1. Please try your best to check to see that your question(s) have not been answered on any other sections of the page, including past mailbags (archives below).

2. Send a legibly written question or comment to mailbag@rajah.com. Please try to keep it short (one question per person per edition).

3. ALL email sent to the address above may potentially be included in the Mailbag. If you do not want your question publically posted for everyone to see, this section is not for you.

4. If a name is included, we will post it along with the email. If you do not want your name published, do indicate this in your email.

5. Remember, it is impossible that every email we receive get posted in the mailbag. Only the best and most popular questions/comments will likely make it on.

6. Also remember, that questions will be answered by either MTR, Aree, Rajah or Pete so any personal remarks should be addressed accordingly. The following color scheme will be used:

7. If you have any additions or corrections to the answers we provide, please send that it in and we will probably issue a clarification in the next edition.

Rajah - GREEN
Pete - YELLOW
MTR - PURPLE
Aree Jones - PINK

From: James Light
Hey guys. Thanks for bringing the Mailbag back. For more recent fans like myself, I always felt that it helped give a deep insight to the wrestling days that I had never seen. Moving on to the question at hand, which do you think is "better programming" for the WWE: Storylines that are completely fictional (DDP stalking Sara, HBK injured after Summerslam 2002), or storylines based more in the reality of the business (The buying of WCW, Austin walking out)? I mean, I know the craze for reality TV is sickeningly large, but I can't help but long for the days of a Darkside Undertaker or even Doink. But then again, using real life in the programming helps give the show a more realistic feel. But then AGAIN, maybe a mix of fiction and truth really is the answer. But then again- well, you get the point. I'm torn in my own opinion, but I'm curious to know yours.

I think the answer lies in a mixture of all three - make believe, real and a combination of the two. I like storylines that have threads of reality woven within them. I like it when the WWE take real events within their company and turn them into on line story arcs. It gives a desperately needed feeling of reality and "non-fakeness" to the product. However, like yourself, I also love the completely dramatised storylines like the old Undertaker and his urn, and Kane with his old comic book character style and the sheer flamboyance that is Goldust. I think for a while there the WWE went too much in the reality-only direction. It was fine for a while, but when every storyline in your company is built on the fact that two men just don't like each other (even though they were best friends and tag team partners last week) it gets boring.

From: Matt
what is an inferno match? I have been wondering what it is for a long time.

Inferno - "a place of fiery heat or destruction", also defined as "hell" or "a scene of horror". Weird, I didn't know that inferno meant a "scene of horror". Basically an inferno match is when the apron of the ring is set on fire, with the two wrestlers inside. Visually, it's a very interesting match and quite different from the norm. You win the match by setting fire to your opponent. There was an inferno match at Unforgiven in 1998 between the Undertaker and his little brother Kane. As you can imagine, it's a pretty intense match with a lot of safety concerns. The biggest issue with this match is that in order to be set on fire you have to be clothed. In Kane's case, he was still wearing the full body "burn suit" at that time, so he could be more or less safely set on fire.

From: Jamie Higgins
I recently purchased some cut price Videos and DVDs (thanks to your site) of some older WWF PPVs. I have finished watching Royal Rumble 1995 and during the Undertaker v IRS match a couple of mystery druids got involved on the side of IRS. There was some speculation as to their identities and I just wondered if they were ever unmasked? And as a footnote Vince really sucked as a commentator. First time I have heard him and he was awful.

I recently watched the 1995 Royal Rumble myself and wondered the same thing. I think one of them was Bam Bam Bigelow, but I'm not sure. Maybe someone else knows?
As for Vince's commentating, I really enjoyed it. Vince has a great voice for a commentator and an incredibly believable fake laugh. It would be very hard for Vince to go back to commentating because everyone now knows him as the evil Vince McMahon - WWE Owner and Corporate Scumbag. Back then he bent over backwards to the point of ridiculousness to act like he didn't own the company. It was a different time, and a different fan base and we were more easily impressed...
[cue The Wonder Years music]

From: Raynger27
Hey Aree/Raj/MTR/Pete, My question is about the gimmicks involved in wrestling today. It seems more and more that wrestlers are being introduced under their real names (John Cena, Dave Batista, Randy Orton), rather than characters or gimmicks (Prototype, Leviathan, Undertaker, Doink, etc). I know they want wrestling to be more "realistic", but it seems some characters can be hits with the fans, such as Kane, Edge, Hurricane. Other than characters that are already known for their accomplishments outside wrestling, such as Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar, why do you think the wrestling business has moved towards this path?

It was part of the WWF's drive to become more "real". They don't create "characters" or "gimmicks" anymore (Hurricane excepted). These days it seems the WWE have two types of characters - good guy face and crazy bad guy. I mean really...do you know how many "crazy" people the WWE have on their roster right now? Every other week it seems like someone else snaps and joins the crazy and stupid pile. Kane's "character" is pretty much gone now. About the only part of the old Kane left is the fact that he's the Undertaker's brother. Edge isn't really a gimmick, and he never was.

