www.411mania.com
|  News |  Columns |  TV Reports |  Video Reviews |  Title History |  Hall of Fame |  News Report |  The Dunn List |
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// Top 5 Positives From DC's New 52
MUSIC
// Rihanna Tweets New Bikini Pic
WRESTLING
// When It Comes Crashing Down - Why Hogan Shouldn't Wrestle One More Match
MMA
// 411's MMA Roundtable Preview - UFC 177: Dillashaw vs. Soto
GAMES
// Top 5 Football Games




 HOT TOPICS
//  CM Punk
//  John Cena
//  Triple H
//  Hulk Hogan
//  Randy Orton
//  Christian
SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds





Follow 411mania on Twitter!




Add 411 On Facebook
 


 
 411mania » Wrestling » Columns

Advertisement
Ask 411 Wrestling 02.06.13: Wrestlers' Primes, Hogan's Belts, Luger's Hatred, More!
Posted by Mathew Sforcina on 02.06.2013



Bruno Sammartino is being inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame.

There is nothing I could say here that could top that. This is near the end of the list of ‘Never ever gonna happens' in pro wrestling. All we need now is Madusa to be inducted and for Vince to finally admit why he hates Savage so much and I could close up shop.

But until then, this is Ask 411 Wrestling! I am your question-answerer, Mathew Sforcina, and if you weren't here last week, basically while I get back into the groove of my life, it's Total Opinion Weeks. So if you only want the hard facts, see you later!



OK, let's get down to it. If you have a question, send it to my email here. And if you have time when you're not listening to superb wrestling based podcasts, go to Just Another God Damned Rasslin' Show and/or Wrestling PodClash!

And if your eyes aren't filled with enough awesome, there's Banner.



411 on Twitter!

Me On Twitter~!
http://www.twitter.com/411mania
http://www.twitter.com/411wrestling
http://www.twitter.com/411moviestv
http://www.twitter.com/411music
http://www.twitter.com/411games
http://www.twitter.com/411mma

Backtalking



My ten picks: OK, I forgot to mention that I was assuming that I'd have them all on full time, week in week out contracts. If I have to take them on the same schedule they work now, then yeah, I don't take Lesnar, he's not worth it. But honestly? My replacement is actually, of all people, Gail Kim.

I'm serious, I'd want a strong female face to appeal to all demos, and you can build a division around Gail Kim. It's worked before, and Gail/Colt would be my main media blitzkrieg. But everyone books differently, so my picks =/= your picks, and that's fine.

Hogan V Orndorff: Ok, APinOz is an old friend of the column, and he's usually a solid guy for this sort of stuff, so I'm including this here.

I read your stuff this week on the main event of Wrestlemania 3 and how it was always going to be Andre vs Hogan, and that Hogan vs Orndorff was the Plan B in case Andre's health was no good.

In fact, Andre was a sort of Plan B in itself. The original idea was for Orndorff to beat Hogan for the title, possibly at the CNE Stadium show in Toronto which drew 65,000 fans (to a freakin' house show!) Hogan vs Orndorff just set the WWF on fire and as you mentioned, Orndorff wrestled through a serious arm injury which ended up seriously curtailing his career. Hogan would then eventually beat Orndorff for the title at WM3. However, that arm injury got so bad that it made putting the belt on Orndorff an impossibility as he would not have been able to defend the belt through to March. It was at that point that Vince came up with the plan to turn Andre and make the match of the century. (This scenario was told to me a few years after the event by one of Jack Lanza's assistants)


I've heard both stories, to be honest, but the Andre first one has always struck me as a little more believable, simply because it seems more Vince to go with unstoppable V immovable rather than, well, a Flair-esque build. Not to say that Orndorff as champ wouldn't have worked (it so would have) but I don't personally believe it. But I was not there, and so I can't say for sure either way. I have simply given my viewpoint. As always, every thing I say, everything you read, should be with grains of salt.

And no, I won't be attempting to mediate the spirited debate from last week. Just hope we can all remain civil. If possible.

