Bob Morris

Where to begin...

The problem with many of these celebrity appearances is that the writers just don't understand how to use them so they can truly draw in viewers. When the WWF used Mike Tyson back in 1998, they first hyped an appearance at the Royal Rumble where he was essentially mentioned a few times but wasn't the focus. He then showed up on Raw the next night, then got confronted by the hottest act in the company in Steve Austin, who threw down the gauntlet and, as they say, all hell broke loose. So they had a celebrity who everybody was familiar with to some degree, paired with the hottest act in the company, and doing a slow build for the storyline until the final payoff was delivered. The big problem with TNA is they just simply believe a celebrity will draw interest simply by showing up and getting involved, but nobody there understood the formula or the build for Tyson's involvement in WWF. Honestly, WWE itself failed to understand that when they brought in Donald Trump, although they seemed to do a better job with Floyd Mayweather. So... not only is the TNA product bad, but they also do a bad job of using a celebrity to attract interest. It's not enough for a celebrity to show up and have an altercation with a wrestler... you have to understand what building an angle is all about.

I'll add that, after having watched some of the 1994 stuff, that Lex Luger had some pretty decent work on Raw. His match with Rick Martel was solid, but the one I may have liked better was his match with Diesel. Seriously... they pulled off some good spots and transitions in that match, stuff you didn't always see from either Luger or Nash in that period. And really, it just seemed Luger was more comfortable (and more over) with his face character in WWF. His Narcissist gimmick never worked and Luger didn't really seem to be into it.

Agreed. Crush is an interesting case as he was certainly over as a midcard babyface, but when they turned Luger and Doink face, they obviously needed somebody to jump to the heel side and they did a very good job turning Crush heel. Still, it would have been interesting to see how far Crush could have gone with his babyface character.

I bought the set yesterday and have watched the 1993 discs. Some thoughts so far: * I think what really made Raw special in the early years was the smaller venues that gave the show a different feel. The Raw tapings that are held in larger venues, though, tended to come off like an episode of Superstars (and if I'm not mistaken, they sometimes combined Raw and Superstars tapings). But when they go to the smaller venues, it truly gives the show a unique feel... I think that was definitely part of its appeal back then, as it didn't look the generic "big crowd with canned heat" atmosphere. * The wrestling is quite good... while not every match is a high-star affair, there is more emphasis on building a story within the match in most cases. * Evil Doink was indeed a cool character. It's too bad, though, that the cool characters ultimately get turned face because then people think they are too cool to boo. Razor Ramon is another example, but his character was able to stay pretty intact after turning face. With Doink, what made his character special was gone once he turned face. (Side note on Doink: I don't remember exactly what point Matt Bourne left the WWF, but I don't think anybody could have duplicated what he did for the character. Steve Lombardi was pretty much limited to bumping when he took over the character and Ray Licachelli (sp?), while a better fit than Lombardi, was not the worker Bourne was.) * Rob Bartlett was definitely terrible. It's no surprise he didn't last... his jokes were awful and he never really added anything to the match. The times he may be at his best, though, is when he is silent for most of the match and then remarks how he is just in awe of the wrestling. And while it's not on the DVD, I do remember the episode in which heavy snowfall kept some of the roster from making a show at the Manhattan Center, so their idea was to have Gorilla and Bobby on commnetary, accompanied by Rob Bartlett doing an impersonation of Vince McMahon. Needless to say, it made Kevin Nash's Vince impersonation look brilliant by comparison. * The vignettes they aired of wrestlers set to debut or return were amusing. It also reminded me just how horrible the Double J gimmick was... I know they may have stuck them on there to poke fun of Jeff Jarrett, but regardless of what one thinks of Jarrett, there was no way he was going to get over with the gimmick as it was presented. * The "smart fan" penetration is certainly evident in the Manhattan Center shows, but they could just as easily get caught up in the moment. The signs mocking Hogan, those in the crowd who don't buy his promo, the fans taunting Tatanka during the lumberjack match and the mocking of Shawn Michaels (which had less to do with what they thought of him as a wrestler and more to do with a particular promo he cut) are all signs of this, but these fans also could get caught up in the moment as well. They may have preferred Shawn to Marty Jannetty, but they popped loudly when Jannetty won the I-C title.

It was also the perfect example of what a "catfight" is supposed to be like... not just simply "grab each other and pretend to shake each other around" but actually make it look like you are FIGHTING. And yes, it was definitely quite racy for WWF's standards at the time... but it certainly helped sell the feud. It's just too bad Sherri left prior to the feud being fully resolved.

