The Dames

I don't see too many people shitting on that match. I don't shit on it, but I definitely see GLARING problems with it that really hamper my enjoyment of it. Someone said that Kurt Angle vs. The Rock from No Mercy 2001 would be his number 5 match, but I disagree with that one. His match with The Rock at No Way Out 2001 was FAR superior in every way, despite the blown finish. Dames

New Blood....WHAT? Please try to make sense. It's in the rules, you know. Downhome, there's ALWAYS backlash for the blockbusters so count on Hulk getting bashed, especially here, sadly. Dames

He's talking about Kotz' report... I've got to get that boy to work faster. Dames

Zim stopped writing due to um..."marriage committments", right? Good thing that's VERY far away for me. Dames

Done. Dames

Tell her Dames says hi and ask if she received my flowers. Dames

I took Pre-Calc my junior year of high school and nothing my senior year. Took Calc in college...too many times. Dames

Oh lord...Pre-Calc! Is that derivatives and limits and all that or is that later on...? Dames

Urban legend has it that the guys who casted Batman 1 had no clue as to the fact that Harvey Dent was a Bat-Villain and also white, LET ME FUCKING GUESS. Jon Peters. The same guy who is currently insuring that the Superman movie will NEVER be made. Dames

HEY! If CRZ hadn't been replaced yet, then I shouldn't! Dames

At least you intended on re-writing it. But now you know your fate should something like that happen again, Kotz. You know I love ya, but business is business. Dames

Granted, it won't be anywhere near as extensive as my Match Backgrounds are now and there will be limitations. The main problem is that the game doesn't "remember" what's happened in the past so the only things that will go in the Match Backgrounds will be the length of title reigns, who's feuding with who and if the title is on the line. I'm going to see if this can be improved before it's out. Dames

