DMJ

I'm a Bourne fan too, but I think there is something to his story that we don't know and somehow hasn't leaked. As so many posters here have said, he got great crowd responses on ECW and was pretty marketable. At the very least, he was a great bumper who could make others look absolutely great. This tells me that there's a reason he hasn't been put in the position to at least job out to guys like Rusev, Tensai, and other monsters or new talents that have been introduced in the past few years. It's not like Kofi Kingston is THAT much better in that role or that they don't have enough TV time to have two or three guys in that position. I'm hoping that Bourne's release is followed by questions being answered regarding the severity of his injuries and why they never bothered to bring him back when he could've been so easily used as a bump machine for The Wyatts or Roman Reigns or Cesaro or any other heel they've wanted to look dominant in the past 2 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in regards to camera angles and all that, I thought that Dunn was no longer really as "hands on" in the truck and was more of an executive that was in charge of general production and not necessarily the live editiing or whatever one calls it. Is that accurate or is he still calling the shots for every episode of RAW?

As the poster above said, this match starts off red hot and I even liked the finisher-throwing early on, though, to be sure, in modern times this has become overused. However, there are a few things that go wrong that I think would've made this a much more highly-regarded bout, even if Luger does look tired after a few minutes. First, the finish comes TOO "out of nowhere" for me. As others have said, Sting should've won with either his finishing move or the Torture Rack as that would've helped the match come "full circle." Second, if Harley Race getting knocked out at the end of the match was supposed to be meaningful, why not throw in a segment somewhere in there where Race helps Luger get leverage (I'm thinking the classic figure four spot) or distracts the ref when Luger connects with a below-the-belt cheap shot. Then, when Race gets back body dropped, the audience could really get the feeling that Sting has overcome Luger's biggest advantage. Third, Luger should've turned face after the match or alluded to such a turn by shaking hands with Sting after the match and raising his arm. My understanding was, at this point, Luger was done with WCW so protecting him for rematches wasn't necessary - besides, shaking hands with Sting wouldn't have hurt those rematches even if he WAS going to stick around. That's the kind of "moment" that would've made Sting's victory that much bigger. In a nutshell, I wanted this match to be great - and, for the first few minutes, it is heading that way - but what you end up with is lost opportunities that stick out more than what these two actually do accomplish. Not a terrible match at all, just not the masterpiece that you know could've happened had they made a few changes and worked smarter, not necessarily harder.

Here's another one that came to mind while I was watching SuperBrawl II today... Terry Taylor We all know about the Red Rooster gimmick and how that was destined to fail, but in WCW, in 91' and 92', Taylor was a cocky, arrogant heel and he was darn good at it. I looked at wikipedia and saw that, after that, he went back to WWE, but was basically enhancement talent there as well. So, why? If JBL is to be believed, it has something to do with him not being well-liked by his peers, but, he seemed to be well-liked enough by management that he's worked backstage for every major US promotion in a variety of roles. Why didn't Terry Taylor get a push then? Why, in WWE, was he saddled with a bad gimmick in his first go round and then just written off as not worth investing in for his second run? Could they have done more with him in WCW? What are other people's thoughts on his work?

Somewhat ridiculous but I'm curious what people will say about... Van Hammer Good size. Good look in terms of physique. Terrible gimmick and very green. BUT after wrestling in WCW in 92', he disappeared for several years before coming back to WCW in 97'. My question is - does anyone know where he went? Based on his work when he came back, I'm guessing it wasn't anywhere that taught him anything about working. Also, trained by Boris Malenko supposedly? Had Van Hammer been trained properly or gotten some seasoning, I really think he's the type of guy McMahon would've tried to push to the moon. I mean, if he saw potential in Vinnie Vegas, how did he not see potential in Van Hammer?

I think the comparisons with Orton and HHH are always interesting. JBL always says stuff like "If you could build the perfect wrestler in a lab, it would be Randy Orton" and, in the late 90s, I think you could say the same for Triple H (size, look, voice were all "classic" wrestler). But that's almost why I can't say either rank in my personal top 20 or 30 or even 50 list of guys I love. It's not like I inherently like guys with "flaws," but there's something about Ric Flair and Eddie Guerrero not having a size advantage, but still outsmarting their opponents and there's something about Steve Austin's NSFW persona in the Attitude Era that made his promos just that much better than anything Orton has ever done. The Undertaker's gimmick. Savage's insanity. Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels' emotional storytelling. Daniel Bryan's heart. Even John Cena's passion and the way, even when the whole place is booing him, he still wrestles HIS match in HIS babyface persona. These are the intangibles that Orton (and Triple H, in my mind) just don't have. With nothing to hang their hat on, they may be the "perfect" wrestlers, but they're also two of the hardest characters to care about that have ever been in the main event.

