Ask 411 Wrestling 06.04.14: Ted's Money, Cena's Jobs, More!
Posted by Mathew Sforcina on 06.04.2014
Does John Cena job out too much for other talent? Why did WWE stop doing King of the Ring? Why is Damien Sandow being buried? Was the InVasion doomed to fail? All this and more covered this week in Ask 411 Wrestling!
Hello and welcome to Ask 411 Wrestling and I'm Mathew Sforcina, and I've got a promotion at Boring Day Job! Yay!
*blows party favour*
Basically the same job, but my hours have extended.
Total Opinion Week this week as I'm now getting used to having less hours to do this in. I should be OK once my body clock has adjusted but until then… Yeah.
Nothing really major, although there might be some this week…
The Trivia Crown
What am I? I'm a tournament that concluded on PPV. The two men who fought in the finals were the only two to get byes in the tourney, albeit at different rounds. One match in me was decided when an entrant attacked the ref (who would later go on to be more than just a ref) to draw a DQ. One match featured two men with a similar nomenclature, one of whom was the last man to qualify to the second round. The winner of me got attacked after the victory, after wrestling the two longest matches in me back to back (to back, sort of). I am what?
Maravilloso has both this answer and our next question.
What am I? I'm a tournament that concluded on PPV. The two men who fought in the finals were the only two to get byes in the tourney, albeit at different rounds. (BRET HART -1st. Round AND BAM BAM BIGELOW - Semifinals)
One match in me was decided when an entrant attacked the ref (who would later go on to be more than just a ref) to draw a DQ. (GIANT GONZALEZ ATTACKED BILL ALFONSO, WHO LATER BECAME A SUCCESSFUL MANAGER)
One match featured two men with a similar nomenclature, (MR. HUGHES AND MR. PERFECT) one of whom was the last man to qualify to the second round. (PERFECT) The winner (BRET HART) of me got attacked after the victory (BY JERRY LAWLER), after wrestling the two longest matches in me back to back (to back, sort of) (AGAINST PERFECT AND BIGELOW). I am what?
KING OF THE RING 1993
And this week's…
I am still an active wrestler. Although many would remember me as more of an enhancement talent in major wrestling promotions, I've won singles and tag team titles from future world champions, future ECW legends and legendary hardcore wrestlers. I was the opponent of a Hall of Famer when he debuted in a major wrestling company and that Hall of Famer did something many people felt very happy when he did that. I've teamed with felines, porn stars, firefighters and once lost a mask to a former US Champion and Tag Team titlist. One more thing: my real first name is the same as the gimmick first name of a man who likes war and did win a major title and another "major" title which is no longer active. Who am I?
The Ask 411 Ultimate Summerslam!
I'm gonna feel like a heel (not the good kind) whatever I do here, so I'll just come out and take the flack now. As I said up there, I got longer hours at work. That's good for the hip pocket and all that… But right now it's taken out a good chunk of what little spare time I have. Toss in a new commitment that I cannot give up, and I've basically got not enough time to do this sort of thing justice, I don't think. So, with a heavy heart, I'm cancelling the show here, before we get deeper in and I know I can't do it. I sincerely apologize to those who voted and were looking forward to it, but I just don't want to do something like this half-assed. I leave my half-assery to the column proper.
Getting Down To Business/One Man's (Important) Opinion
Bud starts us off with a question about tapping out. Appropriate.
Do you think tapping out and submission wins are used too much nowadays. Big E tapping out to Rusev got me thinking.
Sure, it SHOULD get Rusev over as a monster, but they just completely derailed Big E of being a monster face. It's even worse with heels. Would Piper have been the biggest heel ever had we seen him tapping out or screaming yes to stop a match due to pain? Looks what not submitting did for Austin. Even Flair supposedly told Miz when he gave him the Figure 4, "hopefully they let you beat people with this, they never let me." He was right, usually it was jobbers, but to me that protected the big guys. Could you imagine him making a prime "American Dream" quit?
I'm not sure if submissions have become much more common in recent years than in years past, but an argument for an increase is simple, MMA. In today's world, people are more accepting of a submission finish than they were because they've seen and understand that tapping out isn't THAT big a deal.
