Mulaney Power Move posted:

"Morphemic analysis of film footage to decrypt symbolic gestures of masculine disrespect."

wesleywillis posted:

I know there were times the 1 2 3 Kid X pac would do the crotch chops like 5 times in a couple seconds, I'd have to guess that each one of those counted rather than the entire number of them (4-5 or maybe even 6?) being counted as one gesture.
Probably why there are so many more of them, vs like 1/4 the amounts of "SUCK ITS" and whatever the gently caress else everyone else would say.

Cubone posted:

Associated Press | February 22, 1999 posted:

NEW YORK (AP) - A study has found that a popular cable television's wrestling show is packed with obscene gestures, crotch-grabbing, satanic rituals - and a bit of actual wrestling.

A detailed Indiana University investigation of 50 "WWF Raw" episodes last year on the USA network turned up a staggering amount of profane or risque incidents and an average of less than 36 minutes of wrestling in a two-hour show.Researchers counted 1,658 instances of a character grabbing or pointing to their own crotch - or roughly eight every 30 minutes, not counting the slow-motion instant replays.

"I could see where an adult would be very concerned with the frequency at which these behaviors were aired, particularly at this time of day," Walter Gantz, professor at Indiana's department of telecommunications, said Monday.

For the past year, wrestling programs on USA or TNT have consistently been among the highest-rated shows each week on basic cable. But they're far from the goofy fun of the old days.

The syndicated news show "Inside Edition" commissioned the Indiana University study for a two-part report airing this week.

Mick Foley, Epilogue of Foley is Good: And the Real World is Faker Than Wrestling (2002) posted:

I was a little bit taken aback when the results of an Indiana University study concerning the contents of Raw started becoming public knowledge in early 1999. I may not have been in total agreement with all of the World Wrestling Federation's ideas, but by no means did I consider it to be a filthy show. On the contrary, I considered Raw to be a fun, action-packed show that happened to contain a little filth. So when the results came out, they were a bit shocking.

In a year's worth of Raw episodes, the study, which was commissioned by Inside Edition, revealed:

• 157 instances of wrestlers or audience members giving the finger
  
• 34 instances of the slogan "suck it" being said by wrestlers or appearing on signs in the audience
  
• 1,658 instances of wrestlers groping or pointing to their crotches
  
• 128 instances of simulated sexual activity
  
• 42 instances of simulated drug use
  
• 47 references to satanic activity
  
• 609 instances of wrestlers being hit by objects like garbage cans or nightsticks

Wow! This was a little disheartening, to say the least. I had always felt that wrestling and the World Wrestling Federation were a positive influence on families, but I certainly had a hard time arguing with this type of evidence to the contrary.

The media had a field day with these statistics. Everywhere I looked, it seemed that these damning figures were staring me in the face. In addition to scores of television stories and magazine articles, I personally read thirty- seven different newspapers that quoted these statistics. Heavy hitters too, including the New York Times, the New York Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Times, the Indianapolis Star, the Dallas Morning News, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and USA Today, to name just a few.

Yes, it seemed, the World Wrestling Federation was a miserable dung heap of sex, vulgarity, and violence. Or was it?

Hey, I had been on just about every show, and while I can vividly recall a plethora of "suck-its," crotch chops, middle fingers and blows of various instruments to the head, I really couldn't recall any simulated drug use and only one simulated sex act. Still, even though I began to doubt the validity of the study, I sat back and did nothing for a while.

In July 2000, I began writing this book, and in reliving the moments from December 1998 through April 2000, I studied slightly over twenty
videotapes in order to be as accurate as possible. I kept the Indiana University study results in the back of my mind when viewing my tapes, and I couldn't help but think that the IU results seemed a little extreme.

