Loss

I like this exchange on Saturday Night's Main Event, before a Dusty Rhodes vs Rick Rude match. Okerlund: What about Bobby Heenan? Dusty: What about Sapphire? Okerlund: Hey, you've got a point! Dusty: And a place to stick it, Mean Gene!

I guess I'm the only one who thought they should have just ignored the boos and not changed a thing.

I like Eddy Guerrero, covered in blood, doing the frogsplash on JBL and leaving him covered in blood himself.

I like Sgt. Slaughter finally getting vengeance when he knocks the Iron Sheik silly with his own pointed boot, in front of a rabid New York crowd.

My initial thoughts in this thread were merely meant to be my honest opinions and not some calculated attempt to rain on the happiness parade over Cena losing the belt. I just thought it was a bad move to take the title off of Cena -- especially to someone who doesn't deserve the spot -- and it escalated from there.

Sounds like Vince's idea of a humbling process.

And as far as the death of WCW, I've heard Hogan and Nash and Bischoff and Russo state their case millions of times in radio and dirtsheet interviews, and the story just doesn't hold up. There are two sides to the story, and their side trips over itself constantly. The other side doesn't.

I can only judge you by the words you post on this message board. And I have. I could link you to probably at least 1000 posts praising something that's happened in WWE at this board alone.

Since the NYR thread has branded some of us as being a little too negative, I thought I'd start a thread for us to list the things we like about wrestling. I'll start. I like the goosebumps I get watching Ric Flair make his entrance at Chi-Town Rumble '89.

Hogan had a lot to do with it, but ultimately, no. He's not 100% responsible.

The way I look at it is this. If you want to just enjoy everything about the product and leave it at that, fine, but why sign up for a wrestling message board, where the point is to discuss and debate?

When people start saying "at least it's ...", that means it sucks pretty hard.

They don't know the same facts as me or they wouldn't be making such asinine statements. I'd venture that neither one of them has read The Death of WCW, because anyone who had would never say some of the things said in this thread.

When did I say that? Are you here to debate the topic at hand or put words in my mouth? And since when is it okay for one person to voice an opinion, but the second I do so, I'm the one with the problem? Do you even notice the hypocrisy there? And Coffey is entertained by everything. He still thinks WWE is great. But let's ignore that the popularity of the company has plummeted because that might ruin the feel good moment. For one night, possibly. Just like Jericho did winning the title, and it did absolutely nothing for him or the company in the long run. I would not have complained if Cena retained. There's proof of that in other threads with me even saying I thought he should retain going into this show, but apparently, you'd rather make sweeping generalizations. It made sense. Fine. It was a stupid move. Edge is nowhere near over enough to be the top heel at this stage. If you want to pretend the company is still as successful as they've ever been and that they've never made mistakes, that's your decision. But don't expect others to do the same.

That was compounded even more when he lost a title match to Batista after winning the Gold Rush tournament last summer.

I agree that the WM 14 entrance for the Undertaker was pretty awe-inspiring. The Benoit/Jericho/Angle match at WM 2000 is sort of a microcosm of the way the company has booked for years now, booking that makes everyone equal without letting anyone stand out -- Jericho and Benoit trade wins and Angle loses two titles without jobbing.

This is not true. The guaranteed contracts had nothing to do with WCW's demise. It's just that those contracts were too high when business took a downturn. In 1996, 1997 and 1998, WCW main eventers were definitely not overpaid. In fact, in 1999, Steve Austin made more money than any of them ever made and I'm sure Rock, HHH and Undertaker have had years where they've made more than the highest paid guy in WCW as well. If WCW was financially mismanaged, which it was, it was only because they were making the same amount of money in 1999 when business was in the toilet. At that point, they were overpaid. But considering the other expenditures WCW had, payroll was not that big of a deal. I realize that, but I am not one of those people, and neither is anyone who posts here. I've praised many things they've done, but I also think it's only fair to point out when they do something silly as well. And the whole point of a message board is to debate and discuss. Coffey's opinion is welcome, yours is welcome ... and mine is welcome. There are a myriad of reasons why this isn't the case, and most revolve around decisions that television executives make regarding what ends up on their stations, and none of it has to do with the content of television of any competing organization. There is no other organization in a position to be competitive with WWE. TNA is closest, but they're doing studio wrestling late night on Saturdays. And hey, that's the kind of wrestling I grew up on, and I have no problem with it at all, but there are probably hundreds of answers for the question you posed that in no way reflect positively on WWE. So you do admit that business has slowed. If not for the international shows and DVD sales, they would be losing money hand over fist right now. Domestically, their business is at a pretty scary low level right now. I'll never say WWE is financially mismanaged, but where we seem to disagree is that you seem to think that the popularity of WWE is entirely related to outside factors that have nothing to do with the quality of the product, and I totally disagree with that. So you're saying Steve Austin would have been a huge draw even if he had never won the title? Or that people would still be turned off by HHH as a midcarder? It's the champ and the headlining match that sells the shows. Shows are headlined by world champions. Cena is practically dead unless they do a quick switch back to him in the next month or two, and even then, things won't be the same. His merchandise sales are about to fall considerably, considering that his big catchphrase is "The Champ Is Here" and he has all sorts of belt-related merchandise. They really shot themselves in the foot here. Disagreed. Edge was put in the position heels like Jericho, Angle and JBL have been put in before him, where they were given the top title on a whim, they weren't given enough build to be effective in that role, and it ended up hurting their careers. If Edge is an effective heel, instead of just seeming like he stole the title, it will seem like even though the fans hate him, he is a worthy champion and they sure wish someone would take the belt from him just to shut him up. If the only factor is that Edge stole the title, why not put Stevie Richards or Gene Snitsky or even Maria in that role? They waited so long to pull the trigger, and there was a time when he had some semblance of momentum, but he traded wins with Kane back and forth in bad matches with no heat for months and then did the same in a very underwhelming feud with Matt Hardy before getting injured and having to do promos to stay in the picture, which he's not particularly good at. 2005 should have been his year - I won't disagree with that, as I said it at the beginning of the year myself - but it wasn't, and it's too little, too late.