Your Turn, Smart Guy…



We are a short lived faction that was comprised of members of two other stables. We consisted of two former world champions, two movie stars, and 3 managers. Other members included a tag team, and someone with power backstage. Our group competed in a unique match in a structure that would return in some form a few years later. In this match, our group competed against an established tag team. Although weapons were legal in this match, the finish came from a different foreign object being introduced. Our then-active members are either now retired, deceased, or competing on the independents. Who are we?

Maravilloso has the answer.

We are a short lived faction that was comprised of members of two other stables.

DUNGEON OF DOOM AND THE FOURT HORSEMEN

We consisted of two former world champions,

RIC FLAIR AND LEX LUGER

two movie stars,

Z-GANGSTA (TINY LISTER, A.K.A. ZEUS) AND THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION (ROBERT "JEEP" SWENSON, A.K.A. BANE IN "BATMAN AND ROBIN")

and 3 managers.

JIMMY HART, KEVIN SULLIVAN AND KING CURTIS (FIVE, IF COUNT LIZ AND WOMAN AS WELL)

Other members included a tag team,

FACES OF FEAR

and someone with power backstage.

KEVIN SULLIVAN (AND MAYBE FLAIR)

Our group competed in a unique match in a structure that would return in some form a few years later.

TOWER OF DOOM

In this match, our group competed against an established tag team.

THE MEGAPOWERS (HOGAN & SAVAGE)

Although weapons were legal in this match, the finish came from a different foreign object being introduced.

A BLACK GLOVE (FROM LUGER)

Our then-active members are either now retired,

FLAIR*, ANDERSON, LUGER, SULLIVAN, ZEUS

deceased,

LIZ, WOMAN, JEEP SWENSON, PILLMAN (JUST BY THE TIME HE WAS GOING TO BE RELEASED),

or competing on the independents.

MENG, BARBARIAN

Who are we?

THE ALLIANCE TO END HULKAMANIA


AND, he's also stepped out from ‘weekly answerer' to instead ask this week's question. Jeremy's second one will be next week. Take it away Maravilloso!

I'm considered by many as a legend and have been a champion many times in my career in different countries, including Canada. One of the most infamous angles I was involved in was when I was blinded, very much like another angle done before in which the two wrestlers involved in it are now deceased. My most famous match was an "unification match" against another champion, and both him and me were known for using the same finishing manoeuvre, although we set it up it differently. One time, a member of my family was brutally attacked by a former US Champion and was avenged by someone who also won US gold many years later. I've won tag team gold with a former Triple Crown winner and also won tag team championships in wrestling companies owned by two Hall of Famers. Who am I?

Questions, Questions, Who's Got The Questions?/My Damn Opinion



Oh, before we begin: Ask 411 Games is back. I write it. I include NewLegacyInc videos often. So check that out, if you like.

Anyway, Ron Gamble is first, on the basis that without him in the past, you aren't reading this now.

Okay, I can do this "all opinion" thing.

1. What, in your "Star of Botchamania Ad Time" opinion, is the greatest women's match ever? I would go with the Jumping Bomb Angels vs. Glamour Girls at the first Royal Rumble, but I know very little of Japanese wrestling, so I'm willing to listen to others.


The cliché of sorts to this sort of question is that it can be any match as long as it is Japanese and an hour long. The reason this is a cliché is because of stuff like this, wherein the ‘accepted' greatest female match of all time is Manami Toyota vs Kyoko Inoue, for the WWWA Title, May 7th, 1995.



I really love the Bomb Angels Rumble match, Gail/Kong in TNA always delivered, SHIMMER has a dozen or so contenders, and I'm partial to Victoria's first Women's Title win (wonder why…) but that match above is pretty hard to top from where I sit. Those below me…

2. Besides eliminating the Divas division and getting rid of the butterfly belt, what can be done to make women's wrestling better? TNA was making some strides in that area, until they reduced their women's division to six or so.