I spoke at length with Linda McMahon about the study and asked if she would mind if I conducted a study of my own. She was more than happy to give me her blessing. So, over the course of three days and nights, with the aid of my twenty tapes, a television, a VCR, and a remote control, I carried out my study. I tabulated the results and then multiplied them by 2.5 to yield the equivalent of a full year's worth of results. My findings were somewhat different than those of the IU study:

• 34 instances of wrestlers or audience members giving the finger
  
• 640 instances of wrestlers grabbing or pointing to their crotches
  
• 0 instances of simulated sexual activity
  
• 0 instances of simulated drug use
  
• 0 instances of satanic activity
  
• 422 instances of wrestlers being hit by objects like garbage cans or nightsticks

Quite a difference, right? How come? Well, first let me state that I never bothered to count the "suck-it" signs or utterances. Partially because I didn't have the time to count signs in the audience, and partially because I can't justify one "suck it," let alone 434. I really don't believe those words are appropriate in any circumstance, unless of course there is a "please" in front of them. Yeah, I know, there are probably a few people who will read this and say "Well, you said it once or twice, Mick." Yes, I did, but it somehow seemed cute when I did it in December ’98.

The lack of middle fingers can be directly attributed to the injury and subsequent departure of "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, who was rather proficient with the gesture. I'm not sure where I stand on the whole finger thing. On one hand, Austin's frequent usage has trivialized a once mighty gesture, and by the same token, turning such an ugly expression into a sign of friendship cannot be seen as altogether bad.

The absence of satanic activity can likewise be directly attributed to the injury and departure of the Undertaker. I wasn't a big fan of that particular angle, but that is probably because I hold the classic Undertaker in such high esteem. You know, the guy with the eerie entrance music, the guy who could make the lights go on and off with a simple gesture of his
hands, the guy who used to beat the crap out of me on a regular basis. I missed that guy.

Still, in the World Wrestling Federation, we are clearly labeling ourselves as "entertainment" and have done so for many years. We play good guys and bad guys, and therefore should have as much right to use the ultimate "bad guy" as any other form of entertainment.

The World Wrestling Federation is a strange amalgamation of fact and fiction—in my case mostly fact. I am referred to as "Mick Foley"—my real name—and am accurately portrayed as having a wife and kids. Therefore, there are certain things that I wouldn't feel comfortable doing, such as making references to Satan. The Undertaker, however, doesn't have those constraints, so I therefore have no problem with his satanic portrayal.

I would also like to note that while the IU study looked only at episodes of Raw, I incorporated both Raw and SmackDown! into my findings. SmackDown! is a slightly tamer show, but apparently not too much tamer, as the Parents Television Council (or PTC, which I will get into later) voted it as the most offensive broadcast show of the year for 2000. Also, the one year tracked by the IU study (February '98 to January '99) is generally considered to be the highwater mark for controversial World Wrestling Federation content.

Still, the differences in the two studies' results were shocking, and I became determined to find out why the discrepancy was so large. I looked further into the IU study and was able to procure the phone number of Dr. Walter Ganz, the man who had headed it. By this point I had vilified Ganz in my mind, and so had no qualms about bombarding his office with phone calls several times a day for many days. (Actually, it was only five calls, but I had already used the word "bombardment," so I went with that theme.)

In truth, I never expected a return call, and was only calling so I could write, "I tried several times to call Dr. Ganz, but he was unavailable for comment." Instead, I received a late-night phone call from the professor, the result of which was eye-opening to say the least.

We actually had a very pleasant, very thorough discussion about the study, and I was very thankful (and remain so) for his time. Especially considering the new light it shed on this World Wrestling Federation mystery.

I started out by informing Dr. Ganz that I was in the process of writing a follow-up to my towering New York Times number one bestseller Have a Nice Day! This was not surprising, since I begin most of my conversations with words of similar effect. I then informed him that I had conducted my own study, which elicited a surprised "Oh" from Dr. Ganz. I thought that maybe I was onto something, so I asked the professor if he knew of anyone else who had conducted a similar study. To the best of his knowledge, he did not. So right away I had a new statistic: number of journalists, correspondents, editors, and writers who bothered to check out their facts before reporting them: 0.

I then asked Dr. Ganz if he had personally viewed all the hours of the Raw episodes in question. He replied that he had not, but that all of the students viewing the tapes had been instructed to meet standardized criteria so as to avoid personal interpretation. Fair enough.

