Loss

Is there a huge guy in NXT who would benefit from being his new partner and could put over Cass, then Enzo could kinda go back to what he was doing?

Wrestlers take their own bumps. It's on them to land safely. At least that's how trained people usually explain it. He worked in ARSION for years as GAMI, El-P.

Also, with the colorful characters and outside interference and audience pandering and all of that, calling New Japan perfected WWE style would be more accurate than calling it perfected All Japan style.

Weird if true, considering how many times Kawada would repeat the powerbomb.

Also, I don't really understand this stuff, but I've seen some trained workers argue on Twitter that Nia Jax should not be held responsible for Bayley's injury. Vinny Massaro being one.

An unimpeachable news source.

Vince McMahon had never done it until 1998-1999. Therefore, any opinions he expressed before then weren't valid either.

Making it obvious to everyone but dad that he's being used and that his guilt is being manipulated to service JJ's career would be an interesting way to play it, but that requires a patience and knowledge of human nature that doesn't surface on WWE TV all that often. It does from time to time, though.

I think we're done with this topic. So yes, Roman vs Strowman! Is it an omen?

Stop complaining about phantom complaining, guys. Complaining about complaining doubles the amount of complaining.

I wouldn't call USA Today fluff since they cover everything seriously, but it is a little bit lighter read. There are more pictures, the graphics are nicer, and they usually don't break news themselves. The New York Times and Washington Post are the top newspapers in the country.

I remember Dave saying once that the WON is the New York Times and the Torch is USA Today. That's an interesting way to look at it if nothing else.

Wrestlers have zero ownership of the perception of their work, and their intent matters little. Once they put it out there, it belongs to all of us.

It's possible they are working for Dave or hardcore fans, but to be fair, those are the matches that get the loudest reactions at big WWE shows these days as well. So I'm not ready to make that leap. Dave may be what inspired the change, but I wouldn't say pleasing Dave is the totality of what they are going for.

The question is: Is the goal to look at matches through a fresh lens and induct matches that weren't recognized for their greatness at the time? Or is the goal to recognize matches that are already canonized at the highest level (which I'd consider Dave for the most part), either because of their quality or significance? I love doing the former these days, and see it as pretty much the entirety of my wrestling fandom at this point. But I've noticed that sometimes I'll rewatch something old and love it, and then rewatch the same thing again a couple of years again and not like it as much. So if the HOF is going to allow for that, I think that's great. But I think maybe there should either be a super-high threshold or an option to say, "Hey, we made a mistake" and kind of think about what that process would look like since that will happen from time to time. Hopefully we'll scrutinize the revisionist matches enough the first time that it would be very rare.

And he gave Flair-Steamboat at the Capital Centre in '89 ******, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub6efQnQwgo

I think the story is pretty clearly exaggerated to the point where it's laughable, but I also don't care enough about it to keep having this boring conversation.

It has nothing to do with that. I wouldn't believe Tyler Breeze doing it either. It's just not a natural human reaction.