Bob Morris

I suspect when Taker is ready to retire, he'll get his HOF induction ceremony at that point. That may be the only time they have him come close to "breaking character," although I suspect it will be done carefully. He'll probably limit his speech to his work with fellow WWE wrestlers and it'll be either Kane or Paul Bearer inducting him.

Catching up on several topics: * When I first heard the news, I was in shock that it happened and wasn't really thinking about "how did it happen?" Then when more evidence was reported and it painted the picture of how it happened, I felt shock again, not in terms of "Benoit isn't the kind of guy who would do this!" but in terms of"why would Benoit do such a thing?" Then I became more concerned about the "why" part not because I was looking to excuse Benoit, but because I wanted to know what people were missing, overlooking or ignoring, so that such a situation didn't happen to somebody else in the future. No, you won't prevent all such cases, but knowing those details of what led Benoit to his actions is a way to take steps towarding preventing some of those similar situations from happening. * I think the larger point of WWE doing what it did is this: The company has this mindset that it's going to air first-run programming no matter what and that it will take a LOT for them to cancel a televised show or PPV outright. I agree with Loss that WWE acts too defensive when questions about things, rather than once in a while taking a step back and saying "maybe we could have done things differently but chalk it up to hindsight." Instead, we get "we did nothing wrong, quit blaming us." * Ring of Hell makes the argument that Benoit had mental issues growing up, such as him talking so much about Dynamite Kid that Benoit's friends get turned off and don't want to socialize with him. Of course, when Benoit was younger, people didn't know as much about mental issues as they do today. Even now, the brain is the most misunderstood organ in the human body and doctors differ all the time in their assessments of patients with mental issues. I can think of one example: Following the shooting that injured Gabrielle Giffords and killed and injured other people, our local school superintendent talked about a case in a previous district he worked for, in which a teenage boy wrote a list of people he wanted to kill. He was immediately taken to an emergency room, the doctor on duty determined he needed help with his mental issues and recommended he be taken to another facility. They had to wait for transportation, so he was kept under watch. Then the next doctor on duty took over, looked at the kid, said there was nothing wrong with him, so they released him. The superintendent said he carefully monitored for the rest of the school year and the kid didn't do anything, but still, you have two doctors with different opinions and, from what I gather, the family of the kid is in denial there is anything wrong with him. So I suspect when Benoit was growing up, he may very well have had mental issues but nobody knew. His friends probably just thought he was annoying, not truly fucked up in the head. And I suspect his parents didn't think much about it at that time. That's not to say what Benoit experienced in wrestling didn't have an impact on his mental state, but I don't think it's the entire story, either.

I consider myself a fairly big DiBiase fan, and also have no recollection of a Tito feud. I knew they had some matches at house shows, but an actual angle? Geez, I can't believe I actually remember these details, given the DiBiase/Santana feud was so insignificant, but... This was when they did special TV shows prior to PPVs... in the case of Survivor Series, it was usually members of two teams facing each other in a singles match. Before Survivor Series 1991, they did DiBiase/Virgil for the Million Dollar Belt. Long story short: Repo Man came out and grabbed the belt, then when Virgil went after him, Repo Man hit him with the belt and DiBiase pinned Virgil. DiBiase then was set to do his "stuff a $100 bill in the mouth" but Santana came out and chased DiBiase off. Then DiBiase started taunting Mexicans in response. Oh, and IRS/Bossman was about IRS accusing Bossman of accepting bribes and not reporting them for taxation purposes. So... yeah, that was WWF booking for you.

