Ask 411 Wrestling 07.31.13: CM Punk vs. Kevin Nash, Daniel Bryan, Summerslam Overseas, More!
Posted by Justin Watry on 07.31.2013
Did Sting's loyalty to WCW cost him? How did Daniel Bryan's old Cattle Mutilation submission hold work? Did CM Punk ever get his ice cream bars? All this and more covered this week in Ask 411 Wrestling!
If I could describe my past week, it would be amazing. From the crazy happenings in Wisconsin to the world of wrestling. you just never know what is next. What did Rowdy Roddy Piper say? Right when you have all the answers, I change the questions! Well, the last seven days of my life personified that catchphrase.
Okay, none of you care about my personal garbage. I get that. You are all here to read about wrestling and my opinions. Not to beat a dead horse, but this column is continuing to evolve each and every week. There are still a few minor things to fix, but that is to be expected. Other than that, the feedback has been getting better and with much less profanity/insults! Shocking.
I don't care about wrestling 200 years ago, when Abe Lincoln had a match, or the carnival days. Sorry if that offends anybody, but it is the simple truth. Remember, all you will get from me is honesty, like it or not. I am not going to sit here and PRETEND to be interested in something that I'm not. Don't lie to yourself either. Do you really, really, really care about the carnival days of wrestling or anything preceding it? Come on. Wrestling has always been a scripted work in my mind, and was never real. Just a simple reminder: All of YOU pick the topics, not me. The email address is listed below.
Your Turn, Smart Guy...
Last week, I asked for the last five times The Undertaker has lost at a WWE pay-per-view event. Once again, the winner was Bronze My Johnson! He answered the question fairly easily and even responded to any potential loopholes in the question. For that correct answer, go back to last week's column and read his response in the comment section. Job well done! This week, let's go for something fairly recent...
After returning at the Royal Rumble 2011, who did Booker T wrestle in his first one on one match back on WWE television?
Questions, Questions, Who's Got The Questions?
We start off with a popular topic from Dean!
Why hasn't the WWE brought another major pay per view over to Wembley Stadium?. They did it once, and it was huge - making it their 3rd highest attendance of all time. I really think they are dropping the ball not bringing a WrestleMania over here or at least another Summerslam.
Good question to start. Since there are many layers, let me break this down to separate points. Buckle up folks! This will be a lengthy answer...
1. WWE is not 'dropping the ball' whatsoever. Did you read their last press release over WrestleMania and the financial success? A record breaking $72 million in gross revenue? Yeah, don't worry about WM and any kind of worry over business. New York, New Jersey, UK, Japan, Chicago, etc. - it really does not matter. Remarking that they may be 'dropping the balls' hints that the event is not profitable or barely making money. That's not even close to the case.
2. Wade Barrett was chirping months ago about a potential Summerslam return to Wembley. Like most things posted on the dirt sheets, I laughed at the headline. Within days, it was proven to be false (or his suggestion was shot down). At that point, the comment did its job, whether there was any validity to the story or not. Wade gathered support for a Summerslam to come overseas, and all the websites got their 'hits' for the day. Win-win situation! Who cares about being correct or reporting legitimate news, right? Clicks are clicks.
3. Like all things, it comes down to business sense. If it makes sense for WWE to do something, they will do it. If it makes zero sense, they won't do it. If it is a risky move or somewhere in between, that is up for debate. As mentioned above with WM29, WWE has no reason to make any crazy decisions. They have no competition, are drawing major numbers each WM (or Summerslam), plus are making money. Should they gamble and take a pay-per-view overseas, even though it is clear they do not NEED to? Well...
Travel costs: Right off the bat, things are off to an expensive start. Before factoring anything in, WWE is looking at a big, fat bill coming their way. Ask TNA Impact Wrestling about going on the road full-time and how it alters your budget. Now, take that and go overseas for a huge event. Yeah, WWE can do it on occasion for television. Pay-per-view? Good luck. On that topic, we go to the next situation to think about.
