Loss

El-P, are you a fan of Rude? I couldn't remember if I had heard you say either way, I was just curious.

I agree, and that would be my personal reason for not wanting to see him return. Bret had more charisma than he was generally given credit for, but usually the retired wrestlers who work well as seconds are guys who were a little more over the top. Bret would have to be a babyface, and being a second to another babyface would just weaken that babyface. He would not be a good announcer. The GM role is played out. If WWE wanted to use him, their best bet would be to have him replace John Laurinitis or take over the old Pat Patterson role.

There isn't much that's too embarrassing, but I don't think reporter/historian ballots should be given to promotional loyalists, especially not WWE loyalists, specifically because they downplay the existence of other wrestling too much and think wrestling started in 1984. Yes, I'm grouping a whole group of people together, which probably isn't right. And yes, maybe I'm wrong about that, I'm willing to discuss it more, but it seems like the requirement should be that anyone who has a HOF ballot should be someone with a good knowledge of wrestling and wrestling history in the U.S., Japan, Europe, and Mexico. Anyone who doesn't at least know enough to be dangerous on one of those topics shouldn't get a ballot. Maybe that's setting the bar too high, maybe it's not realistic, maybe that would end up with about five people voting on HOF candidates. That would mean Bret Hart doesn't know enough about wrestling to vote in a HOF because he patronizes Mexican wrestling and Southern territories. But that just seems a little different to me than doing the same to a national wrestling promotion, and at least Bret Hart is a wrestler. But again, maybe I'm wrong, because it's hard to think of too many people, if anyone, who are in the HOF primarily because of what they accomplished under Turner. Maybe Steamboat wouldn't be in without the Flair series in '89, and maybe Vader wouldn't be in without his World championship run in WCW. But Flair, Hogan, Piper, Savage, Benoit, and Guerrero all have their HOF case that isn't hurt by their time in WCW, but their time in WCW wasn't make-or-break for their induction either. On the flip side, there are plenty of guys in the HOF based solely on a strong WWE run.

http://www.armpitwrestling.com/dan-wahlers-interview.shtml And I stand corrected. He didn't say he wasn't watching at the time. He did say that he was really only a fan of one promotion, which I think is just as bad in some ways.

It's not a style of promoting. I think that's how Dave defines it, which is where the disconnect is. He sees wrestling as something promoted, I see wrestling as something done by wrestlers. I think all wrestling is worked shoot, what Sakuraba did was equivalent to very successful method acting.

And to show I'm equally guilty ... Isn't all pro wrestling worked shoots?

All these years, and we're still debating what wrestling is and isn't? If we can't get that straight, how can we talk about anything else?

Austin/Foley The main event of Wrestlemania should have been Austin/Hogan or Austin/Goldberg, two guys fans associated with WCW. I understand WCW really didn't have a big name main eventer who was also really good in the ring at the end, but a good match could have been laid out with either guy. HHH/Scott Steiner, Undertaker/Sting, Rock/whoever was the odd one out between Hogan and Goldberg would have filled out the top of the card. WWF vs WCW matches. HHH/Booker T The point here is that this match did happen a year later on PPV and HHH going over prompted a big backlash, be it because of the racist undertones, because Booker had been rehabbed and was over, or both. Cornette is fantasy booking, and all he can do is repeat that scenario? Road Warriors Reunion Yes, WWE did it in 2003, and it lasted all of one match. It's just weird because Cornette keeps talking about the need for creating new stars, and doing things like rehashing Foley, the Road Warriors, Terry Funk, and Dusty Rhodes on top. Taz/Bam Bam Bigelow Yes, it worked in ECW, but this was five years later, Taz was a jobbed out announcer, Bigelow was on the fringes of wrestling, and neither guy is thought of as a particularly WWF or WCW guy. I agree that people were so turned off by Vince Russo's shoot booking in WCW that pro wrestling has overcompensated in the other direction, and now there's no believability. I have no problem with a well-done angle based on something real, or with the idea of things getting out of hand. But acknowledging that wrestling is fake (EXCEPT FOR THIS) within a wrestling show is annoying. This stuff isn't really too far off from Nash being a "professional" at New Blood Rising when Goldberg walked out.

