Jingus

The difference is, Triple H is the one doing it now. If Dusty were still pushing himself, I'm sure that people would still be bitching about him. The one that confounds me is Nash. I'm still amazed that he actually main-evented multiple PPVs in the year 2007 with his grey hair and crippled knees.

When you say "people", do you mean society at large, or just wrestling fans? Because I couldn't begin to count the number of movies, tv shows, and books which have had some badass chick kick men's asses. Even if you're just talking about wrestling, which does tend to live within a time capsule set back at least a decade, the success of Chyna's push would seem to indicate that fans wouldn't exactly riot if a female is presented as a threat. I've seen plenty of bitching on message boards from older fans about how she killed the Intercontinental title and such, but the live crowd and tv viewers seemed to eat it up.

Vince McMahon would play John Huston, the nose-cutter, and the trigger-happy cop at the end.

Lance sure does seem to do a lot of fantasy booking in his commentaries. Personally, I've never minded intergender matches, and wished there were more of them. The problem is, aside from rare exceptions like Chyna, pretty much any time we get mixed-gender violence in wrestling, it either tends to be "big strong man beating the shit out of a defenseless woman" abuse, or "comedy worker getting suplexed by a chick because it'll get a pop" nonsense which clearly isn't supposed to be taken seriously. There's still a really strong sexist double-standard in wrestling, and plenty of the guys tend to have the belief that no woman should ever, ever be portrayed as a physical threat to a man in any way. Which is of course horseshit, especially when you look at someone like Kong, who at over six feet tall and three hundred pounds is bigger than most of the guys in TNA. But I think you could believably book just about any male-female match, as long as the wrestlers were professional about it and didn't act like insecure he-men. If teeny-tiny guys like Rey Misterio Jr, Amazing Red, or Spike Dudley can be booked to win matches over much larger opponents, I've never understood why it's so unthinkable to have a female of the same size do the same thing.

Jericho did to an extent, but not nearly on the level of auto-fellatio found in stuff like DDP or Dusty's books. He also talked about bad matches he had, even to the point of making a running joke out of the Jericho Curse where in every promotion he ever went to, he always somehow had a terrible match on his first night there.

No, it was an indy show called CCW that ran weekly in the old Evansville Coliseum, this would've been four or five years ago. They did use a lot of IWA-MS guys, Chris Hero was there a lot. The promoter died in a motorcycle wreck a couple years back, I heard the shows kept going, but don't know if they're still around.

"Few hundred"? I once saw him, Madman Pondo, and Corporal Robinson literally rip the canvas and padding off the ring, proceed to break a few light bulbs over each other, and then bump on the glass-covered bare wooden boards. This was in front of seventy paid fans, max, on a show which didn't videotape the matches. EDIT: and oh yeah, another wrestling trainee died about a week ago near Mepmhis, TN. The exact cause of death is unknown, during training he complained of being "tired"; he sat down, and apparently passed out. He was taken to the hospital, remained comatose for a few days, and then died. Details are kinda sketchy, and it seems like the bigger wrestling media hasn't noticed the story yet. Some details are here and here.

Heh. I was caught totally off-guard by seeing Takeshi Kitano of all people involved in a big angle. I'm a fan of his gangster movies, and I know he was a comedian and all-around celebrity aside from those, but I didn't know he was ever involved with wrestling.

I don't think those are really equitable with arguing about wrestling, though. Those examples rely on the observer to have knowledge of information which the other person doesn't have. That can work in the context of arguing with someone who says "Triple H is the greatest wrestler of all time" and has never seen a match from Japan, which thus attenuates his range of "greatest wrestlers" to choose from. But for two people who've seen the same thing and came away with different reactions, like two people who watched the same match and one liked it but the other hated it, it's not the same thing. This is where your argument completely lost me. You can factually prove that White Castle is inferior to other fast food? The fuck? That's like saying that ketchup is inherently an objectively better condiment than mustard, or something. There's no objective argument whatsoever there, it's just that you personally don't like White Castle's over-salted onion-saturated stomach bombs. I'm sure there is indeed someone out there who thinks that Sid > HBK and that Part 3 was the best Godfather flick. But I don't see how you can factually, objectively, definitely prove them wrong. After all, "proof" is defined as being incontrovertable fact, something like an algebraic equation where all different people can run the permutations over and over again and yet still come up with identical answers. That only works in math and science. I don't see how it's possible in something like arguing over performance art. The closest we can get is general consensus among a certain group of people. Sure, Meltzer's opinion on a match means more than some little kid's does, to us. Others would just stare at him funny and say "What do you mean Ric Flair is the best rassler? Hulk Hogan would kick his ass!" Would we dismiss that person's opinion as stupid and wrong? Of course, because it's so different from ours. But the very nature of the word "proof" implies that you could show it to absolutely anyone and get the exact same reaction every time. You can prove that one plus one equals two. I don't see how you can prove that Danielson isn't entertaining enough to warrant that spot on smkelly's list. If you can actually do it, I'd love to see it; not being a smartass either, I'd truthfully love to see how you can prove anything regarding whether someone's opinions on these matters are right or wrong.

