Bob Morris

Touching briefly on the topic of what's happening with WWE currently, the real issue is that all the writing and booking is done to get Vince's approval rather than people actually sitting down to think about a good storyline that would draw more fans in and get wrestlers elevated. I don't know if the current writers would improve the day Vince is no longer in power. I don't know if HHH understands enough about how to make a storyline truly work. Supposedly Stephanie has eased up a bit with her approach to work, so maybe she might be open to ideas and not insist everything be done to her approval. Regarding HHH and Taker, both have had their share of not putting guys over as strongly as they should, but with HHH, those examples tend to be more prominent and often involve wrestlers who held promise of either being a main eventer or, at the very least, somebody who could be a good upper midcarder to help groom other potential main eventers. Taker has had a few guys who were pushed against him with WWE's mindset being "we need the next Taker" and the guy in question truly not having enough to fill that role. Nathan Jones, for example, was never a guy that struck me as somebody who could be a good upper midcarder, so who cares if Taker squashed the guy when it was evident it just wasn't meant to be with Jones.

Just a correction/clarification to what Jingus wrote: I believe he's referring to 2000 when the WWF/E tag team division was deep and had plenty of viable contenders. 1999 is when things got bad as Russo got more of the booking power and every title pretty much lost its luster thanks to his "hot potato" booking. Also, I think NAO did have their share of good matches. I know the new Midnight Express were considered a joke, but they had a very good match with NAO at KOTR 98. The NAO just fell into the same trap everyone else did... the booking got worse as Russo gained more power.

Given what's being said about Savage being wise with his money and that he didn't feel a need to do anything, it's possible that Vince and Savage talked briefly and Savage flat out told Vince any future dealing would be on his (Savage's) terms and Vince didn't like that. I suspect, though, that Vince may have softened his stance a bit after letting the Savage DVD be released and Savage doing promotional work for the Legends video game. Whether or not it would have led to Savage doing additional work for WWE, who knows.

Just tragic. I do hope the WWE will induct him into the HOF next year. I don't know if everything was patched up between Savage and Vince McMahon (although him doing promo work for the Legends of Wrestling game might have been an olive branch extended to him) but hopefully there can at least be the HOF recognition for Savage. RIP Macho Man.

As usual, Gary Johnson gets no respect, despite his entrance into the Rumble being made official. He's no doubt going to be the guy who gets no promos aired and is just there to be a quick elimination.

Of all the wrestling DVDs I have watched, I agree that Heroes of World Class is the best one. The way the story is pieced together and how things are put into perspective makes it a very good documentary. Wrestling with Shadows was good but it seems to have lost its luster over time, partly because Bret has mended fences with Vince. I was not really impressed with Beyond the Mat. Nothing really seemed to stand out, it was just a run-of-the-mill "wrestlers are fucked up" tale.

One of the spots that really got the crowd popping in Hogan/Andre is when Hogan comes off the ropes and knocks Andre off his feet for the first time in the match. Yet in everything I've watched of highlights shown when the match is discussed, I've never seen that spot featured. Yet I think that spot is just as important when getting the context of the match. First came the moment when Hogan knocked Andre off his feet, and that's when he got his second wind and now figured the time was right to try the slam again. So... I agree with those who have said that watching the match itself is necessary to understand the context of the memorable spots. First, Hogan gets Andre off his feet, which seldom happened. Then, Hogan slams Andre, which also seldom happened, and had already been teased earlier in the match and led to Andre nearly winning the match.

I think a lot of it goes back to Taker just having a cool character and that some people were naturally going to cheer him as a result. I didn't notice the face reactions being that strong, but it also wasn't like fans booed Taker out of the building... they were mainly in awe of the guy. I think a big reason for his face turn was because he was just running out of suitable opponents at that point. As a heel, he was best cast at that point against somebody like Hogan or Warrior, not so much with somebody like Savage or Bret who was a different breed of babyface. Thus, it made sense to turn him face and then he could have programs with heels who had a reputation of being intimidating.

