Loss

Impossible? Have you never heard of a psychiatric exam? And my point is that making inaccurate statements about wrestling characters and storylines is NOT A BIG DEAL when you have talk show hosts accurately discussing the bigger issues like steroid use in wrestling. If someone is breaking news about Randy Orton having attempted suicide, news that no one else has broken (and yes, I realize it's more rumor right now), talking about the timeline of when he earned the nickname "Legend Killer" seems silly and a waste of time. The only people who care about those things are a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of wrestling fans who pay attention to continuity. Tiny, tiny, tiny group of people. Accuracy is always nice, yes, but the big picture - and the accuracy of the big story - is what's important here.

I love Dundee, but don't consider him quite an HOF-level guy. That said, from 9/85-3/86, he probably had the greatest six months of awesomeness of anyone in wrestling history, considering he was hitting really great levels as a booker, a wrestler and an interview all at the same time.

At this point, Cena has been getting booed so long that it has become part of his appeal. There is nothing they can do to change it, and it's something he's going to deal with the rest of his career, or as long as he's a babyface. It doesn't seem to phase him or WWE, so maybe the fans who boo him (yet are still buying tickets) will eventually get bored with it on their own and stop, since they're being ignored anyway. But I doubt it.

Maybe it would help, but this is quickly becoming a common wrestling fan defense. Nancy Grace makes logical points about wrestling being a steroid-infested business, but thinks someone can be demoted from the Four Horsemen to RAW, so her entire opinion is worthless. Irv Muschnick breaks what has the potential to be really big news in the wake of some horrible times for WWE, but states the wrong timeline for Orton developing his current gimmick, so his entire report is worthless. This is in no way an attack on any one person, it's just something I've noticed in quite a few places. Wrestling fans need to realize this is a story that really goes beyond just wrestling fans, at least to a greater degree than any other wrestling stories ever have. Getting dates/names/times of storylines and stables right, while it would be nice, doesn't detract from the greater point, and picking details like those apart only wastes time when the focus should be on the bigger issues at hand.

Wow. If this is true, I don't think Meltzer would have the guts to break the story, but he would certainly comment on it afterward if he had to. We may never know on this one, nor am I sure we really need to know, unless it somehow becomes relevant in the scheme of everything else. Don't get me wrong, it IS relevant, but I can see why WWE or Orton wouldn't want it out. There are reasons that aren't in the least questionable why they would want this kept under wraps if it's true.

Hennig was good. The HOF is for wrestlers who are the greatest of all time. Attempts to make him the top heel in the WWF failed and didn't draw, and he was never the best worker in his company at any point in his career. He had a good career. He didn't have a great, legendary career. AWA World title reign WWF main event run WCW main event run Four Horseman NWO None of those were all that successful, and things like the NWO that were successful had nothing to do with Hennig being a member. Secondary titles don't make a HOF career, just a respectable one.

Is there anything remotely sane about this? Latest WO.com poll: Who do you think is the strongest of these Hall of Fame candidates? Results So Far: Volk Han (2.1%) Owen Hart (20.9%) Curt Hennig (26.8%) Chris Jericho (18.4%) Satoshi Kojima (2.5%) Ivan Koloff (15.5%) Konnan (12.8%) Karloff Lagarde (1%) Curt Hennig was good and all, but wow, talk about someone who is insanely overrated for whatever reason.

I'm sure they also count the wrestlers, crew and security as part of the total attendance number.

There is not anything in existence that would single-handedly eliminate the drug problem in wrestling. Come on.

Tours, followed by time off.

So I watched some of the extras on the Horsemen DVD yesterday. Good stuff. I was down on it for a little while, but honestly, Flair/Arn is a great match and I don't understand the criticisms of it. You often hear the criticism of this that fights between brothers are usually more violent, but this wasn't really a hate-filled feud. This was a case of a guy who walked behind Ric Flair feeling underappreciated after doing so for 10 years and not really wanting to wrestle his best friend, but having to do so to prove something to Ric and to himself. So you get a lot of mat wrestling early on with Arn doing a lot of arm work to remind Ric where he comes from and make a point that he can keep up with Flair as a wrestler. This storyline was soooo good. Wrestling is often talked about in more detail with more complexity than it deserves. I'm guilty of it plenty, and so are others. But this match is actually a pretty subtle, complex match with some pretty deep layers of storytelling going on, in the context of pro wrestling. The spot where Flair does his typical apron running to fake Arn out then ducks when Arn tries the usual Flair/Sting/Nikita lariat to stop him in his tracks is just greatgreatgreat. Flair still had a lot in the tank in 1995 and Arn was still as good as he always was. I think they could have worked this for a year and gone in a million directions with it, other than the predictable Horsemen reunion the following month by beating up Sting, even if that angle was executed so strongly it had Flair, Arn, and Pillman all shining. The finish with Pillman was well done also, and Arn going over really had to happen.

