Bob Morris

As I said earlier, the problem with Todd Martin is not that he doesn't know who these people are, but that his criticism should be focused on that the current audience isn't going to understand why these people are important. For example, with Animaniacs, there is one cartoon in which the joke is made "will someone stop that man from saying dragon" and an anvil is dropped on the man yelling "Dragon!" I did learn that is a reference to something, but can't remember it without looking it up. But why do kids laugh at it? Because you don't have to get the reference to get the joke. Evidently, on Raw, they made a Tubbs joke. Kids today won't get how the Don Johnson-Tubbs connection and thus won't get the joke. And that's where the problem lies. Especially since those kids who know about a "Miami Vice" are thinking about Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx and wondering what the connection is with this Don Johnson guy. It's all about putting things into a context so that it works for nearly any audience, not just a particular segment.

It would probably help Martin better if he would argue that these guest hosts aren't always serving to connect with the fanbase that WWE wants to attract. Given that it's currently kids, he can argue that Don Johnson doesn't make sense. I'm not aware of any current project that Johnson is involved with that kids would know about. Jon Heder, on the other hand, does make sense because I know plenty of kids today are fans of the Napoleon Dynamite film and so they should be familiar with him.

What seems to be the problem with the "who is responsible for this" issue is figuring out exactly what we are assigning responsibility to. If we are assigning responsibility for whose decision it was to push a particular wrestler or declare one wrestler will be put over the other, that is not the same as whose decision it is to figure out how to execute the push or putting over. I can accept that Jeff Jarrett is/was like Vince McMahon in terms of having final say, but McMahon does not put every single detail of the shows together. He instead assigns responsibility for the details to bookers and writers, giving them the direction as to who he wants pushed. The bookers and writers then decide how to execute/script the push, then their plan goes to McMahon for review. So therefore, McMahon is the one responsible for WHO gets pushed, but the bookers and writers are responsible for HOW they are pushed. And thus I would say the same applies to the Jarrett/Russo relationship. Jarrett may declare WHO he wants to push, but Russo decides HOW and it goes to Jarrett for his review. And really, it's the HOW that has always been Russo's problem. Generally speaking, he has had the right idea of WHO should be pushed when given that input, but does not understand HOW to do it. Certainly not enough to be the main guy putting together a wrestling show. I might also accept that some ideas for gimmick matches may have come from Jarrett, but given that "every match has to have a gimmick" has been a staple of Russo's booking, it should be no surprise people associate it with him. And I suspect that, while it's possible that not every gimmick match in TNA was Russo's idea, he has had more than his fair share that were his ideas.

It's pretty ironic Russo would do such a thing when he was more than happy to engage with Keller in that four-hour "sitdown shoot interview" with Ed Ferrara joining him. I wonder if Ferrara's royalty payments were higher than Russo's.

What really bothers me are those who toss out such points, but then will turn around and grumble about something when the obvious is addressed. For example: * If a belt is made to mean something, they then complain it's on the wrong wrestler. * If a clean finish happens, they then complain the guy doing the job shouldn't be doing a clean job. * If a free TV show doesn't give away a lot, then either the matches are too short or there is too much talking. Not saying every writer who addresses the obvious makes these complaints, but some writers just never seem to be satisfied with how something is presented.

As I recall, the first WM3 release was heavily edited to cut out most of the entrances, so the music wasn't an issue. Keep in mind that the first Wrestlemania was shorter in length than the third one, so the third was cut down on the tape for time constraints.

The way I saw TNA was like this: "I've heard this song before." Not in terms of I've seen these guys do their thing so many times before, but in terms of I've seen promises about "things are going to change" delivered before, but nothing truly satisfying is delivered. TNA seems to think that throwing out a ton of stuff at once is going to get people to watch more often, but you don't throw out your whole hand at once. Go back to when the Monday Night Wars began... the first Nitro had essentially one surprise: Lex Luger showing up out of nowhere and causing both Sting and Ric Flair to be taken by surprise. In other words, sometimes less is more. As for the Bret Hart segments, I liked the one with Jericho and I'm fine with the one with Michaels. I think the real disappointment with the McMahon one isn't how it was done, but the fact it's going to build to Bret/Vince at WM and most of us just don't want to see Bret wrestling again. Plus, with Bret, you have all these "dream matches" people would talk about seeing (I'm sure some fans somewhere are hoping for Bret/Jericho or Bret/Orton, for instance) but they are highly unlikely to happen.