It's fairly predictable if you look at it a certain way. Specifically: "How Would Scott Keith Vote?" A pretty standard list from semi-casual smarks who've spent most of their lives watching the WWF.

Flair's the winner with 16 matches, more than twice as many as anyone else. Maeda, Tenryu, Fujinami, Takada, and Steamboat all tie for 2nd place with 7. Sayama, Nagoyo, and Asuka round out the top list with 6 each. Oddly enough, "best worker in the world" Jumbo is only listed five times, the same number as "Evil in Japan" Inoki.

So you literally think that, aside from Savage/Steamboat, that there wasn't a single match from the WWF after 1984 which deserved to make a best-of list? Whoa. That's some pretty intense hatred.

It's an illuminating look back at what the smark consensus used to be like, with all the contemporary biases. Heavy on southern US, Japan, and Flair; light on most everything else, especially Hulkamania-era WWF. Some lip service is paid to joshi, but not much. As mentioned, there's a decided lack of anything from Mexico, Europe, or other parts of the world. When you crunch a few numbers, some weird discrepencies come up. Like, the Midnight Express is on here only three times: once against the Rock & Roll, but twice against the Fantastics? Many big feuds having one encounter listed with a description like "they had many great matches, this was just one of them", but all three high-profile Flair/Steamboat matches being listed seperately in the top 20? And I personally consider Flair/Steamboat to be my favorite match of all time, it just seems excessive to recognize all the individual encounters in their separate entries. It makes me wonder if it was a case of the fanbase still being wowed by those recent matches, since this list was compiled in 1989. I know it's pretty widely believed that the WWF workrate sucked cold shit in comparison to many of the other territories, but still, only listing a grand total of 3 matches from after 1984 just seems like contrariness. Especially the weird choices for said matches: Savage/Steamboat is a given, but Savage/Dibiase and Brainbusters/Rockers? Good matches, yeah, but it just seems odd to claim that they were better than every single other match the WWF ever put out during that timeframe. Also odd on a list that includes many guys who aren't exactly Greatest Wrestler Ever material, from Jim Duggan to very young Shane Douglas to Inoki to even freakin' Koko Ware, that the name of "Hogan" seems to be banned from the building. Maybe they were just pissed off that casual fans would pay in hordes to watch a product which they thought was second-rate? EDIT: come to think of it, there's a notable lack of Dusty on here too. 1989's answer to HHHate? EDIT 2: no Bret Hart either. No Jake Roberts. No Bob Backlund. No AJPW next generation guys aside from Tiger Mask II. Lots of top guys AWOL.

I think I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating here. I've been the ring announcer for at least a couple dozen Tracey Smothers matches, have worked with him in at least three different indy feds. And every single time I've ever talked to him, he never once remembers that he's ever seen me before in his entire life. Every time it's been, "Nice to meet you, man". What's he had, something like, 30 concussions?

Heh. Good shit. IIRC, they even had a mini-feud with the R&R Express. I think there's a little bit of footage on Youtube, but it's nothing special, mostly the usual Memphis TV taping stuff with endless promos, run-ins, beatdowns, and ultra-short matches. Please tell me there's footage somewhere of those. (Then again, it's hard to find much with the JBA themselves without going to one of the bigger tape traders and then paying a bunch.)

I think you might have something there, Loss. Of all the local guys I knew, the one who had to retire youngest because he racked up the most injuries in the least time didn't do any particularly dangerous stuff, aside from the rare headdrop or floor bump. He just took really snappy back bumps, fast and hard. Well, that's not counting the deathmatch psychos who liked to fall on sharp stuff. And one of my best friends who had one of those Shit Happens eye injuries from just standard work. And the one guy who shot himself and my one close friend who OD'd, but technically those aren't quite the same thing. ...geez, I only worked on relatively small shows for five years, and even I've personally known enough dead guys that I'd need both hands to count them, and enough early retirees to measure it in dozens.

And it should be noted, that second fall was accidental and shouldn't have occurred in that fashion.I never for a moment have believed that the second fall was accidental, anymore than what happened with Rock and the Chairshots went any different from planned. Just Foley bullshitting people. Foley was suppose to go through the cage. Pretty clear from how they set up the chokeslam. The "shouldn't have occured in that fashion" more accurately could be described as "Foley stupidly thought he could control the bump through the cage more effectively". He was just a dumbfuck in thinking that. John That's what I mean to say. Of course the through the cage spot was set up. It just occurred far more violently than the participants anticipated.I can't remember where I read this, but I recall an explanation saying that the theory was that the gimmicked cage roof wasn't supposed to just snap open like that, it was supposed to be a more gradual breakage and Foley would've sort of rolled down it diagonally and into the ring. Not sure if that's necessarily the true version, but it makes sense. I don't think even Mick is so dumbly masochistic that he'd willingly take a straight-down back bump from that height, because it would practically guarantee some serious harm. It would be like being in a scaffold match and intentionally falling off onto your back. If he had done it that way intentionally, then it was easily the dumbest and most dangerous thing he's ever done without question, and that covers a LOT of ground. I do agree that wrestling certainly has a mountain of problems, but I do sometimes roll my eyes a bit at the "all wrestlers are CRAZY, really clinically insane" talking. Just an awfully hyperbolic way of Chicken Littling the message and almost guaranteeing that other people who don't agree with you won't even try to listen to your points.

