Bob Morris

Understood. The timeline of wrestling definitely has stuff lifted from PWI Almanc of some year, as they match stuff printed in the 1997 version of the Almanac. Again, I would assume that was done before Keith took on the project. The timeline has several errors in it, but I would assume since Keith didn't know about it, you didn't know about it either, Bix.

I have the book. Maybe we need to do a team review? Note: Probably better we just start a Keith thread to go with the Keller and Jim Ross threads.

One of the problems with "Buzz" is that there's a timeline that was obviously lifted from a PWI Alamanac... and as I recall, Scott didn't even know that was being done. That might explain the question about him finishing a project the original author dropped. Jingus is correct it was done in line with the "beginner primer" guide in mind... there are several other "Buzz" books promo'ed on the back (Buzz on Wine was one people joked about a bit during the Rantsylvania days). Really, though, it was his second book that smacked of the most laziness, as it was mostly stuff he had written on the Internet and just reprinted for the book.

What has bothered me the most about Keith are two things: 1. He doesn't proofread his stuff very well. Notice how a couple of things Bix quoted would have been made more accurate just by simply changing a word or two. 2. He goes around quoting stuff from other sources without citing them. Most other authors at least provide a bibliography so you know what materials they used to support their work. Keith just seems to assume everybody has seen it, so he just uses it. Case in point: Some of the stuff he tosses out is stuff that is garnered from RF Video shoot interviews, which a very small number of wrestling fans watch. Heck, we already have something he took from the Superstar Billy Graham DVD and I've never seen it, so how would I know Graham made such a quote in it?

Pardon my interruption of a discussion that could take its own thread, but since the original post title is as such... Speaking of wrestling movies, apparently there was this movie called Wrestlemaniac, apparently a horror movie starring Rey Misterio (I assume it's Jr.) as a masked wrestler who likes to rip people's faces off. And, of course, the victims he seeks out are filiming a porn flick. Did this even make it to theaters? It's the first time I ever heard of this movie. And they wanted $15 for it at Kmart (no, I didn't buy it, I just glanced at it and had no clue this movie even existed).

Nacho Libre is clearly aimed at a kiddie demographic. It has its moments, but overall it's not the type of movie older wrestling fans will get much out of it... even if Silver King is in a featured role. And yes, the character Silver King portrays is clearly based on Mil Mascaras and the idea that Mascaras is an arrogant SOB.

So I'm watching Monday Night Football and they are advertising a BowFlex Home Gym with a guy hawking it... a guy by the name of Bryan Alvarez. Don't tell me that's the same Alvarez behind Figure Four Weekly.

It simply sounds to me like the diagnosis wasn't accurate. It happens. One doctor may give you one diagnosis, but another doctor gives you a different one. It may seem unusual that a doctor would diagnose somebody as "brain dead" when he really isn't, but I would imagine the doctor simply believed Kowalski reached that "point of no return" but it wasn't the case at the point the doctor made his diagnosis.

If I'm not mistaken, Jarrett did leave the WWF shortly after that match. Of course, he was back a few months later. Roadie didn't come back for a while, though. Not sure of the details, though.

Advertising might not be as big of a deal as it might seem to be. There are many of these cable/satellite channels on which ads are either minimal or there are no ads at all, and for those on which no ads air, the company that owns the channel also owns all the footage rights of programs aired on it. Given that WWE would own the right to all the footage aired on 24/7, its costs wouldn't be that great, so WWE could likely get away with few ads.

If I'm not mistaken, when the IRS audits you, they are more interested in whether or not all those deductions you keep claiming are legitimate, or that they believe you had more income than you actually reported. I would imagine the only reason they'd specifically look at the relationship of an employee or contractor is if said employee or contractor filed something in relation to a company that the company didn't report. But those who know more about the law, particularly tax law, could speak to that better.

Jerry McDevitt for the defense.. Note: It's not the actual filing of the response to the lawsuit, just McDevitt with his comments. EDIT: Yes, I just noticed somebody beat me to it. I didn't realize floyd had edited his post from yesterday and added the McDevitt link.

Regarding Kanyon, I do thank Chad for reminding me about his Stern appearances. I don't follow Stern, but yes, that would count as keeping himself in the public eye. But WWE is more likely to take the angle that Kanyon and company are (a) upset about being released from WWE years ago and/or ( not being an apporpriate party to file this suit becuase they aren't currently employed as WWE wrestlers, so they aren't affected by the way WWE does business. While an out-of-court settlement is possible, if these guys stick to their guns like Jesse Ventura did, I'd be sweating it out a bit more if I was McDevitt/McMahon. And Lord knows Jesse is one of the frontrunners among pro wrestling folk when it comes to trying to draw attention to himself.

