Hunter's Torn Quad

In the Foley v Undertaker HIAC, the second bump was planned.

Shawn basically swore at the girl a lot, to the point that people around her picked up on it, and started hecking Shawn as well.

Funnily enough, the guy who people think is Goldberg is actually Luther Reigns.

The Blair Bitch Project: This was scrapped because of the lawsuit involving Sable. The terms of the settlement in their lawsuit were included a proviso that neither side could disparage the other, and it was felt that BBP deal could be seen as taking shots at Sable. There was also talk it was scrapped because Vince had no clue about the Blair Witch Project movie itself, which this was a parody of, and so didn't think the parody would get over and scrapped it. Shane counting Vince's pin of Triple H: Shane was the ref for that match, but was knocked out during the match, and when Austin interfered, it may have been Austin who used Shane's hand to count the pin, though it could still have been Shane too.

I remember when Robin Hood debuted, and the main event of that Nitro right before it was Hogan v Giant, and, in an attempt to keep wrestling fans watching, and so give RH a ratings boost, they aired clips of Hogan v Giant between the first few commercial breaks of RH. The funny thing was that even though Hogan v Giant had long since ended, they presented the clips as if they were live, and that the match had been going on since Nitro went off the air.

Given that Sean Waltman pinned Monty Brown at Lockdown, would it not make sense to have them face off in some fashion at the next PPV ?

I don't think Canadian fans chant about Montreal to bitch about it anymore. I think it's now become more of a running gag, where they chant it just to rile up the promotion in general and specific people. within the promotion. And Bret probably should stop talking about Montreal, and I also don't doubt that he'd like to stop talking about it too. However, it's a little difficult to do that when WWE uses Montreal in some fashion on a semi-regular basis, which invariably sees Bret get asked about it in interviews, which sees people bitch about Bret's bitching, and the whole thing continues on in one big vicious circle. That said, you just know that with the Screwed DVD coming out later this year, the whole can of worms will be opened up again, and this time, it'll be hard to blame Bret for talking about it, when it's being used by WWE for commercial gain, and Bret will, quite rightfully for once, bring it up, if only to present his counter to what will undoubtedly be a heavily WWE-orientated spin on what happened in Montreal.

With Michaels, I'm not downplaying how good he was, but when it came time for him to drop the belt to Austin and move out of the top spot, he was a dick about it, even though it was obvious to everyone it was Austin's time on top. That's why I don't think Michaels was a mark for himself in that regard, because he knew he had to step down, it was just that his ego didn’t want it to happen. As for Bret Hart, yes, on the surface, complaining about being screwed out of a win in a worked match can seem a little silly, but to try and simplify Bret’s feelings into him just being unhappy over losing a match he was meant to win is to ignore the background of everything that led up the match in question. As I had said, I don't think Bret would have complained as loudly about being screwed if it had been Austin or 'Taker he had lost to. Being, in his eyes, screwed in his home country played a key part in his problems with what happened, but so did the fact that he 'lost' to the one person he hated more than any other.

For me, the wrestlers who are the biggest marks for themselves are the likes of Triple H, Hogan, Rhodes, etc, who continue to push themselves to the moon, because they genuinely believe it’s for the best, even though everybody with an ounce of common sense can see that they need to step down from the top. I don’t see Kevin Nash as a mark for himself, because he actually did know he shouldn’t be at the top; he just didn’t care. The difference between Nash and Triple H et al. was that Nash was aware of his time being over, whereas the others genuinely felt they should be on top, when logic and common sense said otherwise. By the same token, I don’t think Shawn Michaels was a mark for himself, as I think he was another one who knew better, but just didn’t care, and wanted to fuck around with people anyway for the hell of it. I don’t see Bret Hart as a mark of himself. A mark for his legacy, maybe, but not a mark for himself, if that makes sense. Bret was always willing, albeit reluctantly if the guy on the other side of the ring was Shawn Michaels, to put people over when the time was right, and, as WCW showed, was willing to do jobs to the point that it damaged his drawing power when it came to potential dream matches again Hogan and co. I think Goldberg is more a mark for his ring persona and character than anything else. As Goldberg the wrestling character, he did get really anal over some things that he shouldn’t have, mainly in WCW, though sometime he did have a point with things he did that he shouldn’t have done. I think what Goldberg had a problem with, and it might have been overblown on his part, was how his wrestling character related to his real life self, and the charity work he did. Goldberg felt, probably wrongly, that what he did in wrestling affected how he was viewed in real life, and I don’t think he felt that people would be able to disassociate his wrestling persona from who he was in real life.

I like this quote from one of the kickboxers: "We started the whole mess, but it was them who was out of order."

