wrestling / Columns

Ask 411 Wrestling: Is Paul Heyman To Blame For Wrestler Deaths?

April 20, 2016 | Posted by Mathew Sforcina
Paul Heyman Paul Heyman's Image Credit: WWE

Hey, welcome to a special Birthday edition of Ask 411 Wrestling! I am your fact finder and/or opinion giver, Mathew Sforcina, and it’s my birthday on Saturday. So yay, I haven’t died in a year! Go me! Feel free to leave me a message of support below!

That said, there’s a major issue I need to bring up, and that’s this news item that says that Lisa Marie Varon, a.k.a My Goddess, is coming to Australia.

Now, just to head off any rumors, the fact is that the show will be in Melbourne, and thus I’ll be unlikely to be on the show or in attendance and besides, really, this whole ‘worshiping’ thing is a gimmick, I’m not really some sort of crazy psycho stalker and as long as she’s in Australia Ms Varon has nothing to fear from me, as I shall not, in any way, be doing anything stupid.

…

…

Moving on!

Got a question? [email protected] is where you send it!

BANNER!

Zeldas!

Check out my Drabble blog, 1/10 of a Picture! Consider it a birthday present!

Me On Twitter~!
http://www.twitter.com/411mania
http://www.twitter.com/411wrestling
http://www.twitter.com/411moviestv
http://www.twitter.com/411music
http://www.twitter.com/411games
http://www.twitter.com/411mma

Feedback Loop

Height Differences: Everyone looks short to me. But fair enough, I assumed he was taller by default, my bad. The rest of the argument stands.

The Trivia Crown

Who am I? I’m in the top 5 of some sort of ranking (beating a knock knock joke teller by 1). The only ring name I’ve used that wasn’t vaguely in line with my current one was one that was a mix between an ECW Champion, a WCW Champion, and a wrestling phone user. I’ve fought against The Radicals, La Resistance, and Rosey in two separate personas. I’ve been part of a double double, a Team, and one of my tag team finishers is illegal, at least the usual verbiage is. The Dudley Boys have invited me, the Wrestling Observer has awarded me a negative, and I may be coming to your screens pretty soon once more. Who am I?

Peachmeister has the answer for us!

Who am I? I’m in the top 5 of some sort of ranking (beating a knock knock joke teller by 1). The only ring name I’ve used that wasn’t vaguely in line with my current one was one that was a mix between an ECW Champion, a WCW Champion, and a wrestling phone user (former ring name Lee Awesome). I’ve fought against The Radicals (Jakked Matches againsst Perry saturn and Dean Malenko), La Resistance (Heat Tapings 2003), and Rosey in two separate personas(again two Heat Tag Matches against 3 Minute Warning and Hurricane and Rosey). I’ve been part of a double double, a Team (Team Canada), and one of my tag team finishers is illegal (DWI), at least the usual verbiage is (Tag finisher stands for Drinking Whilst Investing). The Dudley Boys have invited me (Team 3D invitational), the Wrestling Observer has awarded me a negative (2006 Worst Worked Match of the year – Reverse Battle Royal), and I may be coming to your screens pretty soon once more (appeared at NXT: Dallas). Who am I?

You are Bobby……ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

The double double is his team with Austin Aries, he went by Robert Roode during that time. And the first ring name was ‘Total’ (Total Package) Lee (Stagger Lee) Awesome (Mike Awesome).

Who am I? I’m taller than Dean Ambrose. I began my career as a foreigner gimmick, weirdly enough. One of my tag team names was nearly a band. I got my foot in the door of somewhere due to a police operation. The best in the world once ruined a near full year’s work of mine. My debut match in the big leagues was beating someone I’d later team with. One of my finishers is styled after a guy on the roster someone. I’m a trainer, a former sports star, and very very, I am who?

Getting Down To All The Business

We start with Billy, and an important question: Was Randy Savage A True Manly Man?

Hi Mathew. I recently recalled an article in WCW magazine that said that Macho Man Randy Savage once went through knee surgery without anaesthesia. Is this just WCW hyping up one of their stars since it seems unlikely that any doctor would agree to do this, or is there some truth to it?

Well, actually it’s kinda possible, if you involve a little double talk/aren’t being exactly accurate. Repairing ACLs and the like is normally done with keyhole surgery these days, and for that, you can get away with a local block. Instead of putting you to sleep, the anaesthetist can just dull the nerve endings in that leg so you can’t feel anything, with a nerve block. So while you’re not under sedation, you still have some drugs in you to dull the pain. But you can say he did it without anaesthesia if you are specific in your meaning.

