Loss

Wrestling promoters have expected talent to act a certain way in public as long as wrestling has been around. This isn't a new idea. Think about this year's Wrestlemania. Bret and Vince going on talk shows to promote the show together and talking about how they're making a great storyline out of their former very real rivalry that isn't real anymore probably wouldn't have been a wise move, right? WWE has admittedly entered the ballgame where they prefer to be treated as a show instead of a sport, and that's how they're discussed by most people. But wrestling also has roots that have wrestlers living the gimmick outside the arena with the goal of making everyone believe everything they saw was real. They still walk the line at times, but I can understand the inconsistency on WWE's part considering wrestling's roots. And if there's anyone who doesn't think wrestling being so exposed has led to an environment where it's harder to suspend disbelief, create emotion, and get heat, I'm not sure what I can say to convince them otherwise.

When was JBL's gimmick that he doesn't drink?

Only because they've never seen them in public. If they did, and they acted totally different than they do on TV, don't you think that would probably disappoint them a little?

Come on, wrestling is FOR kids. That's the audience. What was the last really heated feud in WWE? I guess Jericho-Michaels. Now if they were all buddy-buddy in public during the feud, making public appearances together and such, don't you think that might have taken away from the feud a little? The only thing hypocritical about this is people who hate "shoot" promos in wrestling because it exposes that it's fake, but don't think wrestlers should live their gimmicks either. Yes, everyone knows it's fake, but why remind everyone of that every chance you get? This is one of the few times WWE in recent years isn't shoving in everyone's face that what they do is "entertainment", so good for them.

It's perfectly legitimate. Undertaker still protects his gimmick in public in 2010, and guess what, people still buy into him and he has a superstar aura. That's wrestling. If Undertaker does it, there's no reason everyone else can't do the same. Nexus has been told to be rude to fans who ask them for autographs as well. I guarantee you when HHH and Stephanie were feuding going into Wrestlemania X-8 that they weren't doing interviews in public or traveling together. There isn't much kayfabe left, but there is a little. There's also the side issue of WWE trying to clean up their image and getting rid of someone who parties too hard is as good a reason to fire someone as anything. WWE should be praised for doing what they can to make people believe, however inconsistent they are at it, instead of criticized for it.

If the public reason they are giving is accurate, that's a perfectly legitimate reason to fire her.

Wrestling has changed quite a bit since the Attitude era. Wrestling isn't as violent, and the guys on top are more ladies man types like Cena, Orton, and Batista. The law of diminishing returns is also a factor, as every appearance from him after 2004 got less and less of a pop. Wrestling is also more kid-friendly, and most of the fans watching during his heyday have moved on to other things. Foley wouldn't be able to do most of the things he did in the late 90s to get himself over now. Also, promos like the one where he morphed back into Cactus Jack before One Night Stand in '06, while I enjoyed them, really felt like they went over the heads of most fans at the time. I remember feeling bad for him when watching on TV because the fans weren't really popping that much. He also didn't really stand out that much as an announcer. He's just another guy who retired and kept coming back.

Part of it is Foley himself, part of it is wrestling changing, part of it is petty politics, but HHH's statement that Mick Foley can't relate to today's wrestling fan is probably accurate.

Really, though, what's his beef? Paraphrasing ... "Throughout my career, Dave Meltzer has praised me immensely, and in many cases even more than I would say I deserve. He has also praised some of my promos in the past two years, and I have heard he has praised even more of them that I haven't read for myself. But he hasn't liked every single thing I have done, so I have a problem with that." The whole logic behind mentioning promotion names and talking about being broke was a little ridiculous too, considering: (1) Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt to me like that Shawn-JBL feud bombed big time (2) Foley got over being an everyman type, but he didn't get over by talking about needing money and being able to make more money working elsewhere ECW had its flaws in having too much obsession over the WWF and WCW for sure, but at the point Foley was there, it wasn't a nationally televised show with PPV. They weren't trying to be major league. TNA is (I think) trying to be a major league promotion, and the context in which the modern stuff is happening is so different, so it's not the same thing.

That was the most non-sensical tirade I've ever heard from Mick Foley. What was his point?

I have to admit that if Bischoff's only goal is to cut heel promos on the Internet, he's very good at it. Even if he is completely full of shit.

