JerryvonKramer

Time to do some more AWA for me. I do wonder if I'm the slowest of any of the people watching who will actually hand a ballot in.

I wanted 20 examples for each one El-P, or 5-10 even. This was the key line in that post: You named the usual suspects.

How do you figure that? Loss has a tremendous post somewhere of a couple of weeks from 1985 where Flair has a series of great matches with all sorts of different opponents in different promotions. Matches that all made separate DVDR 80s sets and ranked well in the voting. That's just in a 2-week stretch. From 78 to 94 the number of ****+ Flair matches probably runs into triple numbers. What is the list of Bret matches you'd point to? I'm interested because I'm one of the people who thinks that this isn't even close. Flair has so many more great matches against so many different opponents that he's not even in the same league as Bret. Also, I think variety is a big part of Flair's body of work. We know Bret can work technical masterpieces, but what else can he do? What are some examples of Bret dragging a great match out of an average opponent? What are some examples of Bret working wild brawls? What are some examples of Bret working a match where he makes a JTTS look like a million bucks? What are some examples of Bret working a match where he feels like the biggest deal on earth? Maybe I've just seen too much Flair and need to see more Bret, but my strong feeling is that where you could point to dozens of examples of the above for Flair, Bret will struggle for a handful of examples, which tend to be the same ones time and again.

Not nearly true. The Daily Star gives it a full page once a week. I think on a Friday. The bloke who compiles it is also a pundit on the fucking shocking WrestleTalk TV. Ha ha, The Daily Star? What a horrible paper, forget it even exists. Were they covering wrestling back in the 90s? The Mirror might cover it too. I just feel like The Sun's coverage seems more prominent than other tabloids. Not that I read any of them!

It is pretty much the only British newspaper to give any sort of wrestling coverage at all. My only idea would be that they sent WWF a pile of copies and they were laying around so they used them as props. As the Marxists always say: follow the money. WWF has always been on Sky, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch owns The Sun. The Sun give WWF coverage. That at least accounts for why the papers were at Titan Towers in the first place.

Been waiting for this for ages. Some ideas: * In-depth wrestler comparisons a la the Funk/Flair/Lawler show * 10-minute pre-recorded rants on particular topics by various PWO posters (for some reason have Matt D in mind, but any number of people doing that would be fun). * Top 10 lists * Shows on certain themes (e.g. Wild men, Fat Men, Gay gimmicks)

Where the Big Boys Play #40 - Halloween Havoc 89 Sarp (aka Doc Sarpolis) is this week's guest as he joins Chad and Parv to head into the Thunder! Thunder! Thunderdome! for Halloween Havoc 89. Highlights include: blood and violence vs. "mainstream sensibilities", the problem with Tom Zenk, The Bobby Eaton Appreciation Society, The Mr. J mystery, assessing the Thesz press as a finisher in 1989, the college degrees of the Dynamic Dudes, should commentators acknowledge the crowd booing babyfaces?, and an extended Luger vs. Sting comparison as potential future company aces.

