Jingus

Sid often got cheered by the live crowds, but he was basically booked as a heel from his title win on through Wrestlemania. He was pretty clearly supposed to be the evil villain in his matches against Shawn, Bret, and Taker. The rest of the roster was awfully tweeneriffic at the time, which made him look less heelish by comparison though. That one Texas death match that was on the RFVideo "Best of Jeff Jarrett" tape? (No, I did not actually pay money for that, a friend had it and I happened to see it.) Hell of a fun match, like a demo reel of practically every Memphis main event trope all shoved into one match, with piledrivers and ether-soaked rags and dueling managers and everything all at once.

In what way? I agree that the JJ/Chyna matches were better than they had any right to be, and am trying unsuccessfully to come up with a joke involving their Good Housekeeping match and the word "broomstick". But what particular details are you talking about that make the match so smart?

His feud with Raven was terrific. Living in Nashville, I got to see a lot of Jeff Jarrett in person, including the Raven feud. Sorry, but I was not impressed. Were the matches technically decent? Sure; JJ even once got something okay out of freaking Don Callis. But in terms of actually drawing money or getting his character over, Jarrett was a huge failure. Nobody wanted to see him as the invincible superman top star; witness the deluge of garbage thrown into the ring after he pinned Raven. The crowd was not happy with seeing the owner of the company book himself as the unbeatable champion. Meanwhile, I like most of the nutty stuff that Angle does. Yeah I thought his match with Shawn at Mania 21 was easily MOTN. What of it. As to the others: Jeff (by a narrow margin), Candido, and Rey. Why have there now been half a dozen posts about Rey vs Psichosis, without a single detail discussed of why one is better than the other? I admit, I haven't seen the vast majority of either man's Mexican career. So I base my opinion on the stuff they've done in America, and Rey has a much broader and deeper list of neat matches with widely differing opponents. Part of that is the fact that Psic never got to work that wide range of opponents, he was only booked against other cruisers, but the cause of such things shouldn't really matter when you're talking about the actual work performed.

I dunno if he's fired, there are rumors around about some kind of promotion or transfer to an office position. But still, Taz is slated to take his place at the announce table. As many have pointed out, why subtract West right after he's finally improved so much? For the majority of his tenure in TNA, he was just David Crockett 2000, a guy who kept shouting "LOOK AT THAT, THAT'S AMAZING!" in your ear. They could've replaced him with the color commentating equivalent of a laugh track and there wouldn't have been much difference. But once he's actually become entertaining and useful as a fawning, hypocritical heel, now they get rid of him?

...actually, yeah, it totally does. Surprisingly, that one might not be bullshit. Yes, I've heard of cases before where a man was thrown out of his own house by the cops because of a domestic complaint, while the woman (who owns exactly zero percent of the property) is allowed to stay. A lot of domestic-disturbance type law in America does tend to be heavily biased in women's favor. Of course there are very good reasons for that, as any of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of abused women in this country could tell you. But there are also plenty of cases where stuff like this happens. Along the same lines of how mothers are much more likely than fathers to be granted primary custody of the children in divorce cases.

No. For three reasons. 1. Since when has Vincent Kennedy McMahon ever showed that he gave the tiniest shit about TNA? This isn't like the intensely personal Monday Night Wars here. Vince doesn't give a damn if TNA lives or dies. He rarely makes much effort to sign anyone away from there. What former TNA stars currently work for the WWE? All I can think of are Gail Kim and R-Truth, and they both got their initial big-time breaks in the WWE anyway so it was more of a return than a jump. 2. You may say "but Kurt Angle is different". I don't think so, not really. If Vince wanted Angle that badly, he would've never fired him in the first place. He would've known that Angle's most probable course of action would be to go straight to Dixie Carter's front door. 3. When does World Wrestling Entertainment ever let someone wrestle such a limited schedule like that? Vince insists on a workaholic schedule from all his wrestlers; the only time they get a vacation of more than a few days is when they're sitting at home to rehab a serious injury. I can really only think of three people who are given large amounts of time off when they want it, and those are Triple H, Shawn Michaels, and Undertaker. I don't think Angle would be included in that rarified group. Even a guy like Jeff Hardy is subject to the "no time off, either work or quit" treatment. Nobody in the WWE is allowed the light schedule that TNA gives its top old veterans, period. There's been a lot of talk about how Angle "insisted" on working through injuries during his WWE tenure. People act like he was out there wrestling against the will of the office, which is fucking nonsense. It's not like Vince was trying to hold him back at the curtain, pleading with him not to go out there and risk his life again. If the company didn't want him to wrestle, he wouldn't have wrestled.