I hate to be cynical, but it's hard not to given WWE's history. This honestly sounds to me more like an attempt to get guys who need help under Legends deals so they can't jump to TNA, while getting good PR all in the same breath. It could also just be a way to publicize things they've done for Sean Waltman in the past few years.

Yes.

Everything posted in this thread is noted. I'm mailing out discs Saturday, so tomorrow is the last day I can accept payments. So if you're interested, I need to know tomorrow at the latest.

I can really see both sides, although "How good is Ric Flair in 2007?" and "How over is Ric Flair in 2007?" are two completely different questions with different answers. They're being mixed together here. Also, WWE doesn't really emphasize results enough for anyone to be damaged by doing a one-shot job to Ric Flair that will be forgotten within two weeks at the most. But also, WWE is going overboard on comedy angles at the moment because they feel it's their best shot at repairing their image, so I don't think they have any desire to do anything serious right now. Flair fighting for his career with every match would really be more of a serious storyline. Austin is a hypocrite, as usual though. A young guy is left off the card at Wrestlemania and it's his own fault. He needs to take control of his character and demand to be featured. Ric Flair is left off the card at Wrestlemania and it's not his fault at all. Austin feels the company is stupid for not finding a place for him and pitches a storyline to help him out. Ric Flair looks ridiculous to be wrestling as old as he is and is sort of Just Another Guy in booking now when he deserves to be more. Ric Flair also remains very popular with fans and even last year, when he was being pushed hard for a few weeks in an effort to get Edge and Cena over, boosted ratings. Both sides are both right and wrong on some things. But whether or not he's still got it is one argument. Whether or not people care if he has it or not is another.

Where did you hear what you last heard, and what are your sources? Please don't say Meltzer.

I wish Flair's career could end on a high note. He deserves it and his fans deserve it. But Flair is 100% to blame for that not happening. Not saving his money, not stepping aside when he was obviously no longer capable of delivering and embarrassing himself has made him much less valuable than he should be, and it's all his fault. Flair should be a name like Hulk Hogan that fans remember and enjoy, but remains on the fringes of the business and does big matches every few years or so with the right opponents. Instead, Flair is an opening match guy who everyone in the company has pinned. I love Ric Flair, but the talk of a proper farewell for him is nearly two decades old. When WM was being rumored to be his last appearance, I thought there may be some potential there, but KCook made the best point of the thread -- Flair had his big farewell push against Vader in 1993, and then he never left.

HHH was able to turn babyface because of that feud. Yes, he was supposed to be the heel in those matches, but he played a babyface because he was put in the psychological position of saying what the fans wanted to hear. The first Khali/Cena PPV match drew well.

Also, how many times has HHH tried and failed to turn babyface in the past? The Cena program made it stick for him finally.

Politics and solipsism ... I love it! This thread is officially anything goes.

Well, if everyone has more than two concussions, then that means everyone is brain damaged, which means wrestling is hazardous, which means it probably shouldn't exist. I'm a fan and I'm not actively hoping for anyone to bring it down or anything, but objectively, what's the argument for allowing it to continue as is when the status quo is pretty horrible?

The Cena/Khali feud certainly helped Khali, because it showed if built up strongly, he can draw money. Without that, he never would have the SD title. Umaga came out of the Cena feud and went straight into the most hyped Wrestlemania match and has stayed near the top of the mix consistently since then. Prior to the Cena feud, he was running an undefeated streak and was protected, but the Cena feud was really what established him at the top.

I await the video package where they show that such celebrities as Ozzy Osbourne, Gennifer Flowers, Mike Tyson, Kevin Federline, Pamela Anderson, Fred Durst and Pete Rose consider WWE a great form of entertainment, and that they've done great things for the community such as registering young people to vote under a false pretense of non-partisanship and forcing their wrestlers to enter a war zone for the sake of good PR. If anyone remembers WWF TV in the early 90s, on an episode of WWF Superstars with 42-44 minutes of air time, 1/3 of that would be devoted to showing Vince McMahon at charity functions with guys like Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage telling tearjerking stories about how when they just didn't have the energy to keep going, Vince would tell them to think of the children who loved them, and that everything Vince did was to make children happy. I wish I was exaggerating. But prepare yourselves.

Yeah, the Nancy Grace thing has been exaggerated. She had about the same level of understanding of this story as the rest of the media after a few days.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/...=7&cxcat=46