They just booked a death angle

[Marty]

WCW:

Larry Zbyszko after Louie Spicolli's death

I don't remember exactly what happened. Can either you or Loss clarify?

 

Everything else mentioned are great choices.

[Loss]

They were in a feud at the time he died, and Zbyszko said something to the effect that he didn't like the guy, but he wouldn't say anything else out of respect for his family.

[sek69]

Upon reading WONs from 1991, Dave was really mad at the Sgt. Slaughter Iraq angle. To the point where the 2-4-91 WON was a Very Special Issue devoted entirely to his feelings on the subject.

[Mad Dog]

Is HHH that safe? Didn't he knock out both the reff and Benoit after a match with chair shots? 1 right after the other.

He fucking crippled a jobber at one point. There are plenty of guys considered to be a danger to everyone with botched moves when they enter a ring that haven't done that much damage to another person. I can't remember off the top of my head but he knocked Angle or Jericho loopy in one of their matches in 2000 as well.

 

Some more:

 

Eddie/Rey when it involved his son.

Vicky Guerrero's heel turn last year.

Stephanie comparing on air the 9/11 attacks to the steroid trials

Airing Hassan and several masked men basically playing out one of those beheading videos with the Undertaker the day of a terrorist attack. I know it was taped but they could've gotten it off air if they really wanted to.

[Bix]

Is HHH that safe? Didn't he knock out both the reff and Benoit after a match with chair shots? 1 right after the other.

He fucking crippled a jobber at one point.

Who, Marty Garner? That was Garner's fault and he's not crippled.

 

There are plenty of guys considered to be a danger to everyone with botched moves when they enter a ring that haven't done that much damage to another person. I can't remember off the top of my head but he knocked Angle or Jericho loopy in one of their matches in 2000 as well.

Angle was concussed by a table being improperly gimmicked, not anything HHH did.

 

Some more:

 

Vicky Guerrero's heel turn last year.

Airing Hassan and several masked men basically playing out one of those beheading videos with the Undertaker the day of a terrorist attack. I know it was taped but they could've gotten it off air if they really wanted to.

These were mentioned already.

[Dylan Waco]

Has no one mentioned the Triple H-Booker T feud and the heavy, heavy racism that was usually echoed by Lawler?

[Mad Dog]

The sad thing is that was actually pretty tame compared to Lawler cackling all during the Rumble "about that little Chinese guy hitting his face on the ground" when Taka Michinoku got eliminated and actually was hurt back in 2000 or 2001.

[Strummer]

He fucking crippled a jobber at one point. There are plenty of guys considered to be a danger to everyone with botched moves when they enter a ring that haven't done that much damage to another person. I can't remember off the top of my head but he knocked Angle or Jericho loopy in one of their matches in 2000 as well.

As Bix said, that was the jobber's fault as he took the Pedigree wrong.

 

A few more:

 

Paul Orndorff calling Mister T "Boy" during the build to WM 1

 

Orndorff mimicking monkey mannerisms at Mr. T during a Piper's Pit confrontation

 

Piper calling Bruno Sammartino a "wap" on the Pit.

 

Hillbilly Jim calling Lanny Poffo a "limpwrist" during an MSG show.

 

Jesse Ventura condoning beating up your wife/girlfriend if she gets out of line (WM 5)

[sek69]

When talking about uncharacteristically unsafe behavior, let's not forget Rock turning what was supposed to be just a few chair shots on an unprotected Mick Foley into like 11, causing legit heat between the two for a while (and probably legit scrambling Foley's brain in the process).

[Mad Dog]

I think Foley shares a lot of the blame for that one. If he had just stayed down when he realized the first shot really hurt the other shots wouldn't have happened.

[sek69]

I think Foley shares a lot of the blame for that one. If he had just stayed down when he realized the first shot really hurt the other shots wouldn't have happened.

 

Maybe after the first shot, but by 8 or so I'm sure he wasn't even sure what zip code he was in let alone knew he should stay down.

[goodhelmet]

HHH's logo isn't an Iron Cross, really!

