jdw

Lordy... think is going to get really stupid. Wait... "already is" really stupid. John

I don't think the Graham match is close to the 07/25/74 match. John

I saw that when looking at the threads. I think the positive vs negative was at least 2-1, if not 3-1. John

"Walking out is a pussy move. There's a huge difference..... in what I did. I want change, and I can't change shit from my couch. I'm in the fox hole. I'm getting it done. I stayed to fight......and I'm fighting for change." You have to love storyline consistancy. I feel story for Punk because from what everyone says, he's not this fucking stupid. But Vince, The Idiot Daughter and The Doufus Son In Law cut a nice check each pay period, so he'll happily mouth their bullshit. John

I'm looking at Dave's piece in the 10/03/11 WON on the WWE Network survey, and is it me... or is there a rather staggering lack of understanding about the NFL Network and NBA Network? On the first paragraph, it appears that Dave's "people involved in the cable industry" failed to mention to him that the reason the NFL Network and NBA Network aren't at 100% clearance is because the two sports monopolies have resisted carriers putting them on Sports Tiers and instead have been insisting on being put on the digital equiv of Basic. As we've bounced around in this thread, there's a reason for that: Sprts Tier = Monthly Fee based on # of households subscribing to the Tier Basic = Monthly Fee based on total # households subscribing to the Carrier Say the carrier has 10M households. 100K subscribe to a Sports Tier. 10M Basic Households > 100K Sports Tier The NFL knows this, as does ESPN. It's why ESPN isn't on a Sports Tier, but squeezes more money out of carriers than anyone on a per household basis: they're on Basic. The NFL went that route, have stuck to it, and have taken carriers to court fighting it. The NFL will never join hands with the NBA to go on a Sports Tier, let alone the WWE. Look... I'm not in the cable industry, and I don't play one at home. But like a lot of us, I've followed the NFL vs Carriers battles, with Time Warner and Comcast being among the more brutal ones. It's newsy stuff. You'd think that in the past decade of the concept of an WWE Network being out there (along an MMA one conceptually popping up more recently) that Dave would even on a casual way follow how some of the other niche networks did business and the issues that came up relating to them. Some of us here have gotten a little granular on programing, including looking at how other cable channels fill their schedule with re-runs / re-airs. I suspect some of us have even at times in the past decade done the equiv of "fantasy booking" to fill up what a weekly schedule could look like. I bet I did 5-6 years ago and now can't remember what I pulled out of my ass. But that's granular. Carriers, tiers and fee rates... that's basic stuff. I get that Dave was relying on "people in the industry", but either (i) they gave him some really info, (ii) they aren't as in the cable industry as Dave thinks, or (iii) Dave didn't get what they were saying. I suspect it's a part of all three, because I don't think it's possible for anyone understanding tiers in the carriage industry wouldn't instantly tell Dave: "That NFL thing isn't going to happy. The NFL wants to be Basic. That's why it's not on Time Warner. They'll never go tier on anything other than the DirecTV package, and will never partner with someone like the WWE." John

Yikes. Mil had really good matches with Jumbo and The Destroyer. There also was praise for all four of his matches that made the DVDVR 80s AJPW set from a pretty wide variety of the people who dropped comments in the threads. John

This is probably one for KHawk as the likely expert on if there's any good Jesse stuff from the AWA in his collection. I haven't focused much on Jesse's WWF stuff, just doing the two Backlund matches. The MSG match is pretty bad. The Spectrum match is actually watchable. Wouldn't say "good", but after the MSG match, it's not bad. Perhaps expectations, or perhaps taking time to work more of a Bob Match than the sprinty mess of MSG. John

Thank god I'm not the only one. John

Was the mess when Vince got replaced any worse than the mess Vince was "causing" when feuding with one of the most popular performers in company history: Stone Cold? Or any number of other faces Vince feuded with? And for logic, if the Board cared about how Vince was treating Punk, how exactly did they think things would change by installing the Doufus Son In Law in his place? "It's WWE Creative, Jake." Probably best not to think too hard about it. The "WWE Universe" has holes the size of wormholes in scifi universes. John

Todd had the Lawler stuff: Sounds like he just doesn't think the angle works. Really, has anything changed under Trip that wasn't there when Vince or all the various GM's have been in charge? There is a logic hole there. John

This is the one you're thinking of, and possibly the one I'm recalling: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHwaKXJ1aeI Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6FdO8HDeik First SmackDown of 2000, right after Trip beat Big Show for the title on opening Raw of the year. What's amazing about this is that they just put Rikishi together with Too Cool in late November, and really Rikishi hadn't been pushed super hard prior to that: not long after his debut. In turn, Trip & Steph had combined as heels only on the 12/12/99 Armageddon opposite Vince. A month before, Trip had been bombing out to the degree that they took the belt off him and gave it to Show at Survivors. It really is amazing how the pieces came together so quickly on so many things. BTW, if anyone wants some fun/pain, go back and look at the Radicals push and how quickly that was booked to shit. When we talk about Trip making sure there wouldn't be anymore Austin/Rock/Foley's once he was moving into power, look no futher than that moment. The start of a roll of fucking over potential threats. John