I received an e-mail from someone who writes for the Oratory and posted an article on June 5th. An excerpt from this article is as such: "How many times have you heard a wrestling fan say that we should all be eternally grateful to Vince McMahon for masterminding the rise of professional wrestling, and bringing it to each of us on such a grand scale? I know I used to express such a sentiment. As a ‘mark’ I used to think that we had McMahon to thank for popularising wrestling to such an extent that it almost became a legitimate mainstream attraction. I used to think that we had McMahon to thank for making wrestling a global phenomenon. I used to think that McMahon was the ‘genius’ responsible for breeding literally millions of wrestling fans. I’d bet that almost all of you would have agreed with me at one time or other, and the vast majority of you would still agree with these statements even now. You know what? You’d be right to agree. That is, you’d be right EXCEPT for a few small details: this is NOT wrestling, the WWE’s impressive globalisation represents more the rise of corporate dominance than it does the rise of wrestling, and these ‘wrestling fans’ are barely fans of wrestling at all: they are merely shallow victims of corporate branding. Welcome to the world in which the corporation is king. ‘The astronomical growth in the wealth and cultural influence of multi-national corporations over the last fifteen years can arguably be traced back to a single, seemingly innocuous idea developed by management theorists in the mid-1980s: that successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products,’ (Pg. 3 of No Logo, a book at the forefront of the anti-corporate movement, by Naomi Klein). This is not going to be just another column bashing the WWE, as fun as those always are. This is a column about a shift which started to take shape in the mid eighties when corporations stopped marketing products, and began marketing brands. When the WWE ceased to focus on wrestling (i.e. its product) and instead began focusing on the branding process – a process which has entailed drastic changes in the nature of the wrestling business, and has had dramatic consequences. This has all been brought to my attention by studying sociology, through which it has become clear that the success of the WWE is merely the result of a prevalent trend in wider society today: the rise of the corporation. The WWE is not the most successful wrestling company in the world because it is the best at producing, or even marketing, wrestling. On the contrary, it is simply the best at marketing brands. And yes, this is a bad thing. There are reasons why thousands of protesters have joined the anti-corporate movement in an attempt to bring down these corporations: they prioritise marketing above product, they concentrate on building an emotional tie with consumers so that consumers either don’t notice or simply don’t care that their product is inferior to another, and they end up breeding a fan base of mindless individuals. Rather than instigating the rise of wrestling, McMahon has merely instigated the rise of the WWE. The two are entirely different. One emphasises choice and concentrates on providing the best possible product (i.e. wrestling), the other opposes choice and attempts to breed fans loyal to its brand, rather than hungry for the best product. The WWE’s success lies largely in its ability to breed the mindless. ‘I haven’t the slightest idea what professional wrestling is…we don’t do professional wrestling…we’re in the entertainment industry and we’re about sports-entertainment…we combine all these different elements together and you have this wonderful hybrid of which there’s nothing like it on television,’ (Vince McMahon on Inside Edition, February 1999). McMahon doesn’t promote wrestling. He promotes his own brand of sports entertainment, and tries to build that all important emotional tie with customers by emphasising the underlying themes behind it. Just like Nike might imply that using their products will bring you the athleticism exhibited by its promoters (e.g. Michael Jordan), or Starbucks might like to pretend that there is some wonderfully romantic experience behind drinking a cup of their coffee, the WWE has most recently suggested that viewers will absorb a certain attitude from watching their product. As McMahon himself conceded in his infamous interview with Bob Costas, ‘this is brand building; this is not just television programming and that’s the thing that I think a lot of people, quite frankly, miss’. Although he was referencing the XFL in that instance, his attitude is plain to see: brand building is far more important than producing a good product. History would certainly support him here. Sociologists trace the origins of the branding process back to the economic recession of the eighties, out of which emerged a new type of corporation: one which marketed brands which built an emotional tie with customers to ensure their loyalty to that brand. It is no co-incidence that the WWE began to take off at the same time. Furthermore, I would even argue that it is no co-incidence that a momentary downfall in WWE business really started at the same time as the entire branding process declined for a short while: during the early nineties. Guess when the resurgence of the brand was? The mid nineties, as was the resurgence of wrestling. Now brands have faded again, and I shouldn’t need to tell you that wrestling has, once again, followed their lead and faded with them. Brand building brings business, and with that business comes a degree of loyalty, which might explain why so many mindless fans are not only watching, but genuinely enjoying, some of the typically awful WWE programming today which even dedicated fans cringe at. These are the mindless fans that the WWE has worked so hard to breed. There may not be so many of them around today with the decline of branding but, unfortunately, the mindless still meander among us. These are the fans that cheer the ‘Mr America’ angle, even though any fan with even a semblance of intelligence is all but reduced to tears during his segments with the dastardly evil genius Mr McMahon. These are the fans that cheer the very personification of evil dancing around in a thong, even though Rikishi’s embarrassing act was nauseating when it began three and a half years ago. These are the fans that rejoice in cheering any woman mindless enough to sell her body like a prostitute, and froth at the mouth come the mere sight of bare female skin. These are the fans