Dylan Waco

Honestly the creepiest I've ever seen was Zach Gowen on an episode of SD. Brock Lesnar had a match with him (I think) and completely destroyed him. I just remember this one legged kid laying in a pool of his blood on the floor and thinking it felt disturbingly similar to photos from an actual warzone

Ambrose comes across as a star, and I loved the bit with Reigns/Rusev, but generally I've loathed the post-Shield framing of these guys every bit as much as I feared

Raw's are much bigger shows than anything that aired back then. I agree that there are match ups that should be protected, but the nature of weekly tv makes it infinitely more difficult. I thought the Regins/Rusev thing was awesome, though you could argue it should have been held off until Rusev had at least one meaningful win.

Remember when HHH/Reigns face off got no reaction at all. Like negative heat? Even though Reigns had done a similar face off spot with Titus O'Neil that got a massive reaction. Well today he got the big reaction for him and Rusev. So much to the chagrin of my comrade Jonathon Sorrow, ALL OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE still supports the argument that HHH is less over than Titus. In other news please push Titus WWE

Crowd seemed decent and most important for the quality of the show was red hot by TNA standards. Amazingly the ppv tonight was actually very good. No bad matches, and while there were also no great matches, the show had more feel good moments than "fucking TNA" moments.

Maybe? It's hard to compare because the goals were so different. WWECW was a major company disguising itself as a minor company. ECW was a minor company disguising itself as a major company. I don't think WWECW ever had the sort of storyline delivery as ECW, nor did it have anyone close to as good on the mic as the better ECW guys. But in ring alone the ECW tv shows were never as good as 08/09 WWECW.

I really, really love 2008 and 2009 WWECW. It was kind of like watching a small promotion (think Portland, Stampede or the Maritimes even) work shows in front of large crowds every week. The ECW title was booked as a serious belt, and defenses of substantial length and quality were close to a weekly affair (sometimes bi-weekly when Superstars came around). Christian and Matt Hardy both had tremendous runs as aces, but you also had stuff like Evan Bourne showcase matches, Finlay being Finlay, the emergence of Jack Swagger, Regal as a series title threat, et. They did a really good job booking in "special" talent from the "bigger" brands too. Some of my favorite matches and feuds in recent years come from that period. I'd argue that in 2008 half of the ten best wrestlers in the world were WWECW guys and 09 featured the best, week-to-week, episodic championship run I can remember the WWE doing...ever?

I don't know how to quote individual things on the new board, so I'll respond as best I can and hopefully it's not confusing. Taking the first issue, I'm not at all sure that the "past work" of Dibiase in that example is the reason he's getting heat. Is it a factor? Maybe, perhaps even probably. But if he goes out there and does a shitty job interacting or doesn't interact at all is he going to get the same response? Probably not. You can argue that setting the table makes it easier to do the actual "working the crowd" portion of the match, but all that means is that you have something to play off of. Getting pushed, promoted, et. is not a guarantee that any of that is going to come across well. You still have to be GOOD at that sort of thing in real time for the most part. Of course the flipside of that is that there are guys who get over and/or are over as hell with live crowds even though they aren't particularly promos and/or in some cases don't have particularly well defined characters. For example I went to a WWE house show recently where Big E got a huge reaction and Tyson Kidd got a very good one. I've made this point before, but I once saw Ice Train get a thunderous pop, and tremendous live reaction throughout the course of a bout. I don't think that reaction was because Fire and Ice had shot such a hot angle on Nitro the week before. To the second point I'm not arguing because I absolutely agree that outside angles can help a match, but again, the wrestlers still have to perform in the ring. That strikes me as a completely uncontroversial argument. As for the bit about Malenko and Bruno, I don't much care for Malenko, and I tend to like Bruno more than most so I have no problem with that. Having said that if we take the argument to it's logical conclusion it comes back to drawing power whether you want it to or not. I say that because once you start talking about "who did their job the best" and looking for an objective standard the best you've got is drawing power. So looking at that yes Bruno is better than Malenko (hell I might have Bruno over Malenko via any metric), just as Hogan is in arguably above Flair using the same standard. The final point about why the limitation to bell-to-bell I think has a lot to do with the "smart" fan culture in general. For the longest time that was almost exclusively where the focus was among smart fans - on the good matches, the good workers, et. I think there are a lot of reasons for this, but a big part of this was just a general resistance to the idea that Hulk Hogan and/or the top force fed stars were the standard just because they were the most popular with the masses. By no means is that all of it and I think it's actually a really complex question to tackle. Some of that has changed now and then you have things like the HoF debates which I really enjoy, but other people hate. One thing I will say is that I have no problem discussing one or the other (great workers v. HoF type debates), but I don't see why those things can't be separate discussions.

