Ask 411 Wrestling 12.04.13: IWA, MITB, WHT, More!
Posted by Mathew Sforcina on 12.04.2013
Why did Vince McMahon feel like he had to screw Bret Hart at Survivor Series '97? Which tape libraries doesn't WWE own? Why isn't the World Title the same as the WCW Title? All this and more covered this week in Ask 411 Wrestling!
Hi there, this is Ask 411 Wrestling, and I think I'm Mathew Sforcina. It might be someone else under this mask.
Nope, still me. Yay.
Anyway, I'm all over 411mania this week, with appearances in Movies Fact and Fiction, and I'll also be returning to 4 Player Co-Op in Games AND I'll be making a very rare appearance in Top 5. So yeah, you've got Me Overload this week.
Email me at email@example.com should you have a question to ask me for the column. Or if you have a trivia question. Or an idea for a gimmick for he Xmas Day edition beyond a Total Opinion Week…
Malenko/Kidman: I've never heard anything about that being a mistake. Kidman was having to work three matches that night, so why wouldn't they make one as short as possible?
Survivor Series 97: No, that was the intended result. Bret just missed a rewrite.
Austin at Final Four: Urban Myth. Austin was NEVER going to win that match, it was always going to be Bret.
Hogan IWGP: Work. Hogan was the plan, Inoki being ‘upset' about it was part of the work. That's come out fairly recently, I recall.
Benoit V Hassan/Radicals V NAO/Storm V Funaki/WWECW Matches: All legit, although those ECW matches with the refs enforcing the rules, we don't know exactly how they were supposed to go down, just not like that.
Men on a Mission/Mickie James/Razor Ramon/Hardcore Holly: All legit accidental title changes, although Hardcore was the only one on TV.
Hogan/Bundy: Only record of anything Hogan V Bundy on Championship Wrestling was the Orndorff Heel Turn. And he wasn't asking for five then.
I still think it's a myth without evidence.
Shoots: Pretty much all that were listed were legit, except for Shamrock/Vader (Shamrock was still learning how to work so it's not really a shoot, just Shamrock being green) and Goldberg/Regal (that was totally not a shoot. That was Regal misunderstanding his orders and Goldberg not getting what was going on.)
Reminder: I'm not Maffew, and I don't answer full questions in the comment section.
The Trivia Crown
I'm a wrestler. One of my former wrestling gimmicks shares something in common with Vince McMahon, Bob Backlund, Ken Anderson and Rob Van Dam. Prior to being announced as hailing from my real hometown, I was billed at least once as hailing from a place which is located in Nevada. My first TV match was against someone who used the same wrestling entrance theme as a former masked wrestler. I've been involved in 5-star matches and worst matches, battled MMA stars, and rappers. Many people see him as kind of a hero, but part of his character reflects qualities of a different hero. Who am I?
Shade keeps it to the point.
Former gimmicks: Mr. P (Mr. McMahon, Mr. Backlund, etc)
Prior billing: Classified?
First tv match: Kurt Angle (The Patriot)
5 Star Matches: CM Punk
Worst Matches: John Laurinaitis
MMA Stars: Brock Lesnar
You are John Cena
I have the question this week.
What am I? I'm a title that lasted under a decade. Twice I changed hands twice in a day, although both times the two changes aired on delayed TV shows. Only one man has held me more than twice, and yet he is only the 4th longest reigning champion in total days held. Around half of my holders also held a world title (of various levels of legitimacy). I was vacated three times, twice for legitimate injuries. I was never unified with another belt, but I was part, on more than one occasion, of a dual championship reign. A title that while never actually changing hands accidentally was booked to have had unexpected title changes, I am What?
Getting Down To Business
notthemountie has a follow up from last week that he emailed in, hint hint.
Good morning. Firstly welcome back - column wasn't the same without you. My question springs out of the column of November 27 - you posted a match between John Tenta and Kitao, where Kitao clearly wasn't playing along. So… what crawled up his ass that night? Was he pissed that the crowd was behind the big, ugly American?
Kitao had a history of being a bit of a temperamental dick. When he was a sumo wrestler, although he reached Yokozuna status, the highest possible, he got expelled for his attitude and actions. And he'd also been fired from New Japan before this WWF/SWS cross over event.
