Dylan Waco

I read it again not that long ago. If you take into account that it's St. Louis version of history it's a great book despite the bias. If you take it as an unbiased account. Well you shouldn't be reading wrestling bios

The only offensive spot in current WWE I can think of offhand that I really loathe is that trashbag Tanahashi spot Rollins has started to do every match. Obvious I'm excluding all of the offense of RVD and Kofi

I actually think it's a brilliant spot. It always looks brutal, it always gets a pop (and often times gets people into a match that was cool before hand), and like the 619 he is very good at finding different ways to utilize it.

I can see that argument to a degree though I can think of FAR worse "getting their shit in guys" with far loftier reps than Sheamus. More importantly, Sheamus - with the possible exception of Cesaro - is probably the least formulaic offensive wrestler on the roster in terms of having a broad, expansive, move set that he can shift or tailor to different matches, opponents, settings, et.

Del Rio is good, at times very good. Sheamus is great. In fact if we are talking about the 10's (weird to think of that as a decade to be writing about isn't it?), I'm not sure there are too many people I would rate ahead of him in the WWE. Having said that I couldn't really get behind the Main Event match tonight. Generally speaking I think WWE LMS matches are a fool proof gimmick. I can't think of one I haven't at least enjoyed and I did enjoy this match. Still I thought this lacked any sort of context and that bothered me. It's one thing to do a match like this on Main Event. Honestly I have no problem with that and think it's a good idea for the network going forward to do matches like that on that show. But these guys haven't been booked in anything even approximating a serious feud. While you could make the argument that the match got over the significance of the U.S. title and for that reason alone it worked, I still have a real problem with the LMS match being used on no build, in a non-feud. It just made the match seem more forced than it should have. Having said this, it was a reasonably well worked match. In fact it was worked a lot like the WWE house show gimmick matches I've seen over the last several years where you have liberal use of one prop (here it was the cane), building to very minimal use of the key props (the table and the chair). To my mind that is a smart way to build a match like this and Sheamus has really been a master of this style. This is going to come across like a weird criticism, but I think I would have liked the match more if they had done a hot angle on Raw and then aired it on the network as a special house show match on a Saturday Night or something of that ilk.

I actually think there is something to the idea of "retiring" veterans to developmental to help out with some of the guys who don't have the full indie/international experience of guys like Zayn. I'm not saying this should be a widespread practice, but with a guy like Regal sitting down there it's probably not a bad idea to have him work some of the local house shows for a variety of reasons. I do like how they seem to be shifting underutilized guys down there in an effort to give them work, and possibly return with a little something behind them, but that's not quite what I mean (nor do I think it's what Joe is talking about).

I have been a fan of Ambrose since his indie run. Reigns showed up with the group, no one knew what to think, and his first night in he was incredible and jumped off the page. The term "it" gets overused in wrestling, but I think Reigns has "it." I think Ambrose does too for what it's worth

Loss point is true, but I think all of those points (and others) apply just as much, if not more, to the territory era. I can only speak to Charleston here (I could probably find out other places with a little effort though), but the last show here did 8200 paid (Meltzer reported at 7500, but I know multiple people who work for the building, including one who would absolutely be privy to the actual figure). Main event was Cena v. Orton Cage Match which was announced and advertised about five or six weeks out. Initial ticket sales did okay, but they saw did a huge spike after the advertising and everyone attributed it to it being Cena in a cage match to the point parking attendants for the building were talking about it when me, my friend and his son arrived. I was told they did 80% of the house in the last four weeks, which would not shock me at all. I am skeptical of "pops" being a measure of anything, but Cena got a Bruno level pop that night (honestly one of the loudest I've ever heard at a live wrestling show and I've been to hundreds of them), and Cena merch was everywhere (I was told they sold out of hats, but I have no clue if that's true).

Every single show I've gone to in the last decade has been heavily advertised with multiple names and even matches mentioned via t.v., radio and even sometimes print. These shows were in six different cities, in four different states. I do echo that Big E was really over with kids when I saw him on a house show earlier this year.

Completely and totally disagree with Johnny. If house show drawing was meaningless than you would expect parity between Cena and non-Cena shows. The problem is that doesn't happen, and often times it's not close at all. I suppose you could argue the promotion is weaker some places than others, or that Cena gets to work bigger markets (probably true on average, but I'm not sure how it would look over the long haul), but this year there has been a clear and obvious difference between Cena headlined shows and non-Cena headlined shows. The idea that this is some strange string of fluke occurrences strikes me as really naive. I get Johnny's point that they lie in advertising, and the brand is pushed more, but the evidence I see both in terms of results, local advertising (not just here either, but in Chattanooga as well which is a vastly different market than Charleston), live reactions, merchandise sales, et. is that Cena is still a clear house show draw above and beyond anyone else in the company.

