C.S.

Smart move dropping the stupid six-month committment and giving away Survivor Series for free (a show I am interested in, at least for the traditional SS match). Yeah, I think they're getting me back a few months early. Well-played, WWE!

Yep. I caught that after I had written my giant post. Serves me for right for jumping in right before bed.

For whatever it's worth, I thought SummerSlam 2013 sucked. EDIT: I'm exhausted and about to comment on SummerSlam 2014. Yeah, I read 2013 as 2014, even though I typed 2013. Sorry. The Cena/Brock main event is the most overrated piece of shit I've seen in years. Yeah, it was novel for Cena to get his ass kicked so thoroughly - that was definitely something new - but new doesn't always equal good. I was bored for most of the match. Eighteen German suplexes, etc. - GTFO with that garbage. Yes, I understand and appreciate the story it was trying to tell, but that doesn't mean I had fun watching it. Reigns/Orton was also extremely dull to me. I sympathize with what Orton had to do - and with no appreciation from anyone whatsoever - but that doesn't change the fact that they were rushing Reigns's push long before he was ready. Then again, I'm the guy who defended the first Cena/Wyatt match. It wasn't a classic in the traditional sense or a "great wrestling match," but it was different, creative, and - unlike Cena/Brock - never boring. I also thought Sheamus/Cesaro at the following PPV sucked. At the time, I said it damn near killed the Cesaro Swing as a big move. Considering that he hardly ever uses it anymore, I was right. There was some debate and pushback, but it was all pretty friendly. People here, at least in my experience, seem to be okay with disagreements (unless it's about Molly Ringwald or Marlon Brando...then watch out! LOL.)

I didn't see the show, so take that into account, but booking matters! - Cesaro/Ziggler ending in two straight falls sounds monumentally disappointing. The match might have been great - I don't know - but I would've been pissed with the way it was booked. - Cena vs. Orton for the 1000th time, no matter how good or bad, is not what anyone wants anymore. But at least it wasn't the main event. - The main event ending in a "fuck finish" (as someone here called it) is absolutely terrible. It's one of the hottest feuds of the year, and instead of being concluded properly, all it did was set up another feud? Ugh. Unless the plan is for Ambrose, Rollins, and Reigns to headline WM (one can hope), this made very little sense to me. Booking matters. Endings matter. The little things matter.

I wouldn't know for sure, but if you include the standard black nWo shirt, that's no doubt true. Either that or the original Austin 3:16 have to be the two best-selling pieces of wrestling merchandise ever. That, plus the nWo and Outsiders had a several-year headstart on Goldberg and were around longer, so it's likely true. If Nash was using that as an example of how he's a "bigger draw" than Goldberg though, then he's full of shit. (Not sure if he's saying that though...where did this data come from?)

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.

Not sure this is worth a separate thread, so I'll post it here: I've been reading through the new book As You Wish: Inconceivable Tales from the Making of The Princess Bride (by Cary Elwes, with Joe Layden). In addition to the expected - but still great - stories about Andre's drinking, health, etc., there's also an interesting tidbit about the WrestleMania 3 Silverdome attendance record. The WWE has always claimed over 93,000, and Meltzer has constantly refuted that over the years with a lower number (I can't remember what now). In the book, Cary Elwes quotes "The Princess Bride's" producer, Andy Scheinman, who was told at the time that the number was 78,000. Thought that was interesting. Granted, it could be a case of the guy misremembering the number he heard 25 years ago, but that seems somewhat unlikely to me. The co-author/ghostwriter is Joe Layden, who also co/ghost wrote The Rock Says. I wonder if he pushed for more Andre/wrestling-related content. I haven't finished the book yet, but it's been great so far. I'm not sure I'd recommend it if you're only looking for Andre/wrestling tidbits, but if you have an interest in that and the movie, I'd say it's well worth buying. http://books.simonandschuster.com/As-You-Wish/Cary-Elwes/9781476764023

That's completely untrue. Jim drinks Sprite! LOL. I almost spit my own drink out. Well played, sir. Well played.