However, I think submissions are certainly something that needs to be done in moderation. You shouldn't have more than a few guys using submission finishers at any one time, just because you don't want too many people tapping out all the time.
And sure, not ever tapping can help a guy, but then having a strong submission hold also helps a guy. Bret got over a lot more once WWE got the Sharpshooter over, Chris Masters before he was good was almost totally over based on the Masterlock, and Bryan getting the tap out at WM twice was a hell of a moment. Submission holds aren't inherently bad or good, they are just another arrow in the quiver, one that can be overused and become a liability.
That said, the secret of the Figure Four was that is wasn't really a submission hold. Sure, jobbers would tap out, but for guys like the Dream and what have you, they can pass out or just get pinned by them. That's something I'd like to see more of, holds where you don't tap, you just pass out and end up getting pinned, like Mr Socko near the end there, pinning holds rather than submission holds.
Heels and faces can recover from tapping out. Do it too often and yes, it's a problem. But the occasional tap out is fine, especially in modern day wrestling. Big E will not be too derailed, unless WWE fails to re-rail him.
Eric has a few questions.
1) What is in your damn opinion, the absolute WORST story line you've ever bared? Of course you sat through it because you're a wrestling fan and not a casual guy who can just flip the channel mind you. The whole time you're watching, you're just like, "Dear Lord in Heaven END THIS." Chavo/Hornswoggle comes to mind, but I know there's far worse out there. So, worst story line ever? Not limited to WWE, although they're responsible for a vast majority of them!
No, actually, that just pissed me off. Plus there were highlights there, I guess.
It's still fairly recent, so maybe it's just it being fresh in the mind, but the Lawler V Cole feud just kept going and going and going, plus it seemed to take up so much time since they were doing commentary on most of the shows and thus they ended up ‘feuding' for a lot more time than people would be otherwise. Chavo/Hornswoggle was stupid, sure, but it was just one segment at a time. King and Cole would yell at each other in almost every segment, it seemed like.
Of course, there's probably been worse that I've blocked from my memory, repression of the horror and all that, but Cole/Lawler just never had any real positives and dragged down a lot with it.
2) Have you ever thought about devoting a column, maybe once a year to just one reader's questions? Maybe for the guy that answers the most trivia, or perhaps have some kind of contest where the result is having the reader ask any 10 questions he or she wants?
I accept the occasional email with a dozen or so questions that I either split up or just run through regardless, so I'm not sure how big a prize that is. Plus once one person posts the answer, do I accept every other entrant? Not that it matters, Maravilloso would win…
I dunno, do people even want special editions? My previous attempts at theme episodes have been… Not unbridled success stories, but I am here at the will of the people, so by all means if you, the people, want this or something like it let me know below or by email.
3) What in the hell are they doing with Damien Sandow? Did I miss something? Usually in these angles they acknowledge the person doing the chameleon gimmick is doing the chameleon gimmick. On RAW, no mention was made that Sandow was Davey Crockett.
Sometimes it can be hard to work out what WWE expects to happen with a gimmick. Normally with dress up gimmicks, it's clear if the person is having fun playing around (and thus we cheer Hulk Show),
Or if they are mocking someone (and thus we boo Dustydust).
Sandow… Is probably supposed to be mocking whoever, but it's not really coming across well. I guess they assume that his appearance will be enough to get a reaction but the thing about this sort of gimmick is that you gotta make sure that anyone who doesn't get the reference still has a hook. At least this week with the Pacers he was blatant with the ‘Your Team Sucks' concept.
I really feel for Sandow, the guy got screwed over so bad by Goldust.
Not deliberately, but the whole point of his MITB win was for Cody to take it off him. So when Cody instead moved onto tagging with his brother, Sandow was left with a case WWE didn't want him to have and somehow resented him holding. And then the Cena match which was total BS (Cena's lost to cash in before and been just fine. Sandow being World Champ for a week wouldn't have hurt Cena, hell, bump up his numbers…), and now he's… Well he's getting airtime, which is more than can be said for several guys. So I guess that's a positive?