Tourism: Wrestling fans have no problem going to the New York/New jersey market for WrestleMania. It is a tourism attraction, with or without the event. Going to Orlando or Miami for a weekend? Sure. Now, would those same fans take a long flight overseas for Summerslam in August? Filling up 80,000 seats in the United States can be done once a year. I know about the success of Summerslam 1992, but that was over twenty years ago. Is the demand still there? We are all crazy wrestling fans, no doubt. I just have a hunch the price would eventually take a toll on the consumer. Just think of all the expenses for American fans...
Time difference: Assuming it would be presented live over in the United States, that would be pure torture for the fans live at the stadium. It would be more than just attending your standard wrestling show. Your sleep pattern may be effected. Schedules would have to change leading up the PPV. Now, flip the script! Say the show is taped earlier and then run later for the United States paying customers hours later. That just opens up another can of worms.
Taped PPV: Let's be honest. Spoilers would leak out to the internet in no time. Five minutes after a match ended, it would be posted online. As soon as the PPV ended, I'm sure someone would be posting their 'live in person' version of the event on Youtube with grainy footage. Then what? Does the company spoil the matches on their own at WWE.com, as they have done for some huge Raw/Smackdown shows to drum up interest? Or risk the spoilers being releasedand hope for the best? Well, now >THAT brings us into the next problem.
Viewers: Should WWE even be worried about spoilers? No offense, but the people reading them are not very likely to spend the $40 anyways. They already have their illegal stream ready to go at 7 pm and have no intention of actually being a paying customer! Thus, is WWE really losing money...to people that don't spend a dime on the product regardless? Again, the 'internet fans' reading spoilers earlier in the day won't buy the PPV from Wembley anyways, so who cares? Next to no money lost, if any at all...
End game: In the end, you have to weigh your costs and potential profits, like any good company would. Does the increased cost of travel, potential loss of PPV buyers, chance of lower attendance, match spoilers, and everything else add up a risk worth taking? I would say no based off history and logic. WWE is in no danger right now to do anything drastic, and once again - the success of WrestleMania already speaks for itself. It is real easy to throw out ideas or things you want to see without having to do the work. It is a completely different subject to actually pull it off.
Sorry for the extended response...or maybe that was a good thing? Either way, let's get to Brian up next:
Brian Schell (@mrjoebrian) #Ask411 What were the dates/matches of Warrior in WCW? Wiki says he ended 11/98, but I found a Youtube match with Sting vs. NWO from 12/98.
Well, I checked out the Internet Wrestling Database. The website said he had three matches in WCW, with the first being a part of War Games at Fall Brawl on September 13th, 1998. Diamond Dallas Page, Roddy Piper, and Ultimate Warrior defeated Bret Hart, Hulk Hogan, and Stevie Raw, AND Kevin Nash, Lex Luger, and Sting. Yes, the rules were three on three on three. Welcome to WCW and the mess that is War Games! That specific tag match mentioned in your question was listed as taking place on October 12th, 1998. Over at Youtube, the title said 12-10-98. Maybe the 10 and 12 were just flipped? In some countries, the day comes before the month when listing a date. I suppose that could cause some confusion. From my understanding, his final WCW match was against Hulk Hogan at Halloween Havoc 1998. A few weeks later, he appeared on Nitro but didn't wrestle on television (or PPV) since losing to the Hulkster.
Before moving on, let's take a step back to last week when Angelo asked two questions:
I wrote into this column last summer, and now I've got a new question I was wondering if you could help my wife and I and our family out with! In a Boy Meets World episode, there is a match between Jake the Snake Roberts and Vader in which 3 Boy Meets World characters are at ringside for, and celebrating after with Vader also! We were wondering was this match a real WWF match at a house show, and if so when was it from and where at? That would be so cool if it was because it would be two different shows interacting together! Also, still no look on the Shawn Michaels crank Double Dare thing yet, any luck finding out any information on that? This is what I wrote in last year and maybe your fresh eyes will have some new insight!
