Loss

This sounds like kind of a downer topic, but I think it has the potential to be fun. I think it could be argued that each major company has their own personal brand of bad. Bad ROH doesn't look like bad WWE, and bad WWE doesn't look like bad WCW most of the time. I thought it would be fun to talk about not just what bad wrestling looks like in each group, but what bad traits are unique to each group. There are some things that are universally bad: - Bad matches - Bad interviews - Bad finishes But then there are more specific mistakes which I think are often unique to a company. For example, how would each of the big companies misuse Cesaro? We know how WWE would misuse Cesaro. They've shown us. WCW would have hidden him on WCW Saturday Night or used him to put over Bagwell, Disco Inferno and Van Hammer. TNA would build the match everyone wanted to see him have right away, then gradually squander all of his appeal over several years. So for this topic, let's talk about bad moments in wrestling history and imagine how a different company might have fucked it up in an equally bad but very differently bad way.

This isn't that, but I've often pictured WCW in the DVD market. They'd announce a series that got people excited because it would be some great concept. Then, they'd needlessly clip all the matches to get it under one hour, and even though it's promoted as Volume 1, there would never be a Volume 2.

I did, yeah, but what I meant was that the sky will not fall based on pushing someone new at the top. If a star doesn't click, WWE will still survive and possibly thrive, although it's obviously better for them to click than not click. They still have a pay-per-view mentality when it comes to Creative that will eventually fade away. We are seeing cracks already, but they seem to be less "Hey, look at what we have the freedom to do now!" and more "Yay, we don't have to make shows as important!" I feel like that stuff will iron itself out eventually, or at least I hope it does. Then again, they still haven't really adjusted to post-Nitro, so who knows.

To an extent, but people eventually let up on the Daniel Bryan-type pressure being put on WWE. There was no huge protest after Fastlane, just acceptance.

It feels to me like for every payoff, there are 10 things set up that aren't paid off. I don't think current WWE is quite as bad as death knell WCW, but they have made many of the same mistakes and more people are willing to look the other way then they were for the other guys. I guess that's a good thing, or WWE would have been up a creek many years ago.

I mean, what you say may be true, but I think it's a defeatist outlook to just assume it will never work and not even support the attempts to try something different. Believe me, I have my doubts about WWE's ability to be patient and see it through, just as I have my doubts about how well they will execute it even if the intentions are mostly good. But some of those details will matter in the long-term, while some will be forgotten and will not. And if it goes well, they could attract more women and bring in a new part of their fanbase, maybe (maybe) even one with more disposable income. If it doesn't succeed, it's not like they are going to alienate anyone. People are not going to give up on WWE if the women are more featured, provided those involved are talented. Taking a chance on making real top stars out of Sasha Banks and Charlotte seems like a low-risk, high-reward proposition. If it doesn't work, they at least have a better match to put in the bathroom break spot than they do now. If it works, sky's the limit and all of that. ETA: One of WWE's biggest problems right now is their irrational fear of failure. The WWE fanbase has proven to be loyal. There are very few booking decisions they could make that would be so catastrophic that they tanked business. Understandably, the goal should be to maximize their appeal and put those in top spots who have the most potential to do that, but even if their world title feud was Heath Slater vs Kane, they won't be in danger of self-destruction. I wish they'd realize just how much freedom their audience is willing to give them to experiment.

I really wish people were so forgiving when WCW was around. Man, WWE gets a free pass so much of the time.

I know it's out of WWE's wheelhouse, but who are the best women in Japan right now, and do any of them meet WWE's standards for physical appearance? I'd ask the same question about Shimmer. Just wondering if the talent exists out there that WWE could make her a star on the same level as the men even if they did all the right things. For that matter, how are the luchadoras these days?

I don't know -- it almost feels like the Wrestlemania X match is great enough and tells us everything we need to know about Owen, with anything else just being gravy. I've always felt that way for some reason, even though I'm not sure I could hang anyone else's rep entirely on one match like that.

I will be diving into a lot of Dory watching soon, and I really want to love him as much as you do, if only so you don't have to fight the battle in support of him alone. I respect you for being unwavered by your detractors.

You have succeeded in getting me excited to watch some Jack Brisco. Well done.

