From: hekunze@barrow.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) Subject: Wrestling Tidbits - 07/04 Date: 1996/07/05 Message-ID: X-Deja-AN: 163768869 sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (news spool owner) organization: University of Waterloo newsgroups: rec.sport.pro-wrestling [Wrestling_TidBits] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Picture of the Week This week's picture is a collage featuring the FMW Kawasaki Baseball Stadium show from 05/05/96. Last week, I screwed up and labelled the Mitsuhara Misawa vs. Kenta Kobashi match as a Triple Crown match when it a match from the Champion Carnival. I've fixed up the image so that the text in it is now correct. If you keep copies of images, you might want to grab an update. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Horseman supporter] [ - ] WCW has Bash at The Beach on Sunday. Line-up has: * Scott Hall & Kevin Nash & ? vs. Sting & Randy Savage & Lex Luger * Konnan vs. Ric Flair for the US Title * Chris Benoit & Arn Anderson vs. Giant & Kevin Sullivan (Ric Flair gets a title shot if Horsemen win) * Nasty Boys vs. Public Enemy in a double dog collar match * Rey Misterio Jr. vs. Psicosis * Dean Malenko vs. Disco Inferno for the Cruiserweight Title * Big Bubba vs. John Tenta in a Carson City Silver Dollar match * Diamond Dallas Page vs. Jim Duggan in a taped fist match * Steve McMichael vs. Joe Gomez [ - ] As has been debated to death on-line already, the WWF has filed suit against WCW for the recent characterization of Kevin Nash & Scott Hall as invaders to WCW attempting a hostil takeover. The four counts of the suit are: * unfair competition, claiming that the promotion of Nash & Hall has purposely misled fans into believing that the WWF is playing a part in this angle, * trademark and dress infringement, claiming that WCW has used characters developed and copyrighted by the WWF, * Connecticut unfair competition, a particular violation of Connecticut law along the lines of the first item, as well as claiming that WCW has purposely circulated false rumours about the demise of the WWF on its hotline, and * defamation and libel, based on Eric Bischoff suggesting that a power out at a live Nitro show may have been sabotage. The WWF's request for a temporary restraining order pending the hearing scheduled for mid-July has been denied; had the request been granted, WCW's booking for the live Nitros and this Sunday's PPV would have been mangled. Based pretty much on what they believe is the characterization by WCW of Nash & Hall as WWF wrestlers, the WWF is demanding the profits earned as a result of the angle. The Observer reports that the WWF wants three times the profits awarded to them, along with legal fees and other punitive damages. From the Observer, regarding the failed restraining: "In addition, Titan filed a request for a Temporary Restraining Order asking: 1) WCW be prohibited from making any statements or visual indications that the WWF is affiliated in any way with this angle or that any wrestler appearing on the WCW programs are in any way affiliated with the WWF; 2) Using any misleading description of fact that is likely to cause confusion or deceive the public as to the affiliation of any of the wrestlers appearing on any WCW programs; 3) Using any of Titan's trademarks for names or dress that would cause confusion among viewers; 4) Making references to Scott Hall as either `Razor Ramon' or `The Bad Guy' or presenting him with a Hisapnic accent or being from a Hispanic background, with slicked black hair with a single curl in front, with a toothpick in his mouth or behind his ear, gold chain or chains around his neck, wrestling shorts, wrestling boots, a vest, elbow and knee pads; razor blade jewelry or designs on his clothing or anything else used by Hall during his WWF tenure that would cause consumers to believe he is portraying Razor Ramon; 5) Making any references saying Hall is currently affiliated with WWF; 6) Making any references to Kevin Nash as `Diesel' or `Big Daddy Cool' or presenting him in that character including a goatee-style beard and moustache, black tank-top, black pants, black leather boots, black vest, black fingerless glove or gloves, black sunglasses or anything else utilized by Titan during Nash's tenure with that organization; 7) Making any references saying Nash is currently affiliated with the WWF; 8) Presenting Hall, Nash or any other former Titan wrestler or personality without identifying that person by the character name they will use and explicitly stating which organization that performer is under contract to; 9) Prohibiting playing any videotapes on television or commercials of Hall and Nash's appearances to this point on Nitro and the angle on the 6/16 PPV show; 10) State three times during every Nitro broadcast and on the preview show for the 7/7 PPV show that: `Scott Hall and Kevin Nash are both under contract to the WCW and all of their actions since May 27, 1996 have been at the direction of WCW. Any statements made by us, or suggestion made by us that Hall or Nash were affiliated with the WWF were false and misleading. The WWF was not, and has not been in any way affiliated with the portrayal of Hall and Nash since May 27, 1996 and there will not be any matches between WWF wrestlers and WCW wrestlers on Nitro, on any of our shows, or on any of our pay-per-views. Any statement or suggestion to that effect by WCW