Loss

I'm going to split this off into its own thread, but I have to ask this question - if you take every controversial topic off the table *and* rules are not really enforced very much, what avenue does a heel have left to get heat? Are heels that don't offend anyone really heels? I generally think they can give any undesirable characteristic to a wrestler and it's fine, as long as that wrestler is presented as a hate-worthy heel. EDIT: I'm removing this paragraph from my post. While it is true that I don't like the term "politically correct", this thread truly is not the place to hash that out. I shouldn't have shared that opinion at all.

Or more accurately, some of the Rey fans that happen to post here.

It would be awesome if every show closed with the announcers running down the matches for the following week as a callback to how it used to be. That way, matches aren't being made on the fly as the show goes along. Some mysterious figure is the one making all the matches and that's all there is to it.

Oh, I'm expecting HHH and Stephanie on RAW tonight, with the stip reset quite possibly by the end of the show.

Since Austin talks about it so much, he should ask Vince why promos have to be scripted word for word. I'd love to hear Vince respond to that question. I'd feel better about that if it wasn't on the Network though.

Having binge-watched a lot of Shonda Rhimes TV in the last few weeks, it really stood out to me in that match how WWE could stand to be a lot more racially and ethnically diverse at the top of the card. It's nothing new, but it does lead me to believe that's at least part of what holds them back.

I cracked up when Cole referred to Bryan as "that young man" on commentary, like he is this innocuous guy that used to be around.

I'm not a Ziggler guy either. But he's too over to not be pushed at the top level.

Hopefully, they have lots of Sting specials lined up and will use the WWE Network as a promotional vehicle to get him as over as possible with this audience in a way that it can be sustained.

Setting aside the Sting debut, which I really don't care about, that main event was pretty much what I want from WWE - lots of crowd-pleasing spots, a sharp face-heel divide, angle-driven twists playing themselves out in a wrestling match and a bonafide effort to elevate someone who is over. If they were like that all the time, I'd be happy. I would much rather see matches full of pomp and circumstance like that than attempts to create a good yet unimportant match of the year between talented, underutilized guys with no clear booking direction.

Did people boo Mark Henry pretty actively during that run? I wasn't watching, so I'm just asking.

Thanks for the kind words and welcome to the board!

If that's the type of setup we get most of the time, it's a step up from where it was at one point. The manager bump in that case also helps because it creates an alternative audience focus during some of the time it takes Rey to run. I think the reason people harp so much on the 619 compared to other moves is that it was a key part of how Rey was marketed. It wasn't a finisher, but it was part of his entrance music.

The difference between the 619 setup and some of the other setups described is there's no piece of offense Rey is specifically executing to put people in that position. The wrestler sells and happens to fall exactly where he needs to and because Rey has to run first, there is a delay to the point it doesn't seem plausible for any wrestler to just be sitting there for so long. It's the telegraphed feeding. The big difference between that and something like the People's Elbow is that a wrestler lying on his back isn't an uncommon position for a wrestler to sell in a wrestling match. Just happening to stumble and land on the middle rope is too convenient.

The 619 itself isn't the issue as much as wrestlers having to sell by dropping into position and hang on the ropes when that never happens in a match that doesn't involve Rey. It's the setup for the move more than the move itself.

If he thinks Edge is a HOFer and can make the case in his favor, that isn't particularly bothersome on its own even if I don't agree with him. Where I have a problem is his argument that RAW and Smackdown were two different territories and that Edge somehow had this remarkable accomplishment headlining on both shows. I'm sure we could come up with quite a few wrestlers during the brand extension years that also did it. But more than even that, it suggests that headlining on the RAW shows and headlining later on the Smackdown shows is analogous to headlining in MSG and headlining at The Omni in the late 70s-early 80s. I'll never accuse Dave of dishonesty, but it's an argument that doesn't make sense.

What is wrong with the 619? It requires wrestlers to get into an unnatural position to take the move, similar to the Stinkface. If I was booking, I'd probably ask wrestlers in non-Rey matches to occasionally sell sitting on the ropes like that to get it over as a somewhat natural position to be in. I love Rey, but I do think the transitions to the 619 were usually not done very well.

Vince supposedly thinks he is too old to be overly visible at this point, because it makes WWE look like a company from the past. Which is funny, because even Michael Cole has been in the company for 17 years at this point.

How does Mania even "bomb" (or succeed) anymore? The only metric we have is live attendance. Pay-per-view is dead.

I suppose it is a bit more of an uphill climb for a non-wrestler to get in the HOF, especially since most of the discussion typically centers around wrestlers.

Do you suspect he'll eventually get in? He did have a near 10% increase in support this year. He seems like someone who it would be worth walking through his case on a big platform. He had some major successes as a booker and promoter and while there was an eventual decline, it was a gradual one. He weathered the storm of the WWF expansion longer than any other territory. And I'm not sure I'd point to any bad promotional or booking choices that specifically led to Memphis going down the tubes.

I was talking to Kris about this on Twitter and I'm interested in raising the topic here too. I understand why wrestlers hold Jerry Jarrett's low payoffs against him. But why doesn't he have near unanimous support from historians? What's the historical argument against Jerry Jarrett? Kris suspects that it's simply a matter of anti-Tennessee bias, but I figured most of the people who looked down on Memphis wrestling in that manner are dead now. I'm not sure what it is.

Parv, I respect your decision to at least give shoot style a chance. It truly is not for everyone. You have tried it and you didn't like it. More power to you. I hope at some point (unless I've missed it), you will expand on what you see as the major differences between shoot style and the 70s matwork-based matches, as I think that's an interesting conversation. I see obvious differences, but I also see something like UWFI as an extension of that. I'm not sure my take on that is right, or that there even is a right take. So I think it's a discussion worth having, especially involving someone who doesn't really get into it.

Obviously, it turned out fine for him getting fired, but I always thought the 1995 Horsemen reunion would have been awesome with Flair, Arn and a reunited Austin and Pillman.