C.S.

Might be too complicated, but I wouldn't mind an AFI (http://www.afi.com/100years/) type of system, where there are several lists for various categories. With AFI, there are things like best comedy, best musical, etc. I could see that working for wrestling too (best brawler, etc.). Might be way too much work though. Just throwing it out there anyway.

Didn't mean to imply that Steamboat wasn't a draw, but late-70s/early-80s money is not the same as mid/late-80s or Nitro-era money. My point was, Savage was a bigger draw, and there's a reason for that.

1. Regal's influence is a completely different argument, and he's influential in different ways for different reasons. People already in the system are influenced by Regal, which is great - don't get me wrong - but very few people grew up being inspired by him like they did with Savage/Steamboat. That doesn't make Regal horrible or inferior - I love him - but he doesn't have a match on his resume that had the same effect on so many people. I can't even buy that he wasn't put in a position to, because Savage/Steamboat was a midcard feud for a midcard belt (which meant a lot more back then, granted, but it wasn't the World Title match and it wasn't the main event). Regal and Steamboat are both shortsighted about the Savage match. 2. As for your feelings on ROH, if you took my comment as some sort of personal jab at your preferences...no, just no. Do you honestly expect me to memorize the likes and dislikes of everyone here on the board? I realize this is a really tight, close-knit community, which I love, but I can't say I know the ins and outs of everyone's tastes here. (I know Dylan adores Triple H though.) 3. Great wrestling is great wrestling, sure, but there's something to be said about matches with historical influence, that make kids want to become wrestlers, that those wrestlers emulate. Regal and Ohno have never been in such a match. And I say that while having much love for Regal. 4. I'll have to find a way to watch the Ohno match. I believe you when you say it was good. But the fact is, Ohno's no longer around for a reason. How do we know the match wasn't a total carry-job by Regal? Honest question. Can't argue with the awesomeness of Steamboat during the Dangerous Alliance era, and I think the Larry Z match was my favorite of Regal's too. Actually made me cheer the balding, obnoxious, lame old man golfer type that Larry was at the time, which is nothing short of miraculous. I credit that to Regal, who I liked even then, and he still made he cheer for Larry. Regal was a tremendous heel, if nothing else.

Anyone else let their WWE Network subscription run out? I really like the content, but the service itself feels like such an unpolished beta test. After six months, that simply isn't acceptable. Plus, Night of Champions doesn't pique my interest at all (though I'm sorry to be missing Takeover). I'll wait for the inevitable free week + deal.

Austin's status as an all-time great can't be disputed IMO. He morphed from "Stunning" Steve in WCW to "Stone Cold" in the WWF. Not only did he completely change his personality, he also changed his in-ring style - especially after his neck injury. His style post-injury was different, but I wouldn't say it was worse. He was still producing high quality at a rapid rate. Very few wrestlers are as versatile as he was. Not only that, but he was on or near the top for many years, and as consistent as anyone else during that time. He never got the push in WCW, but he had a very successful run there as a high profile upper midcarder with the Dangerous Alliance, Hollywood Blonds, etc. And no need to go into how successful he was as Stone Cold.

Those matches won't influence a generation of wrestlers though. What happens in the ring, IMO, is only one part of what makes a match great. This goes back to the WWE's incredibly ability to make its history matter (when it wants to, which it usually doesn't for NXT). And while I'll readily admit I haven't seen the match, I honestly have a hard time believing that a flabby, unmotivated Kassius Ohno was better than Steamboat or Macho Man at anything on any day. I get that these ROH indy guys have a following on the internet, but that seems like a pretty big stretch.

Did Tolos do any managing outside of his wretched "Coach" persona? If not, it might be unfair to judge him on 2-3 months of work for something he had never done before, while being saddled with a crappy gimmick to boot. Plus, he replaced Bobby Heenan - which is about the worst, most thankless spot you can get, because who could've possibly followed "The Brain"?

