Dooley

I've seen that video on dailymotion, but can't seem to find it right now. As for the DoD, I believe that was always the plan because the next time he was seen, it was in the front row during a DoD member's match (Kamala?). Then he officially became part of the DoD in the infamous "it's not hot" skit from the lair or whatever. The "Son of Andre" thing kep going at least through Havoc, with Hogan saying in the pre-show that when Giant grabbed him, he felt "the spirit of Andre" or some such shit. And after the "falling off of the building", Heenan kept asking for updates and saying "I knew his father". My favourite Giant/Andre tie-in remains after Giant joined the nWo and Hall stopped a promo dead in its tracks by asking Giant "was Andre really your dad?"

Well Jerry hates "likes", so it's official - they're a good idea. In seriousness, the board looks good. Nice job guys.

When does that ever happen in real life though? Look at pretty much every political scandal. The standard MO is deny, deny deny, obfuscate and only when you're dead to rights is there a half-admission of guilt.

I think it's been alluded to that HBK failed a drug test but like Loss, I've never heard a definitive word one way or the other.

I wholeheartedly agree and have said repeatedly that HHH wasn't clicking the way they wanted him to in '99. I just don't see how taking the belt off him at SS is a "panic move". Especially if a healthy Austin may have got the belt anyway if not for an injury. To me, a panic move is more like WM13 where they decided to go with Taker-Sid in the main at (almost) the last minute after almost a months-long logical build to Bret-Shawn 2.

I've seen this said a couple of times now, but was it really a "panic move"? Austin was supposed to be in the Survivor Series '99 main event until the neck injury (even advertised the day of the show) and Show was a last-minute replacement. Many seemed to think Austin was walking out of the show with the belt, they may have shifted gears and decided to try Show instead but HHH seemed to be fated to lose that night. It's just nonsense. It's a panic move if you ignore that Triple H went into a feud with Vince right after and main evented the PPV after Survivor Series while Big Show had a three minute match with Big Bossman in the midcard. Show also dropped the title about a month later back to Triple H. It was a panic move, and covered as such at a time, when folks like Dave had vastly more high placed WWF sources (such as Ross) completely dialed into why they did things. But if they had planned on going back to Austin anyway (who was still the most over guy in the company), why would that be considered a panic move? It seemed just to be seeing if they had anything with Show on top instead and finding out they didn't. Also, as has been noted, HHH's push didn't seem to subside any after the loss. You'd think if you were panicking about HHH, you'd scale him back a bit.

I've seen this said a couple of times now, but was it really a "panic move"? Austin was supposed to be in the Survivor Series '99 main event until the neck injury (even advertised the day of the show) and Show was a last-minute replacement. Many seemed to think Austin was walking out of the show with the belt, they may have shifted gears and decided to try Show instead but HHH seemed to be fated to lose that night.

Any reason why? On a separate note, I've been thinking a lot about hashtags and I do think there are some very cool things we can do there. There's a juvenile subconscious thing where you might post differently in order to garner likes. I think it has led to some of the trolling over on DVDVR and less genuine posting. It's not a huge thing but I don't see that as necessary here. I'm not saying there's necessarily something more academic and adult and mature about this place, but the level of discourse is pretty high and I don't think inviting that level of sophomoric popularity pushes is necessarily a good thing. I don't think that scenario would happen here specifically because of what you mentioned. This board generally has a higher level of discourse and I can't see people "chasing likes" in this kind of environment. I would appreciate a "like" feature because there are times when someone has made a great point that I agree with but have nothing to add to it. Nevertheless, I'm glad it was said and would like a tangible way to show my gratitude

That's lame but pretty benign IMO.

DiBiase never really clicked as a manager, which is odd since that character was so great at doing promos and had a natural heel manager act of purchasing people's souls. Bringing back Volkoff in '94 is as head-scratching a roster move as one can find. Seconded.

Was it always the plan to replace Tatanka with Taker and Pierre with Crush or was it a reaction to something?

"Remember the old saying: what the hell, use the bell!"

I liked these segments as the crowd reaction seemed to get more vociferous each time out.

Hmmm. I'd always heard him given credit for the 86 run up to WM3.

His work with the WWF in '86-'87 may have been the promotion's high water mark as far as booking continuity goes. Does anyone recall what led to the falling out with Hogan and his subsequent departure?

Andre vs Studd from '83 with the almost 9 minute front facelock?

I think the WWE network is more about media trends and the Netflix revolution than anything that pits hardcores vs casuals.

Wasn't it a camel clutch or did he only use that in the WWF?

Dammit, now we'll *never* know what Ted was told in '88! Good work Jon, nice walk down territory memory lane.

Yes, ridiculous. Wasn't what I was doing, although I genuinely question your priorities in this matter. But you're doing a pretty good part of doing the "deranged" part all by your lonesome the deeper you get into this. Don't get all pissy just because you said something ridiculous and someone else noticed. Again, if you want to avoid that the best idea is to stop saying ridiculous things. I brought it up because it in was a pattern of ridiculous things you've been saying in the discussion. If you want to avoid being called on that....see above. Nah, watching you spiral out like this is fine. I've done nothing other than respond to what you've said. I haven't left out anything that makes you look good in this conversation, there just isn't anything there. It has nothing to do with feeling morally superior, I'm usually the last guy on the morality train. But when your biggest concern about Benoit being showcased on the network is whether it's fair to Kurt Angle or the liability of WWE for doing so, do you really honestly expect no one to stop and go "huh"? Does that really not reflect to you any sort of misplaced priorities? But hey, keep thinking that you were just taken out of context or whatever instead of just saying ridiculous things. Shine On You Crazy Diamond.

But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. You're seriously suggesting that the WWF should promote a family annihilator just so certain matches of Angle, Jericho and Guerrero can be given a bigger spotlight? C'mon man. Yes let's ignore everything else I said. This is exactly what I am suggesting. It's what you lead with and to be fair, the rest of what you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Comparing a drug-related coronary to a guy that wiped out his family? Oh yeah, you're on top of this. So you are missing all the posts where I say that I am in favor of Benoit being marginalized? Reduced to a nameless being that these other great wrestlers just happens to be in the ring with? I get that you are playing the role of the overzealous defender of all that is right and just in the world. The guy is burning in hell right now. Believe me, he is being punished. Now let the great matches by OTHER guys in that ring be shown. Simple as that. I'm responding to what you said. If you don't want attention drawn to ridiculous things you say, you may want to stop saying ridiculous things. If you're trying to walk it back to something less ridiculous, that's cool. But this is you in this thread: And beyond the unfairness to guys to wrestled him and outrageous false equivalencies, your main concern seems to be WWE's legal protection. Is it that "overzealous" of me to suggest that some things are bigger than making sure we have access to the absolute complete works of Kurt Angle? It's perspectives like the one you're putting forth which cements the view of those who look at rasslin fans as the lowest common denominator.

But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. You're seriously suggesting that the WWF should promote a family annihilator just so certain matches of Angle, Jericho and Guerrero can be given a bigger spotlight? C'mon man. Yes let's ignore everything else I said. This is exactly what I am suggesting. It's what you lead with and to be fair, the rest of what you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Comparing a drug-related coronary to a guy that wiped out his family? Oh yeah, you're on top of this.

But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. You're seriously suggesting that the WWF should promote a family annihilator just so certain matches of Angle, Jericho and Guerrero can be given a bigger spotlight? C'mon man.

The fact that Dave doesn't view himself as "within the [wrestling] box" is hilarious to me.

But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to?