The problem is that WWE saw Sandow as a talent, and then proceeded to remove everything about him that was working. Robe? Gone. Cartwheels? Gone. Way he holds his mic? Gone. Sure, he's still got talent and ability, but without all the stuff that made him stand out… He don't stand out no more. Funny that.
So no, you haven't missed anything, WWE just seems to think this will get Sandow over. So… Least they're trying…
(Oh yes, they are very trying indeed…)
Nightwolf has three questions.
1. Can you tell me what led to this promo please
Sure, basically Jim Cornette was breathing, thus he was pissed off about some things.
OK, OK. In 97, Cornette was working as a color commentator on various WWF TV shows, and he appeared on the WWF's fledging internet radio show (I believe it was Byte This but it's neither here nor there) where he gave his opinion about WCW.
He wasn't too kind.
Vince McMahon heard about it, and liked it, and so gave Cornette time on air to do the same thing. Clearly Cornette had somewhat free reign since he insulted and praised both sides of the war. Of course, after a few weeks of him giving his opinion, the work kicked in fuller and he began the NWA Invasion angle.
And that didn't go so well either.
2. What is the longest a Stable has stayed together in wrestling before being disbanded?
The Freebirds would be the team that I'd jump to first, as they debuted in 1979 and didn't disband till 1994, for 15 years, which is pretty long in wrestling. But then, what constitutes a stable? Does a tag team with a manager count as one? Or a tag team with rotating members? Because if you count that, then the Road Warriors were together for 22 years, and that's gotta be almost impossible to beat.
Unless you count The Kliq…
3. In your opinion who would you rather see lead the WWE: Triple H or Shane Mcmahon and why?
In an ideal world, both men working together. They both have positives and negatives, and with Shane running the business side and Hunter the creative, that would be my ideal situation.
But put a gun to my head… It comes down to what aspect of the business you're asking about. See, who leads the company changes a lot of things, it changes the on-air product, changes the backstage situation, how the company is run… Things change with the boss. And so while I would probably prefer Hunter running the show in terms of how it would then flow onto screen, overall I'd go with Shane.
Mainly because of how the WWE is run now, and the fact that they are a public company, and you have to deal with the business world. And to the business world, Shane is probably a ‘better' bet. Wall Street doesn't seem to like the idea of a wrestling taking over, so if Hunter took over, WWE would be watched like a hawk and the minute a problem arose everyone would say this proved Hunter was an idiot and while there'd be no direct impact, a drop in the share price bad enough will cause panic.
Panic in WWE is not good. Back against the wall swinging for the fences may be, but panic, no. So I'd rather have Shane there just so the business world would back off, and hope that led to a company that could focus on putting out a good product that I'd like to support financially as a fan or, since we're talking dream world here, be a part of as a talent.
Jefferson D'Arcy wants to ask about a specific color.
What's with the recent fascination with wrestlers wearing predominantly grey gear? It doesn't anger me or anything, it's just an ugly color that looks even uglier matched with blues, greens, and orange (Sheamus, as of late). It seems to be a 'thing' now, and has been for the last few years. Davey Richards wore grey in ROH, as do Kyle O'Reilly and Bobby Fish. Zack Ryder's done it, Sheamus as I mentioned, CM Punk. I think Zema Ion in TNA, and possibly Austin Aries as well. And I'm sure countless others. I'm just curious as to why wearing predominantly grey gear is so popular lately. I think it looks atrocious.
Wrestlers aren't normally fashion plates, by any means, but there are trends in wrestling just like any other part of life. Certain color schemes and design types come and go out of fashion, just like in normal life. A few years ago, everyone and their mother had red and black gear (including me), and there was a move away from long tights to shorts (not me). But over time, people want to stand out and look different, but you want dark colors as a rule, because bright colors look dirty very easily. So if you want to stand out but still want a dark color, grey is as good an option as any other.
But that's just a guess. Maybe everyone who wears it thinks it looks smashing.
Kinda hoped he'd chuck 30 on the end, but one megamix of these things is cool.
