Al

The Thrilla in Manilla was broadcast over HBO's satelite in 75. Hearns v Lloyd was on PPV in 1981. While people argued at time about wether PPV was good for the sport (fuck people argue today about if PPV is good for the sport), everyone knew PPV was the future of the sport. Has anyone else gained as much from it and used it as much to make money as WWE? Possibly Don King.

Ohh, interesting. (1) What do you ultimately think Vince McMahon will most be remembered for as a promoter? Expansion. Vince took a wrestling company further than anyone imagined, and unfortunately smothered his competition in the process. (2) What do you think is the most important positive change that has come from the WWE vision of what pro wrestling is? Production values. WWE for the most part produces a slick, well-produced television package. They rarely miss a shot. (3) What do you think is the most important negative change that has come from the WWE vision of what pro wrestling is? Besides a monopoly. I would say a decreased emphasis on the sport aspect of wrestling. Wins and losses aren't sold enough as something that matters. The only storyline reason for winning a match or title is pride. (4) What is something that you have always felt WWE does well that they don't get enough credit for? The aforementioned production values, particularly camera work. (5) What is something that you have always felt WWE does horribly that they don't get enough criticism for? Tough question considering WWE is a lightning rod for criticism. I would say that they rarely think outside the box when it comes to booking an angle or running a tv show. Everything in the last five years follows a generally predictable pattern. (6) Overall, do you think most people are fair when discussing WWE, or do you think people tended to be blinded -- either by fanboyism or hatred? I think this is an unanswerable question. Like anything, it depends on the group you are discussing with. (7) What match would you point to as the match that most defines the WWE version of wrestling? I assume we are looking for a positive image? This is another tough one because some great matches were non-formulaic, but then you do not get a grasp on the style. I would pick Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage from Wrestlemania VII. A match between a good worker and an awful one that turned out good, and the perfect culmination of a seven year storyline between Savage and Elizabeth. (8) Could the WWF have had their initial success without Hulk Hogan? Why or why not? Probably, since success would ultimately come from who got market penetration from Cable tv first. I think Vince would take the wrestling market. The bigger question is whether he could have enjoyed as much mainstream exposure. Looking at Hogan's enduring popularity, I am inclined to answer no. (9) Could the WWF have been more financially successful in the post-Hogan, pre-Austin time period with different people on top? Why or why not? No. WWF's bigger problem at the time was the steroid proceedings. The guys not on top were at least part of the show, I can't see it becoming something bigger just because those workers were in the main event. (10) Who do you think was a bigger star at their peak -- Hulk Hogan or Steve Austin? Hulk Hogan. I think Hogan reached mainstream popularity and penetration that Austin could not, at least long term. People who haven't watched wrestling in a decade know and respect Hogan. (11) What do you think is Vince McMahon's greatest accomplishment as a promoter? Multiple stadium sellouts. Wrestlemania III, the Big Event in Toronto, Summerslam '92, Wrestlemania 17, Wrestlemania 18, Wrestlemania 19, Wrestlemania 23, etc. (12) What do you think was the greatest contributing factor to WCW overtaking the WWF from 1995-1998? Defection of big stars to WCW. Also, WCW produced their best looking product at this point. (13) What do you think was the greatest contributing factor to the WWF overtaking WCW in 1998? Popularity of the Steve Austin/Vince McMahon feud. (14) Which world champion was the best in terms of ring work and why? Bret Hart, though Shawn might edge him out if we consider work solely by wrestlers AS champion. For the reason why, I could only point to great matches with Owen Hart (Summerslam '94) and Diesel (Survivor Series '95). (15) Which world champion do you think meant most to the company? Hulk Hogan, no doubt. (16) Which world champion had the worst run? I think Triple H in 2003 turned a lot of people off of the company. (17) What do you consider the high point in WWF or WWE history? Hogan vs. Andre at Wrestlemania III. (18) What do you consider the absolute low point in WWF or WWE history? Over the Edge '99. (19) Looking at things from their point of view, why do you think WWE frowns on employees being big wrestling fans? Hard to answer since I don't know the extent of the truth of that statement. I would guess that they find their fandom interferes with their work. Perhaps they spend too much time harassing the wrestlers or bugging the writers and staff with their opinions. (20) Do you think the WWF has ever done a good job at booking tag teams in a meaningful way? If so, what time period? Yes, generally always. WWE rarely produces great tag matches. But they do a great job presenting their tag teams as characters fans can identify. (21) What is the best non-main event feud the company has ever produced and why? Bret Hart vs. Jerry Lawler, just amazing to see one of the great regional babyfaces become a top-notch heel. (22) What is the worst main event level feud the company has ever produced and why? Triple H vs. Kane. Why? Katie Vick. (23) What do you think was the single biggest contributing factor that caused the end of the 1998-2001 boom? Loss of big name stars. Sting, Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, The Rock, Mick Foley, Scott Hall, etc. all stopped competing on a regular basis. (24) From your personal experiences, is the WWF a company that delivers house shows where you feel you get your money's worth? Yes, though I've only attended two. (I've been to live Raws in 1993, 1999 and 2007.) (25) Where do you think they'll be in five years? Probably in the same place. I don't see a change in the industry occurring anytime soon.

