Dylan Waco

There is a lot to address here, but first I want to note that I think drawing power tends to be less important to me when thinking about workers or matches than it does for a lot of people who say they find drawing power boring, pointless, irrelevant, et. to discuss. I'll explain why I believe that to be true later in this post, but note that I think drawing power is interesting to analyze because I am interesting in wrestling history. Whether or not something draws really doesn't matter to me at all when analyzing a worker, though understanding the idea of drawing cards can help explain why your favorite indie guy can't get signed, or why certain guys constantly get pushed. Of course it's not a science, and there are all sorts of issues with sample size that Loss discussed above, but I don't think those issues are related solely to the issue of drawing power (more on that later). I've got a TON to say about this, but I want to start by responding to this part of funkdoc's post from the other thread: "not drawing" really means "couldn't interest a particular audience at a particular point in time", and i don't think that in itself should be a negative. it can be a useful *indicator* of other issues at times, mainly if something didn't draw during a hot period for business (see the mr. perfect example from before), but i think it's drastically overused as a metric when dealing with overall down periods. this is why i think there is value in performances that remain entertaining & compelling 20 years after the fact, even if they didn't draw a dime at the time! and this could be a thread in itself, but i think the impact of specific top stars on drawing power is huuuuuuuugely overrated. it reflects the same thought process as the whole Great Man conception of history, which has countless holes if you examine it in depth. you do need a main-eventer who can reach a certain baseline in various traits (look, personality, etc.), but i think wider cultural trends and the presentation of the overall product are bigger factors in a promotion's mainstream success. basically i don't think sting & vader, or even ron simmons, were the problem for WCW - the problem was a culture hostile to pro wrestling and (key difference from the WWF) a show with a very low-rent/"southern" feel to it. during a time when power rangers & mortal kombat ruled the world, most kids wouldn't be caught dead watching "that redneck shit" or the 80s cartoon style of the WWF. I want to try and take this in order so I'll number it and go from there. 1. I think if you are talking about a workers skills as an "artist" or "in ring talent" or even in many cases their influence then not being able to interest a particular audience at a particular time has to be seen as a negative when thinking about the historical significance of a talent. It does not necessarily mean that wrestler is a failure because there are a multitude of ways to think about, discuss and appreciate talents that have nothing to do with putting butts in the seats. But if we are looking at things from a historical perspective the inability to draw when positioned to draw should matter. 2. I agree that there is value in great performances that stand the test of time regardless of how they drew. I thought 1986 AWA was tremendous from an in ring perspective, but they couldn't draw jackshit. 1992 WCW is one of my favorite years ever for a promotion, and lord knows as a kid I thought Sting was a huge star, but they drew worse than 1986 AWA. The fact that these promotions were commercial failures at the time does not make me like them any less, just like some of my favorite records of all time were by bands that never made it big, or bombed when they signed to major labels. Having said that I am very skeptical of the notion that down periods should just be written off as down periods, and that the parties involved are blameless pawns who were trapped in situations where there was no possible path to success. There are many reasons I am skeptical of this, but the number one reason is that these periods don't always last forever. Sure promotions spiral into disaster and end up going out of business. But others have down periods and then heat back up. Yes it is true that many great talents have been wasted, hurt, et. by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. To me that may mean a lot of different things depending on the situation, but I don't think it means that not drawing and/or drawing doesn't matter. I hate to use Sting every time this comes up, but the low point of WCW being his reign as the top face/ace means something, even if it isn't a completely negative reflection on him. 3. I'd be interested to hear who you think are overrated as draws. I think there is a lot more to drawing than just looking at a handful of big gates. I think you have to follow trends and consider the whole package. There are feuds and angles that modern fans wouldn't look at on paper and think "that was a drawing feud" because of bias', the way certain people have been portrayed, card placement, et. For example AWA feuds like The High Flyers v. The Sheiks or even Bobby Heenan v. Buck Zumhoffe were presented in such a fashion that I think when you look at the hot period in the AWA that they coincided with, you have to consider them part of the package that drew even if they didn't go on last. This is where watching the matches, knowing the context, et. matters. When Jumbo Tsuruta was champion in the AWA he often was on the "main event" slot but he wasn't positioned in angles/feuds/programs that were hot. Now one argument is that when promotions are hot and the culture is a certain way it doesn't really matter who is on top. But I don't really buy that because for the most part you can spot ups and downs, not all feuds do the same, et. I also think there is something to those who maintained promotional health. I wouldn't say Bob Backlund was a bigger deal than Bruno, but I also think it's wrong to say Backlund wasn't a draw just because the WWWF machine was so strong. 4. If 80's cartoon style WWF wasn't going to draw in the 90's, how come WCW was turned around by a Savage v. Flair feud and Hulk Hogan on top? If "southern/redneck" wrestling was the problem for WCW, how come SMW was outdrawing them in shared markets with a 50th of their budget, and only a couple of stars of any note? Mind you I'm not entirely dismissive of this point of view, but I think it's far too simplistic. Culture is one factor. "Great men" are too (and this is coming from someone who is almost reflexively opposed to the "great men" theory of history). To Loss' point, I agree with the general point he is making but I also believe in following trends. I think you can follow trends and generally see who the great draws were, or even who the valuable opponents were beyond just the big aces/faces of promotions. I think my Patera research shows this, or at least strongly suggests it. Yes there are issues with sample size, changing baselines, et, but that doesn't mean we can't learn something about who was or wasn't a draw. To me that's like arguing that you can't really know how good a wrestler is because we don't have all of their house show matches on tape, and he may be phoning it out there, or benefiting from agents who spicen up the matches for t.v. Drawing IS more subjective than some would have you believe, but it's not so subjective that we can't look at the facts that exists in many cases and arrive at reasonable conclusions. This brings me to what will probably be taken as a controversial point. For all the research I've done about drawing power over recent years, I am still a guy who loves random indie feds that take place in front of a few dozen people. I'm a guy that a couple of years ago was arguing Chris Masters as a top ten worker in the world based almost exclusively on 8-12 minutes matches on Superstars. One of the most common criticisms I hear from people when I talk up these C-show or random indie workers and matches is some variant of "the crowds don't care" or "it's easy to have these meaningless good matches, it's much harder to do twenty-five minute main events." I generally don't care that much about crowds (they can help a match for sure, but they almost never hurt a match for me) and I am not sold on the second argument either (having Pat Paterson lay things out for you move for move, and having the benefit of hot angles hardly seems like a disadvantage to me), but the point is that the size of the crowd, the crowds caring, the positioning on the cards, are all things that are at least theoretically related to drawing power. Are they the same thing? No. But when people talk about how they can't get invested in something that doesn't feel big time, I think that argument about presentation is very closely linked to the idea of drawing, if not drawing itself. Maybe I'm wrong and that's my own bias talking, but I generally think I care less about drawing power and/or stardom in wrestling matches, than many people who are on record saying they don't give a shit about drawing power at all.

