Commercials on PPV? Excuse Me While I Destroy My Living Room in Rage

One of last night's unwanted sponsors

Commercials on a pay-per-view, contrary to popular belief, aren't anything new. We've been seeing them for years. However, they're usually spots that don't really feel like commercials, mainly because they're either advertising an upcoming WWE event, a WWE Films endeavor or a new wrestler, like the spots for, say, Kharma that appeared on PPVs in the early part of this year portended. A lot of times, they're needed to space out set-ups between matches, and more often than not, they've got some value, either in showcasing the excellence that the WWE production department deals in or in the utter unintentional hilarity of the content, which was more the case back in the '90s when really everything the then-WWF did had some modicum of unintentional hilarity to it.

So, why should it matter that there were pre-produced commercials at SummerSlam last night from third party advertisers? Foremost, I feel like it's a matter of principle. Having advertisers pay for spots on the card, especially ones that have run in the past like the godawful Twix commercial, defeats the purpose of pay-per-view. More often than not, the commercials on regular TV are grating, uninformative and bordering on pedantic and overexposed. They're a necessary evil, allowing us to watch weekly televised wrestling for the price of our cable bill. But the point of paying for extra content is that we get nothing but first-run WWE-produced viewing, or at the very least, first-run matches with recap packages that we may or may not have seen before preceding them.

Let's face it. Commercials in general are annoying. It's very rare to find a company like Geico that produces advertisements that are entertaining enough to warrant a break in the action. The only sponsor WWE has right now that produces anything worth watching between segments is Sonic, and even then, I wouldn't want to see them advertising when I pay money to stay away from those kinds of things. It's a slap in the face of the paying customer when they're told they have to pay full price and see that WWE is running spots, assumed at a cost to the advertiser, that they're paying to avoid.

The most reasonable expectation here is that they had to pay Cee-Lo Green, and instead of passing the cost down to the consumer by hiking the price of the event, they probably ran spots. Okay, that makes it a little more palatable until you realize that they probably had to add the commercials to pay for a guy who probably shouldn't have been there in a performing capacity anyway. Seriously, for about twenty minutes, SummerSlam was veritably unwatchable. For an event that actually delivered on nearly every other thing it offered, it was surreal to say the least. Plunk that sequence down on another PPV, like, I don't know, Capitol Punishment, and it would have been unforgivable on the level of using the Avada Kevadra curse, although quite frankly, I find the idea of Kevin Dunn having to share a cell in Azkaban Prison with a gnarled Death Eater tickles me pink.

Seriously, premium content means that you shouldn't have to sit through the insipid pitches for products or movie trailers. For better or worse, WWE pay-per-views are premium content, especially in the last two months and in a general sense over the last two years. I don't want to pay however much I'm paying for a PPV and have to watch the same weaksauce Twix commercial that I have to sit through 20 times a night Mondays during RAW. Quite frankly, I shouldn't have to either.

Unfairly Unforgiven: Historical Perspective and Triple H in the Fall of 2000

Did we play The Game wrong too early?
Photo Credit: WWE.com

I remember vividly the build-up to SummerSlam 2000. Kurt Angle had won King of the Ring a few months prior and was staking his claim to the WWF Championship. Despite only being in the company for 8 months, he had gotten himself so over that he implicitly demanded to be counted among the big boys of the company, then The Rock, Triple H, Undertaker and Kane. He was given a big story being the third man in the Trips/Stephanie McMahon relationship. The Internet hordes, myself included among them, screamed for Angle to come out of the feud as the new top dog in the WWF, with Triple H cuckolded and the boss' daughter having a new, Olympic beau.

When that didn't happen at SummerSlam nor at Unforgiven, boy, was the reaction screaming bloody murder. It didn't matter that Angle would win the WWF Championship at No Mercy, the damage was done in that The Rock had to do what Triple H didn't do... put Angle over. At the time, many among us accused Triple H of being a political machinist, someone who was paranoid about his spot and thus screwed Angle out of elevation. In retrospect though, was that fair?

