Bob Morris

There wasn't really that period of "X-Pac heat" dating back to 1999 as some people like to claim. He was quite over and fans accepted him in his role from his return to WWF until about midway through 2000, when it became apparent to people he seldom lost, and when he did, he was soon getting his heat back. Couple that with very little evolving of his character and fans just soon grew tired of him. But those people who use that period when fans grew tired of X-Pac to rip apart Sean Waltman for nearly his entire career forget that he was very good in the earlier part of his career and would pick up his pace against better workers. And when WCW fired him via FedEx, he had some good wrestling during his return to WWF because he was so motivated to prove to WCW they made a big mistake in firing him. To sum up Waltman, he was one of those guys that started off well but then fizzled out, but it isn't fair to judge him solely based on his later years.

Since I haven't seen this posted in the thread yet, here's a link to a Randazzo column at UGO.com about what can be done to reform pro wrestling. http://www.ugo.com/sports/how-to-reform-pr...tling/?cur=main I think this column at least demonstrates that Randazzo isn't somebody who hates pro wrestling, contrary to the perception some people have. If he truly hated pro wrestling, his suggestion would be to get rid of the business altogether, not to reform it.

Goldberg was one of those guys who just caught on at some point with the fans because he looked so dominant. When he added the spear to his repertoire, it only reinforced that image. As far as what prompted WCW to keep pushing him, I would suspect a lot of it has to do with the fact that they could truly claim him as a "home-grown" talent, so when his popularity took off, the push increased.

And on the subject of using shoot interviews, sometimes a journalist will try to track down a source for information and can't make contact with said source, or the source may not want to talk to them. There's nothing wrong with checking another item in which said source is quoted extensively, so long as you note the item in question and so long as it holds some relevancy. And I would argue the Haynes quote in question holds relevancy because Haynes said a friend of his talked him out of it, because it addresses the point that somebody who gets evil intentions on their mind may not commit to them if somebody talks that person out of it first. Or as I said in my own review of the book, I do believe Randazzo implies that, if Eddy Guerrero were still alive today, so would Chris, Nancy and Daniel Benoit.

I actually agree. He's taken a stand against recreational drugs, cut down on the use of piledrivers, created a lighter working schedule, etc. Of course, it helps that no promoter has ever held more leverage than McMahon in this decade, but he does deserve some credit. I agree with this to an extent. It is true that Vince is discouraging piledrivers and unprotected chairshots to the head, and while the wellness policy is not without its faults, it's a step in the right direction. I don't think the schedule change, though, has anything to do with a desire to help the wrestlers as it is the fact that the business model has changed. It used to be house shows were the bread and butter of a promotion, and now it's become the PPVs, so Vince can afford to schedule fewer house shows. It's true that two house shows are not unusual today, but that's because of the brand split. To put it into better perspective, when WWE had its hot run from 1998 to 2001, Vince wasn't running two or three house shows a night, somethng that did happen during the WWE's hot period in the 1980s. But some of the changes that would help the industry are ones I doubt Vince would consider making. Ask yourself this: When was the last time Vince McMahon took a vacation (as in, choose of his own free will to get away from the wrestling business for a week or two and go do something else with his time)? Point being: If Vince shows no desire to take a vacation, why would he see any benefit to giving them to his wrestlers?

