The Wrestling Observer Yearbook '97: The Last Time WWF Was Number Two Read online

  THE WRESTLING OBSERVER

  YEARBOOK 1997

  THE WRESTLING OBSERVER

  YEARBOOK 1997

  THE LAST TIME WWF WAS NUMBER TWO

  Dave Meltzer

  Copyright © Dave Meltzer

  Published by Titan Insider Press

  All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in any part, in any form, without written permission from the publisher or author.

  This book is set in Garamond

  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

  This book was printed and bound in the United Kingdom

  Contents

  1 – The Future of No Holds Barred Fighting

  2 – Major Changes to WWF Programming

  3 – The Origins of WCW Thunder

  4 – Shawn Michaels Loses His Smile

  5 – WWF vs. ECW vs. USWA

  6 – WCW Attempts to Purchase NJPW

  7 – Ken Shamrock Signs with the WWF

  8 – Naoya Ogawa Signs For NJPW

  9 – Dennis Rodman Signs For WCW

  10 – Dr. Death Arrested

  11 – Pay-Per-View Censorship

  12 – WCW vs. ECW

  13 – ECW Arrives on Pay-Per-View

  14 – WWF Working with FMW

  15 – Vader Arrested in Kuwait

  16 – Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michaels

  17 – NJPW vs. AJPW

  18 – Riki Chosu Retires

  19 – WWF vs. WCW: The Battle of Los Angeles

  20 – Wrestling’s Drug Problem

  21 – Maurice Smith Upsets Mark Coleman

  22 – Steve Austin Injured at SummerSlam

  23 – First Three-Hour WCW Nitro

  24 – Sabu Captures ECW Title

  25 – The Death of Plum Mariko

  26 – Arn Anderson Retires

  27 – AJW Goes Bankrupt

  28 – Shinya Hashimoto’s Reigns Comes to an End

  29 – Tod Gordon Leaves ECW

  30 – Mark Hall Throws Fight

  31 – The Life and Death of Brian Pillman

  32 – Randy Couture Beats Vitor Belfort

  33 – The Battle for Mexico

  34 – The Montreal Screwjob

  35 – WCW’s Record Breaking Year

  36 – WWF Controversy

  37 – WWF and UFC Working Together

  38 – Fan Riots

  39 – The Demise of the USWA

  40 – Bits and Pieces

  41 – WWF Ins and Outs

  42 – WCW Ins and Outs

  43 – Business Analysis

  44 – Supercard Summary

  45 – The Big Shows Directory: Domestic PPV Events

  46 – The Big Shows Directory: Major International Events

  47 – 1997 Pay-Per-View Drawing Cards

  48 – 1997 Final Match Quality Ratings

  49 – Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards

  1 – The Future of No Holds Barred Fighting

  JANUARY 27

  It was the same old story in a new place on a new day for the Ultimate Fighting Championships this past week. The media controversy that has come and largely gone in recent months, resurfaced in the city of New York stemming from a front page article on 1/15 in the New York Times and subsequent follow-up articles the next two days, and the fact that Extreme Fighting Championship is planning on holding its 3/28 PPV from an undisclosed site in Manhattan.

  The controversy began with a front page story entitled “Outcast Gladiators find a home: New York,” written by Dan Barry. The story, while having a negative tone toward UFC and EFC as most media stories do, was a fairly written piece on the sport talking about New York becoming the first state to sanction UFC legally (which technically is true but in reality it is fully sanctioned by government agencies—i.e. boxing commissions in Iowa and Oklahoma and has been held in several other states in the South like Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama without any controversy over the past year) and the dichotomy of area politicians getting the first EFC show booted out of Brooklyn, and then state politicians legalizing the sport in a bill that goes into effect in a few weeks, just in time for UFC’s 2/7 PPV show from Niagara Falls. This has resulted in both the next UFC and EFC shows in the state.

  The irony of the story is that the legalization of UFC and its genre in New York overcame strong opposition of both Governor George Pataki and State Senator Roy Goodman, who wanted it banned. However, it was Goodman who introduced the very bill to legalize it, and in his own press release claimed that the bill imposes rules (which were actually with a few very minor modifications—basically just time limits being held to 20 minutes per match—and most importantly, that the state would be able to collect a tax on the gate for the events to help fund the athletic commission) that would end the so-called human cockfights and turn it into an athletic event. But in newspaper stories this past week Goodman called UFC “animalistic.” And it was Pataki who signed the bill.

  What happened next was that the Times, while bringing up the strangeness on the surface of the very politicians who were the most publicly and violently opposed to the first EFC event being instrumental in the bill becoming law, didn’t even mention the key provision that the bill didn’t change any real rules of the event but simply allowed the state to tax the event. And naturally Pataki and Goodman publicly had to change positions once again.

  Zenia Mucha, the Governor’s communications director, put the blame on the state legislature because they wouldn’t adopt a bill banning it and had enough votes to override a Governor’s veto of the bill. Mucha said, “The Governor finds this competition revolting and does not consider it a sport. We are going to reintroduce our bill (to ban it in New York), and we are going to keep doing it until we hopefully get it banned.”

