Loss

The Kozina-Dragon match from the previous week, which we see highlights of before this starts, looks far superior by comparison. Weed's gimmick is pretty dissonant in that he's this dreadlocked pothead holding his breath during his promo and then having a coughing fit, only to go in the ring and try to work a fast-paced highspot style. What kind of wrestler with a stoner gimmick doesn't forget he's in a match, or crave Doritos ... SOMETHING that doesn't completely turn off the persona when the bell rings? Anyway, Black Dragon looks fairly impressive in spots, but Weed really doesn't, and not in the way I hoped. I would have sort of admired him for not being very good if he was living the gimmick. ECCW is a group I look forward to tracking though just because it seems like an eccentric indy with lots of mainstays ... and Bryan Danielson.

Set aside the sheer weirdness of this match even existing, and it's a really fun tag that felt like it was just getting warmed up when it ended. Erik Watts seemed to have improved quite a bit between 1992 and 2000, and Tommy Rogers was still Tommy Rogers. Those two carried most of the match, so the result was something really fun, filled with more canned heat than you can shake a stick at. This is quite possibly the most in-a-vacuum match we'll watch during this entire project. In the world of WXO, I think it's still 1990 from a production and wrestling style standpoint, but it's the type of diversion that makes this project fun. Way better than anyone could have reasonably expected, and I'm going to say a sentence that I'm pretty confident no one has ever said in the history of the English language: I would be interested in seeing Tommy Rogers against Erik Watts in a singles match.

Another strong outing from two of ECW's best workers during their decline. Really smooth action for the 7 minutes or so it lasted, although the match was probably closer to 10 minutes when the commercial break was factored in. I thought they used Big Sal well, as they usually do, here. Guido is just the ultimate wrestling mechanic, and Crazy looks great. Not an awful lot to say about this one, but it's one of the best WCW B-show matches that didn't happen all year. ***

The reason that is, because people who don't watch PWG don't watch it because they don't think it's good.This is an interesting factor to consider. For a long time, though not recently, PWG was considered the super indie promotion where guys went to slum it. Maybe that stuck to some fans who felt burned by them? Obviously that's always been a Dave thing (Murdoch, Jumbo), so he'd get that if people raised it. What I doubt he'd get as easily would be people with open eyes and open minds simply not liking the super indy style in the first place. This. Because he views all wrestling as something tied entirely to time and place, to not like something popular is to be out of touch. It's not any more complicated than that in his mind.

That sounds like good advice. We won't.

I think this might work in her favor also. It's a weird hill to die on, but I'm also assuming there's more to the story, and I'm all for wrestlers taking more control.

It does drive subscriptions, or at least I have no reason to believe it doesn't. But I find it interesting that he goes there, considering the recent podcast he did about how Memphis was smart to never do an angle where Lance Russell was attacked, even though it would have drawn a huge house, because then they'd be tempted to do it again and again. Once that line was crossed, they'd never be able to go back, then they'd hurt the credibility of their lead salesperson. Makes for an interesting parallel.

Big Show, HHH, sort of Jericho, and I have no idea if Mark Henry officially retired or not. The Hardys returned at Wrestlemania this year too, on the same show where the Undertaker finally retired.

I'm a big proponent of revisionism. I struggle to articulate how I feel about it being used as criteria when considering HOF candidates, because I neither fully endorse nor dismiss it. But I don't think it should weigh as heavily as what people thought in real time. That's not because my general opinion of pro wrestling is the Meltzerian view is that matches are only worked for a specific time and place and shouldn't be revisited. It's because I don't think the Hall of Fame specifically is the place for a true deep dive into revisionism. I think in an ideal setting, that happens in special projects more than it does HOF voting. I also don't see revisionist thinking as something that's a one-and-done. Maybe you go through a spell of watching old footage and rightfully elevate a wrestler to all-time status. Years later, maybe a deeper sampling of that wrestler becomes available and you realize that yes, the wrestler you loved a few years ago is still really good, but not quite as special as you originally thought. I think one thing - perhaps the best thing - about revisionism in my eyes is that it lives and it breathes, and nothing is ever truly final. HOF induction is final. Today's ****1/2 match can be tomorrow's *** affair, and today's slam dunk HOF candidate can be tomorrow's marginal pick. To me, revisionism is most useful in reframing how we think about wrestler accomplishments and what we consider HOF-worthy, be it sellouts, influence, great matches or anything else. ("You know, Wrestler X didn't get credit for how much he drew at the time but look at it through this lens and I think you'll see in hindsight that it was pretty impressive.") TomK made a great case for Hamada as an influence candidate a few years back along these lines.

What houses were those, and when did tickets go on sale? Not disagreeing, just trying to establish a timeline. I like the two MSG matches Hogan and Flair had in late '91, so I'm not down on their WWF series. I just think their WCW series was better. I don't think either series treated Flair as an equal. He needed to be presented as if he was for it to work at its full potential, even though in reality, as a star, there was obviously more than a little daylight. Still, WCW presented him as more of someone on equal footing and presented the match as more of a big deal instead of just as Hogan's latest challenger. I think the WWF tried in some ways to do it as more than that and wanted it to be more than that, but they just couldn't jump out of their own bubble. And by 1991, I don't really fault them for that too much.