I've been thinking about this over the past few days and from a certain point of view, American Football is capitalist genius. If someone could custom-design a sport for the fan at home or for TV, it's NFL. Think about it: every fan can cheer for a team that has a realistic chance of winning the Super Bowl in the next 10 years. Every season, they get to see their team against the biggest teams. They all have the possibility of having the best players. From a TV point of view, from a merchandising point of view, from a fan perspective, it's a consumerist dream right? Can teams even TIE in American Football? Draws are very common in "soccer", I'm sure someone told me American sports doesn't have draws in general. ---- But from a sports structure point of view it is essentially communist. Everything levelled out, redistribution of wealth, heavy regulation. You couldn't get further away from the structure of European football and the gross inequality of power you find there. A few things related to PeteF3's post: - "Playing out of the string" in the EPL -- we call that "playing for time". And you're right you don't get it alot in English football. But it's a cultural thing, comes down to English ideals of good sportsmanship, grit and determination. In Italian football you see it much more often. Two sides with nothing to play for late in the season will happily play out a pedestrian 1-1 draw. From a certain point of view, it's a knock on the EPL and other top leagues that really outside of the top 4 who are playing for European places -- to an extent -- the teams from 5-20 are just playing to stay up. No one gives a shit about the Europa league (the secondary European cup), so it's not much of a consulation prize for coming 5th or 6th. - The Champions League is the be all and end all now, then winning the league (EPL in England). Therefore, the FA Cup doesn't have the allure or romance it used to. In Spain and Italy, their cup competition are next to meaningless. It's been an ongoing talking point for about 10 years now about whether the FA Cup needs to have the promise of a Champions League spot attached to it for the bigger teams to give a shit. They often field their second strings in that competition now and then if they manage to strumble through to the finals then start taking it more seriously. People say that really devalues the cup, and it does. - Another idea that swings round once in a while is creating an NFL-style "Super League" where you take the giants from each of the European leagues and create a closed elite trans-European league. I think that has got 0% chance of ever happening because you've got to remember that these leagues have been going for 100+ years and have long histories. There's a lot of resistance to change. Hell, they've been talking about bringing in video replays for close to 20 years now and it's still not got a hope in hell of happening. - The cost of getting relegated from the EPL isn't as devestating as you might think because they get a "parachute" payment to soften the blow. Then the club that goes down will basically hold a fire sale where they sell all of their best players who are eating up salaries they can't sustain on Championship income. The problem happens when clubs are badly run or gamble too much when they get promoted. QPR are in the process of doing it this season. The best example in recent years is Portsmouth. They went for broke and signed all sorts of big-name players on big wages they couldn't possibly maintain. They did manage to win the FA Cup in 2008, but ended up going down and then, because they were paying guys like £80k a week, nobody would take them off their hands. So they pretty much went bankrupt. The administrators came in. What happens in that sort of scenario is that the FA acutally PUNISHES the club by taking points away from them. You can start the season on -15 points. So financial mismanagement leads directly to struggling in league. - Finally, for most seasons there are only 1-2 teams capable of winning the league. In England, Manchester United plus -- depending on the season -- one from Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and now Manchester City. In Spain, it's Real Madrid and Barcelona. In Italy, Juventus, AC Milan, or Inter. So year-on-year every fan knows the teams who will be in the mix for the title, and they are almost always the same teams. One of the special things about football though is that that DOESN'T stop people supporting smaller clubs. You might wonder to yourself "What the hell is the POINT of being an Aston Villa fan?" They might well wonder the same thing themselves sometimes, but they keep going to the matches or watching them on tv because it's in their blood. That's just part of who they are. The best hope Villa have got in a good season (see when Martin O'Neill was the manager) is breaking into the top 4, in a bad season, it's struggle to stay in the EPL. They are one of those teams who never seem to go down but never seem to get much higher than the mid-table. I don't know if it says something about the difference between the English mentality and the American mentality. Would American fans stick with a team like that year on year? With only the tiniest hope of ever breaking out of it? In Spain, as I understand, it tends to be the case that EVERYONE supports either Real Madrid or Barca but also may support another side. So, for example, you might be a fan of Zaragosa, but you'd also have a team you'd support in the titanic, perpetual struggle between Real and Barca. In Italy, it's more like it is here in England, but I think we have a greater number of "small clubs" here. England is the only country that has 4 tiers of professional leagues which each have dedicated fans. The numbers down in League 2 aren't more than 10,000 or so, but you just don't get that in Italy. Italian fans also don't tend to travel to away matches as much as English fans. Germany has very very dedicated and passionate fans. Probably the closest to the English that I can see. German football is on the rise at the moment, Italian football kinda in decline. ---- This post ended up being longer than I thought. But I've always been fascinated in WHY American sports -- NFL in particular -- have such a different structure from European sports. I wonder if anyone has written a study on that, I'd love to read it.