I have asked you this question once before and you looked a lot but got stumped like me and my friends and family wondering about this question, but I figured we'd have another go at it! We remember an early to mid 1990's WWF show, either a Saturday afternoon (probably) or Sunday afternoon, in which The Heartbreak Kid Shawn Michaels had some kind of wacky circus or carnival event looking press and roller device in the ring, in which he sent Sensational Sherri through, flattening her in the process! I know it sounds odd, but multiple people remember this. We just don't remember the specifics and have been trying for about 20 years to figure it out! I think it was yellow, blue, purple, and green, kinda looked like an old Play-Doh crank device! If you could solve this question and the other that would be INCREDIBLE for us! Thanks a lot for trying to figure em out!
Well, nothing came up about Shawn Michaels. However, two people stepped up with some information on Boy Meets World.
Space Australia: Arrowhead Pond in Anaheim CA on October 13, 1996 was the house show were the "Boy Meets World" episode was taped.
marquis of queensbury: Anaheim, CA - Arrowhead Pond - October 13, 1996.
Perfect! I want to thank both for answering the question. They are much smarter than I am and superior to me in every single way imaginable.
Up next: Benjamin wants to discuss Money in the Bank winners a little bit!
I have a question for 411 Mania. Every year one or two wrestlers wins Money In The Bank, and then goes through a series of losses on TV. At this point, the internet craps all over the booking.
To me though, the booking makes sense - if the Money In The Bank winner rolled through all the top opponents before winning the championship, there would no viable challengers by the time they became champion.
Is this just a case of the internet being too critical? As long as the Money In The Bank winner looks competitive in matches against the top opponents, I don't see a real problem.
The internet being too critical?!?! No way.
Honestly, there is not much to add here. You nailed it pretty much right on. Being competitive is the key part, as well as grooming yourself to face off potential championship opponents. Remember, what goes around comes around. When one man loses to another, you could very well be seeing them down the road again in a money making situation. Instead of going through every single MITB winner and the long history we all know about already, I will stick to one perfect example. The night after WrestleMania 21 on Raw, guess who lost CLEAN? Just take a wild guess. Go ahead. Take a guess. I will wait for your response...
Yep, the man who had just won the first ever Money in the Bank match a night earlier.
Was he BURIED after all of this? Did IWC fans jump up and down in anger over WWE blowing his main event push? Was his career done before it even began? Were WWE STUPID for him to lose and ruin his momentum? Blah, blah, blah. Same old song and dance! Last I checked, these imaginary television 'wins' and 'losses' mean next to nothing long-term, especially for someone carrying around a briefcase with a guaranteed future World/WWE Title match. If you perform well, stay out of trouble, and are talented enough, a main event spot will be waiting for you eventually.
Jeff asks about a past Summerslam event. Ironic, huh?
I just purchased the WWE SummerSlam Anthology DVD set. I was browsing inside at the cover art and for SummerSlam 89 noticed that they featured a different PPV poster from the traditional, animated, Hogan/Beefcake vs Macho/Zeus. This poster featured a real life Hogan/Zeus face to face (similar to their face off in "No Holds Barred"), and below their pictures in little boxes you had Brutus & Macho. My question is, was the original plan for SummerSlam 89 supposed to be Hogan vs. Zeus for the WWF Title, with a co main event of Macho Man vs. Beefcake? If so, Vince must have realized how terrible Zeus was in the ring and switched it so that Savage could carry the load. Anyway, if you could shed some light on that I'd greatly appreciate it.
I think it was nothing.
WWE just liked having Hulk Hogan on the marquee to sell matches, pay-per-view, or a DVD in this case. It would be nice to assume that Vince McMahon (and even Hulk) knew better than to feature Zeus in a one on one main event match for their second biggest event of the year. I'd really like to believe that. Doing Macho Man vs. Beefcake would have just seemed like a waste of time. One man deserved to be a main event talent. The other did not. Sadly though, one is best friends with The Hulkster. The other is not. You do the math.
