MoS

Hunter certainly does not deserve 98-99, as he was very much mediocre. In 2002, he had like, a record of awful, horrible main events, so he was a legit contender for worst wrestler of the year. 2000-first half of 01 is the only period I can see giving him the peak rating. I genuinely think that in '00-'01, Rock was one of the 30 best wrestlers in the world too, fwiw.

The teenager in me needs you to increase Rock's score, even if it by one, just so that he beats Triple H. In all seriousness, if Triple H gets 98-02 as a peak, when in 02 he was legitimately one of the worst wrestlers in the world, Rock should get something like 99-03. Hollywood Heel Rock was genuinely amazing, and I would say he was easily one of the best wrestlers in the world at minimum for 2 years.

But is he over in the Russo sense, which can hurt the business long-term?

I don't know if this is necessarily an exaggeration, but old westlers talk as if every show they did had riots and other such hungama, and the heels would barely escape with their lives.

I had assumed that since Santo was active into his 60s, we did have a respectable amount of footage, even if a lot of it was post-prime. My mistake.

Didn't he also say he was considered for Metallica, but he rejected?

It's difficult to say. I would much rather watch a Bryan match than a Flair match, but Flair undoubtedly had an objectively better career. This will sound incredibly petty, but I might just rank Bryan above Flair because Flair was a total dick to him in the Summerslam panel that got J.R fired.

I wish I could nominate Dara Singh, since he is by far the most iconic post-war Indian wrestler, is in the WON HoF, and generated crowds of 50k+ back in the 50s when it was really rare. Unfortunately, I cannot find any footage of him that gives a clear idea of how he was as a wrestler. I will post my thoughts on what I saw. Dara Singh v. KingKong A 5-minute clipped version of what looks like a really heated match. The first thing you notice is how physically energetic Dara Singh is. He jumps into every move, every hold, and gives off a real physical charisma that is like proto-Goldberg. It also seems to be a relatively fast-paced match for its times, and I love the grunts of attrition Singh makes every time he makes a move. It is deep, it is dirty, it is gritty, and it is really good. While he is no Jim Breaks when it comes to fluidity of holds, there is a real snap to it that is nice to watch. Again, too short to understand the finer attributes, but he sells exhaustion and weariness really well - most probably because he is exhausted and weary - and it adds another layer to his fiery comebacks. All in all, I can see why he became a huge icon here, and make no mistake, his mainstream penetration and popularity here far surpasses any American in their home country, although there are obvious cultural differences there that also play their part. I will try to find more footage. I do know that he had matches with Thesz in India and England and Rikidozan in Japan that are considered legendary and memorable, but I haven't been able to find any footage of them.

The business we all know and love is undoubtedly the carniest, and it is awesome most of the times. What are your favourite blatant exaggerations spawned by wrestling promoters? One thing that strikes me first is "Bruno sold the MSG 197 times" talking point. I think the real number is close to 60. I do not even know how or why they settled on the 197 number. Might have made it an even 200.

Not arguing this nomination, but if we have one for Rikidozan, we have to have one for Santo Sr. as well, right, because arguably no wrestler has been more beloved and a bigger folk hero than Santo? Unless he has already been nominated; in that case, sorry.

I love Low Ki's intangibles rating. I thought I was the only one who got annoyed by him that much. I remember reading somewhere "So you throw shoot kicks in a worked environment. Good for you." I am not that familiar with Bryan's indy run, but can someone make an argument that he deserves a 9 or a 10 for great matches? I would also give Liger 3 for offense.

Fair enough on Bryan and the Steamboat comparison. I can understand knocking Rock down for character work not translating inside the ring, but I have to disagree with Austin. Call me crazy, but I legit think Austin might be GOAT at incorporating character work in his match. Some of it was out of necessity because of his neck injury, but he was smart enough to understand and modify his work accordingly. I feel that his work as an arrogant chipper in WCW us radically different from his work as a pissed off entitled, rather whiny would-be superstar in ECW, to a redneck rebel shoving it at his peak. I think his amazing character work is why he managed to elicit such great sympathy in his matches, despite him working so much from the top and always being booked extremely strongly. I am, of course, biased, as Austin is my favourite of all time, and his podcast makes it clear how much work and thought he put in his matches, but I don't believe I am being irrational.

