Divas plan for WMXXX already nixed?

[Tired]

A plan to hold the second 'Miss WrestleMania' battle royal has already been scrapped.

The first Miss WrestleMania battle royal happened at WrestleMania 25, and featured 25 divas from the previous 10 years. It was won by Santino Marella posing as his own sister "Santina". This version would've featured 30 divas.

The entire point was to try and convince some former Divas into returning to the company. The WWE has been trying to convince several divas to return for the last 2 years, but so far only the Bella Twins have. The theory is that former Divas would be willing to do a one-off match at WrestleMania. Once they are locked in, it would be much easier to convince them to sign a 1-year deal. But the plan has been scrapped. Had the plan have gotten the go ahead, the WWE would've reached out to Michelle McCool, Maxine, Maria, Kelly Kelly, Maryse and Beth Phoenix in particular.

One person the plan did not involve was Stacy Kiebler. The WWE have been trying to bring Stacy back since she left in 2006. However, Stacy's profile continued to increase, especially during her long-term relationship with actor George Clooney. Only a few people knew that Stephanie McMahon had re-opened negotiations with Stacy. Stacy had not been interested in doing anything, but apparently the money on offer has her considering a return for WrestleMania XXX. There is a lot of speculation that she may become the female Hall Of Fame entrant.

One name that will not be back is Maria Kanellis. Maria has been very vocal about how she nearly signed a deal to return, but was blocked by the Bella Twins. When Maria left the company, she very publicly criticised her former employer and many of her former colleagues. While WWE officials want her back, a lot of tenured stars don't want to work with her again. This includes a few big name stars who have a lot of stroke.

In complete contrast is Michelle McCool. McCool is genuinely not interested in a return, but a lot of the locker room would love to have her back. McCool was heavily detested when she was in the WWE, even by Stephanie McMahon. Many felt that her push was only because she was involved the Undertaker. She was considered to be an average in-ring performer who was injured easily, and cut terrible promos. Many divas were frustrated with how much screen time was devoted to McCool, while hardworking Divas barely featured in battle royals or as lumber-jills. But when McCool left, she was very complimentary of everyone she had worked with, particularly Stephanie. She openly admitted that her success was because of the people who worked so hard at making her look better than she was. She even apologised repeatedly for taking so much screen time away from "more talented and more deserving people". This has earned her a lot of respect from within the WWE, and many would be happy to have her back.

 

[Deleted User]

Did not know that about Michelle. That's classy.

 

[The NekoMancer]

This is why i don't watch Monday night raw since the christmas special!

 

[Warrior]

Source please, it's interesting, but I don't buy the Kiebler bit.

 

[Tired]

Source please, it's interesting, but I don't buy the Kiebler bit.

Then don't buy into it.

 

[Warrior]

Or you know, for somebody who posts in the news section, you could post a source. It's not that unreasonable.

 

[The NekoMancer]

Warrior, you sure do like arguments over stupid things, don't ya?

 

[Warrior]

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>Mr. Potoo</dt><dd>Feb 5 2014, 02:07:24 PM</dd></dl><div>Warrior, you sure do like arguments over stupid things, don't ya?[/quote]So I'm going to pretend that's not a troll-bait comment.

No, see, the problem is that journalism is dead online, and it's not really the Reverend's fault.

All articles are written essentially written as '..maybe this is happening.', and it just gets reposted over here. Certain publications have more pull when it comes to rumors about upcoming events, such as journalist David Meltzer. I would just like to know what I'm reading and who's it's from before making either dismissing it, or accepting it.

But if it is a troll comment, and you have an issue with me, we can discuss this through PM.

 

[KG 24]

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>Mr. Potoo</dt><dd>Feb 5 2014, 02:38:55 AM</dd></dl><div>This is why i don't watch Monday night raw since the christmas special![/quote]*not watching RAW*
*because of divas battle royal plans at WrestleMania being scrapped*

Of all the 1 million good and understandable reasons to not watch RAW, you decided to pick one that wasn't even related to watching RAW. Mr. Potoo? More like Mr. PooPoo. Come see me in my office after hours, we need to discuss this in private.

 

[The NekoMancer]

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>KG 24</dt><dd>Feb 5 2014, 07:17:15 PM</dd></dl><div><blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>Mr. Potoo</dt><dd>Feb 5 2014, 02:38:55 AM</dd></dl><div>This is why i don't watch Monday night raw since the christmas special![/quote]*not watching RAW*
*because of divas battle royal plans at WrestleMania being scrapped*

Of all the 1 million good and understandable reasons to not watch RAW, you decided to pick one that wasn't even related to watching RAW. Mr. Potoo? More like Mr. PooPoo. Come see me in my office after hours, we need to discuss this in private.[/quote]I won't go there, your'e a well known molester.