To begin to examine that is to look at the context. The most important part of this background information has nothing to do with the players or the storyline in question, but with the people criticizing it. Internet fans by and large seem to be a fickle bunch. Stereotypically, they're always looking for the next big thing, and if/when that person breaks through, the backlash almost immediately begins. As someone who used to get caught up in that frenzy a lot more than I do now (and I'm not going to sit here and say that I don't lose perspective every once in awhile), it seems a little shortsighted. Yes, pro wrestling companies need to be proactive in building new stars, but when you have a guy who just hit the main event, when is it that he has to start making new wrestlers stars, and how often does he need to do it?

That brings us to "Public Enemy #1", Triple H.

By the time SummerSlam had rolled around, it was a year or so since his official elevation so to speak. However, you could argue that he really wasn't cemented as a main eventer until the Royal Rumble and No Way Out, when he and Mick Foley (as Cactus Jack) tore the house down in two consecutive title matches, the latter being a Hell in a Cell. There's no doubt that he was entrenched as a main eventer by SummerSlam, but at the same time, he really was only cemented for eight months as a top guy. For Trips to start hearing the catcalls that he was a diabolical scoundrel after less than a year of really coming into his own as a main eventer in retrospect, when guys like Steve Austin and the Undertaker, just to name two, had years on top before the bloom came off their rose and they were called upon to put people over (and even then, you could argue that Austin never really did that anyway) in order to let them join the main event pantheon, seemed really premature.

I think the perfect example here is Bret Hart. While he went into WrestleMania IX as the WWF Champion, I think we can all agree he really wasn't "made" until a year later, when he finally felled the sumo warrior Yokozuna and got his first real (and one could argue only) WrestleMania moment. He was on top really for two years, I'd say, before he was called to the carpet to put over Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XII. In that time of course, he didn't win every match, but at the same time, the people he put over in high profile matches at the time - Bob Backlund and Jerry Lawler - were established in their own ways. I'm sure if the Internet were around as prominently in 1995 as it is today, there'd have been people moaning that Hart didn't put over Jean-Pierre Lafitte or his brother Owen.

However, when he put Michaels over at WrestleMania XII, it ostensibly made him. The same could be said for his role in playing the foil for Steve Austin the next year. Even though Hart won that "I Quit" match, Austin came out of it looking like a million bucks, and Hart changed roles in order to further enhance the budding star of the man who'd become Stone Cold.

Of course, knowing what know now, it did take Triple H a lot longer to put someone not on his level over in a meaningful way (Chris Benoit at WrestleMania XX and then Batista the next year). And yeah, Trips did weasel his way out of putting over a lot of guys who could have used the bump, from Kane all the way up to Goldberg (whom you could argue didn't need the bump to be considered a main eventer, but at the same time, the iron was hot at SummerSlam in 2003). But that's where the question comes in... how long should a guy be continually put over before he starts returning the favor?

Whether you think it should have been Kane at the end of that horrible Katie Vick angle, Rob Van Dam, Booker T after the horrible racism angle or anyone else in the stretch between his comeback in 2002 until WM XX, can we all agree that maybe our angry mob was unjustified in 2000?

Then again, the reason why I rejected Triple H, at least at first, wasn't because of any political machinations. Seriously, I didn't really become "aware" of the backstage stuff until around early 2000, and by that time, I was already sick of Triple H. When he turned heel, he turned boring to me. The 20 minute promos to start RAW grated on me. He didn't have good matches with anyone not named The Rock, Undertaker or Mick Foley. So yeah, the political stuff was a great cover for the wholly subjective reasoning that we just didn't like the guy.

So, we now flash back to SummerSlam 2000, which for me is when the Triple H backlash kicked into high gear, ESPECIALLY since his relationship with Stephanie was being reported as more real than they were letting on on screen. Especially given that Angle at the time was a rookie himself, would you really blame WWF for putting a commodity they were trying to build at the time at risk for the benefit of a guy who wasn't even a year into his tenure on the main roster? Looking back at it, I'm not really sure I can.

If anything, I'd blame the braintrust in 2000 for booking the wrong angle. Yes, the love triangle was a good build, but they didn't pay it off correctly for various reasons. They would have been better served focusing Angle directly on The Rock, especially since the endgame was going to be Angle upending Rocky for the title anyway. Then, maybe you have Triple H continue his feud with Undertaker or Kane. Maybe he tangles with Rikishi or some other act that didn't have a whole lot of upward mobility. I don't know.

