Steenalized

Meltzee seems to think it's because of the olympic lifts they have the guys doing.From experience, the bench press is much worse for the shoulder than the oly lifts, and you don't hear much about shoulder problems from someone like Kane with a 500lb raw bench. If they're doing Crossfit style lifts with little regard for form, though, that could definitely compound things as mentioned. I'd argue it's the combination of the training with the wrestling schedule and style that's causing these injuries. I have a bad shoulder and the best I can do is to just listen to my body and try not to push it too hard. With these wrestlers, though, they can't listen to their body since fans expect them to look like these amazing athletes every time out, hence a nagging pain eventually becomes a torn rotator cuff or ACL. It's a hard place for WWE to be in as it's pretty much the result of them finally giving in to favoring the more physical and athletic puro style style that fans have been pressuring them to move towards for a long time now, only without the tour schedule that gives puro guys precious time to recover. I can only see the injuries getting worse and more frequent if things continue as they are now. The bench press is not an issue for shoulder health if you make the simplest of adjustments, i.e., have your elbows out from your sides at a

Hard to disagree with most of what you said, but it's the world and who you know is important, this is not unique to wrestling. Colby Corino being in a prospect's tournament makes sense, even if there are better actual prospects out there, and it helps them run a story line. Not like he's going to be world champ by year's end because he's Steve Corino's son.

That was my thought, they'll always have a giant around if they can and Big Show is basically the best you can realistically hope for. Pretty good worker and promo, reasonably healthy, etc. Even if he never even got to the level that he did, I don't see them canning him quickly though maybe he gets tired and leaves for something else if he doesn't have a decent push.

Did they post it online?

The Rock is only one most hosting gig away from the 5 Timers Club too

When I last saw Jacobs wrestle (late 2013/early 2014) he was wearing pants

I think Chikara is really dumb and their one show I went to was the worst show I've ever been to, but I will give them credit for maintaining their own universe.

Good for him

Did Honky take that loss without a fight? As in, did he put up a stink before agreeing to job or was he completely cool with getting squashed after his run?

But the money is in the chase! And in Triple H promos to start the show.,

I know you said Wrestlemania 2000, but that's like the most 90s sentence I've seen in a long time.

Since the next President is probably going to have to fill up to three Supreme Court seats, not really this time . Unless you live in a really short list of states, yes really. And I'll try to submit a ballot.

In no particular order other than coming to mind: Funk Hansen Lawler Akiyama Kawada Tenryu Flair Hashimoto Liger I will try to work some lucha workers in if I can, still need to watch more.

With all this recent Rave love, I really want to go back and watch his early (04-06) ROH stuff. I hated him so much during the CM Punk feud, which given he was a heel, I should have. ROH fans seemed down on him at the time but their tastes at the time don't align with my current ones so I imagine I'm going to be more favorable.

Watch it end up being a transcendentally great match

Demolition may have been bigger at their peak, I don't know to be honest, I was not alive for it. But the Bushwackers gained a lot more crossover appeal and lasting cultural relevancy for whatever reason. Probably the arm thing, appealing to kids in that era (who are now adults), and appearing in other things like Family Matters.

If you're going to put a WWF tag team I'd put the Bushwackers in over Demolition any day.

NXT live from the Frontier Fieldhouse in Chicago Ridge, IL has a certain ring to it.

The issue for Scalia's dissent in Windsor was that there wasn't even a controversy for the Supreme Court to hear. In both the Windsor and Obergefell dissents, Scalia point out that if you want to undue these laws, use the democratic process to do it. Don't apply a haphazard Equal Protection/Due Process/kinda both/kinda neither analysis to it. Even supporters of the result of Obergefell have found flaws with the legal reasoning that the majority articulated, especially considering there were legitimate legal grounds to get to their conclusion. I know some guys go by their real names, some don't, it's more a combination of complaining about someone while also using their 'shoot' name, or in this case, 'Tony', a diminutive form of his name. For what it's worth, I don't think "The Notorious RBG" is exactly a diminutive, but you're right that other names will cross party lines for who they piss off ("Barry" vs. "Dubya"). So it's not so much using the name, whether Tony here or a wrestler's real name, but more how it's used. That was also a minor point here, one that I literally called an aside, but I get your point. Tone is hard to convey in text.

