JaymeFuture

We got a good bit of feedback from this board, so we read and discussed a lot of the points mentioned. Some good debate on the next top star, women's wrestling, whether we believe wrestling is cyclical, and much more. Should be on iTunes this week, barring any issues, but feedback is extremely welcome... http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/play/b9w4fs/SCGRadio3-WhatDoesWrestlingNeed.mp3 http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/play/b9w4fs/SCGRadio3-WhatDoesWrestlingNeed.mp3

I should qualify - the 'almost' point I was trying to get at is that he's either got or been given all the tools and platforms to succeed in all these ways, more than 95% of guys in the history of the business, and he's fallen short of great in every one (not saying that he's "almost" a HoF worker, influence or draw, hence me saying he fell short of even Sting/Batista level). I'll be surprised if he sniffs 30% in the Observer ballot.

I'm not sure which level Orton has a HoF level career, and I like the guy. As a draw he never was responsible for anything major, not even a one-time huge buyrate like a Sting or Batista (two other guys who aren't in and likely won't be). In the ring he can be very, very good when he wants to be, but I don't know that he's all time elite. I think Orton's issue is that he's "almost" in every category but a sure thing in none.

El-P - did he elaborate on the Benoit "violent alcoholic" point?

Whichever you feel is healthier. If you believe a boom period can't happen then what would you do for a slower, more sustainable growth? You can target either, it really is up to you.

Love this point, don't want to sidetrack this discussion too much, but we're going to be doing a podcast on this topic as well in a few weeks. Interesting Bill - in that case, is there nothing in the current landscape that you would change at all to help facilitate the next boom?

An extremely broad question I know, but I'm taping a podcast tomorrow on this subject, and much like the "________ should have been a top guy" topic, I'd love to get a bunch of different opinions from here to read on the show. Essentially, the roundtable question is, in 2014 and moving forward, what is the single biggest thing the wrestling world needs? Obviously there are a few leading candidates, but in your own opinion, what is the most important? Less WWE on TV? Cena to step aside to help facilitate new stars? The network to die, new creative, new direction, new competition? Simply put, if you could play God and were able to make a single change to the wrestling landscape in hopes to change it for the better and bring it to prominence, what would that one move be? What do you see as most important, and why?

Thanks very much for listening :-) I think the roundtable format will always lend to a bit of that (whether that's good or bad is personal opinion) - half the panel think Rusev just isn't for them and want no part of it, the other half gave it a chance, half the panel was more tolerant of the divas and lower card guys, the others saw no value. But thanks again for the feedback, it's greatly appreciated.

Well, with today's roster cuts being made, it seems like the appropriate time to post our second podcast, where we run down the entire WWE roster and decide who needs to be fired, who need to be pushed, etc. This one was a lot of fun to record, got some good discussion going about the state of the company and potential directions for certain guys, check it out and let me know what you think. http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/web/32ztns/SCGRadio2-RosterCuttingShow.mp3

Bingo. That and a backflip.

I will say, I really hate the idea of filling out the third spot with a new Shield member and carrying on - if you're breaking up this unit it isn't to keep things lateral, it's to elevate them all individually. Putting a new guy in the role will draw comparisons and it'll never work because they won't be pushed as hard, so I just don't see the upside.

WWE's three hour Raw format would work so much better if there was more variety in the product itself. The only variety they give it is stupid comedy with Sandow. Women's wrestling and Cruiserweight wrestling (they have Neville, Zayn, Kidd, Kalisto, KENTA, Devitt, and Breeze or Maddox as American Heel a la Jericho) would shake things up. The problem is the conditioning issue. My roommate is a massive NXT fan and keeps harping on about the women. And every time I counter with the same thing I'll say here - they've done such a good job of scorching the earth with the Divas, of telling people not to care, the match is 3 minutes and it doesn't matter, that a singular isolated incident isn't enough. Paige came off like a star winning the title from AJ Lee the day after Mania. Last night nobody could have given a fuck less about her. Why this is a problem is that WWE is rarely ever consistent with ANYTHING, excluding the booking of the top three or four guys. Since it's going to take a massive shift in philosophy that is consistent for a long time, and then maybe the masses will accept it, means that WWE just won't make the effort.

I find it kinda funny that as Marco Corleone he found a way to get over, since in his homeland he couldn't connect to the audience on any level. Wonder how much of it is down to the fact that he found a place where his look wasn't a dime a dozen.