"Get away from wrestling, and stop taking drugs and abusing women and being crazy, before you end up in prison or dead" would probably be the best guess. Obviously it's wrapped up in some insider references which are coded so that only the intended audience would know the exact meaning. Meltz: I understand the logic behind this, as they don't want anyone either bashing their own company or pulling a Kennedy and making false claims that come back to bite them in the ass. But it's another example of TNA's entire attitude here seeming to be "just ignore it and it'll go away". Angle keeps the belt, no mention is made on the PPV about the arrest, TNA releases no public statements of any kind about the situation, and now there's a gag order on the rest of the employees. I know there could be any number of motivations for this sort of head-in-the-sand behaviour, I just wonder which one it is. Are they too scared about the possible downside to say anything? Is it a case of "aw, I know Kurt, he's a really good guy and didn't do that bullshit"? Or is it just the usual assumption that nothing that happens within the pro wrestling bubble will affect them in a real-world manner?

It makes sense to keep the belt on Angle, but only if you use Russo Logic, which basically goes like "okay, deduct the absolute least logical and most idiotic direction you could go here, and jam the pedal to the metal!". But overseas money or not, you'd think that this list of charges would be enough to at least temporarily take the belt off him. It's not like Angle gets less television time when he doesn't have a belt, and it gives the company more of a cover-my-ass by claiming "well he's not our top star, he's just one guy, lots of guys have been champions donchyaknow". Also, does anyone here think they'll ever actually put the belt on Morgan? He seems like the latest in a long line of guys: relatively young midcarders who get a big push to the main event, but then lose the big match and end up sinking back down to obscurity. This company seems to do that sort of thing a whole lot. Perhaps, but I could easily see Angle or an attorney spinning it the other way, "this guy's wife left him for his boss, and eventually they stole his kids, and that drove him crazy". Not saying it's a great defense, but is it much worse than "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit"? Court decisions can be such terribly random things, as can the court of public perception.

I'm sure that Panda Energy, Spike TV, and all their advertising sponsors and corporate associates will all be totally understanding about TNA's biggest star being publicly outed as a possibly dangerous nutcase who abuses both drugs and women. After all, it's not like this is real, it's just a crazy wrestler named Kurt Angle who plays a crazy wrestler named Kurt Angle on television. Add in the fact that Kurt could conceivably claim in court that his actions were influenced by the mental trauma of his wife cheating on him and eventually leaving him for Jeff Jarrett, company founder and creative director and minority stockholder... you can't see how this could effect their business?

Let's be fair: it never would've happened in the WWE because McMahon would be reluctant to put his title back on someone who got popped for DUI in a very public manner. The only time I can think of a similar situation happening in the WWE was with Rob Van Dam's arrest; at the very next show, he jobbed both belts and never got them back again. It's not the doing psycho shit that is the problem (hello Orton), it's getting caught doing psycho shit in a manner which makes the evening news.

I've been watching a ton of dying-days WCW with our We Watch Shitty WCW Club at the new TSM board. By the late 90s, Heenan utterly did not care, totally going through the motions. Wasn't even attempting to be a heel most of the time, which is probably the best indicator of how little effort he was giving. He might as well have just recorded a tape of banal wisecracks, left it in a walkman at the announce table and had Schiavone push PLAY every once in a while. ...that being said, even Bobby at his most apathetic was a thousand kinds of better than Mark frigging Madden, whom said Shitty WCW Club is teaching me to hate even more now than I did back then. And listening to various interviews with Bobby describing his experience in the company, it's not hard to forgive him for going on half-tanked autopilot and taking the easy money.

