Childs

I find it exceedingly odd that Simmons believes Money in the Bank to be a larger PPV than the Rumble, an assertion he's made several times now.

How do you know he acted unprofessionally in informing Vince of his intentions? If he fulfilled the minimum terms of his contract, he was entitled to walk away whenever he chose. Leaving a job that you no longer like does not make you a piece of shit. Nor does it make you a martyr. But to me, at least, it seems a lot more sane than desperately clinging to a company that repeatedly kicks you in the teeth. If Punk has the financial security and resolve to walk away, good for him. If he changes his mind at some point, that's fine too.

When talking to him personally, Punk wasn't satisfied with being a Top 5 player and that is an actual admirable trait to have in that warped business. It is the single biggest argument I have with with Johnny Sorrow regarding Punk. Sorrow has told me numerous times that Punk should shut the fuck up, collect his million dollar check and enjoy the creative decisions that WWE made for him. Punk's mentality was that if you left him the fuck alone and let him create his own shit, it would be much better than what creative had for him. I also admire Punk's self-respect, and though I don't see him as any kind of martyr, I appreciate that he had the courage of his convictions and walked away from an unsatisfying situation. However, I think it's also possible to look at his WWE run from the outside and say he accomplished a lot, even if it didn't meet his own expectations. As a fan, I don't think Punk's whole story is "potential unfulfilled" even if that's the way he sees it.

Geez, ya downcast bastard . The more positive spin on Punk's run would be that he forced his way from a guy a lot of people in the company didn't get to a sustained top-5 player. That's a lot better than most do in WWE-verse.

Bret was instrumental in "making" Stone Cold. I'm not a big Bret fan, but that's just undeniable if you go back and watch the 1997 TV. Given that, I think it's hyperbole to say dozens of people were more important to launching the attitude era. I also think Bret is more than a solid guy to the WWE fan base. Seems he's retrospectively viewed as one of the company's seminal stars, even if that wasn't the case in real time. If Punk is done, I can't see him carrying equivalent stature in a few years.

One of my absolute favorites; probably my No. 1 wrestler from the '70s.

Me. Though I'm not seeing it on my phone either. Can u try Starcade 84 and see if it kicks u off the network at some point? Same problem for me, Shoe.

I'm not a body-part zealot either. It only really bothers me when guys build the entire opening of a match around it, then rapidly transition to throwing bombs without any lingering effects. I will say that the body-part attack is probably an overused opening, given that a lot of wrestlers fail to do anything interesting with it.

Definitely working much better on Roku now, for what that's worth.

I'm annoyed I haven't been able to enjoy it on Roku for more than a few minutes since launch. Intellectually, I believe Loss' argument for patience. But the turd in my punchbowl seemed pretty large during the failed NXT broadcast. Sometimes, you just want your shiny new toy to work.

I keep seeing people suggest, in various corners of the interwebs, that Orton/Batista would be rescued by the insertion of Punk. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not missing Punk in the 'Mania build, not one bit.

I've always enjoyed that spot, even though it's a little french pastry. Strikes me as neat looking without being too ridiculous. He's attacking from an angle that opponents aren't used to defending.

I had no problem signing up for the free trial, but I can't get them to take my money.

My impression is that he's made a pretty clean break, letting his wrestling physique disappear, running his restaurant and turning up only for the big tribute shows to his former comrades. I've assumed we won't see him back, and you know, good for him. He seems to have made it out fairly intact compared to his greatest rivals.

The average American would have no idea what a kitchen sink drama is. The average teenager probably would not recognize even a lot of the more mainstream images on the slides, such as Gorbachev, Ayatollah Khomeini, maybe even Lennon/Yoko.

Tangential question based on this discussion: Do you always watch wrestling the same way? I ask this because the answer for me is clearly no. Sometimes, I watch in an analytical way, looking for smart work, nice execution, etc. In that mode, I'd probably appreciate the cleverness of the Liger spot Loss mentioned. But I don't know that it would excite me per se. This is probably my most common setting when reviewing footage for the '80s project. Other times, I watch with a greater hope of being sucked into the drama of a match. This might be because I'm watching a show live, unsure of where it's going to take me. It might be because I'm watching in a more communal setting, like the '80s lucha podcasts. It might simply be my mood on a given night. I'm just wondering if that dichotomy also exists for Matt, Parv, Loss, etc. or if the mode is more consistent for some of you.

If wrestling comes up, which it does semi-often among the 25-45-year-old sportswriters I work among, I talk about it with some authority. They also know I wrote pieces for the paper when Benoit and Eddy died. But I don't really get into the depth of my interest or the size of my DVD collection. Then again, I also don't talk to casual friends about my collection of old boxing or my devotion to the Drive-by Truckers or my shelves full of non-fiction anthologies. People who know me know that I go deep in all my interests, and that's sufficient for most. My wife, bless her, seems amused by my obsessive/collector tendencies and gives me wide latitude. She knew she married a geek 15 years ago and has never flinched.

Sandy Barr is the king in this category.

People on both sides of the argument seem to have forgotten that most of the stars in the post-Hogan era emerged gradually. They compact history so it sounds as if Austin was Austin the minute he cut the 3:16 promo on Jake. But if you watch the Raws from '96 and '97, it was much more gradual than that. Even after the Mania match with Bret, he had to wait another year to be the undisputed man. Dave talks bout Jeff Hardy popping numbers, but that was after almost a decade of being a very popular mid-carder They had to push Cena hard for two years before he owned his current spot. I don't say any of that to excuse the dumb shit the company has done to undercut Bryan. If I'm a WWE exec, I'm looking in the mirror now and saying, if this guy generates that kind of reaction and we can't make money off it, maybe we're the problem. But I do think both those who are angry at WWE and those who pick at Bryan for not drawing need to have a little perspective. These things have rarely happened quickly.

I've found him to be overrated on balance. No doubt he was a big bumper with charisma, and I like his Portland stuff and a few of his WWF matches. But his New Japan stuff, both singles and with Murdoch, really turned me off. I don't see how he has the body of work to be considered one of the best guys of the '80s.

BTW, I did buy a Roku based in part on recommendations in this thread, and it's great.

No. For those of us who have no idea what you're talking about, could you be less vague.

Interesting. That match only received a middling nomination in the Portland reviewing process. Dylan and I both found the third fall a bit tedious in the way it repeated the dynamic of the second.