To clarify, I am not even sure I meant that as an insult. It's more just a point of view. I tend to think his opinion is more like, "What does it matter if someone was great at the time and no one considered them great? We watch them on tape 25 years later and think they were great, but they didn't have a strong reputation among people in the business for being great. What does watching them on tape 25 years later and enjoying them have to do with the price of tea in China, much less the Observer Hall of Fame?" And looking back, I shouldn't have used Bill Dundee as an example. He was well-regarded at the time, both as a wrestler and as a booker, and he was somewhat in demand in multiple territories. If there's a perception problem with Dundee, it's with modern WON fans who became fans during the Attitude Era who haven't been terribly exposed to much stuff before that, unless they've read about it in the WON. In fact, most of the contentious candidates have a perception problem with that group more than any other. Dan Wahlers even admitted a while back that he didn't really have many opinions on the downfall of WCW because he wasn't watching at the time. But regardless of that, I think my general point still stands about the HOF being more about perception and reputation than truth and accuracy. Maybe it's better that way, because it's a pro wrestling Hall of Fame. Beats me. Maybe it can't help but be that way for two reasons: (1) It's wrestling (2) People within wrestling determine who goes in But I think most of the criticism comes from people who have a fundamental disagreement on viewing wrestlers and wrestling history in that context, so that's the source of much of the debate.

I think the divide here is in how the HOF criteria is defined. We all think people who go in on work should be people who go in based on having great matches that we can still watch years later and enjoy. Dave is more of the opinion that someone going in on work is based on how they were perceived at the time, and how they're remembered by the vast majority, not how good they actually are or were. (In a weird way, this makes the case for Sabu stronger than it has any business being, but as Dave always says, wrestling is filled with double standards.) Dave doesn't see the value in going back and watching tapes, because the HOF is about perception, not about truth. It's wrestling. It doesn't matter that Bill Dundee was genuinely better in the ring than Kurt Angle. Angle is in because he's more fondly remembered than Dundee, whether it's deserved or not. Ted DiBiase was always regarded as a great worker, so it doesn't matter if he actually was one. The HOF is about reputation. He doesn't see the value in watching old tapes because he doesn't see how it matters what people think now. All that matters is what people thought at the time. That's a pretty irreconcilable difference to overcome. I'd be more interested in having discussions about which side is right and which side is wrong on the core of this argument than I would debating the merits of specific people, at least until it's generally established where most people are coming from.

I've got about 40 minutes left of this to watch, which I'll watch tonight, but I'll just say I'm pretty unimpressed with this. I think his ideas are way, way worse than the actual Invasion angle that did happen. Wrestlemania headlined by Steve Austin vs Mick Foley in a WWF vs WCW interpromotional match? Intercontinental champion Terry Funk, going over Eddy Guerrero? Chris Jericho being used to put over Sting in the year 2001? Hulk Hogan's WWF return after 9 years against Dusty Rhodes? With Jimmy Hart and Jim Cornette in the respective corners? HHH going over Booker T at Wrestlemania? Jerry Lynn and Nova as a top tag team? Road Warriors reunion? Almost constant worked shoot angles? Dustin Rhodes and Jeff Jarrett as a "second-generation tag team" managed by Dusty Rhodes going over Matt and Jeff Hardy? The Rock vs Jeff Jarrett, which Cornette talks about in dream match terms? Kurt Angle vs Rick Steiner? Taz vs Bam Bam Bigelow? Really? The only ideas I really liked were the Benoit/Regal match totally getting out of hand to make people think something serious has gone down, and the way he debuted Lesnar slaughtering and sidelining Flair. Flair/Vince as a Wrestlemania blowoff with Flair getting five minutes with Bischoff if he wins is also something that I like as an idea. But wow on everything else. I haven't even gotten into not leaving any openings to get anyone new over as a top guy throughout this entire angle, with Brock Lesnar being the one notable exception to that. And while he is right about the importance of fans believing in what they're watching, he goes to extremes to make this happen, when really, if wrestling fans believed anything, it was that WWF and WCW were enemies. There was no reason to do matches where the "professional wrestler's code" of conduct that says you don't try to really hurt each other is suspended to get the feud over. (Yes, that's really his idea for Wrestlemania.) There is also the hypocrisy of complaining about guys really hurting each other and no one believing what they're doing, a valid point, but discussing approaching Benoit and Regal about a business proposition for both guys to really lay into each other and leave bruises/welps/blood, etc. to get over the "real" nature of the feud between the two sides (Benoit would jump to WCW in his booking). This actually makes me somewhat thankful Cornette isn't booking anywhere these days, even though I really like and support most of his general wrestling philosophy. As a longtime Cornette fan, I'm pretty disappointed.

