BillThompson

Cool beans, drop a line in here when you guys are available on iTunes because I'll certainly give the show a listen.

I think some people, not here necessarily, are undervaluing the draw of old footage. Now, I'm not saying that old footage is what will brings gobs of people to the Network. What I am saying is that the more old footage that is on the Network the more variety the Network has in it's stream and vault, and thus the happier any consumer of the product will be. The ability to choose from a large selection of viewing options is an important element for any consumer of a streaming service, and at this point the Network is too heavy on PPV and WWE footage.

Yes. Not to mention, better draw too. Drawing power aside, that's an element of wrestling that doesn't interest me, my recent journey through late 80s NWA into early 90s WCW led me to a different conclusion. I definitely appreciate Luger and find him to be a really good worker in that time frame. However, my opinion of Sting has been raised a lot during this rewatch. He knew how to capture the crowd and make them care, he was a really good worker (I'd say that he and Luger were on about equal footing in this area during these years) and he was a great babyface in peril.

Orton is a perfectly fine wrestler, and when in the ring with someone of better skill he's more than capable of having great matches and doing great/interesting things. He's not a guy who can carry others though, and too often he's been put in that position.

This will be listed on iTunes, no? I looked for it last night, but couldn't find it.

To do something different for a change. In the real world I don't say to my partner, "Ryan, we've tackled just about every heart attack there is to tackle, now I'm gonna punch you in the face and find a new partner." More often than not people go off and do their own thing while still maintaining their friendships. Only in pro wrestling is it a must that one guy must turn on the other. Personally I think it's done so often that it devalues the moments when it does happen.

I don't have any big connection to the Shield, but I don't think they needed to be broken up. I wish that for a change wrestling would have done something different and not broken up a team. Why in wrestling does starting a singles push mean the team needs to break up and someone needs to turn? How refreshing would it have been for one of them to say, "Hey guys, we're still together, but I want to do my own thing, ya know?" It's such a stupid wrestling cliche that friendships can never last and teams can never stay together.

Matt Hardy Most will scoff, but watching him grow from OMEGA into the WWF he always had the tools to be a top singles star. His tag work stands out for sure, but I think people sleep on his run in the Cruiserweight division and his later run in the WWE'd ECW. As far as getting pro wrestling goes Hardy was the complete package and I would have loved to see him get a shot as the top guy, but alas he'd always be too small for Vince.

I can see that, but then again I'm not familiar with Pac and I've never really seen Neville work a breakneck style match, so I'd like to see one from him first.

15-20 minutes is about what I look for in a really engaging match, but it's not a hard rule I live by.

Having just finished Takeover, a few thoughts, --There really is something to the fresh and new idea that I've seen Dylan floating around. NXT is far from perfect, but it's so opposite what WWE is putting out at this point that I feel I, and many others, are willing to overlook its flaws. --I still don't like the Ascension. I'm sorry, but nothing they did in that match impressed me, and their gimmick still does nothing for me. --Breeze/Zayn is a great match, but I feel as if people are shortchanging how much Breeze contributed to the match. His selling and facial expressions told a great story, and while I wouldn't say he was better than Zayn I felt he more than held his own. --Remove the Figure-Four craziness and Charlotte/Natalya could maybe have been great, but it's still a really good match. I firmly believe that the WWE women's division will be in the best shape it's ever been moving forward. Of course a lot of that has to do with removing things like the stupid diva tag, but the talent is there. Paige, Emma, AJ, and Alicia Fox are all really good workers, and when all is said and done Charlotte may end up being the best woman in the WWE. Still, the takeaway from this match is that Natalya in no way deserves the "she's a bad worker" label. This was her match, she called just about all of it from what I could tell (even if they were working from a del Rey blueprint) and I think again she's shown that when she's not restricted to three minute matches versus dead weight like Oksana or Tamina Snuka that Natalya can deliver the goods. --Tyson Kidd is impressive, and I think in the long run working under a mask may be the best for him because as it stands there's just something lacking when it comes to his ability to take his impressive talent and engage the crowd with said talent. That being said, I'm still not sure what the big deal is about Neville. He's okay in the ring, but in every big match he under-performs and is the lesser man in the ring. This match was no exception, as Kidd was so much better than Neville that I'd almost go so far as to label it a carry job. The athleticism is present for Neville, but the timing, selling, understanding of psychology, and other skills simply aren't present in the guy and he doesn't appear to be someone who's going to change much more.

None of what you're saying for Emma has been in the WWE. I think she's had a grand total of maybe thirty minutes in the ring her entire time in the WWE, and she's done nothing but comedy spots with the occasional Muta Lock and Tarantula mixed in. Emma in NXT was interesting, as a character and a worker, but in WWE she's been a nothing entity that is only around for comedy bits.

All I'm saying is that based on his Paige comment, that if WWE is your only exposure to Emma there's no reason to want to see her feud with anyone because she's been terrible in just about every regard in the WWE.

