JerryvonKramer

About 40 minutes in and Dylan's basically discussing the topic we touched on here. About how, apart from Cena, there are no real stars. I'm wondering if it's deliberate strategy, that the WWE name is the thing that sells and we've reached a point where wrestlers are so interchangable as to become meaningless. That is, it simply doesn't matter who is on the card you'll always get X,000 turning up for the live shows, X,million tuning in for RAW and X,000,000 buys for the PPVs, just because it is WWE, and regardless of storylines, stars and anything else. This relies on the idea that, no matter what, there'll always be wrestling fans and it assumes that they will never tune out for good. Maybe that's true, I dunno. Next, wrestling as sports ... exciting.

Let's say Rock wasn't there though. After Austin's injury, does anyone think that they are having the same 99-00 running with HHH vs. Foley on top? Or HHH vs. Big Show? Or with Angle in the main event by 00? Austin didn't create such a massive phenomenon that it would have run without someone there to carry the ball. And it was clearly Rock carrying that ball, not HHH, Foley, Big Show or Angle. Rock's run shows at once 1. how the promotion's was not 100% contingent on Austin and 2. how the "massive effect" we're hyping up here would have been a short-lived bubble without someone to grab the baton. Rock feels about right at #20ish, I'm not sure that Austin is 17 places above him. He's above him, sure, but top 3? I don't know. Also Brickhouse, the face-time argument works both ways though doesn't it? One way of looking at it is to say Austin had 100s of hours of TV time in 97-8. Another way is to say that Hogan only needed 2 minutes on air to sell out a month's worth of shows at MSG, Boston, Philly, LA and all the other places we know he sold out based on a few minutes of TV. I don't really want to make that argument though because I think Austin vs. McMahon really was something new in wrestling -- it was wrestling-as-soap-opera in a way that was a marked departure from the sorts of angles and storylines that had gone before. The whole 2 hours of RAW was all about telling one big story in which everyone was involved. Again though, I'd hesitate to credit Austin with that simply because he was the star of that show. You've got to look at Vince and creative there too. They had something special in Austin, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where they could have dropped the ball with him. My feeling is that -- pretty much no matter what -- Hogan was unstoppable in 83-4 sort of time. He could have stayed at AWA, not got the belt, and still ripped shit up.

I guess what I'm saying is that Hogan has the IMPACT (83-6) but then actually carries the promotion through that too all the way till 92-3. I think The Rock arguably becomes ace in 99-00 to an extent where Austin was no longer needed. Obviously, he was always over huge and his various comeback runs all did good business etc., but the fact The Rock is there and the fact they were drawing and doing massive business without Austin in that time, for me, diminishes his case. If you took Hogan out of WWF in late 86, would they have had the 87 they did? Or the 88? etc. I'm not playing Austin down here, just trying to take a real measure of what he achieved. I'd still take Flair's career over Austin's in the overall scheme of things -- I think you take Flair out: Mid-Atlantic doesn't become such a major deal, the NWA title dies in the 80s, and hell maybe there wouldn't be a WCW for a Monday Night Wars in the first place. Flair might not have drawing numbers, but he creates a larger CRATER in the middle of wrestling history than Austin does. It's slim margins when you get up to #3 and #4. But I think Austin's case can be overstated and Flair's can and mostly is underestimated by most people.

It's a very competitive market these days Dylan. I'm expecting Popeye impersonations, tie-dye and one-liners from a sardonic Canadian.

But for two years Brick. Yes, two massive, massive years, but it's still just two years.

I understand that what he did was massive. And I understand that we are still feeling the ramifications of that as wrestling fans to this day. But the question is does 2 massive years and one massive angle put you #3 on this list? Does it count more than Flair's entire career and contribution to wrestling? That's what I wonder about. Especially as it's possible to argue that Vince was as instrumental to the success of that whole deal as Austin. With Hogan, there's an argument to say he would have been massive whereever (witness: AWA, witness: NWO), but Austin's claim depends entirely on this one massive thing. My feeling is that Top 5 feels too high.

