Loss

I'm not a huge fan of the Rumble either, but I can't deny that it works and that it usually draws well. I'd never advocate changing it just because I personally think watching guys hold on to ropes and hang upside down for over an hour is boring. Plenty of people like it.

I am already groaning at the prospect of Dave talking about Brock Lesnar as a HOF candidate next year.

He won't be competing against Jericho and Rey this year.

I think my favorite thing about Flair in the 80s was the way he put over any accomplishments of his opponent while still keeping himself strong. You're awesome, you're great, you could beat just about anyone, but you can't beat me. That's essentially what all heel promos should be.

I understand towing the company line (to a degree), but actively insulting people who stood up for him is a little OTT. But he's done this many times before and no one should be surprised.

Dave has never really understood why wrestling companies do anything that doesn't have an immediate impact on house show attendance, PPV buys or ratings. Social networking is more about building brand loyalty, and it keeps fans (err ... the WWE Universe) thinking about WWE more than just when the TV show is on. That's important. Maybe a 10-year old kid follows Randy Orton for three months, likes what he sees, and tells his parents he wants a Randy Orton t-shirt for Christmas. Maybe he makes it a point to go to every house show in his area headlined by Randy Orton. Maybe if not for Twitter, he never would have been a fan at that level. If he thinks that Twitter is only successful if you see a difference in numbers before and after, he doesn't really get social media. He's looking at things on a micro level when social media is really more of a macro thing. It's good to see WWE trying to embrace it. I'd criticize them for not embracing it even more, but this is still very much in its infancy, and many businesses are still trying to figure out a strategy that works. Punk's angle would have been an interesting way to experiment with multi-media storylines in a big way had they had any idea where they wanted to take that whole storyline. The right minds could have done something special. But I have no problem admitting that while the potential is there to do great things, I do wonder about the ability of those running the company to be smart enough to pull it off. They have historically had trouble even aligning their magazines and web site with what happens on screen, so adding another medium will probably just further compartmentalize things.

If we are capitalizing things, THE WWF HAD A LAWSUIT AGAINST WCW AT THE TIME. TURNER PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED BRET TO COME ON NITRO WITH THE BELT.

This is the kind of thing Nick Patrick is great for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irkQlGfBTYc

Nick Patrick was an AMAZING heel and is the right guy when there's an angle that requires the referee to be central to the storyline, but yeah, as a regular referee, he is lacking something.

I edited my post because I realized I was being an asshole. My apologies. Carry on.

This is partially WWF booking, but Earl's slow counts after a ref bump were incredibly obnoxious.

Tommy Young is the exception to the rule. Most refs aren't capable of doing the stuff he could do, so I'd rather them not try.

I think in short, when there are three guys in the ring and you forget the third guy is there, the referee is doing his job. Adding to that slightly, counting too slow or too fast can mess up the rhythm of the match if the counting isn't in sync with the action in the ring. Occasionally, you have an overachiever like Tommy Young who's not afraid to take a ridiculous bump (see the Road Warriors/Horsemen match at Starrcade '87).

Talk about it here.

I'm guessing he has typed the words "Sexton Hardcastle" in the last few days ...

Yes.

True, the Rock was never an indestructible character, and Cena doesn't need to be booked that strong. But if he was, it would be awesome and I know I would care a lot more about the match. (One which I am not completely sure Rock will lose, by the way ...) The whole idea that they have built it for a year is a fallacy in some ways -- they had one segment on Raw and they haven't done anything else since. As far as wins and losses, yes, the time was right when someone like Punk got the win and it was smart of them to capitalize on the moment and have him beat Cena. But even if Cena can withstand the jobs, is it always smart to have him do them? Eventually, it won't mean anything to beat him. Cena has been called both Flair and Hogan in this thread. In terms of sustaining drawing power, it seems like booking him closer to Hogan than Flair would do more to keep him strong.

I'm not disagreeing with you, for the record. I'm just pointing out that the reason it's harder is NOT because the person on top isn't drawing, but more because there isn't really a single person on top who can easily be called The Man. If you look at previous downturns, you could at least answer the question of who The Man was. It was either Vader, or Yokozuna, or Bret, or Flair, or Michaels, or whoever. Now? I guess it's Cena, but he's lost so many inconsequential matches (at a time that doing no jobs all year to build him up strong for Rock would have been awesome) that even he isn't an easy pick. I suspect Punk will win too, and I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, but he hasn't been pushed like a top guy all year long. The Jericho pick in 2008 was the start of a list of guys who haven't really been top shelf picks because they haven't really booked one guy as being clearly above everyone else in a long time. And I miss that.

Part of it is drawing, but I'm with you for the most part. I think card placement is the bigger issue. I'm not saying this because I don't think it's the case, I'm saying because I really don't know. Have we seen better stuff from Christian as a main event wrestler than we did as an upper midcard wrestler? There are plenty of quality wrestlers out there, but to me the challenge in picking a wrestler to win the "Ric Flair Award", as it's nicknamed, is in finding a Ric Flair. Who in wrestling currently most closely fits that bill?

I miss the days when the challenge was narrowing down the number of strong candidates and picking one, not scrambling to think of someone who comes close to fitting the bill. If that doesn't say it all about wrestling these days ...

No. They are all separate categories after that. Wrestler of the Year is supposed to be the guy that leads a company and best combines all of those things.

If not drawing, Wrestler of the Year could be who you think has done the best job carrying a company. Most Outstanding Wrestler only takes into account in-ring work, while Wrestler of the Year is supposed to be the best all around main event-level performer.

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. He's definitely the default answer. He reminds me of Ric Flair in the 80s, headlining in a declining company while still being the biggest draw they have.

Also, while he has had an underwhelming year, I still think Cena is the best pick.