that cheer any act of patriotism, no matter how blind or nonsensical, as long as it demonstrates a love for one’s country. These are the fans that revel in mindlessness. These are at least partially the result of corporate branding, which has not only kept them hooked to a particular product (the WWE), but has made them refrain from considering unbranded alternatives where the product is actually far superior. I’m not suggesting for a minute that a revival in the popularity of the branding process will miraculously reverse the WWE’s dying fortunes, but it is clear that the rise of the corporation has brought branding and success inextricably together, and the WWE’s turnaround will depend not only on distributing a better product, but also on marketing that product effectively. This is where Vince’s real strength lies. He has never been a great wrestling promoter, as those ‘in the know’ have been saying for years. How many times has he been declared a wrestling genius? Not nearly as many as he has been called a marketing genius. In researching this article I came across one critic commenting that he has to sell the sizzle, because the steak is simply not enough on its own. Historically, this is difficult to argue with. Even Ric Flair locates the difference in wrestling’s popularity today to its relative unpopularity years ago in its marketing, not its product: ‘I think the biggest difference in the business is the marketing, but that entails so much in terms of the characters that the guys build themselves into, the way the company markets them. I don't think there's a marketing concept in the NBA, the NFL, or the NHL that can even compare with the marketing concepts behind the WWE, and the way they promote their wrestlers to the fans, and the show itself,’ (Ric Flair on Channel Surfing with Lisa). So much has changed from when wrestling was genuinely a family owned, family orientated industry, to where it is now, in which everything is ‘in the name of television ratings. It’s in the name of attracting a higher rating, a higher-quality sponsor and ultimately more money. It’s all about that’ (Vince McMahon in an interview with Raw magazine, March 2001). In other words, it’s about the corporate pursuit of capital, which is far removed from its foundation of actual wrestling. Wrestling is all but a forgotten by product of a controversial brand – watch, listen to or read any interview with McMahon, and how much discussion goes on about actual wrestling, and the actual matches themselves? In researching this column I can’t recall seeing any. It’s all about the themes behind the product, the controversial content, the glamorous characters; the list goes on and on until you eventually find wrestling at the bottom of McMahon’s priorities. Wrestling is undeniably a key component to a product, and it can undoubtedly draw business in itself, but the sad truth is that when talking about the WWE, the actual wrestling is often the last thing on the minds of the mainstream. The brand comes first. ‘Within these real and virtual branded edifices, options for unbranded alternatives, for open debate, criticism and uncensored art – for real choice – are facing new and ominous restrictions… the terrible irony of these surrogates, of course, is how destructive they are proving to be to the real thing,’ (No Logo, pgs. 131 and 158). Unfortunately, whilst the heavily branded WWE may have benefited enormously from the rise of the corporation, in its path is an ominous trail of destruction. The key concepts behind McMahon’s sports entertainment brand have often involved vulgarity, a lack of morality, and invariably controversy, which have been absolutely devastating to other wrestling companies. Why? Because the WWE is the biggest ‘wrestling’ organisation around, therefore whatever they do is taken by the Mr Average Joe to be representative of wrestling in general. And so now, thanks to the WWE, wrestling carries a very unwelcome stigma which makes it extremely difficult for any other wrestling company to get a TV deal, to attract the sceptical onlooker, or to even be taken seriously. The lack of real choice has been seriously restricted, so much so that even McMahon himself failed to attain a timeslot in which to showcase WCW when he wanted one in 2001, which is of course what caused the rushed embarrassment that was the invasion angle. Far from being the masterpiece behind the ascension of wrestling to previously unforeseen heights, McMahon has, in many ways, been irrevocably destructive to it. Just as the anti-corporate movement predicts, the rise of the big corporation selling a brand rather than a product is ‘destructive to the real thing’. What chance does a legitimate wrestling promotion like Ring of Honour have anymore? We can only hope that the decline of the brand will be met with a revival of the actual product: wrestling. Not only is it difficult for any other wrestling organisation to be taken seriously nowadays, but the fans themselves have been made a part of the problem. No Logo details that the rise of the corporation produces ‘shallow, depthless identities’, and the WWE can be accused of producing the same mindlessness in their fans. I’m not saying that everyone who is a mindless wrestling fan is a mindless person when they’re removed from a wrestling environment, but moreover that whilst watching WWE programming, the promotion encourages fans to turn their brains off and recoils in horror at the mere suggestion that fans should be able to critically evaluate it, as the WWE’s war on the internet is evidence enough of. Through years of corporate wrestling, fans have by now been conditioned to demand various theatrical elements from a wrestling program in addition to the pure wrestling, so much so that even a supposedly pure wrestling promotion in ROH have resorted to mixing their top class wrestling with often irrelevant entertainment. There is little hope for wrestling as a product in and of itself now. Whether or not that is a bad thing is entirely subjective, but what any objective mind will acknowledge is that what is a bad thing is fans chanting boring during a great wrestling match like Lesnar vs Angle (as they did during parts of their Wrestlemania match), screaming for ‘puppies’ whenever a female performer appears on screen, and calling for mindless violence with weapons whenever a suitable prop is in sight. This has not necessarily been caused by the WWE, but they have harboured these concepts to such an extent that fans now have set expectations when watching wrestling, and are