A book having a negative tone doesn't, in my eyes, automatically make it a bad book. There are those who may not care for certain styles of writing, but then a book that uses astyle of writing that one doesn't care for is always going to get a negative response from that person. Same thing for opinions presented. Every author of every wrestling book (including biographies, whether ghost written or self written) injects opinion into them at some point. I know there are those who do not care for Death of WCW because of its writing style and its opinions. But I find criticisms such as "they sound like Scott Keith when they write" or "how dare they call Bill Watts bad for WCW because he made wrestlers stay for the entire show" to have less teeth because they boil down to either (a) not liking the writing style or ( disagreeing with an opinion presented. If you want my criticisms of Death of WCW, they boil down to facts being omitted that would help further illustrate the point (the Black Scorpion is a major one) or go over facts that do too much to illustrate it (I don't think it was necessary to break down every single PPV in the peak years of WCW). Randazzo's book gets similar criticisms from me. He does get his timelines out of order at a couple of points and he drops in quotes to illustrate a point that come off as completely unnecessary (we don't need to know from Billy Gunn what HHH is like, we get that picture painted quite well by Dr. Ranjan Chhibber). And people seem to keep harping on that the wrestling industry isn't responsible for Chris Benoit murdering his family, when that is not the point being illustrated. The point being illustrated is that (a) Benoit had mental issues from the start, ( the wrestling industry tends to be filled with such guys and their actions are just considered "part of the business" and © the wrestling industry's approach to business results in a lot of guys becoming broken down physically and mentally (and for those with mental issues, more so mentally than they were before). If the industry paid closer attention to the way some of these wrestlers act, they might actually stop and think that some guys do have mental problems and need help. But the industry's overall attitude means very few in the business do, and certainly not 99 percent of all wrestling promoters. So it shouldn't be a surprise when books come out critical of the wrestling industry, they tend to give it the negative treatment.

Absolutely. As I understand it, when Dave first started his HOF, he pulled a bunch of people in as those he and a few others felt should be in, then took the rest to a vote. He probably would have been wiser to just start with voting from a select few right away and then only hand out a new ballot if somebody who had been voting decided to stop. He might have been able to spread out the inductees better.

On one hand, Dave has a valid point about the desire to being the best doesn't instantly equate to being a mark for oneself. On the other hand, Dave should have been digging into comparisons between Benoit and other wrestlers who were driven to be the best. I don't think Randazzo ever intended to declare that Benoit's desire to be the best meant he was going to kill his family. Instead, Randazzo paints Benoit as being overly obssessed... the bit he pulled from Chris Jericho's about Benoit subjecting himself to 500 Hindu squats for a mistake made during a match that Jericho described as one that nobody watching was any wiser to, clearly illustrates that Benoit was too worried about making mistakes, even ones that most wrestlers would consider trivial. I don't recall stories like that said about Ric Flair, who was also a wrestler always portrayed as driven to being the best. But he was also a wrestler that worked a "safer" style and didn't suffer from serious injuries as a direct result of his wrestling style. His most serious injury was the broken back he suffered in that plane crash back in the mid 1970s. It's true that Flair was "living the lifestyle" he portrayed in his wrestling character, and Flair certainly was not without his faults. But he generally worked a "safe" style and strived not only to protect his opponent, but himself. Like I said previously and in my review, Randazzo's book is not about telling a story that is completely true. It's about illustrating a point... some stories he pulled are true, some may or may not be true, some are exaggerated versions of the truth and some are strictly rumor or have no truth to them at all. But they still illustrate the point about the nature of the business.

I bought the DVD yesterday. Kmart had it for a really good price, I thought. The documentary is done quite well. They pulled some interview bits from previous DVDs, such as bits from Tully Blanchard, Arn Anderson and J.J Dillon from the Horsemen DVD. Jim Cornette is also interviewed... I didn't get the first Flair set but I presume he had some comments from that one. There are also bits from some wrestlers who were certainly asked about Flair when doing bits for previous DVDs, such as Greg Valentine and Kevin Von Erich. What was a really nice touch was WWE talking to David Crockett. It was good to get that perspective from him. They did go into pretty good detail about the plane crash Flair was involved in and put over how he managed to come back despite being told he would never wrestle again. One thing I didn't like was how they portrayed the timeline of Ted Turner and Jim Herd not coming along until after Flair's series with Steamboat and Terry Funk in 1989. They also made no mention of why Flair insisted on waiting for Sting to get the title and it's portrayed as if Flair wanting Sting to get the belt was a reason he left in 1991. Also, I'm surprised they never had Flair bring up the Spartacus idea, which I think was really the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm surprised they didn't mention anything about David Flair entering the wrestling business for a few years. They talk to him quite a bit about what family life was like, but it would have been interesting to get that perspective from him and Ric about trying to follow in his father's footsteps. EDIT: One disappointment was that they never had any insight from Ricky Steamboat. Not sure why. I didn't see Raw when the Flair farewell aired and it was nicely done. The extra stuff with Undertaker was also very good... nice to see the WWE allow Undertaker to break character in front of a live audience. Even if it wasn't shown on TV, it was nice to have that included on the DVD. Haven't had a chance to watch the matches, but the documentary part was done well for the most part.

