Bob Morris

OK, here's a link to ECW PPV buyrates. Not sure if the last one listed is the correct number... it just seems odd that the final ECW PPV (as in, one that wasn't WWE putting out a PPV under ECW's name) would spike to such a high buyrate after the rest never got higher than a .26. Anyway, that one buyrate aside, I see no evidence of Heyman increasing PPV buys beyond his core audience.

Heyman seems to be the guy always trotted out as the guy to book TNA, but any check of his booking patterns have shown that while he may get matches people go nuts for, he is lousy at getting people to buy PPVs, which is what the business is based on these days. I've always said Heyman would be a good choice to put together house shows, but when it comes to building storylines to sell PPVs, his track record is poor. Really? ECW was doing bigger buyrates than TNA is doing now back when they just had late-night syndicated TV and very few stars with national names. ECW could be in the 80,000-100,000 range, which TNA very rarely hits. That's amazing when you think about the resources of the respective companies. TNA has two hours of weekly prime time TV on a solid cable network with a roster including fomer WrestleMania main eventers. ECW was on MSG at 2AM on a Friday night. And ECW could still do bigger buyrates. The same can be said about how ECW could actually go on the road and run places consistenly while drawing 2,000-3,000 in their bigger markets, which TNA has been unable to do. TNA can't even draw enough fans to justify doing PPVs on the road anymore. Saying ECW drew better buyrates than TNA ever has does not translate to Heyman knowing how to build storylines that sell PPVs. I have seen no evidence that ECW increased its buys beyond its core audience... a core audience that was, no doubt, more loyal to the company than TNA's core audience is. But comparing Company A to Company B does not prove anything, it's about comparing Company A's PPVs to each other, particularly from one year to the next, to see if whoever is in charge is increasing buys. The comparison is to take the PPVs in which Heyman was doing a lot of the booking and comparing them to the shows of the previous year to see if interest was really being increased. Or compare WWE PPVs outside of the "big four" to see if there was a boost from one to the next. People need to not buy too swiflty into this idea that Heyman is the cure for all that ails TNA. With Heyman, you'd get the X Division workers doing even more gimmick matches than they are currently doing, Abyss being allowed to run free with his hardcore antics, the Beautiful People being a trio of lesbians who get heat by trying to kiss their opponents, and very likely, Kurt Angle being thrown out there in 15-minute matches nearly every single Impact that may cause certain smart marks to cream themselves, but is going to add more wear and tear to Angle's body as he is encouraged to engage in "top this" in his matches. Because stuff like that is the way Heyman operates.

Heyman seems to be the guy always trotted out as the guy to book TNA, but any check of his booking patterns have shown that while he may get matches people go nuts for, he is lousy at getting people to buy PPVs, which is what the business is based on these days. I've always said Heyman would be a good choice to put together house shows, but when it comes to building storylines to sell PPVs, his track record is poor. Cornette might have a better understanding about how to build storylines to sell PPVs, but some of his thinking is a bit outdated, so you'd want him to be part of a committee where there is somebody else who can give input as to what types of characters and storylines appeal to the audience TNA wants to draw.

One thing that WWE needs to remember with regards to having celebrities showing up to be a guest GM on Raw is they still have PPVs to promote. How many of these celebrity appearances are actually in the vein of getting people to buy PPVs? At least the likes of Mr. T, Dennis Rodman and Mike Tyson were used in some way to convince people to buy the PPV, or in Mr. T's case, to head to these locations for closed circuit TV airings of Wrestlemania.

Watched the final disc tonight. And yes, that RnR/Russians match is a long one, and the textbook example of how to really stretch out the hot tag. They may have done it too long, though, but you talk about a big crowd reaction when the hot tag is finally made, there you have it. What I think does work about the set is that the tag matches all tend to vary in terms of how they work the tag team formula, and serve as a good way to compare among the matches as to where it works well and where it doesn't work as well. And interestingly enough, they also serve how to compare commentators. You learn quickly how bad David Crockett was, how good Tony Schiavone was at one point, how Jim Ross went from being very good at what he does to sounding like he's board, to Gorilla Monsoon varying in his level, but definitely making a good observation in one of the matches in how the referee is showing no consistency with allowing a tag he doesn't see. The Monsoon bit is the one tag team spot that always bothered me... the heels switching places behind the referee's back and the referee questioning it but doing nothing about it, only when the face makes a tag the referee doesn't see, he doesn't allow it. I'm fine with heels switching off and the referee getting confused by itself, or the face team making a tag he doesn't see and it isn't allowed by itself, but when the two are put into the same match, it just makes no sense how the referee can be confused by the heels switching off, but know exactly which face is the legal wrestler in the ring.

