Ricky Jackson

AJ might actually get over as a heel if they remake her as the shrieking bitch who stomps and kicks her man's opponent while they're down (but then hides behind Big E if anyone comes back at her because if she's willing to fight men like Sherri did the fans will cheer her). If their plan is for her to just to make sexy faces and skip around Dolph after he wins this heel turn will be a dud. I guess AJ is a notch or two above the average Diva as an overall performer, but to me she is mostly just a cute chick who looks good in a pair of skimpy jean shorts.

I guess that means Matt D has become the resident Demolition and Kane champion by default.

Thanks for sharing man. It was a really enjoyable look at an area of wrestling I knew next to nothing about. I especially liked the parts on Street and Nagasaki.

I will say this about current WWE: they seem much more committed to getting new guys over than they were a few years ago.

At this point I would be kind of surprised if anyone other than Ryback wins the Rumble.

Cena-Rock seems set in stone. Brock-HHH seems set in stone. Ryback-Show makes sense. Taker-Punk is weird to me. Does Punk go into Mania as champ? If so, and assuming there is no chance of the Streak ending, does Taker coming out of Mania as WWE champ make sense? But if Punk loses the strap to Rock at the Rumble, doesn't that water down a potential match with Taker at Mania? Maybe you could have Taker win the strap from Punk at Mania, get jumped and beaten down by the Shield on Raw the next day, and have Ziggler run in and cash in the briefcase?

I think you may be forgetting Ziggler won it at the MITB ppv, which was in July (I think), and not Mania. Anyway, I'm really not the one to give a definitive answer because I've hardly watched any WWE in months. Definitely going to track down the TLC match, though.

That'd actually be a cool concept if it was better organized & not on facebook Yeah, it's not perfect. Maybe we could adapt the idea for a thread here or something.

Here's something you guys might enjoy The Great 1,024 Wrestler Tournament

Wrestling isn't a sport, so it's actually completely different. There were no pennants or World Series for Sting to win, and the championships he did win were all props. Packing houses is not the fake wrestling equivalent of winning titles unless you're a promoter. Glad I could help. Well, there was a ? at the end of my statement for a reason. Anyway, I'm not the knucklehead who compared Sting to Banks in the first place, so don't shoot the messenger.

So not winning a pennant or World Series but being a great player and nice guy in baseball = Not drawing on top* and being an at times good but usually average and sometimes worse worker and nice guy in wrestling? The Sting HoF debate and cockroaches are the only things that will survive a nuclear holocaust. *yes I know, except for 97.

I've linked to this channel before http://www.youtube.com/user/CLASSiC1PW A lot of stuff from here gets taken down, but right now it's pretty loaded with tons of old stuff and Japanese matches.

"The AWA was lame" seems to have been a default opinion by many wrestling fans for years and years, based on wrestlers bad mouthing Verne in shoots as being out of touch by the late-80s (the Rockers/rocking-chair story from Michaels), the ESPN show often coming off as looking minor league compared to WWF and Crockett/WCW TV, and a lot of poor booking choices during the last few years. Meltzer seemed to bash the AWA with every chance he got in the 80s, and even the Apter mags regularly ripped the AWA at the same time. I would guess that outside of pockets of revisionism here and there, "the AWA was lame" is still a pretty standard opinion by many fans, unfortunately.

The history geek in me loves this quote. I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate, but fuck it, it sounds good.

I don't think I had ever seen this before stumbling upon it online a few months ago (please don't shun me for being too cheap to buy the yearbook ). Say what you will about wrestling, Vince and all the tasteless angles over the years, there was something about this segment I found touching, even beautiful. Even if I'm looking through rose coloured glasses, it really made me miss the days of the WWF presenting little morality plays like this where the line between good and bad was clearly drawn. Vince on commentary is at his best, punctuating the angle with his "You can't buy the Bossman's dignity" line. A great example of why I love pro wrestling.

The Heels is very good. I skimmed Andre's bio once and it didn't seem very interesting. A friend gave me his copy of Larry's book, which he disliked, and it has sat on my shelf ever since. I just bought Shooters and have only skimmed through a few parts, but it looks like a top notch wrestling history book and everybody is raving about it. Also skimmed through Legends of Pro Wrestling and it looked skippable. If you haven't read Hornbaker's National Wrestling Alliance book I recommend it.

I'm glad somebody got it, because I don't even understand what point blueminister was trying to make with that sentence.

Billy Graham's book, while good, probably didn't make much of a sales dent either and it won the award. BTW, I bought your book a couple days ago and plan on getting into it as soon as a gap in my reading schedule opens (I'm stupidly trying to read like 4-5 books at the same time right now).

Tito was very over during the 84-86 years no doubt--more over than he is remembered today by many fans. At his very peak in the WWF he was probably at best the #4 babyface (depending on the year, with Hogan on top of course, he was behind Slaughter, Snuka, Andre when he was around, JYD, arguably Orndorff in 85, maybe some others I'm forgetting), which is still a significant achievement. He wasn't a career mid-carder, I'm not sure any wrestler ever really was, but he is still one of the best examples of a mid-carder IMO. We could always transfer the Tito talk over here http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=15282 and breathe some new life into this thread if anybody feels like it.

Either way, Sting has had plenty of time for his case to have been made.

Hogan turning heel after fifteen years as the biggest babyface ever (and "ever" means "ever" ) was absolutely what made the angle The Angle. Just like Andre turning heel in 87 made it The Angle for that time period. The build was so long coming it seemed like Hogan, like Andre before him, would never turn. Sting turning on WCW and joining WWF guys would have made no sense really. Hogan as the third Outsider, still the icon of the WWF even two years into his WCW run, was the perfect touch.

A Hall of Fame is supposed to honour the Best of the Best, period. Honestly, Sting shouldn't even be on the ballot anymore. I know the rule is if you maintain 10% of the vote you stay on, but how many years has Sting been on the ballot now? I have no idea, but if in the most extreme case he has been on since the late-90s and still hasn't been voted in after all these years, indeed, that his HoF case is based entirely on what he did prior to the 21st century, then the only way he is ever going to get in is as a "Well, we need to induct somebody this year, but all of the best candidates are already in, so we'll lower our standards and let him in this time" induction, and that would just make the HoF pointless. In baseball, if you are on the ballot for, I think, seven years and are not voted in, you are removed as a candidate. Something similar should apply to the WON HoF. If someone is truly one of the Best of the Best they will be voted in within seven years, and usually in much less time. Yes, many wrestlers are in the HoF who are, depending on your viewpoint, not the Best of the Best, as has been discussed thoroughly (usually, these controversial inductees are guys who were perceived by certain smart fans as being superworkers--Angle, Michaels, etc). Many wrestlers from the past were overlooked for much longer than seven years who were deserving of induction (eg. Hans Schmidt), but due to the fact their careers ended long ago and serious research must be made by committed fans to uncover the numbers, this is understandable. Sting is a modern star, not a name from the distant past whose career is unfamiliar to most wrestling fans. If he was one of the Best of the Best, his induction should have occurred at least ten years ago. He has not been overlooked. The majority of voters have looked at his career a million times over and have said "No" year in year out. I think it's time to move on.

Yep, Tito was the first name that came to mind when I saw this thread. I think at some point in the Tito thread I even wrote he was the dictionary definition of a mid-card babyface.

Couldn't find anything, but this pops up pretty quick when you search: Admit it Jerry, DiBiase isn't your greatest wrestling obsession, solving this mystery is. Oh, and then there was this: Case closed.

I was actually thinking wrestling being featured in a mainstream (well, close enough) movie was the unusual context, not Dangerfield's character.