Loss

Jake Roberts - I think he's overrated. I've never seen a good match of his, and I think Foley, Flair, Cornette, Heyman, Arn Anderson, Bret, Piper, Lawler, Terry Funk, Austin, Rock, Eddie Gilbert and Heenan were all better than him on interviews. He probably does have a decent mind for wrestling, but it never manifested itself in anything particularly memorable, outside of the snake bite angle with Savage and Liz. Great Sasuke - I'm a huge fan of his high-flying moves and he's been in some of my favorite matches, but when I think of him, all I can think of is that he's a politician in Japan who wears his wrestling mask and that he also lost a loser-gets-naked match a few years ago and there was even a Sasuke porn. Ah, Japanese culture. Masa Chono - Great worker before the neck injury in 1992. Loved his match with Rude at the G-1 Climax and the way the match built and climaxed. I haven't been as much of a fan of his since, but he's been a major draw. Paul London - I'll be seeing some footage of him in the very near future, and at that point, I should be more able to provide something here. I think I'll be a fan, if the "young Steamboat" comparisons are accurate. Brutus Beefcake - Leech. Brian Pillman - I wrote an enormous post on him at SNKT, but he was one of my favorites of the time (1989-1993) and could have been a world champion in the WWF if not for his physical limitations and state of mind. Ken Shamrock - Already done. Kevin Nash - I'm not going to top HTQ's post either. The guy who did more with less than anyone ever has; a guy who has found promotion after promotion to pay him ungodly amounts of money to do absolutely nothing. Made it "uncool" to work hard in WCW and I think his booking and negative influence did more to kill the company than just about anything. It was a joy seeing him put over Jericho in WWE before slowly fading out of the spotlight. Promoters should know not to come near him at this point, but memories are short in wrestling, and no one ever learns from past mistakes either. Superstar Graham - Incredibly influential as a character, but even he admit that he was a lousy worker. I'm glad to see that he's been outspoken about the reality of his current physical condition and the dangers of steroids excess, and I think guys like HHH and Scott Steiner should take a look at him, because that's their future. Terry Gordy - Fantastic worker in his heyday. Got really good pretty much instantly, and played a part in some major angles in almost every territory he worked that led to some sort of business boost. I've loved what I've seen of him in AJPW and need to see more. Not as good as Vader, but not far behind him.

That right there is my biggest problem with Foley. Younger guys coming in didn't understand the real reasons for his success and stole the wrong things from him.

Mick Foley - One of the two best interview guys in wrestling history, and probably the best actor in wrestling history. Was as good as he needed to be to be effective in the ring, and was far more capable than his brawling style would suggest. Pulling a chain wrestling sequence out of nowhere against Shawn Michaels at Mind Games was a huge markout moment for me. He has a downside, in that I think it's partially his fault wrestlers have felt they had to take huge and unnecessary bumps to get a pop. I think he's respected for what he's accomplished, but I don't think of him falling off of a cage when I think of him. I think of his ability to get inside the mind of the wrestling fan, and I think when it comes down to it, that's what made him a success. It's sad that his body gave out when he just started to peak as a draw. Roddy Piper - Hell of a brawler with more wild road stories than almost anyone, I'd imagine. I love the story about how he was traded to Vince Sr. in the late 70s, Vince took a look at his skinny frame, and immediately sent him packing. He ended up going everywhere, primarily Mid Atlantic, where he became a major draw, both as a face and a heel, before coming full circle and being the #2 key player in the WWF's national expansion. He's a sad site to see these days, but he's been very influential and has had a strong impact. Randy Savage - An all-time favorite of mine, and I loved how in his feud with Hogan, he was in the right yet Hogan was the one getting cheered anyway. Actually, I hated it, but I've grown to love it since then. It's a shame he spent his formative years blacklisted from most territories because his dad ran an outlaw territory, because he was way too talented to not be given a chance to strut his stuff out of spite. Injuries and drugs would eventually have their way with him, and he's definitely a glowing example of what happens when the excesses go both right and wrong in pro wrestling -- he's gone through divorce, he's seen his stock rise and fall multiple times, he's made a killing and headlined countless big shows and he's now having financial problems. Go figure. Midnight Express - Eaton and Lane and Eaton and Condrey are the two best tag teams in the history of American wrestling. Eaton and Condrey were better at getting heat while Eaton and Lane had more exciting offense, so basically, pick your poison on which team was better. I'm a huge fan of both, and I have more comps of MX matches than any other wrestler(s).

At the opening of the WCW Nitro Grill ... Sting: "The biggest point I have to make is that a food involving my name better be on the menu somewhere!" Later in the press conference ... Kevin Nash: "I must say, I tried the Stinger Lima Bean Casserole, and it's delicious!"