The intangibles are really hard to rank. I can see why you would give Bryan the score you gave, but the fact that he is the only babyface since Austin and Rock to be massively over with all sections of the fanbase week in and week out means to me that he should get more. The fact that he did it despite the booking and not because of it makes it even more impressive.

I must have seen the exact same Sasha-Becky-Charlotte segment like, 5 weeks in a row. At least they are trying to get the women over, I guess.

Watched the latest episode of Supernatural. Miz is horrible, horrible, terrible at acting. But he should use this to fuel his Hollywood heel persona.

I am intrigued about how Shane attempted to "take the advice" about stabbing Vince in the gut. I have never heard of that before. What's the story?

99% of people here did not give a fuck about that, nor did they want an apology. As I said, it was a fringe, right-wing group that did this, and it picked on it because they need molehills to make a mountain of and stay relevant.

I have to think he picked it himself, with input from his father, so what's the issue? The name's origins aren't only Muslim and Arabic, although you could hardly be blamed for assuming the worst about wrestling (and you may still be right to do just that). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_%28name%29 There is no issue here. I am really, really not offended, and I apologise if I gave that impression. It's wrestling. In terms of ignorant things wrestling promoters have done, this does not crack the top 500. But Jingus is right, except that there is more. "Ali" is a Muslim name, while "Singh" is a Hindu/Sikh name, and in India, there is a lot of bad blood between the communities, and there have been many really horrible riots, murders, violent acts between them. Generally, people who inter-marry are shunned by their respective communities, and often, do their best to not draw attention to that fact, and try not to name themselves that. Again, I am not offended, and I do not support the ostracisation at all. If someone told me this was WWE's way of advocating for religious peace and respect, I would applaud them. But I have a hard time believing that. It sounds more like "Hmm. He is a foreigner, right? Well, Ali sounds like a foreigner, and Singh does as well, so let us give him that name, dammit!", and that makes me laugh, for some reason.

I love Tiger Ali Singh's name. It shows such a spectacular lack of knowledge about, well, everything.

I thought of this when I came across this little gem http://www.buzzfeed.com/sahilrizwan/slow-burn#.jxDYJEKOy Just to be clear, the group which "objected" to the live events is a very fringe, very racist right-wing group that honestly does not deserve any modicum of acknowledgement, much less a genuine response. But clearly, WWE did not want to take the chance. Their show here was a great success, despite the fact that if you account for price differential, the cost of tickets was astronomical. Honestly, forget about being offended, this actually amused me. I genuinely do not remember this happening. I am not even sure if Angle was a babyface or a heel then. But it did make me think of how, until very recently, WWE babyfaces used to freely insult other countries and would get cheered for it. What are the more famous examples of this? I think the most high-profile recent example is La Resistance, but I could be wrong. I am also curious as to when the situation changed. I remember WWE officially apologising after Big Show - inadvertently, I think - sort of disrespected the Russian flag. Old-time promoters, if they were alive, would have probably killed themselves in outrage. I am not sure if this changed when the PG era began; this seems to be a particularly recent occurrence.

Having a highlight package showing all 16 wins might not be the best idea when you consider how he won his last few titles in late WCW. Didn't Nash basically give him the title once?

This is only tangentially related, but how did Shane get the rep of being the "good" McMahon? He was the most pushed, most obnoxious, most annoying McMahon in 2000.

It would be really funny if Triple H won at WM, because "the money is in the chase!"

Can Hunter not help but do the DX crotch chop, despite knowing that it eould get him cheered, or does he genuinely not realise that the way DX has been mythologised by WWE, that will always make him the babyface?

Must be that;it can't be drugs, because Vince looks younger, and Vince probably did more coke than Ric ever did.