Hello and welcome to the latest edition of Truth or Consequences, here on InsidePulse. It’s been a busy week for me, as far as my writing is concerned – after having to rewrite last week’s column in a mad rush, after my PC crashed, taking my whole first draft with it, I also had to find time to pen a few words on old school British Wrestling for IP’s Wrestling on Television feature. All this, along with getting to grips with my new VCR-DVD recorder (mainly to get me back into the tape trading scene), has meant that I gave serious consideration to not posting anything at all this week. Then I remembered the stipulations for the Undertaker/Ortons match-up this Sunday at No Mercy and realised that I already had the basis of a column down and merely had to update a few odds and ends.
You see, earlier this year, I was taking an enforced breather from the IWC, because work and travel commitments, combined with lack of Internet access whilst I was away meant that I was unable to post my columns on time and I thought it would be easier just to step back and wait until my work life had returned to a more stable position. One of the columns that I attempted during this tumultuous time regarded the Casket Match between Undertaker and Heidenreich at Royal Rumble 2005 and, though it was never completed, the majority of the work was already done. Therefore, this week’s offering is a blend of that unpublished work and some new insights into the gimmick.
Before all that crap, though, it’s time to check out my Inbox.
I received plenty of e-mail regarding the Final Raw Main Event but there’s still a few days to go (results will be posted in next week’s column), so there is time for everybody to get their suggestions in. I’ll just repost the rules for you all…
One of my readers sent in an e-mail regarded the Final Nitro Main Event of Ric Flair vs. Sting and how these two guys epitomised WCW and that it was only fitting that they perform in the company’s swansong match. He wondered what I thought would be a similarly appropriate match-up for the last ever edition of Raw, should the McMahon dynasty go bankrupt tomorrow. Being an indecisive sod, I’ve decided to throw this one open to the loyal readers of InsidePulse.
I don’t want the entire card, or tag matches, or fatal four-ways or battle royals as they are just far too easy. You’ve got to pick two wrestlers, be they face or heel, alive or dead, to wrestle in a normal, one-fall match that you would consider to be a fitting commemoration of the end of the WWF/E. You’re only allowed to choose one match, so if anybody sends in some along the lines of “either Stone Cold vs. Hogan or Michaels vs. Hart” (for instance), I will only take the first suggestion. For the purposes of this thought experiment, realism is not an issue and we’ll assume both workers would be wrestling at the peaks of their ability.
Come on then – e-mail me at this LINK and let me know what your pick would be. The deadline for this will be midnight on Wednesday 12th October, so you’ve got a week.
As I said, I’ve had a few responses to this already but, as an added incentive, so that we get as broad a spectrum of wrestling opinion as possible, out of all the people who enter, I will pick one name completely at random and that person will get…drum roll please…an original release of the execrable Hulk Hogan movie, NO HOLDS BARRED on VHS. This baby just went for £22.00 on eBay (around $40.00) and is yours, if you enter and if you win.
Apart from the Raw suggestions, I only got one other e-mail this week, from somebody using the handle of AngryChairr…
“So Warrior has dignity because he didn’t sell-out? Bullshit, I say. I’m so sick of the IWC getting on a wrestler’s case because he went back on something he said one point in time. If we all lived by what we thought/said ten years ago, then no one would ever grow or change as a person.
Does it appear as if Warrior has grown and changed as a person or is still an egomaniacal lunatic, ranting and raving like he would have on Saturday Night’s Main Event? Not so ironically, it’s the latter. And I find that infinitely sadder than Bret Hart signing on with the E to get his DVD out there. Bret’s trying to move on with his life while Warrior still thinks it’s 1989, and people actually care about what he has to say. Unless he’s trying to generate attention for himself by making politically incorrect statements, they don’t. Even then, it’s only to further point out how much of a prick he is/was/always will be.
The point here is that the whole concept of selling out is a narrow point of view. People and their actions are too complex to allow any kind of label like that to be accurate.”
Thanks for your e-mail, AngryChairr. First of all, I’d like to point out and say that I never suggested that the Warrior had dignity. I did say that I respected him for not selling out, but that’s really another matter.
Let’s get one thing crystal clear. I have no real beef with anybody going back on their word or changing their minds or anything like that. As you so rightly point out, a person should not be judged on something that they said years ago, but rather be given the benefit of the doubt and the chance to move on with their lives. Do I think Bischoff or Heyman sold out by taking jobs with the WWE, once their own wrestling ventures had folded? Hell no – a job’s a job and, in professional wrestling, there is no bigger national stage than the ‘E’. Do I think that Spanky sold out by returning to WWE after walking out on them last year? Of course not – he’s a young guy and, if he can get Vince to cough up a half-decent payday, then more power to him.