I'd argue that the element of surprise was increased. Tuning into Superstars on one random Saturday morning and having Mean Gene bring out Bret Hart as "the new World Wrestling Federation Champion" was absolutely mind-blowing to my 13-year-old self. There was no internet then, and I wasn't reading the sheets, so that was the first I'd heard of it - and it was shocking. It was cool that house shows actually mattered for once - which seems to be something the WWF experimented with over that year or two (Flair beating Savage a month or two before for the title, Diesel winning the belt from Backlund on a house show, Money Inc. getting the Tag Titles with Jimmy Hart as their new manager while Natural Disasters turned face, there were some Money Inc./Steiners switches, and I think a Men on a Mission title change happened on a house show too). A random Flair vs. Bret match on SNME wouldn't have drawn much interest before the fact (IMO) - it would have seemed out of place, almost - but of course getting an epic title change like that on free television would have been incredible.

Would it have been though? He didn't exactly light the wrestling world on fire when he eventually did join the WWE in late 1990 as General Adnan. I can't imagine that the WWE's approach to his character would have been radically different only five years earlier.

No, but it might exemplify wider reasons for why Savage was so far ahead of Steamboat in terms of drawing power. While Steamer was possibly stuck in his own bubble (as evidenced by his distaste for the WM match), Savage may have been more open to different possibilities and ways of doing things. Also, Savage clearly put a lot more thought and care into his character and presentation, while Ricky was sort of all over the place with that (from a scientific, no-frills family man to a kung-fu warrior to The Dragon with the fire, etc.). Of course, part of that is probably because of the power each wrestler wielded - Savage clearly had more say-so over his character than Steamboat would have. I love Steamboat as much as anyone else here, but I think it's healthy to analyze the shortcomings of some of these "sacred cow" wrestlers instead of pretending everything they did was perfect and above reproach. If I saw those, I don't remember them. That's not to say they were bad - I'm sure they were great - but it just goes to show you how behind the curveball WCW was when it came to creating and accentuating those "big moments." The WWE has shown complete mastery in that area. They've turned it into an art form. No other fed has come close in that department, although I will give credit to ECW for at least attempting to do the same with their moments. WCW, TNA, etc. are clueless about such things, and that's why one is out of business and the other will possibly be soon. I kind of touched on the same thing above. WM3 was a "big moment" because the WWE Machine knows how to create those better than any other company in the world (wrestling or not). However, was the greatness of Savage/Steamboat hyped after the fact, or did that sort of build in reputation over the years? As for WCW never having a show as big as WM3, I argue that Starrcade '97 could have been that show for them, but WCW being WCW, of course it wasn't.

I adore Regal, but has he EVER had a match as good as Savage/Steamboat? Steamboat himself was down on the match for years because it was pre-planned, which really comes across as one of those dumb things wrestlers value that don't actually enhance the product in any way. Might explain why Savage drew a boatload of money and Steamer never really did.

This seems like a thread intended for Randy Orton. Bores the shit out of fans but workers trip over themselves praising this guy. I don't get it... Yes, he's good in the ring, but everyone is sick of him.

I hate the USB and plug setup, but that's a small price to pay for a cheaper product that works well. The Chromecast is a bust IMO because there's no remote at all (and a crappy phone app is NOT an adequate replacement in my book). The Roku stick at least seems to have a remote, which makes all the difference in the world.

I'm not saying the history of the NWA Title doesn't matter - of course it still does - but I don't think the current NWA matters a lick. The fact is, ROH and NJPW are both more well-known and relevant in this day and age than the current NWA. NJPW, to my knowledge, has always been a major league promotion - even if it's never had much (or any) U.S. presence. America is a very important market, of course, but it's not the only market. Japan is still a pretty big, significant country in its own right. But how highly regarded is the NWA there because of its association with NJPW? I don't know for sure, and I'll admit that, but I'm willing to bet not very. Anyway, I don't know if we should keep going 'round and 'round on this. You clearly have your own feelings about the NWA, which are more positive than mine, and that's cool. As much as I'd love for the NWA to mean something in 2014, it will never be what it once was. It can't be. The industry has changed too much.

