Loss

I watched about 25-30 matches and know what I want to say, but haven't been able to set aside two hours and write about them all. I'm optimistic about being able to write something up tonight.

I wasn't even really saying TNA should have regard for ROH, as much as I was saying that TNA has created some real missed opportunities for Samoa Joe.

TNA has managed to kill Joe as a future star (at least in the near future), block a high-profile NOAH feud and turn the ROH crowd against him. Professional company, that.

Why is he going?

To me, there's never really been anyone better -- ever -- than Eddy Guerrero at facial expressions and body language.

I totally agree that Cena winning is the most important thing about the Wrestlemania main. Batista losing would also be nice, but Cena shows no signs of running out of steam anytime soon. According to Schemer, the current plan is Cena/Taker and Michaels/Batista, which isn't a horrible plan. Three out of the four guys are on a roll right now, so I'm pretty sure any way you slice it, Batista loses, or at least he should. The crowd will turn on him in a major way going against either guy.

Even if it did, I don't think that would be a big deal. Cena is pretty bulletproof. They did the match on Raw recently, though.

I was thinking the same thing. Batista breaking the streak would be ridiculous because he's on the verge of fizzing out, if he hasn't already. Cena is still over and will be for a long time.

My guess is that they are going Cena/Michaels when they originally planned Cena/Edge/Orton, but Meltzer makes it seem more significant than that. Austin and Rock are doubtful. Cena/Foley? Cena/Jericho?

From Meltzer's update today: Sounds like they're bringing someone back, but I may be wrong. Let the speculation begin.

If Shawn keeps the reinvention he's made the past few weeks as a hyped-up brawler going, I might become a fan of his again.

Let's talk about Barry Windham. I've been going through Will's comp for the past week or so and am pretty overwhelmed. It's amazing how many great matches he had, and the variety of opponents he had those matches against. It's easy for me to get tired of watching a wrestler for any significant amount of time in every match, or even watching one particular style for too long. Barry Windham really defies that. I have so much to say, and fully intend to elaborate in the next day or so when I talk about the two dozen or so Windham matches I've watched, but I wanted to start the appreciation thread in advance. Share the love.

I have watched the three matches in question, along with about 15-20 other Barry Windham matches, this weekend and agree with everything you said about the series. Pillman/Windham was a strong feud -- their interaction in War Games at Wrestle War '91 is awesome. That may be the best five minute opening for any War Games ever. Pillman put on a hell of a performance in that match selling the injury and being pissed and all. That was nice to see since he was usually in the token workrate spot on the card and rarely had an actual storyline with animosity to sink his teeth into around this time.

Ahem, the Japanese commentary. I know a lot of people have piled on you in this thread, and I didn't want to do so as well, but "Jap" is typically considered a racist term. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that's not how you meant it.

Sunny, Elizabeth, Sensational Sherri, Lita and Trish Stratus (and even Stephanie McMahon to a degree) are really exceptions to the rule about how they normally promote women. They are "divas", but they're not really wrestling characters. All the women I listed were successful in the company for varying reasons, but offering something aside from a look was the one thing they all had in common. I think Victoria does the worst acting anywhere in wrestling today and will never get over because she's so ridiculously unbelievable. She screams D-level horror movie. Rock was in the company in a different time. Business was down, and they were pushing new people pretty hard because they needed someone to catch on. He might have been cut in the modern setting, but he might have been kept on for his look as well. It's hard to say, but I think they'd probably see him as more Randy Orton than Mark Jindrak. There's no way he'd reach the level of superstardom he did under the current mindset though, because he would be forced into some horrible interview scripting, and his talking his what got him over. Tony Schiavone was outstanding in getting over the NWO early on, which has unfortunately been forgotten because he was every bit as horrible post-1997 as he was great before that. It hasn't been mentioned specifically in this topic, but I've always wondered why Bobby Heenan doesn't get more criticism from Meltzer types for basically going into business for himself and announcing Hulk Hogan's heel turn in advance at Bash at the Beach in '96. The NWO worked because they took what WCW had established as a norm and turned it upside down. There's no way WWE will ever do an invasion angle successfully, but I think it's more important to be different than good if you want to get over in modern WWE.

This happened at last night's ROH show, I believe. I don't think it's a case of the ROHbots turning on Joe for getting over elsewhere, as much as it is that they think he disrespected the business or the boys in the back or the fans that made him or something stupid like that. Rudo summed it up nicely.

Did this actually happen? Was Johnny Ace right? Does Joe regret not signing on as Umaga?

The point is that it won the award it did because it was on a WCW/New Japan supershow and the buyrate was pretty decent, which means a lot of people saw it and liked it, and remembered it because it was different than the usual WCW style they were accustomed to at the time.

When he shilled the set, he included the Midnight Special as a separate disc with every order.

If you got the full AJ '91 season from Dan, the longer version of the match is on the last disc.

I also think the match comes across even better complete, or virtually complete I should say. 48:00 of 51:32 are shown.

I tend to think there are times were a decently worked "resthold" doesn't adversely affect a match. In other words, where the purporse of the hold is to *rest* rather than to simply "fill space in the match". If working a hold serves a purpose in a match, it's not a resthold, even if it allows the wrestlers a chance to rest. That's really my point. It's a derogatory term used to described wrestlers who don't have enough wind to wrestle a match without taking a break. There are plenty of cases of that happening, but if it serves a purpose in the match, I wouldn't label it a resthold.

I only think it's fair to call something a resthold if it serves no purpose outside of resting and adversely affects the match. Otherwise, the term seems derogatory. There is value in taking a match up and bringing it back down to build to the next big flurry of action. Flair grabbed headlocks and armbars? I could *swear* you're always harping on him being go-go-go.

RAW got a 4.0 this week, courtesy of Meltzer. That's a pretty high rating, especially with no post-PPV bump and nothing particularly unique being hyped. I haven't been following the ratings much at all lately, but I'm curious if they've been hitting around this level and staying there, as that's a really impressive number. I'm also curious what you'd attribute the number to.

Barry Windham v Arn Anderson - WCW Slamboree 1993 Not as good as you'd expect it to be given the participants. Windham and Arn for whatever reason never gelled for me as opponents, but I did enjoy them quite a bit as a team. This is a match with some nice DDTs and spinebusters, and Windham has a pretty wild bladejob going on, but there's just not much of a match, and there's really no build to speak of. You'd think these two would have really good matches against each other, but every Windham/Arn match I've seen has had me disappointed.