Now, possibly he didn't like that he was booked to lose to Earthquake, who had only spent a year as a Sumo wrestler. But then again they had had a match a couple nights earlier and that had gone all right, so perhaps he was upset that he was jobbing twice.
It almost certainly wasn't anything Tenta did perse, given that the shoot was much more of a "I won't work with you" than a "I kill you!" shoot. When you hate a guy, you slug him one. When you hate the booking or the company you half-ass it.
So probably he just got sick and tired of the business. He was essentially blackballed from it, and only has a very brief MMA career after it. So in all probability he's just a bit of a dick.
Doug (or Kevin) (the question had two names attached…) goes old school.
I recently picked up Gary Hart's book, which is such a great book by the way, and it brought up a few questions I'm hoping you can shed some light on:
Gary writes that the rumor in wrestling was that Jerry Jarrett was the illegitimate son of Roy Welch, who owned Tennessee with Nick Gulas, and that was how Christine Jarrett received shares in the Tennessee office, which allowed Jerry to break away from Gulas and start the CWA/USWA. That would mean Buddy Fuller and Jerry are brothers and Jeff Jarrett, Robert and Ron Fuller, and Jimmy Golden are all cousins. Has this ever been confirmed or acknowledged in any way?
Well, Jerry denies it. His dad was in the Army, and that he and his mother divorced when he was three, with his sole memory of his father being the day he left. Likewise his becoming a partner came from how he would run spot shows as a teenager and then as he was working as a jobber, and soon he was booking/running the western end of the Gulas/Welch empire having bought out a few smaller groups. So he ended up with a share that way. And the ace in the hole is that according to him, his mother didn't start working there until after he was born.
That said, it's a very long standing rumor, and supposedly there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. Many people in the business believed it, and belief is often half the battle in these things.
So there's been official denials. Take that as you will.
Paul Boesch and how he had a lot of heat with the NWA for acknowledging the AWA and WWF as legitimate world titles. Boesch was just a promoter and got his talent from World Class, but he often booked top talent from all the different territories and put them on TV. I would imagine that Houston would have been a pretty cool place for a wrestling fan in the 70's and it got me wondering what film libraries does WWE own? I know they don't have Mid South, but what libraries are in existence that WWE does not own and is Houston one of them?
Well, let's get the obvious out of the way first, in that they don't own any currently active ones, TNA, ROH, all the Indies. Likewise any and all foreign stuff. Just for completeness sake.
That said, there are a few that WWE doesn't own. They now own Mid South, which shows you how old this question is, but apart from that…
Memphis they don't own and almost certainly never will, just due to the sheer mess of legal issues surrounding it. Maybe if they go to everyone involved and toss enough cash there might be a deal, but it's just far too complicated to bother with.
The Savoldi Library was, after Mid South, the largest library not owned by WWE, encompassing IWCCW, their company, WCCW after the Jarrett buyout of 1988, USWA Dallas, Wild West Wrestling and the Global Wrestling Federation. Expect that WWE now owns GWF, but hasn't stated publicly if they own the rest of it or if they just bought that bit for Booker T and friends.
Robert Fuller's stuff like Continental and South-eastern is still not in their grasp, and quite possibly that's now the biggest one they don't have.
Then you have a whole bunch of smaller promotions like Portland, and some Canadian companies.
But you can answer this by working backawards. The History of WWE DVD they just put out shows at one point everyone they currently own, which is (Thanks to one Dan P-170 for this list…)
First row, left to right: WCW, Mid-South, NXT, AWA, Florida Championship Wrestling.
Second row, left to right: Smoky Mountain, ECW, UWF, World Class Championship Wrestling
Third row, left to right: Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling, CWF (using blue "NWA Pro Wrestling" style logo). NWA (using red and white "NWA Pro Wrestling" logo), Stampede Wrestling
Fourth row, left to right: Global Wrestling Federation, Georgia Championship Wrestling, OVW, Deep South Wrestling, UPW.
So basically if it's not on that list, they don't own it.
Gary writes about the emergence of the IWA as the first promotion that attempted to go national. He said that the NWA coordinated top talent from all the territories to run in towns that the IWA was running shows and ultimately shut them down. What was the genesis of Eddie Einhorn and the IWA?
