The Thread Killer

Excellent point, we need to add that to the list. Best example of that I ever saw was in Stampede Wrestling. Bad News Allen permanently crippled the son of Archie "The Stomper" Gouldie and put him out of wrestling forever. It was so convincing, the idiot play-by-play man Ed Whalen got up and walked out of the arena, and helped convince the athletic commission to ban the subsequent Allen/Gouldie blow-off match at the Calgary Pavilion and it almost got them thrown off TV for good. Which is unfortunate because: 1) The kid never really got injured 2) The kid wasn't even really Archie Gouldie's kid...he was just some kid brought in by Bruce Hart for the angle and 3) It got a massive amount of heat and attention and would have drawn huge money for Stampede...if that moron Ed Whalen hadn't help ruin it. They ended up having to do the blow-off on an Indian Reservation and run buses to the show, which a lot of fans wouldn't take. Whalen was in on the angle. It was only later after all the bad press from the post-angle riot that he stepped away. As far as I know he had nothing to do with the promotion being kicked out of the Victoria Pavillion Whalen gave a bunch of interviews to the Calgary media after he quit, complaining about how violent wrestling had become, and that angle in particular. When the guy who is the supposed "voice" of your company goes public and buries it, people are going to listen. A lot of people in Calgary respected Whalen, since he also did play-by-play for the Flames. I've heard that Whalen later told people he knew about it before hand, and that he quit Stampede because his wife was running for a town council position and didn't want the fact that he worked for Stampede to be used against her - so he quit and they worked it into the angle. The problem is, Bruce Hart reportedly told Heath McCoy that Whalen didn't know beforehand, and that he is lying now. The thing is, Bruce Hart is also notoriously full of shit. When it comes to stuff about Stampede, I tend to believe Heath McCoy. In this case, I suppose a case can be made either way. Anyhow, I guess my original point should have been that the angle was awesome, especially for it's time. And also, Ed Whalen was terrible. Not just for constantly burying his own company and no-selling angles during commentary, and stooging during interviews - he was also a horrible announcer. He publicly admitted he didn't even like wrestling or respect it. That's why I always go mental whenever his name comes up. Of course, this time - I'm the one who brought it up.

Excellent point, we need to add that to the list. Best example of that I ever saw was in Stampede Wrestling. Bad News Allen permanently crippled the son of Archie "The Stomper" Gouldie and put him out of wrestling forever. It was so convincing, the idiot play-by-play man Ed Whalen got up and walked out of the arena, and helped convince the athletic commission to ban the subsequent Allen/Gouldie blow-off match at the Calgary Pavilion and it almost got them thrown off TV for good. Which is unfortunate because: 1) The kid never really got injured 2) The kid wasn't even really Archie Gouldie's kid...he was just some kid brought in by Bruce Hart for the angle and 3) It got a massive amount of heat and attention and would have drawn huge money for Stampede...if that moron Ed Whalen hadn't help ruin it. They ended up having to do the blow-off on an Indian Reservation and run buses to the show, which a lot of fans wouldn't take.

You raise a good point. Of all people, I once heard Kevin Nash talk about a conversation that he had with Eric Bischoff regarding the art of booking. Nash claimed that Bischoff's theory (which Nash agreed with) is that there is really only about five different storylines which have ever been successful in the entire history of Pro Wrestling, and every successful angle since they were done first is just a variation on one of those themes. The trick is to do them right. - Partner turns on partner or friend turns on friend (or student on mentor, etc.) - Babyface pursues heel Champion who repeatedly cheats to keep his title - Patriotic angles (USA vs. whatever country is the boogeyman at that time) - Mystery antagonist screws with babyface until finally being revealed - Outsider from other organization or territory "invades." I guess we could now add "Authority figure abuses roster." He wasn't wrong. I think all good wrestling minds usually end up doing variations on those themes, the trick is to steal the right idea and use it at the right time with the right people. Since Cornette knows so much about the history of the business, I think he's had fairly good instincts regarding when to use these well worn ideas.