I never saw DiBiase's run with the tag titles as a big star elevating the titles. I know the show on which DiBiase and IRS won the titles was in Denver, and while I didn't attend the show (I lived near Denver at the time), I do remember the hype for the show was these two matches were to take place: * LOD vs. Natural Disasters for the tag team titles * DiBiase/IRS vs. Big Bossman/Tito Santana In other words, going into the show, there were no plans to put the titles on DiBiase and IRS. They were both in singles feuds and got paired together against their feuding partners for a tag match. IIRC, that was about the time Hawk was having drug-related issues with WWF, so they needed to get the belts off LOD, and thus they switched the matches around so DiBiase/IRS faced LOD and the Disasters got Bossman and Santana. The Disasters then interfered in the match to help DiBiase/IRS win the titles. Supposedly they were going to do another LOD/Disasters match for WM XIII that year but it never materialized, likely dealing with Hawk's issues, while DiBiase and IRS were supposed to face Hacksaw Jim Duggan and Sgt. Slaughter... a tag team that seemed to come about because WWF didn't know what else to do with them at that point. Of course, we instead got DiBiase/IRS vs. Disasters and the Disasters doing a pretty awkward face turn. The match at WM VIII didn't have much heat as a result. They did have the match in which the Disasters won the titles on a Coliseum Video and the pop for the title switch was legit, but it never really lasted. On top of that, the depth just wasn't there... Money Inc. did the job at SummerSlam that year to LOD but Hawk still had his drug issues and was gone after that, with Animal teaming with Crush for a brief period but that not leading to anything. Meanwhile, the Disasters beat the Beverly Brothers, who were the JTTS of the tag ranks, then lose the belts back to Money Inc. and then do a program with the Headshrinkers that didn't really go anywhere. The Nasty Boys then turn face and didn't really click that much... they were somewhat over but fans weren't really eager to see them win the titles. I'm not saying Money Inc. didn't do their job well as a tag team... I'm saying, when I look back on their run and how the tag ranks were at the time, it really wasn't anything special. And when the Steiner Brothers showed up, the tag ranks became incredibly thin. The Beverlys, the Nastys and the Disasters were all gone, the Headshrinkers were just kind of there, the Quebecers were still new and Jacques Rougeau was carrying the team, the Smoking Gunns were green, ditto for Men on a Mission, and Well Dunn was... well, dull. And when you have to go to Smoky Mountain Wrestling to bring the Heavenly Bodies in to be a PPV challenge for the tag titles, well, you know you've got a problem. Anyway, the Money Inc. era wasn't really that strong for the tag team ranks or the belts... not because of anything Money Inc. did or didn't do but because the tag ranks simply didn't have a good collection of teams. When the Steiners came along, they ended up on top of a weak overall crop as well, thus they were in a similar situaton to Money Inc.

The pushes of Angle and Jericho in 2000 in which WWF never really capitalized on their momentum happened long before the Lesnar push came along... so I doubt it has anything to do with Lesnar. More to the point, if you are going to push somebody, the smart thing to do is stick with the push in full unless the crowd doesn't respond to it as you expected or something serious really does come up (e.g, a wellness policy violation). Using what happened to Lesnar as a reason not to get behind a guy in full is ridiculous because, as Loss has said, you condition fans to expect the push won't go anywhere and you never have a chance to create a star, plus you send the message to talent that "we don't trust that you won't do what Lesnar did," so why should the talent bother showing commitment if the company isn't willing to put a little faith into the talent?

