BillThompson

That depends on the state/nation, as some states and countries do allow lawsuits on behalf of the estate of the deceased in cases of libel/slander.

Hey man, I'm just saying that in today's society it's always wise to cover all your bases, and maybe that's why he tossed the likely in there. It also may be a stupid mistake, or just him not using his words wisely.

To be fair, it could be that Meltzer is trying to avoid libel, if in fact no court of law ever actually said Benoit was the killer.

I had a lot of time on my hands today, and Starrcade 97 wasn't thrilling me. This led to me compiling the TNA Linear Title. I got this idea from Jason Felix over at Voices of Wrestling. He did his own TNA Linear Title, but his lumped the NWA and TNA titles together. I view the TNA title as completely separate from the NWA title, so my title starts with when Kurt Angle was declared the first ever TNA Champion. This is extremely dorky stuff I know, but I got a kick out of compiling the list, and seeing how very TNA the title has been for the past two years. Here's the rules I used (again, taken from Jason Felix), Title could only change hands in singles (i.e. one on one) matches. Title can not be lost by countout or disqualification (keeping with the traditional rules of pro wrestling) Title could be lost by pinfall, submission, or by a match stipulation. Title could be lost by Referee Stoppage Title could not be lost in an Multiple Man (Triple Threat, Elimination Chamber, etc) or Tag Team Match Title must be defended (i.e. wrestle a one on one match) every 365 days. The Linear Title is not bound to the "insert fed here". If the champion loses anywhere (Japan, another territory, etc.), they lose the Linear Title. And here is the title history, Kurt Angle 05-13-2007 Jay Lethal 09-09-2007 Christopher Daniels 09-10-2007 Jay Lethal (2) 10-14-2007 Johnny Devine 01-21-2008 Rhino 03-12-2008 Toru Yano 03-19-2008 Giant Bernard 03-23-2008 Hiroshi Tanahashi 03-23-2008 Shinsuke Nakamura 03-30-2008 Keiji Muto 04-27-2008 Hiroshi Tanahashi (2) 01-04-2009 Manabu Nakanishi 05-06-2009 Hiroshi Tanahashi (3) 06-20-2009 Takao Omori 08-07-2009 Masato Tanaka 08-09-2009 Togi Makabe 08-13-2009 Shinsuke Nakamura (2) 09-27-2009 Togi Makabe (2) 05-03-2010 Tetsuya Naito 08-06-2010 Toru Yano (2) 08-12-2010 Hiroshi Tanahashi (4) 08-13-2010 Prince Devitt 08-14-2010 Toru Yano (3) 08-15-2010 TAJIRI 10-11-2010 Michael Kovac 01-29-2011 Tatanka 02-18-2011 Joe E. Legend 02-25-2011 El Ligero 03-18-2011 Deano 03-26-2011 CJ Banks 04-02-2011 Kid Fite 04-03-2011 Chaos 04-16-2011 Killer Karlson 05-28-2011 Chaos (2) 08-27-2011 Lionheart 09-03-2011 Wolfgang 10-21-2011 BT Gunn 04-01-2012 Red Lightning 06-03-2012 BT Gunn (2) 06-29-2012 Red Lightning (2) 07-01-2012 U-Gene 12-07-2012 Dave Mastiff 12-09-2012 El Ligero (2) 01-27-2013 Super Crazy 02-01-2013 Joey Hayes 02-02-2013 Noam Dar 02-02-2013 Andy Wild 02-16-2013 Wolfgang (2) 02-17-2013 Kid Fite (2) 03-23-2013 Johnny Moss 06-21-2013 BT Gunn (3) 09-27-2013 Jack Jester 04-06-2014 El Ligero (3) 06-07-2014 Rampage Brown 06-08-2014 Zack Gibson 06-13-2014

Continuing the above post, here are the great matches (and I'm simply focusoing on great matches because it's an easy reference point, I don't really view great matches as the sole pupose of wrestling) from the other PPVs I've already seen the complete run of on this rewatch, WCW: Beach Blast 1) Beach Blast ’92 (06-20-1992) Rick Rude vs. Ricky Steamboat 2) Beach Blast ’92 (06-20-1992) Cactus Jack vs. Sting WCW: Battlebowl None ECW: Barely Legal None WCW: Hog Wild None WWF: One Night Only 1) One Night Only (09-20-1997) Hunter Hearst Helmsley vs. Dude Love 2) One Night Only (09-20-1997) Undertaker vs. Bret Hart 3) One Night Only (09-20-1997) Vader vs. Owen Hart

