Loss

Yes, definitely. I'm going to post a reminder in every thread where there's a poll to remind the voter of this.

Sadly, Nash/HHH drew a surprisingly huge buyrate for the time (at least the second match did), but I think anyone with a brain realizes that was because of Mick Foley, not the main event.

Holy shit, Goodhelmet, that was an awesome post. WCW is a little bit of a touchy subject for me as well, because while I loved the company, I hate the people in charge just as much for allowing it to become what it became, for waiting too long to make the changes they needed to make all along, for letting all of their most promising talents slip out the back door and not even caring about it, for giving us this ultra-boring monopoly era where Monday nights just aren't fun anymore. They had the world by the balls, and they had an incredibly loyal fanbase mixed with mainstream acceptance. Could they have maintained the mainstream appeal forever? No, but they could have stayed respectable. Transitioning from the Hogans and Nashes to the Goldbergs and Bookers might have been a rough ride, but had they done it when they should have, they'd still be in business. The irony in them having their most profitable year ever in 1998 while making decisions all year long that would kill them is crushing, as is the irony that on the same night that they drew the biggest gate in company history, they committed suicide at the top of the card by switching the title on a fingerpoke. I miss WCW, and it makes me angry that it all played out the way it did, because everyone involved really did deserve a happier ending.

Matt is a very open, intelligent guy, so the shoot interview should be very good. I'm not sure how he'll fit in with the ROH workers though. He'll definitely be more well received than Jeff was, and he'll easily outwork Jeff, but can he adapt? It's hard to say yes or no, considering that most of the best of his career has been spent working the WWE style and doing TLC stuntshows, but at the same time, he's always seemed like he could be far better than he was showing, at least to me. I do think he's an above-average worker, but can he keep up? We'll see. That said, if he's committed to them over the long haul, he'll be the biggest name they have, aside from Mick Foley, and from a storyline perspective, the possibilities are endless. In related ROH news, Meltzer reported in the recent Observer that Samoa Joe is openly afraid for his future since he's not getting NJ tours, ROH is no longer using him in top matches and WWE has no interest in him. Meltzer did also say that this is a common thing that a lot of wrestlers go through at some point in their careers, but that they usually don't make their fears public like Joe has. After his banner 2004 (which I'll be delving into in the coming weeks), that's sad to hear, but I'm sure he'll bounce back soon enough.

Ah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.

So, if someone loses in the second round, what happens then? Or the third round? That's what I'm trying to clarify.

I voted yes, and maybe I'm clinging to false hope, but I think a large part of Ross's problem is Lawler. From what I understand, his commentary at the Royal Rumble in '04 was really good because he was working with Tazz, and in '01, he was much better than he is now working with Paul Heyman. The chemistry that used to be there just isn't anymore, and I think they need a new color guy. Why they brought Lawler back after the Stacy Carter debacle I'll never know. There are times, like at WM XX, where Eddy and Benoit were doing their post-match celebration and Ross killed the moment in some ways by screaming instead of just staying quiet and letting Benoit and Eddy tell the story themselves. I think a good announcer knows when to talk and when to shut up. Cole and Tazz, on all the 2004 WWE I've watched so far, have been more than adequate. I don't think Cole would be as good without Tazz, who does color, but he does it in more the Jesse Ventura style where he also explains the psychology and acts like he knows something about wrestling. It's not like Lawler doesn't have the wrestling knowledge to do the job. I don't know what his problem is.

I think that's the most fair way to do it. I guess whoever loses the first match will face whoever loses the second match, and that's how we'll do the bracketing in the loser's bracket. Just so I'm sure I understand how double eliminations work, if someone gets eliminated after the first round, do they still get to enter the loser's bracket?

Oh, I know. Pick whoever you want; it's a fiercely democratic tournament. I was just explaining the difference between wrestler and worker since goodhelmet asked me to.

Cheer up, young grasshopper, and learn to love Ricky Steamboat. It'll certainly make your day a brighter one.

Early 80s? Wow. Jumbo adjusted his style to work against Choshu and company, and modified it again to keep up with Misawa, Kawada and Kobashi in the early 90s. I wonder what he needed to do that he didn't do. Did Ric Flair ever make any adjustments in his style after 1981 or so? Well, unless you count "taking things out of his arsenal" as changing his style. I say that as a huge Flair fan.

Then we will all laugh at you. Forever.

I know, it was very uneven. I credit that to WCW not following up when those guys would have a great match, therefore leaving the audience to forget that it happened. They got much better about that in 2001. They got much better about a lot at that point actually. BTW, was I the only one who was *sad* that Benoit and Eddy left WCW? You might as well have nailed the coffin shut on the company at that point, and knowing how incredibly limiting the WWF style is, it was a little sad, and I think that's when the idea of the Monday Night Wars actually being anything resembling competitive died. Because by that point in time, Benoit was probably the most over guy they had that had never won the World title (unless you count Scott Hall, and I don't, since he couldn't be counted on anyway).

