Never the true story

[Slam Master]

In professional wrestling, there is always two sides to every story that involves controversy. Whenever something happens, there is an explanation from both the parties involved that makes the person telling it look like the hero, and completely buries the other. I'm a fan of both Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, and I've read both their books. In both books, it makes the other take the blame for their personal issues-backstage animosity- and the Montreal Screwjob. When I read Shawn's I felt the whole situation was Bret's fault for acting spoiled and selfish; and when I read Bret Hart's I felt it was Shawn's fault for being an immature baby. I don't take sides because I feel both of them deserve blame for different things, but this is a situation where it seems very hard to pin point the causes from the accounts we have. Its also history that can never be re-written, but its a shame because they could have had legendary programs together. The same can be said about any other situation in wrestling. Its an industry full of back stabbing and talking behind backs.

 

[bulldog76]

We will never know. I know Ric Flair (one of the greatest in-ring perfromers EVER) said Shawn had a great match with a ladder and Scott Hall was just in the ring. Scott was a very accomplished wrestler himself. Not saying he was Ric or Shawn, but that Scott can hold his own in the ring and I felt he did a great job. (You couln't trust him to be at the top of the company.) Ric and Scott are not the best of friends. Let's face it. Ric buries a lot of guys who are better than what Ric would like to credit them. Raven was another. Raven was a guy who seemingly was his own ceiling. He responded to Flair's criticism with something like "At least it was Flair and not some jobber." Kevin Nash was another. Nash credits Flair with being a talent but not always having the most objective perspective. Yet, without Hall and Nash, who knows what would have happened to WCW. It may have been dead a lot sooner.

Ric is FAR from the only one. I am just using him because he is one of the greatest and often times has the sharpest tongue. Wrestling is like many major corporations. You do the public a service (entertain) and you try to get as high as you can on the ladder. You make friends, you gain allies, and unfortunately, make enemies. I'm not sure what is sadder, the fact that the business is so political or that guys bury each other publicly just to sell a few books/articles/DVDs.

 

[Jordan adams]

here is another example of never knowing the truth Hulk hogan and Vince always say that randy savage was controlling of Elizabeth but warrior after her death said that Savage was really good for Elizabeth and always tried to keep her away from bad influences like drugs who is telling the truth in this situation .

 

[AGE OF KNOWLEDGE]

One man comes to mind when it comes to the Pro Wrestling Industry "ERIC BISHOFF". Let me take you new comers back in time about 12yrs ago. Vince got the biggest wake up call, when he would take Superstars word, rather have there signitures on a contract. To me this is where Eric The Great captialized on WWE/F Top Talent. WCW was in the mist of success such as TNA is today. Except for 2 Major Differances: TED TURNER (MULTI-BILLIONARE, CNN, & TURNER BROADCASTING) with Eric Bishoff wanting to put Vince in his own grave. Somehow, in 2003, Vince hired Bishoff to be GM of RAW. So never say never. Its still very sad to this day this happen & Vince still has many grudges. (Randy Savage, Lex Luger, Madusa) just to name a few. As we all know Vince will never take anyones word, not even his on children.

 

[Scott Free]

In professional wrestling, there is always two sides to every story that involves controversy. Whenever something happens, there is an explanation from both the parties involved that makes the person telling it look like the hero, and completely buries the other. I'm a fan of both Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, and I've read both their books. In both books, it makes the other take the blame for their personal issues-backstage animosity- and the Montreal Screwjob. When I read Shawn's I felt the whole situation was Bret's fault for acting spoiled and selfish; and when I read Bret Hart's I felt it was Shawn's fault for being an immature baby. I don't take sides because I feel both of them deserve blame for different things, but this is a situation where it seems very hard to pin point the causes from the accounts we have. Its also history that can never be re-written, but its a shame because they could have had legendary programs together. The same can be said about any other situation in wrestling. Its an industry full of back stabbing and talking behind backs.

Any controversy has the same result, people take their own perspective, mix it with biased personal attitudes and give you their version of the truth. The problem is that human beings have limited perception and this tends to get in the way of the concept of truth. In the Montreal screwjob case, the truth is what you got to see live on PPV, a scripted ending was changed without telling one of the participants, it ended up as an horrible finish to what should have been a good one. The end result is the truth, how it got to be that way, we might never know, best we can do is take both sides and try to read between the lines, that's where the real truth hides sometimes, in the end, we have only our own perspective to base our version of the truth on.

 

[Mustang Sally]

here is another example of never knowing the truth Hulk hogan and Vince always say that randy savage was controlling of Elizabeth but warrior after her death said that Savage was really good for Elizabeth and always tried to keep her away from bad influences like drugs who is telling the truth in this situation .

That's a very good example of what this topic is about. I've often wondered about the two of them. It's hard to separate Savage's on-air personality from what he was probably like in real life, isn't it? On the show, he was always bullying her and yanking her physically around. But was he like that in their private life?

On the one hand, everything I read at the time suggested that the divorce was strictly her idea. Was it because he was too controlling, or might it have been because he did, in fact, want to keep her away from an unhealthy lifestyle?

It's impossible to know the true story because when she died, she was in a different stage of life than she had been when she was married to Savage. Elizabeth was a woman who had made her living based on her looks (i.e.; a diva) and at 42, she must have been reaching the point that this was no longer possible. Perhaps growing old with the guy who had brought her to the dance would have made the transition easier for her, rather than being in the presence of Larry Pfohl (Luger).

Or maybe not.

Who knows? I would love to know the true story.