 

[KG 24]

That was ONE TIME, and I was proven not guilty by a jury of my peers and non-peers. Now come here, we need to talk.

 

[Deleted User]

Or you know, for somebody who posts in the news section, you could post a source. It's not that unreasonable.

I've been asking this for quite some time. I'm not trying to be a dick to anyone, but whenever I can I provited sources.

It's basically the #1 thing you should do so others don't feel like things are just being made up.

 

[TheDoctor]

David Meltzer is a fucking idiot.

 

[KG 24]

I love opinions.

 

[TheDoctor]

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>KG 24</dt><dd>Feb 5 2014, 09:08:09 PM</dd></dl><div>I love opinions.[/quote]And my opinion is he is a fucking idiot who believes his own hype & that everything he says is gospel & he is the only one qualified to say what a 5 star match is.

The only reason he is reporting his BS is because he couldn't make it as a wrestler.

 

[Tired]

But that's the thing about wrestling based journalism. Whether you find 1 source, or 100 saying the same thing, there are few guarantees that what is being reported is real. The wrestling industry confuses the line between traditional show-business and carnival traditions. It is an industry that tries extremely hard to stop its audience seeing what is going on on the inside. Part of the reason is to avoid spoiling the surprise for potential customers. If the customer knows in advance that they may not like the show, they will not pay to see it. The other reason is to stop people seeing how the show is made.

Even if you have 1 source, or 100 sources, there is still few guarantees that what you are reporting is fact. To use the already used example, Dave Meltzer is a guy who has fantastic access to such information. But he also has a reputation for favouring kayfabe over backstage stuff. In his world, Mark Henry's 3 week elbow dislocation was every bit as legitimate as Naomi's eye injury. PWInsider is one of the most respected dirtsheets going, but it too has a habit of reporting rumours that no-one was talking about. Remember when Chris Masters, Shelton Benjamin, Hurricane Helms and Carlito had all signed new contracts, and were meant to debut at the Rumble 2 or 3 years ago? PWInsider started that one, and none of them had been contacted by WWE.

If a dirtsheet does quote a source, it will only be for 1 or more of the following reasons:
1) The source is part of the story - Like in the case of Ryback's Twitter rampage. His tweets on his account was the story, and the account itself was the source.
2) The source is owned or affiliated with the site reporting the story - If one person checks out both sites, it still counts as a visitor for both sites.
3) The story is questionable, but could be true - This is a cop-out technique. It is embarrassing reporting stories that are not true. But it is even more embarrassing missing bigger stories because they didn't sound true. For example, a lot of sites would not run the story of Batista signing a new contract when it actually happened, because his return was so unlikely. By saying that "wrestlinggossipers.com claim that...", you are protecting your own reputation if it turns out to be rubbish. At the same time, if it turns out to be real, you still reported it.
4) It increases your chances of being found on Google - If someone looks for a story or site on Google, wouldn't it be nice if your own site appeared first? This technique is used by small businesses to try and skim traffic from larger websites. Ever noticed how many stores say that their prices are cheaper than WalMart/Tesco? Even when this isn't true?

OSR is not a dirtsheet, although it is similar. We don't want people looking for wrestling scoops, we want members to join our community. It isn't dirtsheet news that is bringing people here. It is the mods. The mods are our selling point. The reason why we post articles is to encourage conversation and discussion. We make no money at all, so more visitors does not generate any kind of a profit. We want members to join us and become part of the community. That is how we will survive and grow. We need to get people hooked on modding. The news stories are just something for everybody to talk about.

A lot of this may not sound right to some of you. But I have worked as a journalist, and I am about to start a new job as a media marketer for a technological supplier. One thing I have learned is you do not do $5,000 of work for a $5 article. Anyone who posts a news story does so voluntarily. I get my information from a range of sources. Unless of course it is a completely original work, but those rarities are really obvious. So if you want to believe what is posted in the news section, then great. If you want to question the legitimacy of what is reported, then that is also great. Either way, we have created a discussion, and you guys are talking to each other. If you guys don't talk to each other, we don't have a community.

 

[Deleted User]

ONE source would be nice. Especially concerning the Owen Hart stuff. If we are going to discuss things, it isn't really fair that someone is allowed to say something as fact without citations.