In response to what Jerry wrote... I don't want to speak for Loss, but I will say this: Knowing whether something withstands the test of time — which is what Loss' point is — is based on actually going back to look at it rather than reliving memories. Not that I'm saying you are doing that, Jerry, but when people are pointing out specific stuff that didn't work, they go back to look at it and point out those specifics. When they do that, the best counterpoint is to look at specifics in which the wrestler, commentator or whoever in question did his job well. While I know it's not part of your example, that got followed with Hogan/Zeus with Beefcake and Savage in tow. But the issue is not just how well those feuds segued into one another, but what happened along the way. WM IV was a mediocre-at-best PPV overall. SummerSlam 88 doesn't age well as an overall show despite the main event and how it continues the saga you mentioned. Survivor Series 88 hasn't held up well, despite a good opener (and when you go back and watch the show live, the Demolition/Powers of Pain double turn didn't click with the fans, so that's one problem with booking right there). And while the 1989 Royal Rumble did help move the Hogan/Savage storyline along, the attempt to get Big John Studd re-establised as a top babyface didn't work over the long haul, even if they had the right idea with it coming down to Studd and DiBiase at the end (to put this into perspective, ask yourself how fans might have reacted to Studd if he had been the one to come out next when Hogan was fighting the Twin Towers outside the ring following Hogan's elimination). Anyway, to the point... there are certainly a few good things you can pinpoint during that time period you mentioned, but as an overall package, there really isn't enough in the way of memorable matches or booking. It's a product with a few good spots, but is lacking in many areas. WWF certainly deserves credit for showing people how you establish yourself as a national promotion. Vince deserves credit for being smart enough to know how to get WWF on that path and for really capitalizing on Hogan's popularity. Hogan deserves credit for working smart matches in his prime that kept the fans drawn into the action. But just because WWF was successful overall in terms of its promotion doesn't mean everything holds up over time and under further scrutiny. It's just when you are doing strong business, the things you aren't doing so well may not be noticed at first, but when you go back to look at them, they become more apparent and get pointed out by those who go back to look. In terms of presentation, there is definitely something wrong with pumping in crowd noise that makes it look like everyone is reacting the same way, at the same level, to every wrestler on the card, regardless of position on the card or feud currently involved with. That has nothing to do with Mooney or Mean Gene. And to address those two specifically, I thought Mooney was generally fine, he just happened to get stuck with Lord Alfred Hayes nearly every time he did match commentary. Mean Gene was somebody I never had an issue with and I don't think Loss does, either (although I could be wrong). But there's more to presentation than just Gene doing interviews and Mooney running the "control center." That is not the issue Loss is bringing up. He's bringing up that their execution of building feuds and keeping top talent separated didn't always work well. In other words, right idea, but faulty execution. I already mentioned Hogan/Zeus. That was BAD. If Savage hadn't been part of the feud, it would have bombed. Few fans, if any, were buying the Zeus angle. Warrior as WWF champion did not work. It didn't help that the only feuding partner they had available at first was Rick Rude, who wasn't that far removed from his previous feud with Warrior and, despite WWF's best attempt to make him a serious challenger, not enough fans bought into the feud. Warrior/Savage worked better, but Warrior's run at the top was running out of steam and it was only a question of when, not if, Hogan was getting the title back. If you want to get into the IC title, after Savage/Steamboat and Savage/Honky, not much stands out as truly memorable. Warrior/Rude is the only IC title feud in the mid-1998 to mid-1992 that might be considered memorable, and that's mostly because (1) Warrior lost the belt to Rude at WM V, which I don't think many fans expected, and (2) they had a very good match at SummerSlam 89. But remember this: The feud started over Rude getting upset that he lost a posedown with Warrior. That absolutely pales in comparison to how the Savage/Steamboat feud got started. With all due respect, the WWF did not do everything right. Overall, WWF made a lot of money during that period, so it would be incorrect to say the company wasn't successful. But that doesn't automatically translate into every single thing being done right.

No question Slaughter worked his ass off to get matches over and the feuds over. The issue with the Slaughter run is that WWF never went "over the top" with the character like they did with Nikolai Volkoff and Iron Shiek, in which it was Volkoff singing the Soviet anthem and Shiek shouting "IRAN NUMBAH ONE, RUSSIA NUMBAH ONE!" With Slaughter, they played up how General Adnan looked like Saddam Hussein, they doctored a photo of Saddam to make it look like Slaughter was palling around with him, they had the "boots that were a gift from Saddam" bit, and on it goes. Fans can take stuff that ties into real life if it does with a wink in the eye. WWF didn't play it that way with Slaughter. And I've said this before but will say it again: The original angle used when Slaughter returned in 1991 was that he believed the end of the Cold War was a result of America growing soft. That might have worked into a more interesting angle, with Hogan taking the stance that "yeah, I battled guys like Volkoff before, but us welcoming him into the United States now is not because the United States became weak, but because Volkoff has learnd to embrace our ideas and principles." Taking that approach might have worked better and might not have caused as many fans to stop watching the product. But once they decided to go the route of Slaughter essentially being "pals with Saddam Hussein," too many fans didn't like it. To them, it was likely "too close to reality" for them to accept. Wrestling can incorporate angles that can draw parallels to reality, but it always works best as an escape from reality. The Slaughter angle, as it played out, got too close to reality, IMO, and I suspect other fans felt the same way.

