Comments that don't warrant a thread

[kjh]

So basically Cornette is booking because what kind of experience does Delirious have.

Given that their roster may be decimated by October, Cornette's really the only thing left that ROH has got going for them.

[KrisZ]

Yeah I gotta think that Hero & Claudio (again) may finally get the call soon.

[Matt D]

I know I've seen talk that WWE in 2010 has almost as many viewers as they did during the late 90s boom, and the ratings are lower due to changes in the system or the number of homes that have cable or what not. Is that just smoke or is there something to it?

[sek69]

I know I've seen talk that WWE in 2010 has almost as many viewers as they did during the late 90s boom, and the ratings are lower due to changes in the system or the number of homes that have cable or what not. Is that just smoke or is there something to it?

 

Dave discussed this in the WON, basically a ratings point today is different than one in the late 90s, but not to the point that a 3.4 today equals a 5 or 6 they were getting at the height of the boom.

[rovert]

12 minutes in and this is SO great:

http://www.cagesideseats.com/2010/8/17/162...on-the-mma-hour

[jdw]

In what ways?

[rovert]

In what ways?

As always his delivery and line of bullshit in video form. If you were reading news sites yesterday you probably saw the highlights.

 

Why he doesn’t feel TNA is ready for him.

A detailed walkthough the major overtures MMA companies made for him.

General Wrestling/MMA crossover marketing talk.

[jdw]

I saw the report about Heyman claiming he warned Vince about the risk of allowing Ultimate Fighter to go on Spike. I'm sure that Heyman Fans will come out of the woodworks to say that Heyman mentioned the same thing to them on the phone back in 2005.

 

Haven't seen any articles writing up the rest. It's easier to read and laugh at Paul rather than watching him and wincing.

 

John

[Bix]

Heyman's description of the Yamma pitch is hilarious. Paraphrased:

 

"The guy who changed music with King Biscuit AND started UFC is back and Live Nation's putting up the money! Holy shit, a real UFC competitor! Who's in your first main event?"

"Tank Abbott"

*Paul gestures tapping out*

[rovert]

I saw the report about Heyman claiming he warned Vince about the risk of allowing Ultimate Fighter to go on Spike. I'm sure that Heyman Fans will come out of the woodworks to say that Heyman mentioned the same thing to them on the phone back in 2005.

How do you not believe him, John?

 

Didnt Meltzer mention that before? WWE did/doesnt have veto power and Meltzer did say that Vince in his quieter and more reflective moments admits letting TUF on after Raw was one of his biggest mistakes.

[KrisZ]

Meltzer said last night that the Heyman telling Vince story was the first time he heard of that one.

[rovert]

Meltzer said last night that the Heyman telling Vince story was the first time he heard of that one.

Ok then.

 

Another titbit from the interview is that Heyman writing a book about his family history encompassing his own life story. For those who don’t know his mother was a Holocaust survivor.

[jdw]

I saw the report about Heyman claiming he warned Vince about the risk of allowing Ultimate Fighter to go on Spike. I'm sure that Heyman Fans will come out of the woodworks to say that Heyman mentioned the same thing to them on the phone back in 2005.

How do you not believe him, John?

Because he's Paul.

 

"I've told you to assume everything I say is a lie and to verify it. Seek the truth and verify."

-Paul Heyman

 

Seriously... if Paul said it was light outside, I'd take a look to check. He's a proven habitual liar. As much as I dislike Russo *more* than Heyman, I tend to think Paul's been in it so long that lying just comes natural and easy to him.

 

 

Didnt Meltzer mention that before?

I would be interested if Dave wrote it back when TUF first went on, or within a few months. If Dave wrote it now... or three years later, it means less to me. Not saying Dave would spin something, just that Dave could hear something later and take it as the gospel. Examples:

 

* Savage bangs Steph

 

We have a whole thread on that were I tend to think a fair number of us agree that the timeline is off, and the comments of Vince for a good number of years *after* Randy left were very positive towards Randy. It's a new thing, and whether Vince believes it now or not doesn't make it the truth. There are folks in the country who think Obama is a Nazi... so?

