Loss

I genuinely do think that's it. Early WON readers also loved Michael Hayes, and his in-ring style was not crazy moves or anything. But he had the rock star gimmick and cool entrance music and awesome charisma.

I think in some cases it was even more simple than that. It was about the cool factor and not much else. When the issue of Hamada now being seen as better than Tiger Mask by a lot of people came up a few years ago, Cornette thought that was asinine because TM had the cool mask. Brody, for anything else you want to say, did have an incredible look and a spectacular entrance.

Ok, so about that GWE that's happening at Pro Wrestling Only ...

Before the Omni angle in fall of 1985, Flair was a heel at times, but he would just sort of dabble in it and quickly back away. Dusty was an attraction guy before that and Flair was one of their own, so there was definitely an element of the JCP fanbase that never accepted Flair as a heel. That's probably why babyface Flair taking on Nikita drew such a massive crowd at the first Bash. Stick To Wrestling (w/John McAdam) is a podcast I think you'd enjoy. He had one of his friends on once from the Carolinas who talked about how they were turned off by Flair becoming a real heel because his whole appeal was that he came out as this class act in expensive clothes who was above all of that. Maybe his heel tendencies showed in some feuds and his babyface tendencies in others, but really, he triangulated for the most part. That was one way they kept him special.

It's a difficult thing to really prove to be true or untrue. I tend to think it's a little bit more complicated than that.

I don't really have much opinion on factions. To me, it's like having an opinion on referees or ringposts. The key is in getting over talent and creating interest in matches. However they go about that is fine as long as it works.

In terms of importance to the company, I think the Rock N Rolls and the Road Warriors are much better examples of tag teams being successful draws than the Midnights. Proportionately, you could say the same for the Fabulous Ones in Memphis. Starrcade '86 had Flair-Nikita, which closed the show, but it's pretty apparent if you watch TV at the time and look at how the event was hyped that the Skywalkers was the real main event. I think a sober take on the MX would be that they were a tremendous working tag team that worked with the team that drew the money. They were so good that it made sense to feature them. There's nothing wrong with that.

I think the singles vs tags debate might be misplaced. I think the bigger difference is booking around a singular top star or booking around an ensemble cast of big stars. Vince and his father usually relied on one star around which almost everything important revolves, while the Crockett approach was that yes, you had someone like Flair on top, but depth was just as important. I remember thinking the "double main event" concept at WM8 was really weird considering what the company had always been, while WCW/NWA booking at its best usually had a really hot and deep lineup, not just a strong program on top.

Cool! I think I was worried that there would be too much of a post-Nitro or post-Turner buyout bias when the project started, but so far, it's a good mix.

Tony talked at Bash at the Beach '96 about how the damage you can do with a rubber shark compared to other weapons. He also famously said that hay can be abrasive to the skin. That doesn't surprise me in the least.

He's all over whatever 1979 Georgia Championship Wrestling footage we have and was very much in that role there.

Flair had a lot of influence into his own programs, but he didn't actually become booker until after Bash '89, and even then, he was given a committee to focus on most of the details. The build to Bash '89 was mostly Jim Ross and Eddie Gilbert, I believe, with Gilbert handling all the Flair-Funk build and I'm pretty sure the Luger turn.

Cornette was incredible at his role. He wasn't a wrestler for the most part though, and was far less than Heenan. I probably would rate both on a 100 Greatest Wrestling Personalities or Greatest Wrestling Performers list, but likely not on a GWE list because of all the stiff competition.

I should be clear that I think AEW is handling all of those guys just fine right now. My point is that I hope they pull the trigger on all of them when the time comes to do it instead of them being like Sting where they spent 10+ years as "future stars" and are never actually booked to get all the way there.

I feel like I need to see more AWA stuff to get a full opinion. Obviously very entertaining in the WWF, but it seems like people who saw him in both places don't see that as Heenan at his best. And he did do a lot more comedy then. I need to see more serious Bobby.

I would like for them to take a step back and stop chasing moments that people forget as soon as they happen. I don't have any real sense of where AEW would like to be a year or even six months from now in terms of what they're setting up. It will hopefully not be a case where we reach the end of 2022 and Jungle Boy, Will Hobbs, Ricky Starks, Sammy Guevara and others are still being groomed for a future that never seems to arrive.

I think there's no one answer to the question, but that it's fun to get into the weeds on this stuff. Over time, you figure out what the cases where the answer is "happy" have in common and what the cases where the answer is "desired" have in common.

Up through 1986 or so, they almost always worked out very well.

I don't see how it can be a huge factor, unless someone voting has never made significant mistakes in their own personal lives. Otherwise, do they really have the moral authority?

This touches on a bigger issue, but I should point out that this last part is changing the way I think about wrestling lately. The payoff in the ring wasn't subpar if it delivered on the hype. Sting-Hogan at Starrcade '97 did not have a good payoff. Hogan-Andre did have a good payoff, even if it's not a great technical match, because the match had a clean finish, the big bodyslam spot, and an iconic staredown image. If you set up these matches and get people excited and they leave disappointed, that's a huge black mark. If they leave happy, it isn't. Most of the time, people left Hogan and Dusty matches with the desired reactions -- either thrilled they won, or angry that they were screwed. That's good.

Once again, nothing to do with drawing. Promos are a performance too. Everything a wrestler does in front of an audience is performance.

It is! And I don't think Dusty's case is non-existent without the promos. I just also don't see how you can have a full understanding of him without it. I'd hate anyone to toss it aside as unimportant when considering the greatest wrestlers of all time. It doesn't matter if Kenta Kobashi was a great talker or not. It matters that Dusty was.

I think about someone like Dusty Rhodes, a legitimate all-time great. I think if you're not factoring in promos at all to how you evaluate Dusty Rhodes, you are missing a significant part of what made him Dusty Rhodes. I don't see how you can separate that from his case.

I prefer awesome promo work leading to an awesome match, and if wrestlers can overcome bad booking to have a great match, I think that works even more in their favor. However, I do think it works in favor of someone like Michael Hayes that he was able to talk people into getting excited over matches. Sometimes, they delivered and sometimes they didn't, which is where he loses something. But I should be very clear that no one could make a list like this if they can't get it done in the ring.