  Goodman introduced the bill to legalize it after being so publicly against it. He was praised in some media circles for his role, along with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, in getting the first EFC event out of New York state and moved literally one day before the event to North Carolina and perhaps in a sense ruining the show in the process due to all the stress and problems such a move created. “He still wanted to do a ban,” said his spokesperson, Kathy Lenhart, “but there’s a lot of people who just don’t think it’s all that bad of a deal—that boys will be boys.”

  As the Times goes, so goes the New York media, so Thursday was one of those feeding frenzies where many of the local television and radio stations did their own UFC stories, most half-cocked with both group’s main promoters, Bob Meyrowitz of UFC and Donald Zuckerman of EFC, getting on several television and radio stations. There were films of boxers being interviewed saying that unlike boxing, UFC is all brutality and has no skill involved. There were the requisite doctors who had never seen a fight talking about the potential damage. Meyrowitz said that in the entire onslaught which saw him interviewed by all four major network affiliates and several the area newspapers and radio stations that there was only one reporter who had talked with him who had actually seen an event.

  This led to second day stories in both the Times and New York Daily News, largely based on Giuliani and New York City Council President Peter Vallone saying they were going to work together to get the EFC event on 3/28 banned from the city.

  “I think extreme fighting is disgusting, it’s horrible,” said the Mayor. “I happen to be a boxing fan, have been all my life. And I know there are issues regarding boxing, and they are serious ones. But this is way beyond boxing. This is people brutalizing each other.”

  However,
state athletic commission spokesperson Gwen Lee said that the city can’t overrule the state legislature (which has legalized the event).

  The original Times story gave the impression that the local politicians were running for cover on the issue, despite the fact that legislation to regulate and thus legalize UFC in New York passed by a landslide in both houses after SEG sent a major lobbyist to try and keep legislation from passing that would ban the events and gave testimony with stats showing a lower injury rate than in boxing or football.

  State Republican majority leader Joseph Bruno came forward and said that he had studied statistics on injuries in these events and said that it showed these events were less dangerous than boxing matches. “We ought to regulate it in the same way that we regulate boxing. If someone can prove me wrong, then we will revisit the issue.”

  It’s pretty clear that one serious injury in the next two PPV shows will at least threaten the current status of the sport, unlike boxing, football or auto racing which would be able to survive numerous deaths without any threat.

  It may not even take that. Reports we’ve received is that there is even more heat behind the scenes politically on both EFC and UFC than is apparent even from the media, to the point that Penthouse, which backs EFC, has scheduled a major meeting on 1/24 where the subject of dropping EFC altogether because of the heat will be brought up.

  Meanwhile, the story got some press in the Niagara Falls Gazette where Hynes and Meyrowitz traded editorial viewpoints on the subject in the local newspaper. Hynes article showed he was clearly unfamiliar with the event he was trying to ban stating things like there was no opportunity for a doctor or second to examine an injured fighter during a match (because there are no round breaks), which is clearly not the case, and that the event was without mercy, which the tap rule (which Hynes on the Phil Donahue show in arguing this same issue didn’t even know existed) is almost a contradiction to as well.

  In the midst of all the public media clamor, the subject of pro wrestling, in particular, ECW was brought up by Vallone. On WABC radio on 1/16, Vallone said he saw a tape of ECW wrestling and talked about the blood and the chairs and said if there would ever be a show within his district (Astoria, Queens) he would make sure the police shut the show down. ECW has a date scheduled in Queens on 2/20 and has received word from the athletic commission to tone the show down at least a little in regard to things like fighting over the railing and gotten friendly warnings that this isn’t the time to do something that will make the papers.

  It culminated on both 1/17 and 1/19 with editorials in the Times and Daily News respectively. The Daily News editorial was short and to the point saying “Extreme Fighting is extremely brutal and stupid and should be banned.” The Times editorial, entitled “Ban This Extreme Barbarism” stated:

  Merely regulating a barbaric act does not change its nature. Nor does posting doctors at ringside to prevent the combatants from killing each other turn a bloody public spectacle into a legitimate sport.

  The commercial sponsors of “extreme” or “ultimate” fighting maintain that such bouts are safe because no contestant has yet to be killed. But that fact is more a testimonial to the novelty of these competitions than to their safety value. Unfortunately, the promoters managed to sell that line to gullible state legislators who passed a law last year making New York the first state to sanction extreme fighting, which Illinois and Missouri have outlawed as dangerous.

  Extreme fighting puts two contestants in a ring surrounded by a chain-link fence. They are allowed to pummel each other into pulp until one of them becomes unconscious or surrenders, or until a doctor stops the action because a contestant has sustained serious injury. Head butts, kicks to the groin, punches to the kidneys are all allowed. The rules prohibit only eye-gouging, biting and, in New York State at least, kicks to the throat. No one wins points for style; the promoters hawk violence, blood and pain, not athletic technique. The fact that audiences may relish seeing men bleed, and that some fighters will risk any amount of injury for prize money or glory, does not justify the state’s approving these exhibitions of brutality.

