Cross Face Chicken Wing

Whenever I go through my annual "I'm going to try and get back into WWE" phase around Wrestlemania, Randy Orton is always one of the wrestlers who eventually forces me to throw in the towel and give up hope. Why is he always at or near the top of the card? He never gets any type of pop or heat. He never has a good match. His promos are awful. His mannerisms are unintentionally comical. Nobody says, "We gotta buy tickets for the WWE show, Randy Orton is wrestling!" And nobody outside of regular WWE fans has any idea who he is. Why does Randy Orton remain near the top of the card when it appears that nobody gives a shit about him? Or do I just happen to tune in during the two months out of the year where Orton is in a slump and people actually do give a shit about him the other 10 months? I'm not one to bitch and moan whenever someone I don't care for remains in a top slot. I get how the business works. But no matter how I look at it, I can't come up with any logical reason why Randy Orton is treated like a star.

The last thing any up and coming wrestler should want to do is join up with goddam Randy Orton. Hopefully they bring crazy old man Flair back to try and salvage this mess.

What about publically building the expectations of how the Network is going to do on a study that said there are 100 Mio. (or whatever it was) wrestling fans in the US? There's a difference between fraud and being full of shit. I don't think Vince & Co. were full of shit. They were delusional. They were full of shit.

What about publically building the expectations of how the Network is going to do on a study that said there are 100 Mio. (or whatever it was) wrestling fans in the US? There's a difference between fraud and being full of shit.

The WWE does suck right now, but setting that aside for a moment, let's have an apples to oranges discussion because I'm curious about the responses: I DVR Raw and watch maybe 15-20 percent of the show. How does this percentage compare to other things I watch on TV? Football: I plan my life around Packers games and watch as much NFL as possible. It's probably fair to say I watch 90-95 percent of NFL games that are realistic for me to watch (i.e. I can't watch five games at once, but I do often go back and watch non-Packers games I missed or re-watch Packers games because I'm a nerd and think I can do film study). Baseball: When the Twins were a good team, I watched probably two-thirds of their games. Now that they suck, and baseball is intentionally trying to drive away fans with its pace of play issues, I maybe watch 10-15 percent of Twins' games. Basketball: When the Timberwolves were half-assed contenders, I'd watch maybe 40 percent of their games. Now that's down to like 15 percent. I used to watch about 75 percent of the NBA playoffs, but that's dipped to around 50 percent the last two years (probably because I have a kid). Hockey: I'm not a huge hockey fan, but I did watch every Wild playoff game this season. What's my point? When it comes to legit sports, if the "content" is good, i.e. my favorite teams are winning and playing well, I watch a helluva lot more than if they aren't. The exception is the NFL, which I am (unhealthily) addicted to. So, is it really that bad if someone only watches 15-20 percent of Raw every week, then bitches about how awful the rest of it is? I only watch 15 percent of the Twins' games at most, and I also spend a whole lot of time bitching about how terrible they are. I'm still engaged in the product, not as much as someone who watches every inning, but I'm still engaged. That means something. Right?

I actually think if they wanted to find a formula that might have a snowball's chance in hell of appealing to a more wealthy demographic they should do the exact opposite. Turn up the misogyny, run with racism, go batshit with homophobia, transphobia, et....but make it all part of a transparently fake "evil" that to be overcome by a complex, but interesting, "babyface." Of course the key here is that you can only do this with much better writing, you would likely alienate a lot of current fans, and it very well could backfire. But making wrestling a live action Breaking Bad, or something that hipsters could feel comfortable fetishizing to the same degree is the only way I could see a wealthier demographic pulled in. Which is another way to say I think it's impossible. Yeah, making wrestling more politically correct would likely hurt its standing with more affluent folks than help it. I don't know education/income levels of the folks around this board, but I think we're far from a bunch of homophobe racists who advocate misogyny. That said, most of us seem to grin a little bit and find some guilty charm in many of the racist/homophobic/misogyny promos and angles of years past. A lot of that sentiment is probably nostalgia, but still.....

No college educated, upper class folks are going to start watching wrestling if they weren't fans as kids or in college. Keep building up the younger fan base and hope they stick w/ wrestling after they get money, or come back to the product after they get money and something -- a hot angle, breakout star, whatever -- draws them back in.

It happens every year: I tune in for the Mania build and kinda/sorta get sucked back in. Then a week or two after Mania, the product goes back to being mediocre at best. I thought this year might have been different because of the Daniel Bryan push and Mania actually being good, but it didn't take long for things to turn to shit again as usual. How in the hell does WWE expect to retain fans like me with guys like Kane, HHH, Orton and Batista at the top of the card? Nobody gives two shits about any of those guys. HHH is an effective heel in the right situation, but that's about it. If played right, this Bryan injury could actually turn out being good in the long run since it (hopefully) ends the momentum-killing program w/ Kane.

Corino needs to do an entire episode providing commentary on his Out of the Park Baseball dynasty.

Ross's podcast could be so good if he'd just STFU and let his guests answer the few questions he actually asks them. I had given up on Ross's pod, but needed something to listen to while raking the yard this weekend so I downloaded the DDP episode. I don't know why DDP just didn't hang up the phone. It felt like a "conversation" I would've had with my angry great uncle when I was 13. Yeah, my uncle would let me talk every now and then, but most of the "conversation" was littered with him lecturing me about his random opinions and not giving much of a damn what I had to say.