When it’s just a question of money and nothing else besides (as it was with Bischoff, Heyman, Spanky, Jamie Noble, Goldberg, Foley and many more) then I don’t believe any of them have ‘sold-out’. Money is an important thing and if you don’t think so, then you’ve never been really poor.
It’s guys like Roddy Piper, Sable, Joey Styles, Road Warrior Animal and, yes, the IWC’s beloved Bret “The Hitman” Hart who fall into this category. In each case, Vince’s contract hasn’t simply bought their services but it has also purchased their silence and their compliance. In each of the cases named above, we’re not talking about people going back on something that they said ten years previously but, rather, we’re discussing talent that have performed a 360 degree U-turn on pronouncements that they had only recently made with considerable passion. Sable was prepared to sue the WWE for its sexist attitude, its portrayal of women and the fact that a lesbian angle they wanted her to do flew in the face of her Christian beliefs. That’s awesome and something to be much admired. Less so is the fact that, when the flow of money reduced to a trickle, the returned, cap in hand, to Mr. McMahon, took the contract that he offered her and indulged in quasi-lesbian behaviour with Torrie Wilson, became Mr. McMahon’s personal assistant and, in essence, acted like a whore on national television. So much for strong Christian morals there.
Joey Styles has regularly slated WWE for years, for bleeding ECW dry and for turning its revolutionary wrestling style into something that is almost a parody of what it once was. Again, like Sable, this was not just something said in sour grapes at the time that ECW collapsed, but a subject that he continued to beat into the ground at every opportunity.
As for Bret – and I know I’m going to get some stick for this one, seeing as how he’s the IWC’s Golden Boy – why has he really gone back to the WWE? Is it so that he can, once and for all, bury the hatchet with Vince? Is it to prove that he is indeed the bigger man and fix the broken bridges between him and Shawn Michaels? Is it in an effort to move on and finally put the spectre of Montreal and his brother’s untimely demise behind him?
Or is it…and this is only a supposition…is it in any way conceivable that Bret, like every wrestling fan with an internet connection, heard from the Stamford rumour mill that the forthcoming WWE DVD on his career was going to be called Screwed: The Bret Hart Story, and decided to do a bit of damage limitation and/or cashing in on it?
Now, don’t get me wrong – I don’t actually care. If Bret wants to avoid a rehashing of the old ‘Bret Screwed Bret’ debacle, then I can completely understand that and, if a whole load of DVD royalties pay better than writing a column for the Calgary Sun, then that’s fine too. However, you can’t assume that he’s decided to just forgive the man who, in his eyes, completely f*cked his career and was partially responsible for his brother’s death. Certainly, he might have done so and, in all honesty, I hope that he has but you can’t just say that he’s moved on based on the evidence that we have (neither of us being intimate friends with the Hitman, that is).
Thanks for your points, though.
Time for a quick trip around InsidePulse…
Jeremy Lambert discusses TNA, their Spike debut and the Bound For Glory PPV.
Andy Campbell covers RoH, the InsidePulse Top 50 and passes his thoughts on his fellow columnists, including yours truly.
Dan Hevia gives his opinions on the Warrior DVD.
Eric Szulczewski covers Raw Homecoming among other issues.
Vin Tastic discusses the thorny issue of censorship in professional wrestling, with particular regard to the WWE/Spike TV incident.
Michael Fitzgerald throws up a huge debate in his new column and gets down to the fine detail – just who was the better manager, Slick or Jimmy Hart?
Bambi Weavil gives her thoughts on Raw’s Homecoming show, with her usual keen insight.
Dave Brashear reminds us Shawn Stasiak wasn’t just a drug-fuelled bad dream.
Phil Clark and J.D. Speich give a further set of opinions on WWE’s biggest Monday Night event since WCW closed.
Gordi Whitelaw discusses a whole world of stiffness as Shinya Hashimoto takes on Toshiaki Kawada – OUCH!
And Finally…
David Ditch spreads some more puroresu love around the site for you all.
This Sunday, Randy Orton and his father, “Cowboy” Bob Orton, take on the Undertaker in a handicap match. Whilst this is hardly unexpected considering that both men have become a considerable thorn in Dead Man’s side, the added stipulation is that this is a casket match.
For those of you who are new to this great sport, the rules of a casket match are pretty simple. There are no pinfalls, submissions, count-outs or disqualifications – the match only ends once your opponent has been beaten to such a degree that you can manhandle him into a casket and seal the lid. Granted, on paper it sounds like a ludicrous stipulation, but I’ve always enjoyed the basic premise. Those of you who read my column on gimmick matches will know that I prefer matches where the gimmick centres on one man received such an almighty pummelling from the other that he is unable to stand and the casket match is another variation on this.
Perhaps more than any other gimmick, the casket match has become synonymous with the Undertaker, for obvious reasons. Indeed, of all the Casket Matches in WWF history, only one of them has not directly involved the Dead Man in some way (yes, I know, the Raw match from September 1999 was technically Mideon and Viscera against Triple H, but they were acting on behalf of the Undertaker, so it still counts).