I wasn’t able to find any info about what sort of surgery it was or what have you, so if it was just a small scope or some such, and if Savage was at risk of complications with anaesthesia due to, say, a history of some sort of drug use… I just don’t see it being done without a nerve block, unless it was truly a case of him wanting to be a MANLY MAN!

But I’m no expert here, despite Boring Day Job being in the medical field, so if any actual medical people are reading this, do chime in!

Bruce and/or Joanne (it came from a joint email and there was no sig so here we are) asks about old school guys getting what they deserve.

Great column, Mathew. Enjoyable read every week. I loved the old AWA Wrestling and recently went to an event by old time AWA wrestler Kenny Jay, with some of those other AWA wrestlers there, such as Dr. X., Precious Paul Ellering, Larry “The Ax” Henning, Jumpin’ Jim Bruzell, Greg Gagne, and Baron Von Raschke. Kenny Jay was a blast at this event. We talked with Greg for a while and asked about him joining us in watching a WWE PPV some time and he said he’d be pleased to join us, which was something of a surprise. The man is still quite passionate about Pro Wrestling. That got me thinking about some of those wrestlers and how good they were in that era of wrestling. My favorite from that era was Billy Robinson. What do you think is the possibility that Billy Robinson will EVER be inducted in the WWE HOF? How about any of the other old school guys from back in the day? Which ones do you think are most likely to get in?

Moving on, we have-

OK, OK.

I think that there’s going to be an upswing in inductions in the coming years if you include the Legacy awards. As of the one class they’ve done, it’s looking to be how they induct all the old timers from before the days of TV and thus who they can’t do packages on but who belong in any credible Hall of Fame.

Thing is, that’s a somewhat finite list, in that unless you start going back to James Figg and the like.

Therefore, I could see WWE start to include older names that aren’t worth a full induction in that category, eventually. Especially as most of the guys from the AWA who aren’t already in there and deserve to be have passed on, so I suspect guys like The Crusher and Gene Kiniski and Mad Dog Vachon will get in there. Billy Robinson will get in there sooner or later as a Legacy name, for sure.

As for guys still alive? Dr. X, Baron Von Raschke, The Ax… Not to be too blunt about it, but their chances are good provided they don’t die. WWE wants mostly alive people for each year, so each year they stay alive, that’s another chance to be inducted. Once they do pass on, you move to the back of the queue for the one sole dead person induction, or you get bumped to Legacy. But yeah, they’ll get in eventually, sure. WWE is taking strides to make it more legit, but at the end of the day people aren’t going in based on the order in which they deserve to be in, but by the order WWE chooses to put them in.

Or rather, are kept out because of who chooses to do so. *coughMarthaHartsplutter*

Next up is Jesse, asking about a famous WCW angle.

I am a big fan of your column, I read it every week and appreciate all the work you put into it. I have a question, what was the deal with WCW resetting the company in spring 2000? I was watching an old Nitro where BIschoff and Russo came out to reset all the titles and start the New Blood vs. Millionaires Club feud, but I found it a bit confusing. For one, it seemed like the New Blood were supposed to be the faces but they were being booed and if they WERE supposed to be face why would you have Bischoff (a heel) and Russo (a turd) be the heads of the stable? I think later in the episode they had Kidman cutting a promo on Hulk Hogan and again it seemed like Kidman should logically be the face but he was acting like a heel and getting booed. Did I miss something? What was the aim in realigning the company in this way and was the New Blood supposed to be face as I suspect or were they supposed to be heel? What were the plans for this angle, and what ended up happening, it seems like it just petered out and ended. This has been driving me crazy for awhile now, and would love if you could explicate on the purpose and idea behind this ill-conceived angle. Again, thank you for your time and keep up the great work!

OK, to answer all those I need to basically do the entire history of the angle, so bear with me.

Early 1999. WCW was in trouble, with Nitro doing less than half of Raw’s ratings, ticket sales in the dumps (except when they were outside North America) and PPV buyrates down 90% from a year prior. The booking committee headed by Kevin Sullivan that was put in place a month or so prior after Russo was fired due to the Souled Out Fiasco Mark 1 was not working out well at all. But it seemed to be the only option available.