You're another person who has no idea what you're talking about. If you're saying I'm not a fan, tell it to my bank account, tell it to the hours I spend every week watching (and enjoying stuff), tell it to the years I've spent following the product, collecting stuff, talking about wrestling and writing about wrestling. This isn't about Coffey, it's about WWE, but a few of you can't seem to grasp that, that it's not about you. We're allowed to disagree with anyone, and I resent you implying that disagreeing with anyone is not allowed somehow. Two months before Wrestlemania and they don't have that hot babyface. Do you not see the problem in this? Six months ago, prior to the Matt Hardy feud, when Edge still had some semblance of momentum. Cena retaining was the right decision. Says who? NOTHING needed to be done. So he was being booed in arenas by half the crowd? Big deal. He wasn't causing those fans not to come to arenas, and he was doing his job bringing plenty of women and children in and selling merchandise like crazy. They probably killed that last night, all because they're more concerned with the pop than the dollar. Agreed, so let's job the title to a guy with no heat in two minutes?? Because they're just alike? Because Edge has been in the company since 1998 and they've been trying to elevate him the entire time and it hasn't worked? He already was like them. If the company is pushing you to be a top guy and after eight years of attempts, you're still not accepted at that level, you're never going to get at that level. He's had more chances than any of those guys ever got, by the way, and they were all more over than him at their peak. Can you stop putting words in our mouths and actually read what we say? It reeks of WCW to do a two-minute title change two months before your biggest show of the year because you booked yourself into a corner and now you have to give the belt to a guy with no heat.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what killed WCW and you apparently think WWE is every bit as strong as they were five years ago and that they've never made a single mistake. That's the impression given by all of your wrestling posts anyway. No one is making fun of anyone, Al. The point is that it was a bad booking move and that the past shows plenty of evidence of what happens when dumb decisions like this are made. Wrestling is above criticism. I get it already.

You learned nothing from the death of WCW, apparently. I'm glad you're so entertained.

If the fans wanted unpredictability simply for the sake of unpredictability, WCW would still be in business and Vince Russo would be the most powerful guy in wrestling. The most successful Wrestlemanias in history have always been the ones where the direction is very clear months in advance. Even factoring out the dumb business decisions and looking at it as a fan, Edge as champion offers NOTHING. He's jobbed to any potential challenger he could have except Cena, who isn't going to be cheered chasing a heel for the belt at this point, especially a heel with no heat. Michaels? He's already beaten Edge convincingly. Flair? That's laughable. HHH? The only halfway decent option, but who plays the babyface? Welcome to 1999-2000 WCW, where no one on top is over, and the ones who are over are over in a way they're not intended to be.

My problems with it: (1) Since the Matt Hardy feud ended, Edge has had zero momentum at all. He's not over, he can't cut a promo and he's injured right now yet again. (2) If Edge is going to win the title, building him up strong with some wins going into the show would have made sense, no? Going over Flair cleanly earlier in the night would be a given, right? (3) This is right before Wrestlemania, and they're fucking around with short-term title reigns. The only logical thing to do without screwing the title over would be for Edge to hold the belt until Mania when he drops it to former tag team partner Rey Misterio or arch-nemesis Matt Hardy. And the likelihood of either of those things happening is zilch. (4) Cena is vulnerable right now from a heat perspective, and dropping the title, even for the short-term, is only going to make that worse. (5) Why are Michaels, Angle, Edge and Carlito being booked to be stronger, smarter, funnier and more resilient than Cena? I think I'd have less problem with this happening at Wrestlemania than I would have it happening in the build to Wrestlemania. It only makes sense to stabilize the belts when a large part of the hype for the show is a probable title change.

Not that I'm a huge Carlito fan or anything, but at least it makes more sense to build up that feud than it does Shawn/Vince. Edge wins? Cashing in his title shot right now ... there are so many flaws in that idea that I don't really know where to start.

Wait ... what???

I can't. Look around. I'm not one of those people, but guys like Bix and Phil Schneider and Tom K are constantly praising his indy work as still being really strong. Lawler was never the type of guy who based his act around a bunch of athletic highspots or anything, so it's not like age is going to affect him as a performer in the same way it would someone else. I considered Lawler/Helms the best match on paper because it's the only match on the show that doesn't feature anyone who sucks these days.