What I think should be noted about the last "boom" period for wrestling is that was a time in which it wasn't just more wrestling fans watching. Both WCW and WWF drew in new fans thanks to the product being presented and the angles and stars being pushed. WCW gained notoriety with the nWo, Sting's new character and Goldberg, all of whom were able to bring in fans who had never watched WCW before. WWF did the same thing with its Attitude era and the pushes of Steve Austin and The Rock. It's been a while since WWE really had an angle that truly pulled in new fans to the product. These days it seems like most of the people who are watching it are either longtime wrestling fans or those who grew up in the Monday Night Wars era and now feel fine watching wrestling with their kids. TNA, on the other hand, is trying to grab that Attitude era fanbase, but most of that fanbase includes either those who, as mentioned previously, watch WWE with their kids, or otherwise have moved on. That leaves TNA with its band of loyalists that amounts to a very limited audience, likely those who just watch because they don't like WWE and figure anything has to be better. ROH has done well enough, but its audience is also limited and it just doesn't have the resources to reach a larger fanbase. As far as younger people go, most of them are more attracted to things such as MMA and reality TV and thus have little reason to care about pro wrestling. The only younger folks watching pro wrestling are those, as I mentioned earlier, of parents who grew up during the Monday Night Wars and still watch wrestling today. I don't think there's much incentive for WWE to try anything innovative, not just because nobody in pro wrestling is in position to seriously push WWE, but because WWE seems to think of itself as its own little universe in which there isn't any other entertainment product that it views as its competition.

I think there's a lot of truth to what Wade said about Foley. We all know he had the ego, but it's pretty clear that all the damage done to his brain over the years has made him even more messed up. Looking back, I think what really made Foley's first book seem so good was because it was the first time you had a wrestler who not only opened up about his past, but also showed he had good writing skills. But Foley certainly comes off in his first book as a guy who, while he can tell funny stories, acts like nothing was ever his fault and tries to come off as the nice guy who got screwed over by a lot of people. He still seems to think of himself as this sympathetic character, but the truth is most people quit sympathizing with him some time ago and he acts like they should still feel sorry for him.

Bought the Jake Roberts WWE DVD for five bucks at Wal-Mart, and one of the things that struck me was just how uncomfortable the angle was where Jake had the cobra bite Randy Savage on the arm. I mean, it was a cool visual and I know they de-venomized the snake, but still, to just allow that snake to bite Randy in the arm and then Jake be forced to shake the snake to get him off was one of those times when it was clear some folks just weren't thinking when they OK'ed that spot. And as I recall, quite a few TV stations dumped WWF's syndicated programs at that point.

What's funny about some of these handshake situations is that, with certain wrestlers, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. While I don't think Droz took it personally about Palumbo and O'Haire being uncertain how to approach them, the attitudes HHH and Holly bring to the table make me think they'd just look for any excuse to snub somebody.

Yeah, but that show did over 600,000 buys, so they couldn't be too unhappy. True, but PPV buys are a sign of how good your buildup was, not how well received the matches themselves are. The live crowd just didn't react and I suspect part of that is because of what a face vs. face match can lead to. While I don't feel Taker turning heel would have been a good move, the problem with doing a face vs. face matchup as your main event is that it can force people to choose sides... and at that point, Austin and Taker were two guys both portrayed as having an axe to grind with Vince McMahon. It didn't help, either, that they didn't have anyone built up as a top challenger to Austin to bridge the gap to Rock, who was certainly going to be the foil against Austin at WMXV. True, the Survivor Series storyline wasn't built as well as it should have been, but I could understand why they would have to keep Rock heel after that show... and it wasn't that they turned him face prior to the show, he was just getting cheered because people started wanting to.