All-in-all, not the strongest collection of matches here tonight. Crusher Blackwell & King Kong Bundy vs. The Road Warriors (11/22/84) Wow, Fat Men Incorporated here. Guessing Road Warriors were heels here given that Blackwell is face, but weird to see Bundy as a face. There's a lot of BEEF in this ring. Bundy is a lot TALLER than I remember him. He's pretty fat here too. I'm interested to see what happens here because the Roadies are going to have to sell here and work from underneath. The REF is almost as big as Bundy. Weird match, it's been on for 6-7 minutes now and nothing has happened. Seems to be an impasse. The slam spot where Blackwell lands on top of Animal was pretty cool. This has been SLOOOooooww. Just as I type that things really heat up here. It's quite fun seeing the Road Warriors trying to beat on the fat men. Wow, big slam by Animal on Blackwell. This is pretty good now. C- Mixed bag here. Everything before the moment I typed "Slow" there wasn't very good, but the last 5 minutes or so wasn't bad. "I'm betting we don't see a Doomsday Device here" - Musgrave Nick Bockwinkel vs. Curt Hennig (2/7/85) I could leave some some of matwork at the start of this, not a terribly interesting headlock. And now a chinkock ... It has to be said, this feels disappointing after the last Bock vs. Hennig match. Things pick up with the Hennig control segment, focused work on the back with a good deal of fierceness. I like how methodical he is. But then he goes back to a chinlock. The panel on the podcast have taken to listing various Canadians. "Is Bryan Adams a hero over there?" Ha ha.I think Hennig has had far too much of this match now, it's been 95% Hennig on top, Bock needs to have some sort of control segment here, it's too lopsided.Quite a few botches too. I didn't like this much, especially compared to their last match. C "Are you guys going to make out now? Jesus" - Sorrow Crusher Blackwell vs. Masked Superstar (3/7/85) Enjoyed Adnan's promo at the start. Is it bad that my first though at seeing Masked Superstar is "Ricky Jackson!"? I much much prefer Eadie in this role than in Demolition as one of the guys who doesn't care for the Demos. The stretch sequence on Blackwell is pretty good here, as per usual he sells his ass off. Great double clothesline. Finish is a little abrupt though. Would have preferred this to get another 5 minutes or so. Will be somewhere in the middle. Adnan's heel beatdown in the match beyond here was pretty great though. The delight on his face as he's stomping on his former charge is good stuff. Awesome sleazy heelishness. He's got shades of Gomez Addams here. The insulting slaps with a massive smile on his face is awesome. Slaughter! Haku!! B-, the Adan stuff bumps this up from a C. "Are we putting you to sleep muthafucker?" - Will

Since DVDR is down, I'm going to have to post my match thoughts here. At the interval. Johnny P's dissention on the universal Blackwell love was interesting. If there is a criticism of heel Blackwell, it's that he's too generous -- he's almost the anti-Brody, sells so much but doesn't necessarily get himself over as a lethal threat -- although his offense is pretty great. Good big splashes and high intensity. Chad and I discussed this a bit on our last show. I am definitely pro-Blackwell though, at this stage I think it's very close between him and Vader as "greatest big man". Nick Bockwinkel & Mr. Saito vs. The Fabulous Ones (9/30/84) Very good match. I liked that the heels got in a good deal of offense and Siato looked pretty great on top. The switcheroo and playing possum was a great finish. Good start ot the evening. "Those aren't small packages" - Musgrave. Those two women in the crowd giving the finger was awesome. B Crusher Blackwell vs. Bruiser Brody (9/30/84) Here we go, Brody now. It is quite cool watching him kick Blackwell in the head. Nothing much to write home about though, C- Crusher Blackwell vs. Bruiser Brody (No DQ) (10/21/84) I find it really hard to get into Brody matches. His offense is much less enjoyable here and Blackwell gets much less offense in yet. The No DQ gimmick scarcely registers too. I quite enjoyed Blackwell's fat-man hulking up. There were times I was actively bored during this though. D Nick Bockwinkel & Mr. Saito vs. Curt & Larry Hennig (11/8/84) Bock and Saito is a team I can really get into, so is a match with Curt Hennig playing FIP. Larry didn't look especially great on the hot tag, but the heels sell it all pretty well. Spinning toe hold! Bock sells it amazingly too. Bock nailing Curt on the birdge of the nose with his forearm was sensational. This sequence between Hennig and Bock is the sort of matwork I can get into. Second match we're seeing know with "reverse" Southern tag structure, with a heel-in-peril section following a FIP section.Larry does a nice elbow drop. Saito takes an awesome backdrop from Curt at one point. Match seems to slow down a lot when Larry becomes the FIP in the last quarter. Weird backbreaker from Curt. B, went on a bit too long for my tastes. I'd put this higher if it had ended before the Larry FIP portion. Not a great finish either. "Now that's a Pearl Harbour" - Musgrave I might write all my posts with Prince playing in the background from now on, he was a funky MF wasn't he.

