shakla

When I saw AJ doing commentary at the beginning of Smackdown, I muted the TV. She is almost always awful doing commentary, with all her dialogue scripted or "fed in", which is mostly insults that 3rd graders would find lame. I think AJ is beyond stale and has more than run her course. She is an awful babyface, esp. in the last few weeks with her abandoning her tag partners and such. I don't think her mic skills are great either. She's living off the reputation of that overrated and counterproductive "pipe bomb" promo from a year ago. She's more of a big fish/small pond when it comes to that.

Probably a year or so ago, Dave had a valid tangent about how WWE wrestlers were being scripted to say words that no one over 7 would say, like "wiener" and "caca". But yes, that criticism stood out to me as well in this weeks issue.

Plus, per the blurb on the observer site, there was pretty heavy turnover, with around 250k of the previous subs not renewing/sticking around.

Could Bill Kazmaier be considered or was his run too short? Perhaps he came in as too much of an outsider as well.

Would the criteria in the start of the thread also disqualify most of the modern WWE Divas? I'll throw a few names out there. Daffney may not be the worst, but with her experience level (granted she was likely working hurt during the end of her TNA run), she never impressed me in the ring. Ice Train/MI Smooth, who in hindsight, was a poor man's Mark Henry. He had some cool (ha ha) tights but not much else. Kelly Kelly, while a "model picked from a catalog", had a 5 year run in WWE and yet never ran the ropes well or learned a finisher outside of a roll-up, despite usually being passed off as a more upper-tier Diva.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYSzJ5wLm2M I didn't say that Nicki didn't use "bitch" in an interview. In "storyline", Nikki was probably paraphrasing what Steph told her. But WWE still never called this a "loser must be the winner's bitch" match tho, right?

In the latest WON, Dave says that the upcoming Bellas "loser must be winner's personal assistant" match stipulation was originally and officially worded as (paraphrasing) "loser must be winner's bitch for 30 days". There's no search results on WWE.com with "bitch" in the last year. Did WWE ever calls this a loser is winner's "bitch" match? Or was it just something Nikki said in an interview and was reported as such by sites until WWE made the stipulation language official? I don't see where WWE at this point would use "bitch" to describe a match. Maybe this is like how all the sites called the group of African-American wrestlers "the New Nation" with little basis.

UT lives in Austin, he did a convention there not too long ago. I thought Sting was living in Florida or Atlanta (where a lot of WCW guys live(d)), he was billed from Venice Beach back in the day, never really looked into his history to see if that was a worked hometown.

Ah-ha. Childish. But also it does seem like the sort of thing that would legit piss him off. Those chants were funny, and Orndorff did a great job reacting to/"selling" them.

Not sure about that, the way it is spelled (rather than the traditional "karma") will trip people up. I think the goodwill on that name is going to run out soon. She hasn't been on WWE TV in over 3 years. If 5 years from now, she never goes back to WWE, are websites going still going to call her that? A wrestler's very short lived name who didn't even work a regular match under it. Really, I feel it does her a disservice in making money at conventions/the indy scene when she is constantly referred to as the WWE name that she can't use. And it's not like there isn't some value in Amazing Kong, she's used it for awhile and it's not a clunky WWE-to-indies name change like "Monster BC" or "U-Gene".

This is more about what newsites/podcasts refer to her as rather than her personal preference. She goes by Amazing Kong currently on the indies. She can't use Kharma or Awesome Kong on shows. Even if her WWE run was more notable, it ended up a total bust (from her doing) and is just a small blip on her career. Let's pretend she makes the WON HoF ballot (and yes, I know she is well below the standard), is she going to be on as "Kharma", a ring name she never had a singles match with and maybe 10 minutes total of WWE airtime? Or would she be called Kong, a name she has used a vast majority of her career in several notable promotions?

But doesn't the audience of wrestling news sites, for the most part, have awareness of other promotions? Awesome Kong was a draw (of sorts) when TNA was probably at it's popularity "peak". To bring a more modern example, I don't see sites promoting Chris Harris interviews as "Interview with Braden Walker".

Does anyone else think it's strange that wrestling sites refer to Awesome/Amazing Kong as "Kharma" in stories/interview recaps? She was in WWE a few weeks, never had a singles match, was largely a flash in the pan. Say what you want about TNA, but her body of work there was considerably larger. She probably had several PPV matches there that lasted longer than all her WWE appearances combined. And it possibly does her a disservice for promoting her indy work/shows since she can't use the "Kharma" name for matches. If a recap said "Interview with Amazing Kong", would people really not know who that is? This would be similar to doing a story about Madusa and calling her "Alundra Blayze". Or calling 2 Cold Scorpio "Flash Funk".

