If you got tattoos WWE doesent want you!

[River City Rocker 0]

Okay, earlier this year, management was cracking down on wrestlers to get haircuts if they had long hair. Now, tattoos are being frowned upon?

 

Where does it end? Next thing you know, you can't have any earrings or other piercings, right?

 

Ridiculous!

 

-Ben

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Although I don't disagree with it, what exactly is the reasoning behind the tattoos being frowned upon? I'd assume that there's some sort of reason, but this blurb doesn't clarify what it is.

[Vyce 0]

All of this probably started when someone in WWE management caught a glimpse at Shannon Moore's AWFUL new tattoo.

 

Note to Shannon: big-ass, ugly tattoos don't make girly men look any more butch.

 

That's what did it, I'm convince. It caused them to rethink this entire tattoo thing they had going on.

[Guest HHH123007]

I bet Cena gets a tattoo sometime in the next 6 months...

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I don't remember seeing any tatoos on Knoble or Kidman, either.

[Guest MikeSC]

Funny...I don't put on or take off my tattoos, so how can that be considered "Dress Code"

 

You choose (for whatever God forsaken reason) to have them. Companies have every right to say "We think tatoos are horribly unprofessional and we want no part of you"). Legally, you'd have NO standing whatsoever to bring a suit.

 

As for wrestlers, WWE can claim that they are not marketable. It's REALLY hard to prove otherwise.

 

And even if they "made it retroactive" it would then pigeon hole the WWE more and hinder them from obtaining serious talent...All because they had tattoos.

 

Or the talent would have to comply. Those with them would have to cover them up. Those that don't have them would be well advised to not get them.

 

They'll look DAMNED stupid in 20 years anyway.

 

I say if they are going to promote BDSM play via the Basham's and keep Albert, who I might add came onto the seen as Prince Albert(Male genital piercing)...Then they shouldn't say shit about peoples dress codes...

 

Prince Albert was Russo's attempt at subtle comedy. It was about as effective as all of the others.

 

WWE has every right to dictate a dress code for their employees. Every company has that right.

 

Heck, Disney is the MOST restrictive company on Earth when it comes to dress code. I doubt they've had ANYBODY ever beat their dress code rules, and they'd knock you down.

 

What would you rather see...Wrestlers with tattoos or wrestlers going through their mothers and grandmothers closets for feathered boa's and big Jackie-O shades?

 

How about NEITHER?

 

It's called rolling with the times and most of those companies you mentioned have a heirachy full of "Old School" conservative individuals that are stuck in the past and cannot "roll with the future".

 

Ah, I love this. ANYBODY who doesn't like tatooes is just stuck in the past. If the WWE said this, they can't "get with the times".

 

You know, it's not like most of these tattooed folks are DRAWING money right now.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

The wrestlers are Independent contractors - that's like telling a plumber that his outfit is not suitable for the job.

 

Besides, they couldn't make the claim that it's not marketable anyways because one of their biggest superstars (the rock) has sold merch under the basis of his tattoo (the brahma bull), as has Brock Lesnar.

 

Personally, I don't care. I'm not a big tat fan for the reasons Mike listed above (yes, when I'm 60 I'll sure be proud of the *insert cliched tattoo here* I got when I was 21), but this is a bit ridiculous... I'm thinkin Taker is gettin pissed off that so many people are rippin from him, so he's putting a stop to it.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I don't see how this blurb from Schemer indicates that the WWE is saying "you can't have a tattoo" as many seem to be inferring, but rather that they don't want every guy on the roster having their entire body covered with tattoos. Posters who have mentioned that the tattoos have become so common they no longer have much of an effect are of course correct.

[Golgo 13 0]

I don't remember seeing any tatoos on Knoble or Kidman, either.

 

Kidman has one. It's on one of his calfs. It was better seen back when Kidman was in WCW, during his 'wifebeater and jean shorts' phase.

[Guest BDC]

I'm not surprised Cena is inkless. It's somewhat frowned upon to have a tattoo and be a pro bodybuilder.

