MoS

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.

It still sometimes surprises me how old Flair started looking so suddenly. In 2002, he still looked no more than 40, and pretty fucking badass. Until his last few months, Dusty looked younger than Flair does now. And I really wish Charlotte had inherited Flair's mic skills.

That was pretty funny. I don't even know where he was going with that word.

What's better than 3 McMahons on television? 4 McMahons on television!

That alcohol story with Shawn in his book was really something to read. Both came across as absolute tools.

They did try very hard with Sin Cara, at least as first. I haven't seen any of his Mexico work, but a lot of lucha experts say that he was fundamentally different from Mysterio, in that he was completely used to working on top and being a dominant babyface. They should have really sent him to developmental, so that he could learn the style he would be working in WWE, because there was no chance of him being pushed that way. I am not sure anyone would ever be as over as Mysterio was in the Mysterio role - he was the perfect case of the right man possessing the right skills at the right time - but Cara could have been much over than he got.

I'll agree with all that, and add one more important thing that everyone seems to forget: that's how Shawn ALWAYS works as a heel. Go back and watch his matches from 1997 with Undertaker, and you'll see him taking those exact same giant goofy bumps that he did in the Hogan match. Also, that 1.6 million was just domestic. I don't think any WWE PV has ever broken the 1 million ceiling domestically. IIRC, WM 17 came closest with 975k approximately.

This hurts me. Not because I think you are being unfair; with the exception of intangibles, where I would give Bobby an easy 10, I actually agree with all other scores. But seeing Bobby Heenan get a score of 20 hurts my feelings. That man is perhaps the greatest performer in wrestling history.

As you said, it is subjective, but I believe Eddie clearly had more intangibles than Shawn. The only time Shawn jumped out to me as a charismatic character was when he was playing the dickhead heel in late 1997, and even that was partly due to a knowledge of backstage events.

I think Austin deserves more than a 3 in great matches. His 2001 run alone should get him a 6. I don't know how much you have seen of him, but I would be interested in seeing you rank Daniel Bryan.

I was going through a very old thread on Classics where people were debating Shawn's place in the WON Hall of Fame. Someone did a Gordy list on him, and mentioned the Bret-Shawn feud as a defining feud of the era. It was countered by people - I think one of them was jdw - saying that it was mostly a "rivalry", as their matches were mostly a series of infrequent, disjointed matches, with no real rhythm to them. A match in 1992, the WM 12 main event, and the Survivor Series one. As such, it could not be classified as a feud, much less an epic one. That leads into a larger question: how do you distinguish between the two terms? If they just had one-offs at infrequent intervals, then I guess it could have just been a rivalry. And had they just stopped at the WM 12 main event, I would have guessed. But even if they had just one match after that, 1997 was in large revolving around them, whether it was the individual tension between them, or between their two factions. An argument can be made that they were crucial in keeping the company heated after Austin-Hart Foundation had lit a fire under their ass. I would argue Shawn was never as over as he was when he was playing the dickhead heel wiping his nose with the Canadian flag and fornicating with it on PPV. More to the point: does a rivalry stop being a rivalry and become a feud when it is pushed afterwards as having so many iconic, legendary moments? People were also saying in the Bret-Austin thread that it was not a proper feud, because it had no satisfying ending. I am curious to see how people distinguish between the two, in this case as well as in general.