If I remember correctly, the sexual assault charge case against Jerry Lawler was just leading up to the dismissal of charges when the 1994 Royal Rumble took place. I'm assuming Vince wanted a heel commentator to work with so DiBiase got the nod. The real issue with DiBiase there is he was still doing his arrogant laugh, and while that worked for his wrestling character, that wasn't good for match commentary.

The way I look at is this: Rock was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a white, Anglo-Saxon human being. Since Hulk Hogan became WWF champion, everyone who followed him was a white, Anglo-Saxon human being, from Andre to Savage to Flair to Bret Hart to Sgt. Slaughter to Undertaker to Michaels to Sid to Austin to Kane. EDIT: And, yes, Hogan was a white, Anglo-Saxon human being too. So... I really don't know what it all means, but it's safe to say Rock was not a white, Anglo-Saxon human being. Take that for what it's worth with regards to his first WWF World title run. EDIT #2: OK, after double-checking the definition of Anglo-Saxon from the list, Andre the Giant wouldn't be Anglo-Saxon, but he was definitely white.

I agree that Schiavone just wasn't a good fit for the dynamic that WWF always wanted to portray on it shows during the 80's and early to mid 90's. I do think Schiavone had some good work at times during the Monday Night Wars era, but then got into a lot of hyperbole, although some of that may have been fed to him... and honestly, it didn't sound like he was that enthused, anyway. But Schiavone did have his moments in which he really did a good job. Great American Bash '96 was one in which he did a great job of commentary and you could tell he and Dusty Rhodes were having the time of their lives calling the Benoit/Sullivan match. I also loved how he played up the Flair and Anderson vs. McMichael and Greene match about how McMichael left Chicago for Green Bay for the money, then it rang true in the booking of the match. He may not have gotten along with Bobby Heenan, but when he describes Heenan shaking hands with McMichael, his reaction sounds more like he's selling it rather than a dislike for Heenan. And then when they did the spot of the Outsiders putting Eric Bischoff through a table, he and Dusty both did a great job selling it. As far as other announcers go, Jim Ross seemed to have good chemistry with Lance Russell and Jim Cornette, and he was generally fine with Jerry Lawler for the initial part of his WWF run with him (although Lawler really got annoying during the bad booking period of 1999 and at times Ross seemed annoyed with him). Regarding WWF combos... Gorilla and Bobby were entertaining but I don't know if they would be the best on commentary. Gorilla and Jesse had good chemistry but at times Gorilla seemed bored. Vince and Jesse had good chemistry but, in their latter years, it was pretty clear they were getting annoyed with each other. Honestly, I thought Vince McMahon and Bobby Heenan were a good combination. Sure, Vince was going into over-the-top mode with his announcing at that point, but it worked well with Heenan as it made Vince the perfect guy for Heenan to drop one-liners on. They also were both good at getting serious when it came time to do so.

