C.S.

I know it's a rhetorical question, but the answer is, of course, Vince Russo. :\ They've had years and plenty of opportunities to rebrand, but never did. The perfect chance fell in their laps when they made the switch to Impact Wrestling, but it was confusing and half-hearted at best. Sheer incompetence at its finest.

To the Canadian fans, yeah. But do most Americans really know the difference between, say, Toronto and Quebec? I'm not talking necessarily about the educated people on this forum, but rather the general masses who watch Raw.

Nah, and I certainly wasn't suggesting that. Ah, I understand now. Yeah, that makes sense. Didn't realize Pierre trained Owens. That's a pretty cool fact. I'm a big Pierre fan, BTW. My point was, midcard filler matches and all that entails vs. main event matches. I like what Cena is doing now with the U.S. Title against midcarders, but he still has a ways to go (IMO) before he can reach Bret, who had to drag passable matches out of Yankem, Virgil, Skinner, etc. I'd say they're both pretty close. We can probably both churn out irrelevant minutiae like Vince Russo does to make our case for one or the other. Someone could trot out, "Well, Cena has more merchandise available than Bret did, so he sells more," but Kevin Owens probably has more merch than Bret did too. We can get into anal comparisons that ignore how many things have changed between Bret's time and now, but when it comes down to it, I don't think there's any kind of wide disparity between Cena's drawing power and Bret's. Either way, even if it's proven that Cena is a much better draw (and it's one of the talking points I care least about because neither of them are/were awesome draws), I still think Bret smokes him in many other categories. Doesn't have to be a clean sweep or anything like that for me to justify my position. Edit: Removed a point about the OP after misreading it.

Austin easily. More versatile in the ring and as a character. Good technical wrestler when he was "Stunning," great brawler as "Stone Cold," and what an amazing transition from that blond-haired robed pretty boy to the bald black boots and trunks badass.

And that's fine. I tried to stick to the facts as much as possible, and I think I made a pretty good case for Bret, but everything I posted was ultimately my opinion. Pretty much this. I'm in complete agreement. I'd say that he's better than his mentor, but it's funny that you bring this up when we just saw Cena & Kevin Owens have an MOTYC (and it minimum, a significantly better match than Bret-JPL, a match that I like a great deal). I think that Cena-Oullet would absolutely be a better match than Bret-Owens. Are you really comparing a lower midcarder like Pierre to someone like Kevin Owens who has headlined every fed he's been in? Come on... Or I misunderstanding your point completely?

Wow, that sounds pretty awful... How is the Torch's audio compared to the Observer's? The Torch site is certainly much better, although the Observer site has improved slightly while the Torch site is a little too cluttered now.

Only on this board would Cena be winning a poll against Bret, LOL. I'm no Cena hater (I respect his hard work and long list of good matches), but Bret smokes him in almost every possible way. - Bret is more believable in the ring: Everything Bret did looked crisp and realistic. Compare that to Cena's STFU, which it seems like he's barely applying. The move looks looser than Missy Hyatt or Ric Flair after a few drinks. - Bret's feuds were more heated: Shawn Michaels, Jerry Lawler, etc. You felt Bret really hated them (and in Shawn's case, he did). Even the family feuds with Owen and Bulldog were intense. Cena has rarely (rarely, not never) come close to that level of fire, passion, and emotion in any of his feuds. - Mic skills: You could make the case for Cena, and when he cuts a serious promo, I'll concede that he's better than Bret. Unfortunately, he's rarely allowed to show that side of himself. So, even with Bret not being the strongest talker, I still think he edges out Cena most of the time. You can say things are different in today's PG environment, Bret never had to be the company ace and pander to kids like Cena does, etc. Fine. All true. Circumstances favor Bret. His "victory" in this category - if you can call it that - is admittedly hollow at best. - Lesser opponents: I'm open to being proven wrong on this one, but could Cena get the most out of, say, Jean Pierre LaFitte and Isaac Yankem the way Bret did? I'm not so sure. (And yes, I'm waiting for someone to post about Cena vs. Kane now, LOL.) Then again, until recently, Cena hasn't really had much of an opportunity to show this side of himself. No petty, spoiled, insecure, drug-sniffing Kliq to bury him behind the scenes. - Drawing Power: I'll call this one a tie. Both won their first World Titles after big boom periods had ended and things were more lukewarm or downright ice cold. I'm assuming Bret ended up drawing bigger numbers with Shawn in '97 (Attitude Era), and I'll assume the same for some of Cena's bigger matches (Rock). But in general, they were the captains during down periods for the company. How much worse would it have been without them though? Who knows... - Five Moves of Doom: I'm old enough to remember where this term really originated on the internet - and it was with Bret Hart back in the '90s. At that time, the Five Moves of Doom referred to Bret's seemingly unchanging final sequence of moves: inverted atomic drop, Russian legsweep, backbreaker, elbowdrop from the second rope, and the Sharpshooter. Since then, the phrase has been butchered to mean that Cena "only has five moves" (which is not actually the case, of course). This is not a point for or against Bret or Cena, just some fun "trivia" I decided to throw into my post.

