411 Fact or Fiction 10.23.08: Hulk Hogan’s Celebrity Wrestling, HBK vs. Jericho, Jeff Hardy Being Tardy and More!

Posted by Larry Csonka on 10.23.2008

Week TWO HUNDRED and ONE features Kristopher Rodriguez, Jeremy Thomas, Chris Lansdell and discussion of Raw going to 3-hours!

Welcome back to another week of 411 Fact or Fiction: Wrestling Edition! This week we have THREE men stepping up to the challenge as Kristopher Rodriguez, Jeremy Thomas and Chris Lansdell step into the 411 Arena to do battle in this week's edition of Fact or Fiction!

And remember to go to TigerFlashGames.com and play addictive, free flash games when you're bored at work, school, or whenever! Ashish made this place because he loves you.

Questions were sent out Monday morning.


1. Hulk Hogan's Celebrity Wrestling will do good enough in the ratings to get signed for a second season.

Jeremy Thomas: FACT. Hey, I'm not saying it's a good thing. But let's face it, CMT has promoted this thing through the roof, it's airing like a hundred times a week, and really, what kind of ratings does CMT usually get anyway? If it gets a 0.5 in the Nielson's it will probably be the highest-rated show CMT has ever had. I'm not interested in watching it, because I avoid reality television like the plague, but I appear to be in the minority with the American public on that one. Reality television is cheap to produce and scores the ratings; on that alone, it should do well enough to warrant a second season, whether I like it or not. This of course means we'll probably see Verne Troyer taking on Joanie "China Doll" Laurer in a "Midgets vs. Monsters" season two finale, thus causing televisions around the nation to actually explode in an overload of train-wreck visuals.

Kristopher Rodriguez: FACT. Though Hogan's new show is a bit silly, it will likely be signed for a second season. If it can get ratings in the range of ECW or even TNA, a good case can be made that it has earned a spot. Of course, I'm not going to sit here and argue that reality shows and wrestling shows should be judged by the same standards. But it is a wrestling-related show. If it can --like wrestling-- generate a decent 18-34 demographic rating, it‘ll probably achieve it‘s objective. And who knows, it might even have appeal for a few older demographics because of Hogan's name recognition

Chris Lansdell: FACT. Let's face it, CMT is hardly NBC. They would likely be happy with anything approaching 0.7 or so, which Hogan should be able to get just by showing up. The reality show junkies and celeb watchers will tune in because of what it is, Hulkamaniacs and WCW fans will tune in to see Hogan and Bischoff, and wrestling fans are watching to see just how bad it is. Alas, CMT Canada are not carrying the show and I haven't been able to see it yet, but if I could then I would. Call it the train wreck mentality, call it morbid curiosity, or call me an unabashed Screech mark. The real question, at least in my opinion, is who they find for season two. Is there a J list of celebrities?

Score: 3 Fact, Fiction, 0


2. You like the idea of Booker T introducing his own "Legend's Title."

Jeremy Thomas: FICTION. Sort of. My answer assumes that the Legend's Title will be treated like a legitimate title, and I consider that a bad idea. First off, TNA doesn't need another title. Their talent roster doesn't support it, and the X-Division title really doesn't get enough attention as it is. Second, I have to look back to the history of "wrestler-introduced" championships in North America to see how it will be treated, and outside of Taz's FTW Title, I can't really name one that was treated with the respect a legitimate title deserves. Assuming they actually plan to elevate this to the point of being an actual title, which to my knowledge seems to the case, I think this is a bad idea. That said, if they use it purely as a gimmick to get Booker over, it could possibly work, although I'm still leery. Booker's already pretty well over, and they don't need to put this on him in order to make him more so. I can see it working for the Legends vs. TNA Originals feud, but that requires that they use it to really put someone over. A title, even a gimmick title, should be something that helps get a wrestler over by attaining it, and that would imply that someone will be winning it from Booker at some point to give them a rub. If they do that then great, but I don't know that they're thinking that far ahead, and I see too many ways it can easily go wrong, not enough ways it can go right.

Kristopher Rodriguez: FACT. I think it's a fine idea. If it gives Booker a meaningful storyline, why not? It could also serve the purpose of putting over a young up-and-coming talent. TNA could use a conventional mid-card singles championship anyway. Besides the TNA Heavyweight Title, all of the other championships have special requirements. The X-Division Title is designed for wrestlers of a smaller stature. The TNA woman's title is obviously designed for women. And then of course a wrestler can‘t be a tag champ without a partner. So what about those singles mid-carders who don't fall under any of those categories? They would stand to benefit by having a title to compete for.

