Loss

I got hammered for this when I tried to make suggestions on Twitter, but I'll throw the question here -- how does ROH fight back? Just doing a better show won't cut it. How do they remain competitive?

I originally had this in Tony Anthony's thread, but I think it plays better as its own topic. Brian Pillman Tracy Smothers Tom Pritchard Buddy Roberts Tommy Rich Jeff Jarrett Stan Lane Brad Armstrong Bobby Fulton Robert Gibson John Tatum Eddie Gilbert Lanny Poffo Steve Keirn Robert Fuller Billy Joe Travis Iceman Parsons Eric Embry Chris Candido Dick Slater Bill Irwin Terry Taylor Buddy Landell Dutch Mantell

Really cool post. I'm not sure if I would have him that high or not, but he's a contender. Maybe we can get some more talk going around Tamura. He's more than just the 1A to Volk Han.

I liked A Cold Day In Hell, but that may just be because Earl Hebner flipping off Austin behind his back was such an awesome spot.

Fair point.

I think great wrestling manipulates fans into wanting what the promoter is willing to give them, then delivers it. Just listening to fans and giving them what they ask for sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It's been a long time since we have seen the former. I still believe it can happen, though. The key is to create their own Daniel Bryan, which they could do with Cesaro, but I'm not sure I trust them to pull that off at this stage.

This is a bigger topic but if all perceptions are just what they are and can't be changed, there is zero point in discussing it the way we do because it has no performance value. It's just there. I just can't believe that's true. I still think it can be done. Wrestling that can't revive a dead crowd, outsmart people who think they're on to everything or change perceptions of those involved is just masturbation.

I think that's spot on.

Can I see a link? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I want to see the source for that. I'll also add that when WWE was pointing out how Bryan sold no merch, he was also #2 behind Cena, but it was by a 5:1 margin. So being number two alone may not mean much. Also, if that was the case, wouldn't there be more guys up and down the card getting a split reaction? If a top babyface that most people like can't exist anymore, then there's nothing interesting about wrestling. It doesn't say anything good about the performers or the people in power when they can't manipulate audiences into rallying behind someone.

Cena didn't assume the throne with the backlash already there, though. And is Roman really selling a lot of merch? I haven't read anything to that effect. Cena was far more over in 2004-2005 than Reigns is now.

Just commenting on something from before. I think Reigns has absolutely earned his stripes and proved that he belongs in main events this year. But fans just aren't going with it. There's no real enthusiasm or excitement around him -- no groundswell of support or feeling like he's on the verge of superstardom. I've seen comparisons to Diesel, but even then, Diesel was slowly building to a babyface turn for a long time off of the surprise response at the Rumble, and while business wasn't good, live crowds didn't really outright reject him. Instead, Reigns has been booked weak a lot of the year in an attempt to make him sympathetic when it's just chipped away at his aura. How do you buy someone who can't beat Bray Wyatt as a legitimate contender for Brock Lesnar? He also sells so much, which would normally be great and has for sure resulted in better matches, but I don't understand why he's not Goldberg-ing everyone in sight. I'm afraid that winning the Rumble has permanently destroyed him. I want to be wrong about that, and I hope that I am. But it seems like the more stubborn part of the WWE fanbase dug their heels in and decided that they are always going to resent him now that it's been made too obvious that he is hand-picked.

No posts have been deleted. It must not have gone through.

Then Stephanie can tweet out a photo of her smiling next to Stewart a few days later.

I like Undertaker-Lesnar as a Summerslam main event a lot. I just don't ever want to see the match again after that, and it seems like both would be more valuable in matches with fresh opponents come that time. But for now, yes, they have done a good job building up Summerslam.

Didn't he also give himself an honorary degree I think from Harvard?

Bret/Owen I sadly didn't even think was any good when I watched it. Really long and kinda boring with all the spots built around climbing. I'll give it credit for being an interesting take on the WWF-style cage match, though.

While I agree with that to an extent, the crowd heat is a big thing to take away, though. By taking away the crowd heat, you're taking away what they accomplished while being limited wrestlers untested in such a long match on such a big stage. EDIT: The gap between their 2/3 falls match the month before and this was significant.