Any updates or thoughts on how this is going? Martin: WWE Raw Report by Todd Martin Thoughts? John

Chicago hit the Top 10 for the first time in 1970 with "Make Me Smile", "25 or 6 to 4" and "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" They hit the Top 10 for the final times in 1988-89 with "I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love", "Look Away", "You're Not Alone" and "What Kind Of Man Would I Be?" They hit #1 for the first time in 1976 with "If You Leave Me Now", and the final time in 1988 with "Look Away" that was amazingly enough Billboards #1 single of the year for 1988. So... Long term appeal = GREAT~! Band in the case of Chicago? Or were/are they simply an effective charting pop band? When you think of great bands that have been around since they were formed (1967), does Chicago really come to mind? I used Britney Spears because she's a recent example that I didn't think anyone would try to argue is one of the great musicians of the era. It's more likely that people would argue that see was even "effective"... that's how strong the Britney-Hate tends to be. My point with Britney is that Team Britney (her, her manager, her producers, her PR machine, etc) was a pretty damn effective pop machine through her first two albums. After that... *checks* Hmmm... You do happen to know that Britney had 4th #1 record earlier this year. That of her four #1's, three of them have come in 2008, 2009 and 2011? 6 of her 11 Top 10s have come in that period as well? Albums? 1999: #1 ...Baby One More Time 2000: #1 Oops!... I Did It Again 2001: #1 Britney 2003: #1 In the Zone 2007: #2 Blackout 2008: #1 Circus 2011: #1 Femme Fatale Her first #1 single was released in 1998, her most recent this year. Her first #1 album was released in 1999, her most recent this year. I hate to say it, but if any wrestler was as over as she was back in 1998-2001 as a "draw" and then continued to have some drawing positives you could point to from 2007-2011.... that person would be a HOFer. Shit, Edge hasn't done dick compared to Spears. So my analogy works: Britney in fact *has* had long term success. No, she's not Cher: #1 with "I Got You Babe" in 1965 as part of the Sonny & Cher tag team and then still have hits in 1999 with "Believe" going #1. But she's also not Men at Work or Dexys Midnight Runners. Six #1 albums and a #2 in 12 years... that's sorta long term. Is she a "great" pop star? I can't stand 90% of her stuff... perhaps 98%... maybe 100% if I had to listen to it 5 times in a da. But I would say she (and her various teams) have crafted an effective pop star. I can set aside my dislike for her music (and finding her to be a crackpot) to give her props for being effective. Turning this back around to Hogan... It's useful to get to that place of seeing someone who is effective even if you don't like their work because it will allow one to analyze what makes them effective. If you just hate him, then you'll toss it up to the fans being dumb or the promoters pushing Hogan down the fans throats or the hype machine or his "look" or some other narrow thing. It leads one away from thinking about: Why was Hogan more effective than Warrior? Would Sting have been more effective with his career if he, rather than Warrior, was "Hogan's Heir" in the WWF in late 1988? Etc. John

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x93v9r_ri...d-dibiase_sport

I liked that Rikishi title challenge of Trip on TV where the fans were massively pulling for Rikishi to pull off the upset. Seemed like the high point of the character/gimmick both in terms of a good match and connecting with the fans. John

It works given the person making it: Trip. Also those who have tossed it around through the years like Eric. And no... they're not being rational. Frankly MLB Owners are rational either. It isn't rational to shit on the product you're trying to sell to the public. "Look... fuck it... that $5 a month for using our debit card is overprice and not worth it. Any smart consumer would take his business to a credit union for a $0 account." -Bank of America CEO That's not rational. John

So Buck is a candidate for the Top 10 of the 90s? See, Daniel... names are getting tossed around all over the place. John

You've read all the WON's in the 80s, right? I don't think Hulk's work was talked about then as complimentary as I have in the past half decade. What took the 1987 Worst Match Award? John

Go back through the early parts of the thread. Lots of wrestlers names got tossed out. Several times. John

