Ricky Jackson

All things considered, I'm mostly fine with the Hall as it is. I do think there are a few flaws with the voting process . I also, like many of you, think there are a handful of individuals who shouldn't be in. But even then, I tend to go back and forth on guys like Angle, Jericho, and HHH. Right now, I'm heavy into wrestling history, so those three don't "stand up" to the numbers put up by many hall of famers, at least in my eyes (actually HHH probably does, but I'm still recovering from years of hating the guy). Every hall of fame, be it sports, music, etc., has a few questionable inductees in their midst, and the resulting debate over who is "worthy" or not is usually fun and mostly harmless anyway. My main criticism with the Hall is that several individuals should have been inducted years ago. Honestly, when I look at the list of people on the ballot, of the ones I am familiar with (that is, most of the North American candidates), I would be fine with almost all of them being inducted, outside of Batista, Edge, and maybe Moolah. The way things are going, I would venture to say that a large percentage of them eventually will get in, even though it may take several years or even decades. Really, even though my knowledge of some of them is relatively limited, I think Schmidt, Albano, Jarrett, Ventura, Owen, Monsoon, Slaughter, Mr.Wrestling II, Apter, Gary Hart, Morales, the RnR's, Koloff, Crockett Jr., the Assassins, and the Andersons should already be in. Others, like Sting, Murdoch, Hennig, Owen Hart, Arion, Sabu, and Snuka are a notch or two bellow, but still very memorable performers who wouldn't "disgrace" the Hall by being inducted. And mostly for personal reasons (although I don't think his inclusion would be that out of place), I think Jake Roberts, despite drawing power issues, belongs in the Hall. I've also heard that Buddy Rose and Jerry Blackwell have been criminally overlooked Anyway, next years debate should be fun. Lesner getting in may be the final straw that leads to the schism of the Church.

On the subject of promoters not in the Hall, could somebody explain to me the knock against Don Owen? I'm no expert at all, but wasn't he the promoter of Portland Wrestling for a million years, during which time the territory was always pretty successful, except for a few years here and there and at the end? I'm guessing he wasn't responsible for much of the booking. Anyway, I've always been curious because he's never pimped very heavily and I don't know the history of Portland very well.

An opinion like that pretty much sums up why Russo has booked so much garbage over the years. If he was in charge of the NFL he would advocate scrapping touchdowns and field goals in favour of teams scoring points based on which players delivered the best hits or some such nonsense. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he had a hand in the original XFL concept somewhere along the line.

What I don't understand is that if Hogan and Bischoff are in charge of the big stuff, why did they allow the writers to push Roode so hard in the first place if he wasn't the "right guy"? Maybe they have only recently gained total control,

Yeah, they drew a ton of money with the feud. Probably the most Vince has ever made with a program. The heat was off the charts. Ratings were sky high. Everybody watched Raw. But if I live the rest of my life without seeing the Austin vs Vince stuff from that era again I'll be fine with that. The feud was good at the start, great even. The cage match was likely good, but I can't remember because I haven't seen it since the day it aired. But in the end, the feud went on way TOO LONG and was the start of TOO MUCH VINCE AND FAMILY on TV, which I couldn't stand then and can't stand now. Really, it's about my personal taste. Outside of a few moments here and there, Vince as Mr. McMahon has never really done it for me. Give me babyface announcer Vince any day. And Rumble 99 was horseshit

So, do you guys think this was Edge's best shot, considering his retirement and being fresh on voters minds and all that?

The suspense is killing me!!!! (It's up on the site, so the floodgates will open any minute now) Anyway, while we're waiting, Dave mentions that next year "huge names" will be on the ballot for the first time. Cena is one and I'm guessing Danielson is another. Who else? Cena obviously gets in. Danielson, if Angle and Jericho (and maybe Sexton) are in, may have a chance with the voters I guess. Personally, I think he is good in the ring and has a subtle type of charisma that gets him over when given the chance, but no way can he be considered a hall of famer at this stage in his career. Maybe down the line if he somehow gets a serious main event run in WWE, but not yet. So, any thoughts on next years crop? Edit: Nevermind. Well, we can still talk about next year, but probably not for a day or two.

Ivan Putski

Is there going to be a riot on this board come Wednesday? Perhaps even an Observer boycott?

Survivor Series 2010 apparently did 244,000 buys. If my math is correct, 300,000 buys would mean a 23% increase. For a non-Rock/Rock comparison, 2010 Mania did 885,000 buys, while 2011 did 1,059,000, so that is a 16.4% increase. Not sure how much of that increase we can attribute solely to the Rock, though. If 2011 Survivor Series does a 15-20% increase (probably unlikely) the Rock would come off looking pretty damn good. But it all depends how the booking goes leading up to the show, and the Rock returning might not be quite the novelty as it was earlier this year (although it is his first match in 7+ years). And SS PPV numbers will not be available before the voting, right? So it is likely a moot point anyway. I think I would vote for him simply because, in a year of no real strong overall performances, where I wouldn't feel "guilty" voting for a contoversial candidate, his return created a pretty strong buzz, he had some great promo segments if nothing else, he moved numbers better than anyone this year, and he may end the year on a high note. Realistically, yeah, Cena and Punk are probably the frontrunners. Punk actually had it all but locked up by the end of August, but recent events changed all that.

