Jimmy Redman

If this is in reply to me, you're a bit off base with those two points. I'm pretty young and I grew up on a diet of 21st century WWE. The good ol' days to me are 2004, which isn't all that far off from what we have now, minus PG. I have no attachment to 80s WWF or the NWA or whatever else you were saying. I'm actually a huge ass modern WWE fan. I have no problem with screwy finishes on principle, nor do I have a devotion to clean finishes on principle. Call me crazy, I just think the babyface should be able to win the God damn blow-off after being screwed around for six months. Wrestling certainly does have definitive endings. Life goes on the next day/week, sure, but you absolutely have them. Big title wins, big blow off matches, big feud-enders. They exist. They're the whole point to having the babyface chase, to having the story. Cena certainly gets to have them. Just nobody else apparently.

To whoever asked "Did Ambrose REALLY need to win the match? He was dominating most of the match - what does it matter?" My answer to that would be, emphatically, yes. It matters. I can't speak for anyone else's feelings, but for me, the excuses I see people come up with like "at least he got to beat up Rollins during the match" and "well Kane interfered in the first HIAC" and "it transitions Ambrose onto Bray" and "Ambrose will still be featured as an upper-midcarder going forward", these things are all largely missing the point. I really didn't like Bray interfering and costing Ambrose the match. Not because I have a problem with screwy finishes on principle, even for HIAC. Not because I dislike Bray or the idea of Bray/Ambrose going forward. Not because I'm particularly worried about Dean Ambrose's job security or that he'll be pushed down the card. Not because it was "bad booking". I'm mad because this was a blood feud between two rivals, two guys who have been kept apart since MAY through screwiness and injury angles and bullshit. You have a madman out for revenge on a guy who a) betrayed him and their team and sold out, and TRIED TO KILL HIM WITH BRICKS. The only times they've actually got as far as having a match, Rollins wins via screwiness. And now, almost six months later, Ambrose finally, FINALLY gets his chance for revenge locked inside HIAC with Rollins, THE big feud-ender. ...and Rollins still wins via screwiness from an uninvolved third party. What. You really can't have the babyface win the fucking blow off match? You really spend six months doing this whole thing where Ambrose is out for revenge and body parts and gets foiled at every turn through bullshit, just for the ending to be...more bullshit and no revenge? Why the fuck did I just spend six months watching this feud if you weren't going to end it properly? It's becoming a habit with WWE. If you're not John Cena, you don't get to just win in the end. WWE is becoming scarily like TNA was at one time where they refused to just blow off feuds at the right moment, and instead went with bullshit on top of more bullshit to try and stretch angles out six months past their use-by date, by which point people stopped caring. It's either that, or they just refuse to end feuds at all. They just have a third party attack someone and BAM, new feuds without ever resolving the old one. Think about Daniel Bryan last year. They really built him up as the underdog and put him through all that bullshit in 2013...and then jobbed him to Bray and were about to transition him back to the midcard if not for the fans' intervention. They were never going to pay off that whole fucking thing. They just beat him a bunch of times via bullshit, and then left it there as he transitioned to a third party. Everyone moves on. No fucking END to the story. And much the same thing is happening here. WWE has forgotten how to tell a story. They have beginnings, middles and ends. In wrestling that means face gets wronged, face gets revenge. Face faces adversity, face overcomes adversity. Of course with never-ending weekly TV WWE is episodic by nature, but that doesn't mean they can't blow shit off properly. Can't tell a story from start to finish, and THEN move onto the next story. That's what the night after the PPV show is for! They used to be able to. But now they do the beginning, the middle, and then drift off by the end and refuse to finish the damn thing. But you need to finish it. People need that ending, especially a happy ending, especially for the kind of story this was. That's the whole point of doing the story in the first place. You build something up, and then pay it off. It's a release. It's carthartic. It makes you feel like it was worth watching from the start. When you just go with continual fuck finishes, there's no payoff, no release, and it makes you feel like you've been wasting your time expecting a real result. You can ask why Ambrose needed to win the match, but I think in the case of 'wronged babyface has been continually screwed for six months and now finally has chickenshit heel locked in a cage in a PPV main event', you should really be asking "why shouldn't he?" Nothing about Bray's interference made it crucial to the result of the match. Nothing would have been lost by having the exact same thing happen after Ambrose pins Rollins. Or even the next night. I actually think it would have been better and carried more weight that way. If Ambrose wins, finally gets his big moment of revenge, and then Bray comes, that pisses me off because my man Ambrose just got a big win and that fucker just ruined his moment. Not to mention, Ambrose gets a big win over Rollins (who has been protected very well and wouldn't hurt from a loss here) and thus you have a built-in angle when Rollins wins the WWE Title. With the way it happened, it makes me think that they won't let Ambrose get a big win, he's just like every other goof that they push for five minutes and then cool off on, and the heat goes to the company. I don't want to be mad at the company or the booking. I want to be mad at the heel. But it's hard when the booking makes me feel incredibly ripped off for even bothering to care about the feud in the first place. And I can't even imagine how I'd feel if I paid MONEY to see this blow off. When we watch WWE we're armchair bookers a lot of the time, and super nerdy analysts a lot of the time, but we're also simply fans watching something wanting to be entertained. I don't get mad because I want to armchair book or because I care deeply about the inner-workings of the company or the health of the careers of those involved. I'm mad because I want to be entertained, want to watch a story play out, and they fucked the ending up. If the Lion King ended with Simba jobbing to Scar after a random wilderbeast knocked him off the ledge to set up Lion King 2: Simba vs The Wilderbeasts, I'd think that was a shitty ending to the story they were telling, even if I ended up liking Lion King 2. I watched this whole damn feud. I just wanted to see the right ending. But they gave me a shitty ending instead. That doesn't entertain me, that frustrates me.