Following that is Jayz with a barrage of questions:
Why do they keep messing around with the amount of time for the Rumble? Why have they gone away from 30 entrants every 2 minutes for an hour long Rumble?
I don't notice anything that wild.
My guess (yes, guess) is that if you went back through EVERY single Royal Rumble, the time in between entrants changes each time. Some would be 90 seconds. Others would be 1:57 maybe. I am positive there are times when entrants come out at perfect two minute intervals at times. However, does it really matter? I've never watched a wrestling show with a stop watch nearby and never will. If mere seconds are off or it really bothers you, I would write a nice long letter to WWE. Perhaps they care? Or need a good laugh at the office? Either way, the Rumble is one of my favorite matches all year, and it delivers every year despite any kind of changes over the years.
Do the Rock's/Brock's contracts fall under the Wellness policy?
Um...no. I do not like to guarantee things in life, but it is pretty clear both man can do (or take) whatever they want. Good for them! I'd do the same thing. If I could get a contract for a few dates a year for millions of dollars, I'd accept the terms too. Everyone reading this would as well. Anybody that says otherwise is a liar.
Did Punk ever get his ice cream bars?
Nope! He played to the 'internet fans' for support in 2011. Throw out a bunch of insider terms, bashed Cena/Rock/Brock, praised Tyson Kidd, and everyone ate it up as expected. Eventually, the 'casual fans' were won over as well, but it took some time. Part of that process was mentioning ice cream bars. None ever arrived, but he didn't care. The man had his main event role, WWE Championship reign, and bigger paychecks than he had ever imagined. Bravo sir!
Let's chug along with a topic about Sting from Steven S!
I was rereading the article from last summer about the Top 5 WCW Stars and was wondering if you could go more in depth about the following two quotes:
From Scott Rutherford: "No man wore the colors of WCW more proudly than Sting. Most will say that likely hurt him long term as he was willing to do whatever they wanted, and that often cast him in a negative light."
From Jeremy Thomas: "He was sometimes terribly booked, and we can all make jokes about how he was the most gullible wrestler in existence with the number of times he let people turn on him."
I'm HUGE fan of the Stinger and was just curious if you could clarify what these two gentlemen meant by their statements. Thanks for your time, I'm a big fan.
Now, I want to make one thing clear. Normally, I do NOT like speaking for somebody else. It seems unfair to crawl into another person's mind and read their mind. In this case, I think (and hope) I am pretty comfortable in understanding what Scott and Jeremy were trying to convey. If not, both men can easily let me know how wrong I am and respond for next week's column.
From Scott's point of view, he is was (I think) trying to get across the point that Sting was loyal TO A FAULT for sticking with WCW through all the rough times. No matter what WCW did, he would stay. The company can take advantage of people if they know you will never walk out and simply do whatever they tell you to do - not matter how stupid. In some regard (my opinion), the same applies to AJ Styles in TNA Impact Wrestling. He won't leave. He won't walk out. AJ is TNA through and through. The company could book him to lose on Xplosion for the next year, and he would have a smile on his face in doing so backing them. It is nice to have loyal employees, but that loyalty becomes BLIND loyalty at some point.
For Jeremy, it was just a joke. Sting has had a tendency to trust his tag team partners, only to have them turn on him. Years later, it happened a lot in TNA as well. Then for some reason, viewers are supposed to act 'shocked' that someone would betray Sting like that. Even though it happened numerous times before, Sting just kept on believing his new friends (or foes). Gullible indeed...
Again, feel free to let me know if I'm wrong. I wouldn't speak for someone else unless I was VERY confident!
Everybody loves Kevin Nash, right? Stronger Than Train Smoke Ramma Lamma remembers his 2011 WWE return.
Was Kevin Nash supposed to have a longer run in WWE than he actually did most recently? I know he had medical issues preventing him from working with Punk, but it seemed like the whole angle just fizzled out. Seemed like a lot of build that amounted to nothing.