Because I've tried to differentiate between two concept: * having matches that *we* find good / excellent / great from an "this entertains *us*" standpoint * having a match that is effective in popping the crowd Brittney Spears at her peak popped the crowd. Backstreet Boys did. NSYNC did. They were effectively produced and promoted pop idols. Great music? Do you really want to have a vote on that? What I've tried to get at with 80s Hogan is that while he might not entertain us, and might even bore the shit out of some of us (if not down right piss us of when watching him), he was pretty effective in what he did. It's worth nothing that I'd used the same word in describing a lot of what I don't like about Flair: I may not like it (such as Flair have a shitty Figure Four or when he gets in I've Go Stuff To Do mode at the expense of match storyline), but they are effetive spots. Do I think 80s WWF Hogan was a good worker? Not really. Bad? No... not at all. That's what I'm trying to get people to see. What you imply in the question is that there are only extremes: Great vs Shitty Good vs Poor Great vs Not Great What I'm trying to get at that there is a hell of a lot more than that. It's okay to be "good" or "solid". There is something above Poor/Shitty that doesn't really get you into Good. I agree with this. A problem we run into is when someone asks a question: "What are the great Dustin matches?" And someone responds with a List Of Doom of 200 matches. That's an exageration... but still, we've seen Lists of Doom like that which end up being pretty meaningless. No one is going to sit down and watch those 200 matches before going back to you with: "Yes/No Dustin Is Great" Or they might be five matches into it, hitting matches that are really more Good/Solid but very watchable and be struck with the following: "Okay... this stuff is pretty solid, but WTF... these aren't GREAT~! I don't have time to sit through another 195 of these if this is the level of stuff that they think is great. Okay..." *wanders back to the board* "I don't know... I'm just not seeing Dustin as great. He's good and all, but what I've so far don't really go above that." Response: "Have you watched Match X yet? That motherfucking rulz!" "WTF... that is match #142 on this list. I've got to watch 136 of these things before getting to the great stuff? Fuck..." I know hyperbole is common. It's not terribly useful if you're trying to figure out who are the Top 10 workers in the US at the time. I mean... "Bunkhouse Buck was fucking GREAT!" So you're saying he's a candidate for the Top 10? "No... just that the MOTHERFUCKER was GREAT!" Alrighty... John

I like Tito's work in the 80s a good deal. Really solid worker. I probably like some stuff of his a bit more than others, such as he Orndoff and Rude matches that some can find slow and boring. Tito great? I'd go with good, solid worker. Tito vs Rude and Tito vs Orndorff great matches? I'd go with solid matches that are well worked. The WWF in the era was littered with a shitload of Bad matches, Boring matches, very unenjoyable matches. Often times with workers who have way to much talent than to be sleepwalking through matches. So... Good, Solid, Watchable... those are matches to seek out if you're looking for decent stuff from the WWF in the 80s. I hate tossing out "great" for what otherwise is simply good or solid because it renders meaningless the WWF matches in the era that are truly great. It also runs the risk of tosing out "great" and someone thinks this is on par with something else I call great such as the 6/89 Jumbo-Tenryu. Again, we've lost putting value on something being "good" or "real good", and instead need to ~! everything. It's the equiv of MOVES! in talking about a match: just a word tossed out for a pop that doesn't have meaning two sentences later. I'm scratching my head at the notion that there aren't a good deal of Great Matches in the US in the 90s. Dylan and Jerome went through ECW and have peppered us with regular comments on how it was better than folks remember it, falling between that range of the Hardcores / House Organs who overrated /over pimped everything and the Haters who ripped everything. That's *ECW*. We don't think the rest of the US in the entire decade didn't kick out some great matches? Loss has already in 1992, 1993 and 1996 tagged a lot of US matches that are in the really good / excellent / great ranges. I suspect that there are a lot of other ones out there in the other 7 years of the decade, and even matches in those three years that people think more highly off than Loss does. John

Are we getting so granular that we're going to break down matches and determine who is a great worker based on how well they achived what they were suppose to do in the match? Because if we are, the GOAT debate starts and ends with this: Hulk Hogan is the greatest wrestler of all-time because no one nailed as much of exactly what they wanted to do in a match: make people buy more tickets to see him. Seriously... are we going to go down that path? I'm not sure I care whether JJ Dillion thinks he didn't or did have a great match. Any of us who have ever dealt with people in the business have had people say stuff about match and show and work quality that is just gobsmacking dumb / full of shit / completely wrong. And yes: you *can* be wrong about work/match/show quality in some of the contexts that I've had it slung at me: "It was a great show. We did what we wanted to, the fans are dumb and they'll come back for more." -after watching a show where there was little heat and some fans were walking out on the main event I'm paraphrasing there, but the actually quotes if I wrote them down were far worse. I know lots of us get off on all the shoot interviews and books, but in the end they're just Great Stories. I don't buy JJ or any of the other guys in the business rambling about work anymore than I buy Eric or Nash waxing about the key to What Puts Asses In The Seats. * * * * * * * * * * * Here's part of the problem: Lots of us saw all that shit from Arn. At the time, week after week. It's not a new discovery to us that Arn was... you know... a Good Worker. We know that shit. Live it. Paid money to see him at house shows. Etc. Liked him a lot. Still do like watching his stuff. But to get someone like me who already thinks he was a Good, Solid, Enjoyable Work to buy into him being a GREAT~! Worker... it really doesn't draw me in when all one says is that: "Arn is great because he was good a lot for a long time and never was sucky." Well... that's not something I didn't know 25 years ago: that Arn was good. On my TV and in arenas. A lot. Most of the times I saw him. Good = Good When did saying something is good become and insult, and we felt the need to crank it up to 11? John

Rather famously. John

Both of these guys worked in the US before 1995. John

Maybe new thread in 2012? Perhaps edit the title of the new one for 2012, look the old one on January 1. [never mind on this part... found it at the options at the bottom of the board. ] John