Yeah, we need more of these ASAP.
Adrian asks a huge question.
We all know how WWE won the Monday night war and how terrible they handled the whole invasion angle. How do you think it would have went if WCW had won? Of course you'd have to forget they botched up the majority of their angles from 99-01 and were on a hot streak ala WWF for the same time period. Would they have messed up characters like WWF did with DDP, Booker and the like ?
That has a lot of factors you have to nail down to answer, in that while they have a ‘hot streak', is that because they bounce Eric quicker or because the fans don't turn on the nWo or Hogan and his buddies all help put over the young guys or… So many factors played into WCW dying that to ask what if they'd won you need to work out so many reasons why they would not die.
That said, short term they'd probably have done it better, simply because they had track records in their past of what not to do (UWF/NWA) and what to do (nWo/WCW) so short term they'd have a better idea on how to work an InVasion angle, although it would end up feeling like nWo Version 24236 but then WCW would absolutely shell out the money to bring in Austin and Taker and Rock and the like.
But then you hit the AOL/Time Warner merger. Sure, they got sold because they were losing money hand over fist in the real world, but even if you assume they made lots and lots of money in this hypothetical, you still have the problem of huge levels of bureaucracy above you, many of them business minded people with no creative understanding, and wrestling always has an image problem, AND you've lost your money mark in Ted Turner. Jamie Kellner may not have been as quick a fatal bullet as he was, but WCW was always on shaky ground the moment Turner lost final say. No matter how well it may or may not have been going, someone is always going to say "Do we really want to be in the rassling business?"
WCW probably would have done it better though, in terms of the on-air product. WCW's fans liked strong heels, would be more than willing to boo WWF guys on sight, and WCW would have brought in almost everyone important and kept them strong. So sure, it would have worked better, until egos got in the way and/or they kept stringing it out too long…
Ben asks about selling.
I recall a movie on Jesse Ventura's life from several years ago where he asked his trainer if he was ready to wrestle. The trainer told him no because he couldn't sell… I even remember HHH telling a tough enough competitor that "if he sold like that in the ring he would tag him for real"!
Regarding selling…. In your opinion, who would you consider (over the years) to basically be "sucky salesman"?
I'm biased though, because to me, no-selling is far worse than just bad selling. I mean, Scott Hall would always sell… Interestingly when he did sell…
But that's much better than the waves of guys who will token sell by holding a body part before or after a move then hop around with said body part acting fine, then maybe they'll hold the body part again later. Maybe. But then again, if your gimmick is an unstoppable monster, then maybe you shouldn't sell too much… But Vader sold. If Vader can sell, you can sell.
But outside the blur of indy spot monkeys/generic power guys, you're left with guys like Mongo, El Gigatne, Khali, the usual suspects of guys who are just horrible at the wrestling overall. Most of the time if you know what you're doing, you sell ok, and if you don't, you probably suck at selling. Great wrestlers who sell poorly are fairly rare. And even then they have gimmick issues at play, like Cena. Not that I agree that Cena shouldn't sell, just that I see the argument as to why he shouldn't.
But that's just me. Goofy is better than none at all for me when it comes to selling. Your mileage will vary.
James follows on from a question from above (as well as asking if Vince was really a good businessman, but we covered that last week.)
1. Is there realistically any way the Invasion storyline could have worked? It seems like the biggest angle of all time in theory but unless Vince buying WCW
and absorbing ECW is somehow kept secret, who keeps tuning in to see how the angle develops? The Monday Night Wars drew ratings precisely because it was two different companies actually competing. It seems to me it was always going to have to be what eventually did happen (bring in Goldberg, bring in the nWo, try ECW again, and everything else piece by piece not everybody and everything all at once).
There is this viewpoint out there that it had to be ‘real', that people had to believe that this was a war for the InVasion to work. After all, that's what sold the nWo angle, right? Jim Cornette in his Guest Booker with Kayfabe Commentaries certainly goes this route.
And with all due respect, it's wrong. At least from where I sit.