In Flair's book he repeated the story about the soldiers at ringside aiming their rifles at Piper to keep him from interfering, and said that even after the local hero won the match the crowd still swarmed the ring and rioted anyway.

I don't see any possible motivation for them to have planted this story. Not that I think they wouldn't do it because they're fine upstanding folks or anything dumb like that. Everything Vince does is either to amuse himself or to make money, and I don't see why the company would've done something that random and without any potential gain. According to all reports, Benoit seemed to be obsessed with his own small size and how it held him back. Maybe it was his deranged way of trying to make sure his son didn't turn out to be shrimpy too. Because they weren't (INSERT RACIST STEREOTYPE HERE)? Part of it is just being pissed at not being able to watch their former vanilla saviour's matches on 24/7, sure. But I think a lot of people are taking it as the WWE trying to cover up their own guilt by pretending that Benoit never existed and nothing ever happened, sort of sweeping it all under the rug. Nuff said. There has been plenty of douchebaggery throughout this whole thing, but I can't think of anyone who matched McDevitt in either the epic scope or sheer quantity of his blatant lies. The whole Signature mess was nothing but a transparent ass-covering. Supposedly over thirty wrestlers were named, but the WWE just arbitrarily decided to punish about a dozen. As to the "first offense = warning", does that mean that Kennedy, Umaga, Nitro and the others had all failed tests at some point? I never completely understood that, it seemed like they just made up whatever punishments they wanted for whoever was caught in that debacle. Here's another one: What happened to the writings that Nancy allegedly had hidden away, to be released in the event of her death?

An interesting project. Really shows off the preferences and biases of WON and its readers, with the disproportionate number of matches in some areas. Forty-four nominees from New Japan, but only seven matches from the entire country of Mexico? ECW having twice as many notable matches as WCW? Every single Joshi match just happening to come from the same night? The only notable matches from England all coming from one night? Evan Karagious making a Best Of Anything list multiple times? I wanted to make jokes. about David Arquette being on there. But looking back, at least he was manly enough to wear a laughably hideous outfit during the match, missed a splash off the top, and gave all his salary to the families of dead wrestlers. I can't blame the dude, if I'd been in his position I couldn't have turned it down either.

But that definition of "believability" is built on a false hypothesis. Having large, well-defined muscles isn't necessarily a sign of being a great athlete; in fact, much of the time, it's the complete opposite. Look at MMA, for example. Mirko Cro-Cop doesn't look physically intimidating at all. Neither did Kazushi Sakuraba, or any of the Gracies. But they sure as shit managed to beat a whole bunch of guys who were a lot bigger and more muscular than them. Babe Ruth was the best player in the world when he was a fatass. Muhammed Ali was in good shape, but wasn't musclebound at all. Same thing with Michael Jordan. The idea in wrestling that you don't "look like an athlete" unless you look like a bodybuilder is bullshit, plain and simple. Unfortunately, McMahon has infected so many people with his vision of what people should look like that it's become standard practice for wrestling fans to expect the workers to all look like the Terminator. And, with all the recent deaths and scandal, we've seen exactly what the downside to that sort of mentality is. Now, Vince has also helped convince people that bigger guys are better fighters than smaller ones, but that's a whole 'nother argument.

Between that and the Mark Henry talk, it sort of got me thinking about perception of how bodies look in wrestling. Like, there have been plenty of fat jokes made about Kobashi back when he grew a bit of a paunch. With him apparently being such a fanatic about training, obviously there was nothing he could do (naturally) to get rid of those few extra inches. But still, a lot of people gave him shit about it. Same thing with Mark Henry: despite being one of the most awesome natural athletes in wrestling history, I've seen and heard god knows how many jokes about him being hefty. Same thing with Samoa Joe now; clearly he's got all the cardio he needs, what with doing 60-minute matches and such, yet the endless Fatboy Joe comments just keep on rolling. What caused this weird situation where a lot of fans don't take a wrestler seriously unless they've got a sparkling six-pack of roidapalooza abdominals? Is it just from the decades of WWE brainwashing that the real champions all look like Hogan?

Nothing to suggest he would've been any kind of father, since he killed himself when she was 7 years old. Rumor going around that Lacey's already been canned from developmental.

As Bret told the story (in his RF shoot, iirc), the WWF was going to break up the Hart Foundation, fire Neidhart and give Bret a singles push. He said that he thought Neidhart broke the turnbuckle on purpose in that match, so that the planned title switch would be ruined and they'd keep the belts and also Jim's job longer. Which is, oddly, exactly what happened. A bit of a conspiracy theory, but an amusing one. As jdw pointed out, I've never understood why they completely gave up on the Rockers title reign and never even tried to tape this match again after the first one was derailed by a freak accident. Must've been one of those "WWE fires Boogeyman one week, WWE rehires Boogeyman next week" weird incidents where we never get the exact story about what happened.