This statement bears some scrutiny and is open to debate as well. The main reason WCW died is because AOL Time Warner cancelled all WCW programming, true. It is likely that they would have done that regardless of what shape WCW was in when they took it over. However, the argument can be made that it was his inept booking that led to the loss of money and revenue that made those cancellations such an easy sell. All AOL had to do was point to the books, losing money and point to the ratings, flat-lining, and they had every justification for pulling the plug on WCW. If WCW was stable at that point, or still showing a profit, I am guessing it would have been harder to justify, if nothing else. I'm not saying WCW dying is all Russo's fault, but saying he had nothing to do with it is a bit of a stretch, no? As far as TNA goes, you can't really point to the fact that the company hasn't died yet as a ringing endorsement of Russo's skills. But you could blame him (and Dixie) for getting them thrown off Spike TV. You can't point at the shape ROH is in and blame Cornette, and then turn around and say that TNA is still alive, so at least Russo didn't kill it. I'd argue that Russo did a lot more damage to TNA than Cornette did to ROH.

Although they like to hide it or avoid the fact...World Wrestling Entertainment is a Professional Wrestling organization. Whether you like him or don't, you'd have to be a blind fool to not admit that Jim Cornette has an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the Pro Wrestling business. He also has a clear love and respect for it. He has recently reviewed the recent Dunne/Bate match glowingly, and his love for The Revival is well documented. In other words, Cornette loves Pro Wrestling and can still find some good in it. Based on his history, and things that other people have said about him, I have serious doubts that Vince Russo even truly understands Pro Wrestling. If he does, he obviously doesn't like it very much, at least in it's current form. This is a guy who recently said that if you think a match is "awesome" and you chant that, then it means you're probably a homosexual. Whereas he, (a non-homosexual sports entertainment fan) watches women's wrestling hoping to see a nipple slip. I don't even like Jim Cornette, or at least the persona he portrays in public. He is also close minded and dismissive of others, rude profane and insulting. In that sense, sure...he and Russo are two peas in a pod. Russo's vision of what Pro Wrestling should be, has either come and gone, or it never really came to full fruition. The era of wrestling that Jim Cornette came up in, (and clearly misses) has come and gone. The business has obviously passed him by. So in the sense that neither of them care for the current product as it stands, sure Cornette and Russo have something in common. However the glaring difference between Jim Cornette and Vince Russo is that one loves Pro Wrestling and one does not. That does not make them similar, it makes them dissimilar. And since Pro Wrestling is the main reason that anybody would listen to either of them, in the end that is the only difference that matters.

I strongly disagree with that statement. Vince Russo helped contribute to those ratings and that success, but to say he was responsible seems like a gross overstatement. He certainly thinks he was responsible but I don't know if anybody else does.

That sucks that it all got pulled down. I loved having access to all those house shows from Maple Leaf Gardens. It was a great trip down memory lane, as I was at many of those shows.

I am opposed to Vince Russo being invited back to WWE for talk segments etc. because it legitimizes him and gives him a platform. There would be those who think that simply because he is appearing on the WWE Network, he must be worthy of such an opportunity to be heard, and even worse, some people would listen to what he says. Every time he opens his mouth, ridiculous bullshit comes spewing out - lies, distortions, obvious contradictions, idiotic justifications for indefensible and moronic decisions, perversions of logic and general nonsense. After he stops talking, nobody is ever the better for having listened to him. The man contributes nothing to any discussion. He contributes less then nothing. He contributes negative nothing, which creates a vortex into which an otherwise constructive or entertaining dialogue would be sucked, thereby suffocating it to death. The only way I would ever want to see Vince Russo on any sort of televised broadcast, would be if he was placed on trial for crimes against Professional Wrestling. The prosecutor would be Jim Cornette, Russo's defense attorney would be Disco Inferno, and all wrestling fans would be the jury. And once he was convicted, his sentence would have to be permanent censure and banishment. No more podcasts, no more interviews, no more DVD commentaries, no more books. He would have to go away, and stay gone, for all time, never to be spoken of again, except as a cautionary tale. That is something I would watch.

Thankfully, it appears recently Russo tried to mend that fence and Vince is not having any of it... Credit: WhatCulture.com

What?! No. Just... No.

I usually have quite a lot of respect for Dutch Mantell but I'm not sure what the hell he's thinking here. It's natural people are going to ask him about the Broken Hardys Lawsuit on Twitter. It's even to be expected that Reby Sky will bait him...but he really ought not to have responded. Anybody who has ever been involved with any kind of litigation will tell you that once lawyers and court appointed arbitrators are involved, you don't say a damn thing, because anything you say or do becomes grist for the mill. There's a reason that "my lawyers have advised me not to comment due to ongoing litigation" is pretty much a catch phrase. I expect idiots on Twitter to bait him, and based on what I've seen, I expect Reby Sky to take shots. I never would have expected somebody who has been around as long as Dutch Mantell to take the bait. He's really risking stepping into something by doing that.