Eddie Einhorn owned and ran the TVS Television Network, which was set up on the back of college basketball games, since the major networks didn't bother with those. So Eddie got the rights and began to syndicate across the country with regional networks picking it up. The service quickly expanded to other sports.
And then came the idea to do wrestling as well. The IWA was a continuation of the National Wrestling Federation, which ran in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio 70-74. Pedro Martinez was brought in to be promoter.
The company was ahead of the curve in many respects, having contracts and signing bonuses for everyone, advanced TV techniques like slow motion and instant replay, and more importantly, a nationally syndicated time slot, which got them some decent talent to start with. The company began Jan ‘75, and ran mostly in Georgia and the Carolinas and then moving to New York and the surrounding areas. It started fairly well, although objectively the wrestling itself was average.
Now the NWA did move to kill the company, as it was an ‘outlaw' company, although that term is often misused. The term outlaw promotion supposedly means any company that didn't recognize the NWA, wasn't part of it. So technically the AWA and WWWF were outlaws. In practice it meant that a company running in NWA territories without permission. The first TV taping was in Savannah, which was a town that was on the border of a few NWA terriroties, so it got shows from all three but no-one really owned it owned it. But then IWA tried running in bigger areas, and the NWA would counter book, and also blocked the company from getting the big venues.
Einhorn blames that as the reason the company failed, why he lost half a million dollars. He couldn't get MSG, The Garden, Nassau Coliseum. So they ran in the second rate venues, which could be hot, or open, and basically not as good.
Einhorn pulled out in October, but a group of talent stuck around, most had already bailed, but some stayed and the IWA ran for another year almost exclusively in North Carolina before folding for good.
So yeah, a national network needed stuff to show, and thought wrestling was a good idea. Hmm. Sounds familiar…
And on the opinion front, what changed in the NWA between the years of the late 70's (when the territories banded together to challenge and shut down the IWA) and the early 80's (when the territories briefly formed the Pro Wrestling USA to fight Vince, only to collapse due to ego, backstabbing, etc)? I understand that the expansion of cable was the change that helped Vince and he had the upper hand, but I don't get why the territories were a united front, ready to fight one year and then a few years later it's every man for himself.
Well there's a difference between the NWA working as a unit and the NWA and others working as a unit. Killing IWA was easy because they were new and trying to run in places the NWA controlled, so they could counter.
See it's not an opinion, just a matter of scale. Although IWA had a national syndication, they didn't run shows on that scale, at least not yet, so they could be beaten before they got too big. WWF on the other hand had the syndication, and the desire, AND were getting major publicity and stars and the like. The NWA by itself couldn't kill it, it would need the combined effort of everyone else to do it. But the problem is that when you bring in guys outside the NWA in, they don't respect the NWA and that's where you get issues.
Both companies had the same idea. But only Vince was poised to pull it off. So it needed a bigger boot to crush it, one that they couldn't make…
And now that I've possibly lost some of you, and spent a lot of time on this, let's go somewhere totally different. Victor?
Great job, as always. Thanks for answering my questions. Anyway, I had a question about Sting's "blink-and-you-missed-it" heel turn in WCW after Fall Brawl 99. I get that they wanted to go in a different direction with Sting (who had never turned heel during the NWA/WCW era and was one of the only guys out there who could truly shock fans by turning heel). But it seemed like WCW just turned him for the shock value and without any kind of buildup or reason (At least Hogan was getting booed by the fans prior to his initial heel turn to form the NWO). As such, the fans didn't really accept it and WCW just kind of dropped it a few months later. What were the original plans for Sting's heel run? I noticed Sid, DDP and Luger all interfered in that match at Fall Brawl. Were there plans to build a stable with those four?
Victor included a video, long gone, so instead here's WCW's insane troll logic video package the night after which, despite my just bagging it, I quite like. At least it tried to make it work…
Thing is, there's a timing issue which makes the question about where they were going with this impossible to answer. Sting turned September 12th, 1999, Fall Brawl. Bischoff was booking at this point. Russo signed onto WCW October 5th. He took over booking.
So any long term plans or ideas are lost, simply because Bischoff got canned and he hasn't said. Possibly he doesn't know. But beyond Sting and Luger as a duo since they were working together/appearing the night after…
Beyond that, could there have been a pseudo-Horsemen with Sting, Luger, Sid and DDP? (The Not Quite As Old As The Other Guys Guys?) Maybe. But I think that's giving them a bit too much credit for forward thinking at the time…
I'm not including this because it is very funny. Nor am I including it because the booking is frankly better than 95% of WWE's recent work. And I'm not even including it for The New York Giants, which is now my new most wanted Kings of Trios team. No, I include this…
Because of the shout out I get in the first minute.
