Comments that don't warrant a thread

[rovert]

Do you think Paul really is the man to help Strikeforce? What does his "creativity" bring to the table?

 

Not exactly arguing with you, but more curious on what Paul brings to the table to elevate Strikeforce to the next level?

jdw did you watch his interview last week with Ariel Helwani? He gave a fairly perceptive account of what Strikeforce lacks on the production end.

 

He at least knows about how to produce commentary, branding (both fighter and promotion) along with other aesthetics.

 

Again I dont think he will sign.

 

For example:

In turn, Strikeforce would need to capitalize on having Brock... and I'm not sure that they can.

Do you not think Heyman knows how to capitalise on things better than the current Strikeforce management.

[Strummer]

a discussion of the RTC at another board group prompted this

 

What happened wiith the angle between RTC and Stacey Carter ? This was of course the same day Carter was fired and Jerry Lawler quit the company but I remember there being a secondary issue over the angle itself and how they were changing things and it had to do with controversy over a scene between Ivory and Carter.

 

IIRC Ivory was going to be sent into a room to "convert" Carter. There would be cuts to a closed door with moaning going on inside and then they would show Ivory exiting the door looking flustered and buttoning up her shirt

 

was this a WWE decision not to air this or UPN? In 2001 I can't see this being a WWE decision

[Bix]

Why was Carter fired anyway?

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

The Ivory/Kat angle would have taken place down the line, but the angle that was scheduled on the day Stacy was fired was that she would have sex with Val Venis and the other RTC members would be mad at him for it. After she was fired, they made the curious decision to not remove this segment from the TV taping, but rather just have Richards cut an angry promo about how Venis had been weak and fallen victim to lust but they forgave him, or something. But whatever offscreen transgression Val had committed was never seen or referred to before or after, making the whole thing seem like a non sequitur.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

Why was Carter fired anyway?

The official story was that Vince had received a number of complaints about her attitude, but the book Long Bomb makes the interesting suggestion that it was done as punishment for Lawler a comment Lawler made during an XFL game. Honda had just pulled their advertising from XFL programming, and after a missed field goal, King remarked that the kicker was "as dependable as a Honda automobile." The book implied that Lawler was forced out due to pressure from NBC, but I don't necessarily buy that. If Vince was really pissed at Lawler, he would have directly fired him.

[rovert]

Her and Chyna having a falling out is another theory/contributing factor/whatever. Stacy still didnt truly know in her shoot.

[Cox]

What's Brock's contract status with UFC because I don't know.

Now that would be interesting.

 

Brock is the biggest draw, and stealing him would make things interesting. But he is just one fighter (2-3 PPVs a year). Strikeforce would need to steal several stars, because we've seen UFC has done quite well even when their heavyweight division blows. In turn, Strikeforce would need to capitalize on having Brock... and I'm not sure that they can.

 

John

 

I think the way UFC contracts work, they have him under contract at least until he loses the title, as the contract would continue to roll over with every title defense (if I'm not misunderstanding what Dave has written in the Observer in the past). Now, of course we've seen Lesnar get out of contracts previously seen as iron-clad before, so I'm not sure if this would necessarily preclude him from going to Strikeforce, but unless the Strikeforce contract was for obscene money, I'm not sure the incentive would be there for him to enter into litigation to get into Strikeforce only because his advisor is working for them.

[jdw]

jdw did you watch his interview last week with Ariel Helwani? He gave a fairly perceptive account of what Strikeforce lacks on the production end.

 

He at least knows about how to produce commentary, branding (both fighter and promotion) along with other aesthetics.

 

Again I dont think he will sign.

 

Do you not think Heyman knows how to capitalise on things better than the current Strikeforce management.

I did watch the interview. I'm not sold on the Heyman vs Current Strikeforce Management comp as meaning anymore than Heyman vs Current TNA Management. Those are low standards, and being better than a low standard doesn't mean that you'll be a success.

 

John

[jdw]

I think the way UFC contracts work, they have him under contract at least until he loses the title, as the contract would continue to roll over with every title defense (if I'm not misunderstanding what Dave has written in the Observer in the past). Now, of course we've seen Lesnar get out of contracts previously seen as iron-clad before, so I'm not sure if this would necessarily preclude him from going to Strikeforce, but unless the Strikeforce contract was for obscene money, I'm not sure the incentive would be there for him to enter into litigation to get into Strikeforce only because his advisor is working for them.

In the back of my head I recall contracts similar to that in boxing getting challenged and I *think* getting voided. In other words, Don King having an auto-rollover contract with a fighter as long as he kept the title.

 

UFC is a bit different since it's a promotion rather than manager, but King wore various hats that included promoter and manager (such as using his son to "manage" some of the fighters while he promoted). But my recollection on prior fighters whose contracts were "up" or were in "dispute" (such as Randy), there usually was a set number of fights for the top guys.