I see the same thing. I have no problem with them hyping a Batista/Kane match, because I think it's something the fans would want to see with the proper build, but I hate that he's going to be going over five guys who have been portrayed as midcarders who can't quite reach the brass ring for years upon years to do it. I'd rather see Edge or Christian win the match myself, but as long as they're both pushed hard in the coming months, I can deal with them losing. I don't think they're going to be pushed hard though.

I'm expecting Jannetty to turn on Michaels either at Wrestlemania or before Wrestlemania so they can feud afterwards. If Marty is game, there's no reason it shouldn't be a good time, even if it has absolutely no purpose at all.

I agree with Rudo. It's not the style that's important, it's the way it's worked and presented. There are better spotfests than mat-based matches. There are better brawls than both. First and foremost, the match has to make sense. Yes, SG, those matches were built up as show-stealers, but that wasn't the entire appeal of the match. They actually created a backstory for HBK/Hennig, just as they are for HBK/Angle. My problem was with the way Heyman would throw Eddy and Malenko out there or Rey and Psicosis out there or Rey and Juvi out there with no build at all. WCW did the exact same thing. Sting was the first time a truly "new era" was tried, and that was one of the reasons it didn't work. Flair also tried to transition to Hogan, and the fans resented it because it went against everything they thought WCW stood for. There wasn't really anyone else Flair was in a position to put over, except maybe Luger, and it would have ended up the same way the Sting push did in the long run. Flair never really fought it because they didn't try too often. A more accurate view of what kept happening was that the company would try to go in another direction, it wouldn't work, and they'd turn to Flair to bail them out of it.

Bret Hart - The best worker and performer in the history of his company. Excellent interviews that weren't necessarily high-volume, but were believable and convincing. Was always at his most effective in a realistic setting, and was never particularly effective when they tried to do anything cartoonish or over-the-top with him. It's very sad what's happened to him in the past 10 years, because he deserved better. I'm glad that his fans still remember and respect him. Shane Douglas - Already been covered. Toshiaki Kawada - I prefer Kobashi, but Kawada is better. His selling is probably his strongest point, and the argument for him as Best Wrestler of the 90s is definitely a strong one. Has had great matches over the span of three decades, which is an impressive feat in itself. Demolition - Road Warriors ripoffs. Diamond Dallas Page - He gets a bum rep and I don't think it's entirely fair. He was probably the best main eventer WCW had from 1997 until the end, and the only one who was ever able to get good matches out of a roided up Scott Steiner and Bill Goldberg. Not the kind of guy to build around, but needed to be kept near the top at all times in a strong role. He could have gotten by based on his friendship, but he worked hard to improve anyway. Al Snow - Was considered wrestling's best kept secret for many years, and never quite performed at the level expected when he got his big break. I think he got very lazy when Head got over, because he realized he didn't have to actually be a wrestler anymore. Too bad, I always liked him. Scott Hall - Decent, but nothing more than that really. Shawn Michaels could have had those same matches with a couch. Yuji Nagata - Haven't seen enough footage to really comment. Psychosis - Already been done. Steve Austin - Hard worker, great wrestler, awesome interview, huge draw. I thought he took more than he gave back after his comeback, for the most part, and I never thought he gave his opponents enough offense, be it as a face or a heel, once he made it big, but he gave the audience what they wanted, so in that sense, he can't be blamed. It was obvious even from watching him in WCW that he was destined for something big.

Also, it should be pointed out that "great matches" don't exist in kayfabe. The point of putting on a great match isn't to make fans buy tickets on the promise of a great match, but rather to convey whatever point you're trying to make in the most memorable and effective way possible. This is Heyman-esque thinking, where he'd put a "great match" on a show just for the Hell of it, and I always hate that booking, because I think it's what started the whole good wrestlers getting pigeonholed because they're too talented thing. Ric Flair had great charisma. Shawn Michaels had great charisma. But I guarantee you neither would have had whatever success they've had in wrestling without knowing how to work. Anytime Flair ever tried to transition to another person, it was never someone capable of putting out those 30-minute matches on a consistent basis, and the fans ended up deflated because they were spoiled, and the title eventually went back to Flair. I think HBK had a strong enough personality to where people either chose to cheer or boo him based on that alone, but you're crazy if you don't think the knowledge that he would put his body on the line in a long match was part of his appeal. I don't really care for the term "workrate" anyway, just because it seems to imply that the only way to create a good match is to go hard and fast with lots of moves, and that's simply not true.