You don't need to believe that these people really hate each other, you don't need to make it seem like there's actual drama, because the fanbase will provide it themselves. WWF V WCW (V ECW) doesn't need to be secret, it just needs to happen in a way that doesn't actively turn off fans of one/two of the companies involved. Fans spent years thinking and dreaming and wondering what would happen, and they had a chance to do it. There was plenty they could have done to improve it, hiring bigger names, keeping the rosters less diluted, have WCW/ECW win most of the time, but at the end of the day, all you had to do was have the two or three sides shown to be on roughly the same level and treated with the same amount of respect and have them fight. The audience would fill in the rest.
The InVasion should have been idiot-proof, but like the saying goes, there's always a bigger, faster idiot. DDP, Booker and Lance Storm weren't the biggest stars WCW had, sure, but they were no more or less big than Nash and Hall when they jumped ship. You position them as the equal of Rock, Austin and Taker and people will buy it. You sell them as the guy with the unbeatable snap move, the WCW leader and a technical genius, and people will buy it. You treat WCW as an entity that could win, and people will want to give you money.
At least, that's the theory. Obviously we'll never know for sure, but given how well the nWo angle did for WCW, there is obvious evidence that the InVasion should have worked. People didn't need to be surprised as much as they had to be entertained. And the InVasion gave you literally hundreds if not thousands of brand new matches that had never occurred, with huge stakes and brand loyalty backing it up. It should have been a slam dunk, and there's no real reason to think it wouldn't have worked.
But again, that's from where I sit.
Raza asks about Cena and if jobbing has hurt him.
My first questions is that WWE always claimed that Cena is exactly at the level where Hogan and Austin were used to be at their prime. But then again, in the recent years Cena product has not raised up to that high level (even booed by the fans on numerous occasion) and WWE is aware of this situation. For me, it is not Cena's fault as one of the main reason is that he has made to lose/job some of the major matches cleanly (viz Sheamus at TLC 2009, Miz at WrestleMania XXVIII, CM Punk at Summerslam 2011, Bryan at Summerslam 2013 and the most recent and severe of them all against Orton at TLC 2013-more so people are speculating that he may be face Undertaker at WM 30 and thus ‘the Streak' may be continued).
Hogan and Austin, for that matter, hardly made to loss cleanly when they were the topmost star of WWE as they lost only handful of matches (for e.g Hogan ruined his memories for one of his clean loss to Warrior at Wrestlemania 6 in his prime). Like wise Bret has only two clean losses i.e. British Bulldog at Summerslam 1992 and Michaels at Wrestlemania XII. Obviously when WWE creating stars like Sheamus, Punk and Bryan at the cost of Cena then how would they expect him to rise to the highest ever level. Even if it was a creative decision to make Cena lose those matches, WWE could have done it through some run-ins or cheap-shots so that Cena character would not look weaker. Its look as if Cena has as slightly less effective creative control clause in his contract as compare to other top stars had in past. Your thoughts?
No, I don't think Cena jobbing so much is the problem. Certainly you suggest that in most places online and you'll get torn to ribbons before you finished your second line.
First of all, expecting Cena to bring you the same level of success as Hogan and Austin is unfair, in that expecting anyone to do that is asking a lot, especially in a world where there is a lot more media out there to consume, and a much faster pace to absorb it. No-one is going to be able to be another Hogan or Austin without some massive overhaul as to what we consider a wrestler to be, like Hogan and Austin were. And in this day and age, that's seemingly impossible.
Cena cannot be the next Hogan/Austin, but he is the single biggest name in wrestling today, and he moves a ton of merch doing so and is beloved by kids. That's all you can ask of anyone today. Him jobbing less would not change that, and only lead to more people complaining about Super Cena.
Cena as a character hasn't changed much in the past 9 or so years he's been on top. It's understandable why, and no-one sane is expecting an Austin level change, but Hogan had the benefit of appearing once a month on TV and maybe once a year live near you, plus the occasional PPV. Cena is on screen a LOT more, and thus he needs to be a lot more dynamic.
And he ain't.