 

I am the last person to defend HHH but I wouldn't call this offensive. The Iron Cross is more of a German Army distinction similar to our Medal of Honor, and not a Nazi symbol that could be seen as offensive like the swastika or the SS lightning bolts. It was awarded long before Hitler and if HHH uses it as a symbol, it doesn't equate to being a Nazi supporter.

[kjh]

When talking about uncharacteristically unsafe behavior, let's not forget Rock turning what was supposed to be just a few chair shots on an unprotected Mick Foley into like 11, causing legit heat between the two for a while (and probably legit scrambling Foley's brain in the process).

Talking about tasteless behaviour, the Foleys putting their children at ringside to watch one of Mick's worst beatings ever, so he could do his "Aw, shucks" routine in Beyond The Mat was pretty bad.

[Jingus]

According to Foley is Good, that was part of the match that got scrapped at the last minute. Rock was supposed to hit Foley only four or five times with the chair, while his wife Colette would be ringside, begging him to give up. Then USA threw a monkey wrench into that; the company was having some sort of internal argument over the WWF's controversial content, and one executive took it upon himself to bring his whole family and sit in the first row as a demonstration that he felt safe with his children watching a WWF show. So the company pulled the plug on showing Foley's family and went with the "mysterious recording" gimmick instead. But that happened at the last second, like the night before the show, so Foley's kids were already in town and were apparently begging to watch the show. So that's why they were in the crowd.

 

so he could do his "Aw, shucks" routine in Beyond The Mat

Huh? Mick had no idea how his kids were reacting. I doubt he could even hear anything past the ringing in his own ears. And Beyond the Mat clearly shows that the kids had pulled it together and were acting pretty normal by the time they saw him backstage, so if Colette never told him what happened (or played down how bad it was), I'd believe him having no idea what went on until Blaustein showed him the footage.

[Loss]

According to anonymous producers of Beyond The Mat, the whole scene was planned in advance by Mick and Colette, and the kids were put at ringside to get "real" emotion out of them for the sake of making a better documentary scene. All the stuff about the number of chairshots being cut down and Rock doing more than he was supposed to was supposedly made up crap for Mick to save face. The story goes that Mick will never admit to that publicly because it would make him look pretty horrible.

 

I'm not siding or not siding with that version of the story, but that's what kjh is referring to ...

[Jingus]

And why trust a completely anonymous source? Watching the match, I think it's pretty clear that Rock gets way out of control with the chair shots, I don't see any discrepencies with the way Mick said it went down in his book. (Why on earth would anyone agree to take a dozen unprotected chairshots, swung at full speed/strength by a guy like Rocky, while they're handcuffed?) Also, in that scene in BtM, they edited the events in question; compare the movie's version of the match to the actual match, they don't "match" up. So the producers of that movie don't have a real great track record for truthfulness anyway (also considering Jake Roberts' claim of multiple blatant lies that they supposedly told).

[Loss]

Interesting news from Meltzer:

 

--After Darren Rovell, who writes Sportsbiz at CNBC.com wrote a column saying the WWE was irresponsible to its shareholders when issuing a legitimate press release claiming Mr. McMahon was presumed dead, the WWE wrote back to him: "To date, WWE, Inc. has not received a single inquiry from a shareholder regarding the alleged demise of Mr. McMahon. It is well known to our shareholders and our viewers that Mr. McMahon is a character portrayed by Vincent Kennedy McMahon, the founder and chairman of WWE, Inc." No, word founder isn't the apparent lie (technically he was the founder of WWE, Inc. but he purchased Capital Sports from his father in 1982). Shortly after this was published, Wrestlemag.com published a letter from a shareholder who asked for anonymity, saying: "The statement that WWE released that they hadn't heard from one stockholder is bullshit. I have 200 shares of WWE and sent them two e-mails on their feedback email address about my concern that their gimmick was not in the best interest of their investors, (it was) a sham of a work, and being reckless with the investors money." The person said he did not have a copy of the e-mail, but said he wrote they were insulting their audience with a terrible script, breaking down any respect of confidence their investors and fans had in them.

[Loss]

Even more.

 

Darren Rovell....murder suspect??

 

Well folks, I’ve never thought I’d utter this phrase: I am a murder suspect. But, truth be told, I apparently am.

