Oh yeah, exposing kids to strippers at an early age is great. Now if we could only figure out a way to get 'em hooked on coke and guns that early we'd be on a roll.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be so caustic right off the bat, I just don't think this is the right platform to feature pole dancing on. Is WWE trying to come off like an A-list strip club?

Do you know why WWE would rather show clips of men eating worms and dressing like zombies over, I dunno, some of the great early matches by RVD, Tommy Dreamer, and Sandman? I know they have their whole, "it hurts our feelings when over wrestlers leave, so we're going to make sure we give them as little publicity as possible, even if they do agree to sporadic appearances to help us bring in some disillusioned fans that still like said wrestler," thing going, but I wonder if they realize when they cross that line between saving face and shooting themselves in the foot.

That's it, the end times are upon us. A Chikara wrestler has been hired by one of the two major wrestling companies. I think I'd rather listen to Adamle on commentary, maybe, possibly, tough call.

Wow, and the return of the extreme rules match. Don't they know that they only put that in to appease fans who were already sour on the idea, and that if they didn't go for it then they're not going to go for it now?

I actually didn't think I was going to be so negative when I started writing, but I don't feel all that bad trshing ECW. Vince trashed a promotion I loved, so I get to trash the kind of entertainment he seems to love, fair deal I think.

RESPONSE FROM KEVIN ECK: As far as Kelly Kelly's dance, sure it was suggestive, but I've seen racier things on my wife's afternoon soap operas. ECW does come on between 10 and 11 p.m. (not a family viewing hour) and wrestling is what it is. Sure, WWE markets to kids, but it is the parents' responsibility to deem whether their kids should watch or not. Same thing for parents who bring their kids to the live events.

I kept waiting for the Sandman to come out and smack Adamle in the head with his Singapore cane during that opening promo.

Is that all the qualifications you need to be a wrestler, Kevin? A good physique and the ability to string sentences together?

RESPONSE FROM KEVIN ECK: Those are two ingredients. Some have made it on far less than that.

Some have made it on far less than that?

Ultimate Warrior
Uncle Elmer
Bobby Lashley
The Great Khaki pants
Big Boss Man
Bushwackers
OMG...The list goes on and on!

I can't stand ECW anymore but last night wasn't all that good as if it is anyway. Adamle still stinks. Yeah Kevin I have to agree that Estrada really shocked me with his physique. Thought he was a chunky guy hiding inside his suit. Dreamer/Knox was an ok match but I kinda disagree with the Bubba Rogers statement. I think Bam Neely would be a better Bubba Rogers and he even has that look of a bodyguard. Kelly Kelly, I always look forward to seeing her because she is so pretty but she has no talent at all. her wrestling ability has improved slightly and it actually looks a little like Torrie Wilson type of mat skill.

ANONYMOUS , you are dead on . This is not ECW . Those letters might just as well be ABC or TLC , they don't mean anything anymore . This product is such a far cry from what it once was . When did the real demise happen ? Go figure , when Vince McMahon got involved .
Now Kevin , regarding your response , this time I seriously have to question your somewhat cavalier attitude stating wrestling " is what it is ". The McMahon camp knows kids are going to watch no matter how hard parents may try to stop them . I know my thoughts may be contradicting but the acting out of staged violence in wrestling "is what it is " BUT the sexual inuendo is sometimes over the top and dare I say boring. Believe me I'm no prude , and I'm no angel but I really don't appreciate the sexual themes and content in wrestling today . For that reason alone I find it hard to condone allowing small children to watch . When I was a kid the entire family could sit in the living room and all enjoy a wrestling program without Mom having a heart attack . McMahon has no class and no integrity . I guess that really doesn't matter anymore does it Kevin , as long as we are being constantly reminded of what WWE's "bottom line" is .

