Steenalized

I hate the "RKO out of nowhere" nonsense that the WWE tries to make a big deal, but that one actually worked. Probably the best I've seen him too in terms of actually being out of nowhere.

I thought the Cesaro-Ziggler match was ok. Not worth hating, not worth loving. The first fall in particular looked a lot different than most WWE matches and then Cesaro did a great job selling the arm. Dolph did good to go after it. I don't care if it didn't go to a third fall, I think it's dumb to have every 2/3 falls go to a third fall. Out of context that match is better than it is in-context. Ziggler ate a ton of offense and survived it, which makes sense if he was booked like a legitimate champion. He won't be. Brie vs. Nikki was short but pretty sweet. The sister that looks like she could break the other one in half won, so thumbs up.

Henry's so much more enjoyable as a heel anyway with his great trashtalking abilities.

No matter how down I get on a week-to-week basis with the WWE I still get excited for PPV Sundays. How many matches will I enjoy tonight? Maybe a couple. But I'm an optimist and really think (hope?) that Ambrose and Rollins pull out something special. Cesaro/Ziggler will at least be entertaining. Thus the glory of college football fandom. Excitement every week and it never gets in the way of wrestling. Even if last week was a total body blow because of the Notre Dame loss.

Did WWE listen to the podcast? Those sound like WWE games for your cell phone. I'll be glad if they drop EC as a set PPV but droping HIAC would be better.

Moves further up my list every time I see him. He'll be as high as any of the "Four Pillars." I can't get over how great that Zangiev match is for something so short.

Who would you put as closest to Hogan? I'd see Dusty as another larger-than-life everyman. Flair was more like Hogan, but not a cartoonish super hero. Ultimate Warrior probably is the best I can think of.

I don't take it too seriously, I'd put peak performance over consistent all-out effort. All else considered, it's a tie breaker, but I don't fault guys for going easy on spot shows.

Cena and the WWE have worked the crowd for years at this point on his abilities as a wrestler. They invite the "you can't wrestle" chants and Cena himself probably relishes in them. The WWE also refers to Cena in more of a kayfabe sense, being the 16 or so time champion and their biggest star for a decade now. The way they refer to Michaels is coded for "workrate legend" Shawn Michaels. Settle down on the disrespect card, you don't have to be duped into thinking Michaels is an all-time great. I can see why lots of people think that even if the WWE/F never gave him the referential awe that they do. For what it's worth, they give it to Flair too and have since he came back after WCW's death.

I don't think it's a poor business decision. It's probably a great business decision. The point that I'm making, and that I think parv is getting at, is that this smart business decision warps perception of the man's aesthetic merits as a wrestler. The WWE's hype train has created a world where according to lots and lots of people you're absolutely nuts if you don't think Michaels is a top 3 wrestler ever, let alone a top 100.

You can agree that Shawn is a good or great wrestler and still think that the WWE's packaging of him is over the top. They treat him like he's as big of a star historically as almost anyone and as if he is the best wrestler to ever be in the company. In the WWE's version of history, the Hogan era transitioned to the Michaels era and then onto Austin and Attitude.

The ROH champions vs. all stars elimination tags have gone over an hour.

You say that as if they're mutually exclusive categories.

To Davey's credit: Edwards is really the worse offender in that gif since he actually takes the superplex. Davey is more the enabler.

It deserves to be memorialized as a testament to Davey Richard's being the embodiment of all of today's worst habits.

Watched that one now too. Zero qualms about calling that the best short match ever. The conclusion I'm coming to is that you definitely can have great short matches but the ceiling is probably lowered because of those time constraints. These matches are some of the best short matches ever, yet I wouldn't call them greatest match of all time material.

I coincidentally watched that Doom/Horseman match last night and loved it. A street fight really shouldn't go long. By nature its supposed to be rough and hard hitting. Weapons come into play. That match shouldn't go 20. Another few minutes might have helped but for the style of match that length was right on. Barry Windham bled about 2 minutes into it and Simmons joined him within the next 60 seconds or so.

Orton has historically been pretty great for flipping out and not handling the crowd reactions well when they don't go his way. But then he also hammed it up and tagged in Ryback when the Las Vegas crowd was chanting the big guy's name, so maybe he's turning it around.

What match was that? Also, there were hardly any chants at the AAW show I went to last night. Maybe a holy shit during the big six-man spotfest that they run out after intermission. I can't remember any "this is awesome" or this is wrestling. Mostly chanting people's names, booing heels, cheering faces. The big exception was that a match ended in DQ in a promotion whose tagline is "No Countouts, No Disqualifications." The place chanted "bullshit" for a few minutes after, paused while a video played, then picked it back up for the first half of the next match, as well they should have.

I'd doubt it. Independent contractor cases are very fact-dependent and it's in an entirely different industry.

Team sports have decades of history to their rivalries and don't have the same structure to rivalries that pro wrestling does. Wrestling is all about building to the eventual blow off then delivering on that. It can continue after a blow off down the line, but that big match is key. Getting your rival in a playoff match or at a key time is great, but not a blow off since you know you'll be back next year. I think it could work in the sense that you are capable of running a promotion that way in the most basic sense. I don't think it would ever work in the sense that people care about the wins and losses. It's like when Evolve tried to do the "we keep records" shtick.

Wrestling scheduling is more like boxing. Lower level guys should have more matches, champions go less often, who you face and how quickly you face them depends on your recent win-loss schedule. The bonus of wrestling is that you get to use workers much more often and get to book how things go with little interference, for the most part. A schedule would make feuds odd and drama probably non-existent. You're also pigeonholing yourself into certain results.

I'm going to be watching you like a hawk tonight and tattling if you chant. I'll chant something at some point, but it better be a mind blowing match to get "this is awesome." I'm a regular for "Let's go [wrestler name]" This isn't much better though is it? It's creepy. Why are the crowd sucking up to the wrestlers? Wet. Why not bust out the "We are not worthy" chant too? I do agree with Loss though that the workers and promoters should be stronger in working whatever style they want and stop pandering to these crowds. It's a vicious cycle that ends up making workers actively worse. Wrestler's are (minor) celebrities to basically everyone in the audience, whether at a WWE show or an indy show, so there's some idolizing. And it's a lot more personal/intimate setting at an indy show with 200-300 people than at an arena show with thousands, maybe even tens of thousands for the biggest ones.

The only time I get annoyed by crowd chants are "you fucked up" and, depending on the situation, "this is awesome." The latter doesn't inherently bother me but I think some people are a wee bit trigger happy on busting it out. "This is wrestling" is kinda cringy, but it have never altered my enjoyment of a match. I'll be at an AAW show tonight. The crowd will chant, I'll probably chant at some point, it's part of the experience. Do I think intense crowd reactions are more enjoyable? Yes, I suppose, when you get real, legitimate heat on a match, then I'd rather have booing and cheering than a "this is awesome" chant. I personally boo heels and cheer faces the majority of the time anyways.

Subscriber since day one, no intention of getting rid of it. Worth it just for the PPV streams. Sometimes I'll go a week or two without really watching old content, but other times I binge like crazy. It's easily worth $10/month to me and, like Loss, I want it to succeed long term. $10 is like a beer and a half in this city, even with my tight-fisted ways I'll happily pay for the network.