Bob Morris

Let's try this one: Some people think that history proved, whenever Lex Luger had a good match at any point of his career, it was because his opponent made him look good. Indeed, as I look back on some of the matches Luger had in his earlier years, he's more than doing his part to make the match good. Of course, Luger wasn't the same after his motorcycle accident (in fact, that was probably the reason why he could no longer do an effective clothesline) and then, in his later WCW years, he just quit caring. Yet everybody wants to judge his history based on what happened during the Monday Night Wars period, as opposed to the years in which he most certainly was working hard.

From what I read, it seems like Martha's issues aren't specifically with bringing up Owen's death, though, but not paying royalties to the estate for any mention of Owen Hart. While not a direct comparison, it's seems obvious that Jesse Ventura has to be compensated whenever he appears on a WWE DVD, because if he didn't, there wouldn't be these inconsistencies in which his voice is edited out of matches (case in point, his commentary is removed on the Hart Foundation/Rockers match on the Bret Hart DVD, but it appears on the Saturday Night's Main Event DVD, so I assume WWE cleared things with Jesse on the SNME DVD given that he would be so prominently featured, but just edited it out on the Bret DVD, especially since the match selection was changed late in production). To the point: If because of Jesse's lawsuit back in the 1980s that he has to be compensated even in today's market, then it's going to be hard for WWE to argue it shouldn't have to compensate Martha Hart because the market changed since 1996. I don't see any reason why royalties shouldn't be paid to Martha's estate whenever Owen is featured on a DVD or a WWE 24/7 show, especially now that he's likely to be featured more often given Bret's involvement with the company. That being said, while I know Martha was never a fan of WWF/E or pro wrestling, I would hope she at least understands that many wrestling fans liked Owen and, thus, there should be a way for them to enjoy his past wrestling matches, and there are ways to do it without bringing up his death. And with all due respect to Martha, I don't see WWE's discussion of Owen's death on Bret's DVD as "exploitation" of his death (I haven't watched the other DVDs mentioned, so I can't comment there).

I should correct one of my earlier posts, to say that Canaan wasn't Noah's son that "turned heel" but it was Ham, whose son was Canaan. But I still like the sound of Vince McCanaan. And on the incest thing... Biblical scholars do believe there was a lot of unseemly sexual relations going on in the era when civilization was forming in the Mesopotamia region. So that the Bible has implications that incest is taking place really shouldn't be surprising. Heck, Russo also misses the stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It's soap opera stuff at its finest.

But wait, there was a heel on the ark! After Noah got drunk and was lying around naked, his son Canaan told his brothers Shem and Japheth, so they covered up Noah without looking at him, and when Noah woke up, he cursed Canaan's children and blessed those of Shem and Japheth. So, in other words, Canaan was the heel. "IT'S ME, NOAH! It was me! It was me all along!" --Vince McCanaan Only problem... Noah may better fit the profile of Ric Flair than Steve Austin and I have no idea who The Undertaker is supposed to be, because Satan wasn't around at the time.

For someone who professes to know so much about Christianity 101, he's failing some simple facts about the Bible. Before I begin, I am not trying to convert anybody, just pointing out the inaccuracies Russo makes. 1. There was no apple. It was the Fruit from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. 2. Satan did not tempt Eve. It was a serpent. Whether one believes the story or not, there is nothing in the story to even suggest the serpent was Satan, and was, in fact, one of the creatures God created. 3. Russo falls into the same trap that many do, in thinking that every time some evil being is mentioned, it must have been Satan. But first the evildoer is referred to as Beelzebub (or Baal-zebub) and only came to be known as Satan in later Biblical writings. For the record, Beelzebub may have been a human being, not an evil spirit. 4. Regardless, the Bible never says Satan ruled the Earth at any point. In fact, one interpretation of the Bible is that Satan was the "fallen angel" of God, meaning he never ruled above God. 5. The last words of Jesus depend on whether you read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. It's one of the debated points of the Bible... how people are writing different versions of the same thing. Soon we will hear Russo tell us about how Jonah got swallowed by the whale (no, it was a big fish and whales are not fish), about the Three Kings from the Orient (they were actually magicians from Persia) and how he will prove, once and for all, that Jesus was born on Dec. 25 (which everyone should know by now has never been established).