I wrote this at tOA and am cross-posting it here: Having watched the Punk promo online, I can say this: The promo was good. Punk's delivery was exactly what it needed to be... calm and collected yet with a hint of annoyance in his tone of voice, rather than just ranting and raving. Additionally, he didn't go over people's heads with his remarks... he mostly discussed things the average WWE fan would know about it, or if they wouldn't, mention something first to tie it into the specific individual (the example is John Laurinitis, who average WWE fans likely don't know, but Cena prefaced it by talking about yes-men and then naming John, and average fans certainly understand what a "yes-man" is). He also was wise to rip the fans during the promo so they would keep booing him... and especially to insult the fans just before he brought up Vince McMahon. Doing that ensured the fans would keep booing, rather than suddenly cheer him because they agree with him about Vince. As far as where it leads... I'm not surprised Punk didn't appear on the next set of Raw tapings. The best way to get the most money out of this is to keep the "Internet smarks" guessing what will happen with Punk rather than them analyzing what they do with him based on spoiler reports. With that said, I think we all know this likely won't go that far. Punk may or may not have signed a short-term extension but I doubt he'll be around for much longer beyond MitB. Seems to me Punk is more interested in "going out with a bang" than trying to get a long run at the top... so if MitB is his last appearance (and I have no reason to believe he won't appear as I think we all know the suspension stuff is a work), he's remembered for going out strong (and I seriously doubt they'd squash him as that would piss off fans who pay their money expecting a competitive main event) and on a memorable note. Then, when he comes back from his hiatus, he can get another deal where he gets upper midcard/main event material similar to what Chris Jericho got, make more money, then be able to step away when he's ready to. It's Punk being smart enough to know how to keep his name out there without outright pissing anyone off. I'm sure Vince isn't really upset... between Punk insulting the fans before he chewed out Vince and Vince knowing there could be some additional PPV buys coming his way, he'll be fine with it, even if he isn't smart enough to know how to capitalize on any momentum WWE may get.

The biggest issue with TNA has always been that nobody in that company has a vision for what direction the company should go. It's either "relive the past" or be reactive to whatever decision WWE happens to make. No doubt WWE is simply resting on its laurels, but it can afford to do so given its DVD division, WWE Classics on Demand and the fact that nobody else in the industry has any sort of vision for pro wrestling similar to what Vince McMahon saw back in the 1980s when he went into his aggressive expansion. It also doesn't help that TNA is the only other company with regular TV exposure and somebody willing to put money into it (even if those putting in the money are listening to all the wrong people). ROH, for example, might have Sinclair Broadcasting helping out now, but if Sinclair isn't willing to put the money into the company and get people who have a vision beyond just appealing to a limited audience, then ROH will remain an indy fed... one that could be called successful, but will never be in a real position to challenge WWE or even TNA at this point.

It's supposed to impact the spine. Basically, you get your tailbone rattled and it hurts. I suppose the reason it's not done as much is because too many wrestlers just don't know how to sell it. Case in point: Scott Hall, who always acts like it hurt his crotch.

Commenting generally, I know there was a general dislike for DDP at the time because he was close friends with Eric Bischoff, so everybody assumed he only got his push because of that. But in watching the Nitro DVD, it's pretty clear DDP was doing a lot to earn his push. Seriously, I would have kept the WCW title on him for a few months and build to Goldberg taking it from him. Regarding Keller and Mitchell, it's possible they suspected DDP was just going to be a transitional champion to lead to Kevin Nash getting it. And John or somebody else might be able to verify this, but I believe Mitchell isn't a big fan of wrestlers who like to meticously plan out their matches in advance, which DDP did many times.

There certainly is a pattern with Russo when it comes to wrestling companies... when he gains more power, the product gets worse. As he gained power in WWF, things got worse... and the only thing that stopped the downward spiral was his departure. He then gains a lot of power in WCW and things spiral downhill. He then comes to TNA, the product stinks and he leaves. He then returns when the product was getting better, then as he gains power, things get worse. As bad as TNA has been, though, there are only two things that will lead to its demise... either one of these two: 1. The Carters decide to quit pumping money into TNA 2. Viacom kicks TNA off Spike TV But as long as they keep getting the money pumped in and they don't piss off Viacom, they will stick around, as bad as the product is.