 

This according to World Wrestling Entertainment:

 

(WWE) 16.89 -0.38 -2.2%

 

World Wrestling Entertainment Inc., who gave me this statement when I called them yesterday to answer whether they were irresponsible in issuing a news release that “Mr. McMahon” was “presumed dead” after his limo was blown up last Monday.

 

Here’s what they sent me:

 

To date, World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. has not received a single inquiry from a shareholder regarding the alleged demise of “Mr. McMahon.”

 

It is well known to our shareholders and our viewers that “Mr. McMahon” is a character portrayed by Vincent Kennedy McMahon, the founder and Chairman of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

 

As far as speculation as to who may have committed this heinous act against “Mr. McMahon,” the WWE has not ruled out any suspects, including CNBC sports business reporter Darren Rovell. The WWE would like to thank CNBC for its concern over the “Mr. McMahon” mystery and we would like to remind your viewers to continue to tune into WWE’s Monday Night RAW, cable’s top rated program on USA Network (a division of NBCU), to keep abreast of the latest developments in this ongoing situation.

 

Now let’s go through this thing. As you can see, WWE is clearly differentiating between Vince McMahon, the chairman and the character. I’m not a hard core wrestling fan, but do all the shareholders and fans really know the difference between the two? I would bet not.

 

For help on whether the WWE would be exposed to a shareholder lawsuit, I turned to Michael McCann of the Mississippi College of Law and the great Sports Law Blog and Ira Lee Sorkin, who is a former SEC regional director.

 

Q: Was the WWE irresponsible in the way they communicated that “Mr. McMahon was presumed dead?

 

McCann: The basic rules that are at play here related to rule 10B5 of the Securities Exchange Act. It’s a rule that regulates the nature of information disclosed by a company and that regulates whether or not information provided to shareholders is conveyed in a way that’s honest, truthful and valid. Whether or not that rule is violated in this case would depend on the intent of the WWE and even if there wasn’t intent whether or not the behavior was reckless. Certainly the WWE has to be responsible in any communication it makes to the general public and particularly one that may affect the decision-making of its shareholders. And when the company makes a statement that is untrue, even one that’s a joke, it can affect the behavior of its shareholders in ways that may be disadvantageous to those shareholders and potentially in a way that could violate the law.

 

Sorkin: You have to ask yourself when does entertainment end and when does full and fair disclosure begin? At what point is it no longer entertainment? People invest their money in companies some companies make movies, some companies make jet engines, some companies are in the entertainment business. And Vince McMahon and the WWE have said for years since I guess the congressional hearings that they’re in the entertainment business. This is not a sport. It’s entertainment. Nevertheless, the loss of the driving force behind the company is not something to be laughed at or to be looked at lightly. It would have an impact.

 

Q: The fact that the WWE is the WWE -- does that buy them any leniency?

 

Sorkin: The SEC doesn’t look at the company and say, “This is entertainment and this company makes jet engines.” They’ve got an obligation under the securities laws to make accurate and fair and full disclosure of all material events. And if Vince McMahon is and has been for as long as I can remember the key to the WWE -- and before that the WWF -- then the loss of the chairman CEO and founder, someone who is the driving force behind the company, is certainly a material event which would have an impact on the shareholders.

 

McCann: Wrestling may be fake, but business and dealings are not fake. And investors are certainly not fake and money is certainly not fake. And while the product can be artificial and one that’s based on entertainment when people are dealing with their investments, they usually want certainty. They usually want some type of protection that the information that they are receiving from the company is valid and honest.

 

Q: The stock is only down 3.3 percent since “Mr. McMahon” was presumed dead. If Vince McMahon passed away, the stock likely would have been down double digits. What’s the chance that someone got confused and could allege that they suffered actual damages from trading on the information that they thought Vince McMahon, the person, was dead?

 

McCann: It’s a difficult claim. That even though we can look at the WWE and argue that there behavior wasn’t up to snuff in terms of what we would expect a company to do in this post-Enron, post Martha Stewart era, it’s still a hard claim to make because either intent needs to be shown or a lower threshold of recklessness that’s acknowledged in many courts.