 

John

[rovert]

I love the second line here:

 

PWTorch has confirmed the release of Smackdown Diva Serena (Serena Deeb). WWE has not made an official announcement on Serena's release at this point.

 

Sources in WWE are saying the reason for Serena's release was because she was not "living out" the Straight Edge Society gimmick in public.

 

Serena, who was inserted into C.M. Punk's SES group in January, had her last WWE TV match last Friday on Smackdown.

 

The storyline for the match was that she would have been kicked out of the SES, along with Luke Gallows, if they lost a tag match to Kelly Kelly and Big Show. Serena and Gallows won the match to remain in the group on TV

The common theory is that she is the other woman in the Drew-Tiffany situation.

[Beast]

I love the second line here:

 

PWTorch has confirmed the release of Smackdown Diva Serena (Serena Deeb). WWE has not made an official announcement on Serena's release at this point.

 

Sources in WWE are saying the reason for Serena's release was because she was not "living out" the Straight Edge Society gimmick in public.

 

Serena, who was inserted into C.M. Punk's SES group in January, had her last WWE TV match last Friday on Smackdown.

 

The storyline for the match was that she would have been kicked out of the SES, along with Luke Gallows, if they lost a tag match to Kelly Kelly and Big Show. Serena and Gallows won the match to remain in the group on TV

The common theory is that she is the other woman in the Drew-Tiffany situation.

 

No, that's a message board unsubstantiated rumor by random people. All the people with WWE sources are saying she drinks too much while portraying a straight edge chick. Don't spread rumors.

[rovert]

I love the second line here:

 

PWTorch has confirmed the release of Smackdown Diva Serena (Serena Deeb). WWE has not made an official announcement on Serena's release at this point.

 

Sources in WWE are saying the reason for Serena's release was because she was not "living out" the Straight Edge Society gimmick in public.

 

Serena, who was inserted into C.M. Punk's SES group in January, had her last WWE TV match last Friday on Smackdown.

 

The storyline for the match was that she would have been kicked out of the SES, along with Luke Gallows, if they lost a tag match to Kelly Kelly and Big Show. Serena and Gallows won the match to remain in the group on TV

The common theory is that she is the other woman in the Drew-Tiffany situation.

 

No, that's a message board unsubstantiated rumor by random people. All the people with WWE sources are saying she drinks too much while portraying a straight edge chick. Don't spread rumors.

 

Thats all fine and dandy saying all that when you are posting 3 hours after me and probably after listening to Bryan and Dave. I never said it was more than a rumour. Take your high horse elsewhere.

[El-P]

So basically, she's fired because she is breaking kayfaybe. In 2010. In corporate WWE.

Nice...

[Beast]

I love the second line here:

 

PWTorch has confirmed the release of Smackdown Diva Serena (Serena Deeb). WWE has not made an official announcement on Serena's release at this point.

 

Sources in WWE are saying the reason for Serena's release was because she was not "living out" the Straight Edge Society gimmick in public.

 

Serena, who was inserted into C.M. Punk's SES group in January, had her last WWE TV match last Friday on Smackdown.

 

The storyline for the match was that she would have been kicked out of the SES, along with Luke Gallows, if they lost a tag match to Kelly Kelly and Big Show. Serena and Gallows won the match to remain in the group on TV

The common theory is that she is the other woman in the Drew-Tiffany situation.

 

No, that's a message board unsubstantiated rumor by random people. All the people with WWE sources are saying she drinks too much while portraying a straight edge chick. Don't spread rumors.

 

Thats all fine and dandy saying all that when you are posting 3 hours after me and probably after listening to Bryan and Dave. I never said it was more than a rumour. Take your high horse elsewhere.

 

Whatever, I was going to post it immediately but waited to hear true stuff. It just amused me you went somewhere like DVDR and people were going "I bet she's the third part of the triangle" and immediately figured it was a possible theory and not just message board shit. That's how the internet gets full of false bs. And you posted a "theory" right next to the answer so no high horse here buddy.

[rovert]

Whatever, I was going to post it immediately but waited to hear true stuff. It just amused me you went somewhere like DVDR and people were going "I bet she's the third part of the triangle" and immediately figured it was a possible theory and not just message board shit. That's how the internet gets full of false bs. And you posted a "theory" right next to the answer so no high horse here buddy.

I didnt hear it on DVDR it was a theory mentioned on a number of other sites. You realise what the word "theory" means right? Apparently in your world it excludes "message board shit" or speculation. Spin it any laughable way you want but I never said or intimated it was any way true or definitive just that it was a common theory. I dont know what has gotten up your nose. Maybe you are a facebook friend of one of the parties involved I dont know but get a grip and enough with e-righteousness , seriously.