I would imagine the legal team representing the three wrestlers in question has instructed them to keep their mouths shut about things. And to be fair to Kanyon, it's been a while since we've heard of some spectacle of him trying to get attention. Or at least the last I've heard of one... unless you count his appearance in that CNN special after Benoit's death, and even then, he didn't really say anything out of the ordinary.

Randy Orton is the project WWE just doesn't want to give up on, even when there are plenty of indicators that suggest it's probably for the best WWE cut ties with him. Either that, or there's always the joke about incriminating photos of Vince.

Considering the last major lawsuit involved Brock Lesnar, that's a definite loss for McDevitt, even if he apparently get him out of TNA. But when you considered what Lesnar really wanted was to participate in MMA, it's a stretch to say McDevitt won anything in settling that out of court. Nicole Bass was definiitely a win, but Bass picked all the wrong people to testify as witness in her favor. I suppose you could call Martha Hart's lawsuit a win, but WWE can thank certain Hart family members who were desperate for work for their husbands or themselves. Only helped Diana Hart, though, but once Davey Boy was released and then died, there went any WWE benefit for Diana. But here, you have three guys who likely have zero interest in working for WWE again, and guys who WWE would never likely consider bringing back, so the only way I can see this is a win for McDevitt is if he gives them a big enough settlement to get them to shut up or Raven, Kanyon and Sanders can't find reliable witnesses to represent their side. Just remember, McDevitt jobbed to both Jesse Ventura and Chad Austin, so it's no given he'll triumph here.

As I'm watching Impact tonight, I find it quite amusing how, when the former Billy Gunn was in WWE and how he got stuck in a gay stereotype gimmick... and now in TNA, he's getting stuck with one again. To explan, he's apparently being paired up with The Beautiful People as their personal hairdresser and fashion consultant... in other words, he's the new Rico.

Dave also made a remark in his F4W update yesterday about how Bischoff said Bob Ryder was a better reporter than Dave.

Regarding treating wrestlers to "respect the business," I don't see how Lesnar would have stuck around if he had been punched in the face repeatedly by Bob Holly or anyone else during his training. Lesnar's problems were with the travel schedule, and I'd also bet his burnout came because Vince pushed him so quickly to the top in the first place. If Vince was really worried about "paying dues," Lesnar wouldn't have been given the top title less than six months after his WWE debut, a debut in which Lesnar had no more than two years training in OVW prior.