But what I do know is that a lot of the rage directed at Triple H at that time period might not have been justified. Granted, I'm still not happy at the way he refused to share the spotlight in 2002-04, and maybe he spent too much time as a Hulk Hogan when he was meant to be a Bret Hart all along. However, maybe we all got off on the wrong foot when it came to judging him outside the confines of whether we liked him or not.

Crying Wolf: The WWE and Cynicism Among Fans

Photo Credit: WWE.com

I will reiterate that I thought that it wasn't a bad call to have CM Punk come back a week after he left. Pending the storyline reason he came back, it could be really good storytelling, especially looking at this in the lens of it being an extended story that began June 27th, not as a story that just ended with the end of Money in the Bank. I honestly don't see how having Punk back could be a bad thing.

There are those who'd argue tooth and nail with that, saying that regardless of execution, Punk's return should have been delayed. I disagree with that, but I see where they come from. I actually see exactly where they come from. It's been a similar story with Christian losing the World Heavyweight Championship, with John Cena being fired and not missing any time at work and with several other plot points that have been wrapped up too neatly or not given any time to marinate. Even though I couldn't disagree with the other side of this issue any more than I do now, I still can see where they come from because WWE hasn't given them a track record of being able to let things develop naturally. So in the one time when having a payoff happen shortly after the cliffhanger makes sense, they feel jilted.

I don't blame them, actually.

Storytelling is storytelling, and if it's good, it's good. I myself was proven wrong in the aftermath to Christian's title win in how much I enjoyed his feud with Randy Orton (cue the commenters chirping about how insane I am for liking the feud and what not). However, there's something to be said for letting a plot point marinate for a little bit and letting them sink in without another shock. It's a reason why the Vince Russo style of booking has grown so damn ineffective. Plot point after plot point after plot point burns an audience out. Christian as a conquering hero would have been a nice thing to let sit for a week. John Cena being off TV, or being on TV as Juan Cena (the biggest missed opportunity ever as it could have gotten a month or so out of Darren Young before they tossed him back into the NXT: Redemption pile), might have freshened him up a little bit before he got his revenge on Wade Barrett.

So now, there's a situation where Punk coming back was a valid decision. Because fans have been conditioned to think that everything the WWE does is always rushed, there's a rush to cynicism on this point. The WWE cried wolf on those other stories, letting the fans know that something was really important when it happened layered so quickly on top of the last thing that was important. Rather than having this quick return acting as a contrast to their MO, it's just another strike against them in their MO, even though, to keep with baseball terms, it's a strike that's being called on the outside corner off the strike zone.

The context surrounding the prior two situations noted here called for time to marinate. Christian's situation was addressed. With Cena being fired, his act was growing a bit tired with some fans, and time off might have refreshed him with those fans and even made him more palatable to the people who already liked him. With Punk? He'd just uncorked his batshit-awesome potential. He just got hot. You don't shelve someone who is hot, you feature them. You cultivate the fan reactions and you keep producing their merchandise and have them wear said merchandise so it continues to sell. It's simple.

But again, this is WWE. They don't let anything marinate, and thus they've conditioned their fanbase to cynicism. While I think those fans are wrong in this case, I can only blame WWE for their reactions. You breed a reaction, then you don't act surprised when people reject it based off a potential future action.

Suddenly... Zack Ryder!

WWWYKI or lolwut?
Photo Credit: WWE.com

Hey guys, Zack Ryder finally made an appearance on RAW this week. If you blinked though, you may have missed it. AT the end of the Tag Team Championship match, Ryder's music hit, he came out and... well in a minute they had cut to something else. It was great to see Ryder, and even better to hear the crowd pop for his music, but it was surreal just to see him standing there.

Of course, there were two extreme reactions to this, and for a moment I fell into one of them. The camp I was in was that this was the start of a program with the Tag Champs and Ryder is going to team with Chris Masters or Curt Hawkins or EVEN JOHN CENA AND IT'S THE REIGN OF RYDER AND THE TAG DIVISION AND THE KINGS OF WRESTLING AND then my brain broke. The other reaction was one of dismay over his featuring for a moment, that it wasn't any better than him not being on RAW at all or just slapping hands with John Cena or whatever. Us Internets are a pretty reactionary lot, aren't we?