and TBS personnel was false. If you wish to view WWF wrestlers, you should watch the WWF's programs, including Monday Night Raw, which airs on USA Network Monday nights at 9 p.m. EST.'" That gives you some idea from where the WWF is coming. [Kawasaki FMW][ - ] Following all of that, Brian Pillman has debuted on WWF TV playing the exact same character he was playing in WCW before he left, with the same grungy look, and has even been called a "loose cannon" by the commentators. [ - ] Not that he's a great wrestler or anything, but I was said to see Tony Anthony, formerly The Dirty White Boy, debut in commentary as a plumber named T.J. Plummer in the WWF. Tracy Smothers also debuted with another godawful name, Freddie Joe Floyd. These guys will be given a few wins before becoming jobbers to the stars, unless they do the unlikely and magically get over. [ - ] Still more on the 07/12/96 Ultimate Fighting Championship situation in Canada. Once again, concerned fans in Toronto can call 1-416-956-2050, ask for Customer Relations and speak to Jackie about the matter. Others can use 1-800-565-6684 as a starting point for polite complaints. Since I haven't spoken to anybody from either Rogers or Viewer's Choice that really knows much about the situation, I've sent off the following letter to both Rogers and Viewer's Choice. I am writing to express my concern over the recent decision by both Rogers Cable and Viewer's Choice to drop the Ultimate Fighting Championship events from their pay-per-view line-up. Based on discussions with numerous representatives from each company and news articles I have read, it would seem that both companies have played a role in this decision. Just to dispel any stereotypes, I feel that I should point out that I am currently a mathematics PhD student at the University of Waterloo, hopefully in the final year of my program. Over the past many years, I have developed a taste for and an understanding of various martial arts and grappling fighting styles, having found friends with like interests in the USA and Japan. When the UFC surfaced in North America, I was pleased that I could finally see interdisciplinary matches live in my own home. What is the Ultimate Fighting Championship? The Toronto Star's Sid Adilman seems to like the description ``so-called sport where anything goes between two male opponents except murder.'' Unfortunately, it seems like many people, both in the USA and Canada, agree with this hyperbole, apparently including the Rogers and Viewer's Choice powers-that-be. Certainly, Rogers vice-chairman Paul Lind gives that impression in the statements that appeared in Sid's column last week. I'd like to think that this is just high-profile politicking, but with Viewer's Choice having dropped the past UFC and the upcoming July UFC, the effects are quite real to me. In reality, the Ultimate Fighting Championship is sport with a touch of hype. It is not ``anything goes'' fighting, as one Rogers representative tried to convince me. The typical match is boring to the untrained eye: two very skilled fighters circle each other, lock up, tumble to the mat, and jockey for position (often moving imperceptibly), before one person applies a grappling submission and the other taps in submission. It's important to mention that the referee does control the flow of the match at all times and that the ``boring'' grappling portion is typically the longest segment of a match. As in boxing, there is a cut doctor at ringside, but only a small fraction of matches have ever required him. The referee pauses a match frequently when a fighter is cut so that the doctor may examine him. The fighters do not try to intentionally hurt each other and, indeed, usually hug after the match. The events have grown over the years, with the top stars having exceptional credentials, typically in wrestling or other grappling-based sports. World, Olympic, and Collegiate champions dominate the list of ``stars'' in the UFC. I actually believe that a positive message comes out of the typical UFC: technique prevails over brawling. Yes, there are violent moments in a typical show, usually no more than a minute or two in a three hour event. The same can be said of any contact sport, including popular sports like hockey and football. It's nowhere near the exaggerated barbarism that Sid Adilman suggests, but then he and most other opponents of the UFC have never actually seen one of the events or bothered to learn anything about it. Have the decision-making executives of Rogers and Viewer's Choice actually watched an entire UFC? Although nobody has come out to say it, I believe that the debacle at the recent Extreme Fighting Championship (a competitor of the UFC) event at the Kahnawake reserve outside Montreal is at the root of the matter. The media spewed a lot of hyperbole for that event, but nobody bothered to comment on how the actual show failed to come close to the violence predicted. Actually, that is inaccurate: Prime Minister Jean Chr\'{e}tien, having been lured into speaking out against the event in the days preceding it, commented afterwards that the press was guilty of extreme exaggeration. I would readily agree that there may well be a licensing issue and that athletic commissions should likely sanction the events. Indeed, a bill to regulate the UFC in New York state has passed the senate and is going into the assembly; all signs are that it will pass. Still, the absence