With regards to the whole "people who don't know who the Beatles are" versus "people who don't know who Bo Jackson is" debate, it goes like this: Somebody who doesn't really follow rock music that closely... sure, it's not unusual for them to not know who the Beatles are. Somebody who is very passionate about it, though, knows darn well who the Beatles are. But it's possible that same person doesn't know who Leif Garrett is. In other words, it's a question of who was big in music at one time, then faded into the background, but then either became popular again (even if not at the heights previously enjoyed) or faded further into obscurity and is "where are they now" trivia. The former is the Beatles. The latter is Garrett. Kids and young adults who are passionate about rock music know who the Beatles are. But they wouldn't know anything about Garrett. And that's the point of Bo Jackson versus Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky. Kids and young adults who are passionate about sports know who Jordan is. They know who Gretzky is. They don't know who Bo is. People today still look up stuff about Jordan and Gretzky or try to find highlights of them. They don't do that with Bo Jackson. And those who try to argue what it means are, with all due respect, being contrarian for the sake of it.

Sure, some people may not know who the Beatles are, but they would absolutely be fewer in number than those who know who Bo Jackson is. Or to put it another way: Ask high school kids today if they know who the Beatles are and if they know who Bo Jackson is, and you are more likely to find those who know the Beatles than those who know Jackson. It's all a question of who has stood the test of time versus those who haven't done so. Now, if John wants to argue more high school kids know who Wayne Gretzky is than who know who the Beatles are, be my guest.

Just tossing out a few from the top of my head: 1. Ric Flair vs. Ricky Steamboat, two-of-three-falls, Clash of the Champions: I think that's the match that has to be a must-see to get the idea of how well Flair and Steamboat worked together. 2. Lex Luger vs Ricky Steamboat, GAB '89, U.S. title match: I loved how they played up the angle of Luger getting the no-DQ stip waived, then doing everything he could to piss Ricky off to the point Ricky says "the hell with this" and nails him with the chair to satisfy his thirst for revenge. 3. Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage, WM VII: Agreed with what was said earlier... the whole story of Savage getting desperate to finish off Warrior but can't do it, then Warrior going for his big finish, Savage kicking out and Warrior wondering if it was really over for him, until Savage comes back and Warrior fights him off until Savage can't go on. And the post-match angle is tremendous. 4. Bret Hart vs. Mr. Perfect, KOTR '93: Between this match and the SummerSlam match, this one is far better. I love how Perfect does just enough to keep the fans sympathetic toward Bret while not outright turning heel. 5. Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin, WM 13: This is the match that made it clear that Austin was destined for big things in WWF and also showed how you can properly execute a double turn in a match. 6. Ric Flair vs. Terry Funk, GAB '89: A far more intense brawl than the I Quit match was and I just love the post-match stuff. It got the ball rolling on what would become Flair vs. Sting and I loved how the heels kept trying to come back, but the faces will not be denied and the heels ultimately decide it's best to retreat and fight another day. 7. Hulk Hogan vs Roddy Piper, The War to Settle the Score: Not their best match but this was all about the angle. It's amazing to watch the fans pop like nuts when Mr. T finally interjects himself. 8. Ricky Steamboat vs. Rick Rude, Beach Blast '92: Seconded on this one... it's a vastly underrated match and I loved how both wrestlers built to Steamboat taking the late lead and Rude desperately trying to tie it up before time expired. 9. Ten-man tag from WWF In Your House, Calgary Stampede: This is one of those matches you just have to see for the crowd reaction. The Canadians are rabid for the Hart Foundation and are booing Steve Austin out of the building. You can tell Austin was having a blast playing the dastardly heel. 10. Shawn Michaels vs. Razor Ramon, ladder match, WMX: I know there are those who favor the SummerSlam match but, every time I watch this match, I still think of it as the measuring stick by which other ladder matches are compared to. I believe they did a good job of throwing in highspots while keeping the focus on the chase to get the belts, rather than making it all about the highspots as so many ladder matches have turned into.

On that writer on Keith's blog, he's just awful. He's like Bryan Alvarez, in that it's impossible to have an argument with him, but unlike Alvarez, he's terrible at articulating his points and seems more interested in getting himself over than trying to write something that's at least decent.

On the Rumble match, I've always looked at it more as how good the entire Rumble match was than what a wrestler's run was all about. The 1990 Rumble is one of my favorite Rumbles because they built or set up several WM matches in it. But if one talks about individual runs, the runs by Martel, Ric Flair and Bob Backlund are better than DiBiase's and that's not because of how long they lasted, but because I remember those three in more spots in which their elimination was teased than with DiBiase.