Is it fine? Because comments like "you didn't like something that was self-evidently awesome" and whatever else are more than implying that people should have liked it because you did or because lots of more casual fans did, and they're "sad" for not doing so.

This exchange during Miz-Sheamus... Cole: Do you think it makes Miz mad that crowds cheer for Mizdow? King: I don't think so...The Miz created him... ...was just an amazing piece of meta-commentary on the psyche of Vince McMahon.

For those wondering, the thing Nikki just did driving Brie's head into her knee, that's a facebuster.

Yeah either way it's a very minor thing to be nitpicky about.

I thought his point was that they say "throughout" the 90s when the war only began in late '95.

RVD in 2006 worth watching: Money in the Bank II - Wrestlemania 22 vs Rey Mysterio - WWE vs ECW Head to Head vs John Cena - One Night Stand 2 w/ Angle vs Edge & Orton - ECW 20th June 2006 vs Edge - Vengeance 2006 vs Kurt Angle - ECW 27th June 2006 vs Cena vs Edge - Raw 3rd July 2006 vs Big Show - ECW 4th July 2006 vs Bob Holly - ECW 26th September 2006 vs Test - ECW 3rd October 2006 w/ Holly vs Show/Test - ECW 31st October 2006 w/ Holly vs Show & Heyman - ECW 7th November 2006

Yeah, I really like his 2006 too. Once ECW was revived he must have been really motivated and it showed. ONS with Cena is great, there's a great little three way with him and Edge on Raw at that time too. There's a fun sprint with Rey on the Head 2 Head special. And once ECW TV began he was really putting in work on a weekly basis. Really good matches with Angle, Show, Holly, Test, and really holding down the fort as the ECW Original babyface ace for the brand, especially once they lost Angle. That year is definitely a feather in his cap.

He was probably living at Venice Beach at the time when he got into wrestling, wasn't he recruited out of the bodybuilding scene along with Warrior to play the Bladerunners or whatever they were?

Nah Savage was definitely a cartoon character. I was just about to come in here and mention his name. I don't think it's about authenticity, plenty of guys with outlandish characters can make them believable. It's about being able to relate it to the real world. Think about it like this. Could X be walking down the street, as he is? Could his character exist in the real world as you know it as a real person? Bruno WAS an Italian immigrant living in the North-East making his way. He just happened to be doing it as a pro wrestler. Bruno could have been working in a factory or a wharf or some shit in a different life. He's real. Austin WAS a redneck who liked beer and worked for a shitty corporate boss. He just happened to be working as a pro wrestler. Whereas someone like Hogan doesn't exist as a person in real life. There aren't people in real life who get jacked up, wear bright colours, go on crazy rants and want to save the children and defend America. That's a guy that exists only in movies, and wrestling. He's a total character, an invention. Same with Savage. Savage as he was in wrestling couldn't just walk down the street and be in the real world. He'd be a freakshow. The look, the attitude, the character, the promos, it's all from another world. That's not to say that Savage couldn't make it believable, or that he didn't have relateable moments. His retirement arc was definitely that. But Hogan had them too. So did Undertaker frankly. It's just a general comment about their characters. None of this is a bad thing, by the way. Not everyone has to be relateable, it depends on the character. You need everyman characters just the same as you need cartoonish ones.

Undertaker was my first thought. Not sure about being close to Hogan, but he's a cartoon not a real person.

Yeah, to sum it up in a word, they were more relateable. Bruno and Austin were larger than life too, but they were larger than life fascimilies of real people, whereas Hogan was a larger than life cartoon superhero.

Pretty much that. I made almost the exact same, word-for-word point a few years ago when I was arguing how Kurt Angle popping up and kicking out of a bazillion finishers is completely different to John Cena Hulking Up and no-selling during a comeback. In pro wrestling logic there are times when you should sell, or not sell, or sell a certain way. Two athletic dudes deciding to pop up after taking moves that normally end people to show how many big moves they can take is a completely different thing than a larger than life superhero making a miraculous comeback from a beating and shrugging off offense. I'm not even saying the former is inherently bad, but they're two different tropes. The Superplex GIF and Lawler pulling the strap down are not the same thing.