Steering this back on topic, during the Attitude Era, it became pretty clear at what point Vince Russo was gaining power and Pat Patterson was losing it. I've always believed that Russo's strength is coming up with an idea, but one of his biggest weaknesses is executing it so that it works in the context of pro wrestling. The latter is Patterson's strength, but he's not the guy to go to for ideas. So we start with the match between Steve Austin and Dude Love in which Vince McMahon is the guest referee, Pat Patterson the guest ring announcer and Gerald Briscoe the guest timekeeper. Russo's idea is that Patterson will announce "rules not announced earlier" during the match, building to McMahon getting knocked out, Patterson and Briscoe then interfering and then Undertaker clears them out, leading to Austin's win. Patterson thus takes the ideas and figures how to build up to them for maximum effect. Don't jump right into the moment you announce that the match is no DQ... make sure you build up some time for Austin and Foley to establish the basic storyline, before you add the next element. Each element is built to, thus the whole thing works. Fast forward to the 1999 Royal Rumble, in which it's pretty clear Russo is running more of the show. Nothing is built to properly, there's too much dead time and the match, as a whole, doesn't work. Vince McMahon winning the Rumble really isn't the issue, it's that the path leading up to his win was poorly planned. As far as some of the gimmicks Russo has put on talent, the real issue is how the characters evolve. You see Edge's character evolve better than Val's did initially, so Edge was able to rise past the gimmick first bestowed upon him. Val had some good material in the post-Russo era, but as was said, nothing lasted long with him. Personally, I would have kept him out of RTC and just left it as Stevie Richards working the mic, Godfather being the "convert" and Bull Buchanan being the bully. Once Val and Ivory were dropped in, it was overkill.

On one hand, I'm sure plenty of people would wish TNA would just go away... but that being said, if it did, we'd all miss out on a weekly, even daily, dose of entertainment.

BTW, the Ryder stuff on that page, if it's true, explains everything about the 1wrestling meltdown. And I'll leave it at that.

I recently bought a Wrestling Gold DVD pair that features a lot of Smoky Mountain Wrestling stuff, including the Night of Legends show from Aug. 5, 1994, and that one has the infamous Thrillseekers-Heavenly Bodies match where Jericho wrestled with a broken arm and did a five-alarm blade job to top it off. Given how much blood he spilled (referee Mark Curtis had his shirt covered with it), I wonder if they felt it was too much blood for the DVD. I will say one thing about this DVD set, though: Getting the 1,004 holds promo on it is awesome.

Let's be honest: The vast majority of wrestlers who were around during the 1980s likely did a certain amount of coke, whether it was a small amount or regular users. You could tell some did it far more than others, but the boys sharing coke was a common practice back then. As far as guys like Vince and Flair are concerned, those two are just plain nutty to begin with, so it's not like they needed coke to get them to go nuts on a promo. Flair has always been the party animal and refuses to give that up to this day, while Vince's mind can really be warped.

To understand Cornette and the tone of his letter... and yes, it was wrong... you have to consider three things about Cornette: 1. Like everyone else in wrestling, he's a carny and will spin things the way he sees fit. 2. He has a short fuse. 3. He hates to admit he may be wrong about something. Put those three things together and it's not surprising that this man could drop the N word, then try to cover it up, while turning around and supporting Barack Obama a few years later. A carny with a temper who refuses to admit he may be wrong doesn't equal "racist" but when he does drop a racist remark in the heat of a moment, he'll certainly do everything he can to cover his ass instead of just saying, "I was wrong and I'm sorry."

Oh, and as far as Dave's argument about how UFC's business model is similar to WWE's in that the company is expanding to the same European markets that WWE had success in because they believe people who are wrestling fans will watch UFC... Pro wrestling had already existed in Europe at the time WWF/E started coming over there, and as I recall, WWF shows in the 1990s were regularly watched in those countries, so WWF already had an audience there. UFC and other MMA shows air in Europe, do they not? And I suspect there's plenty of MMA taking place in Europe as well. Therefore, it makes sense UFC would go there because there is likely already an audience for it. Just as basketball was already taking place in Europe when more European players came to the NBA, and any NBA expansion there would be because there already is an audience, not because they want to tap into somebody else's audience.