 

Honestly, it seems to me that, in terms of wrestlers, tattoos ought to compliment and enhance your look, not define it. Brock? Check. Rey? Check.

 

Tattoos like Eddy's cross on his forearm can easily be covered.

 

But then... I don't exactly care either.

[Guest MikeSC]

The wrestlers are Independent contractors - that's like telling a plumber that his outfit is not suitable for the job.

 

No, but it IS comparable to a movie exec telling an actor that you don't look right for the job and we won't cast you until you fix or change certain things about your appearance.

 

Besides, they couldn't make the claim that it's not marketable anyways because one of their biggest superstars (the rock) has sold merch under the basis of his tattoo (the brahma bull), as has Brock Lesnar.

 

I was referring to the possibility of a lawsuit. The talent that would try and sue could EASILY be described as not being profitable by the WWE and nobody could claim otherwise.

 

Personally, I don't care.  I'm not a big tat fan for the reasons Mike listed above (yes, when I'm 60 I'll sure be proud of the *insert cliched tattoo here* I got when I was 21), but this is a bit ridiculous... I'm thinkin Taker is gettin pissed off that so many people are rippin from him, so he's putting a stop to it.

 

I just can't stand them. Heck, I'd kill for the NBA to ban cornrows (has there been a worse hair style EVER? And I'm sure it isn't marketable.) and for the NFL to do away with dreads (you'd think Ricky Williams would cut his after being tackled BY HIS HAIR more than a few times) --- but it won't happen.

-=Mike

[Slayer 0]

I'm thinkin Taker is gettin pissed off that so many people are rippin from him, so he's putting a stop to it.

That would be horribly funny if that were the case

 

Taker says you can't have tattoos

 

Trips says you can't have long hair

 

Vince says you can't know more than two actual wrestling moves

 

You will be assimil.... err, welcome to your new career in the WWE

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

No, but it IS comparable to a movie exec telling an actor that you don't look right for the job and we won't cast you until you fix or change certain things about your appearance.

 

Actors have a union. I don't really know what that means in relation to tats, but it does empower them somewhat in regards to getting hired and discrimination.

 

I was referring to the possibility of a lawsuit. The talent that would try and sue could EASILY be described as not being profitable by the WWE and nobody could claim otherwise.

 

Ok. So talent sues because the WWE didn't hire them because of their tats. The WWE sez that Tats are not marketable and therefore not profitable so the talent was not worth picking up... despite Brock and Rocks tattoos being on shirts.

 

 

I just can't stand them. Heck, I'd kill for the NBA to ban cornrows (has there been a worse hair style EVER? And I'm sure it isn't marketable.) and for the NFL to do away with dreads (you'd think Ricky Williams would cut his after being tackled BY HIS HAIR more than a few times) --- but it won't happen.

 

I don't think there's any hairstyle that I can't stand... on guys, at least. Tattoos are way too permanent - hair can be changed.

[eirejmcmahon 0]

We should start sending in made up rumours about the WWE to 1wrestling and see just how many of them they 'publish'.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

GOOD IDEA!

 

You see this Goldberg? Do you see it? That's right, BLACK SOCKS with BLACK PANTS! Next time you want to get fancy, remember you'll have to pay the price.

 

*WWE Management is said to be concerned with the appearance of many of its superstars in hotels and around the arena. There have been many reported incidences of wrestlers and staff wearing white socks with black pants which is considered to be a big no-no in Stamford. In fact, word was going around the locker room that if Vince McMahon spots someone with white socks and black pants, he'd fire them right then and there. This sort of behaviour has been consistent with McMahons temperamental state as of late and one wrestler told me "Now I have to change my socks?? This is getting out of hand. If a few more things like this happens, there's going to be a lot of pissed off workers".*

Edited November 12, 2003 by RavishingRickRudo

[Guest netslob]

And actually Friends is NOT like Wrestling

 

your right...'Friends' is alot less entertaining...

[Guest One Trick Pony]

No, but it IS comparable to a movie exec telling an actor that you don't look right for the job and we won't cast you until you fix or change certain things about your appearance.