I think it's easy to overrate the NXT to specials in terms of what they mean big picture, and I actually think the presentation of The Shield feud is really telling for a few reasons.

Not trying to be discouraging to the idea of others doing a show with this theme, but Will, Scott and I did something very similar and extremely detailed not that long ago. http://placetobenation.com/wrestling-with-the-past-10-the-great-hhh-debate/

One of my big criticisms of TNA since I've been doing the reviews (five weeks and counting) is that even when they have a match up that looks good on paper, and in fact is good in practice, it's not long enough to be fully developed. This weeks Eric Young v. Bobby Lashley match is a perfect example of that. The work itself was fine, good even. But the match got six or seven minutes and the story they were telling needed at least five minutes more to really work

GMC is the best, but my favorite will always be Don Owen

Sting was positioned by the mags as WCW's Hogan. That would be like the mags positioning Eric Young as TNA's John Cena and talking about Cena v. Young dream matches. On the issue of the magazines as promoters there is a ton to be written because I think in many ways they are the most important promoters in U.S. wrestling history

I understand what people are saying about Reigns as a worker, but I'm not sure you have to be a great worker to be champion in the WWE the way they work their main events (heavily gimmicked). The key is to have big spots that are over and a good sense of timing. He has both of those things. Also I think he's been undersold by many when talking about The Shield's in ring stuff. This year I thought Ambrose and Rollins were better, but in 2013 he was right there with those guys, arguably better at times. Normally I would say "don't rush the push, and let it be organic," but I think Reigns push IS pretty organic in the big picture sense and they have to rush things some with Bryan hurt and the top of the card filled with stale guys getting weak reactions

Relative to his actual value as a star, Sting

This is an aside, but I'm not sure Michaels had a bigger moveset than Hogan

I think there is a difference between your working ace slot and your clearly top dog ace spot. If one is looking at the total picture I think few have been better than Austin. The proof is in the drawing power, but also in the live reactions, the way the shows were centered around him, the way he carried himself, et. I haven't gone back and watched that era of Austin in years, and it's not likely to be something I will do anytime soon, but my memories of it are largely positive. Having said that I don't think Austin is even in the same universe as Cena when it comes to the "working ace" slot. To be fair that's not entirely Austin's fault. People bitch about the title now, but I thought the ultimate in the title being a side show was at the peak of Austin's run. For that reason you don't have Austin with a run like 06/07 Cena where he was up against a hugely diverse group of wrestlers, in high stakes matches, that delivered and enhanced the status of the top star and champion every time.

I am not a fan of Bray's promos. At all. But I think the entire point is that you don't know what his message is.

Current Favorite Wrestler To Watch: I could easily say Thatcher here but instead I'll go with Kongo Kong. Awesome throwback big man/monster on the indies. He really stands out on the modern scene because no one else is working like him at all. Great look, and a guy who has potential to be one of the best big men in wrestling history if he gets the chances. Last Fun Match You Saw: Shaun Tempers v. Slim J from the 6/28 Anarchy show Really fun local heel champ v. flashy face challenger match. It helps if you know what Tempers finishers are, but other way it's my kind of match.Wrestler You Want To See More Of: The French Catch guys Last Live Show Attended: WWE house show earlier this year that included a great Cena v. Orton cage match, and a very good/great Real Americans v. Rhodes Brothers match. Match You Are Looking Forward To Watching Soon The Most: Black Terry v. Charles Lucero, assuming it actually makes tape. Last Fun Interview/Promo You Saw: Mean Gene's confessional promos on Legends House. All of them. Last Interesting Thing You Read About Wrestling: I thought the interview with one of the owners of This Is Progress that is up at VoicesofWrestling.com was pretty interesting. Also the 1949 year in review article Stanley Weston wrote for Ring Magazine that Yohe posted over at Classics was pretty great. Really there is a lot of stuff I could put here. Last Worthwhile Wrestling Podcast You Heard: I listen to a bunch of them, too hard to narrow it down. I enjoy all the Voices of Wrestling shows and the last Titans show on Philly was a ton of fun. Most Fun You've Had Watching Wrestling Lately: Watching the En Busca final with Cavernario and Hechicero live on my phone while walking home from work. I had to look like an insane person, but it's amazing I was able to watch that in real time as it happened from Arena Mexico while strolling down a major highway.

Also wrestling is not MMA or power lifting. A strength coach wouldn't know jack shit about pro wrestling unless he was a wrestler or a wrestling fan, so I'm not sure why I would give a fuck what they had to say about diet, training, et. and how it relates to what is literally a theatrical performance. This is not to say that I don't want people to be in good shape, have good cardio, et. but the implication behind the argument presented seems to be "workrate = good work," which I disagree with. If that's not the implication than I am either completely missing the point, or it's not being explained very well.

Thank God Buddy Rose disagreed with biology, he was a better wrestler for it.