Mad Dog

I can't really argue against this BUT if we have given him credit for years for holding steady essentially, with business seemingly trending down across the board should that note be held against him? Cena is the "default" answer in a way, but I find it hard to build a compelling case for him. That's a hard question as the product has essentially fallen apart around him in the last year. The WWE has had a holding pattern of Cena/Orton/Taker/Batista/HHH/Edge as PPV main events that they used to go through the last few years of the decade. 3 of those 6 are gone and they haven't adjusted greatly.

Can you really give it to someone that hasn't wrestled yet this year and has done maybe 5 appearances?

Pro Wrestling History says the Dome this year only drew 18,000. I might have seen their worked number then.

So answer this then. You're in Vince's shoes, this is a disaster, what do you do? Do you pull this stunt on someone leaving the company but have the belt or do you sit on your hands and hope it doesn't blow up in your face. Bret throwing the belt in the trash on Nitro would've been a huge blow to a struggling WWF. That's been my point the whole time. I hated Vince/Shawn for it a long time but the older I've gotten the more I see Vince's side and why he did what he did. I'm not saying what he did was right. Just that in his shoes, I probably would've done the same thing in his position.

A Lot of people seem to to think that Bret had too much honour and integrity to take the title to Nitro. But it was reported in a 1992 issue of the observer, that he was in talks to take the intercontinental belt to wcw. That was always Bret's gimmick to a degree. He loved playing himself as this white knight in a den of thieves when it came to wrestling. He still does to a large degree. IMO, WCW was throwing money around at the time. Is it really that hard to believe they wouldn't have thrown him a couple of extra million to bring the title belt onto Nitro. Is Bret really going to turn down some cold hard cash for a company that he was leaving anyways? Like I said, it's easy for Bret in hindsight to say he would've never done it. The WWF should've managed his dates and contract better and not paint themselves into that corner. But they did what they thought they had to to protect themselves. I think it's a clear situation where everyone was in the wrong. Vince and the WWF should've managed his contract better and Bret should've been more willing to play ball on dropping the belt. I really think Michaels, as much as I hate him, really doesn't matter here. It's Vince and Bret's deal, Michaels really didn't owe Bret anything and Vince was signing his checks. I honestly don't see why Michaels would refuse to go along with it considering Bret was leaving the company and wasn't really a friend or anything.

New Japan drew a 42,000 for the Dome this year which was their highest number in 6 years. New Japan as a whole has been drawing better but that's more a product of getting rid of Inoki and booking their shows better than any particular wrestler. I think Tanahashi is a draw to a degree but I don't think there's anything you can point to that's he's done to draw.

Bully Ray has had some really good matches this year. I wouldn't have him as my Wrestler of the Year but I find it interesting that he's reinvented himself so late in his career and seems to have finally found himself as a singles worker. I would just say Cena. His PPV matches have been pretty good and he's a draw. I know that's boring but I haven't seen any of Tanahashi's matches this year so I can't really get behind him as a candidate.

Are you simply making this up? Please provide actual numbers instead of going on hearsay. Angle vs Samoa Joe is the highest drawing PPV in TNA history. The # they did was 60k buys as reported in the observer several times. That's higher than any PPV number Sting has ever drawn in TNA. Undertaker/Austin drew the highest Summerslam in history in 1998. I guess Taker had nothing to do with that either. He also was in the highest rated Raw segment *ever* in 1999 ( 9.2 rating) and drew a good buy vs Austin again at Fully Loaded that year. Did you read the part where I said Taker drew against Austin in the 90s? Raven as far as TNA went. His match with Jarrett in 2003 drew buys as it was the highest buyrate since the first PPV at the time. That's all I know about that because as far as I know, there's no solid numbers to what the weekly PPV. But there was buzz for that match and that feud and it immediately died with no Jarrett. Sting's second run in the company did have a brief effect as Sting brought them their highest tv ratings when he actually appeared on tv. IE his first tv appearance broke the 1.0 barrier for TNA when the show had been a constant .8 for the first 3 months or so. Looking up his PPV numbers, Final Resolution did 55,000 for his return match in 2006 and Bound for Glory the same year did similar numbers to that for Sting winning the belt.