I was hoping to forget that whole mess.
Honestly, his run with WWE did not stray too much from the original plan. Obviously, his scheduled match with CM Punk was scratched after some medical issue was found when going through tests. It had been reported (and verified by Kevin Nash himself) what that was, but we don't need to discuss that. The whole thing was nothing major and as we saw - Nash did have some matches for WWE weeks/months later. In place, Triple H was thrown back into the ring on short notice. From there, everything just started to become screwed up. HHH vs. Punk was one of the finales for the story line, not a pay-per-view match right at the beginning. After that, all parties just wanted to end it as soon as possible.
Punk moved onto the title picture, which was probably going to come a few months down the road after John Cena and Alberto Del Rio finished up feuding for the belt. Once The Game lost his 'power,' it was a clear path to Nash and a blow off to the story. Back to the original question, I think the end game was going to be Nash having his last match in WWE versus Triple H. In a lot of ways, it was fitting. To their credit, their match at the TLC PPV was fairly good for the limitations expected. Outside of the ending pedigree spot, everything ran smoothly. Nash's deal was up a few weeks later (end of the year), and all the stars moved towards the Road to WrestleMania. Punk had his long title reign set, while Triple H was always going to be ready for The Undertaker when he returned.
To end things, I want to go back to the greatest source there is - all of you great readers! Since all of you were so nice last week, I thought another response could use some help. My expertise in Daniel Bryan and his Cattle Mutilation move is very, very, VERY limited. I admit that! Thus, instead of pretending to know what I'm talking about (insert your own joke here), I will go straight to the smartest wrestling fans online - the comment section for 411mania! Here are the pair of questions from Michael:
1) How does the move work and why is it considered so devastating? I remember hearing about it when I had a friend burn some ROH discs for me, and then I saw it and I was like "HUH? That's the move?" Bryan Danielson (as he was known in ROH, so I will use that name) would just grab a guy's arms and roll forward with the guys arms raised about 2 inches from his body. I've seen several examples of the move, and it's always the same thing. I can see if he really wrenched up like Jericho on the "Walls of Jericho" or Steiner on the "Steiner Recliner," but he just kind of lays there without the opponents arms being moved too much. It almost looks as the same motion when someone is putting on a backpack and they have to put their arm back a little to put it over their shoulder, and I never heard anyone scream out in pain when putting a backpack on. Maybe I'm missing it, but it looks pretty lame to me. Yes, I am expecting the Bryan/Danielson lovers to defend the move and say "have you ever been put in this hold? It hurts!" like they sit around and test submission moves on each other.
2)What does the name mean and who came up with the name? Personally, I've never seen a cattle get mutilated so maybe the answer is obvious but if you could clarify, it would be great.
There you go folks! I know there are Daniel Bryan fans reading this. Feel free to answer below. Have at it...
My Darn Opinion
Does WWE need any TNA talent?
This discussion was brought up over the past week. It is nothing new. Fans are always trying to act as if TNA is legitimate competition to WWE. I often wonder they are trying to convince others of that notion or themselves. In any event, the topic is still an interesting one. Does the biggest wrestling company on the planet actually NEED any talent elsewhere?
Remember, this is about need - not want.
On the surface, the answer is an obvious no. WWE is a huge company, draws some of the best weekly cable ratings, and is profitable each and every quarter (three month intervals). To suggest they actually need anything is a bit of a stretch. In the same breath, it is like questioning if the NFL, MLB, UFC, or any leader of their genre needs to sign other outside athletes.
This may seem like an insult towards Sting, Bobby Roode, James Storm, and others in TNA. It is not at all - just a simple reality. Does WWE want any of those guys listed? Yeah, I am sure they do. However, are they bending over backwards, begging for them to sign, and losing sleep over it? Of course not. That is ludicrous. However, I am just one opinion. Tell me what YOU think!
Does WWE need any TNA talent?
Nothing to promote - just Google my name. You will find everything 'ME!' there...