Since I only watch occasionally, I will ask the question. Is there a babyface that they are purposely keeping him away from that you see beating him eventually? Where is Jinder as champ ultimately going? Do you get the feeling they have a clue?

What would you say was their best match? I've always been a fan of the BATB 94 match because it was the first time I had seen a match between the two as the UK never showed the MSG shows on any Home Vid releases. I can't be certain but im pretty sure WCW filmed one of their tour matches because when I used to watch DSF a german channel which was the only way to see all the WCW TV they showed clips of one of the matches in Germany. Hopefully someone else can confirm this as im unsure if the footage aired on US versions. I'd go with their '94 trilogy as their best -- Bash, Clash, and Havoc. All really strong matches. The SuperBrawl IX match was really uniquely good and violent. They were on their way to building an amazing match between legends that lost its way when the booking kicked in, but that match makes me sad. If Flair had won that clean, or even if Hogan won without the David Flair crap, I think it would be their best match. I don't think it would be remembered that way because of problems with WCW during that time, but it would be the kind of match people look back on and are wowed by. I still think that's the case to an extent, but now it feels more like a missed opportunity to have a great match, one where the work was there but the booking wasn't, than a great match.

The Flair-Hogan double turn is what killed pay-per-view for WCW. They were still doing well until they made that switch.

I already closed the Jim Ross thread and suggested that people start a new thread if they want a catch-all to discuss him. That thread was never intended to be that. This was also never intended to be a Ric Flair catch-all thread, so my response would be the same here.

The same as the buyrate for anything WCW in 2000 - pretty bad. But that happens during periods of decline, like in 2001 when a house show headlined by Austin vs Rock was the first non-sellout at MSG since I think 1996.

Very much so. He stopped using recreational drugs.

There's also that Ric Flair jumping in 1985 or 1986 changes the wrestling landscape and is about as huge as it gets. Ric Flair jumping in 1988 is a really big acquisition that helps Vince get to his 2001 monopoly 13 years early. Ric Flair jumping in 1991 is a major star who has passed his peak as a draw years earlier, but who still has a lot to offer because of the fresh matchups with the WWF's top stars of the time. Still the biggest outside name the WWF can pick up, but the WWF is so far ahead of the competition by 1991 that it's not anywhere near as big as it would have been five years earlier.

While WCW didn't book the feud perfectly, they drew and had strong matches there. To me, their lack of chemistry is being overstated.

Sure. But that's where we are. And their current solution is an improvement over force feeding. It's not perfect or beyond reproach.

And it's absolutely Russo's idea. "Heels and babyface don't matter, it depends on the feud". Except, it absolutely prevents them from telling any compelling stories (well, they can't even tell the simplest ones) and also prevents any kind of emiotionnal attachment to any character. And really, it's not a matter of them booking in "shades of grey", it's a sign of incompetent writing. Braun was never supposed to get babyface reactions, they didn't make him get those on purpose because it fit feud x as opposed to feud y where he's supposed to get heel reactions. The whole "flexibility on top" I see as a poor excuse justifying crappy, blurry and unimaginative booking, and their inability to actually book strong babyfaces. Every guy on top is basically a heel whom the crowd hates of loves depending on the context, which is why unless they murder each others in crazy brawls, there's nothing happening there in term of booking except yet another Roman Road to Mania. It may fit their business model, but damn does it sink the whole product into black hole of nothingness. No wonder why Lesnar is a perfect champ for this era… (they should have made Braun into Vader-champ, you know… but nope, gotta build to that part-time-wash-up vs Roman Mania Moments) No, the Russo thing would be to do a feud with guys we're supposed to cheer doing heelish things and vice versa. This is guys being good in one feud, bad in the next. Not the same thing.

Each feud does have a babyface and heel, El-P. It's just that it's fluid and changes from feud to feud, instead of having wrestlers in permanent roles. I don't see WWE giving up on the idea of babyfaces and heels as much as I do that they want the flexibility to book anyone against anyone, so they'd rather book their top guys in a way that they can turn them back and forth month to month if it suits them. Criticize that if you like, but there are still babyfaces and heels within that idea.

To be clear, I'm only lauding WWE for reacting to changing circumstances and going with the tide instead of fighting it, which is what we want from them. I'm not praising them as coming up with some new concept entirely of their own creative devices. It doesn't matter if it is or isn't a proactive idea anyway, nor does it matter how much credit they should get. All that matters is if it works. Is the idea that wrestling is only good and praiseworthy when ideas are spot on from their conception? Really? I'm also starting to wonder a few things that I haven't really seen anyone go into: - What would a Reigns heel turn look like? What would he do to turn, and what dimension would we get from him, performance-wise, that we're not already getting? Would he have new opponents? Would he have new ways of winning? How exactly would this work? Think it through. - What does "giving up" on Reigns look like? Firing him? Making him an opening match guy? A midcarder? A top guy but not *the* top guy? Going with someone else as *the* top guy? If so, who specifically? I'm the first to criticize WWE for stuff when I think they deserve it. I'm not going to criticize them for adapting when they've made a guy a star but he doesn't get the "right" reactions to build an infrastructure around him of other top guys who can also be cheered or booed, depending on what suits the feud at that moment. That's a good thing.