By "Net.cop" Scott Keith

Hey, I might as well jump into the "Wrestling Online World v. Mark Madden" debate ongoing for months now.

Nice to see the "only real journalist in wrestling" still taking the payola from WCW, btw.

Madden recently posted another "I (heart) Bischoff" rant on WCW.com, and since it was just *that* much sillier than most of his, I thought I might as well respond here.

This was a pretty weak trash-talking by Madden's standards. Nothing that WCW fans on the 'net haven't argued before, and nothing that hasn't been argued better. But what the hell, it's Madden...his comments begin with the ">", mine follow.

>The old debate in pro wrestling used to be real vs. fake. That issue is
>no longer a burning one.
>
>But one thing about pro wrestling is undeniably real.
>
>The competition between WCW and the WWF. >

I've always felt that when someone extolls the virtues of something being fake and then says something else connected with that is "undeniably real", the reader should stop and think really hard right there, but maybe that's just me.

Point being, in a 1993 interview, Jim Cornette said that the only thing that fans really believe to be true anymore is that the WWF hates WCW and vice-versa. The feds know this and know how to play on the emotional reactions of the fans.

See, right away Madden is hooking the "sheep v. lemming" factions by bringing up the competition.

>That competition -- for ratings, for live gates, for pay-per-view
>buyrates, for merchandise sales, for mainstream media exposure -- that
>is very, very real.
>
>That competition has increased revenues and popularity for both
>companies.
>
>That competition is so tangible that even the densest fan can sense it.
>

This is true.

>That competition is the doing of one man.
>
>Eric Bischoff.
>

This is not.

If Jim Cornette was able to make the above observation *before* Bischoff came to power, then obviously the sense of competition was there years before. Jim Ross used to trash-talk the WWF all the time in 1989 when he was in power. The difference that Bischoff made was making WCW competitive, not creating competition. There's a difference.

>I've worked as an independent contractor for WCW for almost five years
>-- not counting a few, uh, legislated breaks -- but I followed WCW for
>many years before that. A lot of WCW head honchos came and went in that
>time. And when they went, WCW's situation was always clearly worse than
>it was before they came.
>
>The modus operandi was always the same -- meekly accept being No. 2,
>develop stars for the other guys to sign away once their contracts were
>up, don't even try to compete. Just cash your checks, use a bare minimum
>of creativity, and for heaven's sake, don't offend anyone in the WWF --
>you might want to work there someday.
>

He's of course blatantly forgetting Bill Watts' term as WCW dictator, but the point still stands. Jim Herd and K. Allen Frey and Bob Dhue were a bunch of bean-counting Turner kiss-asses who didn't know squat about wrestling. They certainly didn't "meekly accept being No. 2", however. Hell, Jim Herd let Ole Anderson and Dusty Rhodes pull nearly every cheap heat trick in the book to try and create something, but the level of incompetence on all sides was too much to overcome. The difference was mainly in star power rather than any grand creative vision, I think. The talent simply wasn't available because Vince had it locked up. And so you had gimmicks like Oz and Johnny B. Baddbecuase there was no one else.

>Remember the mottos? "We wrestle." Give me a break. >

Yeah, I know, wouldn't that sound stupid coming from a wrestling company. Much better to have "Where the big boys play", which connotes the upper-card booking *so* much better...

>Then WCW took a chance on a guy who was, at the time, one of their
>third-string announcers. Eric Bischoff was inexplicably given WCW's
>reins.
>
>And Bischoff did something no other WCW head executive had ever done.
>
>He went on the offensive. >

Again, this blantantly disregards Bill Watts, who tried to completely overhaul the company but was held back because of his refusal to smooch the asses of those above him. That's always been the way that WCW works -- if in doubt, pass the buck. Watts didn't agree and ended up getting turfed out for yes-man Bischoff.

Further, the above equally blatantly disregards the first, oh, two years or so of Bischoff's tenure as VP. 1993 was a horrible year for WCW, as they did everything humanly possible to self-destruct under Bischoff. The mini-movies, the Shockmaster, the Disney tapings, Sid as champion, those were all his. His grand masterstroke of signing Hogan didn't yield any kind of financial payoff until 1996. The first two years of Hogan's tenure consisted of Bischoff basically letting Hogan do whatever he wanted on the upper card while he cleaned out the perceived "dead weight" from the mid-card while replacing them with members of the Hogan Love-In.

>He signed Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage to start, adding many more
>megastars later.
>
>He went to WCW owner Ted Turner and asked for TV time on Monday night to
>compete with the WWF's main program. >

This wasn't until a year and a half into his tenure, it should be noted.

>He made a big splash on the first-ever TNT Monday Nitro when Lex Luger,
>fresh off a stint in the WWF, showed up unannounced.
>
>He talked about things like how the WWF taped every other Monday show. >

A tactic which did not work, it should be added.

>He created the NWO and turned Hogan heel for the first time in almost 15
>years.
>
>Eric Bischoff wasn't afraid of Vince McMahon Jr.
>
>Bischoff came to kick ass.
>
>And he has. >

Wow, such objectivity...

>WCW is currently the No. 1 promotion in professional wrestling.

Same tired argument as we've read on the net for years now.

> More
>live attendance.

Same as the WWF or worse in recent times due to no-shows from Goldberg and lacklustre cards.

> Higher pay-per-view buyrates.