When I calmed down and stopped acting like a child who had crystal meth accidentally laced into his Pixie Stix, I realized that the answer was most likely somewhere in between. His placement in the show was curious, and hey, if you're going to stick Ryder anywhere, it should be against the Tag Champs, right? Unless his Internet Championship is going to become a real thing, which I kinda hope it doesn't. Save it for the house shows and let him put some big boy pants for when he starts working on RAW, whether it's in a Santino comedy role or in a seriously-pushed role. Either one's fine for me.

I just don't know what's funnier though, that WWE thought that sending him out to wave to the audience for a minute was worthy of putting on the main show, or that such a short segment caused that much of a reaction amongst fans. Even though I kinda flipped out when I saw it, I think we need to step back off the ledge with Ryder, at least for now. He's on TV, which is a start, but I think we have to let them start building him up. If it's after Money in the Bank and he's not on the program or just making non-sequitur cameos, then maybe we start complaining about the yo-yo treatment.

Zack Ryder Vs. Convention... Convention Wins

Woo woo woo... where was he?
Photo Credit: WWE.com

Vince McMahon is a Luddite, if you believe Bryan Alvarez, that is. While I've had some well-documented issues with Alvarez recently, I understand it's pretty difficult trying to break news in the wrestling industry. When he says that Vince McMahon "hates the Internet" according to a source within the company, I take him at face value. Why?

Because there's no other reason than that for Zack Ryder not appearing on RAW.


We all know the following Ryder has amassed amongst the Internet. We all want him to have a bigger role. That want has spread, at least in his home area of Long Island. While he hasn't latched on in other areas, he was popular on the Island. He got several chants. And what did he get? A broken promise to appear on RAW. Another rib. Great job. The last rib that McMahon pulled off pissed off only one wrestler and paying customers. It was a stupid gambit, and now, he went and pissed off his employees too. Dolph Ziggler came with the boldest of the backlash:

You didnt rib 'the kid' tonight, you ribbed the fans, Long Island & the boys in the back! AND kicked him in the nuts! #RyderOrRiot

Seriously, more than just Ryder are presumably pissed at this.

Again, it goes without saying that Alvarez could be getting worked here. The circumstantial evidence is there, but again, it's circumstantial, and it would be inadmissible in court if this were a trial by law. Still, it's baffling why Vince would refuse to put a star over who made himself. I mean, isn't this the mantra from every single "old-time" star? Didn't Warrior spend a good sidebar on his Randy Savage tribute talking about how in the old days, guys made their own way? Didn't Steve Austin spend a good amount of Tough Enough telling guys that they wouldn't have their hands held? Brandon Stroud actually had a rant from his latest Best and Worst of RAW column about that:

Raw on Long Island comes and goes for the second time without an appearance from Zack Ryder, more or less proving that WWE doesn’t give a ripe shit how hard you work to get yourself over, and all that stuff Austin says on Tough Enough about making your own chances is a horse’s anus. Hey Austin, you know how you keep telling people how when you first got to WWE you were the Ringmaster and how terrible that was? Guess what? You spent the five f**king years before that on television having awesome matches with Brian Pillman and Ricky Steamboat and Dustin Rhodes and being part of the Dangerous Alliance, which is unarguably the best thing in the history of wrestling. You were a multiple-time champion, and you got fired just in time to show up in ECW during that one time period when getting fired and showing up in ECW was the coolest thing you could do. Then they made you King of the Ring and put you in a feud with Bret Hart.

How many of those things happened to Big Andy? How many of them happened to Matt Cross? F**king none of them. Andy got put on a wrestling reality show. Matt Cross spent five years wrestling Josh f**king Abercrombie. You didn’t make your chances, Austin, WCW and the WWF did. You just happened to be extremely talented at pro wrestling. Funny how that turned out, right?

Yep. Co-sign all of that.

