Loss

Atlantis/Emilio from 8/92 has lots of armwork if that's something someone is seeking.

Regardless of anything else, Gene Okerlund handled all of that like a total pro.

The Varsity Club story was that a Satanist recruited a bunch of meatheads to do his dirty work. I wish it had been more over the top, but I think that was the idea.

I think there are criticisms against jdw that are valid, just as there are for any of us, but the idea that he's not willing to have his opinions picked over for years and years is not one of them at all.

And they replaced Rocky King as "Little Richard Marley", who replaced Buddy Roberts as "General Buddy E. Lee" ... the Freebirds in 1990-1992 is so shamelessly pathetic that I've grown to admire it. It takes balls to be that bad of an act, and to be that committed to it.

For posterity, I'll make a post out of my tweets in response to JvK about the above when he first called my attention to it I don't place much value on this sort of frame-by-frame watching. It strikes me not as not seeing the forest for the trees but the reverse. Something being painful is a means to an end, but not an end on its own. The whole point of dishing out pain is to get an opponent in a predicament where they can be beaten. It just so happens that hurting someone is the easiest way to do that. But plenty of moves don't look painful, but are still often effective -- the inside cradle is the first that comes to mind. So I don't think Azteca pulling on Dandy's arm has to look painful if the goal is to position Dandy to be beaten. I'm not even sure a standard armbar looks *painful*. Does it? I recall Flair dropping the title to Ron Garvin off of a top rope sunset flip. It's preposterous if you give the mechanics of it more than five seconds of thought, but it was presented credibly, so it was ok. In this case, I think the answer is that title matches are supposed to be on the up-and-up. They are sanctioned by athletic commissions and the goal is to have a sporting contest instead of working to hurt or maim. Sometimes going for the kill right away doesn't work, so setup moves are required to position the opponent later in the match. That's how most wrestling is worked. It's similar to Brock not just throwing an F5 immediately and instead throwing all of the suplexes. It fits his character just like it fits the character of Brian Pillman or Ricky Steamboat to start their matches with an armbar. They're sportsmen. Point being, Jake sort of had it with the DDT, but in general, wrestlers don't go for the kill immediately. I don't want to dismiss the post without re-watching, but my instinct is to say wrestling is loaded with obvious cooperation, but it falls into categories -- things we are used to seeing that are intrinsic to our viewing experience, and things that we aren't used to seeing. Guys cooperate obviously and very much out in the open even with moves like vertical suplexes. *** I also told JvK I'd rewatch the match, which I haven't been able to do unfortunately. When I do, I will try to respond in the spirit of his post, although I'm usually mentally checked out when it comes to time codes and that sort of microviewing. I don't know that I have it in me to watch wrestling that way.

youre dead to me good sir Hey, I love Andre as a worker, but the road stories about Andre present him as an alcoholic sociopath and a bully to whom the rules didn't apply.

All of which are far more important than the lineup.

One thing that bothers me with the drawing argument is that you've got lots of all-time great draws who have done some hugely disappointing numbers and have killed once-thriving companies by being pushed past their expiration. I'm not saying that should be weighed *more*, but I don't think just looking at big gates paints a fair picture either. If "Great Match Theory" is too prevalent in GWE arguments, "Big Gate Theory" is too prevalent in HOF discussions.

I will take the controversial stance that when it comes to Wrestlemania, the economy and overall wrestling climate are bigger factors than the lineup, and that goes for both the gate and PPV buys.

Here's my favorite reason I've heard for someone stopping watching wrestling; A friend of mine in 5th grade saw the stereo sunset flips the Southern Boys did to beat the Freebirds at Clash XII. To him, it was so fake looking and he hated it so much that he stopped watching until the Monday Night Wars.

They didn't last, but Ric Flair and Baby Doll had zero chemistry as a pair.

I am skeptical of any "locker room leader" type because I always wonder who is policing the police. So my least favorite successful wrestlers would be guys like Andre the Giant, Undertaker and JBL.

It's not so much the idea, it's that the presentation of WWE and general source of conflict has revolved around the authority figures for virtually that entire 18-year period.

Benoit offing his family considerably dropped my interest until the yearbook project started, and even then, it was Benoit killing his family combined with all the other ugly stuff it exposed about wrestling.

The booking of Bray will be interesting, since he has only lost matches to John Cena and Undertaker (and recently Roman Reigns). But yeah, some wild cards thrown in would be nice.

Tournament victories feel more earned when the whole thing happens in one night.

There was no historical precedent for WM30, which is a shame because had it done a huge number on pay-per-view, it might have been enough for WWE to stop claiming Daniel Bryan doesn't draw. HAHAHAHAHA, I almost got through a whole post without laughing at that one.

The counterpoint to that would be that I'm not sure Kobashi should have started working like Misawa or Jumbo. I'm curious -- when you have a wrestler whose character is based on such a melodramatic outward expression of emotion, how do you reconcile that with moving up the cards? How does a wrestler like that mature without abandoning who they are or what made them special in the first place? Are there examples of it happening successfully? Otani couldn't do it either, and I'm not sure Steamboat's selling noticeably changed when he won the title. In fact, I think Steamboat is an ideal comparison because Flair was still The Man even when Steamboat was The Champ. And I'm not sure how Kobashi's melodrama is more of a problem than Steamboat's melodrama. I also don't think it's fair to expect Kobashi to start working like The Man the moment he's champ. Misawa was still The Man, and Kobashi didn't even beat him when it mattered until 2003. So Misawa should have still been the one working that ideal. It matched the booking. Was he still crying in his 2003-2005 run as GHC champion? That was the first time he was ever pushed as the number one guy in the company. If he was doing it then, then sure, that's a problem.

The best thing about that match was that they were able to get the crowd to bite on a single nearfall, but it took a ton of booking tricks to make that happen.

Dave said he was told something different "out of the blue" for both Cena and Undertaker yesterday morning, but also said WWE is trying to play him against MKJ by leaking different WM lineups to both of them.

The 2000 question intrigues me. I do think Benoit had a better year, but it wasn't at the same level of Top Guy In The Company that most people want from a best in the world candidate. Hopefully, the opportunity will present itself to dive into all the Japan/Mexico/Europe/Puerto Rico that's out there for 2000 at some point, not to shoot down that idea, but to really test it.

For those who would know, would Hiroshi Wajima's megapush in 1987 All Japan register here?

I still love the story that X-Pac and Kane were supposed to have an Onita-style barbed wire exploding death match at Wrestlemania 2000 before plans changed.