Owens. Rusev's not 'Murican. I am obviously posting in jest, but you know that's the thinking... Edit: Okay, neither is Owens, LOL, but there's a big difference between Canada and Bulgaria/Russia.

If Austin isn't coming back, I'm betting the next WWE video game will have some sort of legends vs. current roster mode, with Austin and Brock on the cover. But, man, how good was Austin's promo? He really made you believe he could whip Brock's ass. Incredible!

By 2006, Cornette himself was the "Southern 1980s rasslin' cartoon" - looked totally out of place in a modern day environment. I love Corny, but that's the truth. Heck, even in 1995 WWF, he looked like a relic from another era - even though I loved having him there for the novelty of it.

Not a fair statement at all, when one poster said the match was more compelling than great, but he thinks he prefers compelling in this case. I agreed with that sentiment and referenced it in my own post. And, come on, the very post above mine offers criticisms of the match.

As I said in the other thread, there's nothing "false" about the line, per se. But it's still the type of soulless corporate-speak I'd expect to hear from Triple H or Vince. It feels "off" coming from Jericho.

Sorry for not responding to all of this sooner. Kept meaning to reply all weekend but time got away from me. Before I get into the posts addressed to me, I want to add my own answer to this question directed toward another poster: I absolutely would, and so would anyone else who has a business-oriented mind with their goal on the bottom line. Women do not draw right now! Do they have the potential to draw in the future? Yes. Could a forward-thinking executive turn them into major draws? Yes. Are they awesome wrestlers capable of having great matches? Yes - well, sometimes, depending on who we're talking about (but that's true of the men too). The fallacy that they drew the most ratings in TNA means nothing to me. They may very well have drawn the most ratings, but the fact is, nothing really drew in TNA, and nothing has ever mattered there! No legitimate businessman will use TNA as an example of anything, except maybe as a template of what not to do. TNA is a joke. Looking longterm, I'd absolutely want Charlotte on my roster. But if I'm playing with my money today and looking to build a company today, Miz easily gets the call before her. It's a no-brainer. In addition to getting a fantastic heel with face potential - more on that below - there are so many ways he could get my hypothetical product exposure (talk shows, reality shows, movies, etc.). Charlotte is good too, don't get me wrong, but she still needs more seasoning. Miz is a ready-made asset. Of course, in real life, there's no reason this would have to be an either/or question. If they were somehow both free agents, anyone with brains would sign them both. Care to elaborate a little? Curious to hear your take on it. Outside of the whole "social media ambassador" thing, I never really got it. I'll preface my post with this one below, as he covered a lot of the same ground before I had a chance to get to it: For me, it started with Tough Enough. There was one segment near the end where the contestants remaining (might've just been Miz and the useless Daniel Puder left at this point) appealed to the fans directly to get votes. Miz "dropped character" and a cut a "real", heartfelt, emotional promo about how much wrestling has meant to him. I can't remember what Puder did? Probably stuck his thumb in his ass and stood around looking like the goofy fuck he was. How a charisma-less tool like Puder ever won Tough Enough is beyond me, but the winners are almost never the best ones in the competition anyway (Ryback, then known as "Silverback" Ryan Reeves, was a contestant that year too). Fast-forward to when he cashed in Money in the Bank at Survivor Series. The fans legit went crazy and loved it. It was a major moment. The face momentum was building IMO. Of course, he had to remain a heel at least through WrestleMania. Redman mentioned the Nas redemption video package, which also made a good case for him to eventually turn face. After WM, I was convinced that Alex Riley would be the one to turn heel, and that's exactly what should have happened. Was anyone more unlikeable than the pretty boy, prom king, jock-ass, jock-sniffing turd that Riley's character was then? There's a reason Riley has gone nowhere since then, because he was never a natural or likeable face IMO. At that point, Miz could've been a huge fan favorite. He was still a main eventer with massive momentum. Instead, years passed, Miz was marginalized, etc. By the time they tried a face turn, the Miz character had cooled off considerably. Even worse, it was a poorly written, half-baked turn, done with no rhyme or reason. That kind of sloppy bullshit writing never works. Look at Del Rio for another example of a face turn handled the exact same way, with the exact same result - it was a colossal flop. Both turns were ret-conned within months, so what does that tell you? Also, shoehorning Flair into Miz's act was a waste of time and seemed so out of place that it hurt Miz instead of helping him. Timing is everything.