If he was, it probably wouldn't lead to him becoming a global icon, but it almost certainly wouldn't hurt…
My second question is that what I understand that Ultimate Warrior was never presented as a heel in his short career in WWE and WCW. If it is true then is there any others top star has achieved this feet in his entire career ?
Warrior was a heel when he first started out.
But entire career without turning? Ricky Steamboat is the default answer here. He never turned heel. Everyone else tends to have some obscure small run near the start of their career. Tito Santana and Hillbilly Jim also are probably lifer faces. In terms of heels, right now it's down to guys like Bad News Barrett.
Kevin has a couple questions.
Why is there no more King of the Ring? Yes, not all winners went on the become trailblazers, but it was interesting and with the really good mid card WWE possesses currently, wouldn't it make sense? Maybe make the winner the #1 contender at for the I.C. Title or something?
They do bring it out every few years or so. And I loved the thing they did the last PPV, where the winner got the Summerslam title shot, that seemed good to me, Rumble > Wrestlemania, KOTR > Summerslam, and then hell, Night of Champions now > Survivor Series, have a gauntlet match or a scramble or something, and MITB is a floater.
Anyway, the PPV no longer exists because WWE feels that tournaments don't draw in of themselves. The problem with tournaments is that you can't announce and promote matches ahead of time. You can only sell a tournament, and in WWE's opinion, that doesn't draw attention for a PPV.
As for why they aren't running the tournament now, no clue. In an era where they (sometimes) want to differentiate Raws, running a KOTR Raw seems like a gimme. All right, yearly if it isn't a PPV is debateable, but not running it for 4 years is just insane. They better run it this year, and I fully expect a Rollins V Ambrose finals when they do.
Why do no professional wrestler wear regular gym shorts? I get some gear relating to a performers' character, but wouldn't gym shorts let some one stand out when 75% of the roster sports short tights?
Depending on what sort of shorts you mean, I'm sure someone has worn them before, Triple H wore the sort I assume you're talking about during his groin injury period.
But the reason most guys don't wear stuff like that is the "Sclubb off the street" rule. Basically, it is drilled into you by your trainer (usually) that unless you have a really good gimmick reason, you should look better than anyone in the audience. You should look above them, not part of them. And so wearing gym shorts or anything that is stuff you can get off the rack is not good enough. And if you mean the Triple H Groin style shorts that come to above the knee, I'm not sure.
Again, there are preferences and tastes in ring gear, but it sorta looks like you outgrew it or that you couldn't decide between long and short? It's unusual, and unusual isn't always great. I guess, I mean, I can't really tell you why wrestlers as a whole have decided something since we haven't, we've just all made a choice that seems to be fairly universal but was made independently of each other in terms of consultation.
Dave asks about love. Twue love…
Just finished watching a clip of the Macho Man, Elizabeth reunion from Wrestlemania VII, and looking at the crowd and their reactions, it was a touching moment for some of the audience. Do you think a similar plot line where a beloved Superstar in a solid relationship with a female could work today? I'm not talking about one where they are both heels or comedy acts, but rather one that shows the audience that there's something to be said for the loyalty and love of a great woman in a man's life.
And the loyalty and love of a great man in a woman's life too, for the record. Or a man in a man's life and a woman in a woman's life if they're so inclined. Love is not a one way street, it's a very complicated infinite-way intersection.
Now, obviously this was sent before Daniel and Brie became a couple like they are now (Danrie? Briel?) so the answer is sorta answered now but…
Of course a solid romantic relationship can work as a storyline. It's one of the founding blocks of life, and something that everyone experiences or at least understands (… Mostly. I can't speak for some corners of the internet here…) and thus having a loving, stable relationship in wrestling can work, although sooner or later there has to be trouble, simply due to the nature of the beast of wrestling.
That said, I ain't expecting it in WWE anytime soon. WWE seems to think that family friendly must mean that romance has to be treated like everyone is 5 years old most of the time, hence the Emma/Santino… ‘relationship'. So an adult, stable relationship might be asking too much of them here. Then again, Brie and Daniel seem to be ok so far, so who knows.
Jay asks about Vince V Ted.