OK, let's take a look at each of these points and how it would apply to WWE wrestlers given how their relationship typically works with the WWE. 1. Instructions Employees comply with instructions about when, where, and how work is to be performed. Contractors set their own hours and do the job in their own way. WWE would have a difficult time saying the wrestlers aren't employees. 2. Training Employees are trained to perform services in a particular way. They are required to take correspondence courses and attend meetings. Other methods also indicate that the employer wants the services performed in a particular way. Contractors use their own methods and receive no training from the purchaser of their services. Might be considered debatable, but the sentence "other methods also indicate that the employer wants the services performed in a particular way" would lean more toward the wrestlers being employees. 3. Integration Services of an employee are merged into the business. Success and continuation of the business depends upon these services. The employer coordinates work with that of others. The success and continuation of the business aren’t dependent on services provided by a contractor. Wrestlers in WWE would definitely be considered employees here. 4. Services Rendered Personally Services must be rendered personally. An employee does not engage other people to do the work. Contractors are able to assign their own workers to do the job. Again, employees. 5. Hiring, Supervising, Paying An employee hires, supervises and pays workers at the direction of the employer (i.e.: acts as foreman or representative of the employer). Contractors hire, supervise and pay the other workers as the result of a contract. A contractor agrees to provide materials and labor and is responsible for the results. Once again, employees. 6. Continuing Relationship An employee continues to work for the same person year after year. Contractors are hired to do one job. There is no continuous relationship. It would be a stretch to not call the wrestlers "employees" given that they are required to sign long-term contracts. Before those came into play, it was easier to argue the "contractor" definition applies. 7. Set Hours of Work The employer sets an employee’s hours and days. Contractors are masters of their own time. Absolutely "employee" applies here. 8. Full Time Required An employee normally works full time for an employer. Contractors are free to work when and for whom they choose. Again, employees. And no, working for indies doesn't count because the wrestler has to clear it with WWE first. 9. Doing Work on Employer’s Premises Employees work on the premises of an employer; or on a route, or at a site, designated by the employer. Contractors work off an employer’s premises and use their own offices, desks, and telephones. "On a route, at a site designated by the employer." That's what WWE does with its wrestlers. 10. Order or Sequence Set An employee performs services in the order or sequence set by the employer. Salespersons report to the office at specified times, follow-up on leads, and perform certain tasks at certain times. Services are performed at a contractor’s own pace. Salespersons work their own schedules and usually have their own offices. This might be argued as "doesn't apply" to pro wrestling as it currently stands. However, the wrestlers don't set theri own schedules. 11. Oral or Written Reports Employees are required to submit regular oral or written reports to the employer. Contractors submit no reports. Doesn't apply to WWE wrestlers. 12. Payment by Hour, Week, Month Employees are paid by the employer in regular amounts at stated intervals. A contractor is paid by the job on a straight commission. The way WWE contracts are set up in terms of pay, it's closer to "contractor" form. 13. Payment of Business and/or Travel Expenses The employer pays employees’ business and/or travel expenses. Contractors take care of their own expenses and are accountable only to themselves for expenses. Again, the way things are set up, it's a "contractor" relationship. 14. Furnishing of Tools, Materials An employer furnishes tools, materials, etc. Contractors furnish their own tools, etc. This varies... some WWE wrestlers get their own wrestling attire and outfits, others are designed by WWE for the wrestler. And I believe some wrestlers who get their own attire do it by their own choice, not via WWE's direction. 15. Significant Investment An employee has no significant investment in the facilities used to perform services. A contractor has a real, essential and significant investment. The "employee" definition fits better. 16. Realization of Profit or Loss An employee cannot realize a profit or loss by making good or bad decisions. Contractors can realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of their services or decisions. One could argue that "contractor" fits better given the way WWE contracts are currently set up. 17. Working for More than One Firm at a Time An employee usually works for one employer at a time. An independent contractor works for a number of persons or firms at the same time. Absolutely does WWE consider them "employees" here (and again, working for somebody else requires permission). 18. Making Services Available to the General Public An employee does not make services available to the general public. Contractors have their own offices and assistants. The hold businesses licenses are listed in business directories, maintain business telephones, and otherwise generally make their services available to the public. "Employee" is the only way to define a WWE wrestler here. 19. Right to Fire An employee can be discharged at any time. Contractors cannot be fired so long as product results meet contract specifications. Again, employees. 20. Right to Quit Employees can quit their jobs at any time without incurring liability. Contractors agree to complete a specific job and are responsible for satisfactory completion; or they are legally obligated to make good for any failure. Only this one is more like a "contractor." Usually when a wrestler quits outright, WWE tries to hold him up with a lengthy no-compete clause, thus implying the wrestler owes them something. Given so many of these points cause WWE wrestlers to fall under "employees" more than "contractors," it's easy to see why it's been previously argued that the current relationship WWE has with its wrestlers would never hold up in court, and the only reason it hasn't changed is because nobody tried to challenge it... until now, that is.

What will really be interesting to see how the suit itself develops and whatever rulings are made prior to whatever conclusion comes about. And while some might think going against the WWE's lawyers is not a good proposition, that legal team has been known to stumble over its own feet, or WWE's own employees end up doing it as well, thus losing ground in a suit. Brock Lesnar, anyone? EDIT: Also, Bryan Alvarez confirmed in the F4W update today that Levy is Scott Levy (Raven). He didn't mention the others involved.