I agree wholeheartedly with what funkdoc said about overall presentation/production values being way more of a factor in WCW's drawing power compared to the WWE's than who was actually on top of either company. This also helps explains why, in 95'/96', WCW starts closing the gap. Once their production values, especially late 96', start to catch up with WWE's thanks to Turner finally trying to topple McMahon, and the slicker, industrial-themed Nitro set takes shape as compared to the pyro-unfriendly and (by then) dated look of the RAW set in 96' (the big 3-letter entrance way is the one I'm thinking of), WCW starts winning the Monday Night Wars and being seen as an equal to WWE. Prior to that, they were the cheaper 'rasslin' show that ran smaller arenas and taped shows on a tiny studio lot.

I agree with all of your picks. I just recently wrapped up watching all of the 92' content for WCW in order via the Network. Based on my re-viewing of the year, WCW that year just had so, so much talent at the top AND had made some small decisions that really helped streamline the product. For example, unifying the Tag Titles and building up young talent (namely Dustin Rhodes, Ron Simmons, Brian Pillman) so that it wouldn't have been out-of-left-field to see any one of them challenge for the title in 93'. Unfortunately, the two talents that probably should've gotten more attention and would go on to make boatloads of cash for Vince were Cactus and Austin, but, as you said, injuries hurt Cactus and Steve Austin was still in that weird spot of being a "future star" who still needed years of seasoning (a label that was fairly accurate considering he wouldn't explode for another 3 years). I'd love to read someone's argument for WWF being the better promotion that year. As much as I enjoyed WCW 92', it's not like everything is 100% 5-star booking/wrestling. For example, Simmons' title reign or the disappointing title matches at Halloween Havoc 92'. I haven't begun to trek through WCW 93' yet, but it does make me wonder - is this the last great year for Barry Windham? Ricky Steamboat?

I like the Rollins turn just because I think this will bring about some good matches in the next few months, but... My biggest thought about his "motivation" is the one that, unfortunately, has the least likely possibility of happening, at least in terms of realistic expectations. Still, bear with me on this thought: Batista leaves the WWE because Triple H doesn't grant him a title shot. Why not? No real reason given except that he's pissed at Batista for losing at Mania, Extreme Rules, and Payback. Okay, fair enough. But, really, it IS what was promised him and, with dozens of television/special events down the line, I'm not really sure why Triple H would deny Batista's request, especially against an injured Bryan. Triple H's reason should've been that he already promised the first title shot to someone else - which would have been a good, simple question mark for the entire broadcast. Is it Orton? Triple H himself? Cut to the last segment. Rollins turns. It is obvious he has turned in exchange for a shot at Daniel Bryan. BUT...Daniel Bryan is injured. For god knows what reason, Kane is still in line for a title shot despite a clean loss at Extreme Rules and absolutely no heat. Plus, doesn't Orton still get a rematch sometime? Besides, Rollins is probably not getting a title match on PPV this year unless they're WAY higher than him than most think. All those reasons tell me that, even if my little scenario/storyline was suggested, it was quickly denied. But, I still think it's arguably the most sensible reason for why a member of The Shield would turn. The "personal gain" should be more than money, more than promises of a shot in a future MITB match, more than just "opportunity" - it should be a pretty much GUARANTEED World Title match and victory (which it would almost certainly be against a guy with a neck injury).

On the topic of Dustin - I think there's an alternate universe where he beat Vader for the title in 92' instead of Ron Simmons. In that same universe, he wrestled Windham or a non-injured Rude at Starrcade that year. That being said, I understand that his look did make him somewhat of a tough sell in that era. I always thought the somewhat flabby look was why McMahon put him in the full body suit, even when he was actually in good shape initially. Obviously, he took himself out of the game essentially, but I might nominate Scott Hall. I know he's not always rated so highly, but he was certainly more technically skilled than Nash and, had he stayed sober and motivated (maybe even coming back to the WWE in 99' or 00'), it's hard not to see him having some good matches/feuds with The Rock, HHH, Taker, and Steve Austin, who, by then, were all pretty much wrestling the kind of main event brawling style that Hall certainly wouldn't have been out of his league doing. There's a lot of huge IFs when it comes to Scott Hall, but that goes without saying around these parts...