You can replace "women's" with tag, or cruiserweight, or whatever classification you want, the steps are simple to describe, hard to pull off. At the core, you need a large, popular wrestling company to have talented people in said division, all of whom work hard at their craft, while the company treats said division with respect and showcases it as an important deal. You want the secondary title divisions to improve, don't job the champ out. You want tag team wrestling to be good? Treat the division as equal to the world title. You want women's wrestling to be taken seriously? Have the company putting it out treat it seriously.

Stuff like the butterfly belt is just window dressing, it's only giving the women 3 minutes and letting all the talented ones go that is killing the division. (Yes, the men aren't getting that much more time, but that doesn't change my point.)

Which is not to say that stuff like bringing in most of SHIMMER or getting rid of the Butterfly belt or anything won't help, but it isn't the main problem. You need a major company to put in the time and effort to treat women's wrestling seriously. And so far, most of the time, they haven't, and probably won't.

After all, it's not a sure bet. While women have in the past gotten over, gotten over really well, women's wrestling… Not so much. Less of a track record there.

3. You know a whole bunch about wrestling here in the States, and some about Japan. However, most people here know nothing about wrestling in Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi! Besides making a certain damn fine handsome (and large) man the AWF champion, what would you do to change that? I don't know what you can say without angering some of your fellow locker room compatriots, but do what you can.

Actually if I'm booking then I'm not on the shows, simply because I feel that most of the time a booker shouldn't be on the roster (outside some looming occasional threat of an authority figure).

But actually I think Australian wrestling is slowly becoming slightly better known as Aussies are now creeping into the American indy scene, as well as Japan. Hell, SHIMMER is bringing them in all the time. So if you're willing to play the long game, then all Australia has to do is wait, and let the Madison Eagles', the Shazza McKenzie's and the Tama Williams' get the name out there. But if you want a more direct route…

See, the thing is, Australia has an abundance of companies and talent. We have probably more companies per capita then any country outside America. And there's a lot of talent to fill those companies. Thing is, not everyone is great, not everyone is good. But I know that if you could have your pick, you could EASILY put together a 20-30 roster of legitimately world class wrestlers. Problem is that they're all scattered all over the country, and half of them won't deal with the other half due to past grievances or loyalties and the like. There's politics on every level of the business, Australia is no exception.

And then there's the second problem. No TV. No Australian wrestling company has gotten onto mainstream TV with programming in decades, since the death of World Championship Wrestling in 1978.



There's the occasional appearance on a TV show, and a couple of companies have gotten shows on public access channels, but no programming. And in Australia, to hook the kids, to get the audiences that WWE pulls in on their yearly tour, to need TV.



So, the solution is obvious, in that you need a company that is new, or has new bosses, with no past history or at least an amicable history with most of the talent in the country, and they need to get a TV deal. They can then bring together the cream of the country, maybe make some connections with overseas companies for talent sharing, and voilà, you're off and running. That's how Aussie wrestling can move ahead.

And as soon as I win the lottery or find a money mark… After all, no-one hates me.

Yet.

4. Let's say your dream comes true. You are signed by Trips for the Fed, you go to the Rumble, and you throw Miz over the top rope to win. You get to headline WrestleMania XXXI. Knowing you are going to lose in the main event, who would you challenge?

Ah, right, slight change in plans. See, it's been a long standing deal that my dream, my tip top dream in wrestling (that doesn't involve Tara falling madly in love with me) is to lose the main event of a Wrestlemania. Second or third is to win the Royal Rumble. However, I don't envision those being concurrent. An unspoken part of my ‘lose at WM' dream is that I'm the champ going in, and I put over the new babyface champ in a Wrestlemania moment for the ages.

But all right, let's say I win the Rumble but lose, who do I want to fight? Out of the current possible opponents, if I'm a face, Antonio Cesaro, finish with a top rope Neutralizer. If I'm heel, Daniel Bryan, since he can get a good match out of a dead vole I'm sure.

Smarky answers I know, but I want a good WM moment, and putting them over would hopefully give me one.