Self-Promotion: With A Vengeance!
And this guy does good work. Check him out.
David talks an infamous Rumble win.
Hi, great column bro, obviously.
My question is regarding the 1999 Royal Rumble which shortly before I started watching wrestling.
I am not sure how this detail has passed me by, but only recently I realised it was won by Vince McMahon (in a very cheap way).
I'm always entertained by reading about dumb stuff WCW did but surely this is every bit as bad as anything they came up with?
How was this received at the time by the fledgling IWC? Frankly I would be incensed if I had paid good money for a Royal Rumble, only for it to be won by a non-wrestler.
OK, I'm going on memory here, which could well be wrong. I mean, in 99 I was getting my news from Rajah for god's sake!
So anyway, 99 Rumble. See, like today, there wasn't one solid opinion. There were camps, like today. But unlike today, there wasn't quite as much diversity. You tended to get the same basic opinions.
WWF fans felt it was fine, in that it made some sense from a dramatic standpoint and the story was told with something vaguely resembling logic.
WCW fans hated it since it was, as you say, bloody stupid.
ECW fans called it a rip off of ECW since to them everything was a rip off of ECW.
And your non-partisan fans tended to think that while the idea wasn't terribly terrible (Vince did have to win some battles…) the execution was bloody horrible.
I mean, even thought this was a full year into Austin/McMahon it was still hot, maybe not quite as hot as when it began but it hadn't reached over saturation yet. People still liked Austin V McMahon. Not for much longer, but at the time it was still something wanted.
But that's what I remember, any old school readers may have another opinion.
Patrick talks time and Montreal.
Thanks for answering one of the my questions. I'm relatively new to the wonderful world of 411 and had no idea that it was asked so frequently. Anyhow, here's another one I'm yet to come across an answer for:
My question is do with structuring and timing of PPV events. I'm sure it's a very difficult job for the bookers/promoters to ensure each match/segment gets sufficient time, while making sure it doesn't run overboard and detract from the time allocated for matches later in the night. Given the spontaneous nature of wrestling, I'm sure there have been innumerable instances of matches/promos overrunning and the rest of the show have to be rearranged as a consequence. However, this seemed occur a disproportionate amount of time in the early 1990s WWF. I'm thinking specifically of Wrestlemanias VIII, IX and X. My old VHS tapes of VIII and IX featured apologies after the event for matches that could not take place due to time constraints (Davey Boy Smith v The Berzerker and Kamala v Bam Bam Bigelow respectively). Wrestlemania X features a backstage segment with the heels arguing over who the team captain should be to explain why the 10 Man Tag match doesn't take place. Why was there such problems with ensuring such a major event ran to schedule? Were these matches cancelled on the night because another match overran, or did Vince or someone else decide to cancel them to make better use of the time a day or so before the PPV? I have heard that WM IX was supposed to feature a longer Hogan-Yoko match, but couldn't because of time constraints.
All were cut on the night, because of time issues. The problem is that a Wrestlemania will have what, 30, 40 people involved in-ring? You can tell each and every one of them to stick to their times, but as a wrestler, even with a ref with a stopwatch, it can be hard to stick to a time. You mess up a spot, you need time to recover. The crowd is really into your match, you may stretch it without realising. And it doesn't have to be long, a few seconds per match adds up.
And that leads to the issue of pre-emption. Say you're halfway through the show, and you're already 5 minutes over schedule. Do you press on and hope to make up the time in bits, or do you bite the bullet and scrap one whole match and put yourself back in the black for a few minutes? Especially for a match with many people that's only there for a payday?
