MoS

I would be more interested in their comparison as promos. Rock was more consistently good, and was better on average, but I am not sure his peak beats Cena at his best. Plus, he did not realise just how outdated his stuff was, which resulted in Cena destroying him in their verbal altercations on a daily basis when they were feuding.

Before I joined the internet wrestling community, I always thought of Austin as a much better wrestler than Shawn Michaels, to the point where it was not even close. However, prior to joining PWO in around 2011, my wrestling fix was sated solely by LoP, and there, Shawn was considered a much better wrestler than Austin, so much so that it was not even an opinion; it was just a fact, and you were a rube if you thought otherwise. They had an unexpected supporter in Steve Austin himself, who has gone on record saying that he does not consider himself as good a wrestler as Shawn Michaels. Well, I am a rube then, because I disagree, and I do so vehemently. I think Austin is better on offense; I think Austin is a better seller; Austin times his comebacks and his hope spots much more ffecively; Austin is much better at garnerng sympathy and then working the crowd to a molten hot lava point with his comebacks; Austin's WWE-trademarked Hulk-style comeback is much better than Michaels's kip-up stretch. Really, I cannot think of one area where Michaels is better than Austin except in displays of athleticism, and because that is well down the list of what I look for in a wrestler, I consider that largely irrelevant. What do the good people here think? Agree? Disagree? I am off my rocker?

That is absolutely sickening. I have no time for Foley and his "Aw shucks!" routine, but I do hope he publicly condemned it. What happened finally in the poll?

I have no idea about this. What happened?

^From an American perspective, yes. But watching as a child in other countries, I guess a lot of kids might have felt really upset and sad that people who looked like the adults in their families were denigrated and mocked. I have friends of Middle-Eastern origin who used to feel mad about how things like headscarves and other cultural artifacts were portrayed. It is something which a lot of Americans do not understand; because American pop-culture and the entertainment industry are so ubiquitous and self-sufficient, they do not really need to look at other countries and their entertainment options; ergo, American kids do not feel upset or offended at the mocking and dissing of America in other countries, which is plentiful and as inexcusable as stereotyping other cultures in wrestling. I confess I have no real stake in this. Somehow, WWE has never focused on India and Indian gimmicks too much beyond Khali, despite India being WWE's third largest market. And I am not going to be hating on the Punjabi Playboy; although it did cause a modicum of outrage here, it is on account of cultural differences and ignorance, and I know WWE were not intentionally causing offence. I thought that gimmick was fucking entertaining, and the Bhangra entrance music was an added bonus haha.

My understanding is that it was NOT a sideshow attraction prior to Moolah. She was the one primarily responsible for turning it into one. And I have watched enough midget matches to know that midget matches are awesome. A sideshow attraction match on wrestling cards does not have to be realistic, yes, but it needs to be entertaining and good.

For her to satisfy the trifecta of Hall of Fame, her "impact" and her performance needs to be good. For her to not be the most cancerous sore on the wrestling industry, her impact needs to be not be the most alarmingly destructive the industry has never seen. She fails on both accounts. As a performer, she made El Gigante look like Toshiaki Kawada. That bled over to her training: all Moolah proteges wrestled in the same hair-pulling, screaming shitty style that she used. As a booker of women's wrestling, not only did she use her power to hold back talent for 30 fucking years, she also was directly responsible in the devolution of women's wrestling from a reasonably respectable style of wrestling to a pathetic sideshow carnival; bearded women in circuses had more respect than women's wrestling did in her reign of terror. Mildred Burke was not the draw Jim Londos was in her time, but she was good enough to fill out arenas as a performer. No woman in the U.S.A drew a single dime after Moolah took over until horny teenagers started buying Sable merchandise. That is how destructive she was. She killed an entire sub-genre of wrestling, and was greedy enough to pocket most of the money the women did make. If you are going to measure impact in that way, then Jamie Kellner and Vince Russo should also be in the Hall of Fame. I honestly don't fault Moolah for training that style. After we've seen the effects of a harsh working style on some wrestlers, who am I to fault women wrestlers for working safe? I see and understand your point completely, but there has to be a balance, no? It has to be physical enough to at least give the impression that it is a legitimate, athletic struggle, and not some hair-pulling cafeteria fight.

