Ricky Jackson

97 also suffered from Shawn's bailing in the months building to the show. In defense of Warrior (I can't believe I'm saying that), WM VI did have the second or third biggest attendance figure in WWE history up until that point. Maybe...but Shawn couldn't draw flies to shit during his title run in 96, so I'm not sure if he would have made much of a difference. Maybe for a rematch with Hart, but who knows. Hogan vs Warrior was a very appealing match at a time when face vs face matches happened once in a blue moon, especially in the main event scene. Warrior was super over and *seemed* like he would be a draw, but he wasn't. I wonder if part of the problem was Hogan setting the bar so high. I've bashed Warrior a lot over the years myself, but I'll admit he was a part of quite a few memorable matches and angles, at least between 88 and 91/92.

Yep, Taker vs Sid was a main event people were just dying to see.

Here's the latest. Yet another strange grouping. Which of these is the strongest Hall of Fame ballot contender Jimmy Hart 187 48.4% Bill Goldberg 61 15.8% Yuji Nagata 47 12.2% Skandor Akbar 29 7.5% Ultimo Guerrero 15 3.9% Cima 12 3.1% Los Hermanos Dinamita 12 3.1% Masato Tanaka 11 2.8% Hector Garza 7 1.8% Naoya Ogawa 4 1% Manabu Nakanishi 1 0.3% Also... I could be wrong, but I think 1997 was the only time Mania wasn't the top drawing WWF/E ppv of the year.

wrong thread

An 80s WWF star finishes first, often by a large margin, in almost every one.

Tito tops one of the weird mish-mash of guys HOF ballot polls Dave has been doing recently:

The internet and all its wonders knows no borders.

I think Clay's gimmick will either get over huge or sink like a stone, with no in between. I'm gonna say Jericho stays mute until the Monday after the Rumble.

It's been so long I'd forgotten the F in WWF stood for Foundation.

Miller is in the HOF as well.

Jose Lothario? Probably someone else I'm forgetting.

Bravo gentlemen. I can't say I agree with a lot of the points raised, or that I haven't found the argument to be tedious at times, but the degree of thought expressed in this whole deal was impressive. Really, a lot of the recent discussion regarding wrestling theory on this board has been impressive and far beyond my ability to articulate.

Johnny Valentine is one of the wrestlers that have intrigued me the most over the last few years. Part of it is because of the mystique surrounding his career due to the lack of footage of his prime years, best matches and angles, etc. The other thing that interests me is how those who saw him wrestle describe his style as being unique and how he was obsessed with realism in his matches, to the point of working a hold for 20 minutes and refusing to run the ropes, among other things. I also love his quote regarding his wrestling philosophy: "I can't make the fans believe wrestling is real, but I can make them believe I'm real." I've really become a fan of guys who worked the methodical, 60-minute draw, "real wrestler" style you don't see anymore, like Dory Funk Jr, Jack Brisco, Thesz, and others. I would LOVE to see more Johnny Valentine matches if possible.

I've always found the term rather ambiguous, but I would consider a wrestler behaving in a manner that suggests they are "thinking" like their character as "good psychology".

Comparing 84-93 Tito to 84-93 Bret is interesting. As far as who had the best matches, Tito from 84-90 would have the edge, although Bret had many memorable tag and singles matches over that time. Survivor Series 90 was a turning point for both men, as Bret had his breakout performance with DiBiase, while Tito had his last real spotlight moment making it to the final match with Hogan and Warrior. Bret gets the big push in 91 and Tito slides into a JTTS role, so Bret has the edge from 91-93 (I really need to see more of Tito's El Matador matches, though). Both were great. Overall, who was better from 84-93? *Flips coin* Uh, Bret.

I'm not sure Steele ever had a really good match, even in the 70s against Sammartino, Morales and Backlund. Heated matches, yes (even though I haven't seen them in years, I think his matches against Savage were at least heated), but not good ones. I guess if you go by the adage "if the crowd is into the match, it's a good match" Steele had tons of good matches over the years. Workrate wise, zero as far as I've seen. He could be a serious candidate for worst-working main eventer of all time.

Still haven't seen this match after all these years. I guess in the Youtube era I have no more excuses...

I think the day you begin to find fault with Ricky Steamboat's in-ring work is the day you've officially watched too much wrestling.

Good show. Nice to see guys like Cena and Orton (his feud with Barrett=zzzzzzz) out of the main picture for a change. I could get into a new New Generation Raw.

Actually, it was Ray Stevens, not Buddy.

I love Grand Illusion and other Renoir films like La Bete Humaine, but The Rules of the Game bored me.

Just my opinion, but I've never understood all the love for The Rules of the Game and 8 1/2.

It's in the 92-96 WWF booking and Rumoured returns, arrivals, matches, etc. threads.

I'm totally outraged. Schmidt should have been in years ago.

Wrestling is theatre, but there are several different ways of telling the story. Personally, my favorite matches over the years "tell a story", or more precisely, build upon a larger story over the course of a feud. It's nice to have logic and psychology as well, but it seems that only a rare breed of wrestler ever really concern themselves with those qualities. I don't think psychology, logic and storytelling are "overrated" any more in a wrestling match than they are in a play or a movie. It's easy to say that some people don't care and just like the high spots, just like some people don't care and just like the explosions and death scenes in movies or whatever. But you still need a basic structure, a basic story, for people to "care" about any of these "moments" within the performance in the first place.