 

Actors have a union. I don't really know what that means in relation to tats, but it does empower them somewhat in regards to getting hired and discrimination.

 

I was referring to the possibility of a lawsuit. The talent that would try and sue could EASILY be described as not being profitable by the WWE and nobody could claim otherwise.

 

Ok. So talent sues because the WWE didn't hire them because of their tats. The WWE sez that Tats are not marketable and therefore not profitable so the talent was not worth picking up... despite Brock and Rocks tattoos being on shirts.

 

 

I just can't stand them. Heck, I'd kill for the NBA to ban cornrows (has there been a worse hair style EVER? And I'm sure it isn't marketable.) and for the NFL to do away with dreads (you'd think Ricky Williams would cut his after being tackled BY HIS HAIR more than a few times) --- but it won't happen.

 

I don't think there's any hairstyle that I can't stand... on guys, at least. Tattoos are way too permanent - hair can be changed.

Wrestlers don't have unions and I think it's even worse if they're independent contractors then they have no pre-arranged contract before they do the work that says they have to do the job for you.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, but it IS comparable to a movie exec telling an actor that you don't look right for the job and we won't cast you until you fix or change certain things about your appearance.

 

Actors have a union.  I don't really know what that means in relation to tats, but it does empower them somewhat in regards to getting hired and discrimination.

 

If actors lacked a union, it'd be immaterial. A company has every right to say "Well, we don't like your look" and not hire you. That is life.

 

I was referring to the possibility of a lawsuit. The talent that would try and sue could EASILY be described as not being profitable by the WWE and nobody could claim otherwise.

 

Ok.  So talent sues because the WWE didn't hire them because of their tats.  The WWE sez that Tats are not marketable and therefore not profitable so the talent was not worth picking up... despite Brock and Rocks tattoos being on shirts. 

 

I was referring to the talent:

 

i.e

 

Tatooed Worker: Well, the WWE didn't hire me because of my tattoos.

WWE Lawyer: We didn't hire him, your homor, because he lacks the ability and charisma to be a good investment for us.

 

The judge would never find against the WWE. Ever.

 

I just can't stand them. Heck, I'd kill for the NBA to ban cornrows (has there been a worse hair style EVER? And I'm sure it isn't marketable.) and for the NFL to do away with dreads (you'd think Ricky Williams would cut his after being tackled BY HIS HAIR more than a few times) --- but it won't happen.

 

I don't think there's any hairstyle that I can't stand... on guys, at least.  Tattoos are way too permanent - hair can be changed.

 

Thing with 'rows is that the guys who have them gripe that they are viewed as thugs.

 

Well, homey, if you try to LOOK like a thug, don't be shocked when you are TREATED like one.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

No, but it IS comparable to a movie exec telling an actor that you don't look right for the job and we won't cast you until you fix or change certain things about your appearance.

 

Actors have a union.  I don't really know what that means in relation to tats, but it does empower them somewhat in regards to getting hired and discrimination.

 

I was referring to the possibility of a lawsuit. The talent that would try and sue could EASILY be described as not being profitable by the WWE and nobody could claim otherwise.

 

Ok.  So talent sues because the WWE didn't hire them because of their tats.  The WWE sez that Tats are not marketable and therefore not profitable so the talent was not worth picking up... despite Brock and Rocks tattoos being on shirts. 

 

 

I just can't stand them. Heck, I'd kill for the NBA to ban cornrows (has there been a worse hair style EVER? And I'm sure it isn't marketable.) and for the NFL to do away with dreads (you'd think Ricky Williams would cut his after being tackled BY HIS HAIR more than a few times) --- but it won't happen.

 

I don't think there's any hairstyle that I can't stand... on guys, at least.  Tattoos are way too permanent - hair can be changed.

Wrestlers don't have unions and I think it's even worse if they're independent contractors then they have no pre-arranged contract before they do the work that says they have to do the job for you.

Since they're independent contractors, the WWE doesn't have to sign them whatsoever if they choose not to.

 

You don't have the WWE look, they'll either not sign you, or use you SO sparingly (since there is no requirement for them to use you in the first place) that you won't make much money.

-=Mike