Paul Jacobi

I liked how Sting always did the no sell. He'd beat the hell out of the guy for a few seconds but would go back to selling all the damage if the heel withstood his flurry of offense. I dislike how Shawn Michaels did it. He'd do the kip up and suddenly the whole match leading up to that never happened. Having watched a ton of Shawn, this isn't exactly true. If so, it's more in his 90's run than his comeback, where he'd always go back to selling (usually clutching his back, etc) I also think singling out Shawn is unfair, since that's practically main WWF/E babyface 101 to sell, kind of, if not totally blow it off, then go to the finish. See Hogan, Warrior, Bret, Cena, Austin, Rock, etc. That's their style. -Paul Jacobi-

Cumulatively, Hogan had to have made the most all time, but I think (and someone jump in if they know exactly), Dave quoted Hogan's best year around the 6-8m mark and Austin's at 12m, making him the short term kingpin. -Paul Jacobi-

I am pretty sure that Pena got in the WON HOF during the initial 1996 class Pena did indeed go in in the initial class.

I enjoyed the PPV too, and I could see thinking that there's been more good than bad with this angle up to this point. But the long-term direction is troubling, with the focus being moved even more strongly away from Punk and toward HHH. He's not? I guess I imagined the crowd chanting for him loudly in the opener tonight. They were in LA. It'd be like if Sheamus got a huge reaction in Boston. There's no chance in hell Sheamus is getting a reaction in Boston the way Del Rio got one in LA.

He's not? I guess I imagined the crowd chanting for him loudly in the opener tonight.

This reasoning is flawed. The vast majority of casual wrestling fans are watching to 'see what happens', and while no, it's not real, it's still presented as competition and people are watching to see who wins on the night of a PPV, rather than simply waiting for RAW the next night, During the boom period, WWF PPV's were treated incredibly similar to UFC ones today, people would go to someone's house, chip in and watch. The spending habits were exactly the same. Get a group of guys together, drink beer, order pizza and watch a 3 hour PPV Also, it wasn't just PPV's, the Rutgers student center was packed for RAW in the '99-00 era. -Paul Jacobi-

They probably also realized all expenses related to ending their lease, accelerating the depreciation on all assets of the building etc as well and took the hit on that and everything in a particular quarter. -Paul Jacobi-

Putting aside what was reported at the time (which was entirely HHH related), was there anything about Batista's act that was reliant on Attitude era-ish content? Anything at all? I'm not saying he's lying, because he has no clear motivation (besides maybe not rocking the boat too much if he ever wants to go back), but this always kinda rung false to me. On his really good appearance on Observer live, he went into hating the fact that blood and certain kinds of violence were eliminated because it didn't make you feel like guys were 'going to battle' for you. He then used his Hell in a Cell vs Triple H as a comp to the more recent ones and flat out said his was superior due to those factors and limiting them really detracts from the product. It's one of the best interviews Dave and Bryan have done with a bigger star and worth checking out. -Paul Jacobi-

I have stated numerous times he has been counter productive to building stars and it started a decade ago and has stopped them from making as much money as they could have. It's absolutely led to the lack of depth on top and I don't see how that can be construed as anything but a criticism. The problem is, you're trying to blame him for a lot of the stop/start pushes, when there isn't really any evidence that he's the *main* one to blame. It's a given he has influence, but you seem to be putting more on him than on Vince, which is ridiculous. Dave also insinuated he was mainly involved booking his own programs and for the bad ones (RVD, Steiner, Jericho) he deserves to be called out and he also gets some credit on his pluesses (Batista, DX reunion) I agree 100% that the product is a shell of itself and has been boring. I'm enjoying the 3 yearbooks I've purchased far more than most WWE the last several years (with the exception of HBK/Jericho, HBK/UT, Rey/Jericho and a few other angles), but I also think you're a tad off on domestic houseshows and PPVs. They are down for sure, but they are still profitable. TV rights fees are a result of them having done great business (not relative to the boom, but overall) ,the last several years, that's still a plus for the company. -Paul Jacobi-

I thought Triple H in '10 did a good job in getting Sheamus over. He was stretchered out, beaten the whole bit. It seemed like an attempt to genuinely elevate the guy and was one of the rare instances where Hunter looked weak. I don't think he was the one responsible for his push stopping (Dave mentioned Kevin Dunn not liking him) and it would be counter productive for him to have looked so weak against someone they had no plans for. Then again, he did the total layout of him when he came back prior to Mania this year, so who knows. Also, he was allegedly the ones behind the vignettes building Kharma and Sin Cara, which was a good way to build them coming in and something the company hadn't done in years. Unfortunately, they ran into some bad luck with them. But those are positive steps (albeit small) for the future. He was also apparently far less hard on the announcing crew, which can also only be a good thing at this point. -Paul Jacobi-