Sure, if you're a promoter. It's possible for fans to enjoy wrestlers who don't draw. I'm sure there are wrestlers you like who were never major draws.

I'm surprised that Eric Bischoff agreed to be interviewed by Wade Keller. I thought they hated each other.

This is honestly my fear too.

I can think of tons that are underrated, but none that are really overrated.

Relieved by comparison yes, but I would bet their real feelings are some combination of figuring out what the company line will be, mixed in with what is probably ... wait for it ... some genuine concern about his well-being. That doesn't mean the concern about his well being will trump their desire to protect themselves, but I'm sure there are people in the company somewhere who are worried about him.

Oh, that was a close one. Good to know this was simply a case of exaggeration. Moving on ...

http://thepilot.com/stories/20090911/news/...1jeffhardy.html From Powell's site: This part got me: That's a really oversimplified way to look at it. I doubt WWE's reaction to this is "breathing a sigh of relief". I'm not implying they have done anything wrong here, but people still consider him a WWE star, and any publicity from this will likely link Jeff Hardy and WWE.

I think Dave considers Raw and Smackdown to be different territories. Really, it's almost impossible for me to see a case for HOF entry for anyone based on what they've done in this era. Concepts sell more than stars or grudge matches in the current format, which is why a poorly-promoted Wrestlemania will always get a better buyrate than a B-show with a brilliant buildup. And I think WWE likes it that way because they've created a business model where they can basically rotate the cast and everything ultimately stays the same. I would hear a case for Cena when he's eligible and consider him. Rey I think is HOF slam dunk pick and I don't see a case against him at all. Chris Jericho is to me the ultimate borderline candidate and someone should Gordy List him. But with Edge, I just don't see the value in spending time discussing him as a candidate. Any business boost that took place when Edge was on top (which I'm not denying existed) would have likely happened no matter who was in that spot. There is almost always a ratings and business boost in the first quarter of the year, which is right after Edge used Money In The Bank. What makes Edge a stronger candidate than Batista or Randy Orton? He's a guy who since 2000 has never been pushed as anything below upper midcard, who no one bought as a main eventer until he was programmed against John Cena. That's not a case for Edge as a HOFer, that's a case for Cena's aura helping put Edge over the top. It's also worth noting that the ratings Edge drew that Dave loves to cite were the result of WWE promoting live sex between him and Lita, followed by a mini-program with Ric Flair, a consistent ratings draw almost as long as wrestling has been broadcast on national television. It's not something that should be downplayed, as WWE deserves credit for programming a guy they were trying to push against an established star with a track record of drawing ratings, but it's not a HOF argument either.

He also called Edge an incredible actor, when I think his acting skills are pretty much the worst thing about him.

If he can stay healthy, Nigel McGuinness has superstar potential.

I would put those three teams in this order: Rock & Roll Express Midnight Express Fantastics All three are great teams. I wouldn't argue too much with someone who had them in a different order, because I can see arguments several ways. The only thing I would stick to would be the Rock & Rolls being better than the Fantastics. Fantastics best matches are better (I think), and they were better in Japan, but the Rock & Rolls I think overall had better output. Either way, it's close.

This isn't going anywhere that I think has a purpose, so I'm closing the thread.

My question was if morally, it should have an effect, not what the probability is of it having an effect.

Rey has many options. He is one of the few wrestlers out there that could wrestle anywhere he wanted. There was a public poll done recently where he was determined to be the most popular person in Mexico, not just wrestler, on par with a Michael Jordan type in the U.S. This is part of what triggered the money problems with Rey and WWE, because opportunities were opening up for product endorsements for Rey in Mexico, and AAA was offering him something in the million dollar range. Rey felt like he needed to jump on it while he could. I think TNA would be the worst move for him, and I'm curious if TNA would even know how big of a star they were getting if they signed him.