jdw

It might have been a late issue for Comcast might because of PPV and long term over-the-top opportunities. That's not an issue with the other big channel empires as they don't have that ying-yang between content (their networks) and carriage (their cable/dish/telecom) halves. One also wonders if the one way Comcast might get their merger with TWC through is by divesting / splitting off their entire content empire. Time Warner / TWC split, though TWC has recently gone into the Channel business with their massive deals with the Dodgers and Lakers.

FXX is actually a pretty interesting call. They've had trouble getting clearances; and linking Raw with Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia and the League makes sense from a demographic perspective. USA is in 98M homes. FXX is allegedly in 74M homes, up from the 53M that Fox Soccer was in... though I take that 74M with a little grain of salt. One does have to wonder if the WWE wants to move to fewer homes, or risk a channel that might become non-basic, at a time when Raw and SmackDown are going to be the primary advertising platform for the WWE Network. It's a tough balance for the WWE. They can take more money on a weaker channel, or take less on a better channel to that allows them to grow their long term revenue stream (the WWE Network). John

Which is an interesting contrast to a number of the sports packages have been handled. Seriously don't think this is a great sign for the WWE. If it was a really valuable property for Comcast, they would have wrapped it up before it got on the open market... especially if they thought there was someone else who might swipe it.

Does Comcast have the contractual right to match any offer and keep the package? I don't recall reading that.

This.

I get what you're saying, but I also think that suspending disbelief doesn't mean that we really believe that what we're seeing is geniune; it just means that it's convincing enough that we can be drawn into the action without the awareness that it is staged being front and center in our mind. Yeah, it is totally illogical for Flair to go to the top rope, if you think about it. Fortunately, in most Flair matches you are so entertained and engrossed that you don't think about it. In bad matches, the unreality of everything is inescable. Yeah, the "willing suspension of disbelief" is about being able to accept that a work of fiction is plausible within the parameters of it's fictional universe. It's not about straight forward realism. I'm well aware of the term from Coleridge on down, and various other people given their twist to it. Hell, even the side tangent of "plausibility" within the fictional universe is largely bullshit to give people the out of why they "believe". I tend to think that one doesn't need to "believe" on any level to "like" and "enjoy" something fictional. You just have to like and enjoy it. Also that if one wants to be reflective, they likely can figure out why they liked something... of which "I believed it!" really isn't a factor.

I get what you're saying, but I also think that suspending disbelief doesn't mean that we really believe that what we're seeing is geniune; it just means that it's convincing enough that we can be drawn into the action without the awareness that it is staged being front and center in our mind. I don't find pro wrestling "convincing". I mean seriously... I've seen Flair go up to the top 100 times. I'm suppose to *not* see what I'm watching is staged? It's always in the brain. Flip to the movies. I've seen Bruce Willis in dozens of things. When I first saw him as John McClain, you think I could really be unaware that this is the dude that I'd been watching play David Addison in Moonlight? It doesn't mean that I don't love Die Hard. Probably the best action movie that I've ever seen, and has been the gold standard against which I judge all other action movies over the past 25 years. But suspend disblief? No. I've been "thinking" about Flair's work for close to 30 years. He, along with Jim Cornette and the MX, are the reason I became a hardcore wrestling fan. But being entertained by them doesn't make me stop "thinking" about it. In fact, it made me think *more* about the elements of his work: what's he doing, why is it working with the crowd, what's the stuff that I like, what stuff is silly, etc. Honestly... I "think" less with bad matches than stuff that's good. Sid vs Nightstalker is a dogshit match. What's really the point of thinking much about it beyond, "Good God that was total shit." In contrast, 12/03/93 Misawa & Kobashi vs Kawada & Taue is a terrific match that I've given 20+ years of thought to. The 11/26/92 Toyota & Yamada vs Kansai & Ozaki isn't a match that I've given a lot of thought about in the past decade, but I did spend a lot of time in the 90s pondering why, when first watching it not long after it happened, I thought it was the best match I'd ever seen... and whether it still held that spot for me as the decade went on. What elements worked for me, what were the flaws/sloppiness, how they impacted the match for me, how the crowd reacted, the differences of the individual performances and how the combined, etc. Anyway... John

That you can't imagine other people seeing and enjoying things differently than yourself isn't something sad about me, but sad about you.

So Comcast thought the WWE was overvaluing the programing. Not a good sign for Uncle Vince.