So Mickie Knuckles, who is working for TNA, broke her leg during a match at the IWA-MS show last night. Dave Meltzer noted at F4Wonline that it was pretty serious, comparing it to the injury Sid Vicious suffered on a WCW PPV back in 2001. How he describes how it happened makes me wonder again about the need for wrestlers to work safer styles:

If it's a music issue, maybe it has to do with Hogan's theme at the time, "American Made."

I should also add that fans shouldn't be picking wrestling books simply based on how much sleaze and gossip they can get. The best wrestling books are the ones that are written effectively to illustrate a point. I liked Mick Foley's first book and Chris Jericho's book because they were structured well and told good stories about their careers, and weren't just about tossing out gossip for people to hear. They took the stories they had to tell and put some perspective into them. The stuff Randazzo writes about isn't stuff that is entirely new to wrestling fans, but it worked because it put things into context. Anybody can write a gossip book. But the best books are those that take various stories and put them together to illustrate a larger point.

Agreed. I would add, though, that the stuff Hall and Nash said about Vince McMahon didn't really add anything. You got the picture painted enough by others who Randazzo either interviewed himself or cited their quotes from other material. And while the tone Randazzo writes does come off as negative (not all the time, but when it is, it's definitely evident), it's done so to stress the larger point of what the wrestling business is like as a whole. One other thing... Lance Storm says one story Randazzo cites in the book is not true and several wrestlers have said so themselves. Lance doesn't need to identify the wrestlers, but he should identify the story in question.

Most of the matches are obvious gimmes, except for these three. The 91 match was already on Bret's set. I would've put their match from KOTR 93 on here instead, I always liked that one better anyway. The HBK match is one that is almost universally remembered as being disappointing, partly because of Hennig's back problems, so its inclusion here is strange. Especially since on some Colisseum video they had a much better encounter when Perfect was a heel and Shawn was a Rocker. And the WCW match... well, I guess they had to throw one on there somewhere, and all those Hennig/Windham vs. Benoit/Malenko matches were obviously right out. Still, they could've included at least one of his matches with Flair on here instead, considering Bret's already on here. The Hart/Henning match from KOTR 93 was the better match IMO as well, but it's also on the Bret Hart DVD. I would have liked to have seen the Hennig/Tito Santana match from Saturday Night's Main Event... gives you one of the matches during his first IC title reign and one that was quite good. I also would have liked to have seen the full Perfect/Flair "loser leaves town" match from Raw. The one on the Raw 15th anniversary set had a segment cut, if I'm not mistaken.

Those who are complaining about how it happened think it made Punk look weak because he cashed in moments after Batista beat down Edge. But as I said, it's the follow up that's important. If they end up setting up a Punk/Batista program, with Batista turning heel and claiming Punk never would have won the title if he hadn't beaten up Edge, and then he turns around and jobs cleanly to Batista, then it's a job done well with Punk. That being said, I can understand people being suspicious as to whether or not they'll properly follow up with a good title run for Punk, given that WWE Creative has had a track record of often doing a poor job of following up on things.

I agree that the idea of pushing new talent is a good thing. But it's also important to execute it well. We've seen plenty of times in which various feds pushed new talent but the execution wasn't good. I'm not talking about how Punk won the title... it's how you follow up on it that really matters. We shall see what WWE does.

