Ricky Jackson

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.

I'm almost 100% sure I've read/heard about the Bret exceeding his dates part before. I'm thinking it was in his book, but I'm too lazy to check right now. Or he may have mentioned it on Off the Record.

Here's my two cents on a subject that has been beyond discussed to death... I think "Hart leaving with the belt" has been a misconception over the years. I don't think Hart would have ever left the WWF with the belt and appeared on Nitro with it. If the screwjob had never happened, there was no reason for Bret (who respected Vince, the WWF, and the opportunity he had been granted to advance to the main event/big money spot over the years) to not drop the belt; maybe not to Shawn at SS, yes, but I have no doubt he would have put somebody over somewhere before he left. The problem, as Vince and others saw it, and the reason they believed it was imperative the switch go down in Montreal, was Bischoff would announce on the Monday after SS that WCW had signed the reigning WWF champ, delivering yet another blow to the credibility of a company that was still losing the War by substantial margin (although gaining momentum). I also think Vince's ego was bruised by not being able to get Bret to agree to his plans and dictate the title switch, and for a control freak like him (and during a very stressful time) this may have been too much to stomach. It was a complex and unique situation, with a relatively simple thing like a title switch almost becoming a metaphor/battleground for the larger real life conflicts between Bret and Shawn and Vince and Eric. And we will never stop talking about it...

I agree Edge is not a Hall of Fame guy, at least when judging him against the bar that was set by the original inductees. I think most on this board are in agreement that Meltzer's hall has been bastardized a bit in the last few years. For me, the most glaring inductions over this time are Angle (waaaay too soon) and Jericho (ditto). And contrary to Meltzer's recent comment on Sting, Big Daddy, etc., I think it's safe to say that HHH is in because of his lengthy push more than anything else (I just don't see his work, promo's, and charisma being hall of fame calibre. Yes, he was/is a draw. But so were Ivan Koloff, Schmidt, Monsoon to a degree, etc. I know, "different era's" and all that.) I think it is also safe to say Angle and Jericho are in largely because, at the time of the vote, both were either being pushed hard or had been recently pushed hard, and had recently been involved in highly regarded programs and matches. I think this is the main flaw of the current voting process: voters being swayed by a current performers ongoing (or very recent) work instead of evaluating a wrestler's body of work from the distance of time, which would remove a lot of the emotional connection that may prevent objective assesssment (as much as is ever possible, anyway). Of course there are wrestler's who have such impressive resumes that "waiting for the sake of waiting" is unnecessary, like Hogan, Flair, Austin, etc. I would argue that Cena falls into this category. Angle and Jericho, I believe, do not. Besides arguments regarding his overall worth as a performer, Edge has going for him the fact that he is modern, was pushed hard and involved in countless high profile main events, and was involved in more **** PPV matches than anyone else (Meltzer's argument, but one that will likely sway many voters). Perhaps most importantly, he will get many "sympathy votes" because of his career recently coming to an abrupt end. Personally I would rate Jericho as a better candidate than Edge. Angle as well, but it's close. The fact is, due to the nature of the voting process, modern guys with borderline credentials will likely always get the benefit of the doubt and have a greater chance of getting in than a 50s-70s star with borderline (but more impressive) credentials.

Meltzer: "He turned himself face with one sentence as the place went wild." "That was the best money promo in a long time" And they've booked a loser leaves UFC match. MMA = Pro Wrestling.

The last decade for me is a little fuzzy. I'm far more knowledgable when it comes to the 80s and 90s. I missed most of the 2001-05 period completely, have seen relatively little ROH, next to nothing of the international scene, and actually haven't seen a lot of the most highly regarded WWE stuff. That said, my top three, at least as far as those who entertained me the most, would probably be Michaels, Cena and Mysterio.

Thinking about the IC title kinda makes me sad, considering all the great wrestlers, matches and feuds associated with it in the 80s and 90s, and the fact it (like most WWF/WCW titles) was more or less rendered meaningless around 1999 or so. A pretty big chunk of my favorite childhood wrestling memories revolve around the old IC title scene. There are many other factors, but hot-shot booking of title changes to the point where they meant absolutely nothing was one of the main reasons for the decline of my wrestling fandom at the end of the 90s. I'm sure this is a sentiment echoed by many around here. But enough wistfulness. As far as Murdoch/Adonis go, I feel they are a really unique team in WWF history, almost an NWA type combo, especially with Murdoch being involved. They are especially unique when looking at the 70s/early-mid 80s heel WWF tag champs, which were often freak show/monster types, like the Executioners, Samoans and Moondogs, or Japanese/foreign menace teams, often featuring the ubiquitous Fuji. I wonder if it was perhaps because of George Scott's (an NWA guy) booking that a team like Murdoch/Adonis "slipped though the cracks" so to speak. Just a guess.

Regarding that Wrestling Classics list of draws, Buddy Rogers' number for the 60's is simply amazing considering, other than a brief comback or two, he was essentially done in the ring by 1963. He must have been just on fire from 1960-63. And now back to our regularly scheduled program...