I'm procrastinating. Well actually it's just that I haven't been in the mood to sit down and write a large novel on Shawn, which is what it will be once I get going. When the moment strikes me, it will happen. And to be honest I have no idea where I'm ranking anyone right now. It's way too early and I have way too much watching to do. But I mean, if you asked me today who my GOAT is, it's him. Whether I end up ranking him #1 in 2016 I can't say. But I'll be making the case either way.

I wouldn't take the list as much of anything Parv. It was only put together to sell DVDs and is clearly a nonsense list that was, as Loss said, at the mercy of Vince's whims at that particular moment. This was pre-Bruno amnesty and at a time when Hogan was on the outs, so they get laughably low-balled. Company stalwarts up the top. A few older names and current stars thrown in. It's nonsense and I don't think anyone has ever taken it otherwise. It's like Vince's version of a PWI 500.

Fair enough. I guess my answer to the second thing is that, well, according to you he didn't have such a career. According to others, or according to the people writing the history if you want, he did. Again, we're not talking about how big a star a guy is, it's about work. Shawn wasn't as big a star as plenty of people, including Flair, but it's not about that, it's about the matches and the performances. And again, other people just disagree with your assessment that they're not there. They think he does have a Flair-like body of work consisting of good and great matches year after year with all sorts of people. There is a point to be made here about the line of GOAT going from Flair to Shawn to ? because we're talking about mainstream American wrestling and so nothing outside of WWE and WCW matters. I think you alluded to that at first with the Bock comment. And it's a valid point but I think that's more about WWE-centricity than anything about Shawn in particular. He's the other guy in the conversation because he and Flair are the two guys that most people think were the two best modern, mainstream American performers, because that's the extent of their scope. But that's a whole other conversation.

I think we're having two separate conversations. What does Shawn's record as a draw or big star have to do with his rep as a worker? Like I said, marketing Shawn as a big star is different to marketing him as a great wrestler or GOAT. The former is obviously a misrepresentation of his actual impact as a draw. Not arguing differently, but like I said that's what WWE can and should do in trying to market someone who works for them. Marketing him as a great wrestler or the GOAT is different, that has nothing to do with drawing and is based on perceptions of him as a worker from the company and fans. And yes, the more you say it the more people believe it, but like I said in the first place, people wouldn't just swallow it if they weren't willing to. And not everyone is a casual WWE fan who doesn't think twice about it. I've watched a shitload of wrestling in my short life. I'm really not subject to the WWE Marketing Machine in forming my opinions on wrestling. Neither are the plenty of visible Shawn fans around the way. Some people just genuinely think he's a great wrestler.

I'm not denying it plays a role. At all. I just think the "90% - 10%" thing and "oh he had a couple of good matches" and everything came off incredibly out of touch with what a majority of fans actually think about Shawn, just because he's personally not a fan. As if you can't possibly rate Shawn that highly unless you're a victim of WWE marketing. Rating Shawn is also a valid opinion, but he's not treating it as one. You make a good point about Flair, and my point is that Parv isn't coming out and saying that WCW marketing'd its fans into thinking that Flair is the GOAT. And you wouldn't particularly like it or agree with him if he did,

And what I'm saying is that you can't blame WWE's hype machine for that, not entirely. Blame people having a different opinion of Shawn's abilities than you or Parv. The idea that people needed to be duped into thinking that is incredibly disrespectful to other people's opinions, and as a Michaels fan I frankly find it insulting. WWE call John Cena "one of the greatest of all time" now as a marketing thing. Think about that, and then look at how vociferously crowds boo when that idea is ever mentioned on television. Because they DONT buy into it, no matter how much WWE tells them to. My point being that they don't just snap their fingers and make scores of people swallow something if they're not willing to believe it. People buy into WWE's marketing of Shawn because they agree with it, they DO think he's that good. You don't have to agree. But I also think you need to give people a bit more credit than that.

You can agree that Shawn is a good or great wrestler and still think that the WWE's packaging of him is over the top. They treat him like he's as big of a star historically as almost anyone and as if he is the best wrestler to ever be in the company. In the WWE's version of history, the Hogan era transitioned to the Michaels era and then onto Austin and Attitude. Sure. But as Kronos pointed out, what is the alternative? "Here's Shawn Michaels, he bombed as an ace! Come pay money to watch him!" ?? I mean, they call Randy Orton one of the biggest stars in history, which is twice as absurd. But they have to, they're trying to promote these guys. That's what you do. And I think Shawn as a big star is a slightly different point than Shawn as GOAT. Both ideas are part of his marketing, but they're different ideas and one is much easier to disprove than the other.

I dunno... "hmm, this thing is drawing way too well, we better stop because we should challenge ourselves and find new ways to sell Mania" doesn't sound like a thought that Vince would actually have.

I don't like the idea you're pushing that "I personally don't buy into Shawn Michaels as a great wrestler, therefore nobody else could possibly buy into Shawn Michaels as a great wrestler, and if they do it's because they were duped by Vince's marketing machine." Many people think Shawn Michaels is a great wrestler, even if you don't, and they can do so without having been brainwashed.

He can handle Vince the man looking foolish, but not so much WWE the company.

I'll have to check that out, I haven't seen it in a while. They also had an I Quit match the next PPV, I wonder how that compares as well.