I first shared with Dr. Ganz the disparity between the number of times a wrestler was struck with an object on his study and mine. "Dr. Ganz," I asked, "when adding up the number of times that a wrestler was hit with an object, did you include replays of the blows?"
"Yes, I did," he said.
"Okay, would you have included B-roll footage from a previously recorded show?"
"Yes," he said again, "anytime the World Wrestling Federation chose to clearly show one of these shots on the screen we counted it."
As I was writing down his quote, the professor spoke again, this time with a question of his own. "Did you?"
"No, Dr. Ganz, I didn't." I was still finishing his quote, so I didn't elaborate on my answer.
"Why not?" the professor asked.

This time I did elaborate. "Well, Dr. Ganz, if someone told me to look at a tape and count how many home runs Mark McGwire hit last year, I don't think I would include videotaped replays." Unquestionably a good point, and one that brought forth my next question. "How about entrance videos? For example, the reason I don't wrestle anymore is I was hit way too many times in the head and face."
"I'm sorry to hear that," the professor interrupted, and I believe he meant it, too.
"But when I walk down to the ring, I can be seen getting hit in the head with chairs on several occasions. Would you count those too?"
"Once again," Dr. Ganz replied, "if there was a conscious effort made to show it, we included it."
Okay, I could live with that explanation.

Next I wanted to ask about the results of wrestlers grabbing or pointing to their crotches, which is commonly referred to as "crotch chopping." I think that labeling it as grabbing or pointing is a little inaccurate, as a "crotch chop" makes an X with the wrists, so that the fingers actually end up pointing away from the penile instrument. I had recorded 640 of these crotch chops, while Dr. Ganz had compiled a whopping 1,658—that's a lot of chopping! Now, out of 640 chops, 530 were recorded by X-Pac, who seemingly had the market cornered on that particular gesture. Don't get me wrong, I like X-Pac, and I think he's one of the most talented guys in the business, but drat, I was getting tired of seeing him chop around his penis for forty hours. He's prouder of that thing than Kurt Angle is of his Olympic Gold. Still, I made a weak attempt to cover for him.
"Dr. Ganz, over eighty percent of all pointing to the crotch was done by one wrestler."
"Was his name X-Pac?" Dr. Ganz asked.
"Yes, his name was X-Pac. I noticed that X-Pac tends to point to his crotch in quick bursts of four. Would you count that as four small rude gestures, or just one big one?"
The professor laughed before confirming my suspicions. "That would count as four."
"So I take it you would be counting all of the gestures on their entrance video too."
"Yes, we would."

Well, that cleared that one up in a hurry. The D-Generation X entrance video set an indoor record for most guys pointing in the proximity of their genitals repeatedly in rapid succession. I could easily see where the extra 1,200 chops came in, and frankly was surprised it wasn't a whole lot more.

We then spoke briefly about the satanic references and I shared with him my feelings about the subject and how the absence of the Undertaker could explain the discrepancy. Then a thought entered my head that I hadn't considered before I decided to ask the professor about it. "Dr. Ganz, a wrestler named Gangrel spits a red liquid, that I guess is supposed to look like blood. Would that be considered a satanic reference?"
"Yes," the professor said, "anything dealing with the occult was included in the study."

Now it was on to the subjects that I wondered about the most, sex and drugs. Wait, I'm not sure that came out right—let me try again. Now it was on to the subjects that I wondered about the most as they pertained to Professor Walter Ganz's Indiana University study—sex and drugs. That's better.

This whole "simulated sexual activity" had me baffled. I knew that our shows contained considerable sexual innuendo, several double entendres, and an occasional outright crude remark, but I truly couldn't recall any acts of simulated sex. I shared this feeling with Dr. Ganz. His response was not surprising.
"Well, there was a wrestler named Sexual Chocolate, and he was involved in a situation with a—"
I cut him off. "With a transvestite, right?"

Dr. Ganz concurred. Of all the envelope pushing the World Wrestling Federation has done, this one pushed the furthest and offered the least upside. In this scenario, Olympic-weight-lifter-turned-wrestler Mark Henry, who had been nicknamed "Sexual Chocolate" due to his smoothness with the ladies, had a very suggestive erotic session ruined when he reached down and was startled to discover that "Oh sweet Jesus, she has a penis." The World Wrestling Federation took a much-deserved critical lambasting for the scene, and in a sense created a snowball effect of harsh criticism from the media that has yet to cease, despite the general toning down of the product.

