Al

I get the MSG channel on regular cable. I'll be interested to see how this goes. It's a win/win situation, because MSG no longer has baseball and has little except for MLS Soccer until the Knicks kick off in October (like that helps). I always thought an MSG dvd would be a good idea. There's a ton of good matches that don't really fit anywhere else.

I missed promotions really trying to sell wrestling as a legitimate sport. It used to be that winning and losing was important. Nowadays the winners/losers are secondary to the drama.

I'm actually the opposite as I watched ECW from about 1993-97 and somewhat shyed away afterwards. At some point in 1996, ECW became way, WAY too fascinated with angles involving something violent being done to the other wrestler's groin. It became difficult to watch and when Philly stopped showing ECW at convenient times, that was that. ECW in 1995 though was as much fun to watch as any other wrestling in my memory.

I've got 10 of these matches already, and my collection really isn't that extensive.

Like Bradshaw and Meanie or Lesnar and Holly? Perhaps, but I am thinking of more extreme circumstances.

The bottom of the contract states the year 2000, indicating this was written FAR before Guerrero's passing. There may be some repercussions from Owen, but remember this also covers the company in the event that a wrestler takes liberties in the ring, or some other circumstance.

They're not targeting the average fan for front row. As long as they get the upper class to buy in, they'll sell those tickets.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what killed WCW and you apparently think WWE is every bit as strong as they were five years ago and that they've never made a single mistake. That's the impression given by all of your wrestling posts anyway. No one is making fun of anyone, Al. The point is that it was a bad booking move and that the past shows plenty of evidence of what happens when dumb decisions like this are made. Wrestling is above criticism. I get it already. WWE has made plenty of mistakes. I stopped watching six months ago because I was sick of the product. But what ultimately doomed WCW wasn't bad wrestling or bad ideas (which they had). It was that they gave large contracts to midcarders that had little impact on the bottom line. At some point, WCW had between 100 and 200 wrestlers on their payroll. That's bad financial management. Wrestling is not above criticism. But there are people convinced that every single move and show WWE produces is bad. At some point, you have to look at this company and wonder if everything is so poor, why aren't other wrestling promotions taking their place? WWE can stay in business for years based on their video library and international draws. When business slows, unlike WCW, they are perfectly capable of scaling back expenses. I doubt many people are going to buy a show or a ticket based on who is the reigning champion. If Edge is an effective heel, fans will feel that he stole the title. If you don't agree with the booking that's your perogative, but there are certainly logical reasons behind this move. That Edge used his briefcase against Flair is all the tip off the average fan should need that something may happen later. After all, this was the most logical move for Edge to make since Wrestlemania, and most of us predicted it would happen.

From a booking standpoint, it makes perfect sense. Edge is floundering, winning some and losing some. He's got a title shot he can use at any time, but his chances to use it are dwindling. He sees an opportunity and bang, it works. Whether they build on it is another matter, but every booking and storyline can not follow perfect patterns. Coffey's right here. What killed WCW was finances, plain and simple. If a fan finds it entertaining, he should not be made fun of, especially someone like Coffey who is not a drooling idiot like you make the average fan out to be. You can be critical, but there are people who nit-pick and scream that everything WWE does reaks of "OMG Death of WCW~!" It doesn't.

I agree as well. There are certain hierarchies that exist in professional sports, and they have been around for hundreds of years. The established guys make it difficult for the rookies. Some take it too far. But this is something that's a part of wrestling. Let them take care of it in house. It's not a big deal.

Obviously they're making more money overall doing it. Why shouldn't they?

I would guess you guys are thinking of Carlos Monzon, the former middleweight champion convicted of murdering his wife in 1988 by throwing her off a balcony. It fits the time frame. Monzon died in 1994. Snuka allegedly killed his girlfriend in an altercation on a PA highway.

In any event, I would think that Jericho would take more of an interest in the book than most autobiographies. I doubt he's just going to have someone ghostwrite and not pay attention to what's going in.

Considering both played Doink the Clown at some point, it's fitting.

Kayfabed weights are hardly accurate. Hey, Rey could be on steroids and I hope I'm wrong. But I think it's naive to think that a substantial portion of the WWE roster is not juicing.

One of the problems is that Eddy looked credible because steroid usage bloated his physique. The same with Mysterio. Rey came in at 140 lbs. when he started out. Lord knows what he's taken in order to get his body to the point where it is now. If you want to eliminate steroids, Rey's going to be one of the most notably changed guys, I believe. Can he drop that mass and remain a credible threat?

Paul Orndorff. Co-Headlined in front of one of the biggest crowds in wrestling history.

There's a thread about this in the Music folder.

What amazes me is how few former WWE champions have died. Buddy Rogers, Stan Stasiak, Yokozuna, Andre the Giant, and now Eddie Guerrero. That's it.

Two things I find questionable in this article... Steroids do not enhance your hand-eye coordination, but by adding muscle, it gives the athlete more power, allowing him to swing the bat faster. By enjoying a faster swing, the batter gains a fraction of a second to judge the pitch before he must decide to swing. That's where the benefit comes in. Second, the article implies that the major concern of steroids lies in baseball. The public cares most about baseball and steroids because that is where the sacred records exist. But the NFL and some other major sports have steroid problems equal in scope, if not larger.

There's a bit of significance to all this. One defense Vince McMahon and company always held was that virtually all of the deaths in wrestling involved wrestlers not in WWE. Now for the first time since 1997, we have the passing of an active wrestler on the payroll (not counting Owen, which occured under different circumstances). Not sure if it will have any impact, but it might be worth keeping in mind.

Didn't everyone learn their lesson from the Johnsons on TNA?

I don't think you can set the line there at all, quite honestly. If you want to hold yourself to the modern era, the only sensible place you can make the distinction is 1982-85 (either Vince Jr. buying the company, Starrcade, or Wrestlemania). Otherwise I think it is entirely too random and arbitrary.

I don't like making an arbitrary distinction on the year. A top 100 of the last 16-17 years doesn't sound like a particularly interesting list. If you make a cut-off point, it has to be a distinctive event, and there needs to be a valid reason. Something that changed wrestling.

The poor World Series ratings are a sympton of the poor job the networks and MLB do of selling those teams. In a good market, teams that win games become marquee teams, and players that win games become marquee players. There could be a lesson for how well you MARKET your talent, and his point may be valid, but the analogy does not work.