often intolerant of alternatives. In a sense, they have been branded. Society as a whole now features more ‘bandwagon jumping’ than ever, with ‘individuals’ keen to follow the latest trends and conform to what is supposedly fashionable. But once again, they don’t necessarily want the best product. More often than not they don’t listen to the most talented bands, watch the best films or wear the best clothes. On the contrary, fashion dictates their every move and they are so conscious of their own social appearance that they won’t even allow unbranded or unfashionable alternatives a chance, regardless of the quality of their product. This is unavoidably linked with wrestling, whereby ‘wrestling fans’ are keen to jump on the latest bandwagon and support the most fashionable brand, therefore if a new promotion comes along with new ideas or a new approach, ‘fans’ are all too often unwilling to even listen. They have to be seen to be following the best. And for them, given its history and unparalleled media attention, the WWE is the best. Heck, for most of them the WWE is wrestling. These people no longer have an individual identity as wrestling fans. They are merely victims of the branding phenomenon, and forever loyal to the brand that has brought wrestling meaning (for them). WCW had a distinct brand of its own. A brand that brought many customers the same sense of attachment to WCW as the WWE has with a large portion of its own fan base. Is it any wonder that those branded WCW fans are no longer watching? Their brand goes, and with it goes the meaning they attached to wrestling, and since the rise of the corporation has stripped them of their identity, many of them lack even the personal motivation to bother finding another wrestling company. " Now, let's take a look at Paul Votsis' column.... "Just wanted to blurt out a very solemn "Rest in Peace" to "Classy" Freddy Blassie. I am ignorant of him and his era, however I'm not dumb enough to miss the fact that he meant a lot to the WWE and pro-wrestling in general. Rest in peace, Fred. I'm sure everyone who is viewing this piece is wondering what kind of articles will I be producing every week from here on. In case your eyes have been staring at a computer screen for 24 hours (which I'm sure they have), glance quickly at the title of this column, and you'll (hopefully) get the idea. I'm here writing on The Smart Marks to vent any particular frustration or anger I have with the wrestling world in general. I am a very avid wrestling fan and too many times in the past year have I been given plenty of reasons to just disregard pro-wrestling and find another form of entertainment. One of those reasons has been the WWE. No, I'm not going to just blab on about how the WWE is a sinking ship and Triple H is the anti-Christ (that's for sometime down the road). We all have our specific pet peeves with Vince McMahon's multi-million dollar company, and frankly, over the past few months I've been disillusioned over one specific annoyance of mine. How many times have you heard a wrestling fan say that we should all be eternally grateful to Vince McMahon for masterminding the rise of professional wrestling, and bringing it to each of us on such a grand scale? I know I used to express such a sentiment. As a ‘mark’ I used to think that we had McMahon to thank for popularizing wrestling to such an extent that it almost became a legitimate mainstream attraction. I used to think that we had McMahon to thank for making wrestling a global phenomenon. I used to think that McMahon was the ‘genius’ responsible for breeding literally millions of wrestling fans. I’d bet that almost all of you would have agreed with me at one time or other, and the vast majority of you would still agree with these statements even now. You know what? You’d be right to agree. That is, you’d be right EXCEPT for a few small details: this is NOT wrestling, the WWE’s impressive globalization represents more the rise of corporate dominance than it does the rise of wrestling, and these ‘wrestling fans’ are barely fans of wrestling at all: they are merely shallow victims of corporate branding. Welcome to the world in which the corporation is king. ‘The astronomical growth in the wealth and cultural influence of multi-national corporations over the last fifteen years can arguably be traced back to a single, seemingly innocuous idea developed by management theorists in the mid-1980s: that successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products,’ (Pg. 3 of No Logo, a book at the forefront of the anti-corporate movement, by Naomi Klein). This is not going to be just another column bashing the WWE, as fun as those always are. This is a column about a shift which started to take shape in the mid eighties when corporations stopped marketing products, and began marketing brands. When the WWE ceased to focus on wrestling (i.e. its product) and instead began focusing on the branding process – a process which has entailed drastic changes in the nature of the wrestling business, and has had dramatic consequences. This has all been brought to my attention by studying sociology, through which it has become clear that the success of the WWE is merely the result of a prevalent trend in wider society today: the rise of the corporation. The WWE is not the most successful wrestling company in the world because it is the best at producing, or even marketing, wrestling. On the contrary, it is simply the best at marketing brands. And yes, this is a bad thing. There are reasons why thousands of protesters have joined the anti-corporate movement in an attempt to bring down these corporations: they prioritise marketing above product, they concentrate on building an emotional tie with consumers so that consumers either don’t notice or simply don’t care that their product is inferior to another, and they end up breeding a fan base of mindless individuals. Rather than instigating the rise of wrestling,! McMahon has merely instigated the rise of the WWE. The two are entirely different. One emphasis choice and concentrates on providing the best possible product (i.e. wrestling), the other opposes choice and attempts to breed fans loyal to its brand, rather than hungry for the best product. The WWE’s success lies largely in its ability to breed the mindless. ‘I haven’t the slightest idea what professional wrestling is…we don’t do professional wrestling…we’re in the entertainment industry and we’re about sports-entertainment…we combine all these different elements together and you have this wonderful hybrid