Even Vince McMahon, who had been a defender of the segment, has come to regret the decision, noting in a recent Playboy interview that "there was really no need to go there." Mark Henry's career suffered most of all. A few short weeks earlier Henry had been on the verge of major stardom, but instead found his career on a serious downward spiral, that saw him go from smooth ladies' man, to transvestite BJ. recipient, to sex addict, to boyfriend of seventy-eight-year-old Mae Young (which was at times actually quite sweet), to also-ran in the Ohio Valley Wrestling league. Hey, if we're going to use a transvestite angle, at least do it with The Rock. Sure, it would be tasteless, but at least it would make money.

I spoke with the professor about the angle, and while admitting my negative feelings about it, told him that I couldn't remember another single episode remotely like it, let alone another 127. So I posed a few questions. "Would a situation where a seventy-eight-year-old woman was lying in a bed, smoking a cigar, presumably after sex, be considered an act of simulated sex?" Dr. Ganz informed me that it would not. "What about giving the impression that a sexual act was going to take place, would that be an act of simulated sex?" Again, the doctor's response was negative. At this point I was legitimately confused. "Well, I'm really at a loss to think of another example," I said.
He tried to clear things up for me, and in a sense he did. "Well, a simulated sex act might be for example, a girl rubbing a man's arm."
RUBBING HIS ARM? "Dr. Ganz," I said with my voice rising steadily higher, the way it does in certain surprising situations, "don't you think that is a little misleading?"
"Why would you say that?" he replied with genuine curiosity in his voice.
"Well, because I think what you've described could more accurately be described as 'simulated flirtation.'" At this point Dr. Ganz started to get a little defensive.
"Well, it would have to be more than just rubbing an arm, it would have to be done ...provocatively."
PROVOCATIVELY? What the hell? Dr. Ganz had assured me that all the students' findings would meet standardized criteria, but I now found this hard to believe. After all, a word like "provocative" is open to a great variety of interpretation. Still, I didn't press the professor further because he seemed to get a bit flustered over the whole "simulated sex" example. The last thing I wanted was for Dr. Ganz to hang up on me, especially in light of the discovery I had just stumbled upon. I sensed that there would be another valuable discovery in my immediate future. I was correct.
"Dr. Ganz, I was also unable to find a single episode of simulated drug use, and I wanted to ask you about a few possibilities." Dr. Ganz told me to proceed. "We have one wrestler [X-Pac] who will occasionally put his thumb and forefinger together and pretend to inhale it as if it were a marijuana cigarette. Would that be simulated drug use?"
"No," the professor said, "we wouldn't count that."
"Well, we've got another wrestler [The Godfather] who says, 'Roll a fatty for this pimp daddy.' Would that be considered simulated drug use?"
"No, it would not," Dr. Ganz replied.

Once again I was at a loss to think of a single episode of the alleged moral offense, and once again I asked the professor for clarification. His clarification would actually open the door to a great deal more questions— some of which I'm still trying to answer. Questions about ethics, honesty, responsibility, common sense, and the media's ability to bend a great deal of half-truths into one great big lie.
"That would be beer drinking."
BEER DRINKING? Come on, this had to be a joke, right? Nope. "Yes," Dr. Ganz said, apparently taking notice of my disbelief, "that would fall under the heading of 'simulated drug and alcohol use.'"
"Now, Dr. Ganz, you can't tell me that you don't consider that figure to be misleading. I mean I have done a great deal of research on this, and I have yet to see one mention of 'simulated alcohol use.'"
Dr. Ganz went into full defensive mode. "Our study was very clear on that," he said. "I can't control what reporters say."
No, I guess he can't, but what he could do was clarify some final
questions I had, concerning "simulated drug use" in the World Wrestling Federation.
"But you didn't see any simulated use of heroin, did you?" I asked. "No."
"How about cocaine?"
"No."
"Marijuana?"
"No."
"Or any drugs other than alcohol?"
"None that I can recall."
"Thank you."