If Benoit didn't have charisma, his matches would have no heat.

There is no debate. Workrate *versus* charisma is a manufactured issue. There are ZERO good workers out there who have no charisma. If they don't have charisma, they aren't good workers. There is not a single quality that is more important than another. It's more about having a total package that exceeds the sum of its parts, which is something that every big star in wrestling history has had in common.

Actually, no, they weren't. They were hitting averages of 6.0+ every week for several months in 2000, and they never got above a 5.8 or so until the inVasion the following summer. 2000 RAW Ratings 2001 RAW Ratings The unusually low numbers in August can be attributed to being pre-empted for the dog show and being aired in a different time slot.

They'd also need someone not named Jeff Jarrett as world champ. It's tricky starting out, because they need an established name as champ from the get-go, but guys like Jarrett, Hall, Nash, etc are exactly the type you don't want being associated with the product.

Not to mention that TNA has largely been a money pit thus far, and they've stayed in business by drastically reducing their overhead. They'd have to start drawing big money almost immediately for it to work, or they'd have to find a backer that was willing to take a huge loss the first 2-3 years. If they're going to be on Monday nights, head-to-head is the way to go instead of airing after RAW is over though.

RAW immediately lost a ratings point when they switched networks. I wonder if they'd immediately gain it back going back.

The cool thing about USA is that they'll hire focus groups to watch the show and they won't tolerate WWE dicking around like they're known to do. "You have too much HHH on your shows" will probably come up at some point.

Yes. This is good news for WWE, since they never should have left in the first place. Barry Diller actually hired a focus group to examine the differences between Nitro and RAW when they were getting their asses kicked, and helped Vince and company come up with a new strategy. They're probably going to expect much higher ratings than they initially get, and when they don't get them, they're going to start asking questions and forcing the issue. That's what history says anyway.

Maybe so but Adonis made the gimmick work which is more than any other gay character I have seen since Goldust?? The story with Haynes is that every promoter he worked for, from Vince to Don Owen in Portland, to Dusty and Crockett in the NWA, to various others, typically had plans to give Haynes an enormous push, and he'd either show up to shoot a big angle drunk, stoned, he'd hold the company up for money or he'd no show.

This always bugged me too. Presumably. WWE has overreacted to the huge number of injuries to the roster in 2001 by toning things down to a point where they barely want wrestlers bumping. Probably because Arn Anderson is a road agent, and he lays out all these matches to include spinebusters. The mindset in WWE is that everyone should wrestle the same style. I don't understand that at all, but that's the company logic. Vince doesn't really think about the in-ring style at all. I think he's more into creating gimmicks and coming up with "funny" skits. HHH has too much influence is the answer to your question, basically. They didn't like the lisp, and I think besides that, he was one of many casualties of the inVasion. Vince initially had the right idea, but Kevin Dunn put his own foot down in a production meeting and argued that they worked hard to get the WWF roster over and they shouldn't have them doing a bunch of jobs to guys that aren't proven and killed the company they worked for. That logic stuck, and many blame him for the failure of the whole thing. Vince likes Heyman, but Stephanie can't stand him. Heyman was demoted this time around because he was caught in a lie. He was listening in on a conference call where he wasn't authorized to listen. The rationale was that they couldn't work with someone they couldn't trust. Good question. There are cases, like Bret Hart in 1997, where wrestlers are asked to do things that would kill them and are right to refuse. I think the mindset is that you want your top guys happy and willing to deliver at all times, so you do as much as you can to appease them. They know if they force them into angles they don't want to do on a regular basis, they're not going to come across well because the wrestlers aren't going to put their all into it. Yes. I haven't seen any of this behavior in the company, though, unless it's Bob Holly shooting on Rene Dupree, and I believe Holly was told if it happened again, he'd be fired.

I think it would be worth it to see if Eddy can handle things better the second time around, with the idea that you have someone in waiting in case you need to get the belt off of him quickly. He's the most over guy on the roster and the best worker, so it only makes sense that he be champ if he can handle the pressure.

They've also taken to calling every armbar a keylock.

I remember Meltzer once saying that announcers in WWE who do preparation are looked down upon because they're perceived as being marks. How stupid.

I wish the announcers would actually sell the history on matches like this, instead of leaving us to wonder if the story they were going for was accidental or intentional. Did Cole and Tazz even state that it was 'Taker's 5th HIAC? I don't remember if they did or not.

Billy Jack Haynes is kind of a pathetic case in many ways. He had every opportunity in every promotion to become a huge star, and screwed over pretty much every promoter in the business and managed to burn more bridges than Shane Douglas and Tom Zenk combined.