I'm at work, but someone start a separate thread about this "does drawing matter" and/or "is drawing overrated as a metric" argument. I think it is a very interesting argument, but I think it pulls this thread too far away from the original intent. There are things I really want to respond to that have already been mentioned, but I don't want to kill this threads purpose.

I don't want to turn this into a thread about drawing, but it matters to me who is a draw because I am interested in the history of pro wrestling. I would rather talk about in ring work, or at least I would in most contexts, but that's why I care about it. As far 92, U.S. wrestling was bad at the gate, but WCW was especially bad.

I watch so you don't have to. Hopefully the reviews will at least be entertaining.

You guys should be reading Voices of Wrestling anyway, but in case you aren't here is some incentive - VOW is now the place where I will be dying a little inside each week i.e. reviewing Impact. Here is week one's offering. http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/06/05/tna-impact-june-5-review/

I wouldn't say I'm an Ascension fan per se, but I do want them to get called up, and I like that they are different than any other team the WWE has.

I'm certainly open to it

Really enjoyed this show though I obviously disagreed with a ton of it. I'd have to think really hard about who my top twenty for the time period would be. I will say that I would have Rey and Bryan one and two (I could be convinced to go either way on those guys to be honest), and probably Cena at three. After that I have no clue what my order would be. I would say that Matt Hardy and Christian are both guys who would make my top twenty who weren't discussed at all on the show (I think Justin had Christian at honorable mention), and without thinking on it hard I imagine Necro would make my top twenty too as far as other guys who weren't mentioned at all. Also Finlay would absolutely make my list.