It looked legit, but I remember looking at Graham's site a couple weeks ago. Roma was back in the ring the next night, and did not appear to miss any dates. Nikita at Clash I gave an interview and mentioned seeing a person close to him who fights for life (he was talking about his anti-drug campaign). I would be very surprised if it wasn't to do with his wife's illness at that point. (Though him explaining his stylish dress as his own version of peristroka was a highlight. Steve Williams of course returned by March, as he gave an interview at the same Clash. For those who criticize promotions for scripting interviews, that one was an example of why they do it. Just awful by any standard. The Survivor Series bit was interesting. WWE returned to the same arena for the 1988 version.

Clash of the Champions is one of the greatest free tv shows I've ever seen. This is exactly the great example of what 24/7 can air. Something not big enough for dvd, but can't really be aired in any other format. WCCW has the Freebirds/Von Erich lumberjack match.

I can see a person catching a show on PPV and becoming a fan. The problem is that I for example would have no exposure to its availability outside of word of mouth.

Madison Square Garden, February 18, 1983.

One thing I noticed, the production values seemed off this time around. They missed a couple of entrances (like Chuck Palumbo's), and the live shot missed Undertaker leg-dropping Snitsky through a table. It's odd as live production is one thing WWE always does right. Perhaps it was produced for HD and certain things come out wrong for us stone-age SD users?

Living in the Poconos, I get the usual NYC and Philly sports channels. Philadelphia just has Comcast Philly, and that's pretty filled up with it's coverage. NYC though has SNY (Mets) and the YES Network (Yankees). Both networks have quite a bit of filler content, and perhaps ROH could jump into the middle of that.

Normally yes. It was an odd crowd though, they booed Rey Mysterio right out of the curtain.

I watched Orton/Hardy again, liked it much better the second time around. It seemed like they were trying to recreate the vibe from Angle/Benoit five years ago, giving Orton the clean win but making Hardy's effort look strong. Especially when they showed Hardy post-match. The problem was that the crowd heat just wasn't there. Give them the same match and a hot crowd and that comes off completely different.

I think because JBL hasn't wrestled in a year and a half; it is not like he takes these kind of risks all the time. There is likely some bravado at work, especially if you believe the locker room stories of JBL. Ideally you cut risks like that down to a bare minimum, but in professional wrestling we'll never see them eliminated entirely. As for the strangling, I think some people have gotten upset, but it's not exactly a program that lends itself to sensitivity.