The next morning, I called my mother and put her to work. "Mom, for the next week, could you please tape every episode of General Hospital and Cheers for me?" "Well, I guess so," my mom said without a great deal of enthusiasm, "but why?" My answer perked her up immediately. "I'm doing research on this book I'm writing." Five days later I had the tapes. My mom has always been proud of my wrestling accomplishments, but she clearly is more impressed with my scholarly endeavors. Her help on this book— especially on these last chapters—has been invaluable.

The IU study had opened up my eyes to the possibility of manipulation and deceit in the media. Raw had become the media's whipping boy, but I wondered how other shows would fare when put under a microscope and scrutinized as closely. So with great anticipation, I slid in the General Hospital tape.

"Can they really do that at three in the afternoon?" I said to my wife, after witnessing an act that put our World Wrestling Federation adventures to shame. Call me old-fashioned, but I was a little shocked to see just how seedy these soap operas were. Suffice to say that if a woman was shown pouring and then licking champagne from my lower back on an episode of Raw, we'd be besieged with complaints, not to mention the fact that I personally would have to find a new bed to sleep in.

During the course of five one-hour episodes of General Hospital, I was witness to twenty-one acts that would fit comfortably inside Dr. Ganz's definition of "simulated sexual activity." Everything from the aforementioned champagne shenanigans to butt grabbing to passionate kissing. Lots and lots of kissing. Deep kissing. Long kissing. Tongue kissing. You name it, I saw it, and all in a week's worth of programming. All, that is, except for provocative arm rubbing, which I guess remains the sole domain of the World Wrestling Federation.

I will now call into play the mathematical skills that yielded me a D in Gary Eggers's math class during my junior year of high school. Okay—here goes. According to the Indiana study, a year's worth of Raw episodes, which adds up to 100 hours, yielded 128 acts of "simulated sexual activity." This adds up to 1.28 acts per hour.

General Hospital yielded twenty-one acts in five hours, for an average of 4.2 acts per hour. Which means that General Hospital, a program broadcast over public airwaves at 3 p.m., was over three times trashier than Raw, which is a cable television program that airs between 9 and 11 p.m.

Next up was Cheers, one of my all-time favorite shows, but one that seemed to lend itself to instances of "simulated drug use," or "beer drinking," as it is more commonly known. In judging the content, I adhered to the same considerations that Dr. Ganz had expressed to me concerning the frequency of wrestlers being hit by objects; "anytime a cocktail was clearly seen being ingested," I counted it.

The results were not all that surprising and more or less supported the thesis that I had developed when I asked my mom to tape the programs. Sixty-nine examples of beer drinking, or "simulated drug use," in two and a half hours of programming for an average of 27.6 examples per hour.

Let's compare that to the World Wrestling Federation, whose forty-two instances in 100 hours yield a disgusting, immoral .42 examples per hour. So, the rate of "simulated drug use" on Cheers is roughly sixty times higher than that of the evil and much-maligned Raw. SIXTY TIMES.

Now, some people out there might think that the relatively short test period of one week that I viewed these programs would not be representative of these shows as a whole. To them I say, "Fire up your VCRs and see for yourself." Just make sure to interpret the evidence using the same criteria.

Man, I felt like a scientist, and I loved it. I wanted more. What about satanic activity? Yeah, let's see how the rest of the entertainment industry stacked up to the World Wrestling Federation. In beginning my study, I went back to Dr. Ganz's definition of "satanic activity" as being "anything dealing with the occult." I then consulted my Webster's dictionary and looked up "occult," where it was defined as "of or relating to or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena." This certainly left the door open to interpretation, and I decided to interpret very liberally as I opened up to the letter D in Leonard Maltin's 2000 Movie and Video Guide, one of the most thorough review books in its field.

Now, I'd be lying if I said I randomly picked the letter D, because in truth I made that letter my choice for the words "devil," "demon," and "Dracula" that would fall within its domain. D didn't let me down; indeed it brought forth 187 movies that fit the Indiana definition of "anything dealing with the occult." The letter D took up eighty-five pages of Maltin's massive 1,600-page tome. I mean, compared to Leonard, Roger Ebert's book looks like Tuesdays with Morrie. Using my newly honed math skills, I figured that the entire Maltin book could conceivably contain over 3,000 movies that dealt with the occult. All of a sudden our forty-seven instances for an average of .47 examples of satanic references per hour didn't look so bad.