Ambrose has exceeded my expectations as a babyface to be sure, though I still think he's natural heel. Rollins as a singles heel I just can't take seriously, at least not on the surface. Totally disagree with you on him as a promo. He's probably one of my two or three least favorite promos in wrestling to be honest. I also think he could end up having the John Morrison problem of being a better heel in terms of presence, but having the look and offense of a babyface.

Every faction in history has done there own thing at points. I actually can't think of any faction ever that didn't spin off into their own feuds while keeping the group together as a whole. Of course you could argue that this is the point - The Shield were different because they broke the norm in this regard and that's part of what made them stand out. I'm not sure I'd buy it 100 percent but it's an argument I could get. Honestly I think there are a ton of things The Shield could have done. Reigns could have spun off into a feud with Orton, while Rollins/Ambrose went after Harper/Rowan for the tag belts (I think they will beat the Usos soon). If you think that idea is stupid, I could certainly see them each going off in directions to collect all the major singles belts. There are ways they could have set up individual feuds v. a litany of guys including Cesaro, Barrett, Orton, Sheamus, all of The Wyatts, Rusev, et. More important than that to me though is that if you are going to do the turn, do it when it makes sense, not when virtually any argument you can come up for it is destined to be an eye roller. It may very well be that this turns out to be a money drawing angle. It's not impossible by any means, and there is a lot of strong talent involved. I'll also be the first to admit that a lot of my reaction is based on how much I loved The Shield as a group, just as I think a lot of the people who are favorable to it are favorable because either A. It was a surprise and smart wrestling fans fetishize things that "shock" them and B. People really like Rollins and desperately want him to be a main event singles talent. But I hate the timing of it, I think the motivation behind it is questionable, I'm not at all convinced Rollins is right for this role (god I'm dreading any and all promos from him), and it pretty much guarantees that Raw becomes a really low priority for me on Monday night for the time being (loss of Shield matches + lots of potentially horrific promo segments involving Rollins = no thanks).

I honestly think one of the key goals of this is to get some real heat on HHH and Orton, who simply don't get reactions as wrestlers

I hope HHH paid Rollins in cocaine

Honestly "you don't deserve an explanation" is probably not the worst idea given the available options. While I agree with the argument that it can be explained and you can look at the past and see where seeds were planted, the reality is that the timing of it was abysmal. I didn't want The Shield to break up period, but I could have lived with it if had occurred on Sunday, or at MITB, or right after MITB. But the night after The Shield wins definitively, in a match where Rollins had been in a savage war with both Orton and HHH? It's just stupid and if TNA had done the exact same angle (and they have done things like this many times) it would have been universally panned. Interestingly I had the exact opposite experience of Kris at work today with people basically making the point above ("why would he join the losing team, this is stupid") and absolutely no one understanding the angle, or liking it at all. Having said that it is possible the "why would they do something so stupid?" aspect could draw viewers...and if they get the explanation above it's not going to be good. One final point - I strongly disagree with the notion that The Shield had nothing left to do as an act. They were together for about eighteen months as an act. In that time they were consistently over, consistently high end performers in the ring, and they consistently found things to do with them. They had barely scratched the babyface surface with them. If you want to make the argument that this is not a bad time I'd listen (doubtful I'd agree but I could see it), but I can't think of any reason to believe the group had been completely exhausted.

This was almost my pick. I agree with Dustin too. And depending on how you define "the guy" Rey is a good pick

I slept on it and I actuall hate it more today than I did last night. Excluding stuff like "Eddie's down there!" which was both offensive and stupid, this is probably the most I've hated an angle since 2000 WCW.

One weirdish pick, but a pick I really believe falls into this category is Steve Corino. If he was a hair bigger (and didn't have the scarred forehead) he could have - and really should have anyway - been the top heel in wrestling in the 00's. If he had been born earlier and worked in the territories I think he could have been a massive star in multiple territories. I know that both of things sort of raise the issue of what "the guy" means, but I think if you view "the guy" as simply the top ace/face of the promotion Windham absolutely does not qualify and I love Barry.