It amazes me that the folks at TNA can't figure out what it was that originally got The Beautiful People over when they turned them heel. They became the antithesis of what TNA was promoting the women's division as. The division was promoted as female athletes who aren't just about showing off their looks, and The Beautiful People were all about putting looks above everything else. In the Impact episodes I caught a few months ago, they had Angelina Love still dressing up like a member of The Beautiful People, and that's your problem with the booking right there. For Love to work as a face and the Velvet Sky-led TBP to work, Love needed to not just declare that, somehow, Sky betrayed her when she brought in Lacey Von Erich, but that when she won the Knockouts title, she soon came to realize how important it was for her to emphasize her athleticism over her looks, and thus, she needs to dress accordingly to get the character change over. Instead, it's basically coming down to what TNA accuses WWE's Divas of being: Just a bunch of interchangable bimbos who get by on looks alone.

I know we've seen wrestlers choke each other all the time, but now you have a wrestler choking a ring announcer, so I imagine whoever complained saw that as being different... for lack of a better team, said person thought of a ring announcer as a "civilian." But this is the type of stuff WWE is going to have to deal with now that the company is venturing further into the world of corporate America, where image is what matters more often than not.

I don't know all the details (except that Hogan-Sid was planned for WM VIII already), but it's possible there was a plan to pair Sid and Warrior to face Jake and Undertaker. I do remember that Sid was first facing Undertaker in casket matches on house shows, so it's possible they were planning on Warrior-Jake matches at house shows as well. That being said, I'm just speculating on that point.

Jesse and Vince did make for a good combo in their earlier years together, but over time, Vince was stumbling over his words at times to justify something when Jesse questioned it, or just didn't bother to address it. Usually this came when involving Hogan. Seriously, though, in watching the first ever Royal Rumble, I was impressed with how Vince and Jesse worked together as a team in calling the action. And yes, Tony and Jesse worked well together. Tony and Bobby, on the other hand, was a bad combination as Bobby wanted to do his usual schitck and Tony had no idea how to work with it.

It seems to me Hogan was just as guilty of spending a lot of money, he just spent it in different ways than we associate with Flair. I believe Hogan put a bunch of money into these other wrestling ventures he went into and lost money on them all.

The larger point that needs to be made is that part of discussing any subject means you are going to be critical or make fun of stuff that is bad as much as you praise the stuff that is good. And even if I don't go out of the way to read everything Todd Martin says, when certain posters post the silly things Martin says, I most certainly roll my eyes at it. The facts are clear that TV commercials are ripe for parody and are parodied frequently. One can argue whether the parody is done well, but to just brush off all and any such parodies as "low brow entertainment" is just dumb, especially since not only has SNL had some great commercial parodies, but Johnny Carson did plenty of them as well when he hosted The Tonight Show, plus I'm sure Bob Hope did plenty of them on his NBC specials. And while I don't watch that much TV, I know darn well what the current Mastercard promotion is (and having watched plenty of NFL, I particularly love the one with Peyton Manning), so yes, it's ripe for parody because it's so widely known. Obscure or failed campaigns, on the other hand, are a different story (think Herb appearing at Wrestlemania).

I'd second the motion on Scott D'Amore. Sounds like when it was him and Mike Tenay doing the booking, TNA had a pretty good product.

