WingedEagle

Steamer absolutely belongs on my list. But I have zero desire to rewatch anything here. We'll see how that shakes out. Need to be objective and give certain matches another look.

Will, I loved the post. Problem is that your recaps set a bar that the matches just don't reach for me when watching them. They highlight certain qualities to look out for. But the matches almost always underwhelm. There's enough here for me to rewatch some Lawler matches when the time comes, but not so much that he would place.

Have to imagine Lawler will be my low among guys who otherwise finish high. Will be surprised if he places for me.

I thought their profit on it was rather small, but it was still profitable. I don't think they do it at a loss.

Looking forward to that one and saving it for a weekend run. Side question: do we have any idea how lucrative this is for Austin? I don't have a clue if he makes serious money for it or if its more a steady promotional vehicle.

Just wanted to add that I loved Jimmy's post as it expressed a major point I haven't effectively been able to make on my own -- selling is great, but it often feels like a crutch that can be used to knock a wrestler or match when someone mounts a comeback, pulls out a win or delivers any sustained offense because in doing so they to some extent had to stop completely selling whatever work was previously done. You carry that too far and you've got an all time squash performance.

That's basically where I am as well -- the entire match shouldn't be one tug of war over a ladder, but if its a gimmick match I want the match about that gimmick rather than have it serve as some prop like a chair that's pulled out for a random spot. It also goes against what I generally think about rewatching matches, but I think the HBK/Razor matches have been somewhat hurt over time because of the explosion of similar matches in subsequent years. At the time, they felt pretty crazy and innovative and shouldn't be dinged that badly just because I've since been desensitized due to the gimmick being overdone.

But isn't the ladder being somewhat an end unto itself at least part of the point of a ladder match?

The problem with the number is that I believe they previously indicated an expectation of 1MM+ by year end. That clearly isn't happening at this rate and is the impetus for luring folks in with a free November. At this point its about managing expectations that have run away from them. The good news, if any, is that the failure to deliver on what they promised may at some point force them to think outside the box and try different things from creative, content and promotional perspectives. But we're not there yet.

Kane? No, not the worst. But given how long he's been booked so often he definitely has a craptastic resume.

I'm absolutely with you on a well timed no sell. I'm just not at all there with with openly and regularly inviting your opponent's strikes. Its one thing to simultaneously throw bombs. Its another to stand there with your hands down and ask for it.

I don't hate WWE. There are nights I love it and nights I don't like it, but if I really, truly thought it was garbage with nothing redeeming I'd turn it off. Not every episosde of any show or every game in every sport is going to be a winner.

That show was a ton of fun and a breeze to sit through. I even got to check out a bit of MNF during Kane's interminable chinlock. I'm sure it won't exactly do gangbuster numbers, but I'm kind of psyched about an old school Survivor Series show. Some fun, long matches with quick exchanges that advance storylines sounds pretty good. A fresh Ryback, rejuvenated Henry, a plainly different Orton -- all good times.

Then watch an actual Wrestling company. WWE has always leaned on kitsch and spectacle. I've made the same arguments for a trolling end many times but WWE IS Sports Entertainment it is a different genre, it isn't booking it IS Creative for them. They hire writers to come up with creative and goofy stuff not bookers to book towns. Hardly a newsflash but seem to eer back to them being a Wrestling company. At least in the case of the main event finish, though, there's still a different expectation for something like Seth Rollins vs Ambrose in a Hell in a Cell match compared to The Undertaker vs. Yokozuna in a casket match. Exactly. Not every program is booked the same or every match laid out the same. There are different goals and expectations that will bring about difference reactions from the audience. This is good because otherwise the product would get awfully boring.

