The Man in Blak

I guess I have a broader definition of scummy. Handling contentious subject matter in a utterly tasteless way -- whether it's real or "fake", whether it's the death of a performer or "taboo" subjects like necrophilia -- qualifies for me. Take the (real? fake?) Neidhart/Virgil/KKK attack mentioned upthread -- would that be any less despicable if Neidhart was just playing the role of a Klansman vs. actually being in the Klan?

Katie Vick. I feel like it's so egregious that it doesn't really require further explanation. I might be taking a more limited reading of the original question, but one key difference to me with Owen's death is that it wasn't something that WWE was actively exploiting to get attention, as much as a ridiculous tragedy that they handled in the most callous way possible. Their approach to Brian Pillman's death, on the other hand, should definitely be in contention here because they were promoting their interview with Melanie Pillman just a couple of days after his death to try and pop a rating.

The big question for me with negatives, especially with regards to effort, is causality - should Bret Hart be seen as "dogging it" for failing to put together a good match with Rick Martel? Should Martel get the blame, as this match could be seen as another entry in a line of underwhelming in-ring performances as a heel in the early 90s? Did they both decide to take a night off and, thus, both deserve to lose points? How do we weigh the increased availability of footage for domestic majors like WWE and WCW/NWA (and, thus, increased odds for seeing someone mail it in) vs. other promotions where our exposure often comes from sets or uploads that have already gone through some sort of curation to emphasize more notable/interesting matches? For BIGLAV, this seems like an "intangibles" question but, even then, the implications are so fuzzy that I'm not sure how you weigh it unless you see a truly chronic pattern of underachieving. If you see that with Hart and a particular match type, so be it, I guess, though I'd question how that approach extends to other wrestlers. EDIT: Tried to replace some snark with actual thought.

Kayfabe may be dead, but patriarchy is alive and well. (Unless your standing as daddy's little girl affords you the opportunity to wield WWE's corporate feminism as a #brand, of course.)

That was some of the best heat that Miz has ever drawn, though.

I feel like that description could apply to most of the managers and valets in ROH, actually. Maria Kanellis has a tiny bit of "Former WWE" cachet, I guess, but that's about it.

Eh, I don't know if it's that dire for Roku. Just to offer a counterpoint: there are reports out there that indicate that Roku has the dominant market share for set-top boxes and, if you're bullish on the set-top "puck" market in general, they also have a streaming stick (a la Chromecast) that's gaining popularity, as well as some newer smart TVs that actually include the Roku software in the TV itself. The exclusive content game is definitely an opening for Apple/Google/Amazon to make some noise in the market, but I don't know if it's something so disruptive that it upends the entire marketplace, especially since Roku already has such a huge stake in the market along multiple avenues of content delivery.

Why would she sign such a ridiculous contract that would uproot her from her home on the other side of the world, only to be stuck in a developmental fed forever? Unless it's a short term deal for more money than usual? Another question: Why is her name pronounced "Aska"? Where's the u? Why waste a perfectly good vowel? I think that's how Japanese pronounce a lot of names that have a "u". Saske, Daiske, Shinske, Kenske, etc. Yeah, the letter 'u' can frequently be silent or devoiced. There's a syllable there for it - Ah-suh-Ka - but speed of conversation and linguistic drift have chipped away at how much that middle syllable hangs around over time, sort of like how "Worcester" evolved into "Wor-eh-ster" with a silent C and then just "wooster" in English. #TheMoreYouKnow

There's more interesting stuff outside of the typical Hart matches than you might think. The Over the Edge match with Mankind is more of a triumph in booking, but it's certainly historically significant; if you're looking for an alternate selection, the 11/18/96 Raw match with Mankind (right after Survivor Series) is a pretty good TV match up until the finish. The Savio Vega strap match at Beware of Dog IYH is another one to check out, even if it is a little overhyped. I don't like the Michaels KOTR '97 match as much as others (primarily because of Michaels), but it's decent. The opening match with Mero at KOTR '96 was surprisingly good. Austin also has a smattering of matches with Dustin Rhodes throughout 1991-1993 that are solid. If you haven't seen the South Africa match with Bret Hart, you should check that out as well - it actually precedes their "first" meeting at Survivor Series '96 and shows Austin playing a more traditional heel very effectively. Also, Austin has some notable tag work too - the Hollywood Blondes run, the Austin/Rude vs. Sting/Steamboat match at Clash VIII, and the tag vs. Benoit/Jericho where HHH tore his quad. It's not top shelf tag work, but it's considerably more effective than, say, Bret's tag resume and I say that as somebody who's fairly high on Bret. I don't think he has any resume to support any sort of status as an all-time brawler -- if anything, I'd say what made his early WWF stuff so interesting is how methodical and old-school it was in contrast to the rest of the roster at the time. I do think he's safely on my list, though, even if he's probably going to end up in the 75-100 range as I continue to churn through homework for other candidates.