When I saw Vince trending on Yahoo, I thought he died or had a heart attack. Then I clicked on it, saw it was something as silly as him buying Newcastle, and was thankful that the nonsense was already shot down by the time I'd clicked on it. John

I'm open about it if it comes up, but don't waste time talking about it to non-fans. It's a bit like being a Beatles Fan: I'm not evangelical about it, and really couldn't be bother to talk about them to someone who isn't a fan or doesn't have a question on them. On the other hand, I will drop Big Lebowski and Animal House quotes on people, and get that look of, "WITF are you talking about?"

That's a difference. I care about kids of today, kids of the 90s, kids of the 80s, kids of the 70s... my parents were kids of the 40s and 50s, and I care about what they were thinking. Hell, it would be nice if Tacitus wrote about kids in the first century more and gave us some insight.

As there got to be more promotions, which was very much a 1990-and-beyond thing, there were loads of shows in the Tokyo area especially if you include Yokohama Bunka Gym and Yokohama Arena in addition to the Usual Tokyo Suspect Arenas/Gyms. I'd have to go back and look at all the shows that I saw in the 1996 trip. Pretty ridiculous amount in roughly two weeks... and not even including an AJPW card in that. 1995 trip was similar, but we went out of Tokyo for two of the shows that year. John

Most of them knew fuck all back in 1984 as well. It's pretty common.

It's kind of hard to suspend disbelief in pro wrestling. Take Flair going to the top after failing 95%+ times in his career, and getting tossed off the same way all the freaking time. Or putting on the Figure Four when it fails 95%+ of the time, with him getting reversed more than 50% of the time and damaging himself. I'm suppose to "believe" any of that stuff? Almost everything in every pro wrestling match shatters belief. I can't pretend / believe / make believe otherwise it away. The same thing goes for Films or TV or Lit for me. I just finished watching the Cardfael series. Did I believe any of it? No, even though a fair amount of it is wrapped in historical events / real people. Same goes for I Claudius and Claudius The God, which I just finished a re-read of. Suspend my disbelief to enjoy it? No. It's just a really cool pair of books by Graves, entertaining, funny and sad in stretches. Justified? It's about as believable as the Tooth Fairy... So... yeah... that one doesn't work well for me, or I'd hate all pro wrestling if it was needed. That said, I not a huge fan of sloppiness in pro wrestling any more than in some TV program I'm watching.

Traditional pro wrestling style highspots can still be anything. I'm still not quite sure what you're saying. That. "Modern" highspots aren't the same as what highspots were in the 70s... or the 60s... or the 50s... or the 40s... etc. On a certain level, UWF-style highspots are closer to "traditional" highspots than the shit that Richards and Edwards are doing.

That would be All Of Pro Wrestling for me: I can't "suspend my disbelief" for any of it, even the stuff I like. So... yeah... that one doesn't work for me.

I think something along those lines was mentioned a few dozen pages back when the PPV Contracts were first brought up.

On the other hand, it is a slight flaw in the title of the thread. Hogan-Andre, which you cited, was "great pro wrestling". From concept to angle to storyline to match, it basically was the best thing of the decade in delivering what pro wrestling is about: getting people insane about paying money to see a match. Was the match itself "great work", or "good work"? That's an entirely different question. :/

The term existed long before Scott Keith started writing about wrestling.

They're probably doing it to show UFC and boxing that if they try doing something like that in the future, their PPVs will be dropped. Remember that WWE's contracts with the providers say WWE can't sell the PPVs at a lower price than the one they have through the providers; if Dish continues to show the PPVs, they're pretty much telling UFC that they will get away with it if they, say, show the PPVs live on Fight Pass. Here's the problem: we don't have the WWE's contracts in front of us, nor do we know when all of them run through. The last time I looked through the SEC filings for it, it wasn't at all clear.

That makes it easier to skim things...

When Bill James expanded his Win Shares to be Win & Loss Shares, he had them: Frank Chance (218-46, .825) Win Share Value of 303 Johnny Evers (261-133, .662) Win Shares Value of 325 Joe Tinker (271-146, .649) Win Share Value of 333 "Johnny Evers, in my view, is a fully qualified and well qualified Hall of Famer." "But it is my opinion that Joe Tinker was very possibly the greatest defensive shortstop in the history of baseball, and that he is a well-deserving Hall of Famer." Those were from articles he wrote on his website (behind the pay wall) in 2010 and 2011. His arguments/analysis/walk throughs on Tinker are rather compelling. In fact, one wishes he put together a larger piece on those Cubs teams. John

"Thanks to readers Pete Theophall and Charlie Gavinelli for coming up with this masterpiece..."