That question would come down to how much Angle wants to continue to be an active wrestler and if he's actually willing to put other people over. While Jarrett has been made a focal point of TNA storylines, from what I have watched and read, he's doing at least a few things to help elevate talent, even if much of it is ever followed up on properly. Of course, I seriously doubt Jarrett will ever step down from any position of control, so I figure Angle will be gone when his deal expires. Then I expect him to want to go back to WWE, and Vince absolutely will take him for the sole reason that he believes he could make money off Angle.

If WWE still considers its main demographic 18-35-year-old males, why would the company make programming decisions that are done to aim more towards a program advertisers would consider more suited for children, such as reducing swearing and cutting back on blood? Plus John Cena's main appeal is to kids, while the 18-35 male demographic is more likely to prefer booing his presence. As far as other celebrities that may have had a positive impact, Dennis Rodman had a little in his first WCW stint. His follow-up stints, though, did nothing for the company. But yeah, celebrities as a whole haven't really added to a wrestling product, unless it was a case of "take a hot celebrity, paired with a hot wrestler, and let the rest take care of itself."

So I bought the set and have gone through the first two discs. Miz and Morrison work well as the DVD hosts... they stay semi-in-character for lack of a better term and it works pretty well. The one disappointing part is they don't have Miz and Morrison do an intro segment for each tag team that is prominently featured. They say nothing about the Midnight Express or the Hart Foundation, for example, and they just go right to a highlight package to lead into the match. There are segments in which they lump notable teams into several categories. The Daredevils are essentially 80's teams known for being high-flying duos and the Worldwide Attractions are those tag teams in which "where they hail from" was played up to at least some extent. Although in watching the Best Brotherly Duos listing, I chuckled at the Smoking Gunns being listed there. I'm surprised WWE would still keep kayfabe with them. As for the Honorable Mentions, that seems to be the category in which they just tossed out notable teams that didn't really fit in any of the other categories they mentioned... so you have MNM, the Hollywood Blondes, Billy and Chuck and the Nasty Boys being put in the same grouping. There are some matches that are quite good, and I found myself a bit surprised in watching Outsiders/Harlem Heat in that Hall and Nash had their working boots on... although there did seem to be that subtle hint of burying Harlem Heat by the way the finish came off.

The only thing I would add is, if WWE wants to do celebrity hosts, they need to look for ones who are popular with the audience the company wants to attract. With ZZ Top, I can understand why they were asked, but how much of the current WWE fanbase are ZZ Top fans? To put this into perspective, there's a reason why Mike Tyson meant more to WWE than Donald Trump, despite both of their apperances getting mainstream attention.

For some reason, the TNA Impact reports are for the subscribers only. Really, I don't understand why, if something is "members only" that they aren't all indicated that way. There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to why something is made that way and, in most cases, they aren't indicated as such.

I found the Vince-Jesse tandem to work better before Vince started to decline as an announcer. In the earlier years, Vince tended to be a little more down the middle and not a "rah-rah" announcer, even with Hogan. As the years went by, Vince is finding himself having a harder time explaining Hogan's actions. The perfect example is the SNME set and the Hogan-Harley Race match. The storyline that should obviously be told is that Hogan is still livid over what went down in his previous match with Andre, so upset that he takes it out on Race. Vince could have easily taken the stance that he didn't agree with Hogan's antics, but he could understand that Hogan was upset, which would have made for a better back-and-forth between him and Jesse, as Jesse couldn't just simply declare Vince justifying Hogan's action because "Hogan is your favorite." EDIT: In watching some of the 90's WCW matches, I found Jesse and Jim Ross to be a good duo... if Jesse pointed out a face was bending the rules, Jim generally acknowledged it point blank.