What about violence? Certainly, Dr. Ganz's discovery of 609 instances of wrestlers being struck by garbage cans and other objects seems very violent. Yeah, it does, with "seems" being the key word there. I wasn't able to itemize Dr. Ganz's incidents of violence, so I instead chose to go with my list of 169 (which was multiplied by 2.5 to give a fifty-week total of 422), which can be itemized as follows:

• chairs—48
  
• garbage can or cookie sheet—34
  
• title belt—19
  
• kendo stick—17
  
• mannequin head—11
  
• brass knuckles—7
  
• broomstick—4
  
• table piece—3
  
• stairs—11
  
• timekeeper's bell—4
  
• shovel—2
  
• road sign—2
  
• acoustic guitar—4
  
• coffeemaker—1
  
• pipe—1
  
• sledgehammer—1
  
• turnbuckle—1

As part of my research I went to the video store, where I picked out the PG-rated family favorite Home Alone and took inventory of the violence that transpired therein. The results were impressive:

• 1. shot from one-foot range with pellet gun to testicles
  
• 2. shot from one-foot range from pellet gun to head
  
• 3. four-foot fall from slip on ice to concrete
  
• 4. fall down icy flight of stairs
  
• 5. fall on back of head after slip on ice
  
• 6. steam iron falling fifteen feet onto victim's face
  
• 7. hand on red-hot doorknob
  
• 8. nail in foot, followed by a six-foot fall backward onto concrete
  
• 9. blowtorch sets head on fire for seven seconds
  
• 10. slip on concrete
  
• 11. step with bare feet on glass
  
• 12. two slips on toys and fall backward on concrete
  
• 13. two swinging paint cans, making direct contact with human face
  after fifteen-foot swing
  
• 14. tarantula bite
  
• 15. blow to ribs with crowbar
  
• 16. fifteen-foot swing directly into brick wall
  
• 17. two blows with a snow shovel to the head

While traveling with the World Wrestling Federation, I consulted Dr.
Robert Quarrels, who is a board-certified family practitioner, with an emphasis on sports medicine. I asked Dr. Quarrels to look at the separate lists of violent acts and to offer his expert explanation of the expected consequences of such acts.
First the wrestling:

• 1. chair—possible concussion, laceration, contusion
  
• 2. garbage can or cookie sheet—possible laceration and contusion
  
• 3. title belt—contusion, possible laceration, possible concussion
  
• 4. kendo stick—contusion, possible laceration
  
• 5. mannequin head—too ridiculous to warrant a medical opinion

I think you get the idea. With the exception of the sledgehammer shot,
which was to the knee, and the brass knuckles, which were only used in one match, we're basically talking about cuts, bruises, and possible concussions. Now let's look at the movie.
Home Alone:

• 1. pellet to testicles—penetrate scrotum, severe contusion of testicle, and could disrupt small vessels that conduct seminal fluids. May result in complete dysfunction of testicle.
  
• 2. pellet to head—severe contusion, no probable penetration
  
• 3. four-foot fall from slip on ice—concussion, possible vertebral fractures at various levels, bulging or herniated discs. Subdural hematoma, or other forms of cerebral hemorrhage. Possible broken hip or pelvis.
  
• 4. fall down stairs—concussion, intracranial bleeding, possible lower external fracture, vertebral fracture, hip fracture
  
• 5. fall on head following slip on ice—see #3
  
• 6. iron on face—skull fractures, blow-out fracture of orbit, facial nerve disruption, concussion, intracranial bleeds
  
• 7. hand on red-hot doorknob—severe second-degree burns
  
• 8. nail in foot—puncture wound could disrupt vessels in foot, exposure to tetanus, severe soft-tissue infection
  
• 9. blowtorch—third-degree burns, tissue loses all function
  
• 10. slip on concrete—see #3
  
• 11. bare feet on glass—multiple puncture wounds, risk of tetanus and
  infection
  
• 12. two slips on toys—see #3
  
• 13. swinging paint cans—blow-out fracture of orbit, facial fractures,
  dental fractures, disruption of nasal cartilage, concussion, intracranial bleeding
  