Adrian from Ireland moves us to the Hall of Fame.

hey Mathew,

Quick question for you. This may seem an odd one but with wrestlemania season upon us is there any chance Nancy Benoit will ever get in the hall of fame ? Before her tragic end she had a fine career stretching back many years as a valet and manager. But perhaps because of the crimes of her husband, her name and legacy will be forever erased from wrestling memories also, which is a shame.

Thanks guy keep up the great work.


If she had passed away peacefully in her sleep or something, then she'd be a lock for a slot as a minor name to round out the numbers for a year. But yes, the circumstances of her death do make it hard for WWE to bring her up. They're trying to avoid any and all mentions of that guy unless they have to, for the most part.

So, I think that eventually, if the Hall lasts long enough, she'll get in, but before that, they have to ease back on the Benoit moratorium. They'd have to be willing to at least discuss him and/or his matches. Not ‘put out a Benoit DVD' or anything, but be willing to, when relevant, to mention his name, in passing. I think once the company is able to do that, then they can induct her and get away with it, induct her without bringing up too many memories of the horrible things Chris did.

I honestly don't think it'll be for 10 years at a minimum, to be honest. Speaking of honesty, Michael wants to be honest about Wrestlemania.

Greetings,

With the booking for Wrestlemania looking to be rematches between Rock-Cena and Brock-Triple H with Cena and Triple H the likely victors...is the WWE setting themselves up for an embarrassing night in which the crowd could turn on the event? We're dealing not only with a Wrestlemania crowd, but a New York Wrestlemania crowd. It's a no brainer that the show will sell out and make tons of money - but could they be getting crowd reactions that makes them look foolish and the commentators struggling to acknowledge (ala, Wrestlemania XX with Brock-Goldberg and Wrestlemania 22 with Cena-HHH) what's going on...it just doesn't seem to make much sense for the product when it has more eyeballs on it than any other time of the year.


See, that's similar to my problem with the show, which I'm now going to shoehorn into the discussion because I've wanted to say this since the Rumble.

Rock/Cena was the most profitable wrestling match in history. It made the most money ever. I'm cool with that, I can see why it did so, and I have no real problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with a rematch in of itself, in that if I had a match that made the most money ever, I'd book a rematch too. However, my problem with this is the booking, and more importantly, the outcome.

Rock/Cena was a huge match, the biggest ever. Now what's quite probably the last huge huge Wrestlemania match, the last ‘biggest ever' match? You can argue WM23, or WM14, but for this, you have to go back to Wrestlemania 3. Hogan/Andre. That match was HUGE, and did major numbers, totally changing the market and the industry. Even if you don't feel comfortable putting Rock/Cena on the same level, you at least can agree that Hogan/Andre did a lot business, made a lot of money. And so, what happened next year? They booked a rematch! OK, they did one on NBC first, but the next major PPV match between the two was Wrestlemania IV. And if you look at the advertising for Wrestlemania IV, it's all about Hogan/Andre. So what happened at the show? Double DQ, as part of the larger story of establishing Randy Savage as Champion (and to a lesser extent, building Ted Dibiase). They used the rematch to draw viewers, then made another star on the show using that rematch as part of the build.

Now I'm not saying they have to do a tourney or anything, it's too late now even if they wanted to, but my point is that there is no end game where long term benefits are made. Cena will only get a smidgen more attention and/or fame for beating Rock. The match will make lots and lots of money, but then once Rock is gone you're back to Cena as champ, which they ran into the ground a couple years ago.

That's my issue with the build, that they're just focused solely on making lots of money now rather than making someone into a guy who will make them money later on. It's their company, they can do what they like, but I think they aren't being as effective as they could be.

Rant over, back to the question at hand. I think that while there is a real risk that the audience is going to give ‘incorrect' reactions, I think WWE doesn't really mind. Wrestlemania is more about the sheer cash they'll get in, and they're aren't that concerned with long term fan growth. It's more about the millions of dollars they'll get from the show, so if the fans don't cheer Cena and Hunter, it's annoying, sure, but it's not that bad. A dead crowd is worse than a flipped crowd. And given the people involved, and that it's Wrestlemania, a dead crowd is unlikely to happen.