What I'd like to know is this: How was it that Pettingill lasted several years with WWF and others who clearly didn't work out, such as Rob Bartlett and Charlie Minh, weren't there very long? Did he get signed to a multi-year deal or was WWF just so intent on having some goofy, "get hyped" announcer as part of the show?

I always wondered why, when the ratings were as high as they were during the "boom", there weren't advertisers lining up for wrestling programming. The reason I heard somewhere, is that although the shows were getting lots of viewers, they still had too much controversial content for advertisers. Apparently, they don't like the idea that something offensive or distasteful could be happening on a show and then cut to a commercial, and there's their product. They feel it adds a negative connotation to what they're selling. Ratings matter to an extent, but not as much as people think. The content of the show can matter, particularly if you think it's too controversial. Consider the Fox News Channel. Glenn Beck has had one of the highest-rated shows on the network, yet a lot of advertisers who want to advertise on Fox want nothing to do with Beck. They'll happily let their ads run on Bill O'Reilly's show, even if O'Reilly's ratings aren't as high as Beck's. I don't know for certain that Beck has always beaten O'Reilly. But the point is this: People may not like what O'Reilly has to say, but he's willing to use facts to back up what he has to say, tell his viewers is something thought of as fact is incorrect (even if it conflicts with his conservative views) and generally finds conspiracy theorists to be full of it. Beck could give a shit about facts, embraces anything that fits his views even if it's proven to be bullshit and loves a good conspiracy theory if it boosts his agenda. That Beck would scare away advertisers should not be surprising... nor should the fact Fox opted not to keep his show. As far as "future relations" with Fox, they'll probably just pop him on from time to time like they do with other nutters that appear on the shows. So... to the point... just because something draws higher ratings doesn't mean advertisers will go there. They don't like program that's too controversial or that has a negative stigma attached to it... and pro wrestling has always had the latter, fairly or not. If Vince believes calling his stuff "entertainment" will draw in the ratings, I have a bridge to sell him... but knowing Vince, he'd probably buy it even with Jerry McDevitt whispering in his ear, "Bad deal, Vince, bad deal."

What artDDP refers to is the Vic Venom persona Russo used in the magazines... I remember it originally started as your typical heel columnist, but that then soon became his alter ego during the WWF online chats and in the magazines themselves. I do think the first couple of years of Russo doing the magazine had some interesting ideas... a couple early features they did were about Randy Savage's days playing minor league baseball and some other "behind the scenes" stuff that didn't give away storylines or break too much kayfabe. Of course, you got the usual amount of goofy stuff, but that really wasn't much different with some of the goofy stuff that would appear in the magazine before Russo came on board.

Something else to add regarding Russo was he one of several folks in pro wrestling who had no problem embracing the more hardcore style of wrestling that has led to more serious injuries... namely the unprotected chair shots to the head that have resulted in more concussions. He's not the only one guilty of that, but he certainly contributed to that issue.

It's a good thing Edge is calling it quits. For all of his faults, he at least sounds like somebody who has his head on straight when it comes to his health and knowing how much in-ring punishment his body can take. All you have to do is look at other pro wrestlers and how many of them keep going even when it's clear their bodies are broken down and they are just making it worse for themselves. So, good to see Edge put his health first and best of luck to him in whatever he does next. I'm sure a road agent job or a similar job with WWE is there if he wants it.