I've read the first 3 chapters now. Bloody hell, doesn't he go on and on about the WWE list? There are so many needless cheapshots at Vince too.From what I've seen of the bios I've looked at so far, this continues throughout. Feels like any credit to WWF is coming through gritted teeth. I don't really like the tone of the book so far. It seems to cheapen what Matysik is doing. I listened to Todd Martin's review too and it is more or less a burial. But most of his points are justified. The best of points were this idea that Matysik almost always assumes his 60s/70s picks would make it in the modern era (Dory Funk Jr talking point) but not the other way around (see Rey). Some odd little things too. He seems to think that Rick Rude did his "best work" in WWE. Surely his best work was in WCW? All the run in 92-3 gets is "some mileage" (p. 77). I don't feel he's really giving each guy he dismisses a lot of thought. I don't mean that Rude should be in the top 50, I don't think anyone would argue that, but the shorthand trot through his career doesn't really give any dues for his highpoints. The explanation for not including, for example, Curt Hennig (pp. 58-9) is generally fuller, but he's not terribly consistent in how he approaches each case. Foley gets a very full treatment (pp. 69-71), Pat Patterson scarcely two paragraphs (p. 65). I only mention this unevenness because the tone of the book is "WWE fucked this up, now I'm going to do it right", but then he doesn't really do it right. I wouldn't write it off completely, so far it has had some nice occasional insider insights and anecdotes about different booking conversations. But mostly this has been disappointing so far, even coming into it with diminished expectations.

That's me right there. I apologise for doing my old trick of bowing out and then coming back in to say something. I'm going to try to make a resolution to stop doing that, it's a bad habit. You might say "don't bow out in the first place then", but I get burnt out after a few days, especially with John. Dylan -- I would like to see what other books you'd recommend though, because I do think some of those I've mentioned (Freakonomics in particular) have problems.

SLL, I'm not going to be drawn back into the debate. I do think my position is extremely clear. I've also given you the sources of why I'm thinking about things in the way that I am, why I think an emphasis on "product" and product alone is misplaced. I am posting now only to point out that in the first quotation you've pulled out there, I'm not arguing anything, I'm putting forward what I suspected jdw and others would say. And lo and behold, they did go ahead and said it. The second thing you pulled out is part of what I'm arguing. I don't know if you've noticed but jdw and I have been on polar opposite ends of this debate. It's not a surprise that the argument I suspected he would come out with and the one that I am putting forward are "mutually exclusive". We don't agree. Do I think I'm right? Of course I do or I wouldn't be arguing what I am. Does jdw think he's right? Of course he does. What's "smarter than the room" got to do with anything? I don't get that criticism. Especially when it's jdw who has a habit of speaking down to me, and not the other way around. I don't really understand what your post is trying do there SLL. Is it trolling? Is it shit-stirring? The one thing it's not doing is adding anything at all to the conversation.

My copy of this arrived today. I'm almost more interested in reading the early chapters than the bios in the list itself. I'm also planning on listening to Todd Martin's negative review of the book later.

This was a hypothetical Vince who wouldn't interfere with the booking, which I admit is stretching the boundaries of imagination. Honestly, I don't have the stamina or the patience for another back and forth about how important marketing was to WWF's rise in the 80s. I'm going to take a timeout and go and watch some more AWA. The idea that Vince was better at marketing than either Crockett or early 90s WCW is something I had assumed was so self-evident as to be uncontroversial. If I had to attribute WWF's boom to factors, I'd say it was about 30% product, 30% marketing savvy, 20% luck (see also "something clicked"), and 20% "business", by which I mean things like raiding talent, takeovers, hostile and aggressive scheduling, local and national TV slots and things like that on the business end. I don't care to debate this point myself, I'd expect many many many other people to see it the same way. We've seen that in general the majority of posters on this board put a disproportionate amount of weight and significance on "the product". My understanding of the world, of business, of media, and of the public is that it just doesn't work like that. I'll point you back to the four books I mentioned which each in different ways look at cultural phenomena. I almost wish Malcolm Gladwell had included a chapter on Hogan and 80s WWF in The Tipping Point alongside the stuff about Hush Puppies and Sesame Street. Of the factors he identifies for things "tipping" Hogan (and the rest of the product) only account for "stickiness" -- about 30%. Right. AWA disc 4 then. Party podcasts #5 and #6 at the ready. And only one Brad Rheingans match in there.

Yeah I'd agree it was product there el-p. By 99 WCW had caught up with marketing. I was thinking of the earlier period. Just consider the fact that SD Jones had an action figure in 1985. Vince's success wasn't just product it was a combination of that and marketing savvy. Flair has argued this before, that NWA with the WWF's marketing machine behind them could have been alot bigger. OJ- not Vince booking, the booking stays exactly the same, just marketing.

