Loss

Did they get in any of their old spots?

Luger not only sold a knee injury for half the show, but actually found a way to change his trunks after every single match of the night. If that's not workrate, what is?

Man, I just don't get the love for old Andre at all, and I'm totally about the story of matches over the action. But wrestlers have to be able to at least execute a few basic moves to be credible (not as tough guys, but as athletes), and Andre could barely move. He wasn't fun to watch during those years at all to me. I thought it was embarrassing and he looked really frail. Not everyone needs to be incredibly athletic, but being able to execute a few wrestling moves should be a minimum requirement. Sure, the matches were psychologically sound, but they oughta be when a guy has been around that long, and the premise of wrestling is that it's an athletic contest. As strange as it is to say, Andre just didn't have any credibility with me in his later years because he didn't seem like an athlete at all.

That picture makes Bull Nakano even more awesome. This story does not.

Work entrants in the HOF are based on reputation, not reality. Wrestlers don't get in because they're great workers, they get in because they are hardcore darlings who have reputations as great workers. That doesn't mean that anyone in on work isn't great, but that's not why they are in. It's all about memory and popular consensus opinion, for better or worse. Re-evaluation and watching tapes years later isn't something that has really ever caught on with that crowd, mainly because Dave sees no value in it. Stories in books and shoot interviews filled with rose-colored memories about how great someone was years ago go much farther than footage people can actually track down to see for themselves. And even if footage was tracked down, the HOF organizer would make the point that its value was limited because it was being watched out of context. All that said, I have no idea how Bruce made that pick, but then again, why would he vote for the Steiners in the past and not do so now? His ballot doesn't really have much rhyme or reason. It's worth remembering: Shawn Michaels is in on work. His drawing power as a headliner and professionalism during his physical prime worked against him getting in for years. The argument was always that his in-ring was the one thing he had going for him, and the debate was rarely over how great he was (except for with jdw), and more over if it was enough on its own to put him in. I think your average HOF voter is in a totally different place with fandom than we are, and looks at wrestling in a different way. Memory and reputation are the guiding forces, not facts and footage. I don't agree with that, but that's how the HOF has been run.

Jerry McDevitt cited it when omitting names from the drug testing information WWE sent to Congress a few years back, but yeah pretty much.

It's possible. I want to be clear that I'm not saying I think Nash has an STD. I am saying that "clearing up", combined with Dave purposely not coming right out and saying what the issue is that other people have had, would make that make sense.

Legit question about Nash: What type of medical issue would keep someone from wrestling and clears up in a few weeks? I'm sure there are other answers, but all I can think is STD.

Who can deny the strong style credentials of Johnny Saint?

El-P, in case you weren't aware, Flair/Sting actually went like 17 minutes because Flair messed up the timing. They were doing a countdown live in the arena, but Flair hadn't gotten to the figure four yet, so they just kept wrestling for another two minutes or so. Lex Luger is the rightful winner of this tournament!

I think one of the most interesting HHH moments was in the build to the 2003 Royal Rumble match against Scott Steiner. There was an angle on Raw where he was trying to copy Flair by getting his suit torn apart, getting stripped down to his underwear, taking back body drop bumps, etc. The problem was that he was selling it like he was mildly annoyed instead of like Steiner had humiliated him. What I thought was telling was that Lawler covered for him at the booth, saying HHH was trying really hard not to show it, but Steiner had embarrassed him. That had to be a fed line, but it's an interesting one.

I have no problem with HHH not going as far as Vince to put guys over. Vince was never a wrestler, HHH was. HHH was also the top guy for many years and the centerpiece of the promotion. For him to suddenly be completely ineffective wouldn't make sense either. It's why having him so heavily involved in the top mix isn't a good idea to me -- no one will buy someone getting the best of him regularly. If you look at Steve Austin's role as a non-wrestler in 2003-2004, he wasn't used to get anything or anyone over except Steve Austin. He was protected far too much for a guy whose best days were behind him. I had no problem with him stunning certain guys who they were never going to do anything with, but when it started happening to guys who were near the top, it was a turn-off. If they couldn't book Austin to show ass and get other guys over in a non-wrestler role, there is no way they're going to do so for HHH. In addition to John's point that Vince is just a much better actor and overall performer than HHH, he was also in a better position to sell and make everyone else look great. HHH, even if he had all the good intentions in the world, just isn't going to pull that off.

