MoS

I did not want to derail the thread about the different working styles of NWA World Champions, but I am curious as to who, according to historians, is the best drawing NWA World Champion of all-time. I realise that comparing drawing across various eras is difficult, but this seems an easier task than comparing Austin and Bruno as draws, which a lot of discussions have done. Principally because the job of the NWA World Champion largely remained the same for 4 decades, while the job of the WWWF Champion during the 60s and the WWF Champion during the Attitude Era was radically different. My wholly uneducated opinion had always said that Flair drew the most as an NWA World Champion, ut considering he was essentially JCP World Champion for the second half of the 80s, that is probably incorrect. So, who are in the upper-tier of NWA World champions in drawing ability? Who performed abysmally and were utter failures?

^^ This is slightly off-topic, but did Dory draw more money than Terry and Flair? I had always kind of assumed that Flair was the biggest-drawing NWA World Champion of all time. How good was Dory as a draw?

Well, now that it is destroyed, and people are talking about it, by sheer co-incidence, I was going through an old thread and I found this - http://wrestlingperspective.com/working.html Not arguing for or against kayfabe, but that site is fascinating.

Rock at WM 17 and WM 18 have to be the most famous examples in modern wrestling, right? Actually, Rock was booed quite a bit even at his peak as a top babyface. I remember him getting booed against Angle and Jericho as well. He was almost like a forerunner to Cena, except he would give it right back.

I have never heard the story of Vince disliking Rock's role in Be Cool. What did he think? Was it anything more than "WWE's top star shouldn't play a gay man because fuck you, that's why"? Also, what is the story behind his contract not being renewed in 2004? What happened? Was Vince upset because he was spending so much time away in Hollywood? Was it his own decision, or did disgruntled full-time wrestlers talk him into it?

I am a newbie to puroresu. I have just started following 90s AJPW consistently. While I have been blown away by what I have seen, as someone who is a mark for the business side of things, I am very interested to know, since the inception of the two companies, which of the two companies was bigger and was drawing more money. I would like to know throughout their period of existence, which company was on top; when they got replaced; what were the periods of dominance of both companies; when and how they exchanged the numero uno spot in Japan. Bear in mind that I do not know if other companies ever beat these two and were at the top, although I have heard that UWF and later NOAH were ahead of these two at various points of time. So, if someone could fill in the blanks for me with regard to the other companies, I would be extremely grateful as well. Thanks in advance!

Ah, okay. Storm in a teacup, I guess. What do people here think of Rock jumping the gun? I am sure that had it happened today, when everything is so controlled and micro-managed, it would be considered hugely unprofessional. But, given Nash's record of undercutting opponents in promos, maybe he had it coming? Although, I do believe that Rock was so good at working the mic then that even if Nash had struck first, Rock would still have got his heat back and then some. I have no doubt that one way or another, the segment would have ended with Rock on top and Nash fuming. And fuck Nash for saying his character wouldn't stand for it. As Smack2k said above, his character was that he would attack in groups and often attack sneakily. Plus, I would argue that he never had met anyone like The Rock in WCW before; WCW simply did not have cocky faces who ran their mouths and talked trash. Unless those cocky faces were Nash, Hogan and co. I honestly see no locus standi here.

Interesting. Yes, his character was never selling his opponent's insults and laughing in their faces and being a smug bitch about it, making his opponent look bad. It was a trait his good buddy Triple H also had. As a matter of interest, did he get to use all six of his moves? I remember Nash tweeting Rock after his WM 29 injury and wishing him to get better. He does like to have friends in high places. And I know I am being a complete mark for this non-event, but whom did the wrestlers side with? Was that reported?

I have heard about it a few times, but do not know exactly what happened. Was there a backstage fight? Did they shoot on each other in promos, ala Shawn's "Sunny Days" comment? If someone could tell me exactly what happened on Raw or SD! as a part of said heat, I will be very grateful, as I want to see it for myself and will check those shows out. And if someone was reading The Observer back then, can they tell me what happened backstage relating to the fight? What their complaints were? Whom did the wrestlers support? I imagine Triple H, for obvious reasons, supported Nash. I thought about this because there are reports floating about that Rock got legit pissed at Philadelphia booing him and was thinking about the other times Rock has got pissed.

