Loss

I don't know if I've seen enough of Lashley to have a true opinion on him, but I do know that if he's getting over with the crowds, that alone is enough reason to try a push with him. Michaels beating him at SurSer was dumbass booking at its finest. Ken Kennedy couldn't have gotten injured at a worse time, and I'll be surprised if Creative is still as into him as they have been when he returns. His mic work was all catchphrases and did nothing to sell his feuds, so if anything, he has the WWE-style mic work down pat. Carlito is underrated. Very talented, and good on the mic. He's like Christian in that he's not that great on offense, but his strengths are in bumping, making the other guy look good and pacing and structuring a match. One of the best interviews in the company already, but he does too many jobs to be special. Cena is still the guy they need to run with for the foreseeable future. Kind of a shitty worker, but has a great connection with certain demos of the audience. I think they need to tweak a few things in his presentation before the boos become worse, though, and if anything, they need to tone down some of the other babyfaces on the roster (read: Shawn Michaels) so Cena, as the top draw, isn't constantly being upstaged. I don't know enough about Abyss to fully comment.

I do think Savage and Steamboat had a great, bloody, hate-filled match that took its time developing in Toronto on 07/27/86. That's the match I wish WM3 had been.

DVDVR is doing a Best of the 80s project, territory by territory, and they started with a 100-match WWF set for everyone to rank, in order. I saw lots of Savage I hadn't seen before after watching that set and my opinion of him changed a little. And Savage/Steamboat is better than Lawler/Von Erich, but the Wrestlemania III match is still a lighthearted spotfest with no in-ring story to speak of.

Matches of Lawler's that are must-see: Lawler v Terry Funk 08/81 Lawler v Dutch Mantel 2/7/82 Lawler v Dutch Mantel 2/14/82 Lawler v Dutch Mantel 3/1/82 Lawler v Bill Dundee 6/6/83 Lawler v Bill Dundee 10/19/85 Lawler v Bill Dundee 12/30/85 Lawler/Mantel v Dundee/Landell 3/24/86 Lawler v Austin Idol 4/27/87 I'm still working through a lot of the Lawler I have, actually, but this is all excellent stuff I think everyone should see. I've reviewed the majority of these matches in my pinned thread.

If anything, my opinion of Savage has gotten *worse* since seeing the DVDVR matches. He's great when he wants to be, but he's so inconsistent and it's frustrating. He was capable of working two types of matches -- lighthearted spotfests like the one against Steamboat at Wrestlemania III, and matches where he played pinball for a bigger guy, like his matches with Hogan. Those have their advantage, but he just wasn't all that versatile beyond that. I used to think Savage was the type that could work with anyone, but after watching the set, I'm now convinced he was a guy that could only work with guys who weren't that good in the first place. When he's in with a peer, his performance tends to suffer. The only time I think he's really produced a great match against a true peer was against Steamboat in Toronto on 07/27/86, a match I *much* prefer to Wrestlemania III. I'm not saying he's a bad worker by any means, I'm just saying that matches that look awesome on paper for Savage rarely are, while the ones that look questionable are usually pretty good. How can he have better matches with Hogan and Warrior than Steamboat, Bret Hart, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, Jake Roberts and Bad News Brown? I don't understand it. Contrasting that, I enjoy Lawler's game a lot. He does a lot less than Savage in the ring, but he does it so well and has mastered his schtick so much that he's created a style that would work with anyone. He very well may be the only guy I can think of who has legitimate claim to being both the best face of all time and the best heel of all time.

So exactly when is Jarrett supposed to be dropping the title, anyway?

I don't know about three feet, but I'd definitely put Rey Misterio over Big Show.

What if Rey becomes the most over guy in the promotion? Should he be held down just because of the dilemma about what to do about this small guy getting over? That logic is why it took so long for Benoit, Jericho and Guerrero (and years earlier, Hart and Michaels) to get anything even resembling a chance on top.

Morton faced off against Nikita Koloff, Krusher Kruschev and fucking DOCTOR DEATH!