Uh, which would those be, Mark? WCW hasn't scored a higher buyrate since the beginning of the year. Everything else has either lost decisively (Wrestlemania and Summerslam spring to mind) or been virtually tied (all the IYHs have hovered around 1.0, except for Over the Edge which was, I think, about 0.6)

> Bigger merchandise sales.

Lessee, the WWF's biggest star outsells WCW's biggest star 2 to 1. The math doesn't add up.

>Better TV ratings. >

Gotta go back kinda far...

>Which brings me to the second part of this essay. >

Which brings me to the first point of my rebuttal: Why is he rehashing these arguments to begin with? Wasn't this the same guy who trashed online newsletters for worrying so much about this stuff and basically told them to shut up and enjoy the show? Now he's using The Forbidden Numbers to make his own point.

>No matter what Bischoff does, it's not good enough for the smart marks.
>
>Bischoff is criticized on the internet and in the dirt sheets. Oh, he's
>on TV too much. Oh, he should let the mid-card guys do more. Oh, there's
>too much Hogan. Oh, he doesn't develop his own talent, he just steals
>wrestlers from other promotions. >

Hey, I see Mark gets it.

>Hey, yo, smart marks -- bite me. >

Maybe not.

>When you're in big business, you compete by any legal means necessary.

You know what this argument reminds me of? The Neutral Zone Trap debate in hockey.

For those who don't know or care about it, I won't get into details of what a Neutral Zone Trap is, but needless to say it's an EXTREMELY BORING, defensive system of play in hockey where endless clutching and grabbing slows down the big stars to the point where you get 1-0 snoozers every night.

It came about because teams like the New Jersey Devils and Ottawa Senators either didn't have the money to bring in good talent, or didn't have the right players to compete with the faster teams. So they slowed down play to the point where the arena would become dead silent out of boredom, completely taking the crowd out of road games and thus ripping off the paying customer. The biggest slap in the face was when the Devils won the Cup in 1995 using this style of play.

NHL fans complained long and loud to everyone who would listen about the Trap, saying that they came to see the stars cut loose and score goals, and that they didn't come to see goons holding onto their sticks for 40 minutes. The offending teams' collective response was that they were using any legal means necessary to win, so nyah nyah nyah. Eventually the protestations got so loud that the rules of the game were changed to try to eliminate the Trap completely and bring scoring up again.

The point? I don't watch hockey to see my team win by every cheap method available, I watch to see an exciting game and hopefully have my team come out on top. In the same way, I don't watch wrestling to see WCW fight their way to the (imaginary) top of the heap by every cheap method available.

To talk about the competitive nature of a 100% fixed sport is laughable at best. There is no prize for "The #1 Wrestling Organization".

So don't use the "ends justify the means" argument because

a) There is no end, and; b) WCW is in no danger of going out of business even if they are #2.

>There's no point in addressing the criticisms of Bischoff, because
>they're invalid.

Wow, what a sidestep. Not only does he NOT answer the question, he invalidates the asker.

And to think that people accuse me of doing that sort of thing. Pah. Madden is truly the master.

>The stuff Bischoff is doing is working, and working
>big.

Was he just not trying when he wrote this? Was he just saving the *actual* reasoning for his hotline report or something? The above says nothing, it simply puts forth his opinion.

>(Although, for the record, Hollywood Hogan has never been more
>interesting than he's been since Bischoff turned him heel. And as for
>not developing talent, where did Goldberg and Giant work before WCW?) >

I can just see Eric standing over Mark when he wrote that going "Make sure to play up Goldberg and Giant as actual talent, even though you're trashed them in previous rants."

>Smart marks, I think you think about yourselves when you criticize Eric
>Bischoff. >

Yep. I think "Wow, even I could do a better job with the Warrior than Eric has."

>You're probably more than content to be second-best (at best) in your
>miserable, drab little lives, more than happy to look up the ladder with
>admiration at the current leader in your industry, the best gas-pumper
>or convenience-store clerk or whatever. Try and compete? That would take
>too much effort and besides, there would be the chance of failure.
>Better to go around unnoticed, like a slinking mongrel dog.
>

I'm still curious as to what the grand payoff is supposed to be. When the ratings hit 7.0 will Bischoff award himself a giant gold belt on Nitro? Will the President call him on Thunder and declare WCW America's offical wrestling organization? Will Jesus Christ himself be resurrected on WCW Saturday Night and declare that Vince will burn in hell for losing the Monday Night Wars?

I just don't get it. What exactly is Bischoff supposed to be aiming for?

>Be objective.
>

Read what it says in the corner of your paycheque and then try typing that again, Mark.

>Be real.
>

Wrestling? Real?

>Eric Bischoff is the man most responsible for the wrestling boom in the
>U.S. today. >

Hell, we're on the 20 yard line, might as well go for the final ass-kissing field goal before the clock runs out...

>You're entitled to your opinion, sure, but opinions are generally like
>Loverboy albums -- everybody has one, and they're all stupid.
>
>Face the truth.
>
> Eric Bischoff is the leader of the pro wrestling industry.

And Mark Madden would be a great wrestling heel. This guy knows exactly the right strings to pull with the online fans.

>
>And that's the bottom line, because the facts say so.

I didn't actually see of those, but Mark *is* the only real journalist in wrestling, so I guess he's right.