of which there’s nothing like it on television,’ (Vince McMahon on Inside Edition, February 1999). McMahon doesn’t promote wrestling. He promotes his own brand of sports entertainment, and tries to build that all important emotional tie with customers by emphasizing the underlying themes behind it. Just like Nike might imply that using their! products will bring you the athleticism exhibited by its promoters (e .g. Michael Jordan), or Starbucks might like to pretend that there is some wonderfully romantic experience behind drinking a cup of their coffee, the WWE has most recently suggested that viewers will absorb a certain attitude from watching their product. As McMahon himself conceded in his infamous interview with Bob Costas, ‘this is brand building; this is not just television programming and that’s the thing that I think a lot of people, quite frankly, miss’. Although he was referencing the XFL in that instance, his attitude is plain to see: brand building is far more important than producing a good product. History would certainly support him here. Sociologists trace the origins of the branding process back to the economic recession of the eighties, out of which emerged a new type of corporation: one which marketed brands which built an emotional tie with customers to ensure their loyalty to that brand. It is no co-incidence that the WWE began to take off at ! the same time. Furthermore, I would even argue that it is no co-incidence that a momentary downfall in WWE business really started at the same time as the entire branding process declined for a short while: during the early nineties. Guess when the resurgence of the brand was? The mid nineties, as was the resurgence of wrestling. Now brands have faded again, and I shouldn’t need to tell you that wrestling has, once again, followed their lead and faded with them. Brand building brings business, and with that business comes a degree of loyalty, which might explain why so many mindless fans are not only watching, but genuinely enjoying, some of the typically awful WWE programming today which even dedicated fans cringe at. These are the mindless fans that the WWE has worked so hard to breed. There may not be so many of them around today with the decline of branding but, unfortunately, the mindless still meander among us. These are the fans that cheer the ‘Mr America’ angle, even though any fan with even a semblance of intelligence is all but reduced to tears during his segments with the dastardly evil genius Mr. McMahon. These are the fans that cheer the very personification of evil dancing around in a thong, even though Rikishi’s embarrassing act was nauseating when it began three and a half years ago. These are the fans that rejoice in cheering any woman mindless enough to sell her body like a prostitute, and froth at the mouth come the mere sight of bare female skin. These are the fans that cheer any act of patriotism, no matter how blind or nonsensical, as long as it demonstrates a love for one’s country. These are the fans that revel in mindlessness. These are at least partially the result of corporate branding, which has not only kept them hooked to a particular product (the WWE), but has made them refrain from considering unbranded alternatives where the product is actually far superior. So much has changed from when wrestling was genuinely a family owned, family orientated industry, to where it is now, in which everything is ‘in the name of television ratings. It’s in the name of attracting a higher rating, a higher-quality sponsor and ultimately more money. It’s all about that’ (Vince McMahon in an interview with Raw magazine, March 2001). In other words, it’s about the corporate pursuit of capital, which is far removed from its foundation of actual wrestling. Wrestling is all but a forgotten by product of a controversial brand – watch, listen to or read any interview with McMahon, and how much discussion goes on about actual wrestling, and the actual matches themselves? In researching this column I can’t recall seeing any. It’s all about the themes behind the product, the controversial content, the glamorous characters; the list goes on and on until you eventually find wrestling at the bottom of McMahon’s priorities. Wrestling is undeniably a key component to a product, and it can undoubtedly draw business in itself, but the sad truth is that when talking about the WWE, the actual wrestling is often t he last thing on the minds of the mainstream. The brand comes first. Take a look at this excerpt by the WWE. ‘Our operations are organized around two principal activities: 1) The creation, marketing and distribution of our live and televised entertainment, which includes the sale of advertising time on our television programs; and 2) The marketing and promotion of our branded merchandise. In addition, we are working to expand the mainstream potential of the World Wrestling Entertainment brand in domestic and international markets, develop extension businesses off the World Wrestling Entertainment brand, fully develop our internet programs as an entertainment and advertising platform, and develop new programming and sports entertainment brands that leverage WWE's core competencies. [please credit WWE’s corporate website] Whatever happened to wrestling? There isn’t even a mention of it above. So don’t thank McMahon for something he doesn’t even care about himself. You shouldn’t feel obliged to be loyal to the WWE. Don’t join the mindless. Because the idea that McMahon and the WWE provide the best wrestling around is simply ludicrous. There are several alternatives to Vince’s promotion than meets the common fan’s eye. I, myself, have been interested in picking up some ROH (Ring of Honor) tapes, because my mind has been squeezed dry by giving the WWE a chance to make a turnaround. I have invested my own time and money into the WWE, and just for that, I simply do know owe Vince McMahon any kind of false praise. Neither do you. It is the WWE myth that says you do." It is CLEAR that his work was plagarized and I am FURIOUS right now. I'm giving you the chance to defend yourself Paul. You are not banned from the forums because you technically haven't broken any of the rules (although I wish I had made one for this), but you ARE banned from ever writing for TSM ever again. I'm VERY upset right now, but I'm more so disappointed because I honestly felt that we had found a diamond in the rough. We're trying to create a credible site here and something like this can RUIN all of the hard work that everyone here has done. Dames