Who determines if he's credible? Fans? Promoters? If the answer is "fans", then that includes us and we shouldn't base whether or not he's pushed on his physique. If it's the promoter, that's a different argument.

I do agree that wrestlers should look like wrestlers and should be encouraged to stay in good health. I just don't think there's anything wrong with pushing someone like a Buddy Rose or Adrian Adonis or Dick Murdoch or Stan Hansen who can really go. When they bring other positives to their position, it really shouldn't matter. That doesn't mean they should go out of their way to hire a bunch of 18-year old high school kids and fat slobs, it just means that someone like Trevor Murdoch, who looks like he'd kick more ass in a bar fight than anyone on the WWE roster, really, shouldn't be expected to be chiseled. As for Rey, Rey is only three inches shorter than Eddy, who looked credible against everyone, so I don't see how his height isn't an issue.

I don't think I've seen enough Murdoch yet to know fully where I stand on him as a talent, but a guy like him even getting a push is a major step from WWE, and I'm willing to see what he can do with the ball if he does get it.

TSM.

I've read some alarming threads since the death of Eddy Guerrero at various message boards, threads that show that so many people learned absolutely nothing from this tragedy, and threads that show that so many people are hypocritical. People were so sad when Eddy Guerrero died. Then news comes out that Trevor Murdoch is about to be given a singles push. Then I notice people complaining about Trevor's push because he looks "ugly" and "out of shape". Seriously, FUCK YOU if you think that. If you think that, congratulations, because you were an accomplice in the death of Eddy Guerrero, of Brian Pillman, of Louie Spicolli, of all of the wrestlers who have died too young, who have taken steroids. It's as much your fault for expecting that type of body on a big star as it is Vince's fault for responding to those expectations by pushing that body type. Second, I read threads at DVDVR that ROH guys look skinny and weak, and as a result they can't be compared to WWE guys. Congratulations to you guys, you are skipping a beat like nothing ever happened and seem to be out to make yet another young wrestler drop dead just because you don't think he looks good shirtless. In summary ... If you think Misterio is too small to be a world champ, if you think ROH needs bigger guys, if you think Trevor Murdoch is too ugly and out of shape-looking for a nice push, you are playing a major part in wrestlers under 40 leaving before their time. Because they're taking steroids to appeal to you. I know this seems harsh, and a thread I read just pissed me off, especially someone claiming that ugly wrestlers are what put the NWA out of business in the 1980s, so I'm writing with a lot of fury at the moment. But seriously, people need to rethink the way they look at wrestlers and the importance they place on size, unless they're willing to keep losing more and more of their favorites before it's their time to go. The next time someone complains about Paul London not getting a push and in the next breath says Rey doesn't look credible against The Undertaker, realize you just answered many of your own questions about why certain people are pushed in wrestling and certain people aren't.

How come no one paints their face anymore?

I wouldn't have argued that point at all.

I like the guy though, and he did have his moments. No reason for us to pile up and bury him one-after-another just because he never sold out MSG.

That article is stupid and the writer has no understanding of wrestling. 1 - If you give belts to people who need them, over time, they mean nothing. Wrestlers don't need belts, belts need wrestlers. There are exceptions, but that's largely true, especially with the top titles. 2 - HHH, like it or not, has drawn WAY more money for WWE than Bret Hart. Peak-to-peak, he's right about Michaels, but sadly, Shawn could be credited with more high buyrates since he's returned in an era where wrestling is bigger and he's happened to be headlining. 3 - What the hell is a technical wrestler? I agree that Flair should have retired in 1993, but man, for a wrestler to be nothing important, this guy sure did write a lot about him.

Lex Luger? I don't know.

I'd be surprised to see anyone from the current era looking like that at 70. Flair has looked older than Bruno does now for 10 years.

He did well for himself before going to the WWF, but you're right that he probably could have done better.

Koko rocked. One of the more underrated workers of his era, and a strong ability to play face or heel. His Memphis stuff is quite awesome.