Federer was a brat too, although that was in his junior days. I am not sure the Lendl comparison works; Lendl was stoic and impassive, while Djokovic is highly emotional and wears his heart on his sleeve. And not in a dour, unpleasant way like Murray either.

So you are saying that one of the biggest reasons Fed is much more popular than Djokovic is that he is much better at projecting a fake image? I don't think either Federer or Djokovi are two-faced or fake. Federer is a much more successful ambassador for sport than either of the two because of a few inherent, ascriptive, structural differences: he comes from a more affluent and prosperous country than the other two; he can speak English fluently, which always helps, unfortunately; he is a lot more articulate in the eyes of big companies, partly because of the last one; so on and so forth. That also explains why he gets a lot more sponsors than Nadal or Djokovic. But that has not stopped Nadal from being beloved and hugely respected; Djokovic does not even seem to get the respect. I do agree that Nadal is the nicest of the three by far.

Kris, by Cena, do you mean Cena of 2005 or Cena of 2015? If it is the latter, I am not sure if I agree. Cena is objectively more accomplished than Bret and HBK, in as much as wrestling can be objective. And, frankly in my opinion, he is better than Shawn in the subjective art of in-ring performance as well. There might come a time when we can say the same about Djokovic vis-a-vis Federer and Nadal, but that time has not come yet.

To followers of Tennis, why does Novak Djokovic invoke such Cena-like reactions amongst a lot of Tennis fans, especially those who attend matches at the big tournaments? Passionately loved by some, virulently hated by others. He is clearly the best Tennis player in the world at present, but the chances of him enjoying Hogan-esque universal popularity like Federer and Nadal enjoyed in their pomp is not too great. A few people believe it is racial and ethnic discrimination; who better to understand audience reactions amongst those fault-lines than wrestling fans?

I would have posted this sooner, but I did not realise that there was a football thread here. Can I just say that Messi's performance against Bayern a couple of days ago is one of the greatest performances I have ever seen in sports history? (Please bear in mind that I do not follow American sports, so my sample size is limited.) I know we can all be prisoners of the moment and it is too soon and presumptuous of me to say that, but I do stand by it. In terms of sheer individual performance, it is probably the equivalent of Ric Flair carrying a very green Lex Luger to a 3-3.5 star-match.

Austin said that Triple H has changed tremendously, and he realised that because before recording his podcast with Triple H, he sat and talked to him for one and a half hours, and that conversation was much more enjoyable and interesting than the actual podcast. That is as clear a read-between-the-lines way of saying as is possible that he did not enjoy interviewing him too much because he was very guarded and careful with his answers, and, when on air, instead of conversing with him like a fellow wrestler and a buddy, acted like a very cautious corporate executive, which, to be fair, he is. That is why it is probably a good thing that Jericho is conducting podcasts for the WWE Network now; Jericho seems to be much more okay with acting like a complete and unabashed corporate shill.

Also, El-P, haha, the French anthem is also sort of annoying, even through a musical lens - no offense intended. I have a friend who knows 37 languages, and French is one of them, and he often sings a multitude of national anthems, and the French and the American ones are two of the worst, in my opinion. (I much prefer "America the Beautiful in the case of the U.S.)