Yeah I finally sucumbed to the Network and ordered just so I can watch the Rumble. I enjoyed it anyway shame the internet kids didnt but hey they expect too much. Regarding cropping they did this for years on their official DVDs before they finally changed it. Never had a issue with the stretched pic on the dvds before this. You = an internet kid. If you must slander people for having a different opinion from you, then at least use better slander. And I do not think expecting any of the over faces to look strong is "expecting too much", but I won't begin to debate with you on it, because your post is so ridiculous it does not merit debate.

Bret/Yoko is redeemed by WWE suprising the fans by having Hogan walk out with the title. Worst booking has to be the Rumble Orton won. How would you go about booking this? Dont forget you had the Georgia Dome in January and the fans would have been pissed had Goldberg not won the belt back. Mind you they were pissed anyway by the end of the night. Sure they redeemed the finish.....except fans did not care about Hogan and house show attendance dropped immediately.

To whom? That one guy somewhere that likes The Ascension? To anyone who is sick of the WWE putting ancient stars on a pedestal over current workers. I don't care about the Ascension, but the Outlaws shouldn't be beating anyone. Since when was the last time a Legend who made WWE what is is today went over a current guy apart from Rock/Punk? Im sick of the Legends being jobbed out all the time. It devalues their legacy. Either let them win or dont have them appear on TV. Actually thinking back to Raw had this been 1996 NWO would have slapped the piss out of the Assention because no one would have even dared to get in their face without taking a kicking. lol at Outlaws being legends "who made WWE what is today". And newsflash: nWo in 1996 were not part-time legends. They were full-time wrestlers. They were the main heels of the show. As for your question: The Outlaws beat Usos last year and Rock punked out RUsev. There are a million other examples, but these two are the latest. Also, it is the jb of legends to help get young wrestlers get over and climb the ladder by putting them over. That has been true since the beginning of wrestling.

I feel the RR JTS a long time ago. The back-to-back wins, the double eliminations, Vince winning the whole damn thing, number 1 having as many wins as number 30, etc. RR is fun- but every year I grow less excited as I can pretty much predict the final 4 and winner. I want the RR to be completely random and have someone like Xavier Woods or Kofi or Fandango win. The RR needs a reset. I remember marking out during the 40-man Royal Rumble when the final two was Del Rio & Santino. I genuinely thought Santino might have a shot! I'm such a mark. Kevin Nash got a massive pop when he came out Diesel. Pretty much creative should have booked him to win the Rumble. .....not sure if serious, or just plain trolling..

It is amazing just how many causal fans absolutely love Bryan. All my friends here are huge fans of him. Not bad for a B+ goatface.

For those of us who live in the foreign lands with no access to the Network and want to listen to this, but do not want to use torrents, any idea where this might be available?

Hasn't the business been in slow decline over the years, barring Wrestlemania? Which, by now, is a draw in itself anyway? You can certainly argue that Vince has lost his touch. Everything fromr atings to house show attendance to TV revenue are not where they should be. Not the sign of a promoter with his finger on the mainstream pulse.

This was a riveting listen. Although I disagree with him about WM being a draw and not The Rock, he has got a very valid point regarding use of part-timers. All in all, a great 2 hours.

Is your point that the WWE was at fault for trying to book him just like they would book a top star, without seeing it was very incompatible with how Goldberg worked in 1998? I am sorry; English is not my first language, so I may be misinterpreting your point. I guess I would agree with that line of thinking, but unless you wanted the whole promotion to revolve around Goldberg, so much so that they changed the philosophy with which they booked their shows, I do not see any other alternative. He was booked in a classic way to keep alive the chase, and then beat the shit out of Triple H two times in a row. I really fail to see what else they could have done. I did not find any indication of Triple H sandbagging him at all. Maybe I might have missed it. But on Survior Series, he beat the entire stable on one leg. If you still can't get over after that, then maybe it is on you?

In all of your post, you neglected to mention why you think this. Did I? All right. What I meant by that the reason Goldberg did not pan out in the WWE is not the fault of Triple H, the booking, or the WWE. Ergo, it is he who gets the responsibility for his not getting over enough with the WWE. You can blame the booking for making him feud with The Rock in his first match, but in my opinion, he had recovered from that and the fans were ready to get behind him. The fact that they never got the reason to is because Goldberg was simply not appealing enough. Whether it is because he could not talk, he could not have long matches, or something else, I do not know. But I do feel the booking is an unfortunate scapegoat in this case. I do not think the Hunter booking was as egregious as it is made out to be. Honestly, if Goldberg could not bear the loss, which was a perfectly straightforward cheap heat loss, then that is on him, and not on anyone else. If he did not get over because he was having long matches with Hunter and he cold not do it, then that is again on him, because eventually he would have had to have long matches. It was just the WWE style. Hence, I feel it is he who is responsible for his not panning out.