• 14. tarantula bite—possible T-toxin infection, possible neurotoxicity
  
• 15. crowbar to ribs—rib fracture, possible lung puncture and deflation due to broken rib, possible ruptured spleen
  
• 16. swing into wall—multiple fractures
  
• 17. snow shovel to head—concussion, laceration, possible skull fracture

I was so impressed with my Home Alone results that I decided to investigate the sequel, Home Alone 2.1 could feel for the director while I watched this one. In some ways, I'm sure he felt the pressure to top the first one, much as I have felt the pressure to top some of the big matches of my past. Here's how they topped it:

• 1. four bricks to the head, from a height of four stories
  
• 2. staple gun to buttocks
  
• 3. ten-foot fall backward onto concrete
  
• 4. twenty-foot fall face-first onto concrete
  
• 5. sixteen-second electrocution
  
• 6. blowtorch sets hair on fire for seventeen seconds
  
• 7. hundred-pound sandbag drops on head from twenty feet
  
• 8. steel object swinging ten feet into faces of two men, followed by
  simultaneous twenty-five-foot falls onto concrete. Steel object then drops twenty-five feet on top of them.
  
• 9. heavy tool cart goes down flight of stairs and sandwiches men into wall
  
• 10. two simultaneous thirty-foot falls off a rope onto concrete

I then spoke with Dr. Quarrels about the fate of the two victims. Things were not looking too good for them. Let's take a look.

• 1. bricks to head—death, skull fracture, intracranial bleeding
  
• 2. staple gun to buttocks—puncture wounds
  
• 3. ten-foot fall onto concrete—impact fracture where skull caves in,
  various vertebral fractures, herniated discs, soft-tissue injury, lacerations, contusions, organ contusions
  
• 4. twenty-foot face-first fall on concrete—death. High likelihood of multiple skeletal extremity fractures, organ contusions, and possible ruptures, intra-abdominal bleeds, cranial injuries and bleeds
  
• 5. sixteen-second electrocution—cardiac arrest, possible death
  
• 6. blowtorch to head—flames would engulf head, definite third-degree burns, skin meltdown
  
• 7. hundred-pound sandbag—skull fracture, vertebral fracture, intracranial bleeds, paralysis, death
  
• 8. steel object to face followed by twenty-five-foot fall onto concrete —blow-out fractures of orbit, dental fractures, intracranial bleeds
  
• 9. tool cart—possible death, rib fractures, pneumothorax, organ puncture
  
• 10. thirty-foot falls—see #1, followed by contusions, facial fractures, broken bones

Pretty devastating stuff, huh? It kind of makes you wonder why Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, the victims of all this deadly abuse, aren't kicking rear end and taking names in the World Wrestling Federation. After all, they withstood all of that abuse and were still on their feet at each movie's end. For crying out loud, guys, would you sell the moves a little bit? Even Al Snow would have stayed down after a thirty-foot fall.

I know some of these examples are ridiculous. They're meant to be. But are they really any more ridiculous than the misleading interpretations of Dr. Ganz's study? I don't think so.

Unfortunately, there is a major difference between our two studies. Mine was meant to be fun (with the exception of General Hospital, which I really did find shocking), whereas the Indiana University study was accepted as hard facts by a media either too apathetic or too reckless to seek the truth. And in some ways, our (World Wrestling Federation) survival, or at least our prosperity, depends on the public being able to differentiate facts from smears and truths from half-truths. For the truth is out there, and like I told you earlier, it's not as bad as we've been led to believe.

I do feel a little sad for Dr. Ganz. After all, he dedicated a great deal of time and energy to this project, while a much easier alternative was so close at hand. I mean, if the professor had really wanted to study vulgar language, obscene gestures, and inappropriate behavior, he could have simply walked down to Assembly Hall, where Indiana coach Bobby Knight (who was still very much employed by the university at the time of the study) would have put the World Wrestling Federation's collection of middle-finger givers, crotch choppers, "suck-it" sayers, simulated drug users, simulated sex receivers, and garbage-can hitters all to shame.

mannerup posted:

Foley is Good excerpt

mannerup posted:

Animal-Mother posted:

Foley is God.

A Terrible Person posted:

Mick Foley is an absolute legend. Wish there were more people like him.

