut of any and all merch and ticket sales and the like that you're a part of. And if the merch in question is of multiple people (like a T-shirt with 3 people on it) then the cut gets cut up further for each person. So a solo t-shirt gets you, say, 25% of the profits, while a shirt with 5 people on it might net you 5%. Or whatever.
But the thing is, WWE thus has people who's job included working out how much of any one show or merch item is every person. They judge that this shirt is 50% Cena, 35% Mysterio and 15% Ryder, or whatever. They have to, so they can pay them. But it also means that they can use those numbers and say "Well that means Cena made 50% of this money for us." And so forth. So WWE can just add up all the cuts Cena gets and then counts all the money Cena brought in to get that cut, and volia, you have the value of the brand.
My Damn Opinion
Kevin asks about a famous moment.
I just watched Goldberg v. Hogan again. Honestly, I think this may be the biggest TV moment of the Monday Night Wars and maybe since. Everyone remembers it. It stands out as a potential gamechanger and great moment. Sure there have been better matches and promos, but as a whole Goldberg winning was just awesome with the atmosphere etc. I do like Foley winning the title but with all the run ins as well as the fact that the crowd was so huge in Atlanta and Goldberg so hot and he beat Hogan cleanly, the moment was bigger. Sure the follow up with Goldberg as champ did not quite live up to the hype but I have to give WCW credit for running with Goldberg while he was hot. Sure, it could have been saved for PPV but Goldberg may have petered out and both Bash and Starrcade still got huge buyrates. Ultimately, WCW was making money hand over fist and it did not hurt the bottom line. Perhaps by not giving Goldberg the title so soon would have kept WCW going stronger longer in 99 but that is neither here or there.
Putting aside typical WCW, Bischoff, Hogan bashing: I think the moment was seminal. They put the title on a young guy, in front of a huge crowd, getting one of the biggest pops that I have ever heard and is quite frankly and amazing TV moment. Maybe Hogan wanted the win back but he did not have to give up the title. His title run that time was uneventful; he was about to work with DDP and Leno and Warrior was coming back and he did not need the title. Macho was hurt and the only other person who perhaps could have gotten the title was either Sting or Hart with the latter being a heel at the time (In an argument for another day I loved Bret's underrated 98 run as a heel but the pundits hated on anything he and WCW did....Too bad as it was awesome). Maybe the build could have been stronger, or they could have put more butts in the seats had it been advertised. However that is typical nitpicking and WCW gets bashed so often that no matter what they did they did and still will get shit on.
Like I said they could have waited with Goldberg but why not run with it? He could have fought the nWo for months until Starrcade, winning WWIII but who knows what can happen in that time frame. Finally as for Nash, he gets a shitload of flack for booking himself to end the Streak (If he was indeed on the committee at the time as he denies it). But from a storyline perspective it made sense. Nash was HUGELY over at the time, and while I don't agree with his beating of Wrath at the time, the match was fairly long and it is something WWF/E did and does all the time. Nash was known for shenanigans but he did give Goldberg his win back and he did beat Hall in a solid Ladder Match the next month. The main mistake was reforming the Elite too soon, and not running with the hugely over Wolpac longer, another thing that may have kept the ratings up for a few more months.
Sorry for the dissertation: What are your thoughts on Goldberg winning? Also, just in terms of a TV moment? And what is your favorite TV moment?
(Aside first: No, running ANY version of the nWo, Wolfpac or otherwise, was already too long. Once Goldberg won the belt, he should have taken down every nWo offshoot and been done with it.)
I am sure I've said this before, but I will say this once again, for all the flak and fallout and crap WCW had afterwards, I 100% support putting the title on Goldberg on Nitro ASAP. Could they have made more money putting Goldberg/Hogan on PPV? Sure, but the thing is, Hogan agreeing to put anyone over was rare enough, him agreeing to put the belt on Goldberg was once in a blue moon. And the PPV that was coming up, Bash at the Beach, Hogan was already set in the tag match with Rodman, and you couldn't pull him out of that.
Plus, given that WCW was beginning to slip in the ratings and in public sentiment, having Goldberg win the title on Nitro, in THAT arena, with THAT crowd? That's a hell of a moment, and, had it been followed up on, it would have marked a shift.
The follow up sucked, but the moment itself was almost perfect.
As for my favourite moment? It's a very ‘IWC Smark' answer, but it's a tie, between THAT Heyman promo…
And the Foley title win.
Man, that pop when the Glass Shatters…
William is a victim of timing.
Hey man, just a quick question about your thoughts on the HITC PPV main event.
Now that it has been confirmed that it will be Ryback challenging Punk, do you think we could see the return of Lesnar as a fellow 'Heyman Guy'? I am sure it is more probable it won't happen than it would happen, but would you not agree that a good way to keep building up Ryback would be for Lesnar to somehow interfere in the match to help Punk (indirectly, Heyman), costing Ryback the match and therefore breaking his streak but protecting him. Then have Lesnar show up on Raw with Punk and Heyman (maybe Punk tries to pretend he didn't need Lesnar's help or pretend he didn't know he was going to interfere) and have Ryback come in and somehow challenge Lesnar. Lesnar could either not accept, and maybe have Ryback just continue to absolutely destroy motherfuckers up (maybe even using the F5 occasionally to taunt Lesnar) until he does, or have Lesnar eventually accept later on by interfering in Ryback's Royal Rumble effort or something. Then have Lesnar put Ryback over at Wrestlemania to solidify his monster status in the WWE. Then you leave Punk with the title and allow him to hold onto it until at least RR or WM, and also finally use Lesnar against a NEW up and comer, as opposed to Undertaker, Cena, Triple H or The Rock.
What are your thoughts on using Lesnar this way? I think it would be INCREDIBLY stupid to put the belt on Ryback now - he needs to build up more mic skills before he can carry a brand, plus there has been little reason to get behind him now without any sort of screwing over or vulnerability being shown.
Sadly, this didn't make it into the question list I sent Craig, and thus he didn't see it, and thus it's now somewhat past the time frame. However, I can address the general idea, that Lesnar be used to make Ryback.
It's not the worst idea I've ever heard, but I think it comes down to if Lesnar will be around or not. See, if Brock does decide that the year has been a write off, then sure, Feed Him To Ryback. However, if he's sticking around, if he decides he likes being paid vast sums of money for precious few dates, then there's too much money to be made in Brock V Taker or HHH at WM or a few other options to go with Ryback.
Plus, Brock's already so low on dates, I'm not expecting him to appear before the Rumble, where he'll probably eliminate Taker from said Rumble match.
So yeah, I'm not opposed to Brock V Ryback, but I doubt it'll happen. Especially since HHH has to get his revenge first. Tara forbid he put someone over and that be the end of it.
Matt had a working question.
5. Who was the stiffest you ever worked with ?
The only man so far to knock me out was Robert Barnes, albeit during a training session, with the famed ‘Miracle Elbow'.
But in terms of actual stiffness, there's one guy I won't mention who's just dangerously inept that I've worked a couple times, so the answer is a tie. Blakestone is a very physical guy, he's stiff in the old school way, hard hitting. (He's the one not in black here.)
And on the other side, Powerhouse Theo once chopped me with the pal of his hand so hard that not only did I get a bruise in the shape of his hand on my chest, but he somehow managed to get an outline of his nails in that said chop bruise. I still have NO idea how that's physically possible.
So one of them. And on that note, I am falling asleep, so goodnight!