Why, during the period that WWE was getting stomped in the ratings by WCW, did Vince attempt to play the "poor millionaire" card, claiming that WCW was only winning the war because they had "Ted Turner's money" and were able to sign his talent away. He would then claim during interviews that Turner had some personal vendetta against him, and was trying to put WWE out of business.
Since defeating and then purchasing WCW, McMahon has done his best to put his proverbial foot to the throat of any entity that could even be considered "competition".
Why does it seem that Vince believes that "all is fair in love and war", unless it happens to be Vince on the hard end of it? It seems like Vince made the feud personal between himself and Ted Turner (who, at the time, had many other irons in the fire besides pro wrestling).
Also, do you think that Vince was really on Turner's radar (meaning did Turner really have a personal desire to crush Vince's empire, or did Vince feel that he had to target Turner in these interviews rather than Eric Bischoff, who Vince probably felt was beneath him)?
Absolutely Vince is hypocritical and complains about stuff he turns around and does the same if not worse than. But then that's part of life, people will often feel threatened by something but not see or understand that they do the same thing to other people. Empathy is not a skill that is highly valued in the business world, unless it's being used to understand the consumer and how to manipulate them.
Vince has done a lot in wrestling, and a lot of it is morally questionable. So if you choose to question it, go ahead, and certainly him complaining about Turner's practices is pretty obvious a place to hit in the list. He may not knowingly be doing it in terms of going out to lie, I'm no psychoanalyst, but it can be rather breathtaking at times.
Now that I've probably killed my employment chances…
Turner had a soft sport for wrestling, as it was a major part of the initial growth of WTCG/WTBS as a network, he felt attachment to the business since it helped him, he'd stick with it. Now, while Vince went after Ted due to name value and because it was an easier sell ("Billionaire wants to put me out of business" is easier to swallow than "Obscure producer wants to put me out of business") as an concept, by most accounts Ted wanted to win, but he didn't want to crush, if that makes any sense. He wanted to compete with WWF and then beat WWF, but had you given him a "Press this button, pay $100,000,000 and Vince McMahon will be ruined for life" he'd probably not press it. Bischoff would, and the other way round Vince probably would, but Turner wanted the win, Bischoff felt it had to be a kill, and Vince got the last laugh.
Matt has a few questions.
1) What moment turned you from a casual fan to a diehard fan? For me, it was an episode of Superstars when the Berzerker nearly ran the Underaker through with his sword.
Hmm. I tend to default to HHH/Cactus, Royal Rumble 2000, but that was the moment that made me want to be a wrestler, not so much made me a diehard fan…
The moment that probably sealed me is a weird one, but it's the moment where Fit Finlay won the WCW TV Title from Booker T thanks to Benoit's distraction. I know that sounds bizarre, but that moment seemed so cool to me at the time, as manipulating a title by putting it on another guy to spite the guy you hate, followed by that excellent Best of Seven series, that was what hooked me for good.
Of course now Benoit is a bad person and all that, but I'm pretty sure that was the moment that turned me from just a fan to a Fan.
2) How long will it take someone in WWE to realize that despite not being a team, Big Show and Jack Swagger wear matching singlets?
To be fair, since this has been asked (by multiple people) Show has moved away from camo. But any similarity in their gear is just one of those things that obviously is allowed since no-one's going to confuse the two. Ideally everyone should look totall different, sure, but there's a limit to how many cuts you can get in an outfit…
3) What is your favorite aspect of wrestling from a prior generation or era that no longer seems as prominent? For me it would be the quality of commentary in WWE. (I'm watching Old School and listening to Monsoon and Heenan go at it, and it's lightyears beyond Cole and JBL mumbling under their breaths.)
Yeah, as much as I like managers and old school recaps and interview segments and such, commentary has to be the top of the list simply due to how badly it's handled now. The mainstream commentary team just annoys the hell out of me, and that's not a good thing. A return to good commentary would be a most welcome change. Ask me this again once it occurs, please.
But what about you, dear reader? What do you miss most? Let us know below, and I'll be back next week, adjusted and ready to get back to full strength. Until then…