Just finished 1997 on my big PPV rewatch project, and that means I've watched all the In Your Houses now. These are the 8 matches I thought were great, in order, and if a match isn't on here then I didn't think it was great, 1) In Your House 10 (09-22-1996) Mankind vs. Shawn Michaels 2) In Your House 5 (12-17-1995) British Bulldog vs. Bret Hart 3) In Your House 7 (04-28-1996) Diesel vs. Shawn Michaels 4) In Your House 2 (07-23-1995) Jeff Jarrett vs. Shawn Michaels 5) In Your House 18 (10-05-1997) Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker 6) In Your House 16 (07-06-1997) Goldust, Ken Shamrock, Legion of Doom (Animal & Hawk), & Steve Austin vs. Hart Foundation (Brian Pillman, Bret Hart, British Bulldog, Jim Neidhart, & Owen Hart) 7) In Your House 14 (04-20-1997) Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin 8) In Your House 6 (02-18-1996) Owen Hart vs. Shawn Michaels I'm probably gonna post these lists when I finish all the various PPVs, not that it's really interesting to anyone but me.

I forgot about him, and you're right, he has mega podcast go away heat with me.

I just watched this yesterday as well, and I really could not get into Hashi. Him passing up so many opportunities for transitions just to throw more freaking headbutts infuriated me to no end.

As much as I love Austin's podcast I'll be skipping the Russo one. He was on MLW Radio recently, and the moment he started talking I turned the podcast off. He may be the first case of go away podcast heat.

His conduct towards fans, wrestlers, promoters have all been greatly praised the past few years. I sincerely don't think substance abuse is an issue anymore. His wife on the other hand is really combustible and full of drama. He's also been putting in quality work in OMEGA.

I'll use this as the jumping off point to people asking me about the cyclical comment I made earlier. Yes, I do think wrestling has always been cyclical. The difference is that in the territories the cycles were very short, and the booms appear to have been much smaller. Such is the nature of things when the top talent comes and goes and the majority of guys adhered to the philosophy of "Get out before you're not hot anymore." I still think wrestling is cyclical today, and I think people overlook the times of stability. I don't know if one could say that 1992-1994 was a boom period for the WWF, but it certainly wasn't a struggling cycle. It was a time of stability where things were running smoothly without the dangers of bad ratings or the highs of insane merch and PPV numbers. The boom and bust periods do come along, but they tend to be shorter in nature when placed against the periods of sustained stability. To Loss' point, I'm not sure I completely agree with the new stars idea. That purports that there is a new star out there waiting to take the wrestling world by storm. Maybe that's true, or maybe it's not. New stars need to be created, but simply creating new stars doesn't mean there will be a boom period. I'd argue that up until after his title win WWE did everything right when it came to making Daniel Bryan a big star. Yet, business seemed to remain the same as usual. The boom has to come organically, and sometimes it takes it a while to come. That brings me back to the question of what I would do to facilitate a boom period. I wouldn't sit on my hands and do nothing, but I don't believe you can force start a boom period. I'd try to consistently produce the best product possible to ensure that I can maintain a sustained period of stability. That way when the boom comes along I'll be better prepared to ride with it, ala a Vince in the 80s and again in the late 90s-early 00s, and not completely at a loss as to how to handle it, ie; WCW in 1996-1998.

Nothing really. I know it sounds like a pat answer, but wrestling really does seem to work in cycles. Right now isn't even really a down period, it's just a steady period. Eventually that something, which none of us can predict, will come along and another boom period will start up. Then that will die down and the cycle will continue to repeat itself.

This is the most ill informed post I've read on here. It's actually not. Look at amateur wrestling as an example. We've pulled resources and money away from our amateur program for years now, to the point where it's now one of the least funded programs out there. Yet, because of the size of the nation and the talent pool that naturally produces America is still able to produce world class amateur wrestlers who can compete with anyone and win on the big stage. And again, I'm not even putting forth my own opinion, but the opinion put forth by analysts, which basically means it can't be ill informed as I'm speaking about something they've informed me on. Either way, I'm not a huge football fan, probably won't even watch one World Cup game, so it's doesn't matter to me in the end whether the analysts were right, wrong, or completely crazy.