Not to sound like a wet rag, and this is not intended for anyone here specifically, but I think the IWC's "bullying" of Dunn has become excessive. Just because one of the IWC's "anointed" - Jim Cornette - said something "funny" about Dunn's teeth, everyone suddenly thinks it's okay to act like a major douchebag and make stupid jokes about Dunn. Again, I'm not picking on anyone in this thread or on this board in particular - I'm just tired of this really childish, boorish trend of "ha ha, Bucky Beaver, ha ha" because it's lame, unfunny, and beyond old at this point. I love the hell out of watching Corny, but let's face it... He's a loud, obnoxious, foul-mouthed, Pepsi-swilling, drive thru-abusing redneck. His crass, infantile behavior is not something anyone should aspire to. More often than not, he's a piss poor ambassador for the sport of wrestling. There's a reason no major company (and many minor ones as well) want nothing to do with him. He's a catastrophic embarassment in his words and actions - and a complete liability to whoever makes the mistake of working with him. Again, I love Corny, but if I ever lose my mind one day and decide to throw (away) a bunch of money into funding a wrestling organization, he's the last person I'd hire to be in the public eye. To be honest, even a behind-the-scenes role is something I'd be ambivalent about. His "wrestling mind" was great in 1985 and maybe even 1995, but times have changed and he hasn't changed with them. Does Dunn deserve criticism for a lot of things? Sure, so why can't we stick to that? I don't think his looks or teeth are at all relevant. The problem is, "bucky beaver" - and hearsay - are what 99% of the internet use to attack Dunn nowadways. It would be really nice if we could get some legitimate discourse for a change about one of the most powerful and influential members of Vince's inner circle. There's a lot to discuss. His teeth really should rank at the very bottom of that list.

This would be awesome, but I fear you are being way too optimistic.

I could swear that Dunn himself actually appeared on Tough Enough at least once though. First season, if I recall. Anyone remember this?

I am guessing most people don't know this... If you're getting or keeping the Network only for NXT, don't. You can get the same content - yes, including the PPVs - on Hulu Plus. The only difference is, you won't get them "live." The shows appear 24 hours later, and I believe PPVs end up on Hulu 1-2 days later.

Former subscriber. Will jump back in for the Rumble because that's my favorite PPV. But as much as I enjoyed the content that is available to watch, I'm very disappointed that the service still felt like a clunky beta test after six months. Also, the way content was added (or not added, as the case may be) felt really erratic.

It's also one of the worst, most infuriating aspects of Hulu Plus. Lots of ads, but a very small pool of them that repeat all the fucking time. WWE is learning the wrong lessons from its "competitors" (and I put that in quotes because they're kidding themselves if they think they're legit competition for Netflix, Hulu, etc. - totally different bracket and ballpark).

Because the service hasn't gotten any better in any other way. Ads make it "worse." Are they a big deal in the grand scheme of things? No, probably not. But they aren't an "improvement" either, and WWE Network has a laundry list of things that need to improve.

Except... I don't care about Cain Velasquez. I barely even know who Cain Velasquez is. I sure as hell would not recognize Cain Velasquez if he walked down the street. Yes, there are a subsection of fans who follow both WWE and UFC, WWE and NFL, etc. But not everyone does. This kind of thinking is exactly what has damaged Meltzer's MMA Observer Newsletter...excuse me, I mean Wrestling Observer. Case-in-point: Was Lawrence Taylor vs. Bam Bam Bigelow one of the biggest matches of all time? No. True, Bam Bam wasn't the "biggest star," but I'd say the same about Hulk Hogan vs. LT too. I had no idea who LT was and didn't care. The only reason the match worked is because LT acted like an arrogant, clueless asshole (calling 1-2-3 Kid a "13-year-old," etc.) and he made me root against him. Also, I despised and resented Bam Bam being forced to apologize. But none of that is good booking, because that wasn't the reaction I was "supposed" to have. The biggest PPV wrestling match of all time is going to be between two hot wrestlers, period. That way, you can guarantee that 100% of your audience will know the players involved and be invested in them. Yes, outside celebs bring outside fans, but do those fans stick around? I'm not so sure. Hogan vs. Stone Cold would've worked 10 years ago. Stone Cold vs. CM Punk would've worked 2 years ago. I'm not sure what would work today. Even the one possible exception - Stone Cold vs. Tyson (15 years ago, not now) - would've been "hot" but still ultimately a sideshow circus attraction and far from "the biggest PPV match of all time."