RESPONSE FROM KEVIN ECK: I agree the sexuality sometimes does go too far, and I don't condone small kids watching. As a parent, however, I control the TV in my house. Like I said earlier about soap operas, prime time sitcoms at 8 p.m. also have a lot of sexual innuendo. Why should wrestling at 10 p.m. be held to a higher standard? By your logic, no network other than the Disney Channel -- you know, the one with Miley Cyrus, who appears topless on a magazine cover -- or Nickelodeon -- the one with Jamie Lynn Spears, who got pregnant at 16 -- is suitable viewing.

I watched wrestling as a kid, too. You're trying to rewrite history. Before every episode on channel 45 in Baltimore, there was this warning: "Due to the nature of the following program, parental discretion is advised." That was in the 1970s. It wasn't family entertainment. When I went to the matches as a kid, I was exposed to all kinds of foul language from fans -- including derogatory terms for women and homosexuals, which the babyfaces encouraged. Yeah, my mom was real thrilled about that. But Kelly Kelly dancing (there was no nudity) means the world is coming to an end.

And why is bashing someone over the head with a chair OK, but sexual innuendo isn't?

Judging by your comments, I'm really surprised that you watch TNA. Angelina Love and Velvet Sky are nice, shy girls, aren't they? Karen Angle servicing wrestlers in the bathroom is suitable for children, right? And your favorite, Traci Brooks, dresses appropriately for a show kids are watching, doesn't she? Going back to the early days of TNA, how about the tag team of Richard and Rod Johnson, who were dressed to look like giant penises? Or the time when Ed Ferrara fondled Francine's breast?

Your hatred of McMahon and WWE is totally cloudind your judgnment.

And, just in case you were wondering, no, I am not angered by your comment. I just respectfully but completely disagree with you.

It is time to put ECW out of its misery and cancel it. Bring CM Punk over to raw or smackdown, along with Kaine and release the rest of the roster as they are nearly all, either raw or smackdown rejects anyway.

Kev , regarding your two ingredients to be a pro wrestler , I guess YOU might qualify . I could picture you as a Mike Rotundo " Wallstreet " type . Of course you'd wrestle for your dad in WWE . Wrestle your brother HHH for the championship , it'd be a no lose situation . Then you'd eventually inherit the empire . What am I thinking , you already have a slice of it :)

RESPONSE TO KEVIN ECK :
Appearently you have the scoop on the Disney Ch. & Nick , not I .
I watched WDCA ch. 20 .
I guess chair bashing is better than pulling a gun per Steve Austin / Brian Pillman
I watch TNA because WWE s_ _ _ s.
As for my "favorite" Traci Brooks , .. well
I don't recall TNA having a wrestler with a stable of "ho's"
Regarding my hatred of McMahon , that is an understatement - I could possibly tolerate WWE if it were not for him . Remember I was a WWWF fan for many, many years.
And Finally to you Kevin , we agree to disagree , I do respect your opinions and believe it or not , enjoy the chance to air it out . Thanks ! :)

RESPONSE FROM KEVIN ECK: I'm with you on your last point.

I think there's a definite line between innuendo and degridating behavior. I guess taking the, "think of the children," route was a mistep on my part. I agree that censoring what a child sees is the responsibility of the parent, and I'm glad to hear that there are still some parents out there that agree. That being said, I still think it's pretty irresponsible to air material like that knowing full well that a significant portion of your demographic is 13 and under.

I also think that this isn't just about children, it's about the types of messages that are sent to young people in general about masculinity and feminity. Strip poles aside, look at how women are portrayed in WWE. Women who fit traditional standards of beauty are always portrayed as faces, at least during their initial push. Women who don't conform to a standard that is out of most women's reach are typically pushed as heels. If women get reactions in bikini contests, they are turned face and given a push.