I'd argue that eras really should be defined more by the mindset/landscape of the periods rather than by a decade. "80's wrestling" that people think of tends to go back when the WWF started the Hogan push (1984) and ends with 1990 when the Warrior push began and the WWF began losing steam. Hogan did get additional title reigns after the Warrior reign, but the WWF was still losing steam thanks to angles, the Zahorian steroid trial and Hogan losing a bit of steam. There's a theory that fans started turning on Hogan, but in reality, it was because certain characters just came off as cool to fans, such as Undertaker, or the fans didn't buy the booking, such as how they tried to make Sid the bad guy in the 1992 Royal Rumble and it didn't work. But anyway... call the 1984 to 1990 period the "wrestling goes national" period, because that's when wrestling exposure on cable TV began to really build steam, as well as the PPV market becoming a lucrative field for wrestling when used properly. Then go to 1990 to about mid-1997... this is the period in which the two main promotions, WCW and WWF, are trying many different things and nothing is working to draw in the crowds WWF was drawing during its earlier peak period. There were some wrestlers who could keep crowds stable, but they weren't causing attendance or business to continually increase, just keeping it in a holding pattern, with the once-in-a-while brief increase that ended up disappearing. Not sure how you'd define that period... I'm not sure if "dark ages" is a good fit, because it implies everything was bad and I don't think that was the case... a lot of ideas were bad for business, but some might have helped business more if they had been better planned or promoters truly got behind them. The next era I would define as mid-1997 to about of March 2001... call it the "NWO/Attitude era." It started with Hogan turning heel and the NWO's official formation and ended when WWF bought WCW and Austin turned heel. It was that era in which it was clear the way business was being conducted and programming was presented was different. I would argue the NWO wasn't exactly like the Horsemen... it did get some inspiration from the Horsemen, but it was presented to look a little more unpredictable, and to look like you never knew who would be their next target. With the Horsemen, you generally could figure out who was going to be targeted and their motivation was clear. With the NWO, you often got spots in which an attack happened just because the NWO could do it. Also, the way the NWO vignettes were presented... they were filmed to look like they were truly "renegade" whereas Horsemen vignettes were presented like any other vignette for a wrestler. Then comes WWF with its Attitude phase in which product was getting presented quite a bit differently, and it was more about the promos and the sketches than it was about the matches. The characters certainly weren't 80's style, but they still tended to be larger than life. When the Austin heel run began, you ended up with the period in which things were being thrown to the wall to make them stick and the booking wasn't good, but it was all getting based around the formats and characters that worked during the "NWO/Attitude era." The WWE, since then, has just been trying to find its new niche with varying degrees of success... although it's portrayed that the major PPVs are doing bigger business, it's worth noting that PPVs are now being sold that way overseas, whereas before, they weren't in every foreign country. But I would argue there is still some "NWO/Attitude era" mentality taking place. I wouldn't group the current years into the same era, but it's like the 1991 to mid-1997 period in which there is still mentaliy from the period before it evident in what is being presented.

In going through the Rock DVD, I have to comment on one match in particular: Steel Cage Match: The Rock vs. Triple H RAW (05/07/99) - This is basically an exercise in "just how stupid are Triple H and Chyna anyway?" Stupidity example 1: Triple H gets handcuffs from Chyna. The first thing he does is hook the cuffs to the cage, then pounds on Rock before going to cuff him, only for Rock to fight back. The cuffs never come into play again. Stupidity example 2: As Rock is trying to crawl for the door, Chyna knocks out referee Tim White. She then slams the door into Rock's face, then immediately goes in to pull Triple H out the door. White, of course, is still out, so Rock comes out himself and they brawl outside the ring. Stupidity example 3: Triple H and Rock are fighting on top of the cage. Chyna hands Triple H a chair and he nails Rock, who slumps over on top of the cage. Instead of cllimbing down the cage wall to the floor, Triple H climbs back inside the cage, where he proceeds to scale the ropes while grabbing the cage wall and then slips and crotches himself. It's amazing to watch just how much of a dumbass Triple H was booked to look like. Rock may not have looked strong, but Triple H was far from "cerebral assassin" and more like "cerebral assasinated."

I watched the '88 Crockett Cup on tape a few years ago (wasn't the complete show, just a few matches) and Road Warriors/PoP was a pretty solid match marred by the Dusty Finish. I don't remember if the Sting/Luger match in question was on the tape, though.

Vince McMahon in his announcing prime is definitely better than people give him credit for. I watched the 1998 Royal Rumble show and was quite impressed with his style and effort... he was very good about making observations at certain points of various matches. Vince's decline came around the time Jim Ross showed up... that was when Vince was often about the cliches and goofy stuff while Ross was on his A game. Vince wasn't completely awful on commentary, as there were times he could get out some good stuff. It's just that Ross was doing a better job at that point. Of course, when Vince left commentary, that was when Ross began picking up some of Vince's tendencies to shout out goofy stuff. He was still pretty good overall, though, and didn't really begin to decline until around the time the 90's boom period was ending.