I'll always remember this match most for Lord Alfred Hays being so unnecessarily rude to Stu Hart in the post-match celebration. Ask a question and yank the mic away as soon as he starts to talk.

Bryan-Cena would take the cake for me, but Warrior-Rude is in many ways a more impressive match, even if it's not as good. I'll also submit the Rock-HHH ladder match. This is one of those cases where the magic of the moment results in something where the whole is just so much greater than the sum of its parts. That match could easily be nitpicked, but that would be tone-deaf and to me, that's like nitpicking Savage-Warrior at WM7 -- what's the point? It's a great spectacle, and it's hard to think of ten more heated matches at MSG. The best part of the crowd reaction is that they were at the top of the second tier at the time and they completely dwarfed the crowd reaction to Austin-Undertaker, which had months of great hype but couldn't pay it off in the ring.

It's not talking so much as presence. Good promos are a means to an end.

Ooh, can I request a priority review for the additional Funk-Jumbo singles match?

I try to watch chronologically. The good is that it's easier to capture context. The bad is that I get so wrapped up in the idea of watching everything in chronological order that I get stuck at the gate. My next viewing project will be pre-1970s wrestling, but I don't want to make it to 1955, then find a bevy of matches from 1949 that I didn't know about. As a result, I've spent the last few months gathering matches and not much time watching them. Sooner than later, that will change, but I can be my own worst enemy on that front. Still, I do think the chronological approach is the best one for me. Following a single promotion is not ideal for me, nor is watching a compilation of a single wrestler's matches straight through something that really appeals to me. I have to break the monotony, which is another reason I enjoy watching chronologically but on a global scale -- I'm bouncing around from company to company, but there is still some underlying structure to it all. Also, it's great that we have all these complete shows on a regular basis, but give me the highlights. I'm very middle management that way. Break it down into the stuff I need to see (and for me, everything I see ranked at the 3* level or above is something I want to watch) and let me skip everything else. I hate watching complete shows, which is one of the biggest reasons current wrestling doesn't appeal to me. I also like some distance from the moment because I think I'm better able to articulate my thoughts. When I don't have that distance, I end up saying things about the 2014 Elimination Chamber that people still won't let me live down 18 months later. I'm very much the type who wants to watch everything from January, rank the matches from January, then watch everything from February, rank the matches from February and so on. If footage from a time period I've already covered surfaces, I'll be both excited and really mad that my timeline is ruined. The archivist in me gets excited when I pinpoint a date after some struggle and as odd as it may sound, not knowing at least a year for a match is probably enough to ensure that I'll never watch it. So yeah, I'm taking on the completely unrealistic goal of watching wrestling starting from the beginning of film and going all the way to the present. Maybe by the time I'm fully caught up, I can watch all of the current stuff and be more a part of the zeitgeist. So see you guys in 2050, where we can be annoyed by a cryogenic Vince McMahon continuing to write television.

Honest question -- who gets booed louder if Cena-Reigns happens at Wrestlemania? Or do people just turn completely on the match?

I'd say you can't promote a title vs title match without the winner actually holding both belts concurrently for a while thereafter, but then I remember Wrestlemania VI. Of course they can do that. I'm expecting a non-finish, or maybe even some weird WWE logic-style finish where Sheamus enters himself in the match like Rollins did at Mania, but he is pinned by Cena, which gives Cena the title. Rollins drops the title without doing a job, and Sheamus makes the claim that he should still have his briefcase since he wasn't beaten by the champ. The Authority vacates the title and sets up a winner-take-all triple threat at Night of Champions and Rollins pins Sheamus to regain the title without Cena having to lose. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised at all for them to put Cena on double duty defending both belts for a series of pay-per-views. I don't expect it, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I've said before my first vivid memory in wrestling was Barry Windham turning on Lex Luger to join the Four Horsemen. Well, I dreamed around that time that Barry turned into an alligator and started gnawing on Luger in the middle of a match. Then there was a pin-up of it in one of the cheap non-Apter mags.