Would it be fair to characterize Trish's case as an "anti-Great Match Theory" case, insofar as a central argument for her inclusion centers around great performances that elevate (or even salvage) lesser matches, rather than simply being involved in a multitude of great matches?

I didn't know whether to feel bad for Bubba or Strowman there - Bubba held it there for so long that it was hard to tell which one of them actually missed their cue.

Is that the biggest pop of the night for lighter fluid? (And then they don't pay it off? Come on.) Not as bad as Swagger selling the Terry Funk throwing chairs on a laying body spot by Del Rio like he was taking a nap. Yeah, that was also bad.

Wow, a complete no-sell of that minute-long Patriot Lock by Del Rio.

You could hear a pin drop for Rusev before and after the match. Probably a worthy response to the match that followed, which wasn't exactly Vader/Boss at Spring Stampede.

It is, which is why a lot of those workers aren't being considered highly (if at all) for my GWE list.

Jingus / brainfollower -- you both have put forward the Mickie James WM22 match as a potential MOTN and a four-star match, respectively. Would either of you care to elaborate on why you feel so strongly about this match? I see it as a very solid match, but one that's not quite on that level and I'm curious to hear what elevates it to that level for either of you. The other side of the coin here is that Trish's case is actually enhanced by her being trapped in WWE Diva style because, while the limited match scale and opponent pool limited her resume, it also gave her an opportunity to have more opportunities as a "big fish in a small pond" and the repetition of those opportunities helped her become more well-practiced in that particular (narrow?) style of work.

Yeah, to be clear, I'm not trying to draw a parallel between both of their careers as a whole; Undertaker is hovering near the bottom of my list, while Hansen is hovering around the Top 25 (and I still have a lot of homework ahead for him). More than anything, I just want to make sure I'm not selling aspects of his early work short, contextually. From what I've seen so far, I can definitely sympathize with Matt D's earlier concerns in the thread.

I meant "protected" more from a booking standpoint than an in-ring performance standpoint. Specifically, I was alluding back to this section of Elliott's (great) post earlier: Whether the role came more from Hansen himself or Baba isn't really critical to what I'm driving at (though it can certainly enhance Hansen's case if you value intentionality). I'm just trying to get a sense for how much of the weight of his work, so to speak, is carried by the surrounding context of that role (and how it was booked) and how that same approach applies to other workers -- even lesser ones like the Undertaker -- who may not have a comparable resume to Hansen from a "great match" standpoint, but potentially have "effective" matches that lean heavily on their characterization.

What is Davey's character? Is it just "guy who has MOTYCs?" I'm asking because I legit don't know. Is Davey working for a very strict and patient booker who's intent is to build a very clear hierarchy in his promotion? If so, what is Davey's role in that hierarchy? How does he use his work to fit in that limiting hierarchy? As someone who's trying to make his own way through Hansen's work, I want to return to this and offer a different example -- and one that's almost certainly going to be inflammatory, but why not have some fun with this -- for comparison: How does Hansen's heavily protected role in the 80s (justified as it may be) compare to the beginning of the Undertaker's run in the WWF? There's a consonance with the Undertaker's methodical in-ring work and his character, just as Hansen's work fits his role as Baba's gaijin monster in the 80s. If we put forward Baba's very deliberate approach to Hansen in the 80s, as elliott has described, as justification for his in-ring approach at that time, does that same sort of justification work to excuse the Undertaker for his role as a supernatural monster in early 90s WWF? There are certainly arguments to be made for which role resulted in better matches from an artistic/work standpoint, especially when we get into how Hansen's role evolves later on in his career, but I'm curious how (or even if) this sort of approach applies to reading matches that end up being one-sided as being "effective" nonetheless because of the role.

Yeah, Bret really shows some nerve in wanting to be compensated for matches that he legally owns by a publicly-traded company that just profited* off of their surprise inclusion to the service. * Though the number of people that jumped into the Network specifically for Stampede could very well be marginal, of course.

A 5/1/90 episode of USWA Challenge is up, with Steve Austin vs. Bill Dundee.

Four more 1987/1988 episodes of AWA, including Rockers/Badd Company and Rockers/Nasty Boys. The current list: - 1/25/87 - 1/24/88 - 2/28/88 - 3/13/88 - 4/10/88 The gradual "leak" of this content is an interesting approach - are they fishing in social media for interest in specific territories?

That's how it is on iOS at the moment, but you can still find the episodes if you search for "smoky mountain" and "mid south."