It would actually be more correct to say "MMA isn't pro wrestling in the sense that outcomes are not predetermined before the match begins."

I'm sure Jingus meant womens matchups. A lot of that had to do with the Angels working a style that had never been seen before for women's wrestling in the United States, and that Leilani Kai and Judy Martin were able to hold their own against the Angels and pick up their pace as well. That being said, I'd pick Madusa (Alundra Blayze) against Bull Nakano for an example of the best women's wrestling match held in a North American promotion.

I think the advertiser fear is based in how the criticism is delivered. It's one thing if Joey Styles says, "I don't like what Obama is doing and I disagree with his plans." It's another thing if he drops an "Obama bin Laden" comment or that "Obama supports abortion because he wants to kill babies," as that type of extremist opinion is what causes advertisers to freak.

Factoid from Dave:

Yeah, wasn't he on Hogan's Survivor Series team in 87? I remember thinking that was odd considering their history. Yep. The angle for his 87 face turn was that Bobby Heenan added Ravishing Rick Rude to the Heenan Family and Orndorff believed Heenan brought in Rude to replace him (Orndorff). That led to Oliver Humperdink becoming Orndorff's manager and a Rude/Orndorff feud that never got blown off before Orndorff left WWF at the end of 87.

Supposedly Abyss is the one coming up with his own storylines. Whether that is the case or not, it seems every time you hear about some horrible booking/storyline decision in TNA, it often involves the storyline with Abyss. And when I watched Impact last Thursday, I can honestly say that, if you removed the Abyss storyline, the quality of Impact would improve 10 times over.

In watching Impact recently, am I the only one who noticed that Angle has gotten considerably smaller?

The fact two of WWE's top headliners (Edge and Batista) have been injured so many times in the past couple of years is pretty telling about a lot of problems that continue to plague WWE, even if nobody in the company wants to recognize them.

IMO at least GCW is a necessary part of WCW history even if it wasn't actually merged into JCP. Particularly from the Vince McMahon mindset that "Ted Turner wants to put me out of business."

This is pretty much the top reason, IMO, that WCW in 1993 gets looked down upon so much. You had them switching titles several months in advance, then watched it blow up in WCW's face several times, such as the whole NWA title ordeal leading to WCW pulling out of NWA and now calling it The Big Gold Belt or the International title. I don't think WCW 1993 was a huge letdown, but the mistakes the company made tend to really stand out. They took a hot angle with Cactus Jack and Vader and booked the follow-up entirely wrong, they introduced Paul Roma as the fourth Horseman out of the blue when people expected the Horsemen reunion to be a major happening, the Shockmaster ordeal will always be front and center and the mini movies (which actually started in 1992 under Watts) kept getting worse until we got Sting's yacht being blown up to hype a PPV. WCW was filled with bad booking through the years, but the mistakes made in 1993 tend to be pretty big ones.

The match selection is definitely a plus... whoever had input did well in picking them. It certainly appears they interviewed Bill Watts, but I hope they don't gloss over the K. Allen Frey era, as there were some pretty significant developments that could have led to better things down the road had the order not come down to cut costs. As far as the Watts era goes, that's likely to be the most interesting one to debate, given that opinions are so mixed about it. Who knows if Goldberg was actually interviewed, but it makes sense to feature him as he was the perfect example of a fresh face who could have carried the company had WCW gotten behind him strongly rather than constantly making him second tier even after he won the WCW title. I will say this: Jim Ross was pretty fair to Goldberg on the Starrcade documentary, essentially saying what others have said all along: They should not have taken the title off Goldberg when he was still somebody people wanted to see.

I agree with those who have said it sounds like Batista. Part of me suspects Batista is going to end up like Billy Graham and Lex Luger in his older years, where he'll need to walk with the aid of a cane.

On one hand, it's certainly possible the rumor is just a rumor. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if Vickie was grossly underpaid to begin with. She was brought in originally to be a plot device for the short term and they could very well have thought nothing about paying her the same low amount she originally got for her initial apperances when the company kept her for the long term.

Speaking of TNA, when was the last time one might say the most recent episode of Impact was better than the most recent episode of Raw? Seriously, last night's Raw would make Krusty the Clown say, "What the hell was THAT?!"