This isn't some pedantic plea to get a guy more airtime. Not at all. Ryder is legitimately talented and has legitimately connected with a significant portion of the fanbase. This isn't 1998 anymore. It's 2011. The Internet matters, or else the WWE wouldn't mandate its wrestlers, announcers and air personnel be on Twitter or create a bunch of Facebook like pages or pimp the Internet achievements in their bullshit fluff "Did You Know" segments. Now, are the stereotypical "Internet" fans a majority group now? No, but there's gotta be a higher percentage of the audience that is plugged in the way we've always been in the last ten years. Ryder has become an especial star in this era of Internet. Sixteen of seventeen of his Z! True Long Island Story videos have garnered over 100K views. He has 37K+ subscribers. He has 123K+ followers on Twitter. As a reference, he's only 20K behind the current United States Champion. He has more than the challenger to that US Championship. More than the guy challenging for the WWE Championship. More than Rey Mysterio, i.e., arguably the company's second biggest draw.

Despite that success with the new media, Ryder remains ignored. Why? Whether it's because Vince hates the Internet like Alvarez's nebulous source says or because he didn't get over because of the Vince hype machine or because Vince just doesn't understand the new media, I'm not sure. I'm not sure I care either. It's bad not to even explore whether Ryder can make some kind of dent. No matter what the reason is.

Admittedly, I did come off nonchalant about the whole thing after the show. I didn't need Ryder to enjoy the show, as it was a good RAW. Plus, he probably got more of a chance to shine, albeit on a smaller stage, in a more meaningful way. That being said, this was something that meant a lot to Ryder. It meant a lot to his colleagues. It meant a lot to his fans. And yeah, if he did appear on RAW, I probably would have marked out too. No, scratch that. I know I would have marked out.

So yeah, here we sit, for whatever reason, Vince McMahon wants to continue to ignore a guy who has made himself. So when Ezekiel Jackson, he of almost no heat, wins the Intercontinental Championship on Sunday to absolutely no crowd reaction (and I like Big Zeke, but let's not sugarcoat this, the crowd is dead for him), and he wonders why, well, I hope he at least starts to get it.

I doubt it though.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!

The Fans Didn't Ruin a Damn Thing

The Hulk Hogan Facebook/Twitter comment controversy is absurd because he's a guy who owns a company that caters to wrestling fans blasting wrestling fans for not being grateful enough to appreciate his product. This is the kind of delusion we all like to laugh at, even if no one would really pay it any mind if we didn't shine a light on the stupidity. Could I have let it alone on Saturday? Probably, but then again, I just don't like being condescended by a guy that wants me to spend my hard-earned dollar on his shitty, fourth-rate imitation of what wrestling was in 1998 (and unless you count the portion of my cable bill that goes to Spike TV, he's been unsuccessful in that endeavor).

However, what I find fascinating and infuriating is when fans start getting on the self-hatred train, or to be more accurate, when some fans start blaming others for the downfall of wrestling. "The Internet killed wrestling!" they cry, despite the fact that there are as many opinions as to how wrestling should be on the Web as there are grains of sand in the Sahara, and that booking to some nebulous body would be impossible. But let's entertain that notion for a second.

It's true, Vince Russo loved to book to the smarks and to the Internet. Hell, he still does. However, if he's booking to such a small percentage of the audience, then whose fault is that, the niche fans, or the guy who spurns the fans at large FOR the niche fans? That's the reason why people who are in charge are in charge; they have the good judgment to know which people to listen to and which ones to ignore, or at least they should. Shame on Russo for initially plunging WCW into the mire by continually booking to a niche crowd. Shame on WCW for continuing to employ him after his track record kept speaking for him. A million shames on Dixie Carter for continuing to employ him after a decade-long track record of futility.

The biggest fallacy though is believing that the WWE booked to smarks after Russo left. The biggest notch in the case against that argument is the Invasion angle. If so-called smarks booked the Invasion angle, and this is assuming that there's such thing as a nebulous band of fans on the Internet that all share the same brain, then do you think that the WCW faction would have been jobbed out as hard as it was? Do you think DDP would have been made Undertaker's bitch? That Booker T would have had to have played lackey to Steve Austin and Kurt Angle rather than leading the WCW guys himself? Hell no. If the "smarks" had their way, then RAW would have turned to Nitro, Hugh G. Rection would have unified all the titles and Eric Bischoff would have caned Vince McMahon on live television for 82 weeks straight.

It's coincidence that "smarks" liked the small guys before WWE pushed them. If Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit didn't get the reactions they got from larger crowds, there's no way the WWE would have pushed them. Jericho, Guerrero and up until the time he murdered his family in cold-blood, Benoit, were all super over with the WWE fans-at-large, and that's why they all got to main event status. Not because the WWE booked to smarks. If that were the case, where was Dean Malenko? Lance Storm? Jerry Lynn?