Did you watch Emma in NXT then, because based on the WWE Emma there's no way anyone should want her feuding with anyone at this point.

Hey man, not to derail the thread too much, but could you check your PMs? I need some info from you based on a comment you made for an article I'm writing for a magazine.

Well, that to me is different from looking for objectivity. That's looking for someone with an open mind, which is what we should all be striving for I think. I won't hide the fact that I have a heavy dislike of Shawn Michaels, he just doesn't appeal to me very much as a wrestler. All the same, I never go into one of his matches thinking it will be bad. I approach his matches the same way I approach films from Quentin Tarantino or Christopher Nolan (two directors I can't stand), from a blank slate of opinion. Any wrestler could win me over during any given match, and even Shawn has managed to be in a few matches where I thought he was great, it's all about having an open mind.

I'd choose neither, and go with a crowd somewhere in the middle. Cheer and have fun, that's what I want crowds to do, but not at the expense of the wrestlers. Things like the "You Fucked Up" chant are a blemish upon fans. Things like "This is Awesome", or "Insert Promotion Here, Insert Promotion Here" aren't as bad, but annoying because of the reasons they originate and are carried out. Chicago crowds are problematic because I don't think they truly care about what they are seeing, but want to come across as smart and cooler than anyone else in the arena, especially the wrestlers. That to me is not a hot crowd, but an annoyingly smug crowd.

This is an area where you and I differ greatly. I respect what you're saying, but I feel objectivity has no place in art. It stifles the medium and hinders discussion. If things are objective then there's really no need to talk about them beyond a few sentences/posts.

See, by admitting you need context, that is inherently admitting that the standards have changed. Otherwise, the context wouldn't be needed. That's not how art works. Context merely means knowledge, it doesn't mean that anything has changed. Context is needed because of what may or may not have gone into a match, or what was happening in wrestling at the time. That does not, by itself, mean that any standards have changed. And again, they way you are arguing is that there are universal standards, that have changed.

This implies that there are universal standards that do apply. If you're saying differently then I'm not seeing it. (And, I'm not in any way making any statement about modern wrestling or you saying modern wrestling is better)

I recall the Attitude Era being a lot of fans sitting on their hands during the actual match and only cheering during entrances and the finishes. Maybe I'll be wrong though.

I'll admit, modern day crowds are why I don't bother with going to live wrestling anymore. I'm not some super old school guy either, I love wrestling from today just as much as wrestling from the past. I just know that if I go to a live event with a ton of people who don't actually care about the wrestling and only care about getting themselves over I'm not going to enjoy the experience.

Personal standards are irrelevant. That's a fancy way to say taste. None of us are in control of changing standards. It just happens and it is out of your control. Anybody who says "standards haven't changed for me" is either talking about personal standards of what they enjoy (taste), or is being willfully ignorant. This isn't nearly as complicated as some of you guys are making it. Things evolve. How can this even be argued? I'm slack jawed at stunned at some of the things i'm reading in this thread. To keep my sanity intact, I just keep telling myself that some of you guys are misunderstanding and thinking i'm saying modern = better, and failing to understand that what i'm pushing here is context dependent. Nothing stands still. Things move forward, for better or worse. Standards will always change. In the end personal standards are all that matter, there is no universal standard that you are alluding to. It's a fallacy to try and say that such a thing can exist in a subjective art. Frankly, I find most of your arguments in this thread baffling. I'm not about to get too deep into that personal side of things, but based on what you've written in this post I don't see how it's even possible for you to watch wrestling from any time period and enjoy it.

I've been going through the old PPVs on the Network the past few months. In general it's been a treat to hear/see the way the crowds are reacting to the wrestling. They aren't in on it, they aren't marking for themselves or trying to create chants that will draw attention to them. They are hating the heels, loving the faces, and when they are quiet it's because the match isn't engaging them. I'm currently on ECW Barely Legal and this crowd is bugging me right from the opening. Is the ECW crowd the beginning of the present day live crowd? Is the influence of ECW to blame for the crowds of today who don't seem to care about what's happening in the ring, and instead are more concerned with coming up with a cool chant or showing how smart they are with their insider knowledge? If memory serves me correctly I'll see more of this as I move into the Attitude Era in the WWF, and man am I dreading those crowds. What say you, are the crowds today terrible, or do you not mind? Did it start with ECW, or am I giving them too much credit?

Watching ECW Barely Legal, and seeing Francine got me to thinking, did people actually think she was hot back in the day? I remember nearly salivating over Beulah as a teen, but I can't recall how I felt about Francine. The ECW crowd though, and it seems a lot of wrestling fans online, treat Francine like she's some super hot chick. Maybe it's just my personal taste, but seeing Francine in the intro for this PPV is like seeing the woman who's destroyed her body through Meth that you feel really sorry for (and I'm saying that legitimately, not in any sort of mocking way.)