Vince Russo can be summed up thusly: 1. He's someone who can come up with a good idea once in a while but is the wrong guy to be executing it. When his ideas worked in WWF, it was Pat Patterson implementing the ideas to make a match work or somebody else on the booking team who honed it in a better direction. I believe, when Russo first came on the booking committee, Jim Cornette may have been one of those people who got Russo's ideas pointed in the proper direction. Maybe Jim Ross had some influence as well. Which is why I call bullshit on "Vince McMahon was the filter" when it came to Russo. McMahon was as much of a mark for "it's just entertainment" as Russo was. All one has to do is look at the 1999 shows and how most of the material was pretty bad... and I seriously doubt McMahon was taking on a reduced role, but I do know Cornette was off the committee and Patterson was losing his influence. The end result was we got stuff such as the 1999 Royal Rumble match, which remains the worst Rumble match of all time. 2. The worst thing about Russo in WCW was he was like a kid let loose in a candy store and told he can have whatever he wants. There were a lot of guys on the WCW roster at that point and the worst thing you can do is let a guy who thinks "everyone needs a storyline" having at it with that roster. He had no focus as to what was really the best for everyone involved and it wasn't helped by the fact WCW's structure was so flimsy at that point. So the end result is him tossing out so much stuff that nobody can keep track of things and nobody can really get over. The only things that stood out were his most offensive ideas. 3. He's still, to this day, trying to capture lightning in a bottle with regards to Steve Austin vs. Vince McMahon. I can remember a worthy quote from CRZ during the day Russo was booking WCW: "You can't recreate Wrestling with Shadows. Stop trying." Yet everything he wants to book pretty much boils down to somebody screwing around with somebody behind the scenes, whether it's an authority figure vs. a wrestler, a top guy vs. a midcard guy, or anything else along those lines. And that ties into his belief that "worked shoots" are the way to go. 4. To top it all off, he's one of those people who still thinks what worked in the late 1990s can work today. But as is often said, pro wrestling evolves over time and going on a nostalgia trip, whether through who is pushed as a top guy or how the product is presented, doesn't last long. Even if with a proper filter, the fact he still wants to engage in a 1990s approach to the product presentation would keep him from drawing fans to the product. People are fine with reliving the past through DVD releases, but when they sit down to watch current product, they want something that looks different, not what they've seen before.

I think the issue with Hogan, Rock and Austin has always come down more to the way things got booked. Sometimes you'd book a program in which it's clear they are supposed to be cheered, other times the booking makes them look heelish but fans cheered them anyway. With Hogan, the whole feud with Piper was pretty clear that Hogan was the good guy and Piper was the villian, even if Piper might have been speaking the truth about the MTV generation. More importantly, one thing fans don't like is somebody to lecture to them, even if they speak the truth. Hence, Piper's the villian, end of story. On the other hand, a lot of Hogan's later feuds were more about him trying to get the big pop from the crowd. The feuds would generally start in the right direction, but then the booking saw Hogan go too much for "pop the crowd" spots that really made him look like a jerk. The Slaughter feud didn't work because of Slaughter's character hitting too close to reality, but yeah, the blowoff match certainly was Hogan cheating to win. And then the bubble burst with the whole deal with Sid at Royal Rumble 92. I think, in the long run, it was for the best for Austin to have no involvement with the WWE product on a regular basis because the whole thing soon came to be the fans waiting to pop for the Stunner. In his feud with McMahon, he certainly lived out the fantasies many people have about taking their frustrations out on their bosses, but it also worked because McMahon was lecturing to people about this and that and came off as a far bigger jerk than Austin. But when it only became about "when is Austin gonna hit the stunner" that's when it became a problem and it was for the best for him to be gone. Rock, on the other hand, was saved from becoming too much of a pompous jerk who fans happened to cheer after Vince Russo left the WWF. They adjusted the booking so Mankind eventually told off Rock about his humiliation and Rock, the guy who was never at a loss for words and almost always got the last word in a back-and-forth banter, was left with no reply at all. He then became more sympathetic to Foley and didn't just pick on the "good guys" for the sake of it. Sure, he'd taunt the heels, but they did a better job of booking so that it looked like the heel deserved it.

Regarding Warrior, here's a question to ask as it pertains to DiBiase: Can anyone name a good DiBiase/Warrior match. We know Warrior had at least good matches with Rude and Savage (although I don't think Warrior/Hogan holds up as well, and in that case, it's the only one they ever had), and if I was to look at the body of work, I'd only put Savage for certain above DiBiase (with Rude, it's debatable, as early-WWF Rude was not very good). Another comparison: Would we still consider DiBiase to be in his prime when he was facing Razor Ramon? Because Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels both had at least good matches with Ramon, but the Ramon-DiBiase match at SummerSlam is mediocre. What about other guys DiBiase faced who wouldn't be considered, at least, good workers? I can't think of a good match he had, for example, during Muraco's face run (when Muraco was past his prime). His WWF work with Hacksaw Jim Duggan wasn't what I would consider good, either.

I still don't think your "none of us is just a wrestling fan" is necessarily wrong. We can all be called passionate about pro wrestling to some degree... some of us may be more passionate than others, but it's certainly something that interests us to the point that we go beyond just talking about which wrestlers we think are cool or which matches we thought were awesome.