Supposedly he's Matthew "Ring of Hell" Randazzo.

How does it cancel anything out? Yes, the advertisers they have pay less for their spots than they would for just about any other program with similar ratings. But they paying sponsors they do have still do want the M1834 demographic as their primary audience. How many commercials for toys or other children's products do they air? Kids buy a bunch of Cena stuff, sure. But are they the ones buying PPVs, DVDs, 24/7, live event tickets, and all the other things that provide revenue streams? The vast majority of their fans are still adults. Yeah, of course there probably aren't many, especially on short notice or for not much money. But you'd think you could still do better than some musicians who were big a quarter of a century ago. If they really didn't want those guys, if the pool of celebrities willing to do it is just that low, you'd think they wouldn't go through with the idea of a different guest hope ever week. I still don't see the argument for the WWE being a kids' show. Yes, they don't allow blood anymore; but they even edit blood on 24/7, which is not remotely a product aimed at children. Yes, they cut down (slightly) on cussing and sex; but as I mentioned, I still think that's just a "see, we're safe for the whole family!" cover-my-ass to try and rebuild their image after Benoit more than a legitimate attempt to gain a larger audience of underage viewers. Hell, kids like swearing and naughty content. Aside from those fairly negligible changes, have they altered their business model in any way since their raunchier days? They still do everything else pretty much exactly the same. If they are seriously wanting a larger percentage of their audience to be children as opposed to a few years ago, they sure as hell haven't taken any concrete steps towards making that happen.

I don't think it's actually done them any good with regards to getting more kids to watch. They certainly didn't have a problem selling out Stone Cold merchandise to children when the product was at its raunchiest. I doubt that going from TV-14 to TV-PG actually convinced any parents that the show was now appropriate for their kids to see as opposed to before. Personally, I like the conspiracy theory that the WWE has moved into a more family-friendly direction as a response to Benoit, part of the "we put smiles on people's faces!" type of deal to try and clean up their public image. Don't forget the weird stories like changing the name of the F-U because Linda wanted to be on the school board, too. I think it's more of a public relations facelift than any sort of actual marketing strategy to try and change their target audience. Also, if the program was now aimed at children, why the hell would they be bringing in Donald Trump, Ted Dibiase Sr, or ZZ Top? And while "they're just scrambling to get anyone famous who's willing to show up" is true, it doesn't answer the question by itself.

WWE's primary target audience is still Males 18-35 (or is it 34? I can never remember the particular arbitrary number), since those are both 1.the most likely to watch any wrestling show, and 2.generally craved by advertisers as the demographic which spends the most money on superfluous junk shown in commercials. Sure, they still want kids to buy the foam fingers and replica belts and Cena dolls and Rey masks, but for their television income the M,18/35 demo is the catbird seat. The theory is that Seth Green would be most recognizable among those demographics, which is absolutely correct. I'm sure that is Adult Swim's primary audience as well. However, where the theory falls apart is that way, way more people watch Raw every week than ever watch Robot Chicken (possibly more than even watch Family Guy), and the likelihood of gaining any new audience due to Green's appearance is very small. Truthfully the best thing about bringing in Seth specifically is that he's friends with practically half of the actors in Hollywood and is known as a good networker, and could theoretically lead to contacts for better-known guests in the future. On the "we just want to be mentioned in the mainstream media" side of the table, someone like Green does have a somewhat better shot of getting them featured than an act like ZZ Top whose peak of popularity was many long years ago. But, as seen practically every time they try it, no matter how much of an attention whore the WWE is with their celebrity appearances, it rarely does them much good. Hell, iirc, even the time that Schwarzennegger guest starred it didn't bump the rating much higher than normal. Guest celebrities are enough of a proven failure that it's literally easier to name the ones that did have any positive effect on business: there's Mr. T, Mike Tyson, the first time Trump showed up, maybe Mauweather, and... uh, am I missing anyone?

I'd say that way more people watched the Austin Powers movies or Family Guy than ever watched Buffy. Throw in the stoner/twentysomething demographic that Robot Chicken embraces, and you nicely cover that coveted Male, 18-34 bracket with Green's presence.

How slobby do you have to be to count as a slob? Stan Hansen and Dick Murdock looked like they never set foot in a gym with their beer guts and such, but still didn't seem out of place in a wrestling ring. My favorite's probably Mick Foley. Never looked even remotely athletic, to the point where slobbiness a part of his gimmick. But put him in a brutally physical street fight that lasted for the better part of half an hour, and strangely he never seemed to run out of gas.

What does that have to do with being a fundamentalist? Maybe "neocon" was the wrong word to use there.

Women's matchup, thought that extra adjective wouldn't be necessary in this thread. Probably the last great women's match I can remember from this company was Trish vs Mickie, I haven't seen anything since then with the new generation of divas which even came close. Heck, "talents" like Candice and Ashley made people like Chyna and Sable look downright competent in comparison.

Not all the 80s women were just the standard "Moolah's drinking buddies" with endless hairmares and crossbodies, either. Once they got some experience under their belts, people like Sherri and Madusa became perfectly tolerable workers. Plus don't forget matches like the Glamor Girls vs the Jumping Bomb Angels, which piss on every single matchup happening today in the WWE from a great height indeed.

There are way, way more college football players and amateur wrestlers in professional wrestling than there ever were UFC fighters. Should Dave cover those sports too? Hell, the greco-roman stuff has "wrestling" right there in the name!

Yeah, I know, I said as much. Probably since Gorilla had that Job For Life spot, he didn't give a fuck if he was following the rules and was sometimes out there to just amuse himself or put himself over. (The few Monsoon matches I've seen would actually corroborate that attitude, since he was one of those heels who tended to be kind of a dick when it came to cutting off the babyface's offense too soon and too often.) With a spot like that, with the referee actually picking Jake up physically, it was most likely Jake himself who called it. Most wrestlers would turn around and punch a ref who did that outta nowhere, it would be considered shooting on them. Childhood favorites? I didn't start watching wrestling until 1999. All my fanboyism has been gained by greatly enjoying his work in hindsight and on video tape. Yeah, that's another fault of his, sometimes Gorilla would get stuck on one point and simply not let it go and insist on getting in the last word. Hey, like me! No wonder I like him so much. Ref bumps and visual falls in general bug me, since it seems like every time a ref gets bumped then almost instantly afterwards someone has someone else covered for about a ten-count. American wrestling tends to be real lazy about that, how a ref always Just So Happens to get bumped right before something important happens. Vince Russo is probably the worst abuser of this, as the workers always have psychic powers which let them know that the match won't end before the ref bump so that they have an opportunity to interfere or turn on someone or whatever.

I can't fault him for that one. The rope-break rule is one which has always been applied inconsistently. Most of the time, all you have to do is make physical contact with the ropes in any way and the hold most be broken, period. The only occasions where the "you have to be IN the ropes" situation happens is in the exact scenario described above, when the heel grabs them and the ref kicks his hands away for a cheap pop. You never see the opposite done, with an unbiased referee kicking the face off the ropes to favor the heel. Gorilla was notorious sometimes for crankily pointing out things that didn't make sense to him, even if pointing such things out wasn't a good idea re: keeping kayfabe. That's not the ref's fault, nearly every time it's the booker's. I spent a little time as a referee, and can't begin to count the number of times that I was ordered to do something silly or illogical because, well, because that's what the booker wanted or that's what the wrestlers in the match demanded of me. Refs don't exactly enjoy a lot of creative control. Did they show any camera shots of the announce table at those shows? Where they were, what kind of view they had, if they were using monitors, etcetera? Considering Gorilla's ultra-thick glasses, it would be easy for him to miss shit even if he was paying attention. But most importantly, were any of those matches on live television? If not, then it's also the promotion's fault for not even paying attention to obvious mistakes on their own commentary. Those audio tracks were recorded separately from the crowd noise, they should've at least re-done those specific parts.

Considering the God feud of 2006, it's pretty safe to say that Vince isn't some kind of fundamentalist neocon.

In his defense, Abyss's storylines have never made one little bit of sense, and this includes long before he was on the booking committee. He's gotta be the only world champion in recent memory to somehow win the belt on a DQ.