I've made it clear I've stepped out of this debate now, especially re: Mid-South, JYD, fads, and "product" vs. intangible external factors. My position is clear and I've got nothing else to add to it. There are four books I'd recommend on this topic: Freakonomics, The Tipping Point, The Black Swan and Thinking Fast and Slow. I don't see why principles that apply to the rest of society don't also apply to wrestling. But Johnny / Kris -- you want me to believe Happy Days had 20million+ "hardcore" fans who singlehandedly kept the show on air till the bitter end? C'mon man. 20 million hardcore Happy Days fans? Really? Also, Loss, I've always thought that WCW's problems / WWF's success came down to marketing rather than product. Believe that Vince with the same product as WCW in 92, for example, would have done better because he was so good at marketing.

Leeds are a strange example for you to pick out by the way, since they are one of the few clubs who can rely on 20,000 fans turning up week in, week out in the Championship (second tier of English football). They have fiercely loyal fans. Anyway. We've come, yet again, to the point impasse. I should be blunt: I think the view that "the product" is to blame "95% of the time" is idiotic. Untenable. Blind to the complexity of the world. Crude. Reductive. I find it amazing that someone who has read Kahneman can still think along those lines. You John have made it clear that you think I am an idiot for thinking that and have said in now unclear terms that you're belief in that point of view is unshakable. You've got to the stage where you're being impatient. Abrasive. Abusive even. That is the definition of a deadlock. An impasse. End of discussion territory. It's been fun. I've drawn my conclusions, you've drawn yours. Everyone else can draw theirs. You can do what you want, but I'm moving on. Interesting debate.

jdw, you might have saved yourself a lot of breath there if you'd actually read what I wrote. The point about quality was brought up by the silent observer, not by me. Take a look closely at what I said. Let me repeat that again: Once more, in case anyone is in any doubt: Was I really accusing you of talking about quality when you were talking about the product? Well?

Let's take a look over the thread: I think you'd agree that this assumption is not something I've parachuted in. I also believe that in the above post, if you read it carefully, I point out that jdw (and implicitly you) aren't saying that product and quality are the same thing. Read what I said. Can you also see how that argument is circular and how it might not be the booker's fault? Also, there's a post I missed earlier. Yes. And I'm laughing at you applying it to pro wrestling. I actually don't understand what this is meant to mean. It implies that pro wrestling somehow functions with a different set of principles from the rest of the world. I find this the most baffling comment anyone has made thus far in this whole debate.

All I was trying to point out last night was that as wrestling fans we're going to be drawn most to a causal relationship between "the product" and the size of the audience. It is also a kind of self-justification -- wrestling "experts" can derive a certain sense of self worth from seeing their own knowledge of the product reflected back at them when they use it to explain the box office. This happens in pretty much every field -- not just wrestling -- every field. Now, I suspect jdw and the other people on that side of this argument will come back and say that they weren't talking about "quality" so much as "what the people want to see". But this argument is circular. "What the people want to see" is fickle. Fashion is fickle. Audiences are subject to change without warning. And as a wrestling promoter there's one thing you can't control: the name on the marquee is wrestling, and wrestling might be the thing that people don't want to see. This brings me back to my point about wrestling often being a fad. For whatever reason, the wider wrestling audience, historically, has not worked like the audience of Happy Days that Johnny Sorrow described. I very much doubt that the millions of people who continued to tune into that show after 1977 were all hardcore "loyal" Happy Days fans, they weren't. They were mostly "casuals" who were sticking on the TV who were just ok with watching it. So that show somehow was able to continue drawing an audience despite the fact it had mostly gone to shit. Why is that? It's because the genre of middling mainstream sitcoms are "over" with the US audience en masse. Mainstream sitcoms are not a fad. Happy Days wasn't a fad. Wrestling doesn't enjoy that status. The US audience en masse has always fluctuated. Audiences are much more prone to "appear" almost over night and just as quickly evaporate. This is the very definition of a fad. It is also what happened in New Orleans. It is also what happened during the Attitude Era. Let's think of other fads in culture and ask ourselves what is mostly to blame for the fact they decline after a spike? Here are some options: - It is the product (think now, lots of times the product stays the same) - the consumers lose interest because the novelty wears off and then move on to something else. - the market dynamics shift or something changes in the economy - regression to the mean - something else (cite your own explanation here) And once again, the question remains: what makes wrestling any different? We'd all love to believe that strong booking and strong cards = big gates and high ratings and by the same token bad booking and weak cards = bad gates and bad ratings. That really makes "sense" to us. It underlines everything we believe as wrestling fans. It justifies our criticisms of certain promotions. It makes us feel clever that we can pinpoint what Bill Watts or Eric Biscoff did wrong at a given moment. And -- this is the clincher -- it makes for good narrative, a very coherent story with cause and effect. We humans love a good narrative. But let's face it -- Watts, Bischoff, Vince, any promoter, any booker -- are often dealing with forces far beyond their control. Who KNOWS what killed New Orleans. Hell, I mentioned Mario earlier, what's to say all the New Orleans kids didn't spend the summer of 1986 playing Super Mario Bros and Punchout!! Fuck wrestling, that was last year, I want to stomp on some goombas now. We can't know what it was for sure. But we sure as hell can't be 95% certain -- as jdw has said -- that it was "the product".