If I'm not mistaken, one reason WWE rushed so quickly into the WCW Invasion was because the company wanted to make it appear to stockholders that they were doing something with WCW, only when it didn't work out, to blame it on the fact people viewed WCW as damaged goods, but hey, they still had the video library. EDIT: Also, there was the whole ordeal of Viacom not wanting to give WWE additional time slots to add WCW programming, thus adding to that urgency to rush things. But I agree that more careful planning might have allowed WWE to stretch things out.

I agree with what Tom wrote earlier. Wrestling is filled with fucked-up individuals and bullshit artists. Bret falls into both categories, but he's not the worst offender. Dynamite Kid was both as well, although I wouldn't call him the worst offender either. And really, so was Bad News Allen (again, though, not the worst). It comes down to "the truth lies somewhere between" and it's up to each person to determine where they think the truth lies.

Bret Hart is really no different from most any other wrestler who got pushed as a promotion's top guy. He believes his own hype too much. He points to how certain fans worship him as if it makes him larger than life. He criticizes other wrestlers for their weaknesses when some of those arguments could be applied to him. I'm a Bret Hart fan. I still take his side more with regards to Montreal, but since Montreal, there are just certain things he just refuses to let go and he seems hellbent on ending his career on a "high note" on his terms, when we all know that is the exception, not the rule. I'm not offended by Bret going back to WWE for the short term. I can only shake my head in disbelief as to what he is doing, not because "WWE screwed him in Montreal" but because "he is in no condition to be getting back into the ring and no way will this run mean anything unless he gets back into the ring."

With Magnum, I suspect the issues with Jim Crockett's haphazard expansion and Dusty Rhodes' haphazard booking would have remained and may very well have hurt his push. I look at Sting's rise in Crockett, then continuing in WCW, and ultimately getting botched between booking and poor management and suspect Magnum would have gone the same route. Pillman is an interesting case. If he hadn't been in that accident, he definitely would have been a much better worker in the ring than he was during his WWF stint. I suspect he still would have signed with WWE and may very well have been put closer to the top of the card. Assuming the accident still happened and he had been more careful in his attempt to return to the ring, I don't think he would have had that long of an in-ring career with WWF, although the company might have tried to get some mileage out of a program with Austin.

This actually does boost smkelly's points a bit... but that being said, I will add this: My problem with smkelly's post is that he seems to want to absolve the promoter of ANY responsibility with regards to wrestlers dying young. He's not wrong to point out that wrestlers and fans bear responsibility for it. The problem with his argument is that, in part, it's not an effective argument... and it's also wrong to say that because wrestlers and fans bear responsibility means promoters don't. Bruce Mitchell wrote a very good column back when Eddy Guerrero died, going over who was responsible for wrestlers dying young, and while he did go over those people in a certain order, the style of his writing made it clear he was not assigning "how much blame" but simply saying "they all share in the blame." And that's the problem with a lot of arguments on this subject... they often assign a certain amount of blame, or in some cases, no blame at all. And that will never do anything to solve the problem. I will say, though, that wrestlers, promoters and fans alike seem to be less sensitive to these issues and become more defensive than the players in just about any other business. As an example, in the NFL, players are more likely to contemplate retirement when injuries pile up than wrestlers are. In the NFL, things aren't perfect with the way they approach performance-enhancing drug usage, but they do a better job of it, and are more responsive to it, than any wrestling promoter out there. And when it comes to NFL fans, you'll find your share who rally behind their favorite player... but if it becomes evident a favorite player needs to retire, you are likely to find plenty of fans who will admit to it. Try that with a pro wrestling fan and his/her favorite wrestler, and that's a lot harder to come by. Until that defensive mentality regarding pro wrestling is broken, you aren't going to see changes.