[Wahoos Leg]

So basically, she's fired because she is breaking kayfaybe. In 2010. In corporate WWE.

Nice...

I wouldn't have fired her for it, but the wrestling world could do with a lot more kayfabe.

[Loss]

If the public reason they are giving is accurate, that's a perfectly legitimate reason to fire her.

[El-P]

What ? In 2010 ? In a public shared entertainment company ? She *portrays* a straight edge girl but does not act like a straight edge girl when she's not working, and that's sufficient to fire her ? Does Randy Orton has to live his gimmick in pubic too ?

It's ridiculous. Not that I care, but it's ridiculous.

[Loss]

It's perfectly legitimate.

 

Undertaker still protects his gimmick in public in 2010, and guess what, people still buy into him and he has a superstar aura. That's wrestling. If Undertaker does it, there's no reason everyone else can't do the same.

 

Nexus has been told to be rude to fans who ask them for autographs as well.

 

I guarantee you when HHH and Stephanie were feuding going into Wrestlemania X-8 that they weren't doing interviews in public or traveling together. There isn't much kayfabe left, but there is a little.

 

There's also the side issue of WWE trying to clean up their image and getting rid of someone who parties too hard is as good a reason to fire someone as anything. WWE should be praised for doing what they can to make people believe, however inconsistent they are at it, instead of criticized for it.

[rovert]

Just so no one here is confused I am speculating here.

 

If her being a lush was the sole actual reason for being fired wouldnt WWE offer her rehab to her first even just to stick it to her? Again remember a similar excuse was made for firing Mickie James to cover what seem to be an overabundance of "reasons" from being a bunny boiler for Cena, releasing a country album, getting fat and studing online.

[El-P]

Undertaker still protects his gimmick in public in 2010, and guess what, people still buy into him and he has a superstar aura. That's wrestling. If Undertaker does it, there's no reason everyone else can't do the same.

Undertaker is a unique case. He's a 20 year old gimmick, that was created in a time were there was still some kind of kayfabe. Really has nothing to do with him not making appearance in the last decade. At best it's a cutesy post-modern gimmick in itself. Everybody knows that Taker is good old Mark, the biker guy who had "Sara" tattoed on his neck before he fucked some diva, and not some mystical creature.

 

Nexus has been told to be rude to fans who ask them for autographs as well.

 

I guarantee you when HHH and Stephanie were feuding going into Wrestlemania X-8 that they weren't doing interviews in public or traveling together. There isn't much kayfabe left, but there is a little.

Which makes no difference whatsoever. There can't be "a little" kayfabe. Either there is, of there isn't. It's like a magic trick. Once you know the trick, you know the trick and you can't go back. I love how WWE try to distance themselves from the very notion that they are "rasslin'", yet they still fire people over that old carny kayfabe concept that has no meaning whatsoever in 2010.

 

There's also the side issue of WWE trying to clean up their image and getting rid of someone who parties too hard is as good a reason to fire someone as anything. WWE should be praised for doing what they can to make people believe, however inconsistent they are at it, instead of criticized for it.

I don't think my nephews who are 7 and 5 year old care about how the wrestlers act in public, because they just aren't aware of it. Only the little kid can "believe" in a kayfabe way now.

Really, do the people who see this girl party care that she's not living her gimmick ? Will that prevent them from enjoying, if they do, that part of the WWE product ? I don't think so.

They're also "cleaning up their image" by distancing themselves from all the workers who died after spending years busting their balls from them. There's nothing in all of this that the WWE should be praised for.

[Jingus]

I think it's kind of hypocritical, given their puritan public stance on partying these days. They won't fire you for being an alcoholic; they'll only fire you for being an alcoholic female whose alcoholism is mildly inconvenient to their onscreen product.

[rovert]

Im surprised Vince hasnt fired his entire roster today given his complex about his age:

 

Vince McMahon turns 65 today.

[Loss]

Come on, wrestling is FOR kids. That's the audience. What was the last really heated feud in WWE? I guess Jericho-Michaels. Now if they were all buddy-buddy in public during the feud, making public appearances together and such, don't you think that might have taken away from the feud a little?

 

The only thing hypocritical about this is people who hate "shoot" promos in wrestling because it exposes that it's fake, but don't think wrestlers should live their gimmicks either.

 

Yes, everyone knows it's fake, but why remind everyone of that every chance you get? This is one of the few times WWE in recent years isn't shoving in everyone's face that what they do is "entertainment", so good for them.

[Loss]

I don't think my nephews who are 7 and 5 year old care about how the wrestlers act in public, because they just aren't aware of it.

Only because they've never seen them in public. If they did, and they acted totally different than they do on TV, don't you think that would probably disappoint them a little?