On November 24th 1992, at that year’s Survivor Series PPV, the Undertaker took on Kamala in the first ever Casket Match. Well, no, actually, he didn’t. You see, the match was actually a ‘Coffin’ match, which is significantly different in its execution. In a Coffin Match, the object is to score a victory in the normal way and then your opponent is obliged to get into the coffin and have it nailed shut. From a psychological point of view, this is a lot less strong that the stipulation that would follow. Scoring a pinfall is fair enough and, in an ideal world, should prove that you are the better man but a pinfall victory could, conceivably, mean that your opponent is still in good enough condition to avoid the coffin.
After that first experiment, the coffin became a casket and the rules stated that the match could only be won by depositing your foe in the casket and sealing it shut. It added a certain finality to a feud…usually.
I say usually, but the second match in the series (and the first ‘proper’ Casket Match) was the effort between Undertaker and Yokozuna at 1994’s Royal Rumble. Now this is significant for a number of reasons, not least of which being that ‘Taker actually lost the bout. Now, don’t go getting all excited – the Dead Man did not lose it cleanly (or anything even approximating to cleanly…over a dozen heels were eventually hauled out from the back in order to finally drop Undertaker into the casket), but he did do the job. As the casket was closed, we saw ‘Taker ‘live’ on the CasketCam, promising that he would return and that his spirit lived on in the world of men.
Creepy stuff.
This, of course, led to one of the worst angles in recorded history, as Ted DiBiase claimed that he had the real Undertaker signed to his Million Dollar Corporation, whilst Paul Bearer refuted such blatant lies. This led to one of the worst PPV Main Events of all time (and, let’s face it, there have been a few) as the two Undertaker’s squared off in a bout that was confusing to most fans and just plain boring to the others.
The following Survivor Series event featured a return match of the Royal Rumble, with Yoko and ‘Taker once again competing under Casket Match stipulations. This match, whilst nowhere near as horrendous as their first outing, was still anything but a world beater. I still contend that the original plan was to see Undertaker vs. Undertaker II, under Casket Match rules at Survivor Series, but that this was swiftly curtailed when…well, when it was discovered that the original match-up was so toe-curlingly awful.
After Yoko, Undertaker had a couple of casket matches with Kama Mustafa (Charles “The Godfather/Papa Shango” Wright) that were, if anything, worse than his previous outings. He then followed this up at In Your House 5 with a casket match against Mabel that redefined hideous.
From here, though, things took a turn for the better. You see, whilst Taker, never the most adaptable or resourceful man himself, had been lumbered with stiffs like Yoko, Kamala and Kama for the first three years of the gimmick’s existence, from 1996, the quality of his opponents – and, hence, the quality of his matches – simply skyrocketed.
Okay, so maybe ‘skyrocketed’ isn’t quite the word – after all, the next guy was Goldust – but he was still an improvement on what had gone before. Two years after the feud with Dusty Rhodes, Jr., we saw a brace of matches pitting the Undertaker against Shawn Michaels, then Kane and finally Mankind. All three of them were decent bouts and did more for the prestige of the casket match than anything that had passed in the previous six years.
It was a very under-utilised gimmick in the years that followed. Oh sure, Triple H had the aforementioned handicap casket match with Mideon and Viscera in 1999, as well as a casket match against Kane in 2002 and, no doubt, there have been a couple of matches that I’ve missed off the list, here but once the Undertaker had eschewed his Dead Man gimmick in favour of the American Bad Ass, the match no longer fitted the character and it was necessary, therefore, to give the casket match a decent burial.
That said, both the casket and the Dead Man made an almighty return at the beginning of this year, as Undertaker dusted off the coffin for his feud with Heidenreich and, truly, it showed exactly why the gimmick should have Rested in Peace. It was an awful spectacle as it mirrored the casket matches of old. ‘Taker, now a decade older, couldn’t get much out of Heidenreich for the entire 13 and a half minutes of the match.
So, what does Sunday’s event hold? It’s tough to say. Whilst Randy Orton is arguably a better worker than most of the guys who’ve set foot in the ring with ‘Taker for a casket match, he’s no Shawn Michaels or Mick Foley. Perhaps the addition of his father can make things that little bit more interesting but, to be honest, the Dead Man hasn’t interested me in a good long time. Looking back at these matches was a revelation. Yes – the workrate might have been lacking and the finishes largely predictable but I used to mark-out for Undertaker like crazy and now? He’s just another washed-up, has-been, won’t-job-for-anyone veteran nursing his spot like a baby nurses a bottle.
That’s all for this week – let me know what you think at the e-mail link below and don’t forget to cast your vote for the Final Raw Main Event. I’ll be back on Sunday with some No Mercy Roundtable predictions.
Until the next time…farwell.