I'm FUMING right now. See Site Feedback. Dames

Alright...let us clarify this. Test got heat last night, not for the work in the ring, which was his usual stuff, but for his antics and taunting of Stacy. If he can continue to build on his over the top asshole character, it CAN go somewhere, but don't expect any in ring improvement. Dames

The mail server is up, check your email, your password is in there. The commentary is in the same format as my write ups, Match Background, The Match, My Opinion. Basically, It's a bunch of code and I filled it in. Adam Ryland never allowed the other 3 to do their own commentary because they don't know coding. Dames

I hate going back and editing my reports, but I did want to say that Jericho/Goldberg was probably the best match I've seen out of him since Goldberg/DDP. Dames

Guys...most people haven't even heard of me. Dames

...My bad. I'll try to break it up from now on. Dames

Feedback here please Dames

Oh, I'm plugging away... Dames

That was my thought too, actually. If he WAS a "One", he was the first. Dames

DAMMIT!!!! You blew my big annoucement! I was going to tell everyone in the TNA One Year Anniversary Thread. Dames

The future is shown...and there was no Judgment Day. Sarah Conner (in a terrible make up job), now in old age is sitting on a park bench (the same park she sees in her apocalyptic dreams)talking into a tape recorder about the events of T2. John Conner is playing with his daughter on a swing and she comes over to Sarah to tie her shoe...she watches on as humanity lives. Not a bad ending, but closes the door on possible sequels featuring Sarah & John Connor's characters. Dames

Dammit, this sucks. I saw Matrix Reloaded on the IMAX screen on 66th Street and after a second viewing and paying close attention to everything that was stated, I'm highly leaning towards the Merovingian being one of the first "Ones"...and I thought I was the only one who caught it until I read this. These are the main points that lead me to believe this theory. Persephone goes into a room with two of Merovingians goons and says that these two were "saved" by him quite some time ago and are therefore very loyal to him. This could mean that if the Merovingian was one of the former Ones, therefore choosing to rebuild Zion out of 23 people, these were two of the people that he chose long ago. Persephone also says that Merovingian used to be alot like Neo... She also states that she hasn't known love in a LONG time and therefore wants a taste of it with a kiss. My theory is that if the Merovingian was a former One, then when confronted by the Architect with the choice to save Zion or (if the circumstances were similar in his case) save his love for Persephone...he chose to save Zion and chose Persephone as one of the women to rebuild Zion with. However, seeing as how he made his choice (saving the world over love) it meant that his love, unlike Neo's, wasn't true. Merovingian talks a lot about cause and effect...and how choice doesn't truly have a factor in the matter. He could have this mindset because he felt almost betrayed by his lack of "choice" as The One when presented with the ultimatum to save Zion. If everything was leading up to this moment, then in his mind, he may feel that nothing he could have done would have changed it...and therefore "choice" doesn't really exist for him. He knows and understands what the Keymaker is for...and who would know better than someone who has gone through the entire process of opening the door? I could be wrong and I know there are holes in my theory, but I'm hoping that's the direction that they go in because if not, then the Merovingian's character WAS essentially useless. Dames