Besides, I think by now WWE knows exactly how to downplay a crowd all booing John Cena. Sadly.

Botchamania 222! Still good, since what it lacks in me it makes up for in NewLegacyInc.



Change!



And these are topical apparently.




APinOz did have some questions, he didn't just write in to say I was wrong.

Can you explain, maybe in kayfabe, how wrestlers "get away" with illegal eliminations in battle royals or Royal Rumble matches, such as the Wade Barrett elimination of Bo Dallas. If it's done by someone already eliminated, how does it count?

Well the non-kayfabe version is that the booker can and will change the rules to suit the story he or she is telling. The better ones try and stay consistent, but the rules are flexible.

Kayfabe? The rules don't specify that you have to be tossed out by someone else. The entirely of battle royal and Royal Rumble rules are that you have to go over the top rope and hit the floor, with both feet. That's pretty much it. You can't get disqualified in a battle royal, you can't be counted out, all that the ref is there for is to see if and when someone's feet hit the floor after going over the top rope. Thus, a loophole exists wherein that anyone can toss anyone else. You don't have to be involved in the match, you can run out, come in, toss someone, leave. Refs may try and stop you, but legally they can't do anything. It's no DQ, no rules says that outside interference isn't allowed.

But, I hear you cry, what about Vader in 1996, or Maven in 2002, or Finlay in 2008, or any other time when the rules were different. Well, apart from the non-kayfabe version, there is also the magic words "referee's discretion". The ref has powers and rights to use his judgment and change the rules slightly. He can reverse a decision, he can choose not to count people out, not DQ someone. And so the refs can decide that they'll let Savage back in in 92, or that Vader's assault was over the line and so they don't count, so on and so forth.

But most of the time, if you're tossed, you just can no longer win. Nothing in the rules says you can't keep fighting. You're not supposed to, but the refs don't make a habit of laying down the law, for various reasons…

Has Shane McMahon been ostracised by Vince because he's not involved in the family business? Any chance we'd ever see Shane revealed as the Aces and Eights Higher Power? (Fantasy booking I know, but if he's not in Vince's circle, who knows?)

Well back in September Pete Gas of the Mean Street Posse was interviewed and he said that they're still close, and they have been seen in public together, so he's not ostracized. Shane, it seems, just wanted to prove he could stand on his own feet, that he could make it on his own, away from his father. So he left the company. At the time Vince was silent, but it seems that he now understands Shane's reason for leaving, or at least tolerates it.

As for Shane being the leader of A&8, as much as that would be a great reveal, and a HUGE coup for TNA, it's not happening. Shane is busy in the world of content providing in China and sports management in the US, and probably wouldn't have time for TNA. Plus heading back into wrestling would be counter productive to his goals. Or at least, as an onscreen talent.

Shane buying the company, and playing out the WCW purchase but for reals… Well it's not going to happen, but there is a grain of logic to that…

Was the blood in the John Cena-Brock Lesnar match at Extreme Rules planned, and if so, how does this fit into the PG rating?

Thanks Mathew


There still is a lot of controversy and second guessing about that match and what was planned and worked and what was… slightly less planned and slightly less worked. The consensus is that the blood was planned, although Cena bleeding so quickly and early may well have been accidental. But no hard proof of this supposition exists.

However, as far as the PG rating, PPV works slightly differently than broadcast TV. Assuming that the rating is PG-V, then the PPV can have "a moderate to significant amount of violent content (such as a physical altercation or shooting), which may include mild to moderate amounts of bloodshed. This does not necessarily account for incidents in which scenes may contain gory material or the depiction of dismemberment." So they could get away with it.

However, ratings and classifications are flexible, and there's a difference between attitude and the output. See, even with a seven second delay, it's possible that on an episode of Raw, say, Sin Cara might slip off the top rope and land hard on the mat and break his leg. That could happen, and it could happen live on camera. Hopefully WWE would cut away in time, but possibly not. So WWE could broadcast actual bone breaking. They wouldn't lose the PG rating for it, on the basis that they can argue that it wasn't intentional, and that they won't show it again.