Chris Lansdell: FICTION. Look, anyone who's been reading the sufficiently popular Lansdell's Sunday Brunch and the all-new A Brace for Impact RIGHT HERE on 411mania.com (END Foley pop) will know that I try very hard to defend TNA and point out the good that they are doing. However I cannot defend anything that puts more of Booka Kinte's ridiculous Prince Nana wannabe gimmick on my television, unless it involves the real Prince Nana and a push for Jimmy RAVE~! The title and idea behind it are not horrible ideas as long as it isn't a permanent title addition, especially if it's used to put over Jay Lethal or another young guy who finally beats Booker for the belt. In the meantime it can be used to elevate a couple of people who barely lose. The problem is what do they do with it after Booker loses it? You can't have a Lethal or Petey Williams walking around with the Legends Title, and just dropping the belt after the young guy worked so hard to win it will instantly devalue the accomplishment. Shortsighted booking sucks.

Score: 1 Fact, 2 Fiction,


3. TNA's promise of a, "declaration that will shake the foundation of the wrestling world" will end up being a disappointment.

Jeremy Thomas: FACT. Short of signing a legend like the Rock or one of the ‘E's current champions away from them, there's not much that will shake the foundation of the wrestling world anymore. And really, we know both such things are well outside TNA's capabilities. I suppose it might be something along the lines of a move of iMpact to Monday or Tuesday, or perhaps more time for the show, but both of those would be bad ideas as the show would get hammered by the ‘E. This sort of announcement brings the memories of Tony Schiavone declaring each week "This is the most important Nitro EVER!" back ringing in my ears, and I pity people who hear these kinds of things and expects it to really live up to the hype. Most likely, it will be that Foley will wrestle; I think the best we could possibly hope for would be Ric Flair having signed with TNA, but the odds of that are astronomically low.

Kristopher Rodriguez: FACT. I say fact not because the announcement won't be big. I say fact because our expectations will be so high that just about anything will be a disappointment. The anticipation of those "shake the foundation of wrestling" announcements are always high. But the suspense is usually more enjoyable than the substance of the announcements. Hopefully Foley, Jarrett, and the TNA writing team won't disappoint us!

Chris Lansdell: FACT-ish. In the absence of a Goldberg to turn heel, I've been wondering what the hell they could be doing. The rumour mill has been uncharacteristically quiet, which in itself has built some degree of anticipation. However any major change (like a big signing or a merger) would have leaked by now. Fans who are expecting that will be disappointed. If you're more realistic (not something for which the IWC is renowned) and expect either an announcement of more live shows, a move of the Impact Zone or a change of nights (Tuesdays opposite ECW?) then you won't be as disappointed. Of course, if it's " ZOMG Mick Foley is going to wrestle!1!!shiftone!!11!eleventy!!" then I may just put my foot through the TV.

Score: 3 Fact, 0 Fiction,


---SWITCH~!---


4. Jeff Hardy didn't arrive for last week's Smackdown until after the card had already started and he was in the main event of that show. This is continued proof that Jeff Hardy shouldn't be given the WWE title anytime soon.

Chris Lansdell: FICTION. Bollocks. He's not the first person to do this, he won't be the last, and there could be any number of reasons for it happening. Some of those reasons are even legitimate. Hardy being late for a show when he's not needed until the main event is hardly a reason to stop one of the most over guys on your roster from holding the title. I know Vince has a long-standing policy of requiring all talent to be present before the start of the show, but you can bet your bottom dollar (which many of us may well be saying shortly…) that if HHH had done this, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. Leave the poor guy alone.

Kristopher Rodriguez: FACT. Jeff Hardy should never be the WWE Champion. He has twice violated the wellness policy and has been involved in odd (some might even say suspect) situations as of late. To put the title on Hardy would be a major risk with the potential to embarrass McMahon and his company. With all that said…Jeff Hardy will someday be WWE Champion. When McMahon and company look at Jeff Hardy, they see dollar signs. Putting the title on Hardy would do wonders for merchandise sales and pay- per-view buyrates. It would probably even give Smackdown a slight, but much desired, bounce in the ratings. And if Jeff Hardy ever screwed up as champion and had to be fired, WWE already has prepared statements for their broadcasts and website. They have already made it clear that Hardy has one more strike before he's fired. If he were to be fired as champion, it would prove to the fans and the public that WWE takes its wellness policy seriously. So seriously, in fact, that they are even willing to fire world champions.

Jeremy Thomas: FICTION. As much as I'd like to say that wrestlers should be there all the time well before the show, I don't know the circumstances around it. Was Hardy late because of travel difficulties, was he spending too much time at the nearby bar, or did he just not feel like showing up? There could be a lot of reasons for this, and not all of them are his fault. Now, as much as I'm a Jeff Hardy fan—even if I didn't like him, my wife would murder me in my sleep if proclaimed a dislike—I don't think he should be given the WWE Title in the immediate future. This is the kind of thing you want to save for a big moment, and if they save it for WrestleMania (or even the Royal Rumble) then it will give it a special sort of feel, and have the added benefit of seeing if Jeff's recent warning signs will fade away. So I don't think he should be given a run with the belt in the immediate future, but not because he was late to a show.