I might go as far as to say that ECW created the "smart crowd" - only because, when WCW and WWE were competing around 97', ECW was also gaining more and more popularity as the "underground" company. For fans too young to remember AWA or even GWF or not knowledgeable enough to know anything about the USWA or SMW, ECW was THE "major" indy fed. Sabu was on the cover of PWI and Raven's success in WCW made many people believe he was the "quintessential" ECW guy - further drawing attention to what ECW stood for. This led to more and more 13-16 year olds who had never known anything more than Hulkamania and the WWF and WCW's most cartoonish years in the mid-90s to discover that there was a whole other world of wrestling (and wrestling fans) where the audience was more than just a backdrop. Hell, they didn't just chant obscenities at who they didn't like, they brought weapons for their heroes to use! Oh, and the internet. The internet definitely changed the game. I remember going onto rec.sports.pro-wrestling when I was in middle school and having my mind blown. Soon, I was using words like "shoot" and "workrate" and "job" when, a few years earlier, I knew match outcomes were predetermined, but didn't really have the language to discuss what I was watching. Learning the lingo, as so many fans did in the late 90s, allowed more and more to get "smart" (or think they were) and knowledge, sadly, often leads to cynicism, arrogance, and a "too cool for school" attitude. These three traits basically sum up today's "smart crowds." On a happier note - I think more and more "smart" fans are recognizing the damage of being contrary all the time and have been actively booing the heels and cheering the faces as a way to show just how GOOD the heel or face is at what they're doing. For example, in Cleveland, at indy shows and even at WWE shows, the loud, obnoxious "smart" fans who cynically act contrary just to get themselves over are treated like pariahs now - outright taunted, in fact - by hipper fans who show their appreciation for a good heel by booing him and show love to a good face by cheering him, just like we're supposed to. We can complain about the ref having his back turned, but we do it the way fans would in 88'. We boo when a manager or valet cheats, instead of cheering their brilliance the way modern fans would probably have turned Bobby Heenan into a babyface. We "play along" not because we're dumb, but because its simply funner to play along. Why should the wrestlers have all the fun of "following a script" when, as an audience member, its equally fun to "play dumb" and get riled up when the good guy loses, even if the good guy is a terribly green stiff and the heel is a world class worker.

Amazing. Does anyone know if there is somewhere I can find this on youtube/dailymotion? I caught it on the Network, but would love to share it with non-wrestling fans. PM me if you can be of any help because this video is ridiculous. 5 stars out of 5

I'd have to rewatch, but does Simmons even come out with the belt? I mentioned in the Megathread that I wanted to open up discussion about Simmons' title run and I might still. One topic would be the booking of his title run in terms of main event feuds. At the previous Clash, he wrestles Cactus Jack and it's nothing special. Then, at Havoc, he wrestles Barbarian. You can see why - Barbarian is in great shape, almost a mirror of Simmons muscularly, and, I'm thinking based on his WWF tenure, seen as more of a "name" than Cactus Jack. But, in hindsight, they may have been better off flipping things. Muscles or not, WWF past or not, Cactus Jack was a better, more intriguing character and one that, potentially, could've carried Simmons through a really good Havoc match - especially if they would have let them use some sort of stip (preferably not one based around retrieving an article of clothing from a pole). That means, at CoC XX, they should've run Barbarian/Simmons and maybe let it end with some sort of beatdown to get Jack more over as a threat.

She's not hideous or anything, but saying that no other woman in wrestling "is even close" is absurd to me. She looks like she came off an assembly line set to "Generic Man's Fantasy." I can think of at least a half dozen women in wrestling who have a more unique look that, to me, makes them more attractive. Again, though, different strokes...

Haha, too, too true. As someone else said, there really isn't much of a link between the storylines on the show and the stock dips (and, in the same sense, the inevitable rises that occur prior to every WrestleMania season like clockwork). The only connection that might be made, or at least seems reasonable to me, has way more to do with longterm booking and "star making" in that, if ratings continue to drop and hit record lows for an extended period of time, it looks bad for the company, which, over time, would likely effect the value of the stock. But one single booking decision or the "People are tired of John Cena" argument is naive to the fact that there is more to the WWE product than The Streak and whether Cena should turn heel or not.