Blood's the same, WWE cannot guarantee that blood won't occur. But if they show that they are intent on minimizing it, and they make efforts not to show it, then if it does happen, they'll be more likely to get away with it. Some movies get away with sex or violence they probably shouldn't, because the system is on a case by case system where people make judgement calls.

And with that, WWE could, theoretically, get away with blood very, VERY rarely, if they show that they are trying to minimize it (which they did in that match), and if they don't show it repeatedly.

But all this is based on how I'm reading the rules and what I remember from ‘This film is not yet rated" so I might be way off base. I welcome corrections.

Connor asks why people give Luger such a hard time.

long time reader and admirer of both wrestling and 411mania with a question i would like to ask

It's always baffled me as to why Lex Luger gets shit on so much, i mean sure he was no Steamboat but the guy could have and did have great matches in the late 80's and early 90's, heck wcw even gave him the world title and u.s title for short times in 1997 and 1998, my question is do you think all the hate is warranted? was he a major douche backstage or is it all just to do with the whole great american bash incident? or the Lex Express stuff or the whole Mania 10 choker label?, was he carried to his best matches by Flair? sure he was but so was Sting and people think he's great, i guess the stuff with Miss Elizabeth in 2003 didn't help matters either, i just don't think people give the guy enough credit, he was the longest US champion of all time after all, i just wish people would see him for the great worker that he was in his prime


No no, I think the fact that he was a good (great's stretching it) worker in his prime is the problem. Because Luger could indeed have a good match. But when he had a bad match, whoo-boy, did they suck. And worst still, the dude got lazy, after being pushed to the moon.

Luger got chance after chance and push after push based mostly on the fact that he looked like a million dollars. The view is that he was talentless and yet got pushed, over more deserving wrestlers. The perfect example of looks over talent. And hell, Vince almost made him the next Hogan, that isn't likely to buy you popularity online.

And then there's stuff like the fact that we was supposedly douchey near the end of his WCW run, and some people blame him for Miss Elizabeth's death. There's plenty of reasons why someone might hate him.

Personally, while I'm not a huge fan of his, I do think he is slightly underrated as a worker, when he's motivated. Lazy Lex is almost as bad as Lazy Me.



And I have nothing against the guy personally. But then there's always going to be hatred towards anyone and everyone in the business. Some people hate The Rock. Some people hate John Cena. Some people hate Joseph Park Esq. Lots of people hate me. And I'm sure someone out there really hates Iron Mike Sharpe.

If you want a more in-depth look at the arguments against Luger, and their counterpoints, there's the In Defence Of that JP Prag did on Luger in two parts.

Aedonix now asks… A fact question? The hell?

Looking back over a few magazines and old pictures on line i cant help but notice that during his first reign as WWF Champion Hulk Hogan seemed to have a whole shed load of different title belts.

That got me thinking.

Including the giant penny on the big green strap, and up to the winged eagle belt... Just how many versions of the world title belt DID hogan have or use? I believe i have counted at least half a dozen, but what is the true number?

Thanks,


Hulk Hogan is a 6 times WWF Champion for a combined total of 2185 days, second overall. So how many different belts has he had in that time?

The title he won first off from the Iron Sheik was the ‘Big Green' belt, which is so called because it's… Well, it's big and green.



Then comes a little bit of technicality, in that there's a Hogan 84 belt, and a Hogan 85 belt, but they are very similar. The 84 belt has red lettering and no black paint on the main plate. There's other differences, but that's the most obvious.



Whereas the Hogan 85 belt is slightly better known.



Then came Hogan 86, which he used at Wrestlemania III and right through to 1988.



Now at Wrestlemania III they did say that the Andre 87 belt, the belt made to ‘fit a giant' would be used from then on, but that never happened, and Hogan never used that belt, so it doesn't count.



And then at The Main Event in 1988, Hogan has the 1986 belt in the backstage promo, and yet he comes out in the Winged Eagle belt.



