Loss

So many valid things worth criticizing WWE for. That anyone would pick their response to this as one of those things when there are so many better choices is baffling.

Same here. Wasn't watching. I became a tennis fan yesterday.

I crashed early last night and just woke up to see this. How horrible. Hopefully he'll pull through, but what a nightmare.

It's something that impacts all the lucha candidates. Cien Caras was a top star during a big boom with a lot of hardcore crossover appeal and can't get in either.

Dylan wasn't debating you. He was just asking a question of what he needed to see.

I know I sound like a broken record, but it's worth pointing out that the HOF isn't about in-ring inductions based on work, as much as it inducting guys who have great reputations for their ring work inside the WON bubble, deserved or not. When Benoit was being discussed as a candidate, the number of times he won Most Outstanding Wrestler and Best Technical Wrestler in the WON year-end awards was cited in his favor. To me, that always felt like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wrestlers who are appreciated retroactively after looking back at the footage aren't represented in the HOF, because Dave thinks that's a useless exercise.

I agree with the general point, but for the record, I don't think I deserve a ballot at all, nor do I want one. Lots of people know way more than I do, and more power to them. I do think Bix and Dylan should get ballots for sure.

Wow, I leave the country for vacation and this happens? Biggest news of the year!

I think what you're describing here is the MatRats concept he got involved with in the summer of '01. The cruiserweight division would have been booked by Meltzer's friend John Muse, whoever that is, and they wanted to strike a talent exchange with Toryumon. Dave once confirmed in a message board post that this was also an idea he had for WCW during this time. I'll try to dig up the post. Also, regarding S & P, they did force them to drop/tame down the Lenny & Lodi gay gimmick in '99, and apparently Russo threw a fit because they wouldn't let Piper make fat jokes about Rhonda Singh. You know, because if Roddy Piper could have made fat jokes, WCW would have been a rousing success during that time.

The cruiserweight division would have a completely separate booker. Apparently Eric Bischoff liked the idea of wrestlers just trying to have a great match, but not winning. Judges would determine (as a shoot) the winner by declaring the person who gave the best performance in the match. Uh, yeah. Anyway, time has shown Eric Bischoff to be such an overwhelming idiot who got lucky once that I don't think the new WCW had a chance, even if some of the ideas sounded promising on paper.

Even if Lawler isn't equally over in every market, he's a smart enough worker with enough tricks up his sleeve that turning around a dead crowd is something that he's probably done hundreds of times in his career. I wouldn't ever write him off. That first "free shot" punch was built up so well and Punk sold it so well, which makes it unfortunate that it didn't get the pop it should have. If the audience has their minds made up who they are going to like/dislike and that cannot change, wrestling becomes much less interesting to watch. Anomaly crowd reactions are nothing new. They've always been a part of wrestling. It just stinks that it happened when they were trying something much closer to my type of wrestling, damnit!

This has a bit of a reputation, mainly from tomk pimping.

I think S.L.L. is right. Just a few weeks ago, he was telling me Punk would struggle to get the desired reaction as a heel, and I argued that his ability to play a great heel would override anything else. So far, that hasn't happened, but last night was the first time they really went all the way in the turn. I don't know that WWE needs to be pain, blues and agony 100% of the time, although I wish it was a darker presentation myself. But I do think it's a lot to ask to expect fans to switch gears so often in what type of presentation WWE is. And also, S.L.L., the erosion of kayfabe has a disproportionately strong impact on WWE because they still keep one foot just barely in. Selena was fired for drinking while doing a straight edge gimmick, for example. Wrestlers are encouraged to live their gimmicks in public. Outside of hip hop (which I'm not sure is quite a "genre of fiction"), does that happen in any other medium?

So, what would you say is the reason the Punk/Lawler angle didn't get much heat, despite being really well-worked?

I'm not sure it truly was "the next week", and I'm not sure the stuff on the WM8 undercard was really "Hahaha, wrestling is so fake", but if it was, that's not really any better just because it happened a long time ago. Anyway, there are flaws in WWE's presentation that make it hard for fans to emotionally invest in serious angles. I don't see how anyone can dispute that point. Tonight is proof of that, but there are plenty of other examples. I'm just trying to have a conversation about what in their presentation makes stuff like this not have great heat. I don't think you can blame it all on the death of kayfabe.

Does no one else see a conflict between CM Punk beating Jerry Lawler to a pulp while forcing him to admit that he's the best in the world, and Vicki Guerrero not understanding that Miss Piggy is a fictional puppet and getting in an argument with her? It's wrestling, and they can go either way in their presentation. I just wish they'd pick one voice and stick to it all the time.

Haven't watched the whole show yet. I will, and I'm sure it was well done. I guess my point is that it seems like there should be a consistency in tone throughout the show, especially if they're planning to do a serious angle on top. I guess there are two schools of thought. One is that the serious angles stand out more if the undercard isn't filled with them too. The opposing school of thought would be that it's harder to sell people on serious angles because the show is filled with bad comedy so much of the time.

I think it's worth discussing why it is they still want to cheer Punk. I don't think Punk's performance is the issue. I think it's a systemic flaw. Wrestlers who are pushed hard and win more than they lose tend to get over as babyfaces more in the modern setting because people react to stars. It makes me wonder if it's possible to create a strong heel at that level anymore.

Punk/Lawler was really good, with an angle that felt very Jim Crockett Promotions to close things out. The crowd ruined it, although they did pop for the Cena run-in. I think the problem is that they train their audience to view WWE as light-hearted comedy where the good guys always win and the bad guys are always emasculated. Then, when they try to do an actual wrestling angle, it doesn't get the response it deserves. It's hard to do stuff like this on top when the whole mood of the show swings in so many directions. There's no real overall coherence in whatever emotion it is they want people to feel when watching the show.

Yeah, that was me. I didn't realize there was an ironic Patera advocate at that board.

Why Edge Should Be In The HOF Terri Bey is the author, who I'll point out has an email address of edgegirl7. Just saying. Dylan, I say it's worth a shot.

I did. I like the idea of allowing guest columns to advocate people for the HOF, as it's the perfect use of the columns feature Dave seems to want on the site so badly. But yeah, there needs to be some serious vetting.

Also, there are plenty of people who were considered great then, and are still considered great now.

Exciting the crowd makes a good worker. What are his thoughts on Hulk Hogan?

I don't understand how you can say we don't know what he did on one hand and cite all of these things you know he didn't do on the other. It sounds like you already have your mind made up. You don't think Bill Apter is a HOFer, and that's fine. But at least say it's because all the evidence points to him just being a figurehead, instead of saying we don't know enough about his day-to-day responsibilities.