Al

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.

The biggest issue is whether or not a novelty attraction can really cut it in wrestling these days. Acts like the Andre the Giant were perfectly suited to the 1970s/80s because they could stampede over their competition and move in to the next territory with a fresh audience. With a wrestler like the Big Show, he needs to be completely dominant or else he loses credibility. There is only so much you can do with him before you exhaust the possibilities and the audience loses interest in him as a top draw. With just one promotion, it is too easy to over-expose a character.

Perhaps he refused to do some controversial angle or something like that.

Ah, that explains it.

I hate to drudge up old memories, but Moolah has this beat by a longshot. She was in her early 60s even when she lost the womens' title to Wendi Richter, and it was a legit title then.

Hold on here. It doesn't say that they'll be WRESTLING. WWE has a long, long history with USA, and if they bring back some '80s talent as a retrospective, what's so offensive about that?

Depends on the price. If it is $14.99 or less, I would definately consider adding it to my collection.

Yes. I think he was one of the original 1996 class.

I think a 20-25 year period is more than fair for evaluating a wrestler's career. Is there any wrestler who debuted before 1985 that we couldn't get a firm grip on their Hall of Fame status? If you limit yourself to no active wrestlers, your Hall loses a great deal of fan interest.

What's the point? There aren't 20 teams that deserve Hall status. That would seem to make a Tag only HOF unviable. It doesn't really prove their lack of qualification. Right now there are four tag teams in the Hall. The Dusek Family, the Kangaroos, the Freebirds, and the Road Warriors. Given the various issues of the Observer Hall, are the tag teams really hurting their credibility in any way? I can't imagine anything MORE ridiculous than having a separate Tag Team Hall of Fame listing four teams. It's entirely useless. We are not honoring Hawk and Animal, or Terry Gordy and Michael Hayes, or Roy Heffernan and Al Costello as separate individuals. We are honoring TEAMS. But I don't think I'm going to change your mind, and I'm probably wasting my time.

But what about the Road Warriors? Their impact on wrestling is clear, they are not HOFers on their own, but they are clearly deserving as a team.

I'm not going to get dragged in to a larger argument, but I think this is false. Wrestling's three biggest drawing cards (Goldberg, Steve Austin and the Rock) stopped wrestling full time. Could anything HHH does or has done honestly do more harm than a widespread loss of top talent?

The more useful model would be the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, instead of any sports Hall. The Rock Hall of Fame requires a 25 year career for eligibility. That is pretty straightforward. It requires a wrestler to complete the vast majority of his career, and there is not much to add or detract from a legacy afterwards. As for tag teams, groups like the Road Warriors are clearly deserving. There is a difference between a team of two wrestlers and a team of 25 players. If a tag team was a clear drawing card, or made a significant contribution to the sport, they deserve some consideration just like solo acts. I agree with the MMA statements. MMA and pro wrestling are completely different areas.

I won't go into specific arguments, but as much as there is a case for Owen, there is a solid argument not to put Owen in the Hall. He's not a slam dunk case.

We have WXW, the promotion run by Afa. They have a show on the local cable channel every Saturday, but I am never around for it. "Mean" Gene Snisky was their champion before he entered WWE.

Believe it or not, I have never seen the show.

I don't see that much of a problem, quite honestly. They bring back a well-known wrestler, and in the process attract attention to a stagnant tag team division, give the hot new tag team some opponents to work with, and give the fans a better reason to cheer for Heidenreich in the process.

Let's get this straight. On one card, we have a live Sammartino appearance, Terry Funk and Mick Foley teaming up, a Wendi Richter sighting, and Steve Williams' miraculous return? I'd want to see that.

I think that is a little unfair to Mick. Before he was known as a sick bump-taker, he took the common bump very, very well. Witness his matches with Sting.

It would take me around six hours to reach Buffalo, so Loss is looking at an eight-hour trip.

I'd love to see TNA revise the fun of the old WCW Saturday Night program. At this point, anything that brings alternative wrestling to my television is fine by me.

Agreed. I would love to see CJ or someone come in and point out the similarities between that angle and the beheading videos. I have, nor will ever see the beheading videos (or the angle for that matter), so I can not do it myself. As for Batista/Taker, I don't mind it much. Undertaker is a good enough wrestler and good with Batista's type of style. Besides, he is one of the most credible opponents WWE can use.

And I remember his promos for freezer pops. I always liked Lord Alfred. This is indeed a shame.

Good to see you at NMB Graham. I love the reviews.