I assume you did not see it. It occurred during Jericho's comeback, after he was bleeding heavily. He went for a bulldog, missed, and JBL sold it anyway. (Note that I'm not blaming JBL for anything, from his angle he likely did not see how bad it looked.) The crowd of course jumped on it, and since it was at a crucial juncture in the match it took the two a bit of effort to get the crowd back in. To their credit, they did. I'm curious to see what kind of camera angle they use to cover it up on dvd, ala Austin/Trump.

WWE probably believes it does little harm, and they get (I'm guessing) a fair bit of change out of the deal. I really doubt that WWE fans will tune into the UFC PPV and then never watch WWE again. Most of WWE's core audience has already been exposed to mixed martial arts.

Agreed. That result explains the booking in the Orton/Hardy match, they had to put Orton over strong to bring him back into the feud with Cena as a strong champion. And to hell with Keith. I thought the JBL/Jericho match was really well done, save that botched bulldog.

I really do agree with that last point actually. Even guys like Chief Jay Strongbow and Ivan Putski could get title shots, and that gave the fans something different.

You make great points, I can not really dispute any of them. I don't think he's top half of the Hall, to me he sneaks in there somewhere.

Oddly, Adamle is actually older than Ross.

JDW, I won't quote the whole response as it gets unwieldy to read in that fashion. What it comes down to as a Hall of Famer in any sport is what the person did that separates them from the pack. There is no set criteria for a wrestling Hall of Fame. But if a person distinguishes themselves as a worker (as Ricky Steamboat did), or in some other fashion, that makes them a Hall of Famer (assuming of course the change is positive for the business). You bring up the steroids/juice/bodybuilding aspect. That's a bit simplistic, Hulk Hogan got over thanks to Rocky III while the Road Warriors got over by not selling anything for nearly a decade. I am certain there were other "physique guys" before Graham. But Graham wasn't just a guy who juiced and got over. He excelled at delivering promos and while his matches weren't classics, they were watchable. He is probably one of the most charismatic wrestlers ever. The only legit knock on him when it comes to his candidacy was that his prime was so short, he dropped off the radar after dropping the belt and he deteriorated at alarming speed in the 1980s. The argument in my mind really comes down to how much reputation counts in a Hall of Fame argument. If you buy the "Fame" part, Graham's an easy choice. You may find his candidacy weak when you break it down, and if you were to develop a sort of alternative "Hall of Merit," Graham might not rank.

I certainly agree with that point actually. I think though that if you have a Hall of Fame, wrestlers get points for historical impact. Graham more or less ushered in a new type of professional wrestler. He is one of the more recognizable faces in professional wrestling, and one of the top heels of the 1970s. John Molinaro and co. in their book ranked him 64th in professional wrestling history. To put this all in perspective, the Observer Hall currently holds 200 names, about 100 of which are North American professional wrestlers (excluding Mexico). Is Graham one of the 100 most important wrestlers in American wrestling history? I wouldn't think that statement is a stretch in the slightest. You can argue that Superstar Graham is overrated, certainly. I would even concede that. But I can't see downgrading him to the point of taking him out of Hall of Fame consideration. If you put him up for the vote today, he would easily clear 60%.

Eh, how much writing talent do you honestly need to book C.M. Punk against Chavo Guerrero on four consecutive shows?

I would never underestimate Vince's ability to turn a celebrity appearance into money.

Not really. John I'd say there are others who are much less deserving who are in. If you want the analogy route, Graham is the Dizzy Dean of the Hall, a popular guy who got in despite a short career because of a couple hot years.

Graham's at least a legit HOFer. Rice isn't within a thousand miles based on skill alone. I do agree with the general statement though. Too many people look at this things based on gut emotions and then formulate their arguments and facts afterwards.

I'd account it more to limited readership, limited "inside" communication for Meltzer and lack of fast communication. 1982 certainly wasn't like today where we hear of ROH's foibles instantly.

I think a problem may be that C.M. Punk is too strong, no one really buys any of ECW's mid-card challengers against him. I'm curious to see where this goes, because they can easily tie into the Edge/Misterio feud.