Score: 1 Fact, 2 Fiction,


5. You agree with Vince McMahon, who was quoted as saying that the Michaels vs. Jericho ladder match was the best ladder match he had ever seen.

Chris Lansdell: FACT. Before you all go off on tirades, let me explain that answer. I honestly believe that Vince McMahon liked this ladder match better than any other he's seen, which is the question being asked here. Vince is not a fan of spot monkeys, we know this. This ladder match was about physicality and hatred, and the ladder was used to punish in that context. Ridiculous high spots would have hurt the angle behind this match. What made it so good was the strong psychology and incredible story being told of two people wanting to hurt each other more than anything, but also wanting the title. There were some big bumps of course, but they made sense in the context of the match. For people who want the spots this match might seem to be lacking, but for people like Vince who appreciate the story behind the match more than the acrobatics, it's tremendous. I still rate it behind Briscoes-Steenerico and the first Michaels-Razor, but Vince won't have seen the former and I can see why he would put this one ahead of the latter.

Kristopher Rodriguez: FICTION. Michaels versus Jericho was great. But I still think that because of originality and venue, the Wrestlemania X ladder match was the best ladder match ever televised. The Michaels/Jericho encounter will probably be remembered as a match of the year candidate. But it will probably be mentioned only in passing when naming the litany of great ladder matches. The Michaels/Ramon match will always be remembered as an iconic clash. However, I do feel that it was the best one-on-one ladder match of the 21st century. It capped off an enjoyable pay-per-view with two of the most talented performers on the Raw roster. I only wish we were treated to more workhorse main events like that. I guess McMahon doesn't want to "spoil" us.

Jeremy Thomas: FICTION. Not a chance. Don't get me wrong, Michaels vs. Jericho was a great ladder match, no doubt. And I truly believe it was better then most of the spotfests that ladder matches tend to be. But unless Vince was calling WrestleMania X with his eyes shut, you have to call this fiction. Michaels vs. Razor was easily the greatest ladder match in terms of work rate, storytelling, and drama. It may not be as flashy as some later matches, but it's still the greatest. Of course, Vince is a promoter first and foremost, and I'm not going to give him too much flack for putting the current product over. What's he going to do, say "Yeah, this ladder match was really good, but the stuff we were doing fourteen years ago was better." No, he has business to think of. So while I can absolutely see why he said it, I don't agree at all. Sorry, Vince.

Score: 1 Fact, 2 Fiction,


6. WWE is smart to do the occasional three-hour Raw to please the USA Network instead of making the call to change the show to the three-hour format permanently.

Chris Lansdell: FACT. The 3-hour show was the death knell of WCW. Apart from making PPVs feel less important, it also asks fans to sit still and watch for a very long period and increases the likelihood that they will be asked to choose between Raw and another program they enjoy. Heroes and CSI (that still comes on Mondays, right?) already costs Raw viewers, not to mention the juggernaut that is the Monday night NFL game. The odd 3-hour special here and there is good since it keeps the special feeling and enables theme shows like the draft and possibly King of the Ring in the future. With the next one looming, I would imagine we will find out tonight what the storyline reason for it will be. I think Vince realises that switching to 3 hours permanently would worsen the current ratings slump rather than improve it.

Kristopher Rodriguez: FACT. If three hour Raws please the USA Network, McMahon should certainly put on more of those broadcasts. Raw's rating performances have not met expectations. McMahon does not want the USA Network to grow restless or weary of WWE programming. He has to show the USA Network that he is willing to work even harder to increase viewership; even if that means putting on more specials. Doing weekly three hour Raws would take a toll on WWE workers. Plus, Raw drags enough as it is with two hours per week. To add another hour would literally put some fans to sleep. But the worst problem would be the potential for fan fatigue. Expecting WWE fans to watch yet another hour of original programming per week might be pushing it. The ONLY way that three hours of weekly WWE Monday night programming could work is if ECW was moved to the USA Network at 8:00 PM on Mondays. That way ECW could increase its audience and at the same time hype up Monday Night Raw. I don't see any other way that three hours of weekly WWE Monday night programming could work. But either way, the WWE must find a way to keep the USA Network satisfied. And if that means broadcasting the occasional three hour Raw program, then so be it.

Jeremy Thomas: FACT. Absolutely. The regular three-hour format kind of worked for WCW during the days of the Monday Night Wars, but there's simply not the rabid interest in wrestling that there was then, and the ‘E would over saturate if they went permanently to three hours. I can definitely see a benefit in three hours in terms of giving matches more time and building more feuds in the mid-card; however, they could do that by cutting out all the stupid shit they do on Raw on a regular bases (see: Khali Kiss-Cam, Johnny Knoxville crap). The occasional three-hour shows are good because they seem special and get more people to tune in on those days. If they went to three hours on a regular basis then they wouldn't be able to get that "must tune-in" feel and would be unable to sustain the ratings.

Score: 3 Fact, 0 Fiction,

Come on back next week for more of 411 Fact or Fiction: Wrestling Edition!