I have read here, and at other places, that Triple H ruined Goldberg's WWE career by not jobbing to him at Summerslam. While I do understand where the argument is coming from, I do not feel convinced at all. Summerslam had Goldberg beat the crap out of Triple H, and everyone else, before the sledgehammer shennanigans came in. That is a classic way to build heat and keep both the heel and the face hot. Following that, Goldberg beat Triple H clean on two consecutive PPVs. One of them was when he had a kayfabe broken ankle; that did not stop him from destroying Hunter and the entire stable of Evolution. On one leg. He was booked like an absolute monster; and never has Triple H felt so vulnerable, apart from his feud with batista in 2005. An argument can be made that he was wasted in long single matches, and should have had explosive short matches with Triple H. I see the argument, but again, that is a fault of Goldberg and not Triple H. He would have eventually had to be in longer matches, and while I understand the concept of not fixng something that is not broken, I still feel it is on Goldberg and not anyone else. Bottom line: I feel that Goldberg himself is to be blamed and no one else for his failure in the WWE. I would much rather watch a Goldberg squash than a Triple H match, but I do not think Triple H is at fault here at all. Thoughts?

I basically agree with what Parv is saying. In any community, there will be some level of consensus, and that comes from watching the same amount of footage and, indeed, the same footage. also, PWO is a place where I have seen more debates and more intense discussions than any other place on the 'net, and that is the best thing about PWO. We have Joe defending Davey Richards, someone arguing for Shawn to be the GOAT, and so on and so forth. And everyone and their opinions are accepted, invited and mulled over. I see no evidence whatsoever of any beehive mentality. As Parv said, people here watch a lot of footage and thus, certain conclusions they come to are not in the same tune as that of the other corners of the internet. I may be mocked for this, but I was introduced to internet message boards at the age of 10 through Lords of Pain forums, (in 2003), and for the next seven years, I posted just there and nowhere else. And while I will always love Lords of Pain, seeing how it is like my internet home and the place where I was introduced to wrestling on the internet; it was only when I came here (have been lurking since 2010) that my knowledge of wrestling broadened. I came here believing Shawn Michaels to be the GOAT, because that was rarely debated. Now, he won't crack my Top 50. That is because EVERYTHING which is connected to wrestling is debated here, and thus, this place is as removed from a beehive mentality as possible. There will be some consensus, as I said, but that is to be expected in any community. Charles, Will: Take it from a 21-year old wrestling nOOb from India who cannot have conversations like the ones we have here where he lives, , this place is great. Not only is it extremely fun to read, it is also very educational. Brilliant job guys.

We often hear about wrestlers talk about how, when they jumped from WCW to WWF, they had to spend some time learning the WWF style. So, what was the difference between WWF style and WCW style? 2 things I can think of are the side bumping deal, and the pinball bumping style. What else were the differences?

That was an excellent promo, Parv. Thanks for uploading it. It sort of explains a lot. Bruno was larger than life, but as Matt said, he was still presented as a human being, not a wrestling God/cartoon character like Savage. He was not flashy, but he had charisma all right. Will definitely give the podcast a listen.

I have always felt the reason Ultimate Warrior did not work out as a draw was his presentation, which was downright cult-like. It was kind of creepy, especially for someone who was supposed to be kid-friendly.

This was discussed in the Bruno thread over at GWE, but I thought this was interesting enough to warrant a thread of its own. Meltzer, writing about Steve Austin's failed heel turn in 2001, said that Austin was more like Bruno, and there was a reason Bruno never turned heel. My question is, what exactly is the difference between the two and their connection with the crowd? Parv talked about Bruno being more earthy, but, I am not sure that is true. Hogan was presented as a larger-than-life superstar. Bruno was presented as a larger-than-life superstar, although not as cartoonish. So, how did Bruno get more earthy? Was it because of his understated promos? I confess I am not an expert on either 80s wrestling, or wrestling during Bruno's era, so I am hoping people come up and talk about it. Also, on a scale of 1 to 100, how much would you give the two in terms of connection with the audience?