No, I think the point was that it is the fans who are at fault for demanding certain body types and forms of wrestling. I could see that point in ROH when it comes to in-ring. But plenty of non-roided up looking guys have drawn money in wrestling and are currently drawing money in MMA. Jeff Hardy was the biggest breakout drawing card of the last couple years and he's an average looking dude that wears a shirt to the ring. And the WWE in-ring style is whatever they want it to be, the money is made in the promoting and the characters. Guys like Cena, Rock, and Batista aren't know for crazy bumps. And then there are the fans who go around crying about how "I don't demand anything from a wrestler, so how can you say anythng is my fault?" while bashing Cena because he's a "shitty wrestler" and going ga-ga over the latest match with "sick bumps." Note: I'm not disagreeing with you, because there are plenty of fans who get too demanding of wrestlers and don't bother to appreciate matches for their storytelling quality, instead being more interested in the amount of bumps being taken. But I'm sure you can relate that those types of fans are the most defensive about pro wrestling and the ones most likely to play the "personal responsibility" card. But that being said, smkelly's logic is still poor reasoning, because while Umaga may have been overweight, I think it's safe to say that he would still be alive if he wasn't abusing steroids and painkillers... and those two factors are a running theme with wrestlers dying young. And Bix is correct about those wrestlers who didn't have terrific builds, but still proved they could draw crowds and work smart matches that people loved.

Sadly, Umaga just became another statistic and I really can't say more than that.

I think why Dave referred to Vince McMahon as being "lucky" is that most of the ideas that came forward during the Attitude Era really had nothing to do with ideas or a vision Vince McMahon had. When Vince McMahon went national in the 1980s, he had a vision of what he wanted the company to be, he knew he wanted Hulk Hogan to be part of it and he was able to pick up on pop culture at the time and know how to connect wrestling with it. Over time, Vince McMahon lost touch with his audience and kept trying to stick with what he thought was best. It took the likes of Shane McMahon, Vince Russo and Pat Patterson to convince him that he needed to change his approach, because the old way Vince McMahon wanted to stick with wasn't working. Steve Austin was the one that came up with the Stone Cold character when Vince McMahon wanted him to be The Ringmaster. Vince McMahon also wanted Rocky Maivia to be the new squeaky-clean babyface, but when that didn't work out, it took a heel turn, a little repackaging by Russo and a lot of improvisation by Dwayne Johnson to bring forth The Rock. So I think that is what Dave is getting at... Vince McMahon didn't really do that much to bring about the change in the WWF's direction. It was others who came up with the material or pushed Vince McMahon to go with that direction.

"Bix Sux" Was that about the gist of it?

I agree that nothing suggests the Carters are desperate to get out of the wrestling business. If they were, they would have done so a long time ago. The Carters are essentially the equivalent of Ted Turner in that, despite their promotion mostly losing money, they aren't willing to pull the plug for whatever the reason may be. The only way I can see the plug truly getting pulled on TNA, aside from massive losses that put Panda Energy itself on shaky ground, is if the Carters lose the final say in the future of TNA, as was the case with Turner and WCW.

What I want to know is this: If Ric Flair follows Hogan into TNA, is he going to use that same common sense when ratings don't materialize or is he going to remain silent on the issue? When I was at Wrestling Classics, there was the occassional Hogan defender. Most likely, it's the same fan or same two fans going after Dave, tossing out ridiculous claims that he can easily refute.

I'd be surprised if this wasn't the big announcement. The long term goal of the company has always been to recreate the Monday Night Wars. I'm not sure Hogan would come on board if TNA wasn't positioned to be directly competitive with WWE. Why bring in so many highly paid expensive guys simultaneously if Impact is staying on a Thursday night where they get decent ratings already? Going to Monday nights isn't going to work given that the current WWE fanbase is only interested in Hogan and Flair as "once in a while treats" as opposed to regular members of the roster. They _might_ be interested in A.J. Styles and Kurt Angle, but they aren't going to flock to TNA because all the legends are going there. As Loss said, Shane McMahon heading to TNA would cause heads to turn, but the chances of that happening are slim to none. That being said, stranger things have happened... but I don't see a scenario happening in which TNA can truly make the Monday Night Wars work again.

Hogan isn't going to be the answer... really, nobody in TNA, regardless of who is booking or running the show, seems to have a long-term vision of what they want. It's still hard for me to figure out exactly what audience they want to attract or how they are supposed to be presented as an alternative to WWE. The only thing that has struck me as unique is how TNA promotes its women's division. But the X division has lost its luster and now comes off to me as just another title belt to pursue, the Main Event Mafia hasn't really done much to help elevate or create new talent, and while they seem to want to build around A.J. Styles, they aren't doing a good job of building his supporting cast, as it were. Case in point: They bring in Bobby Lashley and have a chance to make him something special (regardless of what one thinks about him talent wise), but the last Impact I caught, he was just another wrestler on the roster. Supposedly they are making a big deal of him being the MMA guy invading TNA, but he's not being booked as that, he's booked as another face in the crowd. As far as what their next big announcement is, it's probably Flair coming on board, which would be yet another wrong move. Only things I can truly see as "something bigger than Hogan" is Rock returning to wrestling by signing with TNA, or maybe Goldberg coming on board, but not the long-past-his-prime Ric Flair.

Finally saw the movie this weekend. I really liked Rourke's performance. Ditto for Tormei. Both of their characters were believable and they seemed to have good chemistry with each other. I dug the storyline in which Randy finds that Pam is the one person who will truly listen to him. That plot point works pretty well... how the honest talk with Pam seems to convince Randy to change and get away from the wrestling business... and how Pam at first brushing him off when Randy makes it clear he wants to spend the rest of his life with her is what leads to Randy coming apart again. But then my problems with the movie start to rise... I didn't really feel sympathetic for Randy's daughter, nor did I think of her as this "cold hearted bitch." She was just kind of there. Not a whole lot was done to explain what makes her tick, other than the fact her father wasn't around often as a kid. And what happened to the mother, anyway? The scene where Randy ends up quitting his job at the grocery store is overdone... and really, what boss is going to tell you to "quit bleeding in front of the customers" even if you cut your thumb because of your own anger/carelessness? Seriously, why would anyone want to work for a boss like that? It would have been nice if we had delved just a little bit into the "behind the scenes" relationship between Randy and The Ayatollah... we basically just get Ayatollah asking Randy during the match if he's OK and telling him to "just send it home." But what about what became of Randy's biggest rival over the years? Might have been interesting to go a little bit into Ayatollah the human being and his concern for Randy's health. Rourke certainly deserved his Oscar nomination, but the film was a bit unsatisfying for me in some respects. Certainly it's a storyline we are all too familiar with in pro wrestling, but I don't think enough was done from the story standpoint to make me feel sympathetic for Randy.

There's always the possibility that WWE wants to make nice with Luger because they hope to make nice with Sting, who is Luger's buddy. Although Sting will certainly never go to WWE to wrestle, they could always hold out hope of him agreeing to a WWE Hall of Fame spot.

Reid will probably end up in WWE before long as a favor to Ric, and then Reid will be paying for both his and his old man's drug and drinking habits. And it seems like the best thing that could ever have happened to David was for him to get out of the wrestling business... he may have saved himself from the same fate.

I suspect Shane will be involved in some other venture. What will be interesting is to see how that future venture of his will be positioned against WWE, if at all. And I did post this at tOA, but will post it here as well: It's extremely unlikely that Shane will ever show up in TNA... but if it happened, I wouldn't be shocked (and I will add, because that's exactly the type of thing Vince Russo would love to have happen).

That's probably because daytime soap operas don't run credits before the show, and do it after only once in a while. Hence the fans watching them didn't always know who the actors were. When I was a kid, I sometimes watched the soaps because my mother watched them. While I knew the actor who played the Fonz was named Henry Winkler, I never knew the names of any of the actors on the soaps because they seldom aired credits to point out their names.