It's not a matter of having an excuse for everyone. You seem to think everyone can be a star and that frankly isn't true. Think about a baseball team, only a few prospects turn into MVP candidates, (Lesnar, Punk, Orton, Cena, Batista), some fill in to very good players (Morrison), some are good utility guys (Santino, Rico to a degree) and some fizzle. (Bashams, Heartbreakers). You seem to have an issue understanding attrition and the fact that the wrestling world (like with many companies), with far less top spots than ever to go around is going to be more difficult for people to break through. It's frustrating, but it's the way it is. You could argue the problem is even worse in TNA. You also ignore me admitting Triple H is part of the problem for them to achieve maximum profitability, but I'm far less inclined to label him ' a disaster' when they make money hand over fist. -Paul Jacobi-

Also, from a February issue of the Observer, the annual revenue and P&L of the WWE from 1994-95 on..........especially those 'lean' years of 02-06 WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS HISTORY Year Total revenues Profit/Loss 1994-95 $87,352,000 -$4,431,000 1995-96 $85,815,000 $3,319,000 1996-97 $81,863,000 -$6,505,000 1997-98 $126,231,000 $8,446,000 1998-99 $251,474,000 $56,030,000 1999-00 $373,100,000 $68,973,000 2000-01 $456,043,000 $15,987,000* 2001-02 $409,622,000 $42,233,000** 2002-03 $374,364,000 -$19,455,000*** 2003-04 $374,909,000 $48,192,000 2004-05 $366,431,000 $39,147,000**** 2005-06 $400,051,000 $47,047,000***** 2006 $262,937,000 $31,617,000 2007 $485,655,000 $52,137,000****** 2008 $526,457,000 $45,416,000 2009 $475,161,000 $50,303,000 2010 $477,655,000 $53,452,000 Note: WWE operated on a fiscal year from May 1 to April 30 until changing to January 1 to December 31 in 2006. The 2006 numbers reflect the period from May 1 to December 31, or an eight month total. *Wrestling profits were $84,981,000, but WWE’s share of the 50% of the XFL losses was $68,994,000. Total XFL losses for 2001, the only season of the league, were $137,988,000, half of which were covered by NBC. **Wrestling profit was $42,948,000. Also figured in was a tax break of $4,638,000 for shutting down the XFL, offset by losses of $4,903,000 from operation of The World restaurant ***Wrestling profit was $16,362,000; offset by $35,557,000 through the operation and closing of The World restaurant. ****Wrestling profit was $37,778,000; also figured in was a tax break of $1,369,000 for shutting down The World restaurant *****Includes $16,000,000 in profits from the movies “The Marine” and “See No Evil” and $15,700,000 in losses for the movie “The Condemned” This company is a monster and incredibly well run. Even in weak creative years, wrestling profit was always pretty huge. It sure as hell could have been a whole lot more, but in the end, you still have to give credit for keeping the machine as lucrative for as long as they have. -Paul Jacobi-

What about them? Lesnar was covered. He hated the travel and was banged up working a very physical style and was never a wrestling fan growing up. If he came back a few years after he left, he immediately would have been back on top. That doesn't even seem debatable. The Heartbreakers weren't very good, the Bashams were kind of vanilla, Jeter was not a guy with the size Vince (and to be fair Triple H) seem to like, Rico was kind of old etc. What about the guys like Morrison, Santino, PUNK, etc that worked there and did make it to varying degreess? It works both ways. Some guys can adapt to the big stage, some impress the new bosses, etc. I largely find the product today dull, but it can't just be painted with a broad stroke. Paul Jacobi

I'm not going to deny that some of the stop/start on the RVD/Booker side (and frankly I think the right call was made on Booker), and particularly Jericho/Angle a decade ago was due to Triple H. It was counter productive to business and hurt them in terms of star power for the future. However, there is a difference between Triple H, main eventer protecting his spot and the soon to be, head of the company Triple H. You can not draw the line from guys he feuded with 10 years ago to guys like Swagger/Kingston/Barrett/Sheamus who he's had little to no interaction with. There hasn't been anything connecting him to their depushes other than speculating because he's part of creative, but the fact is, it's also been reported (in the observer iirc), that the feeling backstage is far more relaxed when he's been in charge as opposed to Vince. I forget which board I read a theory at, but it was a great one, and it was that Vince finally made it so that the brand was far and away the most important thing and that no wrestler (ala Hogan, Rock, Austin, etc) would ever again be bigger than the company. Triple H may be a big spoke in it, but Vince is still the wheel. It's also tough to establish the 'guys walking away' card due to Triple H. Vince had legit competition for years and gave concessions due to being in a war. (hello Pillman signing, grabbing Haku as the hardcore champion, etc) There's also a difference between main eventers walking away with some leverage and peripheral guys not enjoying their work, but that's a different discussion. -Paul Jacobi-