I think there is very little chance Turner puts a West Coast based show on TBS at that point in time. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. TBS was a national enterprise, but had a regional flavor for years and years and years.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it. Actually that's not the right way to put it. I guess a better way for me to put it would be "I get your point, but it doesn't apply to the way I view wrestling." Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a persons ability to communicate doesn't set the table for things like crowd reactions which can help a match. I also absolutely agree that connecting with the live crowds is a huge part of wrestling, and it's not uncommon for me to make note of this in my reviews. I also tend to like a lot of guys in the ring who do not have positive reps as workers, in large part because I appreciate how their act "works," even if sometime it works in an overtly ridiculous and atypical way (for example I really like Rufus Jones). On the other hand when I am thinking about who the great workers are, I'm thinking about who the great workers are. I'm judging them by what happens from bell-to-bell. If things they have done to set the table make it easier for them to have good matches, or manifest themselves in the course of a worked match then of course I'm going to consider those things. But I'm not going to watch a bunch of Ted Dibiase matches and think "well these matches haven't been the best, but he did cut some great promos on Superstars, so he's definitely a better worker than these matches suggest." I just can't think of any good reason why that would matter in a discussion about in ring performance, though I freely admit it should matter in a discussion of the wrestler over all.

Yeah, but you have to throw in Watts too. Also the landscape had changed dramatically by that point from where it was in 83/84. You really can't compare the two time periods head-to-head even though they are very close together on a timeline. And then there is the fact that NWA/WCW as a national enterprise was a disaster and complete failure until the New York created star showed up to save the day

I want to stress that in no way do I think that list making/categorization/et is the only or right way to appreciate wrestling. Nor do I think it's the only way to analyze great wrestlers. I love doing it, and honestly would have probably quit watching wrestling over a decade ago without projects that were focused in that fashion, but I can absolutely see why others would find it to be a waste, boring, uninteresting, or contrary to their fandom. Perhaps not surprisingly I feel the same way about star ratings for matches that a lot of people probably feel about lists.

I tend to think the only two places that could have effectively gone national at the point of Vince's expansion were the WWF and AWA, largely because of the media markets and size of the territory/population within the territory they were running. I suppose it is possible that a national promotion could have sprung out of Texas in the same rough time period, but that only works if there is some sort of incremental consolidation leading toward the eventual national push first (i.e. World Class taking all of Texas, but also merging with Watts or something of that ilk). I'm from the American South but I don't see any path from there, not even including a Crockett/GCW/Florida merger scenario, though that would be the best option. There are a lot of reasons why I think that would have been impossible (or close to it), but I"ll leave those on the shelf for now. The West Coast in theory is an opportunity, but not really. LA and San Fran were dead wrestling towns at that point and starting from scratch when going national is a guaranteed loser.

I don't think anyone is arguing against discussing the specifics of matches, in fact I'd argue that people like myself and Matt probably talk as much or more about the particulars of what occurs in matches than anyone. I understand the argument about wrestling being cooperative, but that's also precisely why I am more interested in wrestlers than matches when it comes to things like ranking/ratings/big picture analysis/et. If you look at the whole of wrestlers careers I think you pick up the patterns as Matt says and you are able to see much more than you can from individual matches or even a "best of" list from a particular guy.

I am the exact opposite of Loss. I find it infinitely more difficult to compare/rate matches than wrestlers, and much less fun. I have tried to explain why before and I'm not sure I've ever successfully done it, but basically it comes down to the fact that matches to me are not big picture enough. On top of that I always find myself wanting to watch matches multiple times before even thinking about rating/ranking them in any serious order because even the best matches are really just glimpses of talent. I am far more comfortable talking about matches in the context of talking about the wrestlers themselves rather than the other way around. None of that means I am not interested in discussing great matches because I am and probably do it more than most. But there is a reason that I'm not really comfortable contributing to match specific threads in most cases. It just seems to insulated to me and counter to my general habits as a geek. To answer Grimmas' question - or perhaps not answer it - I don't think there is any formula I employ, but I do try and look at a ton of different things. Number of good/great matches is never going to hurt you, but I think there are times where it can artificially inflate you. For example Bray Wyatt had probably been in four of my top twenty-five matches of the year. I'm not sure Sheamus has been in half that many. But Sheamus has been a much more consistent performer. I feel like I can point to Sheamus using his tools in creating, interesting and impressive ways that go beyond what Bray does. If someone said Bray was having a great year in the ring I wouldn't challenge it,but I couldn't in good conscience rate him above Sheamus either. To me volume of good matches, consistency, quality of individual performance, soundness of structure/psychology, ability to incorporate "little things," number of great/MOTYC level matches and probably other intangibles I'm forgetting all come into play.

I love Flair, but at the time the focus should have been on Vader v. Hogan, not Vader as a stop gap to another Hogan v. Flair feud.

