BigBadMick

You're in the UK, aren't you Sidebottom? I had similar experiences with tape trading, starting in 1994 with Rob Butcher. A very positive review of The Night The Line Was Crossed in Power Slam convinced me to take the plunge. Butcher himself noted in his newsletter that 1994 was a breakthrough year for tape trading in the UK.

That's a hell of a read, Loss.

This is coming from a slightly different perspective but as a new fan at the age of 13, I know I watched every match on SummerSlam 1991 at least a dozen times. Obviously I didn't learn everything doing this, but that opportunity to rewatch helped me appreciate wrestling.

I wonder if this is a problem that any wrestling show could overcome now? It feels as though fans are as guilty of micomanaging and overanalysing everything as promoters now - nothing gets a chance to breathe. With the social media explosion, is there just too much data to draw any conclusions on whether something's working?

One thing that annoyed me in rewatching Cena/Rock at 28 was that I felt it was at least 5 minutes too long. Rock was having a tough time moving around and I was actually willing it towards a conclusion.

Same for me, a lot of times, but I think there's something to be said for creating what the WWE calls a "Mania moment". They tell us that Mania is a blockbuster, and all about the big moments, and even though that's partially propaganda from the WWE, I think there's some truth to it, and am willing to rank the Manias who successfully pull off those big moments higher. The Triple H vs. Batista Hell in a Cell match from Vengeance 2005 is almost certainly a better match than their Mania 21 match (it's probably my favorite Cell match), but the Mania 21 match gets points in my book for culminating in an iconic moment. Batista at the end show, celebrating with the Big Gold Belt and getting showered by cheers and confetti is a moment that I will never forget. Moments like that are what WrestleMania was made for. What I mean is, if it makes sense, that I look at WrestleMania kinda differently than pretty much every other wrestling show, because I think sometimes it can get away with lower in ring quality matches if it can naturally create those "big match feel WrestleMania moments" that the WWE loves to go on about. It's the same reason why I view Mania 30 as one of my favorites even though it had several match that weren't really up to snuff, because it made up for it by being totally iconic. Sorry if that doesn't make sense, I feel like this was kinda rambling. Makes perfect sense. And, thinking about it, I probably shouldn't deduct points just because WM isn't always the highlight of a feud. It's impossible to hold that against recent events while also complaining that they don't build to anything outside of a stand alone moment.

When big 'Mania matches are rematched to better effect in the following months that can hurt my opinion of the show. 2005 had better rematches of Cena-JBL and HHH-Batista, 2009 had better use of Steamboat, Jericho, Cena, Edge, HHH and Orton at Backlash, 2010 had better Mysterio-Punk and HHH-Sheamus matches, 2012 completely squandered Bryan-Sheamus but it was used effectively in April. It's partly a consequence of having to give part-timers so much time and attention on the big show too. Suppose it makes sense to hold off a better rematch of full-timers for April and May.

19 is completely over-rated in my view. Brock-Angle is a good match, but not great. Michaels-Jericho is in the same boat. I like Austin-Rock and McMahon-Hogan a lot and the rest was alright I guess. Off the top of my head I would take 17, 23, 7 and 30 over it easily and maybe some more. Fair enough Steven but that's to be expected after hearing you trash Angle-Michaels at 21 For me, it's the uninterrupted run of 5 (or you could count the tag triple threat and say 6) good-to-great matches, with none of them suffering from time constraints that really make this baby soar.

I think the argument between 17 and 19 for one and two is really close. Could go with 19 on another day.

Shane Douglas, 21st February 1995, ECW TV. He cuts a half hour pre-recorded promo. Startling stuff - completely unheard of at the time. Tears into Flair, talks about having to dig deep into his fundamentals from his training days to compete in ECW.

I'm a 17 at no1 and 19 at no2 guy. Possibly 30 at 3, then 23 as my top 4.

Foley, 6th April 1998, Raw. Step 1 in a heel turn completed the following week.

Rock's promo before his tripe threat cage match with Mankind and Shamrock, Breakdown 1998. Was that the first time the chant morphed from 'Rocky sucks' to 'rocky'?

The Jake Roberts/Randy Savage series of promos at Survivors and Tuesday in Texas 1991.

Perhaps try to get more talk going in the 'podcasts and publications' thread with a more detailed breakdown of each podcast (with 'spoiler alerts' warning that they are better read after listening). Would this encourage more discussion?

'sucking on the teet of New Japan/ROH' Ok, Parv - what's your objections to RoH? I'm genuinely curious.

Good stuff guys - gotta love the Carolinas. Watched the Cornette and Dillon Back to the Territories lately and this complemented it nicely.

To say nothing about his unwillingness to learn or grow as a "character." Perfect example, the reason Heyman is back despite a severly burnt bridge between Paul and the company, as well as Paul being DONE with the business, moved on and was in a healthier place to the point that he was never going back to ANY promotion. BUT Brock hated talking SO much, and didn't want to start fresh with a brand new mouthpiece, he demamded they bring back Heyman. It worked out of course, with Heyman adding more credentials to a HOF career, but it was only because Lesnar wanted nothing to do with talking and needed Heyman specifically. I'm curious but do you think that a talking version of Brock would be a better character? I understand the promotion's goal is to churn out TV to sell to all the different markets but my problem with characters like Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins or Dean Ambrose is that they get too much talking time. Even Heyman is very repetitive and he is one of the best talkers out there. The comment was about Brock as a human being. My response was that he didn't give a shit about the icy relations between his good friend and IRL buisness partner and his new place of employment. Nor did it seem that he had much consideration for his friend's state of mind of putting his time in the buisness behind him and feelings of "I'M FREE!" and had him brought back Godfather III style, because it made Lesnar comfortable, and Lesnar knew the company would do whatever he demanded. I don't think Heyman would be there if he didn't want to be.

I go hot and cold on Keller and Mitchell lately. They reach to complain and theorise about things that aren't there sometimes, and go on and on about the same tired points weekly. But when they have something relevant, intelligent and interesting to say, they're 50 times more articulate than Meltzer.

Wrestling does seem to bring out the worst in people.

Is ECW the best example ever of a zeitgeist-catching, had-to-be-there promotion? I was listening to a podcast listing Top 10 ECW matches and it struck me just how little interest I have in rewatching much of it. And I'm not bashing ECW - loved it at the time, ordering tapes from 1994 through to 2000 or so.

I'm with Smack on all that. Really good show and the perfect antidote for lazy generalisations about the 'Monday Night Wars'. Three months chunks is fine too.

Struck me as odd as hell too.

Also, Brock doesn't seem to have kicked up a fuss since April '12, after Cena's little postmatch speech at Extreme Rules. I always get the impression he's happy enough to do anything booking-wise as long as the money keeps coming.

How many matches is that now? Getting conflicting info...