And let's start getting into the innuendo. I have to admit that I watch next to no TV outside if wrestling and news, so I'll just argue the idea. There is a difference between innuendo and degrading depictions of women. If there is a depiction of two people in a consensual relationship engaging in provacative acts, it's different than if you have someone dancing on a strip pole. The former sends a message that sexuality can be a good thing when practiced by consenting individuals, the latter sends a less admirable one. First off, the female is the lone participant. This sends a couple messages. One, that because the female is the center of attention her sexuality should be defined as beauty. Two, she is putting on a show for a bunch of men. The men don't have to participate in any way, do not have to be trustworthy, and do not have to abide by any rules of conduct, further reinforcing the idea that males should be distant. Three, it focuses soley on the female body as an object of male attention. Lastly, it reinforces an idea that females are sexual beings, always willing to exhibit their bodies for someone else's pleasure, and always enthusiastic about it. How can you seriously compare dancing on a pole to consensual, yet provacative relationships?

What worries me most about this is imprinting young people with these ideas of sexuality, but an almost equal worry is that it reinforces these ideals among children and adults alike that can't see what's wrong with them. There's no rule that says that once you hit a certain age you suddenly understand these issues, and if you can't see the fault in these ideals you are more likely to spread these ideals to other people. This isn't just a matter of responisble people and irresponsible, it's a matter of only being presented with certain depictions of what masculinity and feminity represent.

I'm not going to come on here and defend all sexual depictions EXCEPT the ones presented in WWE. I'm not saying that sexuality itself is to be hidden, I'm saying that certain depictions of it are, simply, crass. When TNA has it's wrestlers dancing on a pole then I will criticise TNA. The fact is, I have not seen the same type of degrading depictions of women in TNA as I have in WWE. I did dislike Jim Cornette's recent outburst at the division, calling them brats, that is until they started depicting him as a heel. But other than that, it TNA has portrayed their wrestlers as athletically gifted, and has refrained from segments that include women crawling around on the floor like dogs, women strip dancing, more "attractive" women getting more attention, and some of the other depictions in WWE I'm not too fond of. Frankly, taking children out of the equation for a second, full frontals wouldn't bother me, as long as there was a purpose for it and it was done in a tasteful manner.

As for sexuality vs. viloence, we could debate that all day. I don't know that I have a concrete stance on it. As for a chair shot vs. a strip tease, though, I'll go with the chair shot. Most of the time, chair shots are done by heels. All of the time, they are either not condoned by the rules or allowed as a stipulation to end an extremely bitter fued. Either way, it's treated as something serious and, most of the time, underhanded. The strip tease, on the other hand, is presented as something that should be encouraged.

I agree with Jack to a certain extent. Granted, I didn't (ok don't) watch ECW (since this is hardly "ECW") so I can't comment on Kelly's dance. While I do agree that it's ultimately the job of the parent to censor what their children watch, it's disingenous on the part of the WWE to actively market to children (WWE Kids Magazine anyone?) then act as though it has no responsibility in the matter.

As far as ECW goes, it's obvious the company doesn't care about it whatsoever. The tag team champs get beat cleanly in 4 minutes by one and a half men. HHH takes out the entire "roster" at will. CM Punk winning money in the back only to be squashed by Chuck Palumbo. You can go back to the beginning, when the Originals vs New Breed feud should have carried the company for months, and little creative effort was put into it. There isn't enough talent in the company to support 2 brand extensions, nevertheless three. If WWE truly wants to get on track, it should put ECW out of its (and ours) misery and end the brand extensions completely.

"I know my thoughts may be contradicting but the acting out of staged violence in wrestling 'is what it is'"

I'm not quite sure if I understand this argument. The violence may be staged, but does that actually make it less violent? I don't think so. The violence in movies such as Kill Bill and the Saw series is essentially staged, but I don't think any responsible adult would support these films being shown to children. Violence in wrestling tends to be pretty gruesome when you think about it. Chair shots are pretty common, and (even if staged/protected) the goal is for them to appear as if they were inflicting massive head trauma. Uma Thurman wasn't actually hacking apart a bunch of Asians in Kill Bill.
Versus sex, the violence in wrestling is just as mature a theme.