This puts them catching up to early 90s Seinfeld humor in 2010, which is about the normal time curve for wrestling. Coming soon: hypercolor wrestling gear!

Oh, managers are too Southern.

* No announcer enthusiasm * No cable ropes * No time calls * No referees with names Also, lying about what town they're in if they don't think the town sounds big enough is funny.

When the ratings aren't at 5.0 or higher by whatever the next PPV card is they'll just do to him what they did to Rob Van Dam in October 2001. They might, but they do seem far more dedicated to Nexus than they ever seemed intent on pushing RVD.

It's all in where they go from here.

Good move on Vince's part. Undertaker as a heel would have made the build work a little less. They really hyped that match very well over three months. Russo obviously had influence prior to that time of the year, but yeah, not in the same way.

There is a definite shift in TV style in 1998. I would say Summerslam was the dividing point, but I'm not sure if that's entirely correct. But the format and flow of a typical show was very, very Russo by October or November at the latest.

As well as they have promoted this main event, if PPV numbers stay down and this doesn't draw well, I'm not sure what match they could put together that would draw at this point. I don't know how they're going to book the main event, but the challenge is that the match needs to go pretty long since it's elimination rules and if you want one winner at the end, you need 13 decisions. But I also know most of these guys are pretty green. This may really be a case where Pat Patterson needs to book one of his sprawling match layouts in a way to keep the length of the match intact while hiding that the Nexus guys are all pretty green. If they can figure that out, I really think the match should go 1-hour+, when you add in intros, the match itself, and any post-match angle, which I'm sure will happen. Realistically, I expect the match to go more like 30 minutes and maybe take 45-50 minutes of PPV time with intros and the post-match. Also, I don't expect it, and I'm not the first to say it, but with the match being 7-on-6 and Miz teasing helping the WWE side, there's a great opening for Bryan Danielson to attack Miz in the aisle and make everyone think he's with Nexus, then join the WWE side. I don't really think that's going to happen, but this would be the time to do it. I really think the conclusion of Raw this week was the most heated and well-built segment I've seen on WWE TV in years, so I'm hoping that this is successful and that building matches this way will spill over into other stuff when it's proven successful.

Venis was fine as a serious upper midcard heel feuding with Rikishi in 2000, and he was fine as Bischoff's assistant a few years later. And while the RTC was booked to be petty, it actually did have potential to be successful based on Stevie Richards being a great promo and the siren ring entrance drawing good heat. His very short-lived tag team with Bob Holly in '02 was fine also. The problem was that they didn't stick with any direction they gave him very long.

The tricky thing about bookers is that almost anyone you can point to has had good runs and bad runs, and Internet discussion is so built around absolutes that the tendency is to put everyone in either one category or another. For most bookers who have had multiple runs, there are cases for them in both columns. Vince Russo is a strong exception to that.

Thought this might be a fun topic. Dusty Rhodes: Yes, Dusty killed Crockett by building around himself. Yes, Dusty killed towns by doing the same screwjob finish over and over. But I think Dusty's booking has been so criticized over the years that what he did well has been forgotten in some ways. This is a guy who went on TBS in 1985 with a roster full of guys, and very few had previous national exposure. Ric Flair, himself, Ole Anderson, Ivan Koloff ... that was really it. He got acts like Arn Anderson, Tully Blanchard, the Rock & Roll Express, and the Midnight Express over to a new audience. In Ricky Morton's shoot with Highspots, he even mentions that Tommy Rich tried to get a job working for Crockett and was turned down because Dusty was insistent on building around new stars. This led to a very successful 1985-1986 period. Spring and summer of 1986 when everything was really clicking was a super fun time to watch JCP. While it had mixed results as a money-drawing feud, Ricky Morton getting the best of Ric Flair in a few TV angles still feels fresh watching it nearly 25 years later. If anything hurt Dusty, it's that he stayed on too long. Most bookers have a shelf life about as long as Dusty was successful, and in most places, the booker would usually rotate at that point. The booker didn't rotate here, so by the summer of 1987, he was still coming up with occasional great ideas like War Games that drew huge on house shows, but the good ideas were fewer and farther between, and by fall, they were clearly in a decline. I'm not mentioning Dusty to say that most of the criticism he has gotten has not been deserved. My point is more that what he did well seems to have been somewhat forgotten over time. Kevin Sullivan: The more Eric Bischoff reveals himself as an idiot that doesn't grasp some really basic pro wrestling concepts, the more I want to give credit to the guy who booked most of the boom period. Sullivan is another guy who has definite weaknesses as a booker: His stuff is sometimes overly contrived and confusing, he books to settle grudges, etc. But I still think of Kevin Sullivan as a terrific booker who at times just kept going too long. It's sometimes hard to decipher who should get credit for what worked in '89 since there were so many chefs in the kitchen, but Sullivan was one of them for whatever that's worth. Where I give Sullivan credit for the NWO is with applying the touches that obviously came from someone who understands wrestling. He did a great job slowly building the heat on guys like Hogan, Hall, and Nash, so when they did their first jobs, it was a big deal. He was also responsible for getting Lex Luger and Sting perhaps more over than they'd ever been in 1997. I do think Bischoff had the basic overall vision, but I give Sullivan credit for helping execute it in a way that worked in a wrestling setting. Of course, he's another guy who probably should have wrapped up around the end of 1997 and just kept going, and while his 2000 run was bad, Russo's second run was bad enough to make it look better than it deserved.