I would be really interested to hear the thoughts of several PWOers on this episode. Likes of talk on what really "killed" Vader's aura in the U.S. market

Week two of my pain and suffering. http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/06/12/tna-impact-june-12-review/

If you want suggestions for a Canadian grab bag let me know. Pumped for the future of "Dominic" on the show

I am only half way through the show, but two things. 1. Every single time you guys mention Dominic, I immediately think of the little boy from Kindergarten Cop, and the climactic scene with the school on fire and the tenth rate mobster dad saying "I'm your father Dominic" or whatever the fuck and/or Arnold's ridiculous pronunciation of Dominic throughout the entire movie. Anyway I've listened to a bunch of the Titans shows, but I have no clue if Johnny have ever done that impression, but if not he needs to. 2. Every single time I hear one of these shows I want you to watch Maritimes footage. I can not imagine it going over very well with the panel, but you guys need to see Bobby Bass in his glory. Bobby Bass waiving an American Flag in Sunny War Cloud's face pre-match is the most Titans of Wrestling thing ever done in the 1980s

Hayes was basically a southern Piper

Hayes absolutely could have been a bigger singles star. In fact when Hayes was booked as a title challenger he did way better than you would expect.

Ambrose promo was great. Really liked the main event and loved Sheamus v. Barrett. Rollins promo was fine, largely because they gave him easy enough material to deliver, and they stayed away from anything bordering on an explanation which is really the only choice given how transparently illogical the timing of the turn was.

The number of people that show up at a building, buy a ppv, watch a show, et. is not subjective. The amount of money brought in by the live gate is not subjective. How you analyze those numbers is subjective EVEN IF you try and apply uniform "objective" metrics. For example I know when various people do research about "main events" they often give credit only to the match that went on last. I understand why people do this - it's theoretically an objective metric, it's easier to do if you don't know all of the context of a time period, it's consistent, et. The problem is that it often leads to terrible conclusions. There are many reasons for this. For starters not all main events are the same. Main eventing a card in Sumter, South Carolina at the high school in 1986, is not the same thing as main eventing the Greensboro Coliseum in 1986. Going further if you were in a hot feud third from the top on a Greensboro show that did a big number but not a sellout, is that more or less impressive than main eventing a high school gym that did 2800 paid and sold out with a record local gate? Then there is the fact that in a lot of promotions the match that went on last was not really the main event. The most obvious example of this is the WWWF where the match that went on last was often a bout involving upper mid-carders, or a strong secondary feud, while the hotter feud or title match that was promoted as the main event is on earlier in the show. If you stick with he consistent, easy to apply, "objective" metric in this case, what you get is a version of history that is wildly off the mark. And then you have the issue of shows with double main events, or multiple hot feuds/programs that were positioned on t.v./through angles to draw. My favorite example of this is the AWA's Super Sunday show. The popular history says that the show did a tremendous paid attendance and live gate, among the best in the history of the AWA, and that this was done because of how incredibly hot Hulk Hogan was as a challenger for Nick Bockwinkel. But if you use the "what went on last" main event metric, that match doesn't get an ounce of credit, because the match that closed the show was Adnan/Blackwell v. Verne/Mad Dog, coming off a hugely hot angle which triggered a literal riot in the St. Paul Civic Center. The logical thing here is to give both matches credit, but again that requires looking at more than just the objective metric of choice. These are just some issues with one metric that is often used to analyzing drawing power and drawing cards. You can find other problems with this metric (for example title matches that went on last with weak challengers, over several hot feuds), or you could pick another "objective" sort of metric and find problems with that. The point here isn't that you throw it all out, the point is that discussing and analyzing drawing power is often hurt by an obsession with objective metrics that were picked for subjective reasons. This is one of the reasons why I have done so many different things with my Patera research, and explored it from so many different angles. I want as complete a picture as possible, and I want the numeric aspects of the project to be grounded in an understanding of history. Another thing you have to consider is that drawing means different things in different contexts. AJ Styles is a draw on the indies today, but what he is drawing would be considered a disaster for the WWE. NJPW drew 7k in Yokohama Arena which would be a good number for them in the majority of venues they run (and a sellout in many of them), but it's poor for an 18k facility and a major show. SMW drawing 1500 paid in Knoxville in 1993 was very good-to-great. WCW doing the same number would be seen (rightfully) as disgraceful. One final thing that is somewhat related to the last point, is that who is and isn't considered a draw often has a lot to do with perception. For example the perception of New Japan is that Inokism killed it, it was on it's ass and Tanahashi (and going by some narratives Okada too) revived it and made it a hot promotion. By contrast Akiyama is seen as a guy with tons of promise who routinely failed when given the big pushes and chances on top. But here is the thing. Akiyama has far more big houses on his resume than Tanahashi. Akiyama at Budokan v. Tanahashi at Sumo is probably not a very favorable comparison for Tanahashi. Akiyama has at least a few instances we can point to where he popped business, whereas it is very tough to find those things for Tanahashi. Tanahashi does have the IPPV craze which is a new revenue stream that has changed the game in many ways, including making NJPW available and easier to follow in real time for U.S. fans than at any point in history. But if you compare him head to head to Akiyama as a drawing card it's very tough to see how he comes out ahead other than the fact that perception - in part fueled by different contexts - makes him seem like a bigger star.

Funny enough the draws you can track and point to right now are guys like Chris Hero and AJ Styles who have really helped a dying indie scene, with both guys drawing record houses for multiple promotions, and Styles in particular headlining several of the biggest non-WWE shows of the year. It's odd to say the least