Boricuas/Headbangers was really good, and probably the best match of the Bangers careers. Vader/Owen is a really great match, about on par with the main. Dude/Triple H is the match of the night and the best comedy match I think WWF has ever provided. Top to bottom it's a great card, with there being only two subpar matches. Maybe people do talk about it a lot, but I've never heard, or read, that talk.

Watched One Night Only last night, that's the best PPV no one ever talks about, right?

Actually, it's the uber smarks that we're shitting on in this thread so far. People who go and enjoy the wrestling being presented to them are okay by me, they are fans of wrestling. People who go and chant to put themselves over and really don't care about what happens in the ring aren't okay by me, they are fans of themselves and not the product. The latter are the smart marks, or smart crowds, who I think are bad for those who actually want to enjoy themselves at a wrestling show.

It's like the two village idiots fighting over who's the bigger idiot.

Definitely, I have an article coming out about that same thing sometimes soon.

I'm surprised they haven't turned on him during this feud, because Kidd has outclassed Neville to ridiculous levels in the ring. He;s playing Neville's game, working the same style as Neville, but he's doing everything better than Neville, by a wide margin.

It's a combination of the both for me. I'll be honest, I don't take drawing into account whatsoever, or promo work for that matter. I'm mainly interested in what a wrestler is doing in a ring and how it's connecting with me and the larger live/viewing audience. To that end I look at a wrestlers body of work as well as how many great matches I think he/she has had. I value a guy like Dustin Rhodes a lot this year, and I would argue he's a contender for WOTY despite only having one match I would consider great. Every time I see him he is working his tail off, selling great, bumping great, using his offense smartly and showing tremendous psychology and ring presence. I think a wrestler does need to have great matches to be in a discussion for MOTY, but they can't rely on that alone. They need to be great even in matches that aren't.

I don't pimp my own stuff often, but I figured I'd create a thread for my website here. It's only been around for a few months, and basically it serves as a way for me to express my love of pro wrestling. It's not what I would consider a smark website, it's more along the lines of a dude writing about why he thinks matches are great. To that end I'm using the website similar to the way that guys like Dylan and Matt explore and discuss wrestling. Each post is about one match, and often it's tied into some sort of project I'm undertaking in my wrestling viewing. For instance, my big project I've been working on since the start of the site is to explore all the PPVs on the Network in chronological order. It's been a fun journey so far as I've reaffirmed my love of certain matches, discovered new matches to love, and realized some matches I used to love really aren't that good. I'm also posting the matches I think are great from the 80s Lucha DVDVR set, and I'm hoping soon to start a PWG project and dig my way into more 80s DVDVR sets. I know some may not agree with my focus on the great matches, but I want to keep things positive on the site and that's why I'm only writing about the matches I find great. Either way, I've been having a lot of fun with the writing on the site. And, while I don't consider myself a great writer by a long shot it did already net me a spot writing for a start-up wrestling magazine, so there is that. If anyone around these parts ever feels the desire to read about one man's opinion of great wrestling stop by Blue Thunder Driver and let me know what you think. Blue Thunder Driver

I offered up my thoughts on Twitter to you and Jason before you recorded. Once I listen and the conversation gets rolling here I'd gladly join in again.

Thank you for your utterly useless contribution. Thank you for taking the time to thank me. If wrestling is art, so is 3 card monte. Seriously, this has been a swell and civil discussion to this point, what's the purpose of popping in just to contribute nothing but snark?

Yes, but this has nothing to do with them being "artists" or not. This has everything to do with them wanting to do their job really well. Wanting to have the best match possible because the fans have paid their money to see you doesn't mean you're an artist, it means you're a real pro who takes great pride in its task. And it's great. This completely discounts the artistic process, and I really, truly don't understand how someone can watch something where people are putting on a choreographed performance for the enjoyment of others and not see the art in that. Going by what you have said in this thread there's no such thing as art. Movies aren't art, literature isn't art, theater isn't art, painting isn't art, nothing is art because they're all just people trying to be good at a craft. I'll be honest, I don't want to live in a world like that because that is a world that would bore me to tears.

I would hope they never take anything down. I mean this isn't a Netflix deal with rights issues to deal with. Once it's up on the Network, it should stay on the Network.