Was there live for this, one of the most heated matches I've witnessed in person. The post show scene of Shawn Michaels and Triple H climbing up either side of the set and posing, while the fans throw shit at them to try and knock them off, is one of the favourite wrestling memories. Think I was the only guy there cheering for Shawn. What taints shit like this is the knowledge that this wasn't being booked like a wrestling angle, this was two opposing real life factions and one side just out-politicked the other every single time and got their way without retort.

Love this topic, may have to poach this for a podcast in future. I can't see it possibly being overrated as a metric when the fundamental intention of wrestling is drawing money, I think the debate, as has been discussed already, is in the ambiguity of circumstances and the tenor of the times. I absolutely love the Akiyama/Tanahashi comparison, because as much as I love New Japan (though it's taken a bit of a turn for the more questionable in the last few months), that direct comparison shines a whole hell of a lot of reality on their surge in popularity. An old radio show with Brian Pillman stands out on this subject too, where he talked about the ambiguity of "drawing money", when so much of it depends on taking a piece of talent and building him up, and right place/right time. But when so much of it is out of the individuals' hands, how is it that when they succeed or fail, most people invariably pick apart the performer more than the circumstances (this was in response to somebody asking Pillman if he ever drew money). On El Boricus's point, Mania 19 is a good example, where the buyrate was alarmingly low, Angle/Lesnar went on last, but the bulk of the promotion for the show went to Hogan/McMahon. Can it be held against Brock and Kurt? Sting was the classic case of a guy in a really terrible position that was known for never being able to draw the way he was supposed to. He also has the biggest buyrate in company history to his resume, but the former outweighs the latter.

Of all the suggestions we got from all the feedback to talk about on the show, Mark Jindrak was the most absurd. Everything you can say for Jindrak you can say for Hammer, apart from the awesome head of hair.

Thanks very much for the kind words! Am looking at getting this on iTunes ASAP, for some reason my computer is having problems accessing the ITunes Store at the moment...

Have posted the podcast in the Publications and Podcast forum, for those who would like to listen (we read and discussed almost all the feedback we got from this board at the time of recording): http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/26575-squared-circle-gazette-radio-1-should-have-been-the-top-guy/ I'm actually a little surprised that nobody suggested Scott Steiner at all, just because I was expecting it, and a couple of the suggestions were more of a stretch than him.

So, here it is, based on the post I made here and in a few other places, our first podcast, and it's us breaking down the guys we believe should have been the company ace, as well as reading your thoughts and analysing your picks as well. As much feedback as you'd like to give it absolutely welcome here, given this is the first one... http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/web/4ve68s/SCGRadio1-WhoShouldHaveBeenTheTopGuy.mp3

Recorded the podcast last night, ended up being a lot of fun - will post it as soon as it's up, but we were able to cover almost everybody's suggestions. Really interesting topic. The Slaughter discussion is really interesting because there is a window there where it could have been possible.

Wasn't it like...he RKO'd Mark Henry, then jumped high into the air, did the splits and touched his toes, and then double fist-pumped? It was one of the most out of character things I've ever seen and it was just hysterical.

THE top guy. Ace of the promotion, the centrepiece. Had a lot of feedback elsewhere voting for Scott Hall as well.

One small thing on the "Whose side is he on" - if they did an angle today in a similar position, and JBL said "Yeh but whose side is Cena on", nobody would pay it any mind more than JBL playing bullshit antagonist because he know there is no way Cena is going heel. Watching it at the time, that was the effect with Hogan. Even if it's said, it was so unfathomable that it never runs through your mind as anything more than rhetoric.

That's an interesting pick actually. I think if he came around a little earlier or a little later, Corino would have gotten pretty far. To me that part about defining the top guy is really interesting as you break it down a bit. You think Windham has a better or worse case than Magnum? I agree that in some ways you would need to book around Windham to help him be the ace, which doesn't speak to his credentials to be that guy.

I'm going to be doing a podcast in a few days with a roundtable discussion on the question of "_______ should have been a top guy", a classic and pretty broad subject that should raise a lot of different opinions. Its a four person show and we each have to contribute an argument for one guy, but I wanted to know what you guys thought. Going to be talking about real factors like the time they were in, the context of their environment, abilities, everything is going to be considered in the debate. And as the title suggests, we're talking true top guy, not title contender or short-term champion. I'd like your opinions on this subject, and I'll be reading them on the show and discussing them if you're cool with that. Should be fun. In a few minds about my own pick, but leaning towards Windham.