Running a wrestling show, especially a WM, is a very stressful job. You're balancing so many things, time is just one of them. And sometimes you gotta make a call to ensure you don't end up with a WMIX where your big huge match at the end is only 30 seconds long…
Now I'm going to bore you with a Montreal question. I'm sure this has been answered, but it only occurred to me recently, so if you can find the time to answer it, I'd be very grateful. Basically, when did it become apparent that Bret didn't want to job to Shawn in Canada? Why set up the match if they knew they couldn't get the result they wanted? Did Vince think he could convince Bret to drop the belt to Shawn in the month between Badd Blood and Survivor Series? I have heard that Bret would have been happy enough to lose to someone he was better disposed to. If this is the case, why didn't they have someone else beat Bret and then drop the belt to Shawn soon afterwards? (Undertaker springs to mind as someone with enough credibility to pull off a transitional reign and someone who Bret would have respected). How did WWF get themselves in a bind, whereby Michaels had to be the one to beat Bret and thus, Bret had to be screwed?
I've always maintained that had I been there, Bret drops the belt to Mankind then Shawn beats Mick while Bret gets dropped on his head a half dozen times by Kane. And I kill the company since that way removes the start of Mr. McMahon, but hey…
I agree with Cornette…
Why not get it off him the second you let him negotiate with the competition?
Anyway, the timeline runs roughly like this.
September 22nd, after a few weeks of back and forth, Vince tells Bret he's going to breach the contract, and gives Bret permission to tender an offer from WCW.
October 5th, Shawn wins #1 Contendership in Hell in a Cell, Shawn V Bret/Champ at Survivor Series set in stone.
October 11th, Shawn and Bret's working agreement breaks down as far as Bret is concerned when Shawn goes personal on a Raw, and also tells Bret he won't put him over (supposedly).
October 24th, Vince says he'll be able to pay Bret. Bret agrees to stay.
October 31st, Bret comes back a day early from the Omar tour and gets an offer from Bischoff that would be hard to give up.
November 1st, Bret and Vince go back and forth. Bret is more interested in where his character is going, not so much the money. Vince can't give him definite answers, but does bring up dropping the belt to Shawn and winning it back next month in Springfield at De-Generation X PPV. Bret is hesitant to sign with WCW, but given the deal he got was even better, and Vince's plans weren't to his liking, he signed to WCW, with agreements on all sides not to reveal it before Survivor Series.
November 2nd is when things get complicated. Bret refuses to lose at Survivor Series or day after on Raw, saying he wouldn't job in Canada. He offered to put Shawn over the week after in MSG, or Springfield, or any time after. Vince made legal threats, Bret responded with the ‘Reasonable Creative Control' clause.
And then the story got out, and Vince panicked, saying he had to get the belt off of Bret ASAP, but Bret said he'd make sure Bischoff didn't make any announcement and, according to Jimmy above, saying that the PPV was built around him as champ, you couldn't change it prior.
Then after a few days of back and forth and meeting after meeting, November 9th rolled around, and the screwjob occurred.
So basically by the time they knew they had a problem the match was announced and they didn't want to change it, and neither side was willing to give.
Mr. Ace Crusher asks a simple question.
Hi Mr. Sforcina, love the column as always. Byers does a great job too when he has to take over.
Is there a particular reason given by the WWE why the World Heavyweight Title doesn't have it's lineage stretch back to include the WCW title history? I mean they kept the WCW title during the invasion where Jericho, Angle, and the Rock were the last holders of it, so why did they not keep the lineage when they recommissioned the title?
Technically it is a new title belt, but they would have an already built in credibility if the kept the lineage and could mention 'this same belt was held by Ric Flair, Dusty Rhodes, Harley Race etc' in promos. Is there a specific reason why the WWE chose to start a new title lineage rather than pick up one they already owned?
Sometimes they do say it is part of it, sometimes they don't. Depends on the day and context.
The kayfabe reason is that although it shares a history, the WCW Title was merged with the WWE Title at Vengeance 2001, they became one title, the Undisputed WWE Championship. Eric didn't have the right to just take out part of the title. So, while using the name/belt of the old title, it was still a ‘new' championship, so it doesn't count.
The shoot reason? Possibly just a case of them wanting to own the whole lineage, maybe they don't want to associate Vince Russo and David Arquette with their championship, or just plain whim. We haven't gotten a full answer, beyond the fact that it was a last second thing, since the original plan was to build up the IC title, hence all of its unifications (even if they retroactively made the US title match not a unification match).
Ben and Nightwolf both had the same basic question.
Stone Cold beating up Booker T in a Grocery Store, Stone Cold beating up Vince Mcmahon in a hosptial, Big Show chokeslamming John Cena through a spot light, these are just some insane moments that have defined WWE. My question is: How does WWE get away with doing stuff like this? Is there some type of agreement between WWE and some people?