From: Bfoster
i have two questions. which wrestler do u think would most benefit from an alliance which a female? who are ur top ten favorite male-female duos?

In my opinion, Chyna and Triple H were the coolest male female duo in wrestling history because Chyna's character was able to be much more than the usual T & A. Randy Savage and Miss Elizabeth deserve a mention as they were the first memorable "couple" in WWF history. Jeff Jarrett and Debra weren't too bad. Scott Steiner and his "Freaks"...well, okay, not really but I can't think of any more. I certainly can't think of any male female duos in the past couple of years that have made a big impact on me. However, Test and Stacey Kiebler have some possibilities. As for who would benefit most from an alliance with a woman, I guess it has to be the guys at the lower end of the mid card range. They need something or someone to attract a little attention to them. Of course they won't be successful simply because they have a woman "partner", but it might make the fans sit up and take notice, which will hopefully lead to the appreciation of the wrestler's in ring talent.

From: djdude
hey guys, luv the site, one question. Did Jerry Lawler wrestle a lot way back, if so, when and was he any good.

He certainly did. Jerry Lawler is a wrestling legend in his home town of Memphis. Actually, he is known as "The King of Memphis" and even ran for Governor one year (he lost). He wrestled in the WWE for a number of years, but in the latter part of his career he was better known for cheating in his matches than for wrestling in them.

From: Sam Ferry
Hey, great mailbag last week, At No Mercy Kane and Taker were at the beginning of the program and got the biggest cheer of the night. Do you think of the both of them and is there a trade in the future maybe ?

Shudder. Don't even mention the possibility of yet ANOTHER Kane vs Undertaker feud. It was a great idea and it has been an excellent feud, but it has been done at least 5 times. I think Kane is a solid worker, but he has the same problem that Booker T, Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit have - the WWE's unofficial "glass ceiling". They hit a certain point and just can't elevate to true main event status. Undertaker is main event, but his injuries prevent him from really performing in the ring. If you watch a tape of 'Taker in 1991, you'd be amazed at how quickly he moves and how much better a wrestler he is. Same with the Steve Austin of 1996 - a completely different performer. I can't see a trade to get the Kane and Undertaker together any time soon, but never say never.

From: Jvglion
what up to all of you...thanks for posting my questions in the past...RAW needs Shane O' Mac, do u agree? I think he'll bring back some kind of civility, elevate stars like Jericho, Booker and RVD, who have been itchin' to get their chance or even their chance back...and even though JR hints at a possible main event run for these cats, i see them losing to the likes of HHH or Shawn Micheals, even Kevin Nash (when he gets back). I think at least a return of Shane would freshen things up....if HHH seeks to re-create the "4 Hoursemen", it'd be interesting if there was an opposing face stable against them, like when Steamboat, Runnels, Wyndham, and Sting, took on the 4 hoursemen of old (WCW days of course)...that was a great fued....

I don't think that just putting Shane McMahon back on TV is going to freshen up the WWE product. Changes need to be made on a lot of levels before the WWE can rebound in the ratings and in the eyes of the fans. The 4 Horseman was an awesome angle in its time, but I think it should remain in the past. It's already been resurrected a couple of times and the WWE need fresh stuff now, not angles that have been played out multiple times.

From: Kyle Bogart
I heard that RVD actually got his name because he was a stunt double for John Claude Van Dam. This would also explain his wrestling style...is there any truth to this rumor????

None whatsoever. The reason he uses the last name "Van Dam" is because he bears more than a passing resemblance to the actor (and I use the term "actor" loosely) Jean Claude Van Damme and as you point out, he has a martial arts based wrestling style. His real name is Rob, so that's where the Rob comes from.

From: Teresa
I have two questions: 1. Do you think Torrie Wilson will ever win the WWE womens title? 2. Do you think the roster split will ever end? If so when do you think this will happen? 3. If Raw debuted in 1993 and the WWF was doing pay per views since the 1980's, then how did people know of all of the feuds and storylines that were going on? Thanks.

1. Torrie Wilson is on the wrong show right now, but it could happen one day. 2. The WWE are high on the roster split angle and they've invested a lot in it, so I can't see it ending anytime soon. A lot depends on how the split goes in the long term. It's impossible to predict when and if the roster split will end. 3. Before Raw, there were other shows like Saturday Night's Main Event and WWF Superstars. Also, the WWF only had 5 PPV's a year, so build up could happen over a longer period of time and they didn't need 8 + hours of wrestling a week to build and blow out feuds on PPV every month.

Send ALL Mailbag-related email to mailbag@rajah.com.

The rajah.com Mailbag Archives

FastCounter by LinkExchange