I think blaming him for guys leaving is a bit much and it's really a lot more Vince than anything. The one guy you would point to is Jericho, and in his book, he made it seem it was way more his drive/relationship with Vince at the time than anything else. Jericho also has things he wants to do outside wrestling (his music and acting) which when you're financially secure, is a lot easier to do. Batista loves him (and always says that on interviews since Triple H actually did make him) and he made it clear it was the PG aspect (very attributable to Vince/marketing). Shawn is his best friend and retired. Taker is broken down, and has essentially done the same. No Triple H here. Big Show's sabbatical probably added several years to his career given the state of his knees, back and joints for a guy that size. I doubt he had much to do with Trish/Lita leaving. Brock abhorred the travel and would almost 100% still be on top if he stayed. Christian, Booker and Angle (who was a time bomb in '06) all ended up making big money in TNA with a drastically reduced schedule and now Booker is back with an announcing gig and Christian is as high on the card as he's going to be. Maybe you can mention Jeff Hardy, but he was being pushed super hard when he left. I think you also underestimate just how much pain some of these guys are in after so many years just being on the road and some look forward to a break. You make a point that can work against you too. If guys who were making huge money and were smart with it, it's a lot easier to walk away as opposed to doing something they don't want to do. They can also read the landscape and realize the time off will make them a bigger deal upon return (Jericho being the big example). So it doesn't work 100% towards the company. -Paul Jacobi-

While it can't be argued that WWE could have been more profitable in 2002-2006, and Triple H takes blame in that, are we really comparing them to WCW losing 62 million in their worst year? I'd have to drag out Dave's business reviews, but I'm almost positive WWE was incredibly profitable for all of those years (albeit not to their potential), and some of the Manias and a few other PPVs (Shawn/Hogan-SummerSlam comes to mind) They were killed by botching the Invasion, their #1 star's (Austin's) ridiculous turn and their 1A (Rock) star leaving for the most part, in a one year span. Frankly, the wrestling 'fad' of '98-01 ended, and as happens with fads, the very casual fans went on to something 'cooler'. Did Triple H drive off more? For sure, but to compare him on *any* level to the WCW guys is absurd, Those guys killed a remarkably profitable company, the WWE made money (millions) and left some (a lot) on the table. Huge difference. -Paul Jacobi-

Not yet. I'm just at the second TV show post Wrestler War. I'm glad the Steamboat feud is over because man, Steamboat über sportsman babyface character just doesn't make things very exciting on top. The entrances at WW were ridiculous : Flair got 40 women, and Steamboat came out with his ugly (yes, I'll said it and would say it again, Steamboat's baby was ugly) brat on a poney with his soon-to-divorce-him-and-take-his-money wife. I was so rooting for Flair during this whole feud, and I think I would have done it back then too at 13 years old. You don't get much closer to "pure sports build" than that in modern wrestling, and it showed why it's not a good idea. That the matches are some of the greatest ever are the saving grace of this feud, because it wasn't very exciting on weekly TV after Chi-Town. Also, Steamboat really didn't came off like The Man at all, barely a legit world champion. The way it was done really made him look like the token transitionnal champ to get some more big matches with Flair before losing the title. I didn't buy Steamboat as the World Champ very much to be honest. And I agree, Center Stage made things better. I agree on some of this. I don't think he got divorced until a decade or so later, but 'family man' Ricky Steamboat came across as very lame as a kid. In retrospect, it was an angle that might have worked in 1980 as opposed to 1989 as the culture was changing. Steamboat could have used another feud after he won the title before going back to Flair. Windham might have been a good stop gap, but he left almost immediately after Chi Town Rumble. As it was, Ricky came across as a slightly better version of Ron Garvin. Also, Brock/ Rock at SummerSlam '02 had some nice 'pro sports build' vignettes and that worked really well. I think it really just depends on the character and dynamics as opposed to saying it just isn't a good idea. -Paul Jacobi-