Are pro wrestlers dying at an unusual rate? http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/are-pro-wrestlers-dying-at-an-unusual-rate/ So far I haven't been all that impressed with Nate Silver's new FiveThirtyEight site under the ESPN umbrella. Too many mundane topics covered under the guise of "data journalism" to try and make them sound more interesting and the author smarter than he or she actually is. I suppose this piece about wrestler's dying falls into the mundane category for a lot of people. But since I love wrestling, it interests me. Publish enough of these "mundane" pieces that attract various niche audiences and you must end up with a high-traffic site. Anyway, what drives me nuts about this new wave of "data journalists" is the ending to this wrestler piece. The author explained how most of the wrestlers from WM6 are dead. He did some research on the rate of wrestler deaths vs. everyone else and the numbers aren't good. Then......nothing. So now Average Joe reader has this chunk of data that he's supposed to do what with? A good data journalist (like Silver himself) would supply more context and a more complete story, or at least offer a little more insight into why wrestlers die early and if the trend might continue in the future.

Never underestimate the stupidity of your fellow man. I guarantee there are a large number of wrestling fans who see all the commercials for WWE Network and still have no clue what it is. "Derp, derp. Why would I subscribe to that new website? Derp, derp." Fan education will remain a priority for WWE for the foreseeable future.

I'm only 20 minutes into the Heyman interview but it's fucking great. Austin already held the title belt for best wrestling podcast, but this should solidify his top spot for a long, long time. He's asking some great questions, following up if it's appropriate, and shutting his mouth and letting Heyman go when he's on a roll.

Anybody have any idea how much these guys are making off their podcasts?

Ross is talking more than his guests lately, which means it's about time to remove his podcast from my feed. Did I understand Jake correctly when he said that he's got a 600-page book coming out in 6 weeks and it doesn't even touch on his WWE run? And that the WWE portion of his career and his addiction issues will be covered in two future books? There's no way it can be coming out in six weeks, but as long as he's got a good ghost writer, I'd buy a mega Jake Roberts biography.

Yeah, I'm close to deleting Ross's podcast from my feed. The first couple episodes were good because he would ask follow-up questions here and there, but now he talks more than the guest and it's always the same grouchy, get off my lawn stuff that doesn't provide any insight whatsoever.

The 14-year-old version of me is laughing Beavis & Butthead style at those five words.

Undertaker should stay in character tonight, blame the loss on the fact that Paul Bearer is dead and can no longer hold up the urn to re-charge Taker's super powers, and wrestle another 10 years as a chickenshit heel who needs to cheat to compensate for the loss of his urn powers.

So the Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak is over. Now what should they do with him? Taker looked really old and beaten down last night. I understand he suffered a concussion during the match, so that could've been part of it, but he looked REALLY bad. The whole match I kept telling myself, "It's wrestling. When Taker ends up getting the pin over this legit monster/NCAA champion/MMA champion, just keep telling yourself, 'It's wrestling' and go with it." Then Brock pinned him and a bad match turned into a legit Holy shit! moment. WWE tried like hell to force a standing ovation from the audience, but people weren't buying it. Also, Undertaker seemed like a drunk old man trying to get up, remain standing, and leave the ring. I wonder if that was due to the concussion or the booking? I think Undertaker should just retire. He looked done last night and the streak is over. What's left for him to do? Induct him into the hall of fame next year, but instead of inducting him at the Saturday night ceremony, do it during Mania so he can still do the entrance.

What a great show. It had a bit of everything -- unpredictability, good ring work, cluster fuck booking that actually worked, two legit memorable WM moments. I was looking forward to the show going in, was prepared to be let down, and the letdown never came. I did have a few streaming issues at the end of the main event, but not too bad....

A Yeti isn't really an animal, but there is a whole generation of children who grew up thinking all Yeti's will awkwardly start humping you if you come across one in the wild.

ANYTHING THAT AIRS ON THE NETWORK WILL BE AVAILABLE ON DEMAND ON THE NETWORK AS SOON AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. This question has been asked and answered everywhere for weeks. So, what you're saying is, I can watch Wrestlemania immediately after it airs live? This is far from a given IMO. The NXT PPV was not available on-demand until the next day. Yes, there was a replay shown on the "Schedule" an hour or two later, but you had to watch that "live" as it "aired" - there was no way to fast-forward or rewind it. Bix's answer is still technically correct. I'm sure it will be up as soon as humanly possible. But when that human is Vince McMahon, you never know when that might be.

ANYTHING THAT AIRS ON THE NETWORK WILL BE AVAILABLE ON DEMAND ON THE NETWORK AS SOON AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. This question has been asked and answered everywhere for weeks. So, what you're saying is, I can watch Wrestlemania immediately after it airs live? More or less, yes. How long has it taken for past live shows to show up? That long. I'm just messing with ya. YOUR ANSWER IN ALL CAPS AND THE SIGH OF DISDAIN THAT FOLLOWED CALLED FOR AN UNNECESSARY FOLLOW UP JUST BECAUSE.

ANYTHING THAT AIRS ON THE NETWORK WILL BE AVAILABLE ON DEMAND ON THE NETWORK AS SOON AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. This question has been asked and answered everywhere for weeks. So, what you're saying is, I can watch Wrestlemania immediately after it airs live?

Does anybody know if Wrestlemania will be available on the Network immediately after it concludes on Sunday? Or will they show it live, then pull it off to boost DVD sales? Also, anyone know if we are able to watch from the beginning if we tune in late?