Loss

Decline in popularity and in interest. Loss of faith in the company to build new stars. Does anyone even really talk about 2003 WWE very much?

He had a string of brutally bad main event programs in a row in 2002-2003. - Rob Van Dam - Kane - Shawn Michaels - Scott Steiner - Booker T - Kevin Nash - Goldberg

Dave did the same thing with Punk, talked about how much he wasn't drawing, but would then talk about how shows drew disappointing numbers without him and that sort of thing. I never understood it.

I think Owen/Kid was just right for what they were doing. I would have loved to see them go longer, but I also don't think the match lost anything because it was short.

Yes, but very few workers are able to fill 60 minutes without either going into long useless resthold and/or "dramatic" selling segments or equally useless endless series of spots and "dramatic" nearfalls. Sometimes smokes and mirrors and overbooking can work around that, like HHH vs Rock in 2000, but matches going really long is usually a sign of complacency in the modern days. Matches don't really go long these days, so I don't know what you mean. HHH doesn't work full time anymore. It's extremely rare that a match exceeds 30 minutes in WWE, or even on the international scene. I agree that it should be saved for special occasions, but I just want to make sure we aren't denying that those special occasions do exist.

Jericho seems very in tune with that criticism of him now, so I expect him to get a few wins in this program even if Bray wins in the end.

I think this is the best point. We shouldn't get too fixated on what a match is supposed to be, because there are so many approaches that work. It's up to the booker to give the wrestlers the right amount of time based on their place on the card, crowd interest and skill level, and it's up to wrestlers to wisely fill whatever time they are given. Matches are often too long, but I've seen great 60 minute matches and bad five minute ones too.

I think Steve Williams vs Kenta Kobashi on 9/3/94 is still going on.

I'm surprised jdw didn't answer the question in the thread title by simply saying "Bill Apter". Anyway, Sabu is another good choice. He was heavily featured in the 1990s. I remember a fan Q&A with Paul E. complaining about it, saying Apter wasn't out to give exposure to ECW, he was just a mark for Sabu.

I understand Dave waiting until 1999 to go online, since technology is not his strong point. But considering where his strengths are, it is really surprising to me that the Torch was not online much earlier. Wade tries to be on the cutting edge as far as technology goes these days, but maybe he was not always that way. I'm not sure.

I always thought one of the signs of a promotion dying is when the ring announcer starts changing regularly. From what I can recall, it always seemed like a pattern. The NWA in 1988 was like Murphy Brown and her secretaries, but at least it gave us that awesome soulful intro of Ric Flair at Clash IV.

Great list. I think the placement of Bret/Perfect is interesting. We both agreed that it was a very good or borderline great match, but it was raved about at the time and it's not something either of us saw as elite for the year. Those divides will be interesting when you dive into 1992-1993 and 1995 as well. In those years, we have: - The Royal Rumble in '92 - Bret vs Piper at WM8 - Flair vs Savage at WM8 - Bret vs Davey Boy at Summerslam '92 - Bret vs Shawn at Survivor Series '92 - Bret vs Perfect at KOTR '93 - Shawn vs Marty from RAW in the PWI MOTY and ****3/4 WON match - Rock & Rolls vs Bodies at Survivor Series '93 - Bret vs Diesel at Rumble '95 - Bret vs Hakushi at IYH I - Shawn vs Jarrett at IYH II - Shawn vs Razor at Summerslam '95 - Bret vs Lafitte at IYH III - Bret vs Diesel at Survivor Series '95 - Bret vs Davey Boy at IYH V Most of those matches were in that same category for me -- good to great, but not elite for the year. However, I noticed that you are higher on many WWF matches in '91 than I was, specifically Savage/Jake which I saw as mostly just angle, although it was admittedly great angle. Do you rank Austin/Bret from RAW with the ambulance angle at the same level? I ask because I think they are comparable as exciting but mostly angle. However, there may be something you see in the match that I'm missing so I'm curious to hear a response. Warrior/Savage I'm not as high on, but I see the logic so much that it's hard to argue. I'm curious your take on those matches in the missing years though. I suspect it's probably where we'll differ the most, as we'd likely be in line on most WCW, lucha and Japan stuff.

Lawler, Flair, Funk, Dusty, DiBiase, the Freebirds, Savage and Cornette are the guys that come to mind to me first and foremost. I'm pretty sure Lawler is truly The King, if only because he was the top star for almost three decades in a territory that was more angle-driven and booked week-to-week than any territory in the country. I think a good sleeper pick is Eddie Gilbert. His run wasn't as long as the other guys I mentioned, but he played a part in quite a few strong angles in a shorter period of time.

February 1992 May 1992 June 1995 November 1996 All are up there.

Is Bischoff giving the belt to HHH a different lineage?

I think that's probably true too, since he was not around consistently. It would make sense.

It's worth noting that WWE pulled Cena from the upcoming tour of Australia and put Roman Reigns in his place.

Yeah, I'd have to go Finkel too. Gotta love Tom Miller though. "Thhhuuuhh Nachure Boy ... RICFLAIR!"

Trio Fantasia vs Los Thundercats looks like a slasher flick inside a wrestling ring, only involving Disney characters.

IWC is awful because it's usually accompanied by too much self-important discussion about what "we" think of a topic, as if everyone who has access to the Internet and is a fan of pro wrestling has the same opinion on everything related to wrestling. I've never read anything intelligent about wrestling that contained the term IWC. "Smark" I think can be used ironically at times, but again, it's nauseating when it's used seriously to say things like, "That's the problem with you smarks. Always bitching about what you watch. If you don't like it, don't watch" or some other crap. For the record, Dave has said the same thing about the term "mark", and he writes off people inside wrestling that use it, because it's meant to be derogatory. I think the issue in both cases is generalizing.

Lex Luger got quite a few covers and was pretty heavily promoted by the Apter mags. He was the first guy who came to mind.

True, but Wade started the Torch because he was a WON reader.

Hogan said once if he worked in the U.S. like he worked in Japan, he would be stuck in the opening match.