Does anybody know if Tommy End/Aleistar Black can cut a half decent promo? I was unfamiliar with him prior to the most recent Takeover, but based on that, and his recent appearances on Main Event and NXT...I kind of like the guy. He has a unique look, and a great theme/entrance combo. I am sure his in-ring style isn't for everybody, but it appears to be somewhat like Nakamura? By that I mean a lot of kicking and strikes. All that stuff combined...along with a great name to boot, that guy could be money. If he can cut a half decent promo. Assuming WWE doesn't screw it up and turn him into Bray Wyatt version 2.0. Which they probably will.

Yep, that pretty much sums up my feelings on the situation perfectly.

Okay, so Luke Harper loses cleanly to Eric Rowan? Really? So much for that push I was hoping Harper was going to get. When you're positioned as what appears to be the least successful former member of the Wyatt Family...I don't think you're going far.

Chuck Liddell is reportedly going through something similar now. After years of having a chin of iron and knocking everybody the F out, he suffered a couple of brutal knockouts of his own, and sadly, by the end of his career, he was pretty much getting knocked out when a stiff breeze came along. Rumor has it that he apparently feels all better now and wants to fight again, despite the fact that he is the only person on the planet who thinks that is smart, or safe.

Bill and Erik Watts.

I'm not getting the hate I'm seeing for Rollins vs. Joe. I don't think it was a 5 star classic or anything (I'm not entirely convinced Seth Rollins is capable of that feat) but as far as I was concerned, it held my interest and was a perfectly acceptable wrestling match. Not great, not bad. Fair to good.

I absolutely expect it to reinforce WWE talking points and don't really expect any real "shoot" comments. It doesn't make it any less cringe-worthy though. The absolute passion and vehemence with which JBL defends anything and everything WWE does...he's basically the Smithers to the WWE's Mr. Burns. My whole point in my original post is that I fully expect JBL to be aggressively bashing anybody who dares criticize the House of Horrors match. I'd like to be wrong about that, but I seriously doubt I will be.

Interesting point. I know it is supposed to be a panel discussion show, but the first episode with JBL and Heyman really came across as a "WWE is great, really great, or really amazingly great...which do you think is most accurate" type of discussion. No real controversial opinions were expressed, nor did I really expect them to be. On the next episode, Graves briefly became my hero when he said that he didn't really want to see AJ Styles wrestle Shane McMahon. Then on the Wrestlemania Week episode, he admitted that Shane had pulled him aside to discuss that opinion, but he wouldn't expand on what was said between them. I got the impression it was tense...but that was very likely for dramatic effect. I'm curious if he'll continue to say whatever is on his mind, or if he was politely told to keep any opinions that didn't toe the company line to himself. Based on Graves actually making not-so-thinly-veiled references to the Tom Phillips’ Sexting Scandal on 205 Live this past week, maybe he will continue to say whatever he wants. You never know how that kind of thing will go over. I think sometimes Vince thinks it's funny, but if somebody convinces him otherwise...look out. JBL has apparently decided the safest bet is to just blindly and emphatically support whatever WWE does.

Prepare to see JBL explain how the House of Horrors match was brilliant, and everybody who didn't like it was an idiot.

You're saying those were two of the greatest individual championship reigns in the history of wrestling?

I am not saying this isn't a legit thing, but that article was written by Jake Chambers, who has the dubious distinction of being one of the two worst wrestling writers at 411 (the other being Justin Watry). And trust me...that is one hell of a field to choose from. There was a time, long ago, where you actually had to show a degree of ability to have a column and write for a wrestling site. Now, sites like 411 will literally take anybody who is willing to submit a column to them, and Jake Chambers is one such writer. He is essentially unreadable. So I wouldn't necessarily judge what the entire "Internet Wrestling Community" is thinking based on the "writing" of Jake Chambers.

No love for the Neville/Aries match here? I thought it was pretty damn good on first viewing, probably as good as their Wrestlemania match.

I really enjoyed the Cruiserweight match, and that Tag Title match was pretty choice. Poor Jeff at losing that tooth, though. I would like to arrange for Michael Cole to receive a painful electrical shock every time he utters the word "Vintage."

I'm a big fan of the comment Corey Graves made while Cesaro had Matt Hardy in the Mormon Swing. "Matt Hardy is gonna think he was in a different universe when this is over."