So, Nielson won't take any action and there are no precedents to go by? By precedents do you mean a network asking the audience to help "kill" a show by watching their show on in the same time slot? Because that's been happening in TV for as long as there's been TV. I remember some show on NBC with Jim Varney as the head of a clan of hillbillies who fight crime or some such thing that had promos where they told people to tune in and "Kill the Love Boat", ABC's Juggernaut. (Which worked about as well as what Dixie here is trying I know that those promos didn't specifically say the words "Ratings or Nielson" but the jist was the same, and that was before cable meant anything. And I seriously doubt Nielson gives two shits about some Wrestling owner saying something dopey on Facebook. Not taking away from how dumb it is that Dixie Carter thinks that DVR recordings are magical things that somehow send "ratings" to a magical land. That's a hoot. (She is awful pretty though. Shouldn't that take the edge off? Poor thing.) Regarding the Varney show that ran opposite Love Boat, that's not the same thing. The advertising didn't make representations about how Nielsen ratings work, it was just a marketing campaign in hopes of luring viewers to see what the fuss was all about. Here, Dixie was passing along specific information about how Nielsen ratings work and said info is incorrect. I would agree, though, that Nielsen probably won't pay attention to this unless Dixie keeps repeating the inaccurate info.

I once got one of those Nielsen diaries in which they asked me to write down the shows I watched for a one-week period. They paid me five bucks in advance to do it. I filled it out but have no idea whether it had any affect on ratings for shows I watched, but hey, I won't argue with five bucks just to fill out a TV viewing diary.

One of the points brought up in Death of WCW... and yes, I know, the book tends to contradict itself in spots when discussing the InVasion... is that the nWo ball started rolling by using two WWF guys, one who was the worst drawing WWF champion in company history and the other who was a popular midcarder but no more than that. Sounds similar to Booker T and DDP, does it not? I agree with what has been said that proper writing would have done it, but you really need the right person to pair with Booker and DDP to put it over the top. Austin is the obvious choice, as WWF made it no secret about Austin's WCW past, even if it wasn't being told from the storyline perspective, so you can go with that and make it work. As far as the mouthpiece goes, I would have done whatever it took to get Ric Flair on board. Jim Ross can say what he wants about upsetting salary structure, but one could seldom accuse Flair of being lazy and selfish, so you can just tell the WWF locker room that he's going to earn his pay and don't worry about it. As far as all the contracts they took on, I'd just have those guys spend time working dark matches, developmental territories or indy feds so they can stay in shape, until you can figure out the proper way to work them into the storyline. Done in a more focused way with the idea of a slow build to everything, you could probably make it work without having to bring in every big-ticket wrestler who was part of the WCW roster... they could then come along when their THE deals ran out. And I'll throw this in for what it's worth: I wonder if WWF's rush also had to do with the fact that they were selling stock at that point and the stockholders wanted to see a return on the money WWF spent to buy WCW. Even if it wasn't the main reason the InVasion flopped, I don't think Vince and company had any clue how to handle the stockholders at the time (in fact, I still don't think they know how to do that).

With regards to WWE and its state of business, I certainly don't see the company as "dying" but when it comes to its PPV, TV show and house show affairs in the United States, it's not in particularly good shape. The difference between earlier periods and today's period is WWE has far more avenues to promote product. They do quite a bit of business overseas, and I think a big reason is that they have been careful not to oversaturate those markets with live shows. The live shows still go there once in a while, so to the overseas contingents, it's something special. I suspect that more U.S. fans feel burnt out on the product, though. Also, WWE now has a DVD market that is proving to be quite profitable. They may have been doing Coliseum Video releases in the 1990s, but none of them really stood out as anything special... and if any were biographies of a wrestler, they always stuck to kayfabe. Now WWE has no problem with breaking kayfabe to discuss a wrestler's career, even if it may be discussed the way WWE wants it to be portrayed. Plus, DVD allows the viewer to access menus and decide what he wants to watch, rather than having to hit fast forward to get to the part he wants to watch. And then there's WWE 24/7, which allows the company to reach the fans who are nostalgic for days gone by or those who want to brush up on their wrestling history, even if it's often revisionist. The fact WWE has more flexibility in terms of how it can promote its product is the reason why it's able to remain on solid ground overall, even if the main product it promotes isn't as popular in the United States as it once was. And really, the stock market stuff is blown a bit out of proportion. Having money to sit on doesn't mean your company is on solid ground... that's based on the revenues you take in and how they compare to your expenses, and while WWE may not be hitting the high numbers it drew during the "boom periods," it's not constantly running in the red. EDIT: Also, I think it's only a matter of time before WWE launches its own network to give it another avenue of promoting product, and I would not be surprised if the company, at some point, allowed people to pay a fee to download classic matches or shows (unless they are already doing this... I don't visit WWE's website so I don't know if they are doing that). There will be those in the company who will keep tabs on technology and promotional avenues, then combine that with the wrestling library the company owns, to keep finding ways to sell product to fans.