As for "first poster":
Your comments about these degrading depictions of women are slightly amiss. How is a strip tease any less consensual than other depictions of sexuality. The "stripper" in this case isn't being coerced, it's what she signed up for. It's not like WWE said "Hey, we want you to wrestle for us... oh, and by the way, if you don't do stripteases and pose in bikinis you're fired." It was probably the exact opposite: "We'll pay you to be eye candy, but you'll have to wrestle a little." She knew/wanted this going in--it's the job she applied for. Any notion that this isn't a consensual act is just as chauvinist as treating her as a sex object-- it's basically saying that she's somehow unable to decide these things for herself.

WWE has no moral responsibility; why should they? They are an entertainment business, nothing more. If sexuality/innuendo makes money, and there are people willing (NOT coerced) to be their sexual figureheads, why not make money? Sure, they market to kids, but it is the parents' responsibility to instill the real, moral values. Wrestling is, in fact, what it is--entertainment--and not some self-help program for children.

I know i'm super late to this battle but I just wanted to say a couple of things:
1: There was no stripper pole.
2: Kids have died from recreating the moves seen in wrestling. Nothing bad comes from being attracted to the opposite sex, except overpopulation. TNA has some of the most dangerous moves ever, just go to youtube and look up "failed canadian destroyer".

Pretty silly to debate what's good taste when it comes to pro wrestling. I agree with Kevin: it is what it is and it's never been about manners or good taste. It is about watching others operate outside of the realm of culture and civil behavior that governs the rest. That is what makes it interesting: it's a spectacle. If you watch it regularly, you will be offended at some point. That is what it is all about and that is what makes it unique and interesting.

I call a spade a spade. I make sure my children understand what it is if they watch. I do not glorify the actions of the performers, just observe them for what they are.

One saving grace of Vince Mcmahon in my mind is that he determined it in the best interest of all to define pro wrestling as sports entertainment rather than continue with the previously implied perception that it was in fact a competitive sport. That was his one brilliant move, in my mind, stating that the farce is a farce and not pretending it was something else. Now that it is a known farce, anything is fair game as long as the censors permit it. It is a farce, not a representation of what reality is or should be. I find network sitcoms and even most curent Disney channel show to be less disingenuous. Most shows, even those starring 12 and 13 year olds, are about sex and dating all under the false umbrella of "family programming". This is disingenuous. At least pro wrestling is what it is....take it or leave it.

By the way, many clergy and truly religious people are wrestling fans despite the fact that the shows reflect little of their values. They see it for what it is: an entertaining depiction of the darker side that exists in all of us.

RE: my previous comments . I didn't intend to cause a ruckus . I hate to come across as too negative and souding bitter . Believe me I'm a wrestling fan in general whatever company it is and have been for 35 yrs . I guess we sometimes over analyze things that really don't need to be put under the microscope . If that sounds like I'm backing down , so be it . It's wrestling it's not human rights . It's entertainment . Lets keep it that way . By the way I've started reciting a daily mantra for Kev - "I like WWE, I like Vince McMahon, I like WWE , I like Vince McMa........

Being Canadian is disadvantageous when one wants to comment on a blog about ECW (please, hold your punchlines).

Anyway, Kevin, I initially thought that you were exaggerating about Lena's poor delivery. You weren't. Her one line was a cliche, no less, and she still muffed it - badly. She reminded me of a girl in my theatre class who couldn't remeber her lines in a skit.

Was it my imagination, or Adamle call himself "Mike Atlee"? I know that has botched some names, but I didn't expect him to botch his own. I'll attribute it to pressure.

Being a referee is not the fast track to glory, but who needs glory when you get to restrain Kelly Kelly?

I was mildly dissapointed in Colin's big win. I thought that the match could have benefitted from more time, more near falls, a more dramatic finish, and more emotion from both men, but Estrada calling Colin a stupid punk and declaring himself the boss was stuff that only a talker of his caliber could make compelling