^ I have to disagree. While I see your point about the "therapy" line, I think JR was referring to just the whole idea of bringing Flair back at all in 2013, especially in a party atmosphere like LA for SummerSlam. I don't think he confused Mania and SummerSlam, he was just speaking about how AT SummerSlam, Flair had been drinking with the boys, possibly trying to "have a good time" a little too much for someone who had lost their son just a few months earlier. As Flair is notorious for wearing his heart on his sleeve and overdoing things, the result is not a shocker - Flair getting quite emotional on the panel and arguably "too real" compared to the squeaky clean, PG-rated, canned publicity shoot they were going far.

While I might fix the actual phrasing of the message, I think that this one idea that costs zero dollars, can be started as soon as Monday, and will, at least, go a little way towards getting them in the right direction (especially the part about the popularity of wrestling with women). I also like the idea of maybe changing hiring practices a little bit in relation to diversity, most importantly on the Creative side. For example, if you look at the producers/creators/writers of some of the more popular "high-tier" shows, like Scandal or comedies like The Office, 30 Rock, and Parks and Rec or Orange Is The New Black, and you will find women of color, men of color, etc. Shonda Rimes (creator of Scandal) has created a show that stars an African-American woman, which, for years, meant the show would've really only been picked up by an "urban" network (see The CW, BET, etc.), but has crossed over huge with white audiences thanks to smart storytelling. Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, and Mindy Kaling's shows may not be/have been ratings juggernauts, but they attract the demo that we're talking about here. So, in a nutshell, if you can attract college-educated writers and allow them to construct story lines that would appeal to college-educated audiences, you might make wrestling appeal to more educated people with money. But, personally, I think that would actually shrink the audience and not grow it. If we're talking about growing the audience, regardless of education or income level or gender or race demos, what they should do is take just 5-6 of the ideas presented throughout this thread and do them all. The WWE has done a decent job of being everything to everyone, but what they need to do is be BETTER at being everything to everyone. If you're doing comedy, make it funny. If you're going with an adult theme storyline, know where the "hokey line" is and don't step over it. Be consistent in rules and storytelling, including even the vaguest notion of win/loss records, so that guys don't win championships after 5 months of a losing record (see Jack Swagger). And, as Boondocks mentioned, use a "Fake it 'til you make it" mentality to promote the show the way you want it to be seen (even if that means blurring the truth about what it actually is).

Not sure if I should be posting here, but looking at the title, I thought I'd ask... As I'm a relatively new poster, what is the etiquette for starting a thread in the Microscope? I'm rewatching WCW 92' stuff on The Network and I was really curious what people's views are about Ron Simmons and his World Title run. Was he more over in late 91' against Luger than he was in 92' when they gave him the belt? I've heard that his title reign was done to take heat off of Bill Watts' infamous comments in an interview (the exact wording escapes me, but the story goes that it came across as racist and eventually was one of the reasons Watts got fired), but barring that, was Simmons still in line for a title run? I thought Doom were pretty dependable for good matches in 91' and Simmons had a great look and could actually do good work against quality opponents (vs. Luger at Havoc 91' and I just watched a pretty solid-if-unspectacular match against Cactus at CoC XX). Am I wearing rose-colored glasses? What was the critical reception of Simmons at this time? Anyway, I just thought this discussion would be better in a Microscope thread, but didn't want to be presumptuous. Maybe I should move it there or a mod can if they feel its worthwhile? If it's not, I'm still curious about people's thoughts on him at this time. I do think, whether it worked or not, his build and the vignettes of him at FSU were really well done - which was almost a rarity when you consider WCW's production quality compared to the WWE's even back then.

He had a TV match with Big Show around 05'/06' (I think) that I remember really liking...largely because Triple H actually sells everything. I liked the Hardy matches from 08' a good deal. WM30 was definitely his best match in years. Oddly enough, I remember thinking the DX vs. McMahons & Big Show cage match was fun, they had a pretty good bout with Rhodes & DiBiase later on, and I really liked the Evolution/Shield match at ER. Could or should a list of Triple H's best matches really include this many tag bouts? Never considered him a tag wrestler, but...