Hogan's other title reigns up to Wrestlemania IX-King of the Ring 1993 all used the Winged Eagle belt. Big Eagle didn't debut until Austin, and Hogan never used any of the Warrior variations. However, when Hogan won his final WWF Title, this was during the Undisputed Title period, and so he held the Undisputed V1.0 title.



However, during his reign, the title went from the WWF Undisputed Championship to the WWE Undisputed Championship, and so he held the V1.1 version as well. It was the same belt, just with the logo and name changed with paint. (Undisputed 2.0, a.k.a the greatest World Title Belt Ever In My Opinion came later on, when Taker lost it to Rock).



So then, in his original run, Hogan used 5 different titles. If you add in his last reign in 2002, he used 7 different titles.

Joshua asks about hanging out.

Hey man, ever so often I hear "so and so" was backstage at RAW or "so and so" was visitng friends backstage at Smackdown. If you're a former employee with the WWE are you automatically allowed backstage at one of their TV tapings? Do they have to get special permission to do this or do they just show up.

No, you're not just allowed backstage. WWE keeps strict tabs on who is allowed backstage, and normally only their own security and those who work for the company are allowed back there. However, there are people who are allowed backstage, including:

Certain public attendees such as the Make-A-Wish Foundation children and their attendants and accompanying guardian(s); celebrities that are trusted and friends of WWE employees and entertainers and staff; certain local government and federal government officials; police officers for the area for which the WWE is in (deeming a police emergency); EMS workers (deeming a medical emergency seeing as WWE hires its own EMT-P's); and a list of family or close friends of the WWE entertainers and the entertainers personal medical, legal , or professional staff such as managers, assistants, etc.

Note the ‘friends' section there. That's how guys get in. If an old employee is in the area, and they are still friends with a current roster member, then they can get brought backstage by the currently employed wrestler. If you don't know anyone on the roster and/or they hate your guts then you're screwed. But most everyone knows someone, and unless Vince doesn't like you, you should be able to get brought back there by a friend.

How would the WWE feel about a wrestler contracted to another company hanging out back stage?

Depends on if they invited them there or not, and what level the other company was at. I don't think anyone on the TNA roster would be allowed backstage unless they were there to talk business, or were married to someone. But a Charlie Haas being backstage would probably be OK. And any company below ROH would be fine, I would imagine. There may or may not be guidelines WWE has for this sort of thing, but without a copy, it's hard to say. But hey, always willing to be corrected.

And finally, Bruce has a follow up from last week.

Great column, fun read, yada yada.

Harrison Glenn Furd asked who would be your top 10 wrestlers to start your promotion, along with announcers and bookers.

I have a follow-up. How about your top 10 all-time, in prime, to start a promotion, along with announcers and bookers?

Personally, I start with Billy Robinson.

Grazi.


Geez, talk about kid in a candy shop.

Bob Backlund in 1994 MR. Bob Backlund mode
Bret Hart in 1992 Fighting Champion mode
Chris Jericho in 2008 sycophantic hypocrites mode
Hulk Hogan in late 80's peak of Hulkamania mode
Kurt Angle in 2001 Wrestling Machine mode
Randy Savage in 1987 WWF Champion mode.
Ric Flair in late 80's Broomstick mode
Shawn Michaels in Showstoppa 2.0 2004 mode
Steve Austin in 1996 "Stone Cold Who Can Work" mode
The Rock in 2003 Hollywood Rock mode

Announcers are Gordon Solie (late 70's) and JBL (2006), second team of Jim Ross (1998ish) and Joey Styles (1998ish). Again I'd have a committee to book, with Gabe Sapolsky (2002) at the head. Members would be, assuming I could make them all co-exist, Paul Heyman (1995), Jim Cornette (1993), Bill Watts (1986), and in the controversial pick, Vince Russo (1998).

But what of you, good reader? Who would you take? And why do my picks suck? Tell me below, and then join me next week for more Ask 411 Wrestling!





MUST-READ 411 STORIES:

5 Positives From The New DC 52

The 20 Sexiest Women from Reality TV

The November Man Review


comments powered by Disqus











www.41mania.com
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.