He also said something along the lines of "When the next great wrestler comes along, I want the fans to look at him and say 'He's great - but he's no Bret Hart.'" However, when he goes on for years about how he was screwed out of a victory in a worked match... and actually believes it, that just screams that somebody's out of touch with reality. Actually being fair for a moment here, he was meant to win the match, albeit by disqualification, so in that respect he was screwed out of a win he was meant to get. While maybe getting a little long in the tooth, it's still understandable that he'd be upset over 'losing', even though he really didn't, in his home country to the one person he hated more than any other. I don't think he'd be as angry over it if it had been, say Steve Austin or The Undertaker he had 'lost' to instead of Shawn.

The trouble with that analogy is that Flair's moves were all pretty basic, and little of what he did put any strain on his muscles, with it almost exclusively his back that took the punishment, and it was very evenly distributed, given that he mainly took backdrops and the like. Batista's moveset, while also basic, involves a lot of strain and pressure on his muscles, and Batista has shown to be susceptible to muscle tears. And with at least two triceps tears to his name, his muscles have already taken a pounding, so it's not impossible to think that his in-ring shelf life might not be that great.

No offence, but it sounds like the main reason you don't like the book is simply because it knocks WCW a lot. I was, and still am, a big WCW fan, but let's be honest here; there was a lot about it that deserved knocking. Where WCW deserves defending I'll defend it like any other fan, but I'm not going to ignore or play down the many things that were done wrong there, and I can't help but get the impression you're not keen on having the mistakes of WCW being highlighted, when they really should be, especially if lessons are to be learned from them (I know how redundant that is, given that almost nobody in wrestling who should learn from mistakes actually does, but that point remains). I also don't think you're giving Bryan Alvarez enough credit, both for his close knowledge of what happened, or his insight into the situation. To each his own I guess, but I know I enjoyed the book a lot, even if it was depressing to read everything that went wrong in WCW, especially knowing that it could all have been prevented.

I can't help but think I've seen this somewhere before.....http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?showtopic=69553

It was a Wrestlemania with a strong first half, but the second half was pretty weak. I wouldn't call it worth $50.

The Death Of WCW is a great book, if somewhat depressing given that it charts the death of a once great promotion, so I can see why that may cloud a persons judgment when talking about it. While it can seem like the authors are being a little smarmy at times, it is worth taking into account that they’re writing the book from the perspective of both being a fan who desperately wanted WCW survive, and of people who, in their own way, are trying to make light of what, underneath it all, is a truly depressing story of ego, greed and mismanagement. As for the negative tone of the book, it is called The Death Of WCW, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that it focuses on the down points of WCW, which, and let’s be honest here, there were plenty of. Nobody is saying that WCW didn’t have a lot of good things going for it, and if the book was called The Life And Death Of WCW then, like with the ECW DVD of the similar title, it would have covered the negative and positive in a more even tone. As it is, with the title it does have, it’s obviously going to focus on the negatives, and while that may be unpalatable to some, people shouldn’t let that cloud their view of what is a well written book. Is it depressing to read at times ? Yes, and I’ve said as much elsewhere, because nobody wanted to WCW to die, and it was, at times, a true alternative to the WWF. However, we would be kidding ourselves if we tried to say that the majority of what went on in WCW, at least behind the scenes, which was what the book focuses on, was anything but bad. The fact the company went out of business should tell you that. The Death Of WCW is definitely a well written book, with the only genuine negative being the fact that it charts the demise of a once great institution of professional wrestling.

You may want to credit Meltzer when you're almost quoting him verbatim. That line is almost directly out of this week's Observer. I haven't even read this week's Observer. It is possible for more than one person to come the same conclusion when thinking logically.

Hogan's match at Backlash will draw a number, but it won't be as big as it could have been, because his return to PPV was already given away with no real push to it.

As far as drawing money goes, Piper was a great worker. As far as ring work goes, everything before him joining the WWF was ok, but once he joined the WWF he was terrible, but it didn't really matter, because he was drawing the people in with his mic work anyway.

yep...given that Mania XX was the third highest PPV *ever* and that the 2 dual brand PPVs he headlined were the two biggest last year..... WM generally gets a big buy rate anyway, and dual brand PPV's are typically more special as well. The WM XX main event on a single brand PPV, only one month later, saw a buy rate that was a third of that of WM XX. Shawn isn't a negative draw by any means, but he isn't a huge draw either, and to try and use PPV's that typically get big numbers anyway isn't the best way to try and illustrate his drawing power.

I'd say the drawing power of WM XXI probably went like this: Austin on Piper's Pit Batista v Triple H The Wrestlemania name Kurt Angle v Shawn Michaels John Cena v Bradshaw

In terms of buys, WM X7 which got just over 1,000,000 buys.

Early estimates are typically anywhere from 10%-20% below the actual number, so there is a chance that this may wind up breaking the 1,000,000 barrier.

Why were the people who didn't think WM XXI would do a strong buy rate 'haters' ?

When I said top level, I was talking about the top level, as in becoming a major name.