Loss

I know this is a bit basic, but it's really hard to be good at pro wrestling. Think about all that is required of a wrestler physically, then add in doing the right things at the right time that make sense for the audience while also keeping your cool so you don't hurt yourself or your dance partner. Even the worst wrestlers are part of a special breed.

Price per unit without overhead being subtracted is fair, just like building leasing, payoffs, etc. aren't taken out of announced gates for live shows.

Haha, they should totally make Dean Ambrose his Tatanka and accuse him of selling out to The Authority while he denies it and then it was Dean who joined all along. Yes, I say that jokingly.

I remember really loving that match and the Brock Lock visual being awesome, as you mentioned.

He should do an interview with some outlet that he fought Vince tooth and nail over the Rumble and Fastlane finishes, because he felt Daniel Bryan was more popular and that he needed more time to grow into his role.

How much were tickets to ROH shows and what did they average for attendance most of the time? Is 1500 paid too high an average or about right? Add that to even 5000 DVDs sold and you have somewhere around a six-figure gate with no television to promote it, assuming tickets were $20.

I remember Dave saying New Japan would love Swagger based on his background and he'd probably be used really well there. So maybe that will happen.

He sells too much and they have worked way too hard to make him seem vulnerable. He's very good at it, but he isn't aggressive enough as a result. He's being booked to overcome obstacles after an extended struggle instead of plowing through anyone who dares step in his way. The way they're booking him now, a Rollins-Reigns match might work on the right day, but a Brock-Reigns rematch would just be a repeat of the first one in terms of winning over the people. It's time for him to stop working 50-50 with guys like Bray Wyatt and start kicking some ass. It would help if his opponents showed at least a little fear of him too.

Orton's privileged status works strongly against him, I think, and I hope that's a point that is made again and again. He's been pushed hard and carefully protected for 12 years. Cena is more of a special talent so I don't expect Orton to be on his level in terms of being meaningful to the company, but he should be a strong draw if nothing else because of how he has consistently been presented. And he's not, really.

I wish we had ROH DVD sales figures. So many of those were sold on the quality of a Danielson match that I suspect it would reflect well on him. Winged Eagle mentioned no one getting in as an indy draw before, and I get that, but the only source of indy revenue for candidates before the time period we are starting to consider was the live gate. Danielson alone didn't change the game, but his ring work was important in making the game change successful. I think what makes Daniel Bryan so impressive is: - He not only became one of the greatest workers ever, but did it during a time period that it was much harder than ever because of a changing landscape - Along with Punk, Joe, Super Dragon, Low Ki and Homicide, he created an indy boom of sorts, and of the bunch, he was the best worker - He became the most beloved figure in wrestling and received a decent amount of mainstream exposure with counterproductive promotion and booking working against him at a level very few guys in the HOF ever had to endure. Maybe Flair in WCW (by which time his case was long made) and Rey in WWE (who admittedly overcame it in a stronger way than Bryan did). He didn't really establish himself strongly on WWE's big four fronts (PPV, house shows, TV ratings and merchandise). However, while that's the biggest knock against him, I think it's also the least significant aspect of his candidacy. Someone like Batista becoming a draw in WWE isn't "easy" and I don't want to discredit him, but it's less impressive to me than what Danielson pulled off because he didn't have as many roadblocks in his way. And the context there matters. I do think Rey and Hardy rank above him because they proved to be successful in those categories, but others being better at something than the wrestler in question doesn't mean the wrestler in question can't go in the HOF The easiest way to sum him up I think is that he's the most overachieving "good hand" of the past 15-20 years. His case isn't there within the traditional framework, but compared to other HOFers, the landscape in which he wrestled wasn't a traditional one either. Of the other guys who are in on work alone, whose ring work alone mattered as much to their company? I can't think of anyone outside of him and his peers -- usually when working against him -- that could use great matches as a selling point to either move DVDs or draw a gate.

I expect Undertaker to be around in the exact same role in five years, sadly.

I wish they'd put Brock against guys who'll probably never have a match with him on a major show but who are a little higher up on the card. Sheamus or Bray Wyatt would be an ideal opponent. Luke Harper would be even better. Jericho-Liger, the match could be very good, but it doesn't carry much intrigue. Liger-Miz I would be strangely excited for because I think their characters would mesh well and Miz could pretend to have no idea who he is. Will Brock's next smaller show opponent be Heath Slater? Actually, nevermind, that would be tons of fun.

Of course. I don't mean copying Bobby Heenan specifically, but I like the idea of him being in the middle of almost everything, wrestling when needed and helping other guys who either lack charisma or can't really talk.

I thought "intelligent" and "sensational" were just words the tOA crowd made up to describe him for years, not realizing that "The Intelligent, Sensational Destroyer" was actually how he was billed in some places. That made me love him even more.

It doesn't matter to me if matches are planned out in advance, but I don't want to be able to figure out while watching it that's what they did. When matches look too patterned/rehearsed, that's a problem, but that's not a critique of process. It's a critique of execution, which is fair game.

It's fairly soon. This year has some interesting names. I don't think these are the only ones being added but these four are the ones I'm interested in hearing people make cases for and against. Daniel Bryan Shinsuke Nakamura Randy Orton AJ Styles

A match can be great without being an all-time classic, although I'd consider Kobashi-Akiyama from 7/98 both.

Not so much the "major stars", but which of these guys are and are not in WWE in five years? Sheamus Dolph Ziggler Luke Harper The Miz Big E Kofi Kingston Kevin Owens Rusev Damien Sandow Xavier Woods Ryback Curtis Axel Jack Swagger

I want them to make Xavier Woods the next Bobby Heenan. They won't, but that's what I want.

Knobbs was on the Steve Austin show a while back and he was hilarious there too. Seems like the kind of guy that would be kept around to entertain the boys. Kind of like a Captain Lou. It would make sense, considering that the Nasty Boys seem to come up in at least a third of all the road stories you hear from wrestlers who were active at the time, if not more.

It was in the WON that they had to cut old school promos in their own words at 2K16, and Xavier Woods was supposedly great and the only one on Cena's level.

I don't think Bill is being hypocritical, given his wrestling tastes. If anything, he gravitates toward workers that perform a simpler, safer style.

I really like Spring Stampede '94 as the ideal, in so many ways. They were actually to pull off two crazy brawls and a "technical" main event, but the matches were different enough that it didn't matter. Maybe that's the key -- variety. EDIT: Then again, Flair-Steamboat couldn't really win over the crowd as much as they usually would, so maybe that's not the ideal.

Those Raw ratings are something else considering they weekend they just had and all the names they had on the show.

I think there are multiple ways to do it right and some of them even conflict with each other. I think it does affect how crowds react to a match, which can affect impressions of the match even if they wrestle it the exact same way they would if the crowd was hotter. It's hard for a more "pure" wrestling match to follow a well done gimmicky brawl in almost any setting, though.