One more point. The best possible worker will do three things: (1) Involve the crowd through his actions in the ring (2) Wrestle a match that makes sense with no leaps in logic that only serve to remind the audience that what they're watching is fake (3) Perform moves that help them do #1 and #2 in the most exciting way possible

I could care less about great wrestlers. Being a great wrestler only helps one become a great worker. Hulk Hogan was able to evoke emotion through the crowd with his selling and through taking the fans on kind of an emotional rollercoaster. Anyone who can't get the crowd into their matches, no matter how many moves they can do, is not a great worker. The best worker is ideally a great wrestler who can also do this. Before someone busts out the word "technical", it has nothing to do with the style the wrestler uses and everything to do with the way they use what they know. "But the Ultimate Warrior was more over than Chris Benoit," you say. That's not quite getting it. We're looking at work eliciting a response, not personality eliciting a response. If the Warrior has the crowd electric because of his entrance, that doesn't make him a great worker. If Chris Benoit takes a dead crowd and revitalizes them with his selling or the story being told in the ring, that makes him a great worker.

If you think someone should be turfed in favor of someone that isn't present here, state your case. These are not in any particular order. Also, please don't say "I can't believe you forgot so-and-so" until you know for sure they're not here. Just trying to preemptively avoid that. If there are enough debates over certain guys, we'll have qualifying matches. Hulk Hogan Bret Hart Shawn Michaels Steve Austin The Rock Chris Benoit Chris Jericho Randy Savage Eddy Guerrero Owen Hart Davey Boy Smith Ted DiBiase Rey Misterio Edge Christian Dynamite Kid Ultimate Warrior Ricky Steamboat Greg Valentine Bob Backlund Diesel Razor Ramon HHH 1-2-3 Kid/X-Pac Bad News Brown Brutus Beefcake Andre the Giant Jake Roberts Matt Hardy Jeff Hardy Kane Undertaker Brock Lesnar Goldust Booker T Mr. Perfect Rikishi John Bradshaw Layfield Kurt Angle Mick Foley Randy Orton Marty Jannetty Rick Rude Tito Santana Ric Flair Arn Anderson Tully Blanchard Chavo Guerrero Jr Roddy Piper Val Venis Yokozuna Big Show Rick Martel Jerry Lawler Jeff Jarrett Jacques Rougeau Vader Savio Vega Bam Bam Bigelow Yoshihiro Taijiri Taka Michinoku Rob Van Dam Sgt Slaughter Paul Orndorff

In terms of ratings, I absolutely agree. In terms of why they were profitable, I'm still torn. They were running so many dream matches on top, and that's the fuel that kept the fire burning. It's the same thing in the WWF -- they could have had total crap in the undercard (and they did) but people loved Austin, Rock and Foley so much that they sat through it to get to what they wanted. Val Venis and The Godfather weren't really part of a formula.

Great workers have charisma. Bad workers don't. Even if the criteria is purely work, guys like Hogan will still do well, and longtime top guys like Bret, Shawn, Austin, Rock and even the Undertaker will also do well. Limiting it to money drawn or impact made makes the tournament too predictable. If I was booking, I wouldn't put Owen Hart over Hulk Hogan, at least not with both at their peaks, but if they both come up in the same bracket, Owen gets my pick.

I split the topic, Goodhelmet. Check out the WCW thread and you'll understand.

Right. If the talent doesn't translate to good matches, it's useless.

I do think that all DUDs all night would have caused the inevitable crash and burn to come sooner. When the top guys in WCW stopped drawing, the strongest point they had was the undercarders who could work, a select few of whom should have been pushed higher on the card. So, I give them credit for prolonging WCW's demise in 1998-1999, because they kept the bottom from dropping. I also give them credit for maintaining ratings. Even the most casual of fans is going to prefer to watch a Rey Misterio Jr match over a TL Hopper match, so in that case, yes, they were a success. I don't know that their matches sold the PPVs though; it was the NWO that drew the money. However, I think part of the appeal of Nitro at its peak was that you never knew when the NWO was going to show up and wreak havoc on a match, so they watched whatever was going on at the time. WCW had a winning TV formula that the undercard did play a part in, but when it came to pay-per-view, or arena business, it was the top of the card that brought the fans to the matches. I also give them credit for keeping WCW's core fanbase excited. Wrestling was always more important in WCW than in the WWF, because that's how the fans had been educated. I just don't know that Rey v Psicosis or Benoit v Jericho or a similar match was a PPV draw. This is coming from someone who will start a riot if Rey doesn't make the Hall of Fame this year, and who also thinks Benoit, Jericho and Eddy could have succeeded in WCW's upper card.

No. The NWO was the reason for their success. The fans were apathetic when the talented guys were in the ring more often than not, at least on TV. That's not something I'm particularly happy about, or want to be true, but it sadly *is* true.