However, Brad Siegel, the executive overseeing WCW, asked for a booking plan for the year from Sullivan and his main helpers, JJ Dillon and Terry Taylor. He got two, one from them, and one from Russo and Bischoff.

Russo and Bischoff had been talking ever since Russo was sent home, roughly, about working together. The man who had turned around WCW (before cracking under the pressure and running away) and the man who had turned WWF around (under McMahon, a factor lost in WCW) working together seemed a great idea, especially as their main story idea, seeing Bischoff lead a group of the older ‘name’ wrestlers feuding with Russo leading a bunch of young guns, in an angle that, while pretty similar to the WCW/nWo ‘war’ would in theory mix up old and new names and create a bunch of new stars and thus be good, in theory.

So Russo and Bischoff were brought back, although this led Bill Busch, the day to day executive of WCW to quit. But the duo seemed a perfect match, the two men who revolutionised wrestling, working together, so on and so forth.

April 10 rolls around, and WCW is rebooted, in order to start fresh and to allow for the massive upheaval of the show, given that WCW was now totally reinvented to focus on Russo and Bischoff working together as leaders of the New Blood to take out the old guard who ‘Russo had fought and Bischoff had let run wild’, the two aligned to ‘correct the mistakes’ and such.

And to be fair, that April 10 show, despite having a few faults (the scissors line), was pretty good, as Russo, when he wants to, can write a hell of a first chapter. The entire company was reorganised quickly and with a surprising lack of issues, as the general plot point was clear enough to be understood (even if some of the New Blood wasn’t all that new, guys like Scott Steiner and Booker T were hardly young men…) and the show was enjoyable, fresh, and while nowhere near beating WWF, did get a boost in the ratings (although coming off the clip show the previous week helped there).

But anyway, the company is rebooted in order to tell this giant overarching storyline and thus lead to lots of new stars being made, with young names working with older stars.

And then it all goes to hell.

Because while Russo and Bischoff came up with the angle together, they clearly had different ideas about execution. Bischoff was still playing the one card he knew worked, in that the WCW audience wanted strong heels who won most of the time, it was what made the nWo so successful (and then helped ruin the company, but just focus on the positive here), and so he felt that New Blood had to be that Horsemen/nWo style strong heel group. Russo, on the other hand, saw the New Blood as the faces and the Millionare’s Club as the heels, and wrote accordingly, except because of his shades of grey methodology, almost every match was a DQ or had interference or was a gimmick, and the New Blood would come off whiny at best and heels at worst.

Neither man seemed to be able to agree on a direction, and with Bischoff focusing (and failing) on getting guys like Hogan to put over guys like Kidman, Russo was able to do what he liked most of the time, which didn’t work the first time, but then led to such brilliant moves as David Arquette, WCW Champion and… Hell, do you need any more than that?

Anyway, the company staggers under Russo’s ‘brilliance’ and Bischoff’s inability to get stuff done, until the Bash at the Beach 2000 worked shoot work shoot, as Russo, who was already going to go home at the end of the month after being overridden by management, came up with the Hogan/Jarrett thing that was supposed to lead to rebooting the New Blood/Millionare’s Club again, this time ‘properly’ as Russo/NB V Bischoff/MC, but then Russo called Hogan bald and that all went to crap.

The fallout of that led to Bischoff being demoted to a consultant and Russo put back in charge for some reason, even as Hogan sued. And by that point, the New Blood/Millionaire’s Club angle was dead in the water so Russo just dropped it and moved on, especially as the original idea of Hogan leaving them coming back as the ‘rightful’ champ was now DOA.

I know this is somewhat confusing, so let me try and sum up.

The idea was for a giant Young V Old war, with Russo and Bischoff leading the young since ‘everyone’ (Russo equating 5% of the IWC = everyone) knew they were in charge. But Russo’s booking and Bischoff’s mismanagement led to the angle collapsing, since the two men didn’t agree on the basic principles of the angle and Russo, even with a set goal, didn’t book around it properly. The angle ended up fizzling out as Bischoff ended up getting turfed and Russo managed to sink the company even further and piss off Hogan enough for lawsuits to fly.

I think that’s roughly it. Let me know, dear readers, if there’s anything you still don’t understand. I’m sure there’s a lot.

Speaking of storytelling, Stuart asks about a spot of it at Wrestlemania.