I've always stated that TNA's biggest problem is it has no clue what it wants its identity to be. Watching the shows, it looks like WWE product aimed at an older audience, and the shows look like Raw in a smaller arena with a smaller crowd. I agree with what's been said that TNA needs to change its name for starters. It would also help to work on production values so, while they still are of a high quality, it actually looks different from WWE. That's why I thought it was a dumb decision to get rid of the six-sided ring... while that alone wasn't going to make all the difference, it was at least a step in the right direction of making the product look different from WWE. And while I definitely can see what El-P is saying and won't argue that TNA's booking is awful, what the company really needs is somebody who can understand the need to carve an identity for the company and sell Spike on it. Seems to me it's not just Dixie Carter who believes "top stars equal ratings" but the Viacom folks who also believe that. But I do suspect, even if TNA re-invented itself with a distinct identity and better booking, the company would still be doing 1.2 ratings with dismal PPV buyrates simply because people don't know anything about the product. I know El-P wasn't referring to business with his "reasonably good" remark, but 1.2 ratings and PPV buyrates that are hardly a blip on the radar screen certainly don't fit the definition of "reasonably good" business for a promotion that wants to be selling PPVs.

I think Vince's high interest in pushing Rock as a top star from the day he first signed with WWF had more to do with the fact that he had this big smile that made Vince immediately think of him as a guy who would be dripping with charisma and could thus truly be the next Hogan. Rock didn't become the next Hogan, but he did end up being the guy dripping with charisma, just in a different way that Vince envisioned him. Plus, at the time, Rock was a wrestler who had a big build but could also do plenty of high-flying moves, the latter which he had to stop doing after a knee injury. He just seemed to have all the things Vince looked for in a wrestler.

The thing that bothers me the most about 1999 WCW was that you would generally have solid to great matches, but the booking of the matches and shows was just so frustrating. Either it was the heels dominating programs or stuff that was just plain silly. Do I need to bring up "who drove the Hummer?"

Well Nancy Grace and her ilk would still find something to complain over, I'm sure, so I guess it's "good business" to have been leaving him off stuff. But it sounds like they might be easing up...recall Vince's mini-statement in that History of WWE magazine. Also, in the WM issue this year, they give the results of all the WM's, and Benoit is mentioned by name in them this time. Not that I am one of those who are pushing them to bring him back. I am actually against the IWC on this debate, not just for the realistic aspects of it, but because I am just sick of the whole matter. One tends to forget Nancy and Daniel when it becomes all about Chris and his career. That said, maybe Jericho DOESN'T want a DVD set until there's the smallest possibility that they can bring back the Benoit matches? Remember at the beginning of his book, he was one who said that the Benoit of that weekend wasn't the one he knew. So maybe he wants to wait till it's "safe" to restore that man he did know? Back to the main topic, yes there is something therapeutic and/or fun in recalling how awful HHH is. But am I the only one who finds this and the J.R. thread terribly depressing? Just cause it opens a bunch of old wounds, most of them reminding me how terrible the business has seemed to become in this last decade or so? Mostly the way backstage politics and mean-spiritedness seep out in the final product. I realize that wrestling's always been like that, but it just seemed more noticeable from the Attitude Era on. Perhaps me having the Internet helped (hurt?) too, but I was thinking back to having read Bret's book and contrasting the sex and drugs and all of the '80s with the characters I saw on TV every week. They may have been scummy and jerky off-camera, but on camera they were good, they were evil, they were funny, heroic, and COOL. I miss that! I doubt anyone from the MSM will care about a Chris Benoit match being slipped onto a DVD, although I'd imagine they might jump on a full Benoit DVD coming out (which we know will never happen). It's not like the MSM cares enough about it any longer... they quit caring when the investigators ruled out "roid rage" as what led to Chris' actions. And Dave Meltzer has always said Nancy Grace was one of the few who started to understand the real issues. Now if you wish to cite Geraldo Rivera as being embarassing with his coverage of it, feel free. Back to HHH, I always remember how in 1999 the WWE did everything in their power to get him over and, aside from heel heat after his WM XV turn, the crowd could care less about him... he got zero heat. Granted, he was booked pretty stupidly at times, but the fans had no reason to boo him. It took the Steph heel turn to finally get him over. And yes, the whole handling of the Trip-Steph-Angle love triangle irks me to no end. When they booked it so Steph chose Trip over Angle, instead of using the better option of Steph choosing Kurt, that was the end of WWF's momentum and their slide began.

At the debut? Or relatively early in a push? For a debut, you might just be right. Can't think of others in the WWE. Early in the push, the fans didn't like Rock/Rocky. One of the reasons they turned him. It would be interesting to find when Razor started getting some positive vibe from the fans. The WWF turned him because he was getting too "cool". There have been a few others like that, though Razor was probably the most obvious. With Jake in the 80s and Taker in the 90s, it was a little more gradual. Don't recall Jake getting any positive buzz opposite Steamer. John Rocky actually got a good pop when he won the Survivor Series elimination match and the fans popped for his first I-C title win. Was it correct he was supposed to do a program with Marc Mero to try to make the fans more sympathetic to him? Either way, he didn't fit in well enough given that the fans were more interested in cheering somebody like Austin. I'd have to look at the Razor-Kid match from Raw again, but I do recall Razor getting a few cheers at that point. Of course, the pop after the match was entirely for Kid's win. Jake didn't get any face pops in the Steamboat program, but then they started toying with the idea of him turning face and he showed he could get a face pop. His matches with Savage were proof of that.

Are you suggesting that pro wrestling regulation would be a low priority issue should the GOP regain the Senate? I wonder what would give you that idea. I don't think it had to do with any party in particular as it has to do with how politicians are more than happy to use some issues so they can to get votes, then turn around and ignore them once they win the election.

I agree with those who suspect WWE will just get their own network... even if they don't get kicked off USA. With all the programming they have available, it would likely be more cost effective for them to have their own network. As far as Vince goes, the real question is going to be whether or not those who succeed him are able to keep things together from both the business and the booking perspective. I'm not sure how many sharp minds who could easily take control are left in that company... you have some people who are control freaks but may not be able to convince everyone to stay on board, and you have those who might be savvy but may not be able to do a good sell job on other employees.

By the way, Bob, I did not mean anything negative by using your comment to start the thread. I thought it would make for an interesting conversation and allow me to learn a little something -- success on all fronts. No problem. I didn't take your decision to start the thread to be anything negative... I was just late coming to join the party.

Well, with Russo, it's pretty easy to see. In WWF, he liked the entertainment side, so did Vince McMahon. In WCW, the higher-ups believed he was the reason things turned around in WWF. And in TNA, he's buddies with Jeff Jarrett, and it seems he's now friends with Dixie, so that's how he gets his job. Wrestling has always been a business in which the guys who get the opportunities are either the ones who think the way the guy charge does, or who have "past success" and people think that's what matters.