I agree that Scalia is not consistent from the viewpoint of limiting federal power as his credo. But it's also not his credo, it's an originalist interpretation of the constitution. I wouldn't even say that more-often-than-not he votes to limit federal power, just more often than about anyone else on the court who isn't named Clarence Thomas. And you'll note if you read the Windsor opinion that Scalia starts by pointing out that SCOTUS should not even have heard the case. Gasp, it's almost like he's pretty hardline about what the federal judiciary should be deciding when they take cases. Disagree with his politics all you want, seems like about everyone here does that, but quit framing things in a lazy way to make them inconsistent when the continuing thread through this opinions are pretty evident. As an aside, I'd add that calling him "Tony" repeatedly is as cringe-y as fans who insist on using shoot names. But you are correct, you did not roll out that last argument. I did not attribute it to you either, but it did appear in this thread.

In both, he's saying that the Constitution preserves rights to the people: right to associate and right to free speech under the First Amendment; right of the people and states to set marriage standards. In neither case does he think that judges should determine what a law ought to be, but is instead applying his Constitutional interpretation. I didn't say Scalia would never strike down a law, that's pretty obviously false. Nor do I particularly like his jurisprudence. For someone so fearful of government intrusion on the people, he certainly gives it a whole lot of deference, particularly in criminal matters. As one of the dissenters points out (Alito, I think), even the petitioner conceded that prior to 2001, marriage meant one-man, one-woman. Not defending this interpretation or its implications (hate having to caveat everything I say here, since again, I really don't care much for Scalia outside of his humor and I did pass on the opportunity to see him speak when he came to my law school), but the "he isn't qualified to be a judge" shtick is nonsense. So is the "he voted in the majority for Citizens United but dissented in Obergefell and these are wholly inconsistent." They're not. The former is a voted to limit federal power so much that the government had the ability to limit speech-through-association. The latter is a vote to limit federal power in that it should not be the federal government, especially a federal judiciary, who decides a historically state matter that legislatures are handling on their own, with no reason to think the legislatures cannot handle it on their own.

Disagree with his opinions if you want, sure, but they're consistent with each other. They're not really even related. Citizens United follows the legal theory that, while a corporation or other entity is legally distinct from its owners, it is nevertheless an amalgamation of owners and it doesn't make sense to limit people acting as a group when they could act as individuals in the same way. In particular, Scalia's view is that the First Amendment entitles people to speak as associates, not only as individuals. Scalia takes an originalist view of interpreting statutes, i.e., apply the language as it was written, with the meaning when written. His vote against the same sex marriage decision rests on the originalist notion that this is something that states should decide and traditionally states decide it via vote. His opinion, and this is consistent in his jurisprudence, is that the US Supreme Court should not invalidated "bad" laws just because they are "bad" because that is not the Court's role. The US Supreme Court is, in his view, supposed to interpret and apply law, not create or destroy it. Invalidating state laws against same sex marriage is "an attack on democracy" in that it is the Court deciding popularly-elected laws should be tossed out. The opinion he, Thomas, and sometimes others hold is that if you want an unpopular law repealed, use the legislature, not the Supreme Court.

They put a new, King of the Mountain title on him, not their heavyweight title.

Scalia is really hit or miss for me, in terms of whether I agree with him or not, but the guy knows how to write. And his snark is legendary, both during oral arguments and in writing. His concurrence in Ohio v. Clark a few weeks ago is one hell of a mic drop. I still don't understand how he can be a judge. Because he had a standout legal career (teaching at three of the best law schools in the US, District Court of DC Judge which is a highly prestigious position). And, like WingedEagle said, he's a genius, like him or not.

Never has there been a bigger disconnect between a name and an entertainment level.