In the past, Bischoff has said that Goldberg and Rock are the only two guys of the modern era to draw without having at least 8 years of experience, so that's probably what he meant. In Bischoff's world, Goldberg and Rock are still current stars. This just reminds me that TNA signed Jeff Hardy, who was probably hotter than even Cena or Rey at the time he left WWE, and I seriously doubt if Eric even knew that he was a successful headliner, based on the card placement since he's come in. He's not unique in running with a pat hand too long, but usually, the promoters who have been guilty of that can admit fault and realize that wrestling has newer stars a decade and a half later. I don't think if Bill Watts had started promoting in 2000 again that he would have tried to bring in Dick Slater and JYD.

It's an insanely stupid talking point, and Bischoff is using it to basically say, "Therefore, pushing new stars is a bad idea." This guy is an idiot. His beloved Hogan was a draw after about three years in wrestling, Flair became a draw about five years in, and Rock, Austin, and whoever else had less than 8 years before they drew. The most annoying thing about this guy is that he STILL thinks he did no wrong in not pushing anyone new in WCW. Even if his point is correct now, it's ultimately meaningless. There is no historic precedent for guys not drawing in their first eight years.

What Flair also said was that he did things that he knew didn't make sense, but he felt his job was to get a reaction, not just to make sense. That seems to be his interpretation of ring psychology too. Still, I agree with John. No way Flair would have blended in in New Japan. I always thought of All Japan as a really high-end American style, had the U.S. style ever really evolved past what it was in the 70s (and it has, but more in a regressive than progressive way for the most part). All Japan was a classic pro wrestling promotion. New Japan did much more to blur the line between work and shoot and tried to get their wrestlers over as "fighters", which was great, but someone who worked a typical 70s American style who wasn't going to change with the times was going to get lost in all of that. Whereas someone like Stan Hansen didn't really change his style so much to work with Misawa, Kawada, and Kobashi as he did increase his aggression, I can't think of too many American heavyweights that worked New Japan regularly that got over without having to adapt. There are exceptions. Vader worked in that environment, but Vader is a different type of wrestler than Flair, and has a style that's so great that it's worked in pretty much every environment. (Sometimes people criticize him for that, but I think it's a huge positive.) The Steiners got over in New Japan, but they were also a highspot tag team with some ridiculous suplexes and the top rope DDT and other moves that no one was doing at the time. Flair vs Fujinami might have worked, but that would have been because of Fujinami. Fujinami is great at the classic 70s-style match and would have been able to adapt. Flair v Hogan, Andre, and Murdoch would have worked because their style is a good mesh with Flair. Flair going against Inoki, Fujiwara, or Maeda I have trouble seeing as anything but a trainwreck, or at the very least, a styles clash. Steamboat was more adaptable than Flair, and while he got over to a degree in All Japan in the early 80s, his matches with Misawa and Muta in late '89-early '90s showed a Steamboat out of his element. So I think with Flair, that would have been magnified. Flair vs juniors, it's hard to say. Flair vs Liger would likely be really good, but again that's Liger knowing how to work the American style. I can't see Flair having good matches with Koshinaka or Rocco. Flair vs Takada scares me.