WingedEagle

So what? How does it not make great matches and story telling? I think the finish is a large part of a match. Variable how much and I've always wondered just how much a great finish can add to a good match or similarly a poor finish take away from what was to that point a great finish. Where the finish is weak that takes away from the match for me. Your list happened to highlight just how often Hart went to the same well. I enjoyed some of those finishes when they happened, while others (Piper, DBS, KOTR '93) took away a great deal from the solid work that led up to them.

The Sharpshooter isn't fluky. Diesel's jackinfe isn't fluky. Davey Boy's powerslam isn't fluky. Kicking the ropes out of a sleeper and getting one shoulder up while locked in a submission? That's fluky. Doing it multiple times? That's slip on a banana peel to defend the title fluky. Same for a cradle in a major world title defense. I understand using that type of finish from time to time and it can be a great storytelling device. But when your champion is relying on it that often the story it tells is that he is just getting by rather than conclusively defeating his challengers.

Curious about this last part from people critical of the match. Did you just take issue with what they did or found it silly? Or did you really not like the match? I can't tell from some of the comments others are posting if they actively hated it, or for all I know thought it was great but didn't like how they got there.

Feels like they're hotshotting Rollins/HHH for Summerslam. That seems pretty rushed, but if it refocuses things on Lesnar I'm in. Last night was the first time in a Rollins felt like a big deal.

That really is quite a lot of fluky finishes. Wonder why he went to the same well so often.

Ha that's the other side of it. I love reading certain folks' detailed thoughts on a match. I haven't been able to use these write-ups as easily to determine if I want to check something out, but it definitely provides more fun reading material.

I like Meltzer's system because I'm familiar with it. The best part of it is frankly how widespread it is. After seeing someone rate quite a number of matches, whether its Meltzer, Loss, Parv, Scott Keith, Alan, my aunt or anyone else, you develop a sense of what that rating means to that person. You'd have the same issue with any other rating system -- what does an 8 mean to Meltzer? What's it mean to Wade Keller or someone at the Torch? At the end of the day its a quick way to take the temperature of a match according. Just need to get a feel for that person and then you'll know whether to use their ratings to help you ID matches worth checking out.

Incredibly disappointed that this is going on at the same time as game 5 of the finals. I can almost always disregard other playoff games for a PPV but Finals will always win out. Big question is whether to watch this or Raw tomorrow and the other on Wednesday.

Not defending these practices, but hindsight is a big help here. There's a balance between nurturing potential talent and weeding out those you don't want to waste resources on.

Nope, just and smell like cologne & gum.

Not exactly involved, but I caught Mr. Perfect's towel when he threw it into the stands at Nassau Coliseum in 1993. Dad wasn't thrilled to bring that home, but there was zero chance I was throwing it out. Needless to say I practiced and perfected the art of spitting my gum in the air and slapping it away after that.

Maybe I'm in the minority but I like MSL.

+1 on the Conrad bandwagon. He does about as great a job as possible in the co-host role. Never dominates the conversation, keeps things focused, gets along with everyone and is engaged, and in no way thinks people are there for him. Total pro.

Started another thread that can be deleted, but here's what I said. Will see if I have any more thoughts after work: Triple H just tweeted that Dusty Rhodes has passed away. What a loss. I had the pleasure of meeting him last fall and he was sharp as a knife, incredibly gracious with his time to my wife and I and more than happy to share a few memories and stories from the past. He was also incredibly proud to have his daughter as his date that evening and they seemed to have a terrific time. RIP to a true GOAT and best to his family.

Yes. But its fair to wonder -- albeit simultaneously irrelevant -- whether brand considerations would've weighed as much in the decision if WCW were a profitable operation instead of one with mounting losses.

I dig the wild stories. It'd help if his co-host helped reign him in and served as a factchecker (like this week when he said he was wrestling Sting at the Clash the same night as Savage/Steamboat at Mania 3), but I enjoy the flow of the show and his demeanor all the same.

Just waiting for Kurt Angle to turn back the clock and chime in here.

I know its minor, but they need to eliminate the semi-regular beeping that occurs throughout the podcast. Really annoying whether I'm at the gym or in the car.

We see businesses write off assets and take losses all the time, yet for some reason there was no talk of that happening with Hogan's contract here. Simply paying him to stay away is the easiest and likely best option, but Nash stepped right in to fill that power vacuum. Another loss leader that could easily be set side, but yes, that does leave the big gap on top. I can't even imagine who would both have the credibility with Turner to get the job and with talent to make it work. Anyone with a clue in WWF at the time was under contract. Heyman? Also on Vince's IV and by all rights it sounds like he could on a given day either blow away the corporate suite or find himself escorted out by security depending on the approach. Such a shame what the stranglehold on that company caused.

Hey now. Getting a title match beneath the Rumble is not headlining!

That's actually a plus. If the WON had that I might switch to an online subscription. Somehow this is the one relic of a dial-up / USPS world I've maintained.

This. I don't have the patience to put myself through what you do, but look forward to seeing your recaps and the choice highlights you'll tout from time to time. Stay the course!

Normally fantasy booking delivers too much on fantasy rather than booking. That being said, I really enjoyed just about everything Loss laid out above. The part I wonder about is what kind of changes are necessary at the top -- do you have to axe Hogan, Nash and Bischoff in order to facilitate any other promotional focus? If that crew still has the pen is there any hope at all for a turnaround? Who do you give it to -- Russo's not the answer, a Turner exec doesn't work because you need a wrestling mind to actually lay things out and someone who can keep everyone in line.

Taker was really hampered by injuries as their matches progressed. He was almost worthless as a worker in 99. Yes, but they didn't deliver in their 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 or 2002 pay-per-view matches against each other, nor did they in the many TV matches they had against each other in those same years. The sad thing about Austin's run as the top guy is that aside from the match with Dude Love at Over The Edge '98, nothing else really delivered in a great way in the ring until his 2001 comeback. What about the matches with Rock? Those are probably the best before the comeback other than OTE.

Possibly, but not definitely, 100 wrestlers currently active I'd rather watch. Easily makes top 100 of modern stars I'd want to hear about as he's apparently an all-time dick.