Just briefly on the Demo/Road Warriors subject, there's no question RW wins the battle in terms of drawing power... Warriors headlined cards on plenty of occassions but I recall few, if any, instances of the Demos headlining a WWF house show. That being said, I do think the Warriors longevity might hurt them a bit, as khawk suggests, with the fact that the Warriors started going into competitive matches and they just weren't as fun to watch, plus Hawk had his issues with drugs and it showed. Demoltion, on the other hand, may not have had as long of a run, but in retrospect, it may have been for the best as you didn't see an extended period in which they tried to keep going and it just didn't work. It was good for WWF to pull the plug on the Smash/Crush Demolition when it was apparent it wasn't working. Oh, and I think Johnny Sorrow summed up the difference between Road Warriors and Demolition nicely.

Couple of other observations: * The DDP/Sting matchup was really good, and honestly, DDP was GREAT as the heel WCW champ. Seriously, they should have given him a longer run and they could have easily built to Goldberg taking the belt from him at some point. * Agreed that Bret/DDP was a great match. Really, just watching the DVD shows you how good DDP really was when he hit his peak. Heck, I liked the DDP/Kidman match too... that was how you do the "outsized wrestler goes over" match, with DDP just acting like a jerk and Kidman pulling out the surprise move for the win. * Regarding Bischoff/Flair, that match showed what was wrong with the mentality of WCW and Bischoff throughout 1998: Rather than pay things off on PPVs, they were more concerned about the Monday night ratings battle, so all the payoffs were delivered on Nitro. Of course, the ultimate example of a missed PPV opportunity was Hogan vs. Goldberg for the title. * Man, that WarGames 2000 was the clusterfuck to end all clusterfucks. Seriously, that was a bad, bad idea. And Russo is still booking to this day? Really? * Was it just me or was Tony Schiavone legitimately pissed about the nWo Horsemen parody?

This has been an interesting thread to follow. Just a few points I'll touch upon: * Is the point of this thread to argue which tag teams were best for the "complete package as wrestlers" or to argue about who are the best workers? "Worker" does not equal "wrestler," as the former refers to one aspect of a wrestler while the latter refers to every aspect he brings to the table... along with workrate, you have charisma, interview ability, drawing power and other factors. So if you were to say "American Dragon at his best is always a better worker than Hulk Hogan at his best" I would agree. But to say that means AD is a better wrestler than Hulk Hogan... well, I don't buy it and never will. So when we talk about Steiners vs. PG-13... well, I haven't see as many PG-13 matches as I have Steiners matches, but I could see the argument that PG-13 are better workers. But better wrestlers is another issue... I'd have to look at every element they brought to the table. Steiners struck me as more charismatic, for example, and regardless of how it happened, the Steiners did gain a higher profile than PG-13. Hey, I won't argue that a wrestler who didn't hit the "big time" would be a better worker than one who did. Better wrestler, though, is another issue. * I don't really see how Demoltion was that gimmicky. I wouldn't put them in the top 20 tag teams of all time, but they were effective in their role and I loved how they were the type of team that would just beat their opponents down until they were ready to finish them off and they did a good job of the "cut the ring in half" tactic. And while I wouldn't call their interviews top notch, I thought they were fine with Ax having the raspy voice and Smash sounding angry. Now, if we want to talk really gimmicky, we can talk about Repo Man. Seriously, I personally see the "gimmicky" aspect different depending on what we are looking at. Demolition's gimmick was no more gimmicky than the Road Warriors or Powers of Pain, IMO, just as Brutus Beefcake's heel gimmick didn't strike me as more gimmicky than others who used the "arrogant, good looking punk" gimmick. But that being said, the "Barber" gimmick was only going to get over with the demographic WWF targeted at the time. * I agree about Harlem Heat... in particular, Stevie Ray. Booker T got better when he had his first singles run and I can think of plenty of good, and a few great, matches he had in singles, but Stevie Ray is another story... he may be our top candidate for Worst Wrestler Ever.

I picked up the set yesterday at Kmart. So now I have two copies of the Four Horsemen DVD. But, yeah, I've gone through the first disc and it's been pretty good. It sure looks like they got DDP involved to be somebody who would really play up WCW's strengths... and I do agree with him that WCW had, arguably, a better roster and better matches in some of the years prior to Nitro's debut (even though the booking in WCW wasn't always good and the bad booking sticks out like a sore thumb). And it's amazing to watch how well WCW booked the nWo angle in its first few months. I do think it was a mistake to add Bischoff to the mix, but in the early stages, they did an excellent job building suspense and how various folks came to be those standing up to the nWo.