I actually came back to comment on that. For months, Luger had been straddling both sides of the fence. He had switched allegiances many times in his career, and was now doing it so frequently and with such blatant disregard that it had become self-parody. Jimmy Hart is screaming to everyone that Hall and Nash are in the back, and Luger knows this guy well enough to know when he's lying, since they have schemed together many times before. He could tell that this was no setup based on their history and told the others to go to the back. Still, the viewer might even be thinking briefly that Luger is setting everyone up based on his wishy-washy history in the months leading to this. Luger's redemption arc was such a great part of the NWO. He spent years switching philosophies and desperately trying to make something stick to get him to the level that had always been predicted for him. Nothing quite worked, in some ways probably because of character flaws regarding his maturity. Then he finally made one mistake too many a little while later when he refused to trust the best friend that had trusted him so many times when all evidence pointed to the contrary that he should. So now, Flair was down with an injury and Sting was on the sidelines. Savage had been neutralized. Luger was the unlikely hero. The NWO made him finally grow up and get his shit together after a decade of erratic behavior. I've decided there's no way all the details, subtleties and clear motivations of this particular angle (and in some ways, the NWO at large) were on purpose, because time has proven that most of the people involved just weren't quite that sharp. But I'll be damned if the viewing effect, regardless of the intent, wasn't some seriously captivating wrestling television.

The creepiest ringtone in history would be that awful breathing sound he makes. Seriously, it's distracting enough for me to have major issue with him.

Is there any reason at all to keep Cameron employed now other than Total Divas? It seems like Sasha does a very similar gimmick much better.

You have outdone yourself. This was not only funny and awesome, it was a very detailed and nuanced way to be funny and awesome. I feel like I could re-read this several times and find something new to chuckle about each time.

And Otani's. The 1/96 and 6/99 Samurai-Otani matches are as good as any juniors matches all decade long. Also had a really underappreciated match with Benoit in the BOSJ finals in 1993. Seriously, I implore everyone to watch the June 1999 match, since that's most likely the one the least people have seen.

He was an absolute prodigy early in his career. It's the 1991 Global stuff with Lynn that has gotten the most play since more people have seen it, but he was phenomenal in PWA against Jerry Lynn in various matches. He had a match with Wellington Wilkins that is pretty high concept for U.S. wrestling, and something I'd recommend everyone check out. Then, in 1992-1993 he had strong matches in Universal and against Sabu before having his WWF run that most people have seen. I'm not one for really factoring wrestler comments into my opinions, but when so many guys have talked about how the company used him as the barometer to see who could and couldn't work, and then you watch footage and see how that's true, I think there's absolutely something to be said for that. He never reached his full potential as a worker because his personal life was in shambles much of the time, but he had a great grasp of psychology and knew how to get the most out of his athleticism. I wouldn't advocate him for the top 80 or so of a ballot, but for what it's worth, I think his 1990s surpasses that of Eddy Guerrero when taken in full. If Eddy is getting on your list on the strength of his 1990s -- meaning he'd place even without the WWE run -- you owe it to yourself to watch some more Sean Waltman.

With the exception of The Rock, who almost doesn't count, Cena may have the highest net worth of any wrestler alive, so he could probably stop whenever he wanted. The only other one close is Austin, who had a much bigger money run but a much shorter one as well. Then again, I'm not sure how much Cena's divorce a few years ago set him back.

Has Rollins defended the title on Raw at all since winning it? I was just thinking about that and can recall non-title matches, but no title defenses. Most weeks, he's also in bad skits instead of wrestling.

I remember him also being pretty angry in 2003 when he worked a six-man on Smackdown teaming with Brock and Angle at MSG and the crowd was chanting LOUDLY for him. However, Angle and Lesnar stuck to the pre-planned layout regardless and didn't tag him in until much later. Hulk felt like they should have called an audible based on the crowd, and he's probably right.

Hogan thought he should get his win back from Brock, which I can see arguments for and against, but disagreement over that led to him briefly quitting. While I'm not sure Hogan going over Brock in 2002 made too much sense, Hogan was professional in putting him over in memorable fashion, and there was still more fuel in that tank, even if Hogan never beat him.

Right now? No one. It would be awesome to build up more people to that level and never do televised defenses. (Actually, they don't do very many now anyway, so good on them.) Call it boring or stale or whatever -- I would have been so happy if WM ended with Brock winning clean and going home for a few months. But I think back to the 1980s, and Hogan was able to have very successful feuds even when no one thought his opponent was going to take the title. Somewhere along the way, the idea became that in order to get a title match over, you have to convince the people that the challenger has a shot. I don't think there's anything wrong with that and it's probably right in many cases, but I'm not sure that's always necessary. I think the title started meaning less when guys started getting it as recognition of their work ethic. It's a nice sentiment, but it hasn't meant as much since guys like Angle and Jericho started holding the title as upper midcarders. In most cases, attempts to elevate a guy through a championship win haven't worked. Fans didn't really accept Del Rio or Swagger at that level, and Punk wasn't at that level until 2011 either. To me, you create fan demand then put the title on a guy instead of giving it to a guy in an attempt to get him over the top.

And really, if you've won the Royal Rumble and the ultimate goal is just to main event Wrestlemania, then the goal has been accomplished already. You have the spot. I have no problem with that being a bigger personal motivation for the wrestlers. I just don't like it being presented that way on television.

If HHH is not my choice as a gay man, then who?