Seth Pecksniff posted:

Isn't Mick Foley supposed to be like one of the nicest guys in the business?

Literally A Person posted:

I mean, look at any of Hogan's time in WCW and uh, weak, is a pretty good descriptor for what was going on there.

Animal-Mother posted:

That time Hogan buried Foley for no apparent reason and Foley squashed Hogan as politely as he could while getting as mad as I think I've ever seen him be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0a9amZ6ORw

SatansOnion posted:

iirc (and as it happened during my childhood and I am old and high, I may well not rc; so I preemptively defer to anyone else's expertise) the broad arc was that at the start Hogan was Not Hot!, then he finally did the Hollywood thing and was briefly once again pretty big, and then it just wouldn't ever fuckin END. if you were already a Hogan skeptic--and I as a li'l spring Onion/Hart fan/Piper fan/Stinger was absolutely among their number--the entire show became increasingly hard to watch as, Poochie-like, talk of the Hulkster's antics remained constant even in matches he had not a goddamn thing to do with

Seth Pecksniff posted:

Isn't Mick Foley supposed to be like one of the nicest guys in the business?

Seth Pecksniff posted:

Isn't Mick Foley supposed to be like one of the nicest guys in the business?

RoboChrist 9000 posted:

Being one of the nicest people in the pro-wrestling business is damning with faint praise.

Kennel posted:

True in the 90s, but plenty of the current wrestlers seem to be really nice.

MrQwerty posted:

I made my girlfriend watch his santa doc one time and now he's her favorite pro wrestler (ahead of nobody)

A Fancy Hat posted:

Foley rules. I think the only "negative" thing I ever read about him was his planned feud with Moxley that went off the rails.

Back in 2012, Moxley was in NXT as Dean Ambrose and kept having these interactions with Foley at signings and fan events. It was supposed to lead to some kind of match (which probably wouldn't have been very good) but just kind of ended. The reason was Foley told Moxley in front of people "don't talk about my family".

Moxley, being the consummate pro wrestler, assumed this meant he SHOULD talk about his family, then tweeted about it, as was the style at the time. Unfortunately Mox was also in Europe at the time and had no phone reception, so he missed multiple text messages from Foley asking him to please remove the comments. That led Foley to believe Mox was some huge rear end in a top hat, Foley nixed the whole feud, and then when Mox got back to the US his phone blew up with all these messages. I know they smoothed stuff over afterwards but it was a little odd that Foley felt there was a line not to be crossed but let that dangle out there. I think anyone working heel would have jumped on that.

AlmightyBob posted:

didn't mox say the thing that made up his mind about leaving the wwe was Vince trying to make him do promos making fun of roman's cancer?

16-bit Butt-Head posted:

wrestling is messed up because it mixes real life and fiction together in a way where you cant tell if its real or a work and thats why so many wrestlers go insane

Deki posted:

Also all that the head trauma

16-bit Butt-Head posted:

wrestling is messed up because it mixes real life and fiction together in a way where you cant tell if its real or a work and thats why so many wrestlers go insane

Paul Revere 3000 posted:

And heavy drug use

AlmightyBob posted:

to this day I'm not sure if anyone is even 100% on whether the Montreal screwjob was real or if bret hart was in on it because he's kept his mouth shut afaik

Gavok posted:

RIDE THE SNAKE: THE REDEMPTION OF JAKE ROBERTS PART 1

“Well, well. The Million Dollar Man, Ted DiBiase. Here we are at WrestleMania, and it's the biggest match of your career. Why? Because everything you stand for is on the line, mainly, the Million Dollar Belt. Oh yeah, you see it can be yours once again. All you have to do is go through Damien, and me. But you see, Damien and I don't forget, we remember all the times you made people grovel for your money. These were people far less fortunate than you, people who could use your money for essentials, and what did you do? You made fun of them. You humbled them and you humiliated them. Well, now it's my turn. I'm going to make you beg, DiBiase, you are going to get down on your hands and knees. This time, you'll be the one that's humbled. This time, you'll be the one that's humiliated, and this time, you will be the one that grovels for the money. And how appropriate, that the money you grovel for is your very own. A victim of your own greed, wallowing in the muck of avarice.”