  State Senator Roy Goodman of Manhattan, Governor George Pataki and New York City’s Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, worked to block an extreme-fighting match at Brooklyn’s Park Slope Armory in 1995. But Mr. Pataki eventually signed the new state law because his veto would have been overridden. As a result, the politicians may now be powerless to block a match scheduled by the same sports promoter in Manhattan in March.

  Supporters of extreme fighting contend that legalization will allow the State Athletic Commission to regulate the events. But in fact, the commission will not change the nature of the contests, which are distinguished by their lack of rules. The new state law may also make it difficult for communities to ban the repulsive fights by pre-empting local ordinances. Mayor Giuliani will test that issue with his proposed ordinance to ban the fights in New York City.

  Governor Pataki has vowed to reintroduce a bill to ban the fights statewide. At the very least, communities ought to have a say in whether they want such events taking place in their midst. Repeal of the new law would give communities that prerogative. It would also nullify the promoters’ efforts to enhance their sport’s acceptability throughout the country by brandishing the official blessing of New York. In a culture awash in violence, there is no need for another form of savagery as entertainment.

  FEBRUARY 3

  In a reversal of position largely due to media pressure, in particular the New York Times editorial on 1/17, the future of NHB fighting in New York state is in serious jeopardy.

  On 1/27, New York state Senate majority leader Joseph Bruno and state Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver indicated the new law that goes into effect in a matter of days regulating and thus legalizing NHB events under the state athletic commission was under serious reconsideration.

  Largely due to pressure from both the media, and then from Governor George Pataki and New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Bruno brought up a bill which would give local governments the power to ban the events.

  According to a New York Times article on 1/28, Bruno said the outrage of New York city leaders (Giuliani, City Council speaker Peter Vallone and State Senator Roy Goodman) persuaded him to restudy the matter. Bruno said he talked with Pataki who said he would sign an ordinance giving local authorities the power to ban the events although the Governor indicated he would rather the legislature sponsor a bill to ban the events entirely in New York.

  Pat Lynch, a spokesperson for Silver, said that speaker was looking for nothing less than an outright ban. “He believes that it is a barbaric exercise that can permanently maim individuals who participate and as such, should not be a sporting event in the state.”

  A bill to give localities the power to ban the event or to simply ban it stateside could come up for a vote as early as 1/29 because the tide in both houses of the legislature, which passed the bill to legalize and regulate NHB by a landslide margin late last year, has totally turned.

  “Everybody thinks, it seems, it ought to be banned,” Bruno said. Bruno was the lone politician last week who publicly backed the original bill saying that the statistics on injuries simply don’t justify banning the event, pointing out boxing has a higher injury rate and there is no call to ban it. The irony is the same politicians who were the most vocal in passing the original bill are the ones publicly making the most of the latest controversy and trying to get a new bill passed for a statewide ban. Bruno said he favors allowing localities to impose their own rules as opposed to the state-wide ban. Both bills were introduced to committee on 1/24.

  Goodman, on 10/11, after his bill regulating the sport passed, said, “We heard from public officials and medical professionals, as well as from the fighters themselves, and were able to pinpoint the problems with the sport. My legislation addresses those problems, protecting both the participants and the public.

  This legislation will put an end to unbridled human cockfighting whic
h can seriously injure contestants and which sets a terrible example to our youth.”

  On 1/28, Goodman sent out a press release claiming he is battling lobbying Jiu Jitsu experts to outlaw what he called “human cockfighting.”

  “These fights are no different from street brawls. Contestants use brutal techniques, including kicking, chopping, head butts and choke holds.” Goodman said the recently passed legislation (which, he was the one who authored and got passed) doesn’t change its fundamental nature or turn a bloody public spectacle into legitimate sport (basically word-for-word what the Times editorial that changed the sentiment of the state legislature stated).“especially disturbing is the terrible behavioral example which these contests set for our impressionable youth.”

  No legislation would go into effect in time to threaten the 2/7 UFC PPV show from Niagara Falls, which has sold just under 3,000 tickets.

  However, the Extreme Fighting PPV show scheduled for 3/28 in Manhattan will probably be moved to Iowa. “From a practical point of view, it’s highly unlikely that the event is going to take place in New York City,” said EFC promoter Donald Zuckerman.

  The state boxing commission in Iowa has a set of rules for shootfighting, which are far more stringent than the rules previous EFC events have been governed under.

  The proposed legislation would also place UFC’s tentative date for what it was planning as a major breakthrough show in the Nassau Coliseum on 5/30 in grave jeopardy. The date, which was dependent upon the Islanders being eliminated from the playoffs early enough to begin local advertising, would have been the first UFC event in the New York City market. UFC has lost a great deal of popularity in the Northeast in 1996 due to it not being carried by Cablevision systems, which services much of that portion of the country.

  “My reaction is confusion,” said SEG President Bob Meyrowitz. “It seemed to me that New York state had taken a very intelligent step. Now, with absolutely no facts, people are pushing the New York state legislature to make a change in what seemed like a good law, an intelligent law.”