To give people an idea of how much I hate this, I think I hate it as much - maybe more - than the Ryback/Punk HITC finish which triggered an epic meltdown from me. And both of the fears I had about where the finish would lead in that match were proven right.

Horrificly awful end to a bad show (the tag matches were good). Honestly that is an interest killing angle to me, the sort of thing that will actually make me want to not renew a Network I've always had some problems with, and deprioratize watching RAW live/in full even during the period (slow sports season coming after the NHL/NBA Finals) where I would normally watch instinctively without at thought. There is no way in which it makes sense. Rollins is not an ideal heel. He may work in the end, but he's not got the surface level tools for it. He's an awful promo, his offense is babyface offense, his look is a babyface look. I think he was at LEAST as protected by being in The Shield as Reigns, possibly more so. The idea of him doing lengthy promos with HHH and Orton to "explain" this unexplainable angle is terrifying. Which leads to the second issue - there is no good explanation for this. This is literally 2004 level, Jeff Jarrett-swerves, TNA stuff. The best it can be is weak. The worst it can be is all time level bad. Then there is the fact that I get the sneaking suspicion this was a backdoor way of trying to get heat for the heatless Orton and HHH, by giving them a flashy worker, who does lots of big spots, and works at a quicker pace. I don't see how this helps Reigns or Ambrose either. They split up a hot babyface act - probably the hottest act they have considering what's going on with Bryan at the moment - for what? I understand the argument that they had done everything as a trio, but there are easy ways to work around that to the point where I think that's an exceptionally myopic argument that falls on it's face if you think about it for two seconds. Now they are forcing the issue of Regins as a singles guy, the top feuds are Cena v. The Authority, Bryan v. Kane, and Reigns/Ambrose/? (possibly Cena which would is regressive) v. HHH/Orton/Rollins. Just totally unappealing on every level. I cannot wait for football season.

The Shield could feud with the Wyatts again, but I don't see any reason why they have to split as a unit even if they work singles feuds. The beauty of the trios format is that they can protect big matches, protect certain guys from taking falls and build singles feuds off of them

If the "traditional sense" of great is that the match main evented or was a spotlight match on a ppv, then Arn had no great matches. But I think that's a pretty worthless way of thinking about wrestling. If OJ means something else by "traditional sense" I'd like to know what.

I understand the second part of the point, but I don't understand the first part.

Neville might be the only wrestler I can think of who I think is far better off working fast and frantic, than he is trying to slow down and work a more traditional, sensical match based on building heat. When his matches slow down they completely die.

Just finished a podcast on this show where my thoughts will be more fleshed out, but I thought this was a weird show where there were a lot of things that could have annoyed me, driven me to like the show less, et. but they all ended up working out for the best in the end. Probably the show of the year, though the commentary and presentation of certain things hurts these shows a lot to the point where a show like Takeover - which was clearly worse in the ring - seems about as strong as this show when you look at the total package.

Legends house is awesome. I liked takeover a lot. I didn't seem to like the zayn and divas matches as much as some, but I did like both of them, and I really enjoyed the tag match too. I think Neville has been badly exposed, as Kidd looked much better in the main to me, and the match - while not bad - was really flat. Still if you count the pre and post shows, and look at the whole package, I thought it was one if the stronger top to bottom shows this year

Does this apply to when you're praising matches or when you're criticising them? I mean, if I praised Flair/Kerry would he tell me my praise means nothing because I wasn't there? If I praised it without understanding the context would he tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Or is it only when people criticise a match for being dated or not holding up that he plays the context card? Is it okay for us to praise French catch, or should we not do so because no-one's ever done so in the past? Or can we praise French catch so long as he don't use hyperbole like "French catch was the best wrestling in the world in the 60s"? Dave has said it works both ways, yes. I also don't think saying Dave's focus is on moves and spots is entirely correct. He likes matches with hot crowds unless they involve Hulk Hogan. I would never say that Dave has a bias toward spots, moves, nearfalls, fast paced style that prohibits him from enjoying other stuff. He definitely enjoys a hot crowd too. Having said that when you hear him talk about what he likes about matches he thinks are great he tends to focus on these things more than other things. Even when he does mention selling these days it's often to highlight something like the way Kota Ibushi bumped for Tomohiro Ishii's offense, rather than the actual facial expressions, body language, or general selling via pacing, timing, et