MoS

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?

It is also hilarious that it is Kevin Nasht alking about how he could not work 25-30 minutes. Because we all have seen a litany of classic 25-30 minute- Kevin Nash matches. Give me a Goldberg match over a Kevin Nash match any day. Also, to those who know, is it true that Kevin Nash sold more merchandise as part of The Outsiders than Goldberg? I have seen a few claim that.

I am sorry, but I hate it when people condescendingly dismiss someone's popularity as fans being brainwashed and indoctrinated. It is obnoxious and entirely uncalled for. I am not even saying you are completely wrong. Propaganda does play a part in someone's popularity to an extent, but it can never be 90% or anywhere close to that ballpark. I come from India, and wrestling fans here, whom you would describe as the most casual of casuals, genuinely love Michaels. Part of that IS down to being pushed like a legend, but that is only a part of it Otherwise, they would have loved Hunter as much as they love Shawn, but that is not true. Shawn has plenty of fans who love him in an organic, non-doctrinating way, and it is extremely stupid and delusional to think that people think Shawn is great only because that is how WWE markets him. I am sorry I come across as being rude, but this to me, is a very sanctimonious talking point, and not accurate. I do agree, however, that Shawn's marketing has been WAYY over the top, and worthy of a million eye-rolls, for what it is worth.

Throwing my two cents in: coming from a country which has only the most casual of casual fans, you would be surprised at just how beloved Shawn is. The guy is loved almost as much as Cena. Part of it has to do with his being pushed as a legend and as the Showstopper, but I do not think it explains it all. People genuinely love him here, just like they love Cena and Rey. Not as much as 'Taker and Khali, but quite a lot nevertheless. Also, I am not sure if this is relevant or not, but I was reading an old thread where people were saying Shawn does not put anyone over, which I found was interesting, because the one criticism which most fans here have is that he lost a tad too much, and that his WM record is abysmal. My cousin always laughs at how much Shawn loses, and how he has lost to almost everyone. Which makes me think that had he lost more, he would not have been nearly as beloved. People would always be surprised here when he won, as opposed to when he lost. I know this is strictly anecdotal, but I do believe it counts for something. I would always be ostracized for having the temerity to suggest that Austin and Rock were better than HBK. I guess that was why he had c career as long as he did post-comeback. I might not be making much sense, and this might be irrelevant, but I just thought I would share it. Sometimes we live in our own little bubble, and it is difficult to see outside it.

He said that the Rock threw some shitty elbows, and that would not have been the case had HE thrown them. I'd consider that a bit of a jab, no? I thought that was just a joke. Austin and Rock have always laughed about how much Steve hates the People's Elbow.

I loved how Rock so non-chalantly just picked up the blade after Hebner had tripped and dropped it.

I don't think he took any little jabs at Rock at all. He just said they had to be careful with the blade job because Rock was going away to film a movie.

Seeing how horrible he was at handling crowd reactions, he can only improve. John Cena is also good at handling crowd reactions. While he does not heel it up like Rock does, he remains unflustered, and often responds to a "You can't wrestle" by busting out a bunch of chain wrestling moves, for example, I think his responses to hostile crowds, like ONS in 2006 and MitB in 2011 were extemely laudable.

On an unrelated note, The Rock was really great at working the crowd and feeding off reactions. Joe brought up Batista getting flustered and having no idea how to react to the crowd turning on him. Contrast that with Rock getting booed against Hogan or against Lesnar, and how he managed to work the fans by heeling it up and amplifying the reactions. It was a win-win situation; everyone came out having a better time. The only time when he did not do it was against Austin at WM 17, and that was because Austin was supposed to turn heel.

Aren't the "Tributes" books just edited versions of the obits published in the Observer? Maybe a one-month subscription to the Observer site might be the better option, assuming the JYD issue is online. (Anyone know?) One thing to be aware of though: the newsletters are probably much messier grammatically than the books. Yeah, I tried that. The issue is not yet online. I think it would take another year or so before it gets online. Thanks anyway, much appreciated.

Not sure where you're from, but if you go on Highspots (http://www.highspots.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=HS&Category_Code=Books&Product_Code=&Search=&Per_Page=20&Sort_By=price_asc) they have both Tributes books marked down. Don't think it was ever released on Kindle, might have something to do with the big photos used (although with tablets, that's not as big of an issue anymore). Thanks, but I am from India, and I cannot afford to ship the book. The cost would be too high. I was looking for a soft copy online, but no site seems to have it. Specifically, I wanted to read the section on Junkyard Dog. Is it possible to find that online somewhere?