Considering the bulk of the material in the book was never written about in the Wrestling Observer you can imagine how seriously I'm taking this claim of plagiarism. I'd be happy to engage any specific critiques, but I'm not interested in some kind of personal battle of wills with an anonymous internet guy making pretty absurd and hurtful claims of illegal and unethical behavior. Maybe I didn't articulate these ideas well and took things beyond the HIAC discussion. For that, I apologize to anyone I offended and won't raise the topic again. Of course that's not what I wrote at all. No? Specifically, you said: Your words telling people they didn't enjoy the show because they intended not to and should reevaluate themselves as wrestling fans (or were we critics here yet?). And they had to enjoy this show because you said it was good. And if we dare to opine otherwise, we're no longer wrestling fans. Which part of that is not telling people to enjoy the wrestling that is served them and going above and beyond that to tell them if they don't, they're no longer fans? I like, no love to eat. Huge fan of food. My aunt can't cook to save her life. The woman literally screws up boiling vegetables. I'm not exaggerating. This intelligent, otherwise fully functioning adult is rendered an absolute incompetent in the kitchen. But I'm a food fan, so should I eat that garbage and just ask for more? Its effing wrestling. It goes through hot spells and cold spells of various lengths, like many creative endeavors. But since when can fans of the genre not acknowledge the highs and lows? I think The Wire is the greatest TV show I've ever seen. I think Season 4 is far and away the best season of any show I've ever seen and an easy pick for my desert island DVD. In spite of all that am I no longer a fan when I say Season 5 just didn't measure up to what came before it, even if I liked much of it and loved other parts? If Raw tonight kicks ass, I will say so and hope it does. If that happens, I guess I'm a fan again. Fingers crossed for all of us!

I think its a fascinating question with compelling cases to be made for both. One of those things you could listen to reasonable people debate for a long, long time. Without Bischoff and Nitro, does Vince give Austin & Rock a chance to rise to the level they did? Who gets a chance at the top of the card if Turner money isn't there to bring over Hall & Nash? All interesting stuff.

That doesn't even make sense as a critique. I wrote the book in Pages for one and it's meticulously sourced to include dozens of interviews with core subjects. Don't they explain the whole literal / metaphor thing in writing 101? Maybe it is meticulously sourced. It just so happens that when reading it the thought that came to mind most often was "huh, this sounded a whole lot better when I first read it in the WON" and the second was "wow, this was poorly edited." In this case, I'm speaking as critic, not fan. That last line is the closest thing you've come to an accurate statement, though it is again flawed because the issue here isn't a blind rejection of anything other than a clean finish. It was a rejection of what people viewed as a crap finish on top of a crap match in a main event that was highly anticipated. If that same finish followed a hot match, rather than what those who didn't enjoy it may have seen as a couple contrived spots built around some poor storytelling, I don't think the reaction would be quite so negative. Similarly, if there was a strong, conclusive finish after a hot, brief finishing stretch that followed the earlier theatrics and wasn't built around a bunch of characters people find stale, I don't think the reaction would be quite so negative. There are very strong purposes for having inconclusive finishes. Believe it or not, some of the fans you rush to label as critics actually understand and appreciate that. Very often, that purpose is to build and maximize anticipation of a conclusive finish. Where that's teased and drawn out for so long only to be scrapped in favor of smoke and holograms -- literally -- people may very well find that disappointing. But stay the course with such nuanced analysis that says everybody should enjoy whatever is presented to them at all times and avoid any criticism at all. That's the kind of deep, probing thinking that keeps the critics coming back.

Up to you how you take it. As it is also up to you and your editors to determine how little citing you can publish with. Pro tip: next time, use something a little more reliable than MS Word's spelling and grammar check. You're not working on a 7 day deadline and thus have the time for proper editing.

Yeah my concern with Mizdow is I don't know how far you can take it. I'm still loving it, but the joke will run its course eventually as it seems it is for some. You can have them split but that ends the gimmick and I don't know they'll get behind any meaningful Sandow push at that point, so it may just be a winner of a short-term gimmick and hopefully something else along the way clicks.