I suppose AJ became a babyface by default when she came back, but her character and attitude haven't changed at all. WWE probably assumed because she is/was popular (leaning toward "was" since she usually gets no reaction coming out anymore) that fans would accept the turn. Glad AJ isn't calling Paige a "crumpet" anymore. That was so douchey and reeks of bad WWE Creative.

Not sure where you're from, but if you go on Highspots (http://www.highspots.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=HS&Category_Code=Books&Product_Code=&Search=&Per_Page=20&Sort_By=price_asc) they have both Tributes books marked down. Don't think it was ever released on Kindle, might have something to do with the big photos used (although with tablets, that's not as big of an issue anymore).

AJ and Brock Lesnar are the only two champions in WWE who are booked to look dominant. Is AJ really booked that dominant? Or is that more in comparison to the other champs? Her win-loss record has gotta be a near split as of late. Isn't the angle more "AJ doesn't want a tag partner"? The angle is pretty stupid, she's been a babyface since returning, but just doesn't come off that way. She's really stale and probably has one foot out the door anyway. Her size is starting to expose her, especially without Tamina. She gives up about half a foot and 20-30 pounds to nearly every other diva.

I thought I had imagined this, too. Then I Googled it and once I saw the pics it all came rushing back to me. One of two post 99 WCW ppvs I watched live. That and the Bash at the Beach 2000. All were shitty. The Bagwell on the pole wasn't even the most offensive thing on the show. That show including the Goldberg/Nash/Steiner 3-Way match where Goldberg was unprofessional because he didn't go up for the jackknife (announcers words) and Steiner & Nash were great because they had to improvise the rest of the match. That is by far the worst booking I have ever seen in my life. On the Vince Russo live youshoot (which I don't think has ever been officially released) didn't they do a game or bit where they compiled every pole match that occurred during his booking stints? I think there were a few dozen.

This was the same episode where Groundskeeper Willie was dubbed "'Rowdy' Roddy Peeper" by the tabloid show, correct? Yep, almost forgot about that.

Don't remember the Foley one, that's amazing. Didn't a scan (or mockup) of an Observer show up on the Pillman DVD? If WWE gets Dave to do talking head pieces, they might edit it like on the Simpsons when Homer did that TV interview during his sexual harassment accusation.

Probably the first Observer of November. Thanks Bix! If Patera stays on the ballot this year, does anyone know if he would move to the historical bracket next year? 1985 seems to be his last meaningful year (anything post jail I see as visible but not meaningful). I don't know for sure, but I'd go 87-88 on Patera's "last meaningful year". When he came back after prison, he was in a fairly high-profile angle. You could possibly go 1989 since he was AWA Tag Champ, even though that promotion was a shell of its former self.

That's completely untrue. Jim drinks Sprite! That reminds me of some interview Bischoff did a few years ago where he said something about Cornette eating "too many Big Macs" or such. Jim responded by saying he likes Wendy's.

I know this summer he was tweeting photos of signing talent to "multi-year contracts" and looking a lot like Vader's brother.

Anyone remember the trailer for the Abdullah Wrestling Observer Shoot DVD where he apparently didn't know he was in the WON HoF? Speaking of which, I wonder why that DVD series never took off. Seem to remember they announced one with Bas Rutten a few years ago, must have never got past the planning stages.

Here's the newest merch: (http://shop.wwe.com/New/New,default,sc.html) the newest being "zombified" shirts and figures. Including HBZ and Roman Brains. The Ambrose stuff is centered around the word "UNSTABLE" with some sort of anarchy-style symbol for his initials. This isn't used on the merch I'm finding, but does anyone think the Ambrose name "logo" on his titantron: looks kinda like Cheap Trick's?

Finished reading Dave's HoF piece in the latest WON. After his modern era drawing listing, when he talks about those not in the HoF, he says Big Show was a "one and done", but he's never been on the ballot. Probably should be at some point, despite how a lot of the modern WWE guys have fared. Also called Batista a "one and done", but he was on at least a few years. I don't think it's fair to call Nash/Luger or anyone else on the late 90s ballot "one and done"s since the voting pool and systems have evolved considerably. How many voters in the late 90s still vote now? And volume-wise, how does it compare to now? And with someone like Luger, who is retired now, compared to being active in '98, you look at such candidates differently.