NJPW, maybe. TNA, no way. I just can't buy TNA as credible. And how can you clearly trace the lineage of the NWA Title? WWE (the World Heavyweight Title before it was merged), TNA (the original NWA-TNA belt), and the current NWA have all claimed to have titles that can be traced back to the original. If the current NWA indy promotion (or whatever it is) has created a coherent timeline and title history, good for them, but I still don't buy that title as the same one held by Flair, Thesz, etc. Even if it is somehow technically the same lineage, that means very little to me. I can't rationally consider it a World Title in 2014 (there's more to being a "World" Championship than just being defended internationally, which is an old-fashioned, outdated, passe standard to apply to modern-day wrestling anyway). Sears was once a powerhouse in the retail world, but do we still hold it in the same esteem because of what it used to be, or do we face reality and acknowledge Sears for what it is today? That's kind of how I look at the current NWA. Honest question: Do you work for the NWA by any chance? I'm asking because you seem to be defending them rather passionately - far more than is warranted for such an irrelevant ghost of a group IMO. It may be fun to attend their shows - I'm sure they have great wrestlers, exciting matches, an interesting partnership with NJPW, etc. - but 99% of wrestling fans don't realize they exist anymore. The ship really has sailed on the NWA being anything meaningful and impactful in wrestling. At best, they're probably a very good U.S. indy promotion (or group of promotions, as the case may be) with slightly longer legs in Japan (if even that), but that's it.

IMO, Chromecast is a horrible, clunky, overrated piece of shit. The lack of a remote kills it dead (don't care that there's an app). With the Chromecast, it's so ridiculous because not only do I have to stick it into my TV's USB, I also have to plug it into my wall. Looks like absolute dogshit. (I realize this is partly because of my TV and not everyone will have to do that, but still.) How is the Roku Streaming Stick in comparison?

If you believe the carny rasslin' promoters that claim it's the same lineage, sure. In reality, the NWA has been dead for decades. Even if you think it's still alive and still the same, it's no longer a major league promotion and therefore no longer a World Title.

Roku 3 is what I use, and it's great. Anyone else thinking of not renewing the Network (Night of Champions sounds terrible to me), and waiting for an inevitable deal?

True, it wasn't very entertaining, but how much could the man realistically do as a babyface manager for jobbers? Bobby Heenan wouldn't have succeeded in that role either.

LOL. That was a waste of time for Teddy Long (and the fans), but I wouldn't necessarily say Teddy was a bad manager/personality because of it. He was just cast in a role that was literally a no-win situation.

Are we really calling the useless, pathetic "NWA" Title of that era a World Championship? Shane Douglas was right about one thing: The NWA died - R.I.P. - many years ago.

Strikes me as intellectually dishonest to compare Sapphire to, say, Bobby "The Brain" Heenan or any elite manager. Regardless of what she was called, she did not play the same role - nor was she expected to. For what she was, she did okay. I also didn't mind Harvey Wippleman. All time great? No, not even close, but I think he worked as a manager of lower midcard or comedy acts (Big Bully Busick, Well Dunn, Bertha Faye) but was out of his element when managing main eventers (Sid). The one exception to the latter is Giant Gonzales - maybe because Gonzales looked so god damn goofy. Yet, ironically, Gonzales was credible as a threat (briefly) by laying out The Undertaker the way he did at the '93 Royal Rumble. (Remember, no one had ever been made to look that dominant against The Undertaker up until that point.) Keeping this on-topic, I'll repeat what I said about Fuji in my Gorilla thread: I always thought Fuji was presented very effectively too. Obviously, he had significant drawbacks, but his character was believable and easy to dislike. Worst manager? Not even close.

I always thought Fuji was presented very effectively too. Obviously, he had significant drawbacks, but his character was believable and easy to dislike. Worst manager? Not even close.

WWE.com Poll: Which Superstar would you like to see in a WWE Studios movie next? Come on, people! Let's get those votes for Stardust going!!!

Yeah, but other Thursday night shows (Big Bang? Whatever's on that day) will continue to survive and thrive. Football may be a big deal, but there's still an audience outside of it or in addition to it. And not everyone watches football. It bores the shit out of me. But I get the point: a lot of people watch it. Fair enough. But the rest of the TV landscape manages somehow.