Loss

I tend to think it was more "We need Hogan in our main events, but he can't do jobs or win the title, so what do we do?"

I think the idea behind it is more that with a good heel champ on top that people want to see lose, you can get multiple paydays off of various babyfaces chasing the heel, and in the big match where the heel finally loses, they'll do their biggest gate of them all, as opposed to just blowing the whole thing in one match. I think Hollywood Hogan in 1996-1997 is the best example of this I can think of, as they did big shows with Savage, Piper, Giant, and Luger all going after him, all leading to Sting at Starrcade. Also, Goldberg beating Hogan on Nitro is probably an example of why people say the money is in the chase. Goldberg vs Hall, Nash, Savage, etc. building to Goldberg vs Hogan would have been multiple big shows that all probably would have done reasonably well, and Starrcade probably would have been huge. I still maintain that HHH retaining at Wrestlemania 2000, leading to Rock winning the title at Backlash, was excellent booking, because they drew big on two shows instead of just one. I guess that is an example of the money being in the chase. It was obvious they were planning ahead at that time. With Flair in the Crockett days, I don't really think that mindset was in play at all, because Flair was their guy. The idea of them building around Magnum -- well, I think that's revisionist history that should also be classified as a myth. He might have won it and dropped it right back to Flair at the most, but Nikita, Sting, Luger, and Windham, all of whom were as marketable or more marketable than Magnum T.A., didn't get a run with the title during the Crockett years, so why would Magnum T.A.? You could also argue that Misawa's win over Jumbo in June 1990 was the beginning of his two-year title chase. I think the mindset among fans at that time was that it was obvious Misawa was going to win the title, it was just a matter of when it was going to happen.

There is a guest editorial about Steamboat on the Torch website now called "Keep Dragon Him Out". I am normally a fan of bad puns, but come on.

It didn't revitalize tag team wrestling, but it's arguable that they're the three most over tag teams the company has ever had. They did get over as stars, and the Hardys brought in a demographic none of the main eventers really did, so they were extremely valuable. This is kind of a no-brainer. It took Booker T several heel/face turns, a switch to SmackDown!, a repackaging, a valet, and 2 1/2 years to move past it, and even then, he still had the stench on him. The HHH promo in itself wasn't a terrible idea, but it was a terrible idea if Booker was only going to be a transitional challenger to HHH all along. HHH still -- after all this time -- does terrible heel promos. How hard is "you may be good, but I'm better" to pull off?

It was a joke.

I know this one gets debated a lot and this seems the appropriate place to hash it out: Is the money really in the chase?

All wrestlers are repetitive. Some more than others, but I like repetition. Signature spots and bumps are a good thing. Even in a good standard formula match, there's value in seeing how different wrestlers react to it. You know what you're getting with Flair nine times out of ten, so it's fun to compare a Flair match of similar length against two opponents to see who looks better.

Yes. I've heard a few WCW wrestlers from the past praise Stevie Ray and talk about how much they enjoyed working with him, because he listened and took direction well. In the same vein, wrestlers have talked for years about how much they enjoy working with the Undertaker because he works light as a feather. So, in their mind, that's what it means to be "good". I don't know that everyone thinks that way, but I do think a lot do.

To piggyback Al's very good point, the storyline also provided a real reason that the ladder was needed: controversy over who was the rightful IC champ, with two guys walking around with title belts. I will say, however, that the Jericho/Michaels ladder match from this past October may have topped it. I thought that match was outstanding, and I am not usually a big fan of ladder matches.

Anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the argument has been that fans understand wrestling better than the wrestlers, as it is that wrestlers can't be trusted to talk about these types of things objectively because they're constantly working, or saying what they think will gain them favor. So putting too much stock in their opinions is a bad idea because they rarely say what they truthfully think.

I'm not saying I completely disagree with you, but I will say wrestlers are likely to weigh things differently. Fans are going to remember how good the matches are and judge wrestlers by how many good matches they have and what entertaining qualities they bring to those matches. Wrestlers are going to judge other wrestlers by different criterion: how easy were they to work with, did they remember spots, listen to the crowd, not show up impaired or unmotivated, etc. I also question how objective many wrestlers can be -- no one is above saying nice things about someone they like personally. When wrestlers say David Von Erich was the best, they may mean he was the best at listening to the heel calling spots, and also the one who showed up to work. I know most wrestlers look down on Kevin because he worked overly stiff, which isn't really the type of thing fans are going to hold against him.

For whatever it's worth, I consider SuperBrawl II the best pay-per-view of all time.

What Dave doesn't seem to understand is that pro wrestling is calculated entertainment, and MMA is incidental entertainment. All sports are entertaining to someone, that doesn't mean that they're purposely setting out to be entertaining.

You can bet even if they just have a TV match on RAW, HHH will mention both the balding and the pot belly. Matt Hardy is definitely a guy whose body has changed drastically in the wellness era. I looked at a picture of him in 2005 recently, and he barely looked like the same guy.

Miz/Kingston was a pretty good little match on RAW tonight, even though they didn't really have the crowd. No one really had the crowd all night, though. For all the talk of Smackdown just getting enough people to keep them strong enough to tour, I think they came out ahead in this draft. Jericho, Rey, and Punk mixed in with Edge and Jeff already there, and Kane joining Undertaker, means lots of fresh matchups, and also lots of potential top feuds. HHH, Orton, Batista, Michaels, and Cena on RAW, while I like some of them just fine, is very same old, same old.

Taylor may not have been mentioned in the thread, but I believe he was.

Although, Bix posting selections from that thread a while back about it being ridiculous to argue that Barry Windham was better than Kurt Angle could be fun. It was especially funny when Bix pointed out that even Bryan admitted he hasn't seen a lot of old wrestling, and Bryan's response was that he has 24/7 and YouTube. To be fair, that wasn't just Bryan, that was several other people on the board. There also seemed to be genuine surprise that Terry Taylor was a big time sheet darling after his UWF heel turn. Bix and I talked on IM about how he probably wouldn't believe it if we told him Lex Luger was even considerably praised in the WON in 1989. In talking about Starrcade '89, Dave actually said no one in the company aside from Flair and Luger was talented enough to work three very different types of matches with three different opponents in one night.

As does mine. My desire to argue with people has been greatly reduced in the past few years.

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=3691

How did he announce this? Anyone able to copy/paste what he said?

I don't know that that's going to happen. Are people who disagree with me on message boards labeled as gay bashers?

This is about to resume! Goodhelmet has agreed to make the disc for each month. I am working right now on selecting content for the next disc. I will keep you posted as details are available. Some have PM'd me about getting their hands on previous discs: If you would like those (DVD #1 and DVD #2), I will still be the point of contact for those. The problem is that my DVD collection is a mess at the moment, so it might take me a few weeks to find them. Once I've found them, I'll respond to anyone who has PMd me about it with details. If you have questions you need to ask about the project through PM, please continue to PM me instead of goodhelmet. He will just be making the disc. Thanks!

Maybe I give him too much/too little credit, but I don't think Dave is the type to think about his brand or how to increase sales much at all. I think he just genuinely enjoys what he does and just lets the rest take care of itself. Wade Keller is the brand marketer, Dave is just a guy who wants to report the news and talk about wrestling/MMA.

Is he saying that UFC has had major problems internally with homophobia for years, and that it's known, accepted, and laughed about because it's a world with different rules? Then Dana White says something stupid publicly and it makes headlines? I understand the point he was making about the WWF. I don't see what that has to do with Dana White using the word "faggot".

Hogan was saying just a few years Andre was 700 lbs, so this is progress.