I never want to hear the announcers shout "FOR THE WIN!" again like they did over and over during every near-fall on this show. Is that a new thing, or am I only now noticing it? It's horrible! - I skipped the pre-show and the ladies (sorry, but there's no way that match could ever come close to Sasha Banks vs. Becky Lynch, and I just didn't care). - Tag Chamber was fun, even with the weird (botched?) Kalisto spot. I'm glad The Ascension is getting built back up (even though I don't love them) and Prime Time Players (who I do like) lasted until the end. - I agree with the poster who called Cena/Owens compelling but just short of great, and like him, I think I prefer compelling. Very smartly executed match. Owens was made to look like a million bucks, on equal footing with Cena, and I'd still feel that way even if Cena won. I'm shocked that Owens got the victory. Wow, they are really strapping the rocket to him. One of the most incredible main roster debuts ever! - Neville/Bo was okay but didn't really do NXT any favors. Why did Bo shave? Better yet, why did he grow facial hair in the first place? - I liked I-C more than most of you. However, I agree that the Sheamus "strategy" where he kept himself locked in the cage wasn't explained well by the commentators or captured properly by the cameras. Looked more like another botch than anything intentional. I was rooting for Henry to win, but Ryback is over with the fans and probably deserves a run with I-C. His catchphrases feel so forced and fake to me though. They really irritate the hell out of me. - The main event was shocking, but I had a feeling in the back of my mind that it would end up being a fuck finish. It makes no sense for Ambrose to win by DQ when it was his move that knocked out the ref. Other than that, I'm not sure whether I should be pissed at the screwjob or praise the finish for being interesting and full of emotion (both good and bad).

Russo's not wrong at all though.

Neither Charlotte or The Miz are particularly good babyfaces. I thought Miz had the potential to be a great face, but the writers didn't turn him properly, so it had no chance. Ditto for Del Rio and so many other half-baked, poorly-written turns during that timeframe. Come to think of it, Charlotte's turn kinda "just happened" too. Anyway, there are plenty of divas worse than The Miz (the usual suspects), but not all of them. Hell, I'd love a Miz/Sasha Banks pairing. Wouldn't that be magical? (I actually like The Miz.)

Well, that's true. Yeah, it's true, but it's the way he said it and the fact that it was coming from him at all when that seems more like a Vince or Triple H line. Maybe it's just the editing, but that's all he said in that bit.

Ryback strikes again. WrestlingInc.com: Top Star Possibly Injured At Last Night's WWE SmackDown Tapings (Updated With Photo) https://twitter.com/_BellaFam/status/603542895593914370/photo/1

Posted this in the Chris Jericho vs. Matt Hardy Microscope thread, but it's worth posting here too, I think. I watched the Matt Hardy vs. Edge "Rivalries" show on WWE Network last night. Even with all of the editing and cleaning up to omit Matt's goofier moments, it's amazing how much better and more convincing both Edge and Lita were on the mic during this run. Even though Matt Hardy was angry in real life (justifiably so IMO), almost everything he said still came across like a rehearsed wrestling promo. Whereas, everything that came out Edge and Lita's mouths felt so much more "real." Even so, I still think it's unfair and total bullshit that Edge dominated the feud and eventually forced Matt off of Raw. Yes, this comes back around to Jericho, who was one of the talking heads and sounded like a clueless corporate douchebag once again. He said something along of the lines of Matt being fired "wasn't necessarily fair, but business isn't fair." Gag!

Because of this thread, I watched the Matt Hardy vs. Edge "Rivalries" show on WWE Network last night. Even with all of the editing and cleaning up to omit Matt's goofier moments, it's amazing how much better and more convincing both Edge and Lita were on the mic during this run. Even though Matt Hardy was angry in real life (justifiably so IMO), almost everything he said still came across like a rehearsed wrestling promo. Whereas, everything that came out Edge and Lita's mouths felt so much more "real." Even so, I still think it's unfair and total bullshit that Edge dominated the feud and eventually forced Matt off of Raw. Yes, this comes back around to Jericho, who was one of the talking heads and sounded like a clueless corporate douchebag once again. He said something along of the lines of Matt being fired "wasn't necessarily fair, but business isn't fair." Gag!