of regulation does not imply illegality and Rogers and Viewer's Choice, in basing a decision on the absence of any law and a likely poor understanding of the event, are plainly choosing my programming for me, whether I like it or not. For some reason, Paul Lind brings the V-Chip into the interview quoted by Sid Adilman: ``We (Rogers) have spent a year focusing on (TV) violence and on the V-chip, and Extreme Fighting does not inform our position on violence on television.'' Now, my understanding of the V-Chip is that it allows viewers (parents, primarily) to set the levels of violence, profanity, mature matters, etc., that they want to allow on their television screens. The V-Chip would seem to be a reaction to Hollywood's inability to avoid producing programs that have potentially objectionable content. How does this relate to a sports event that I have to order by phone and watch late in the evening? If the time of broadcast is an issue, the UFC could always be aired on tape delay. This situation becomes even more silly when one looks at the Viewer's Choice offerings in a typical month: boxing, professional wrestling, violent action movies, violent horror movies, and adult pornographic movies are all on the bill. Where does Mr. Lind's V-Chip sound-bite come in here? Somehow, all of these event pass the morality test at Viewer's Choice, perhaps with a ``graphic violence'' warning on the odd movie, but the Ultimate Fighting Championship crosses a line. The lack of reasoning behind Mr. Lind's statement, ``[Roger's] policy was not to continue with this,'' is now most striking. The Viewer's Choice board endorses this decision, so both companies seem equally culpable. Briefly, boxing evolved from bare-knuckle fighting to gloved fighting primarily because the fighters risked injuring their hands by punching too much. Fights ended quickly and the viewing public was not entertained. The absence of gloves in the UFC and many fighting disciplines works to limit the amount of punching that occurs and actually makes them safer because of it. If Mike Tyson were to deliver a full-force punch with an ungloved hand, he'd risk breaking his hand; the glove spares him that, while sparing his opponent very little. The brain-damaged ``punch drunkenness'' of many former boxers is well documented. Boxing was also given rounds to help fights last longer and satisfy a hungry audience. The lack of rounds in the UFC is partly what makes technique so important. With all of the ring sports I have seen over the years, no discussion of violence can omit mentioning boxing. On a professional wrestling pay-per-view event earlier this year, one wrestler clobbered the other wrestler with a prosthetic leg that he had torn from a member of the audience. Sure, this was all planned in advance, but that doesn't reduce its violent impact. The same is true for many of the movies that are routinely shown on pay-per-view or The Movie Network. All of these events are happily carried by Viewer's Choice and Rogers. I hope I have clearly explained the reasons for my confusion. Nobody that I have spoken with on the phone from either company has a satisfactory understanding of the situation, so I am kindly requesting a written explanation of the Rogers and Viewer's Choice position and the reasoning behind it. [AJW Tag match][ - ] The WWF has [In Your House] on 07/21/96. Line-up has: * Vader & Owen Hart & Davey Boy Smith vs. Shawn Michaels & Ahmed Johnson & Ultimate Warrior * Undertaker vs. Goldust * Mankind vs. Jake Roberts * Savio Vega vs. Justin Bradshaw * Smoking Gunns vs. Bodydonnas [ - ] [Nitro] beat [RAW] on 06/24 with a 3.2 rating (5.7 share) against a 2.7 rating (4.5 share). Nitro's two hour broadcast rating is averaged. The detailed ratings are a click away. [ - ] The PPV buy rates of the past six months (year or so) show that the WWF has an average buy rate of 0.80 (0.75) and average gross of $2.09-million ($1.72-million), while WCW has an average buy rate of 0.55 (0.56) and average gross of $1.58-million ($1.62-million). The details are an interesting read. [ - ] WCW has a PPV on 08/11/96. Rumoured line-up has: * Hulk Hogan vs. Giant or Hulk Hogan vs. Kevin Nash [ - ] WCW has Clash of Champions XXXIII on 08/14/96. [ - ] The WWF has SummerSlam on 08/18/96. [ - ] The WWF has the sequel to the Big Event at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto on 08/24/96. Line-up has: * Shawn Michaels vs. Vader for the WWF Title [ - ] WCW has Fall Brawl 09/15/96. [ - ] The WWF has [In Your House] on 09/22/96. [ - ] WCW has Halloween Havoc 10/27/96 from Caeser's Palace. It will be an outdoor show. This is the first show that Jeff Jarrett can work. [ - ] The WWF has [In Your House] on 10/20/96. [ - ] The WWF has Survivor Series on 11/17/96. [ - ] WCW has World War III 11/24/96. [ - ] The WWF has [In Your House] on 12/15/96. [ - ] WCW has Starrcade on 12/29/96. The Observer reports that there are very serious talks about doing the show liver from Tokyo. [ - ] WWW: My home page is at http://barrow.uwaterloo.ca/~hekunze. The wrestling portion includes this post, tape lists, awards history, Japanese wrestling stuff, and other things. [ - ] Videos: I have posted something about the availability of videos. If you missed it, I'll send it to you in e-mail upon request. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Click here to return. E-mail: hekunze@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca