Bob Morris

That's the closest I've found to a genuine explanation. I tried to sit down and think of other forms of entertainment in which half the show's goals involve deliberately pissing off the paying customers, and really there aren't many besides purorasslin. To some degree, journalism falls into this category. You'll hear more about economic downturns than economic upswings, for example. "Plane lands safely" is not a good newspaper headline. "H1N1 will affect many, many people" is a good one. I generally agree with Tom's analogy. Oh, yes, I can certainly tell you that's how journalism tends to be... with some exceptions. A pilot who lands a plane safely when all indicators were that it was going to crash will definitely make news, for example. Tom's analogy is about the best one that can be made. I suppose one could try to compare it to actors on afternoon soap operas (and there are plenty of stories about fans who came up to actors and started chewing them out, as if the actor and the character were the same person), but that being said, the actors on soap operas don't stay in character outside of the shows.

I suppose they could always ask Bret Hart to be a guest host on Raw, but otherwise, there really isn't any way for Bret to contribute in a permanent on-camera role. And I'd absolutely agree that a permanent on-camera role would be a bad thing for Bret to do, as it would smack of him just trying to regain past glory. A behind-the-scenes role for Bret as a road agent, though, would be a good fit for him.

For all we know, this may be his "third strike" anyway. Depending on how long the case takes to make its way through court proceedings, WWE may not want anything to do with Jeff Hardy for some time.

Let me throw a couple onto the pile: Rick Martel or Tito Santana? Butch Reed or Ron Simmons? Edge or Christian Cage?

In watching what I've seen of Rey, Bix is correct that he was much bigger when he first showed up in WWE. He's not as big now, but still much bigger than he was in WCW. And really, as far as kid appeal goes for anybody, be it a sports player, actor or pro wrestler, it comes down to your personality more often than not, but a lot of folks with these flashy or appealing personalities have some "issue" pertaining to them that would make you wonder how they could possibly be a "role model" for children.

Part of it might have had to do with the fact that he wasn't devoting himself to WWF full time, so Vince wasn't going to push him that high up the card. Vince also seemed content with letting Lawler handle commentator duties and seemed to perceive him more as a joke wrestler. Plus, some of the wrestlers who Vince was pushing at the time, I really don't know if Lawler would have meshed well with them. I suppose one could argue that the rape allegations, even after they were dropped, meant Vince was leery of pushing Lawler too prominently. EDIT: And then there's the more obvious point: Lawler wasn't "Vince's creation" and so Vince wasn't as interested in making him a prominent player.

Might a better comparison be to compare Flair's athletic/in-ring ability to athletes, and then take his appearance and compare it to actors who were considered more valuable to Hollywood for their looks than their acting ability?

I really can't see WWE changing course with its marketing of Rey. As long as he moves merchandise, they'll keep pushing him. While I don't doubt Rey has been taking illegal substances since his WWE arrival, he seems to fall into the Jeff Hardy/William Regal category of guys who are either on top or getting a major push, then fail a wellness test and pay the penalty, even though their build and behavior may make one wonder why it didn't happen sooner. Of course, the guys that are on the very top likely have the "best connections" in terms of finding substances that the tests can't catch (even as WWE tends to use the least reliable tests among those organizations who do them), masking agents or even common products that can prevent a positive test.

Not surprising he'd look at this. I wonder if it would mean that he'd switch all first-run WWE programming to such a network.

So what the hell is this at F4W.com about A.J. Styles' retirement?

I agree that Jarrett isn't main event material, but from a workrate standpoint, I prefer the overall body of his work to Angle's. Along with the issues already mentioned regarding Jarrett, another problem was WCW deciding to do that "I want in the Horsemen" angle when fans never bought him as somebody who fit in with the Horsemen. They should have just made him an nWo member upon his arrival, as he would have likely made it work with his heel mannerisms.

For those thinking Vince would never take Kurt Angle back, now and forever, those are the people giving Vince too much credit. Certainly he wouldn't take him back _now_, but if a year from now, this stuff has all died down and Angle somehow isn't off the deep end, Vince would take him back if he thinks he could make money off Angle. It has nothing to do with wanting to put TNA out of business. Dave Meltzer has always said that, if Vince feels he can make money off you, he'll take you back and it will take something pretty significant to stop him from doing so. Yes, there's no way he'd take Angle back tomorrow if he became available, but who knows what will happen in a year's time.

Honestly, if TNA did take the title off Angle and sent him packing, somebody else somewhere will be more than happy to bring him on board. Maybe Vince McMahon and WWE wouldn't do it at this time, but once this latest episode dies down, Vince would most definitely sign him up. Angle is so revered in the wrestling world and so many people believe he's instant money and attention just based on his ring work alone that, for the most part, he'll have a job wherever he wants unless he commits a foul deed that treads closer to Benoit territory. I hate saying that, too, but it's the truth. Angle is just one of those wrestlers whose reputation for his work and stardom is so big, it will take a lot for the wrestling world to truly consider him to be a guy to distance themselves from.

His heel promos would probably be better if he wasn't portrayed like a whiny little kid when pushed as a heel.

I recall Wade Keller saying that the Abyss/Sting stuff was Mantel's booking. This was around the time the VKM stuff was being done, and Keller said the VKM stuff was indeed Russo's doing.

For those who have been watching WWE TV regularly, how well does Chris Jericho's recent work help his HOF case? Just curious.