Also, his third book - at times - makes him come across as the most drunken, unlikeable, immature asshole imaginable.

I voted Dustin but this is just demonstrably not true. He has long stretches of doing nothing or being actively not very good. I mean 98-2002 is like a completely dead period. This is ultimately what swayed me to go with Austin. Look, I love Dustin Rhodes - I even bought a massive compilation of his Dustin matches a few years ago, which I've never done with anyone else. I love Goldust. He magnificently reinvented himself and broke out of his father's shadow. I even love weird short-lived gimmicks like the American Nightmare. I love his versatility in general and his great work in the ring. But like goc correctly pointed out, Dustin's had several bad years. True, Austin's career was shorter, but he never had a bad year. Even his low point - The Ringmaster - lasted only a few months, and I'm willing to bet there were several decent matches in there too. When it comes to sheer consistency on a high level, very few can match Austin's career year by year. Plus, Austin made himself one of the biggest stars ever - nothing was handed to him. There are many cool Goldust moments, but none of them come close to the birth of Austin 3:16 at King of the Ring for its sheer magnitude and goosebump factor. Ditto for the amazing WM13 match with Bret. We're probably the biggest collection of Dustin marks online (I think that might be how I found this board), but I can't realistically not give this one to Austin.

Funny (but fake) face to face interview between Meltzer and Russo - an homage to the feature found in those old Inside Wrestling magazines. http://kevineckwrestling.sportsblog.com/posts/2519011/face-to-face--vince-russo-vs--dave-meltzer.html His Russo impression is almost spot-on. I'm not as sure about Meltzer, unless this is how he comes across in audio (I've never listed to a single soundbite of his audio, so I don't know).

I was thinking of this same thing last night before bed. Sid, for all his faults, was genuinely believable as a tough guy, badass, dangerous, unhinged, whatever you want to call it. You would not want to run into that guy in a dark alley, period. Contrast that with today's wrestlers. If I knew nothing about Sid or Lesnar but had a gun to my head and had to fight one of them, I'd take my chances on Lesnar. And Lesnar is actually credible as a tough guy. I love Kevin Owens, Samoa Joe, Dean Ambrose, etc., but I'm not afraid of any of them. Bray Wyatt is even worse in this regard - I don't believe he's really anything like that. For whatever else you can say about Sid, he had an aura about him that said, step the fuck back, you don't want any part of this! Warrior never came across as dangerous, you're right, but I don't hold that against him. He was a career babyface once he got his big push, and career babyfaces I don't think really benefit from being dangerous. Before someone brings up Brody or whoever, I mean in a WWE/WCW "bright lights, big stage" type of environment. Even Mick Foley's rough edges were softened considerably by the time he got his big main event run.

Even though I created this thread and poll, I haven't made a final decision yet. My thoughts: Warrior + A few great matches (Macho, Hogan, etc.) + An awesome look, presence, and entrance - all unforgettable + It may not have lasted, but he was believable for the moment as the "next big thing" and "icon" vs. Hogan - that kind of status is very rare to achieve, even momentarily and fleetingly + Got in, made his money, and got out. I actually respect his business acumen and realistic view of what wrestling actually is. All of that, of course, goes against the grain of everything believed by people stuck in the "rasslin' bubble," which makes it even more of a plus for me. - Many not-so-great matches, of course - Bizarre out-of-the-ring rants, sometimes of a racist nature - His entire WCW run - holy shit, this was bad Sid + He was a Horseman. It's easy to say he was a bad one in hindsight or with revisionist thinking. But was he really? I'm not so sure. + Amazing presence, albeit unintentionally goofy at times. + The two Michaels matches still hold up at least, right? I remember them being fun enough. Any other hidden gems? + Good as both a face and a heel. - Tons of bad matches - Scissors, squeegees, and softball - Broken leg - not his fault, but it's burned in the memory of anyone who saw it Both * Main event/World Title runs * Headlined WrestleMania (Hogan vs. Warrior and Taker vs. Sid respectively (I guess Sid vs. Hogan too, if you want to count that - but ironically enough, Warrior was the real star there) * Headlined Halloween Havoc (Warrior) and Starrcade (Sid) respectively in an era where there was no one "top" WCW PPV * Mic work was "interesting," to say the least. Of the two, only Sid dipped into midcard territory after his first main event push - the Sid and The Kid run in the mid-'90s WWF where they were managed by DiBiase. Warrior remained a main-eventer for the rest of his career after his first big push in the late '80s.