The fact is that the content-controllers have all the say in what goes on your television. If they try₁ to cater to smarks, it's their problem, not ours. If they put out content that doesn't draw or is low-rated or isn't satisfactory, it is their responsibility. I don't have to watch wrestling. I choose to watch it because I like the artform. I am free to choose what content providers I support with my money, my time and my attention. If I don't like a product, I'm free to do so, and it is not my fault for not liking it. If I choose to criticize a product, it is my protected right by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to do so, as long as what I say about that product is factual or at the very least is presented as opinion. The former means that any failing of a product is due to the people producing it, not the people consuming. The latter means that I don't have to shut up and keep my voice to myself.

This is what Hogan, Bischoff and a certain sect of sophist fans need to realize. Of course, it's easier to blame anyone but yourself for your own failings if you're delusional and egotistical like Hogan seems to be. And it's fun to play troll if you're on the Internet and you really have nothing better to do. But really, it's a tired act and a tired talking point.

1 - And the key word is try, since it's IMPOSSIBLE to cater to nerds of any branch of entertainment. Case in point, people actually criticized X-Men: First Class this weekend because it didn't have continuity with X3 and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, despite the fact that some of those same people were the ones who loathed those last two movies. This is why we can't have nice things.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!

Hulk Hogan Blames Consumers for the Fall of WCW

From WrestleChat.Net Via Hogan's Facebook

Arrogant and arrogant... er?
Photo Credit: TNAWrestling.com

I rolled my eyes at Eric Bischoff's tweet about the 90% of wrestling fans being drowned out by the mouth 10% about TNA's quality. Yeah, because THAT'S why people don't watch Impact. But yeah, I ignored it because hey, don't feed the trolls. However, his tag team partner in smug arrogance, Hulk Hogan, took to his Facebook with this gem:

But in reality it was a lot of you idiot fans that killed wcw with your lack of appreciation and support for everything we did for you. Funny enough a lot of you morons like TNA too. Go figure.

Brilliant analysis there Hulk. It was the consumers who didn't appreciate what you were producing that killed WCW, not the product becoming so shitty that the demand for it kept going down. Y'know, in any other industry, if a product concept fails, the company admits it and keeps plugging along. Coke didn't blame the public for not liking New Coke; they scrapped the product and gave the public what they wanted. Hogan though? Well, it's not his problem that you didn't like WCW. It has to be ALL OF YOU... actually, ALL OF US, since yeah, I wasn't exactly on the late-WCW train.

But for posterity, and I really don't need to post this, but why not since Hogan feels the need to blame us for WCW's demise, here's a list of more valid reasons than "us ingrates didn't appreciate his high art" as to why WCW failed:

1. The Finger Poke of Doom
2. Egos run amok causing bad booking to ruin hot storylines
3. The submarining of a popular cruiserweight division, to the point where the matches became background noise for Bischoff to overkill the nWo angle, via Tony Schiavone and his announce team partners
4. Vince Russo doing to the dying body of WCW what Kane was accused of doing to Katie Vick in character
5. Stars refusing to put over newer guys for fear that they'd lose their spot, DESPITE THE FACT that Randy Savage put over DDP, made him, and kept his spot in the long run
6. The bungling of Sting after Starrcade in 1997
7. The fact that the WWF had created a hot product while WCW was pissing away its good fortune, thus causing more people to watch their brand of wrestling over WCW's

I really could keep going for a couple of hundred reasons, and I still wouldn't come across "ingrate fans being stubborn". In fact, there's actually no such thing as an ingrate fan because you're a fan based on the product you're given on the TV. I am under no obligation to continue watching a show if I don't like it. Hogan and Bischoff don't understand this. They also don't understand that people who don't mouth off on the Internet (which is their God-given right if they do, by the way) about displeasure over direction are also the ones not watching, not just the vocal ones, whether legit or trollish in nature.

But hey, I guess it's easier to blame us than it is to blame themselves. It just goes to show how fucking clueless both Hogan and Bischoff (and by extension, Russo and Dixie Carter) are about all this.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!