Let's not forget that Brock Lesnar was a successful collegiate wrestler prior to going to WWE. He also made headlines when he tried out for the Minnesota Vikings, even if he was cut in training camp. So Lesnar has intrigue that has covered mutliple areas, not just WWE. When it comes to the way WWE, or any pro wrestling company, books, I agree the booking needs to make it look like one or the other could win, but there's a little more to it than that. First of all, pro wrestling can get away with putting together storylines that don't just simply focus on "who's the better wrestler" although that is the theory that should apply when it comes to the blowoff match. But with storylines, while I won't argue the Rock/Lesnar storyline was done very well, pro wrestling has had more success with storylines that don't follow the "who's the better wrestler" argument, from Hulk Hogan's WWF feuds throughout the 1980s to the real concepts that the Four Horsemen and Dusty Rhodes represented in their rivaliry to the nWo to Steve Austin versus Vince McMahon and on it goes. UFC is always going to be built on the "who's the better fighter" concept because that's how sports are. With entertainment such as pro wrestling, you have more options. And another point I want to bring up: Every sport has its athletes and teams who people just can't stand. Plenty of NBA folks don't like Kobe Bryant and actively root for his Lakers to fall (and elsewhere, I've already addressed LeBron James). When the New England Patriots were chasing perfection, people wanted to see them lose because they thought Tom Brady was arrogant and Bill Belichick was an asshole. In MLB, people call the Yankees the "Evil Empire" and hated the late George Steinbrenner with a passion. And on it goes. But none of these cases come from the leagues building up in the fans' eyes that they are villians... they just gained fan perception because, in general, fans want to dislike successful teams and athletes if said teams and athletes bear even the slightest hint of being arrogant. I would argue more of the "UFC fans hate Brock Lesnar" mentality came from fans themselves or other UFC fighters, not from Dana White. He doesn't seem to be shy about recognizing it, but I doubt he's the one promoting it. But in pro wrestling, it's the promoter who decides who to push as the guy the fans love to hate. And if the fans boo somebody who the promoter wants them to like, it's the promoter who ultimately makes the decision to change his strategy. Agreed. I really think Dave and Bryan just need to be honest with themselves and say that there's enough crossover in the MMA and pro wrestling fanbases, combined with the fact they both enjoy MMA, are the reasons they want to cover it. They don't have to spend their time comparing it to pro wrestling to justify coverage. It's their decision to cover it and they don't need to be thinking of themselves as doing one or the other first and foremost.

Agreed that Sherri, while not the best manager in terms of overall career, was the best manager from 89-92. Whether or not Heenan could bump around the ring at that point, Sherri was doing a lot to get matches and feuds over. Comparing overall careers, sure, Heenan would have the advantage. Just not during the 89-92 time period. And agreed about Jimmy Hart. While I haven't watched his Memphis stuff, his managerial schitck in WWF was always entertaining and did a lot to help other guys. He was a natural fit with Honky Tonk Man, he was the right guy to get the Hart Foundation when Bret Hart couldn't do a promo to save his life and Jim Neidhart was limited, and while I know Danny Davis was an integral part of a Hart Foundation storyline, I doubt Davis would have kept much of his heat after that storyline ran its course without Jimmy Hart doing his thing.

Hell, pro wrestling shouldn't be taking hints from MMA, but from the NBA. The whole LeBron James deal was easily the re-invention of the New World Order, with him joining up with Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade to form the hated heel trio who ends up being surrounded by a bunch of nobodies. "Or something like that." -- jdw

Speaking of the condition of ring canvases, I picked up a Wrestling Gold package for $5 at Kmart... one of those collections that features Smoky Mountain Wrestling. Included is SMW's Night of Legends show, featuring the Thrillseekers/Heavenly Bodies tag match, the one in which Chris Jericho broke his arm before the match and then did a massive blade job during the match. At any rate, there was so much blood that it was all over referee Mark Curtis' shirt, and then Curtis works the remainder of the matches while still wearing that bloody shirt. I was thinking "wow, that's awesome" and "boy, that's pretty stupid" at the same time.

Point taken, but the problem comes with people assuming, if an angle in TNA was bad at any point, it must have been Russo, when it's not necessarily the case. Plenty of bookers have booked bad material. That being said, to know when it's likely Russo's booking, you look for certain elements. The most prominent example is anything built around a "worked shoot," such as the VKM stuff a few years back (and as I recall, Keller did confirm Russo wrote that stuff). I would also believe nearly everything that centered around the Main Event Mafia vs. the TNA Originals had Russo's hand in it as that was certainly based on a "worked shoot" concept (old guys don't want to give up their spots to the young guys... or a reverse New Blood vs. Millioniare's Club, if you prefer ). I did hear that Abyss was booking some of his own material at one point when the stuff he had a hand in was bad (some would say it still is). I know it's easy to pin the blame on Russo for it, but if it was proven correct that Abyss did book his own stuff, it wouldn't surprise me.

Ok, the Cyndi Lauper question Babinsack asked is one of the nuttiest things I've ever read. Just from what little I observed here about Babinsack, he's clearly the Vince Russo of WO.com.

Regarding Bret, it shouldn't be surprising he's marrying younger women when he has admitted in his book that having sex with lots of women was his vice. A guy like that is always going to be attracted to younger women. At least in Bret's case, his divorces didn't end up that messy in the long run... he and Julie did reconcile after an ugly split and I understand his second divorce was amicable. Compare that to some other wrestlers, whose divorces started ugly and stayed that way.