 

Q: The WWE could say that a shareholder could have easily gone on the Internet and confirmed that Vince McMahon was still Chairman, that there wasn’t an 8-K filed. What’s wrong with that?

 

Sorkin: It’s not the responsibility of a shareholder to do research to determine whether there’s accuracy in reporting events of this magnitude. The burden is on the company in this instance to make the appropriate disclosure. Now you can make the argument that the WWE is more than entertainment, it’s a farce. It’s a comic book. But nevertheless, it’s a comic book that is required to abide by the federal securities laws to make the appropriate disclosure and where do you draw the line between saying the shareholders should know that this is just one big laugh, it’s one big joke - we’ve been like this for years - if a shareholder has invested their own money? It’s no joke to lose money.

[Mad Dog]

I think Foley shares a lot of the blame for that one. If he had just stayed down when he realized the first shot really hurt the other shots wouldn't have happened.

 

Maybe after the first shot, but by 8 or so I'm sure he wasn't even sure what zip code he was in let alone knew he should stay down.

 

Still Foley's fault. The Rock had only been in the business for a couple of years at this point and Foley did keep getting up. If I was in that situation I would probably keep hitting him too under the assumption that he wanted me to continue. Hey he didn't say to do something else and I don't know it supposedly is doing a lot of damage due to him being handcuffed. I think it's a simple matter. Foley said the first shot really really hurt. Then stay down and you won't get hit anymore. He was the veteran in the match with a fairly green guy. In that particular situation Foley was totally responsible for protecting himself from further injury.

[sek69]

You know, I'm thinking it's probably not a good idea to allow people who get that easily worked to buy stocks. Also, wouldn't these people upset about Vince being possibly dead having an effect on stock price also worry about the Chairman of the company acting crazy and doing a power walk while wearing electric pink zoot suits?

[kjh]

(Why on earth would anyone agree to take a dozen unprotected chairshots, swung at full speed/strength by a guy like Rocky, while they're handcuffed?)

It was Mick Foley, who was nuts and was willing to take unbelievable amounts of punishment to get over and have memorable matches. You could say "Why on earth would anyone agree to be thrown off the top of the Hell in a Cell cage on to a table more than 12 feet below?", but Mick did it and scared his family back at home too. That's why I'm sceptical of that story.

 

I still think the number of planned chairshots is a bit immaterial anyway. Even if he only took 4, it would have still been upsetting to his young children.

 

(also considering Jake Roberts' claim of multiple blatant lies that they supposedly told)

In his DVD documentary? That documentary is so full of holes, it's hard to take any of his claims at face value. Dave Meltzer in his review of the documentary didn't buy Roberts' and WWE's version of how he was unfairly portrayed in Beyond The Mat.

 

You know, I'm thinking it's probably not a good idea to allow people who get that easily worked to buy stocks. Also, wouldn't these people upset about Vince being possibly dead having an effect on stock price also worry about the Chairman of the company acting crazy and doing a power walk while wearing electric pink zoot suits?

To be fair sek, the majority of WWE stockholders probably watch little, if any, of their programming, so some confusion isn't that surprising.

[Loss]

The stockholders are foolish for not knowing more about the company they're investing in and the nature of the wrestling business if that is the case. I understand that if you visit a stockbroker, you don't really get any type of company history or anything, but anyone who's investing anything significant should still find a way to do their own research.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always figured WWE stockholders were just fans who marked out for the idea of owning a part of the company. I can't imagine anyone has yielded any kind of significant return on their investment.

[Bix]

In fairness to Foley, it's probably a little bit of both, as there's one pocket of chairshots that are somehow more violent than the rest which never seemed planned.

[kjh]

I'm sure there are some stockholders like that Loss, but it is fairly clear from their quarterly conference calls that many of the larger investors know little about their onscreen product or what goes on behind the scenes and if they do they'll have their calls rudely blocked in the future, as WWE prefers their investors to remain closeted and naive.

[Al]

The shareholders stuff really just sounds like a few people wanting to be smarmy idiots. The angle is CLEARLY a work. They're trying to leap through legal loopholes because they don't like it.

 

I don't find it offensive in the least. I do think however that just about any "whodunit" angle is not worth my time, because the plot points involved are just random events to fill time until they reach a conclusion.