The truth is, the change to what wrestling fans wanted to see didn't happen in a six-year span. Hogan was starting to lose steam thanks to the Iraqi turncoat Sgt. Slaughter angle that wasn't truly over the top and the fact Hogan's matches became more about getting fans to pop for certain moments rather than a well laid-out match. Vince tried it again with Luger, and while fans cheered him, it wasn't the rabid following Hogan had. They then made Nash a Hogan-type character when they put the top title on him and that falled flat for many reasons, but one on them being the fans wanted to cheer Big Daddy Cool, not a Hogan reincarnation. Austin was something truly unique and the booking over time caused more fans to get behind him. When they turned Bret heel, it became the era in which heels were certainly telling the truth, but they were all about lecturing how America has no values and fans not wanting to hear it... after all, they hear it enough from politicians and the religious right. Anyway, with Angle, it worked the same way, just that Angle played it with more subtlety. And I've written about Batman before: Sure, he took a far different approach to go after the bad guys, but he still believed in doing the right thing. Plus he had plenty of motivation for doing so... he suffered mentally because he lost his parents at the hands of a criminal, so he wants criminals to feel the same anguish he felt. It's something I think more people can relate to, which is why he suddenly became more popular than Superman. But with that said, they've made Superman a more complex individual over time, so that's helped him as well. Anyway... to the point... John is correct that wrestling tends to be behind the times a bit because the tendency is for promoters to go with what worked before. It took a lot longer than six years for WWF to reach a direction that allowed them to go back to a high level and it took WCW many years to find the angle that would make their product truly unique. With the current WWE product, I can only see a change coming once Vince is no longer in charge, because he's set in his ways now and won't change. TNA, meanwhile, is a joke and has, for some time, needed somebody to enter that promotion and let them know it's time to quit acting like it's still 1999.

The only thing that bothers me with regards to their use of terminology is, given the item ran about Drew Carey's induction into the WWE Hall of Fame, when someone refers to their product as "pro wrestling," they take it like it's an insult. WWE should just go with the line of "pro wrestling = entertainment" and leave it at that, because that is the truth. Acting like it's a personal shot at them to call a pro wrestling card exactly what it is instead of an "entertainment" is ridiculous.

GH is right. Nobody here is "just a wrestling fan." That being said, most of those who post here are willing to keep an open mind about things and go back and watch matches again to see if there was something they missed. I used to fall into that trap of believing that only certain wrestlers were truly among the great workers, that the guys who were losing steam during the Monday Night Wars must have always sucked, and that the guys who could pull out all these eye-popping moves must belong among the best in the business. Now, upon re-watching matches and looking back at what actually worked in wrestling, I've realized that's not necessarily the case. I've come to realize that a guy who can do a ton of moves isn't automatically a great worker and that the best workers were those that did the most with the moves they used. I've also realized that, when it comes to drawing power, charisma is a major selling point, and when it comes to in-ring work, you've got to be able to get the fans caught up in the moment. Even with the rise of the Internet and more admission in the wrestling industry that everything is a work, it's still possible to get fans caught up in the moment and forget that they happen to be watching a work, and instead think about how much they loved a match. I do think a lot of opinions today have been shaded by what was presented during the late 1990's. Things like what was going on in ECW, the stuff that ended up on WCW programming, and the stuff that came during WWF's Attitude Era period were certainly unique at the time, but not all of it holds up well. Yet some people act like the product just needs to be made even edgier than it was back then. More to the point, I think the biggest mistake some of the folks who wrote during the Monday Night Wars period was this: They assumed, because they had gotten older, the pro wrestling product needed to cater to _their_ tastes now that they were older. They forgot that what really helps pro wrestling is, as your current audience ages, you build a new audience. Whether you go with the young kids/teenager market from Rock N' Wrestling or the teen/young adult market from the Attitude Era, that's where you need to go to build a new audience. Yet I read many reviewers today and they act like the product needs to cater to their interests specifically. Rather than simply say than John Cena is poorly booked when better booking means he could so much more from a business perspective, they blame Cena for being a bad worker (and while I don't watch much of the current product, I can say from what I've watched from Cena, his in-ring work is not the problem). And much of my dislike for that goes back to how I used to be when I wrote for wrestling websites (and I'll admit much of my writing was pretty bad). Anyway... I think there are a few folks out there who have really lost touch with what really makes the pro wrestling world go around. True, many of those who present the product today have lost touch with that as well, but it doesn't help when those who write about it today miss the point about how the product should be presented to maximize fan interest in the product and to build a new audience.