Here's the match/segment listing for WWE's Best of Nitro DVD. http://www.wrestlingnewsworld.com/wwe-news...tro-dvd-set.php Looks like they are going to do this as a one-volume release, as opposed to how they are doing things with Raw, in which multiple volumes are being released. Which is fine, considering that Nitro's run was relatively short. They seemed to do a good job picking memorable moments and memorable matches (not necessarily the best Nitro matches, but they are notable ones nonetheless) and threw in a few moments that were crucial to the decline of WCW (the Fingerpoke of Doom among them). Interesting how the list ends with DDP Nitro highlights... did they get DDP involved in putting this DVD together?

Because Vince doesn't like guys who don't need him. And maybe with time, things that didn't piss Vince off at first gnawed at him..like the Slim Jim money, or Savage signing with WCW with no notice. Or even the rumor, while not true, got so out of hand he directed his ire at Savage. Also, when did Savage record that video where he said "HHH, I had her first!" in an attempt to play off the rumor? I'd imagine that would have pissed Vince off. Regarding the bolded part, that really doesn't explain why Vince doesn't hold the same grudge against Bruno Sammartino. Every time you hear about WWE wanting to do something with Bruno, you hear no objection from Vince, even as Bruno keeps turning everything down.

I would say the most damaging win for Luger was his GAB '91 win against Barry Windham for the vacant WCW title. Truth be told, he was already screwed because fans knew about Flair's parting of the ways with WCW and weren't going to be rabid for anyone who won the title that night, but the worst thing WCW did was turn Luger heel with zero buildup and thus piss fans off even more. Had it been Luger going over Flair, though, there's no doubt in my mind Luger would have been over huge as he was really hitting his stride that year. As far as his WWF run goes, the problem was they wanted to build him for WMX but thus booked themselves into a corner with the SummerSlam match. On top of that, they make Ludvig Borga the next guy he's supposed to feud with. If WWF had been smart, they would have put Yoko against somebody else at SummerSlam and have Fuji and Cornette pull somebody else in to go after Luger and thus force Luger to chase Yoko. At the very least, it might have caused fans to rally behind Luger in hopes of him getting his match with Yoko. The way they did it, though, didn't get fans to rally behind Luger in hopes of a rematch.

Catching up on other stuff in this thread, there were, indeed, a few contracts WWF took on when the WCW sale took place. Those who were part of the InVasion were Lance Storm, Hugh Morrus, Stacy Kiebler, Mark Jindrak Chuck Palumbo, Sean O'Haire, Sean Stasiak, Shane Helms, Chavo Guerrero Jr. and Billy Kidman. Torrie Wilson wasn't under WCW contract at the time the sale took place. Booker T, DDP and Buff Bagwell all accepted buyouts. Chris Kanyon either accepted a buyout or wasn't under WCW contract at the time of the sale (I'm not sure which it was). The other guys who were part of the InVasion angle were already under WWF contract... the ECW guys (exceptions: RVD and Tommy Dreamer, who had never officially signed with WCW) and, of course, Steve Austin. So the contracts WWF took on were the ones they could justify because the money likely came close to the downside guarantee for a performer of their capacity. I don't think, for example, that Lance Storm made the same type of money that Booker T got, so while WWF wouldn't pay Booker the money he was getting, Lance's contract was likely at a lower salary and thus WWF felt justified in giving him the money. There were other contracts WWF took on, but those guys were never used on TV and ended up getting released at some point, although a couple did re-sign with the company at later times (Shannon Moore was one of them).

I turn 40 in August. So I have the right to call Bix a "young whippersnapper," I suppose.

The lawsuit WWF filed came after the GAB PPV, not before.