I can't speak for him / her (lol, yeah right "her"), but I think the idea is that if you look at films for example, it's frequently the case that poor films -- which even the people going to see them don't think are very good -- do very well. And, of course, the inverse. The same is true across most forms of entertainment. To the extent where the relationship between "the product" and its popularity almost seems random. To the extent where films that almost no one likes (or admits to liking) make all-time boxoffice lists. I don't know if the "50 Shades of Grey" craze has hit the US or not, but I've literally never heard a single good word said about that book by anyone. Not in life, or on TV. But it's a smash bestseller. A "product" that virtually everyone shits on, a product that is by all accounts putrid. And yet it's a smash. Why is wrestling different from that?

A curious phenomena with these big debates we have sometimes is that I get PMs of support from silent observers. This is the fourth time it's happened now over the past year. I guess not everyone is comfortable posting in such back and forth ding dongs. I can understand that. Anyway, a question from such a silent onlooker. I think a valid one, which, I suspect, will see some elaboration on what is meant by "product" here: "I would actually like someone in that thread explain why wrestling is different from other forms of entertainment where the audience cares so much about quality." Also, I personally can't wait for Johnny's stoned / drunk lecture on the fluctuating fortunes of Happy Days.

Is it almost always that though, or is it people retroactively looking back and pointing to it as a causal explanation? I can see how this argument is almost perversely counter-intuitive because once you've made the link between a decline in quality and a decline in business it looks as clear as your face. Think about Happy Days. Famously, it "jumped the shark" in 1977, but was still pulling big ratings for years after that. It was only in 82 that the numbers dropped off steeply. Now you might point to the quality of the show, or you might think about changes in fashion. Maybe what was entertaining in 1976 wasn't entertaining anymore in 1983. I'll grant you that "the product" has the allure of great explanatory power, but I think it can also blind you to other factors. The relationship between product and audience is almost never a 1 to 1 thing in so straightforward a way.

What I will say is this. This thread has opened my eyes to just how much JYD took New Orleans and Louisiana in general from essentially nothing and turned it into a big wrestling area. I had actually assumed that to an extent that area had always been a hotbed, so it is totally remarkable that JYD was able to draw 21,000 people the Superdome. I recognise that and I'm not trying to diminish that achievement in any way. What I'm saying is -- just like the end of the Hogan run, just like the end of the Attitude era -- there comes a point where those casual fans who jump on the bandwagon, jump off it again. Call it a fad, call it whatever you want, but there's a moment when "everyone" is into something and then almost overnight they aren't. We all know this. Moments when wrestling is cool, and moments when it isn't. I think -- or at least this is how it looks from the numbers. That this happened on a micro level in New Orleans and the surrounding area. JYD actually created his own mini-version of what Hogan later did nationally. I totally get that. For a while there, wrestling was cool. People -- casuals -- were into it. And then, all of a sudden, they weren't. But after having read quite a few books which study such phenomena -- The Tipping Point, Freakonomics, the aforementioned Thinking Fast and Slow -- the explanations are seldom to do with a change in the thing itself. The factors are multifarious. Numerous things can account for why something becomes "a thing", takes root in a community and then all of a sudden it stops being cool. It's fashion as much as anything else. For some reason, wrestling is prone to coming "in and out" like makes of trainers, yo-yos and other such things, in a way that legit sports aren't. (by which I mean, football is almost always "in"). This is all I was getting at with the use of the word "fad". It wasn't a knock on JYD, and I can see how you might be taking it as such. Not intended.