This kind of cultural differences always interests me. Here in India, this behaviour would be unacceptable beyond the level of "douchebag wrestling fans trying to be the centre of attention". Such behaviour is illegal here and would be punishable by law. I am opposed to it and I think that a law like this is jingoistic, hypersensitive ridiculous and a clear violation of freedom of speech, but I am in a miniscule minority; most people here would fully support punishment for such behaviour. I'm in the minority too, but the mere singing of the French national anthem makes me cringe. Any kind of jingoism makes me cringe. The racists, sexists and homophobic chants are the worst. People popping for the Dudleys putting women through tables (while THEY were supposed to be heels) kinda summarize everything I hated about the Attitude era. It depends on the presentation, I would say. If women in WWE were considered and portrayed as normal human beings; if they were shown to be people with personalities, with quirks, with strengths and weaknesses, with good traits and bad traits; if they were depicted as talented athletes with normal human characteristics; and the Dudleys were shown to be complete psychopaths who did not care whom they put through tables, and liberally attacked both men and women, then I guess the audience would be justified in cheering them as cool heels who did not give a fuck, similar to how Austin started getting cheered. However, WWE has never been good at considering women anything above mere playthings, and Russo was so shockingly offensive in his portrayal of women that he makes Vince McMahon appear like a radical feminist. Women in WWE were and are portrayed as sex objects; their utility is measured in the size of their breasts; and their worth is limited to how Vince McMahon perceives their physical attractiveness. They are essentialised to their bodies, and any personality traits that make you empathise with someone and get attracted to them beyond a superficial level are nonexistent. So, in this regard, the Dudleys putting women and solely women through tables was definitely misogynistic; the only way these women were annoying them was, as James Potter said about Severus Snape, through existing. To keep this on topic, it also reflects the misogyny of so many fans of the Attitude Era, and why catering to them can be problematic. It makes you look utterly lowbrow.

This kind of cultural differences always interests me. Here in India, this behaviour would be unacceptable beyond the level of "douchebag wrestling fans trying to be the centre of attention". Such behaviour is illegal here and would be punishable by law. I am opposed to it and I think that a law like this is jingoistic, hypersensitive ridiculous and a clear violation of freedom of speech, but I am in a miniscule minority; most people here would fully support punishment for such behaviour.

A lot of ECW fans were quite terrible. I don't care if it was a joke; bringing a sign that said "Cane Dewey" was pretty disgusting. Dewey was a toddler who probably did not even know what his father's profession was is stupid. Foley claims he was outraged, but my impression of him and his "Aw shucks, I am such a nice guy!" gimmick has gone down so low, that I think he was actually delighted, because he knew there could come a time when it would make for good promo material. I realise that is harsh, and I can also be accused of being on a high horse, but I honestly believe it.

I posted in the Meltzer thread about so many fans saying that Debra deserved getting beaten by Austin, and that Austin should have "walked her dry" after "stomping a mudhole in her". Now, according to news reports, a 20-year old fan killed his girlfriend's 18-month baby by doing the Last ride on him, and according to him, "missing the bed". A lot of us play-act and have done so since we were kids, but I do not think an 19-month old has the ability to give informed consent to getting powerbombed. Not to mention, it would have taken extraordinary negligence to miss the bed while performing a powerbomb. What other incidents are there where a few fans of our favourite sport embarrass the sport they profess to love? I want to say claiming that Benoit is innocent, but that might be more of innocent desperation and not despicable behaviour?

Inoki was a track-and-field athlete; he probably would have never wrestled had Rikidozan not recruited him. I can't think of too many similar athletes transitioning to wrestling.

This is not strictly related to Meltzer, but it bears mentioning here. There is a thread in the WWE sub-forum about whether they forgive Austin for his domestic violence against Debra. Almost everyone has answered in the affirmative; some try to justify it by saying that because Austin once hinted there is a bit more to the story, there must be a really good reason for nearly killing your wife with your bare hands; a few actually made it out to be a good thing; some pathetic shitbag said that he sent a few videos of Debra to his mom, and his mom was all "Oh, I totally see why he beat the shit out of her; a bunch of them made some pathetic jokes about how he should have walked it dry - the title of the thread itself is derogatory and makes life of the situation, mentioning J.R's famous phrase about Austin stomping a mudhole. You know, because jokes about domestic abuse are so funny and edgy. Oh those wicked, irreverent rebels; totally sticking it to The Man and the bullshit PC culture. Oh yeah, one of them even decried the "pathetic pussies" who make an issue out of it. He wants a man's world, damn it! How dare they suggest that beating your wife is wrong? Behaviour like this justifies every ignorant, derogatory stereotype there is about wrestling fan. This is not some hick corner buried somewhere in the netherlands of the internet. These are paying customers on the board of the biggest, most famous wrestling journalist there is. I mean, I know people have said that Meltzer despises these people and does not read threads, but Jesus Christ, Dave, this is your board, and the opinions shared on it reflect directly on you. As a wrestling fan, it is incredibly embarrassing to read these posts; how can Dave just turn a blind eye to it? They are not just wrong and insensitive; this is outright sociopathic behaviour; the kind that gets you admitted in an institution. If you are not prepared to be an active moderator, just do away with the board permanently.