So we all know how pointless the hiac match between Shaneomac and Undertaker was since the stipulations were made pointless after the fact. However my question is about the story telling of the match and one moment in particular.

So Shane has Taker down and is wondering what to do next, he therefore gets some bolt cutters and begins cutting away at one of the cages panels. What exactly is the storytelling point behind this act as what would he be looking to achieve? Also from a business point of view was he meant to be weakening the panel for the coming spot? Why wouldn’t they have it gimmicked to give way anyway as having Shane do what he did just looked awkward and time consuming?

The storytelling idea was that Shane unleashed the biggest weapon in his available arsenal, the Shane Terminator, and Taker kicked out. At that point, Shane knew he’d have to hit Taker with a bigger shot, and that meant leaving the cell and thus he grabbed the bolt cutters to try and leave the cell, since the cell’s door was locked. He wanted to get outside, then get Taker out there, then jump off the cell onto Taker.

Now yes, they could have gimmicked it, but then people would complain how it was ‘so convenient’ that the cell broke to allow them to escape. Most of the time, when people leave the cell, they explain it, as Michaels beat up a cameraman, Cactus used steel steps, etcetc. They try to resist the ‘Whoops, the cell broke!’ idea and explain the escape.

And yes, the spot was a tad long, but the logic is sound. Shane wants to leave so he can do the jump, and thus he goes to leave, until he’s caught. Otherwise it’s a too convenient coincidence.

Speaking of the McMahons, Ben wonders why Vince gets all the heat.

The recent death of former ECW talent Balls Mahoney has got me thinking as to why Vince McMahon and the WWE get all the backlash when a wrestler dies far to young. This year alone Hack Myeres, Axl Rotten and Balls all died in their early 40’s and so many other ECW talents have passed on while in their 30’s or late 20’s in Lou Spicolli’s case. So why doesn’t Paul Heyman get the same criticism that Vince receives. Wasn’t it Paul that allowed the drug culture in ECW to run rampant while the WWE was trying to clean their image up. Wasn’t Paul that created a hardcore product that created severe injuries to the head and body which enabled his wrestlers to get addicted to pain killers. So why does Heyman get praised for his work while Vince get’s buried whenever a former wrestler dies.

There’s a few reasons.

For better or worse, Vince owns wrestling, at least in the minds of the general population. And with that comes positives and negatives, and when you own all of wrestling, that includes the downsides. Certainly he gets buried more than he deserves but when you’re the front and center head of wrestling, and a wrestler ‘dies young’, you own it, just like you own ‘wrestler turned superstar actor’.

Another factor is time, in that until recently most of the deaths in wrestling that get brought up involve guys who were in ECW for a cup of coffee at best, and thus it’s a bit silly to blame Heyman for a guy he booked only a few times.

But I think the major one is the difference between a boss and a cult leader.

Vince is a boss, and he insists on a look, the logic goes. Regardless of his attitude to other drugs (this is a man who once bragged he could snort as much blow as he liked and not get addicted after all), Vince is seen as a guy who insists on steroid use. He wants his guys to look a certain way, and pushes for that look. Thus, the argument concludes, guys like Test and Umaga and Lance Cade etc are dead as a direct cause of Vince’s desire for big muscular guys that can work 25 days a month on the road and still be big muscular guys.

Whereas with Heyman, sure, he turned a blind eye to party drugs, but he never pushed it on anyone. Heyman didn’t tell anyone that they had to get high or drink or whatever. And yes, ECW had extreme wrestling, but he didn’t force anyone into it. Guys like Axl and Balls and Hack, the theory goes, weren’t going to get anywhere any other way so they chose to do it, so that’s their choice. Heyman booked technical wrestlers and didn’t make them have dangerous hardcore matches, so if they worked that style, it’s their fault.

Those are the main arguments, and there’s some merit there, but it’s not the whole story. But overall, while I’m sure Heyman regrets pushing hardcore for so long (he’s gone on record he’d have transitioned to a more ROH/NJPW style had ECW survived) at the end of the day being seen as a leader of men, as a guy who is in the trenches with the workers, that gets you a bigger buffer than an aristocrat in an ivory tower, demanding more and more.

But I’m sure some people out there think Heyman is a monster and/or that Vince is grossly overblamed. IWC isn’t a hive mind after all. At the end of the day, Vince takes the blame because he’s the prime name in wrestling and he’s seen as the guy who pushed for them to take the specific type of drug that led to some deaths. Heyman just turned a blind eye. So the argument goes.