I don't think it's falling for it. It's just not being used to it because most people here are pretty earnest and anyone who acts like that gets banned pretty quickly, no matter who he was friends with in 1998 or if he has 500,000 people reading his stuff. If you can't enjoy something like this it's because you are intent not to. That's not "trolling." I'm deadly serious. You should be reevaluating everything about how you approach wrestling and whether this is right for you as a fan and a person. Because that was good. It was well performed, to the point even the wrestlers who traditionally struggle seemed to find their path. If you can look at WWE when it is hitting on all cylinders, when the announce team is less annoying than usual, the wrestlers are inspired and one match moves into another and suddenly two hours are gone—and not enjoy it—I legitimately worry that you are incapable of loving it. If that's the case, you are wasting your time. Wasting it. We all learned here that life is fucking short. Don't be cynical and call any dissenting voice a troll. Anything but. I get why you'd want to do so. It's probably deeply disturbing that your identity is called into question. Maybe, just maybe, you aren't a wrestling fan anymore. You're a wrestling observer. A critic. Wrestling has moved to a new place and you can't find it in yourself to make that trip. I'm not blaming you for that. But don't sit in the proverbial stands with your arms crossed across your chest, determined to pick apart any perceived flaws. That's just not healthy. And I can't imagine it is fun. Trolling would be saying that instead of watching wrestling fans in their various environments, you should perhaps stick to going through your stack of WON's and highlighting the passages you want to include in your next book. But I'm not sure that's constructive. I may have missed the part where folks here said that you or any of the 500K wrestling fans at Bleacher Report who go there for the wrestling content (rather than the work of journalists like Howard Beck or the site's renowned SEO engineers) couldn't enjoy the show or were wrong for doing so. If that is the case, I apologize. Some folks may have hated this show up and down the card. Others may have enjoyed some parts and found others less appealing. Still others may have fallen into either camp and then found a highly anticipated main event devolve into something completely unsatisfying that left a bad taste in their mouth and soured the entire card. A poor main event can do that. A great main event can also sometimes redeem an otherwise uninspired night. I don't see how either a hardcore or casual wrestling fan would've enjoyed the show. But if they did that's great. That's the goal! But I'm sure as hell not to about to castigate someone and call them some blind fanboy for doing so. I'll be watching Raw tonight and next week and thereafter, and skipping Smackdown unless I hear there's something worth checking out, and then I'll be watching Survivor Series next month because I'm a wrestling fan. And if any of that sucks, I'll again say so because I'm a wrestling fan and will praise it for the same reason. Just like I'll be watching my 1-7 Jets next Sunday and likely losing my head at another garbage performance while awaiting a W and still sticking with my team. I don't have an audience of 500K, but think I learned a while back that being a fan doesn't mean loving everything my team does.

Funny, I actually watched that on the '94 Yearbook earlier in the day. I enjoyed it as retrospective camp there. I really, truly hated the HIAC finish. I didn't think there was any way for an underwhelming and too long Orton/Cena to outdo Ambrose/Rollins but they managed to do just that. The entire match felt like a poorly thought out end of Raw comedy skit between the new stooges, a beyond contrived bump and third rate characters getting involved. And that was before the Wyatt nonsense. Nevermind that I sold his stock months ago when it was established that he was a hot ring entrance supported by nothing other than Harper & Rowan's work and some cliched dialogue that would earn True Blood a writing Emmy. Actually, do mind that. I sure as hell do. I can't stand it and it now looks like the plan is to further degrade the potential of Dean Ambrose as a personality at the expense of Dean Ambrose the sketch comedian with Wyatt the Belushi to his Aykrod. Except Wyatt sucks and Ambrose isn't a comedian. Wow did I not like this show.

I wouldn't mind it as the high spot of a wrestling match or as part of the climax. But as the meat? Give me another 15 minutes of Orton/Cena.

If they did that match in half the time it probably would've been an acceptable spotfest. As it was, they killed a ton of time between spots and made me sad.

I also stand corrected that Cena always delivers in big matches. If he were Dominos in the old days tonight's pizza would be free.

Alright at least we're clearly getting a Henry turn.