^The questionable credentials of the messenger should not detract from the potency of the message. In any case, Austin is probably their biggest money-drawing star and the face of the era they push the most; they cannot exactly ignore him. On the other hand, there really is no reason for Triple H to associate himself with Mayweather beyond hoping desperately for some reflected glory. And I do not really want to say this, because this will look as if I am defending Austin's actions, when I am not attempting to do so at all, but Austin has, at worst, maintained the veneer of accepting his mistakes and changing himself for the better; his wrongs will never really be righted, but the fact that he is happily married now with no sign of controversy shows that he has the argument of no longer being the person who did those heinous crimes many years ago. Mayweather, on the other hand, has not shown a hint of remorse for the many many instances of domestic abuse over a timespan of 15 years; on the contrary, he disparages the media for focusing on them, claiming they are prejudiced against him because he is "rich and black". There is absolutely no reason to assume he has changed in the slightest; the fact that he refused credentials to journalists who had focused on his transgressions is ample proof of that. Mayweather is also a much bigger star than Austin, and is in the spotlight much more, with all the baggage that comes with him. The fact that Triple H still focuses to associate with him despite the entire world hating him for his misogyny just makes WWE look desperate and shameless.

Lou was not the only petty old-timer, but because he became the final word on wrestling in his era, and because so many people feel he is the greatest wrestler that ever lived, his pettiness gets magnified, with people quoting him to "definitively" prove why Buddy Rogers and Ric Flair are horrible wrestlers. That is what I meant.

For her to satisfy the trifecta of Hall of Fame, her "impact" and her performance needs to be good. For her to not be the most cancerous sore on the wrestling industry, her impact needs to be not be the most alarmingly destructive the industry has never seen. She fails on both accounts. As a performer, she made El Gigante look like Toshiaki Kawada. That bled over to her training: all Moolah proteges wrestled in the same hair-pulling, screaming shitty style that she used. As a booker of women's wrestling, not only did she use her power to hold back talent for 30 fucking years, she also was directly responsible in the devolution of women's wrestling from a reasonably respectable style of wrestling to a pathetic sideshow carnival; bearded women in circuses had more respect than women's wrestling did in her reign of terror. Mildred Burke was not the draw Jim Londos was in her time, but she was good enough to fill out arenas as a performer. No woman in the U.S.A drew a single dime after Moolah took over until horny teenagers started buying Sable merchandise. That is how destructive she was. She killed an entire sub-genre of wrestling, and was greedy enough to pocket most of the money the women did make. If you are going to measure impact in that way, then Jamie Kellner and Vince Russo should also be in the Hall of Fame.

I have always been curious about Lou Thesz as a draw. From what I understand, he was a very consistent draw, and had great longevity, but his peaks were not particularly great. I also sort of dislike him for being so petty and jealous about a lot of wrestlers. Someone once said that you could gauge your success by Lou's feelings for you: if you were successful, Lou was automatically jealous and resentful of you, and bad-mouthed you as much as he could. He is certainly not the only wrestler who has done that, but seeing how he is considered the pre-eminent authority on all things wrestling pre-60s, his jealousy and pettiness have been more insidiously harmful than most others. I also sometimes think that he did not really understand what pro wrestling was about, judging from his thoughts about Buddy Rogers. Who cares if Rogers could not hookyou with a legit wristlock as well as Thesz could? He was a huge draw, and that is what really matters. Anyway, sorry for the tangential rant. How does Lou compare to Ric and Dory in drawing ability?

I do not think counting the 90s would be really fair, seeing how the NWA was less than a shell of its former self. I am more interested in how Ric in the 80s compares to other NWA World champions. And while longevity is certainly a factor, I would also like to know which wrestlers' peak as draws was the highest. I am assuming it was Buddy Rogers, but how does Dory at his peak compare to Flair at his peak? I confess that when I talked about worst-performing world champions, I was thinking of Dick Hutton. Garvin was no Hulk Hogan, but I do not think he was ever put in any meaningful position to succeed and draw.