Sure there is. And hell, you could to if you wanted.
Film crews and TV shows and music videos, people hire places all the time. If you need to film a scene of someone dying in an apartment, for instance, you call up apartment blocks until you find one willing to let you film there for a fee.
So in all those cases, WWE has hired the place for a shoot, filmed their things and then left, paying for damages/eaten food on the way out. Standard practice. They aren't going in and hoping, it's all planned and sorted.
Joshua talks rules.
Dear Ryan and Mat:
I've been a wrestling fan since 1989, and one of the first things that I wondered about was this: when Brutus The Barber applied his sleeper hold, the referee would raise the opponent's hand three times before deeming the match over. But when Ted DiBiase applied his Million Dollar Dream cobra clutch, the referee only needed to raise the opponent's hand once. I never heard a commentator explain this. There must be a kayfabe reason for this, do you have any ideas?
Be the Ball,
Kayfabe justification… Hmm.
*puts on thinking cap*
The move was so dangerous that the ref only wants to check once because leaving it longer might cause permanent damage.
Or, the ref uses his discretion, if a move is clearly painful he is allowed to check once only.
OR, the sleeper is knocking people out. The Clutch is a submission hold. So the requirements are different. You check a sleeper to see if someone is out. You check a submission to see if they give up. Different.
Take your pick. Or maybe someone below has a better idea…
One Man's (Important) Opinion
Dean has an idea.
Just an opinion based question from one Aussie to another: say a MITB contract holder suffers an injury early on in his "reign" which will put him on the shelf for mid-long term. Instead of doing what they rushed to do with Kennedy and give it off to someone else immediately, what if WWE had the holder say he's actually sold the contract to another superstar for a huge sum, on the condition of the buyer remaining anonymous.
That way WWE could monitor the situation over who would benefit from the contract as the year goes on, use it as a way to turn someone face/heel, give it to a newcomer/returning star or if the original holder recovers faster than expected, have him cash it in. Whatever happens it would be a genuine surprise. Do you think that would work, if not what would you do if next year a MITB contract holder gets hurt?
That's actually an idea I've had, one of my two MITB ideas (the other being the "Hello Champion, I'm Now Your Shadow" storyline I've posted before.). So yeah, it could work, although I'd like them to have an idea ahead of time. Have a plan, but be willing to change it.
As for what I'd do, well I'd do the above, but if I was forced to do something different…
If the champ is heel, have him come out with his title… And the briefcase. See, he beat up the winner, and now he holds the contract. And see, he spoke to the GM before the match, and made sure to indicate that only this case, this specific contract, is valid, and only when signed. So sorry *injured party*, but unless you can get this back from me, you're screwed.
And then Renee asks what's stopping someone stealing it off him, signing it, and cashing in.
The heel champ stares at her, then runs off.
And you begin a long paranoid period for the champ, he constantly looks over his shoulder, until eventually someone gets it, signs it, cashes in.
But yeah, I'd go with yours first.
Ross wants to talk returns.
Which former star/s do you think would be capable of contributing something of worth to the current WWE roster, and in which scenario/role do you think your selection would be most effective? Age or physical limitations is of no concern if you think your selection could still contribute in a non-wrestling role.
Keep up the good work and many thanks,
Only on-air? Because my default position is that if I was WWE I'd hire a large room somewhere and get the largest possible combination of Jake Roberts, Scott Hall, Arn Anderson, Ric Flair, Jim Ross, Steve Austin, Pat Patterson, Bill Watts, Paul Heyman, Mick Foley, Jim Cornette, Shane McMahon and Vince Russo in that room. Give them all the coffee they need and ask them to think about wrestling for a bit. Leave and come back in a few weeks and see what they come up with.
But as for on-air… Well obviously I'd love to see Victoria back running the Divas division, or Trish who I suspect would be a better option but not my pick because she's not my Goddess. But overall, I think a guy like MVP would have a lot more to offer now as a in ring guy, but then would he be used to his potential?
So let's just say that in the hopes that it would help him solidify his new found path in life, Jake Roberts as the new Authority figure please.
What about you guys? Who do you want to return? Let us know below, for we are out of time this week. See you next week True Believers!