I agree with so much of what everyone is posting above, but this one sentiment really bothered me. Daniel Bryan main evented Extreme Rules in the truest sense of the word. His match went on last when most believed it wouldn't. One can spin that any way they want, but it doesn't change the fact that Bryan's title defense went on in what is regarded as the main event. As for his lack of RAW screentime since Mania - Daniel Bryan's father died, which means that on one episode of the build to ER, he basically needed to be written off entirely. Ditto for this week and the build for Payback. Other than that, he's been on TV plenty. Whether you like the angle or not, or think Kane is over or not, it's not like Bryan hasn't been on the flagship show every week for a considerable number of minutes. If I'm not mistaken, either, he had the most TV matches of any wrestler in 2013. In 2014, he'll probably still be in the Top 3. I have to agree with Dave Batista when he said Daniel Bryan can't be in every segment. Finally, the solution offered by the poster above - and by others, so I'm not just knocking him - was that, as Wyatt is busy with Cena and Shield/Evolution is red hot, Bryan should be getting clean victories over mid-level heels like Kane and Ryback. Um, isn't that EXACTLY what IS happening? I understand that people wanted to see him defend and defeat Batista and Cena...but if you blow those feuds in May and June, you really are leaving yourself with nowhere to go for SummerSlam and September's show, when a lot of fans are going to need to renew their Network subscriptions but might need a really good match to help motivate them. Depending on the severity of this injury, we may never know if his title run would've gotten better, worse, or something in between. Still, when people call this the "worst title reign in WWE history" after a little over 6 weeks and one PPV main event (that I actually thought was entertaining for what it was), it sounds a lot like much ado about nothing to these ears.

Man, what an absolute bummer. It'll be interesting to see what they do now. I almost feel like they should have him come out, admit the neck injury, and then have Stephanie strip him of the title. That way, you can always say he never lost it and you can turn Payback's main event into some sort of tournament/scramble/6-man match involving Evolution and the Shield. The only silver lining I can see here is that, in 97', Austin's neck injury ended up leading to him being even more over than he was before it. He continued to appear on TV regularly and his character just got stronger and stronger. Maybe a few months of Bryan doing something similar could keep him fresh and potentially even lead to another WM main event.

Simple, I know, but... Favorite match since coming to WWE and why? Insight on CM Punk's departure?

I am definitely in the camp of being a wrestling superfan, but not actually watching all or most of it at this point. I read the results on Tuesday morning. I listen to Review-A-Wai and maybe read some columns. I watch stuff that sounds "must see" or gets praised on here or by my friends. I DVR RAW and SD every week, but am lucky to watch even one of them over the weekend. Then, its Monday again, and the cycle repeats. I like to stay up-to-date, but with the Network now, whatever time I do have to watch wrestling is going towards old WCW PPVs more and more (as a kid, I rarely ordered a WCW PPV and they were far less common at the video store). I do believe this would be different if RAW went back to 2 hours. I think taking out that third hour would be "addition by subtraction" and, instead of looking at RAW as a chore to get through (even WITH the option of fast forwarding), I would probably be more inclined not to fast forward anything at all.

Just watched Beach Blast 92' on the Network and my initial thought is, just like a great album that suffers from poor track sequence, this is a great PPV that suffers from an absolutely atrocious match order. It was mentioned in the Rude/Steamboat and Steiners/MVC threads that the reason the tag match closes the show is because of the Steamboat/Cactus angle they run. In hindsight, couldn't they have had Rude/Steamboat in the main and then had Jack do the run-in post match? Would that have been too repetitive of similar angles where the main event winner is immediately attacked by his next challenger? But the issue with the main event and it's "non-finish" isn't the only odd decision. Equally as puzzling, to me, is having the second last match end in a DQ that is also really just a draw (technically, Arn is DQ'd for going off the top rope, but it reads as more of a "no contest" once the ref loses control). The opening contest, while good, has a bit of a downer ending, with Pillman dropping the Light Heavyweight Title to Scotty Flamingo. Why not swap those matches? In my mind, if you take this same show, with the same exact finishes, and flip around the order, you have an all-time great PPV. As it is now, it's not so much a roller coaster of emotions as a jerky, start-stop ride on the Scrambler. Better match order? - 6 Man Tag - Simmons vs. Taylor - Steiners vs. MVC - Valentine vs. Bagwell - Light Heavyweight Title Match - Cactus vs. Sting - Rude vs. Steamboat

I'm not sure any of them were necessarily "nightmares," but I'd put all of the Rock's matches in the past 3 years on this list. Again, I wouldn't say Rock/Punk at Royal Rumble 2013 was terrible or that the first Cena/Rock match wasn't engaging, but I think its fair to say that there were high expectations and they weren't quite met. Unlike Rock/Hogan at WM or any of the Cena/Punk matches from that timeframe, for example, I just don't see any of the Rock's matches being things people rush to see again.