Carnival

Speaking of the 90s, I never cared for this era of Savage's dress. It didn't even have to be as outrageously loud as this. I hated when he started wearing tights, and then the accompanying shirt was even worse. For instance, his WM 8 outfit is not as egregious as the above picture, but I still didn't like it at all when compared to the regular short trunks and robes.

Hmm. So, would a refund have been in order if HHH had held up the title right after the match instead of the next night? Really find it hard to believe that anyone would think they were entitled to their money back for this reason, and even harder to believe that a cable company has indulged them. None of it, however, is as hard to believe as WWE charging $65 for their PPVs. Jeeeeez.

Tag team partners have a minor disagreement about...anything at all. Count on them breaking up in the near future. It's like a person coughing in a movie; they'll be dead soon.

I think these kinds of matches should always be squashes. When they get dragged out (Bret vs Vince, Lawler vs Cole...well, all kinds of problems with that one), it's just terrible.

The mild, "wonder how he's gonna get screwed this time" pop Bryan gets when he wins the title the third time should be interesting.

Are there any good Eric Bischoff shoots?

I think it could be argued that a babyface control segment is worth having for no better reason than it breaks away from your formula. After all, in addition to telling a story, they're also ostensibly trying to convince us we're watching an actual sports contest. For that purpose alone, why not do some things that don't fit into a proper dramatic context? No doubt, a babyface grinding his opponent on the mat with a headlock for 2-3 minutes is not the most compelling wrestling gets. But if "kill time" was the only reason, it would be just as easy to extend the heat segment. I guess it could also be done in situations where the face knows a bunch of moves and the heel is more comfortable selling. If it was a regular formula in the AWA, maybe they theorized that fans would be happier if the good guy was usually in control?

It's really tough to tell. I wouldn't have bet a lot of money on Daniel Bryan or CM Punk making it big on the WWE stage, but they did it quite handily. Then there are people on the list like Rich, Hansen, and Murdoch who didn't make it with the WWF in their heyday, much less today. Not saying they really desired to, but the Fed has always been style over substance, even when the substance is really, really good. A different kind of style today than in the past, of course; times change. There's no guarantee that even a young Hulk Hogan would be on top today. He comes in with a name like Brad Terrance, a generic nu-metal entrance theme...who knows?

That might be worth a whole new thread, haha. Which wrestlers tended to dog it when they were scheduled to lose?

I agree with this for the most part. But as a big fan of the guy, I'd like to know he saved enough to not have to kill himself in the ring at the age of 70. Then again, there's something to be said for the old "you can't take it with you" philosophy, which Ric seems to subscribe to.

I think if he lost a hundred pounds or so, it wouldn't be so pronounced.

Yeah, certainly. Was there ever even the slightest chance that WCW believed they could get the Ultimate Warrior for this payoff? I mean, he was the WWF champion at this point, for god's sake.

How is a match like the Royal Rumble constructed? Is everyone told who they will be eliminating and who they will be eliminated by, and how? Are they told how long they will be staying in? It seems like it would be extremely arduous to book it from top to bottom.