Dylan, these are saturated times in the podcast world. I currently have a backlog of 7 different wrestling podcasts to listen to and that doesn't include the AWA 80s Party ones, or indeed my own (which still needs to be edited and uploaded). I decided to bump this up the order because the topics are of great interest to me. So far you have talked about soft 90s country for 8 minutes. This better be worth it man.

With Austin, how much does the explosion of The Rock actually hurt him or diminish his importance? I often feel like Austin was a catalyst for something rather than someone who carried a promotion. By 1999-2000, The Rock feels like as big a deal. There is no equivalent of The Rock in the 80s for Hogan.

I am curious as to what puts Londos over guys like Gotch, Hackenschmidt, Lewis and Thesz. Having checked some of the books I have here and done some online searches, I'm not sure I can see what the clear case is for him as de facto #1. For Austin, I would like to argue that Matysik is right in having Flair over him.

Dylan, is there an honourable mentions list for guys who just missed out? I'm also wondering how far down you'd go before someone like Sting would be mentioned. In fact, there's a general lack of Crockett / WCW guys.

Just realised Lawler isn't on there.

Cena's already on there Loss. I mean someone else who isn't on there. Rey is a good shout.

Angle kinda looks good on paper though in terms of titles won, various awards from PWI and WON, and so on. And at this stage he's been around quite a long time. I think he looks less out of place than Brock or Orton. If you *had* to pick someone from the past decade who wasn't Angle for this list who would it be?

Putting him above Dusty, Steamboat and Hansen is interesting. Only names that look out of place on that list to me are Brock Lesnar and Randy Orton.

I'm happy with number 39.

Thanks for no-selling my joke man. You know jdw, that post you made has made me lose some respect for you. I made a fripperous two-word call back and you take it as an invite to write that? What are you a psychopath? I don't get it. I was reading the FT the other day and came across a quotation that reminded me of you. "If you are never wrong, you are never interesting." If you want the truth of why I continue to bail on arguments with you it's that. I hate to break this to you, but everything about that post you made was tiresome. Mundane. Boring. I almost can't believe you took the time to make it. What you want a full-on argument with me? Is that it? Life's too short. I don't care who you are, or what you know, or how long you've been around: if you want to be a dick I'll call you out on it.

When all this is over, I would like to do a show with Dylan framed as a debate on Brad Rheingans. Two teams, one who think he sucked and the other to defend him. I wonder what the audience for a show like that would be. Talking niche of a niche of a niche of a niche there. I am kidding of course. I will give that Martel match every chance.

Meaningless depth

Thanks shoe. I think the idea of it just being Chad and I on the Clash shows works, but I do value the guest contributions. I found Lee very entertaining and Jason said quite a few perceptive things. I'm not sure if I'm ever going to forgive Jason for picking Steamboat Jr as the MVP though, ruined our history books he has!

I sound like Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins to you Johnny? I liked Will's analysis of the possible logic behind working different bodyparts. Very insightful. Just reached the half-way point now and am slightly jealous of the variety of wrestling that Shoe was exposed to as a kid. For some reason I'm only listening to this one in the car, so will not finish till I drive home later.

Just listened to the first 30 minutes or so of this driving home. Honestly swerved on the motorway from losing my shit at the ressurection of Johnny's popeye impression. Shoe has been really good so far. Loved him giving Will shit about Lawler and flying the flag for Flair.

I hope El-P was correctly cited with a date and page number.

Considering I've spent the past 6 months moaning about Dusty finishes and other such bullshit, I can't complain too much. It's a massive shift in booking philosophy and basic wrestling wisdom though. Also, does it mean there's no current WWE equivalent of like, Hercules? Seems like everyone is a maineventer and at the same time everyone is a midcarder. Everyone is a former world champion. Just my perception of it, realise it may not be the case.

What happened to the idea of protection?

As someone with no interest in the current product, I thought seeing Bryan pinned clean by Jericho on free TV was tantamount to a burial. It said to me "this guy is no more than a midcarder, clearly any sort of main event or title push is behind him". I don't know if that's just my oldschool mentality, or just simple logic at play.