I wonder how things might have been different if Crockett didn't lose Mapleleaf Gardens in the early 80s.

That was later. So cheer up.

Didn't Worldwide air in parts of Canada during the Crockett days? Did Pro Wrestling Plus show JCP footage?

You see, most of wrestling is really, really fake. We do our best to make sure you remember that constantly when watching our show, because we're self conscious and don't want you to think that we aren't in on the joke. We don't take ourselves too seriously. But this? This is real. They started shooting with a mic on a live television show! They used real names! Clearly, WWE would not allow them to use real names on television, so this has to be real, right? Yes ... very Vince Russo.

No one, including Punk's mother, refers to him as Phil Brooks ... except Punk himself, apparently.

WCW ran a show in Toronto in March of '99 that drew well. Hogan got way more cheers than he was getting at that point in time. I'm not saying no one called the response to Hogan a mile away. I am saying it wasn't something widely discussed as likely to happen prior to the match on message boards.

I personally was surprised by the Hogan reaction. I didn't anticipate that prior to Mania, as Hogan got a nice reaction his first couple of nights in, but didn't really get a crazy big reaction in the weeks leading into Mania. Him beating Rock on the Raw before Mania played to a really quiet crowd. Plus, Hogan had his WWF fans, and the Canadian audience is typically pro-WWF, but I do think Hogan's rep had been a little sullied at this point because of WCW. He was associated with a losing product. He would also always get booed heavily during highlight packages (a strange phenomenon for him in the latter days of his in-ring career, where he would get booed on the Jumbotron then cheered like crazy when he came out live). But anyway, most fans thought WCW sucked, and Hogan was the biggest, most pushed star they had. Hogan overcame that at Mania and got a great reaction, so it's been a little forgotten that the Toronto match was really a rehab for him. Rock is in a different position going into this show than Hogan was going into X-8.

That promo was before, and Luger even hooked Hayes' tights to win the title back.

Starting to edit in thoughts when I can.

I don't know the answer to that question, but I would guess the Luger turn was decided on sometime in late April during the build to Wrestle War '89. Because of the angle with Terry Funk, it was the first NWA show in quite a while that seemed to be very clearly laying the groundwork for the next show to follow. Also, around this time, they left Techwood Drive and moved to Center Stage and really seemed to be putting a strong effort into putting out a better wrestling product. The shows were more angle-driven and they were airing more marquee matches. Also, at least initially, that Center Stage crowd was hot. I remember Dave actually downplaying the positives of this a little in the WON at the time, believe it or not. He said there was nothing wrong with improving their product, but on its own, it wasn't enough to turn things around. They needed a promotional machine, they needed backing from TBS, and they needed an angle that was red hot, not just good. Back to Luger, I'm sure the finish of Wrestle War '89 was designed to turn Luger heel. He was hinting at the turn right away after Wrestle War '89, doing a promo on that weekend's show about how he was "sick and tired" of playing by the rules. This is motivating me to get back to recapping WONs and really dig into '89, but for Chrissakes, I have too many projects going on at this board. I am only one man.

Thanks. Yeah, during the downtime between this and the '95 yearbook coming out, I want to peruse all the match threads to make sure anything recommended in passing gets compiled in a single place. I'm still not sure what form a supplemental/Errata set will take, but we'll figure that out later.

This seems like a good place to post this: The finish to Rock/Cena is going to be nearly impossible to get right. They cannot put Cena over Rock in Miami without a ridiculous backlash. All the same, Rock going over Cena makes a big statement that there's no point in following current WWE because the guys of the past are better than the torchbearer today. They'll have to pick one, but neither is really win-win. I do agree with whoever in the company it was making arguments for why the match shouldn't happen. It was too late by that time since the match had already been announced, but I do agree that there is no way to make everyone happy with the end result of that match. To be clear, I don't agree that they should cancel the match. They've announced it, they have to do it. I do think that the arguments against doing the match at all are valid.

I'm not sure I get that. It makes me wonder how Giant Baba is in. How Stu Hart is in. How Bill Watts is in. I think for any candidate, we should be allowed to look at all of their contributions.