Sting actually did move the needle for awhile in TNA. Raven moved the needle when he first arrived and feuded with Jarrett. Those are really the only instances of someone making an impact for TNA even briefly.

His TNA run is what shows that he is a poor draw. If Angle was a draw, he would've had a marked impact on them as a company. Ratings would've gone up and attendance would've gone up. Sting hadn't been on television for quite awhile and he still made for TNA as far as drawing some people in, at least a bigger impact than Angle did. As far as 2000. I think the point of the Love Triangle was to put Angle in the position to draw and instead, they used the angle to put HHH over. EDIT: But this is why I say Undertaker is probably a worse draw. I can't point to any one thing against Angle with numbers. I can point at the Undertaker and points where he was hurting the product. The post X-7 run being a prime example of Taker hurting the company. I will consider that more proof than Angle's starpower not carrying over to another company.

Wouldn't Angle's height in the WWE have been the Love Triangle in 2000? That was the biggest storyline of the year and they totally botched it because HHH is HHH.

Taker had some bad moments in the 90s, though he drew against fake Taker and Austin. If you go into the early 00s, he was a fairly big disaster as a draw in 2001, 2002 and 2003. I don't know about his Mania streak though, how much is actually him and how much is Wrestlemania. It should be noted that the company cooled off considerably after X-7 when Taker and Kane became the top faces in the company. Sure, Austin's heel turn had a lot to do with that but Taker being the top face also played a role.

His big match with Lesnar at Wrestlemania 19 didn't do huge numbers but it wasn't a disaster by any means. I think his jump to TNA is really where you can see his lack of draw though. He was considered the biggest star to go to that company and he added virtually nothing to their ratings. Sting showing up moved the dial more than Angle did. I still think, big picture that Undertaker is probably a worse draw than Angle was.

They didn't show Speedy cartoons for like a decade. I think they started again when it moved to Boomerang.

I have to admit, I did like early Tweety vs. the Abbott and Costello cats. But I think there were only 3 or 4 of those. But I would argue that Tweety was just a plot device more than a driving force to the matches.

No, I remember reading it all the way back then that they were disappointed by the ratings, etc. but that's been a decade now. And the numbers would be a crap shoot anyway in hindsight because the Invasion angle was falling apart at the time and the company was starting to freefall as far as attendance and ratings go.

I was actually thinking about bringing that one up. Speedy is just one of my least favorite faces. Well, I hate Tweety more but he's my second least favorite.

Daffy working Speedy was kind of like Arn jobbing the Television Title to the Renegade. Just all around badness. But you really don't see those much because Warner deems Speedy too racist to play on television now. The really sad thing for Daffy is that Warner was more comfortable with him as a tag worker than they were with him as a solo act. Really, the height of his babyface powers was taking out the Tasmanian Devil before he turned heel and worked the endless Speedy feud. But before that he worked with Porky and he worked with Bugs. Even his big movie roles saw him tagging with Speedy and Porky.

That was Morton's argument in court but I don't believe it's ever been confirmed one way or the other.

Nash came across a lot better in that article than Morton did IMO.

I disagree. You don't have to step into the ring to know when a guy is totally clueless out there.

Foghorn was a full blown heel. He was funny but you rooted for shit to blow up in his face because that was going to be funny. All of the main characters in the Foghorn cartoons were heels minus the Widow Hen. I've seen Foghorn compared to Sanford from Sanford and Son and I think that's really accurate.

I'm in no way saying Vince was 100% right or that he didn't do a lot of it wrong. Just that I've come to see his side of things and that I think I might have done the same thing in his situation. Also Vader, Shamrock, the Patriot, Mankind, Jeff Jarrett, Ahmed Johnson, etc. could have all been viable guys to hold the belt for a week or two.

I totally forgot about Bugs filling in for the Road Runner. That was a good one.

I kind of understand that to a degree. Every 2 or 3 years, I sit down and tell myself that I'm going to sit down and enjoy one of the various WWE shows or TNA. My recent bout with TNA lasted about 4 months. I just get that itch and realize that the idea is better than actually going through the episodes.