 

* Stone Cold Superstar

 

At some point while Austin got over as a super hot babyface, Superstar Graham thought "that could have been me in 1978!" And from that he created a myth that he pitched a babyface turn to Vince Sr. back then, that it could have made a ton of money off it, and he got very depressed and deeper into drugs when it didn't happen.

 

It's bullshit. Utter, complete bullshit.

 

Dave buys it. To the point that he now says he heard about it in the 80s. I've pointed people to read Dave's classic long interview with Graham in 1992 and try to figure out how something that cornerstone to the end of Graham's career (and his depression and drug taking) didn't come up, either asked by Dave as he "knew" about it, or Graham tossing it out because it was so important to him.

 

I don't know why Dave buys it, but he does... and now it's been late written into history.

 

So when Dave pulls a new story out of the air 5+ years after the fact, I tend to see if it fits into the timeline and what he was writing at the time. There are times when he sits on something he knows for confidentiality reasons: Brody flushing the dope down the toilet... though it's always hard to figure out why he didn't print that in 1988 after Brody died because the other person involved in the story was also obviously dead as well. But he does that on occassion, such as some of the stuff with Pillman.

 

But on TUF... I'd be more interested in what Dave wrote at the time than what Heyman says now. If there's an item back then along the lines of:

 

"The WWE could have vetod TUF being on the netowork, and some people inside the WWE strongly recommended to Vince that he do so. Kevin Dunn sided with Vince that UFC isn't a competitor and it wasn't an issue to fight Spike over."

 

That gives credibility to the issue, and the "some people" and "Kevin Dunn" comments are ones that we use to only half-jokingly point to as indicating they came from Paul or Ross.

 

 

WWE did/doesnt have veto power and Meltzer did say that Vince in his quieter and more reflective moments admits letting TUF on after Raw was one of his biggest mistakes.

I'm not sure how much I buy that. TUF debuted in January 2005. In March 2005 the WWE decided not to continue with Spike, and the next month announced their return to USA. I think if we go back and look through the second half of 2004 (and perhaps earlier), there was a lot of talk about the WWE's next contract after the one with Spike expired in Sep 2005. The possibility of going back to USA was out there, but I seem to remember that the WWE also wanted multiple parties involved which would allow them to get the best deal. One buyer means its a buyer market, two or more means the WWE has a better chance of getting a good deal.

 

It would be hard to imagine that anyone in the WWE would suggest to spiking TUF at the same time when the WWE would also potentially want Spike as one of the bidders for the next Raw contract. Perhaps... but even if Heyman suggested it, *at the time* it wouldn't have made a great deal of sense to risk the WWE's potential relationship with Spike. Also... I'm not sold all of us thought that the House was going to be a knockout in ratings or in getting over UFC. The concept on paper didn't look like a 100% lock, and I wonder if Dave even at the time wrote it up as a 100% lock. Instead, the season turned out to be "good television" (for the potential fanbase though some of us thought some of it suck such as all the Leban bullshit) and the Finals turned into a Grand Slam with Diego (selling "skilled fighter" to the new fans) and Forest-Bonnar (selling kick ass fighting). Mix in the show doing a good job of getting across Chuck-Randy (not off the charts like Tito-Shammy, but good establishing them as "stars" you'd like to see fight)... the show really was far above anyone's expectations.

 

So...

 

Heyman strikes me as being Stone Cold Superstar in trying to put himself over for cred with his new audience: MMA fans.

 

Honestly... I'm not sure if I'd buy much of anything Heyman says about MMA from a historical standpoint. No doubt he's a fan now, and he's actively trying to follow it and be up to speed on it. But... he's a carny wrestling guy.

 

John

[jdw]

Another titbit from the interview is that Heyman writing a book about his family history encompassing his own life story. For those who don’t know his mother was a Holocaust survivor.

I recall this piece:

 

Anti-Semitism in wrestling: Paul Heyman's story

 

John

[rovert]

Because he's Paul.

That shuts me down.

 

I dont why but Colts comments in that article and the other expanded one never cease to bother. I know it is Pro Wrestling but

[kjh]

I posted this on Cageside Seats:

 

"No, actually I thought that was amazing because, think about this, this was in 2004 and how would I have never heard that, I've never heard that story before, so anyway..." - Dave "read between the lines" Meltzer at the 30:38 mark of the free August 17th Observer Radio Show about Paul Heyman's claim that he told Vince McMahon to nix The Ultimate Fighter airing after Raw.

