Loss

I'm not against big highspots, but I don't care at all for big highspots that aren't sold well. Hogan/Bossman was built around an insane suplex from the cage spot, but what made it work was that they took the time to sell its damage afterward, usually for 2-3 minutes. I think it's great that lots of young wrestlers have lots of great ideas and want to try new things and try new moves. I think where the veteran wrestlers/road agents come in is in disciplining them. Instead of using all 12 of their great ideas in one match, use two new ones in six separate matches, and get some deserved mileage out of them. It would serve them better and it would keep them from recycling stuff when they finally do start killing their brain cells with the death-defying stunts. I know Bret Hart always talked about asking his opponent what his three big moves were, and just using that to structure an entire match.

I'm not arguing that Batista is clean, but I do remember noticing a change in him after Vince told everyone to get off the stuff.

It's disappointing, but not really surprising. People like to hear success stories when it comes to addiction, but this sadly doesn't appear to be a success story. Too bad.

A lot of Bischoff being the first to make a profit is overblown. In '95, it took moving Hogan's salary to Turner Home Entertainment, and also doing some other cost restructuring to make it happen. Under those guidelines, WCW would have turned a profit every year of its existence until 1999-2000, when Bischoff was steering the ship more than half the time. Russo deservedly gets bashed for the New Blood/Millionaires Club 2000-era stuff, but Bischoff was part of that as well.

You know, while it's cute to make fun of the WWE's mainstay "experts," just because someone wasn't actually there, does it really give them no right to talk about it? Who's to say HHH and JR never watched WCCW and/or studied its past? In a way, saying they shouldn't be allowed to speak kind of supports the "you aren't in the business" arguments against the IWC's opinions. Also, Lombardi is an odd choice, I agree, but Trips and JR ARE old school fans...so if they were on the documentary, it wouldn't be THAT jarring. I still haven't gottwn T&T, I don't know. I am perfectly happy with owning just Heroes, but I hear that T&T wasn't as bad as the Tribute to the Freebirds theme that was feared in this thread. If anything, the WWE DVD department is the one arm of the whole company that still deserves a benefit of a doubt once in a while. Of course, they have a right to talk about it. But WWE has a tendency to use those three guys as key guys on DVD documentaries, regardless of the subject matter. I was just poking fun at that.

Keep in mind that also, a lot of it is WWE leaking stuff themselves, and then getting indignant about the sheets reporting on it. I don't think it's so much the case right now, but I'm convinced Vince McMahon was Dave's biggest source for years. When Jim Ross got into the inner circle, it became him. Now that he's out, who knows. But I would still venture to say that 90% of the information leaked about WWE is leaked by someone in upper management. WWE benefits from leaking as much as they can themselves, because it gives them a chance to frame the story. In a case like Montreal, everyone involved was clamoring to talk to Dave because they wanted their version of the story to be the one that got out. But they also go through cycles where they forget that and get paranoid, and do a crackdown on info getting out. Historically, that's not even unique to just WWE.

In the Stampede match, Flair appeared to have been a victim of a messed up haircut. That's all I remember about it.

I think a large part of his success is based on the fact that he was able to pitch his ideas successfully to the Turner people. The Monday night wrestling idea was actually suggested by Jim Herd once years before and shot down, and the whole idea of signing international talent to fill out a light heavyweight division while running with a strong heel stable led by an ex-WWFer is something Kip Frey did in his very brief term. He deserves credit for taking ideas others had and getting the most out of them, and he's a great self-promoter, but he wasn't a visionary or anything, and I don't think he ever really understood pro wrestling all that well.

John, is your argument against the match also one against stalling in general, or do you think this was just poorly-done stalling? Just wanting to make sure I understand your point. I acknowledge that you're not a fan of the match. Also, did you like the redneck karate part of the Midnight Express/Southern Boys match at Bash '90?

They actually did an excellent job choosing matches for Disc 2. I wish they wouldn't call it "definitive" though, because they could do several 3-disc sets, all with new material, and keep it coming for a long time. "Definitive" suggests this is it. It's also a nit-picky thing, but I wish some of the promos were from Pro or Worldwide, just because they were usually done in front of a backdrop in an arena or at ringside. The atmosphere was more lively.

Question: who were the main people that were pro-Angle to make him be ranked so high in a few DVDVR 500s?

Do you have a link to that? Sounds like an interesting read.

Regarding this, I agree that Dave has tended to retroactively bring down matches he liked (Jumbo/Cactus where he only criticized Cactus' lack of offense at the time) or said nothing about at the time (like the ** house show match where Jumbo supposedly didn't want to work because it was cold). I agree that basing his entire opinion around the thoughts of Mick Foley (who worked with him once in a six minute match), Tom Zenk (who is a sensationalist who says things to get attention), and Terry Funk (who has had great matches with him and has been known to lie himself) is silly. I agree that it's weird that he's adopted a certain point of view on Jumbo after the fact, when he loved him in his heyday. However, the stuff about him not working at that level night after night I don't think has ever really been addressed all that much. Dave's argument has always been that Flair matches that weren't televised were just as good as those that were, and he worked just as hard, while Jumbo wasn't having matches like the classic with Tenryu on 6/5/89 on small house shows. I'm curious -- is there a disagreement with that? I'm not sure I understand the counter-argument to that point, even if I agree with the rest of the argument.

Hopefully, the next Flair set has more promos and acknowledges that he did have matches that didn't feature Ricky Steamboat, Harley Race, and Dusty Rhodes. I think WWE understates his other feuds sometimes. Matches like the Flair/Steamboat matches are fantastic, but I liken it to sitting down and watching Gone With The Wind, where you have to be in a mood to view it. Let's see some 15-20 minute Flair vs midcarder matches that are a little more fast-paced make this set. Maybe some more previously unreleased stuff, like the awesome Morton match that was on the Horsemen DVD.

There's just this weird, over-generalizing idea I've seen a lot of the past few years where it's *always* a bad idea to not do a clean finish. I agree that doing too many screwjobs is bad, and I agree that the blowoffs should always have a winner and loser, but DQs, countouts, and run-ins do serve a purpose and make sense in some cases. The Flair/Kerry review really felt like a kneejerk interference-is-always-bad reaction.

Funny. A guest reviewer from SK's blog: I think the match is a little overrated because of the historical impact, but criticizing the booking, considering the boom it created? Really?

GMail? Did they have to downgrade their website or something recently? I thought they had @pwtorch.com email addresses.

The down times are just as important as the booms, because there are usually circumstances in the down times that lead to the next boom, if one in fact happens at all. Dave is really the only wrestling writer I expect anything from though, so everyone else can cover what they want.

I know Dave has dropped a few times over the past couple of months that they don't like that people are becoming able to call all of their finishes accurately, so I think maybe they're just attempting to make things more unpredictable.

Do you realize how much confusion that would have caused me at Thanksgiving?

I mean the details as far as who scripted the interviews (was it WWE or the speechwriters for the candidates?) and also curious if Clinton and Obama knew in advance about the skit.