I can understand Oliver's remark to a point... not based on people not having all the facts, but simply assuming that Bret was right in every aspect of what he did. Although I do side with Bret on what went down in the ring, I don't approve of Bret punching Vince in the face... I can understand why he did it, but I don't agree with it regardless. Bret's biggest fault is that he tends to believe too strongly in himself and what he accomplished. I also suspect Bret has never been happy with the fact that his career didn't end on his own terms.

In watching my Royal Rumble DVDs, I found a fun trivia fact was to name well-known wrestlers who appeared on the Royal Rumble PPVs, but never were a participant in the Rumble match itself. The most notable such wrestler is Scott Hall... while Razor Ramon appeard in the 1997 Rumble, that was when Big Titan was playing the character. Hall as Ramon did a run-in in the 1996 Rumble, but he wasn't an actual participant. There are also those well-known wrestlers who have just one appearance as a Rumble participant, such as Tully Blanchard, Arn Anderson and Rick Steiner.

Given that they just added Mark Henry to the ECW title match at the next PPV, I wonder if this means they're putting the title on Henry.

I don't know where it's written that a show has to be either live or draw better ratings to not be called the "B-show." Thunder was the B-show in WCW simply because WCW booking made it clear they didn't consider it worth the attention that Nitro got. Smackdown may have been that way at one point, but with some people saying they've seen better shows on Smackdown than on Raw, calling it the B-show is a stretch these days. Especially since (gasp!) Triple H is headed there. Quick, someone tell him it's the B-show and he just got demoted!

May I also add that it's annoying that some people think it's the end of the world that JR is going to Smackdown. Todd Martin went on and on about it, acting like going to Smackdown is a demotion. It's one thing for people to be annoyed about the "JR gets fired" angle that happened a couple years ago, but it's not the end of the world that JR is now on Smackdown. He still has a job, get over it. Besides, JR isn't going to be around forever. JR fans might not believe it, but I will not be surprised to see the day come that Jim Ross decides to leave. He may love the wrestling business, but almost every longtime announcer has, at some point, decided to move on. What are these JR fans going to do if he decides to leave on his own accord?

Matt Hardy going to ECW makes sense as now you have a wrestler who can be the ECW champ and be the type of wrestler who is closest to the type of wrestler that the ECW fanbase wants to see on top. I suspect the switches to Smackdown for HHH (if that stays permanent) could be because MyNetwork TV sees Smackdown as its flagship show, so the hope is to put one of the top WWE guys there while allowing Cena to anchor Raw again. Of course, there's always the chance that HHH gets traded back to Raw, as happened the last time he was drafted. I don't watch Raw but I don't think Lawler and Cole is going to work because I doubt the two will have any chemistry. But that being said, I think the biggest problem is Lawler, who I found to be more annoying than funny as the years went by.

Well, it's one year after the fact. Just some questions to toss out for everyone to think about.... I'll add my answers/observations later. 1. What seems to be the pro wrestling industry's attitude toward steroid usage now? 2. What is the industry's attitude toward the usage of painkillers? 3. What is the industry doing in regards to making sure matches are as safe as possible? 4. What is the propensity of wrestlers to try to work/perform when hurt? 5. Should the fact that no wrestler has "died young" so far this year (at least, the ones I know who have died were at least in their 60s) be considered a good sign? 6. What more can be done to ensure pro wrestling continues to address steroid usage, painkiller usage, preventing concussions, ensuring workers stay healthy, etc.? If anyone has other questions they think should be considered, feel free to share.

There's likely plenty of WWE employees who need to do the same. Although when I picture JBL, Bob Holly and Bruce Pritchard sitting in a sensitivity training class, I laugh out lod.

From the article in question Hey, now Hulk can pitch an idea for another reality show... how a father and son can bond when spending time in the same jail cell!