I’m sure that’ll lead to arguments below, so let’s move on to something less controversial, outdated questions! Nightwolf?

1. AJ Styles is the latest person rumored to be in talks with the WWE. What does that say about the Testament of the WWE? I guess no wrestler can truly resist the WWE, because all road lead there eventually

WWE can pay more than any other wrestling company on Earth, if/when they choose to do so. No matter how pure of motive you are, or how much you hate Vince, if they want you, eventually, they will get you. Most of the time.

And that’s by no means a bad thing, for the record. Yes, I hate that WWE and Vince have gone out of their way to hurt competitors in the past and will sign people just to mess with other companies, but I never begrudge anyone making more money for their work. Or, for that matter, choosing less money but a better schedule or the ability to run their lives how they see fit or whatever.

WWE has the money, and wrestlers can and will wrestle for said money. No more, no less.

2. With all these wrestlers coming into the WWE from TNA, Lucha Underground, Ring of Honor, etc, Do you see the WWE burying these guys like they did the WCW and ECW wrestlers who came to the WWE, or is there a different mindset now?

Not so much a different mindset as it is a different environment. See, in the old days, when a guy was signed from WCW or ECW, if they weren’t originally a Vince guy, they’d have to be broken down and rebuilt up as a Vince guy. This would involve losing a bit and going toe to toe with midcarders. Unless you were extremely lucky.

Now, EVERYONE who comes in loses a bit and goes toe to toe with midcarders, so being ‘buried’ isn’t nearly as easy to spot. Was AJ buried at WM? Not really, but he sure as hell wasn’t pushed.

That’s the problem with everyone, be they a LU import or a 100% home grown guy, so they’ve removed some level of discrimination which is good, in a weird way, I guess…

3. Where did Vince get this mindset that some of today’s wrestlers should have one name because he doesn’t think the other part is tough enough: Like instead of Antonio Cesaro, it’s just Cesaro because Vince thinks Antonio isn’t tough enough? You wouldn’t see him do that to wrestlers of the past, so why now?

Because wrestlers in the past were wrestlers who were real people who were heroes to millions and while being over the top were still people, not superstar superheros that are cogs in a machine that is the important thing to get over. Plus he relied on name recognition in the past, whereas today wrestlers aren’t over, WWE is over, so he can rearrange his playthings however he likes. If he doesn’t like a name, then the name changes, so there! What are you gonna do, quit?

I wish I could Chandler this.

Brian is a victim of timing as well.

The last time an active, currently competing superstar on the roster held the WWE Title was November 20th, 2011–the last day of Alberto Del Rio’s second reign. This means that by the time you print my email, no currently competing superstar will have held the title in FOUR YEARS. When else, if ever, has this ever been the case in WWF/WWE? I know Brock and Cena are unusual cases and you may have to make the call on similar “absences” in the past, but for the purposes of this question, they don’t count so feel free to use that standard however you see fit. Thanks

So this got sent just as Seth Rollins was injured, obviously, given that the last few champs before him were Brock (semi-regular), Cena (injured), Bryan (injured leading into retirement), Orton (injured), Rock (semi-semi-regular), Punk (gone), and then you get to Del Rio.

Anyway, I don’t think there was ever a point like that. You’d be looking at times when the belt was vacated or held by a semi-regular.

Andre giving up the belt, well Andre was still wrestling, and Hogan was champ seconds before, so no.

This Tuesday In Texas, Hogan stuck around.

Hogan after Wrestlemania IX was only a couple months before Yoko got it back.

Shawn losing his smile was a month since he won it, and the Austin double pin thing sorted itself out in a couple months.

Vince held it all of a week…

Hang on, Cena’s injury in 07, when he had to give up the belt and then we got the Orton/HHH/Orton deal.

Cena was hurt, as was Edge, RVD was gone, JBL was retired, Eddie was dead, Brock was gone, Angle was gone, Big Show was gone, Rock was gone… And Taker was back for a month, but that’s still October 6 2007 (the last day before a new champ) all the way back to July 21, 2002, over five years. Back to April if you consider Taker semi-active and Hogan being gone too. So there you go, there has been a longer stretch.

Was not expecting that answer. To celebrate, I’m going to say goodbye for now, and give myself some gifts. Until next time!