So to be fair to Dave he wasn't selling for Heyman.

[Matt D]

Does anyone know the approx. dates of Frey's WCW reign/run. I know it was in 92 and I know it couldn't have been that long because Watts was in by the summer, no?

[MikeCampbell]

The first show for Frey that I know of is Clash XVIII from January. Watts started in May or June I think.

[Strummer]

Bischoff at it again

 

bashing the WWE's "youth movement"

 

FACTS HURT!

 

On the heels of the big "youth push" in WWE during the past several weeks, here are some facts from this week in the business:

 

"Raw's demographic ratings among males 18-34 and 18-49 were the lowest in seven weeks."

 

"Raw scored a 1.86 rating among males 18-34, which was down from a 2.03 rating last week."

 

And during this months conference call to investors Vince McMahon admitted that:

 

"Basically, we had a lousy quarter," and then when on to pin the loss of Shawn Michaels, Batista, Triple H, and Undertaker (all 40 + years old) as the reason for the hit to PPV and live event revenue.

 

Now one could suggest that McMahon is insane enough to be intentionally misleading Wall Street with excuses that are not substantiated by financials that wouldn't hold up under either SEC or Sarbanes Oxley Act 404 scrutiny, or maybe that he has no idea what he's talking about despite the massive success of his business model.

 

Or one could recognize the direct connect between what TV ratings, PPV buy rates, and ticket sales have proven time and time again, as well as what legitimate focus groups conducted by credible media companies in the business of such have clearly identified: the TV audience (including 18-34 males) rate with ESTABLISHED (and yes older) stars!

 

Admittedly, these facts are kind of dry compared to the subjective opinion of those with their own agenda or the inflamed rhetoric that appeals to those perpetually pre-pubescent, parasitic internet "experts" who neither have any legitimate experience or success as executives in the television or wrestling industry, and the rants of the terminally irrelevant trying desperately to hold on to their last 200 fans.

 

But they are facts non-the-less.

 

In my opinion Vince Russo, Dixie Carter and the team at TNA have done a great job of utilizing veteran stars to help elevate some of the young emerging talent in TNA and at the same time gaining awareness and credibility within the media industry.

 

That's just my opinion. And my opinion is backed up by facts.

 

OUCH!

 

Sorry.

[Sean Liska]

So is Bischoff actually this much of an idiot, or is this in response to Heyman saying he would get rid of everyone over 40 years old?

[S.L.L.]

Aside from all the other things wrong with what he said, Bischoff would probably be wise not to point out that WWE's McMahon-acknowledged "lousy quarter" was still considerably more successful than what TNA is doing.

[rovert]

So is Bischoff actually this much of an idiot, or is this in response to Heyman saying he would get rid of everyone over 40 years old?

Most likely both.

 

This way too dumb to be a troll job by Eric.

[Dan]

Facebook trolling equals Controversy. Controversy equals Cash.

[jdw]

I posted this on Cageside Seats:

 

"No, actually I thought that was amazing because, think about this, this was in 2004 and how would I have never heard that, I've never heard that story before, so anyway..." - Dave "read between the lines" Meltzer at the 30:38 mark of the free August 17th Observer Radio Show about Paul Heyman's claim that he told Vince McMahon to nix The Ultimate Fighter airing after Raw.

So to be fair to Dave he wasn't selling for Heyman.

 

Understood. More than that, he completely squashed it: the read-between-the-lines aspect is that *Paul* would have told Dave that back in 2004 if it were true.

 

John

[jdw]

Because he's Paul.

That shuts me down.

 

Well... I wrote a lot more than just that sentence.

 

But Paul is like Lano or Shannon Rose or other noted Wrestling Liars. One always takes a step back on something he says and think a bit about it. In this case, it just doesn't add up unless there was something in the WON back in 2005 about it, even if not explicitly identifying Paul.

 

I think Paul is busting his hump to be relevant, and being The Most Knowledgable Pro Wrestling Guy About MMA seems to be what he's trying to put a lot of stock into.

 

John