Coke and roids impact people differently. Len Bias died young. Vince and Hogan and Keith Richards (sans the roids) are still alive. There never is a good reason why other than different people have different body chemistries that let them survive what kills others. John I'd say there's more to it than that. Hogan never took the massive amounts of painkillers that other wrestlers did because Hogan, while working a lot of dates, worked a style that ensured less wear and tear on his body. Plus there was the period when he got off the juice when the Zahorian trials were underway and he knew he was going to be put under the microscope. Vince likely got off certain drugs as well when the feds were cracking down on him. Many of the wrestlers who have died in their 40s were either not with WWF when the feds were on Vince's case, or were off the juice but still hooked on painkillers, and for those on street drugs, they were keeping a low profile regarding it.

To add to what else has been said, I suspect WWE will survive in some form after Vince passes away. The question is how long Steph and HHH will survive in their roles with the company. I could see somebody else possibly swooping in and taking over the operation, perhaps from within. It would be a long shot at best, but I think the difference between Vince and Stephanie is that, while many in the industry don't like Vince, they respect him for what he has done. With Stephanie, I'd say that respect is next to nothing, so some might think it would be easier to pull the rug out from under her than it would be with Vince. With HHH, it all depends on how astute he becomes in terms of being the head honcho, as opposed to the guy who has his share of power but isn't held to the same level of responsibility as Vince is. As for TNA, even if the company were to get the proper direction, I have my doubts that company will ever be able to expand to the level of WWE. It's probably going to remain a niche promotion... which isn't a bad thing so long as it has a solid direction and can demonstrate profitability without Panda and Spike pumping money into it (of which it has neither at this point).

Bob, what indications are there that Stephanie would be any better running the financial side of things than the creative side? For all the doom-mongerers (and to be fair there is plenty of reasons to be worried), it should be remembered that everyone thought AAA would fall off the cliff when Antonio Pena died, which didn't happen. In all likelihood, Vince has created such a promotional juggernaut that the company will survive long after his death despite any in fighting, inexperience and incompetence in the immediate aftermath of his death. Some interviews I've read with people who worked in WWE indicated that Stephanie does understand general business concepts. That may not necessarily translate to her being highly qualified to run the financial side of things, but I would imagine it's an area she'd be better suited for if she understands the basics. The difference between the financial side and the creative side is that the financial side mostly is looking out for the bottom line, whereas with creative, you are trying to find the characters and storylines that help improve the bottom line. They do go hand in hand, but each element tends to require different skills and knowledge to make it work.

I would suspect, when Triple H ends up truly in the driver's seat, he'll retire from wrestling for the most part as he'll be earning his money the same way Vince earns it now, so he won't need the money from being part of matches and such. That being said, I think we all know HHH will push his buddies or the guys he happens to think are the stars of tomorrow, even if fans think otherwise. Stephanie might be a good choice to run the financial side of things, ala Linda, but when it comes to creative, she has no clue. Who knows what Shane will do. I think it's more likely he just gets fed up and leaves the business altogether.

Kenta may be right that this ordeal with Jeff Jarrett may be the nail in the coffin for TNA. Despite people's criticisms of Jarrett, I've already mentioned that he's done more to elevate talent than any of the other established guys, hasn't been as selfish as he was before, and Jeff Hamlin raised a good point that Jarrett is the guy who has helped reign in Vince Russo (and Dutch Mantel, although Hamlin didn't specifically say his name) when it comes to booking. The most recent Impact is the perfect example, in which while you didn't have multiple run-ins during matches, the booking included about three different swerves in the same night.

On this DVD, they did clip/edit out any mention of the word "ass" which particularly comes up when referring to the New Age Outlaws and "Bad Ass" Billy Gunn. Of course, you can still see the word "ass" written on his tights and headbands.

If it is true that Beth Phoenix is pregnant, WWE better be careful how they handle it. Last I heard, Dawn Marie's wrongful termination suit against WWE was still pending.

There's no doubt that Bash '89 was a strong show from top to bottom. You had feuds that were built up well, found ways to deliver clean endings yet still keep the feuds going, the matches that didn't feature a decisive winner didn't actually do harm to anyone... the show isn't without its flaws, but the flaws are few. One of the nice things about some of the WWE DVDs is, on the second Flair set, the Flair/Funk match from GAB '89 includes the post-match brawl... truly great stuff in which the faces keep gaining the advantage, yet the heels keep coming back for more, until it finally reaches the point when the heels decide to fight another day, and Flair and Sting are declaring "this is not over!"

While I will not dispute Russo's failures as a booker, Vince McMahon has had just as many bad ideas as Russo has had. With Russo working for McMahon, it wasn't so much McMahon filtered out his bad ideas, as it was that the process was Russo and others would write a rough draft for an upcoming show, McMahon would review it and make changes, those on creative and production would get together to further discuss it and a production meeting would be held a few hours prior to the show to finalize everything. In WCW, Russo and others would write the script and there would be no reviewing, no other meetings held and if you asked WCW folks about holding a production meeting before the show, they would say "What's a production meeting?" In other words, WCW's biggest problem was it had no organization whatsoever, with everything done "on the fly," meaning the only person who would have succeeded in booking in that environment would be somebody who could wield enough power to make higher ups realize that there needed to be more organization to begin with. No doubt others would have booked better than Russo, but they ultimately would have ran into the same problem of a lack of organization in WCW and either would have left, burned out or seen their quality of booking slip. As for TNA, Russo's booking hasn't been as haphazard as it was in WCW, as TNA at least seems to understand how to organize the process for producing shows. But his problems are still evident in that he keeps trying to do what worked for him in WWF, but not understanding how those elements really worked or came to be, and scripting interviews for wrestlers because he thinks those type of interviews sound cool. For example, I'm sure Scott Steiner gets the interviews he gets because Russo saw Steiner's WCW interview a few years back where he ripped apart Ric Flair solely out of his own frustrations and axes to grind, thus Russo believes that's what Steiner's character should be, when in reality it does nothing to help anybody.