Also, anybody want to correct this Meltzer typo from today's update?:

Looking at those PPV numbers for 2006 TNA, all I can do is shake my head and wonder "What if Russo hadn't been brought back as booker in late-2006?". Sure, TNA before he returned wasn't perfect or setting the world on fire, but they did have some momentum, were putting on entertaining PPVs, and undefeated Joe seemed on the verge of...something. Then Russo comes in and turns the whole thing into a clown-show joke that hasn't drawn shit for five fucking years, providing the Wrestlecrap crew with entry upon entry, trotting out one has-been after the next, and putting on shows that make a mediocre WWE look like the greatest promotion of all time in comparison. I know it's a cliche, but fuck Russo. Fuck him for booking the shittiest Royal Rumble ever and one of the shittiest Wrestlemania's ever. Fuck him for booking WCW so horribly that it will forever be the standard for shitty wrestling. May you never, ever, even for the worst flea-bag indy group, come close to a position of booking power again you piece of fucking trash. Sorry, but years of built up frustration just kinda erupted there

I think the "WWE is the draw" argument only goes so far. You still need people who the fans see as draws/stars to carry the product. You couldn't throw out Santino vs Jack Swagger as a Mania main event and just expect 1 million buys based on the fact it is Mania and WWE. Cena is getting stale and business has declined with him on top, but he is still the only day-to-day draw in wrestling. Really, all things considered, I think we now have to consider him one of the all-time great draws.

I think you can. He has been the year's biggest draw. House show numbers even increased after his return because many casual fans assumed he was part of the touring roster again. In any other year of course he would not really be a serious candidate, but this year (from a North American perspective) has offered up no real strong contenders, at least as far as putting up slam dunk numbers goes. And voting for a Cena, Christian, Punk, etc. feels like yet another "default" choice, much like the last two winners (Jericho,Cena) were in my opinion. If I had to pick a "regular" wrestler, I guess Cena should win again, because if he wasn't on the roster WWE business would totally be in the tank, like at 95-97 levels or worse.

In such a down year, give it to the only guy who actually moved numbers like a star (and he will wrestle at least one match this year): The Rock

This is purely hypothetical speculation, but if it was Taker who had jumped to TNA in 2006, I think he would have put up bigger numbers there than Angle did, at least initially before the booking caught up with him and things went back down. But I think it all boils down to the fact that, as Loss stated, Angle in WWE was rarely if ever put in the big money draw position. Taker has been there countless times over the years, and yes some were big duds. But at least he had a few big hits (Summerslam 98 for one). And his biggest hits were bigger than any of Angle's biggest hits.

One thing is for sure, Biker Taker of the early-00s was probably the lamest and most ill-advised character reinvention ever.

I've never been a huge fan of the guy, nor do I have any exact numbers to back me up, but I'm pretty confident that Taker is a bigger draw than Angle. His Streak at Mania alone is a much greater drawing card than anything Angle has been a part of. In fact, I think if you only counted his 1990-99 years, pre-Angle, Taker is still a bigger draw.

I think when Vince does die it will be an out-of-nowhere, massive heart attack on the corporate jet type deal.

Well, it wasn't exactly the most serious of subjects to begin with.

All I know is, perhaps after Vince is dead, it would be pretty cool if some filmmaker made a serious, well-done Godfather-esque movie saga depicting the history of the McMahon family, featuring all the major players in the wrestling scene from the 50s to present day. Maybe even an HBO-type series. (like was once rumoured) I'm not sure how difficult it would be for something like that to receive a green light, but one can dream. An independent, non-WWE documentary on the subject would also be great.

As far as the recent theme of "comparing wrestling to other things" goes, Road Runner = WWF Jim Duggan is probably the best one yet. Neither would do jobs even though they weren't at the level of a Bugs/Hogan or Daffy/Savage; both came off more annoying than entertaining the older you got as a fan, to the point where you cheered the heel they were matched up against; and both were one-dimensional and reliant on a tired catchphrase ("meep, meep/hooooo!") repeated ad nauseam.

I guess. But there is still time for Shane to return and play the Michael role. I'm not sure if HHH = Sonny or not. Some likely hope for him to experience the in-ring equivalent of the toll booth scene, though.

One could also compare 2011 Vince to these icons: "The Decline and Fall of a Great American Businessman"

How much worse do things have to get until we start comparing Raw to Russo-era Nitro? Surely, Kermit going over Del Rio on Halloween would garner a blurb in USA Today and maybe a .2 ratings spike the following week.