I'm not trying to start a fight, I've yet to be in these wrestling discussions and have anyone make a citation. Seriously, let's take that DVD discussion to mind, I'm supposed to believe those DVDs are the source of that lawsuit just because you say so?

You didn't even know that were allowed to show Owen Hart footage, dude. Maybe, just maybe, we should implement a little bit of fact checking.

oh, and Dave Melzter never wanted to be a wrestler, sure, he was into bodybuilding for awhile, but he admitted long ago that he knows his place isn't in the ring.

I think people should listen to his appearance on Steve Austin's podcast, and hear him and Austin talk before making anything up about his character.

 

[Warrior]

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>KG 24</dt><dd>Feb 5 2014, 09:08:09 PM</dd></dl><div>I love opinions.

And my opinion is he is a fucking idiot who believes his own hype & that everything he says is gospel & he is the only one qualified to say what a 5 star match is.

The only reason he is reporting his BS is because he couldn't make it as a wrestler.[/quote]Still more credible than shit like Bleacher Report.

When it comes to his opinion on topics, fine, I don't really care much for what he says either most of the time, but he's right on backstage rumors about 80% of the time.

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>But that's the thing about wrestling based journalism. Whether you find 1 source, or 100 saying the same thing, there are few guarantees that what is being reported is real. The wrestling industry confuses the line between traditional show-business and carnival traditions. It is an industry that tries extremely hard to stop its audience seeing what is going on on the inside. Part of the reason is to avoid spoiling the surprise for potential customers. If the customer knows in advance that they may not like the show, they will not pay to see it. The other reason is to stop people seeing how the show is made.


If a dirtsheet does quote a source, it will only be for 1 or more of the following reasons:
1) The source is part of the story - Like in the case of Ryback's Twitter rampage. His tweets on his account was the story, and the account itself was the source.
2) The source is owned or affiliated with the site reporting the story - If one person checks out both sites, it still counts as a visitor for both sites.
3) The story is questionable, but could be true - This is a cop-out technique. It is embarrassing reporting stories that are not true. But it is even more embarrassing missing bigger stories because they didn't sound true. For example, a lot of sites would not run the story of Batista signing a new contract when it actually happened, because his return was so unlikely. By saying that "wrestlinggossipers.com claim that...", you are protecting your own reputation if it turns out to be rubbish. At the same time, if it turns out to be real, you still reported it.
4) It increases your chances of being found on Google - If someone looks for a story or site on Google, wouldn't it be nice if your own site appeared first? This technique is used by small businesses to try and skim traffic from larger websites. Ever noticed how many stores say that their prices are cheaper than WalMart/Tesco? Even when this isn't true?

A lot of this may not sound right to some of you. But I have worked as a journalist, and I am about to start a new job as a media marketer for a technological supplier. One thing I have learned is you do not do $5,000 of work for a $5 article. Anyone who posts a news story does so voluntarily. I get my information from a range of sources. Unless of course it is a completely original work, but those rarities are really obvious. So if you want to believe what is posted in the news section, then great. If you want to question the legitimacy of what is reported, then that is also great. Either way, we have created a discussion, and you guys are talking to each other. If you guys don't talk to each other, we don't have a community. [/quote]

I really don't think it's too much to ask for a sentence that says, "As reported by _____"

It's really not that much work, and I've seen how much thought you've put into some of the posts you put here. It's great and your ideas are well thought out, but like I said, a simple source link would be great.

 

[Deleted User]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Hart#Controversy

<blockquote class='quote\\_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>In June 2010, Hart's widow (Martha Hart) filed a lawsuit against the WWE over WWE’s use of Owen Hart’s name and likeness as well as personal photos of Hart’s family in the ‘Hart & Soul’ WWE DVD, as well as the failure to make royalty payments. The matter was scheduled to go to trial in June 2013 before the settlement was reached in April 2013 for an undisclosed amount[/quote]

No lawsuit ever went through, it was settled out of court. This is why it's important to cite your sources. Seriously. There's no mention of the cage match compilation, either. That's shit is completely made up. You can say citing sources in wrestling journalism is pointless but I highly disagree.


Concerning Dave Meltzer, according to Steve Austin, tons of guys in the 90's actually read his dirtsheets quite religiously, just because they were so accurate.

SOURCE: http://podcastone.com/Steve-Austin-Show

 

[TheDoctor]

Here's a question, I read awhile back that it was possible that Owen could be in a WWE game now that things were settled. But I never found or heard anything else about it.