I am no longer a subscriber, so I didn't get it. But this is apparently what it says: More info here: http://adage.com/article/media/wwe-s...tisers/295390/ Yet another step in the wrong direction for the troubled WWE Network. I let my subscription expire after the first six months, and I've not been impressed by anything they've done to try to "woo" me back - including weekly, sometimes daily, spam mails. Does the service still feel like a bad beta test that lags severely behind Netflix, Hulu, etc.?

Unless you go by the definition some wrestlers have given of a worker - whoever drew the most fans. By that standard, Hogan outworked the living hell out of Abyss (and most everyone else). The IWC definition of a worker is impossible to prove, and the Meltzer version of the term IMO values certain things that favor certain types of wrestlers and specific styles.

I thought of that one, but honestly, the WWF sold the hell out of it by giving him such a long reign. Agree or disagree with the choice of champion, at least it meant something and everyone - the fans and the booker(s) - gave a shit. When he lost the title finally, it was a huge moment and it can be argued somewhat that Warrior was "made" because of it (I wouldn't go that far necessarily, but it didn't hurt). Compare that to the past decade or so, where the I-C Title hasn't rmattered.

The answer for me is when WWF bought WCW and a whole second set of belts were added. After that, none of them meant a damn thing. Anyone criticizing Jarrett's I-C reign is guilty of putting on some serious revisionist goggles. At the time, he was definitely considered a rising star - not necessarily a guaranteed future main eventer (especially with that silly country music gimmick), but certainly someone on the level of other recent I-C Champs at the time. PWI and all of those mags pushed him hard too when he was in Memphis. Jarrett's reputation didn't really decline until his botched run with the Horsemen, and even then, his subsequent return to the WWF was still somewhat of an event. Despite Austin's refusal to work with him, he was a hot upper midcard heel during that run. I personally always thought Austin was wrong, BTW. At that time, a Stone Cold/Double J feud could have been very good. His second WCW run and TNA were disasters that exposed his limitations badly, but before that, he was a really effective heel in the months leading up to the Chyna feud.

A great tag team. The only thing that might hurt them on people's lists is that they were never the team in the WWE. Tt's a shame they were never awarded the belts, because they should have been (ignoring the unfortunate rope break match with The Hart Foundation, of course). I wonder if they would have fared better in WCW? Obviously, the stars aligned for at least Shawn in the WWF, so I know he wouldn't want to change anything. But it is interesting to wonder "what if?" about The Rockers and WCW.

I could see someone thinking that Jannetty was the better of the two during The Rockers - not the argument I'm making, mind you - but that's about it. Even if you hate Shawn, you cannot realistically see Jannetty's post-Rocker tenure as anything other than one giant missed opportunity after another.

I've never loved Davey, but I have a feeling if I rewatched a lot of his stuff, I'd end up considering him an underrated talent - sort of like I look at Lex Luger now in hindsight.

NJPW isn't the only offender. Almost every big WWE match, especially those at WrestleMania, have that bullshit with wrestlers kicking out of finishers. It's one of the trends I can't stand, because it's no longer exciting and it feels like an overdone, worn out cliche at this point.

Something to consider: If Flair was still booked as dominantly in the late '90s WCW and early '00s WWE instead of as an aging midcarder, would he still be seen as someone in decline who overstayed his welcome? The pendulum might have swung the other way, with people being resentful that he was still being pushed so hard at his age. If anything, I think bad booking and being misused - as odd as this sounds - endeared Flair to fans more. We kinda saw the same thing with Bryan and Punk, in a way. Is there any scenario where Flair comes out smelling like roses if he doesn't retire in the late-90s (or whatever you think his dropping off point was) like maybe he should have?