Strand Peanut

A "carry" is when a wrestler goes "carny" 😏 Just a way people used to put themselves over.. Another way of "winning" in the ring.

Misawa - Kawada Could just be as simple as Misawa saw K as his junior, and he should know his place. K thought differently ? Their shared history is quite long is it not ? I'd doubt it was just one thing.. Whatever it was, it only added to their positions as classic foils for one another.

Watching wrestling very rarely reaches the heights I get from reading and learning about wrestling. But that's what drew me in.. I became more of a fan of matches later.. Sort of drove that car in reverse!

How important is national TV ? Has anyone been able to turn that into solid attendance increases ? I mean in today's USA scene.

george gordienko in the 50's. I don't think it'd necessarily be great matches, but I've always been interested in him.

Did Mondt book him? Or did he just own a piece? Did he book his LA storylines? Or just tell Rocca to go there? Did LA call Mondt and book Rocca? I always have the same thoughts about Vince Sr's rake from Andre. And how they used Buddy. And why Londos dropped Mondt. (Which makes me think of how JCP used Flair during Vince Jr's expansion.. tho not those questions) Wrestling in NYC has always had this sort of element.. I'm not so sure it's unique, but it stands out in contrast to the rest of rasslin. Much more akin to boxing than rasslin ? Wonderful stuff in here, always nice to see some history from JDW.. I feel like he's been up and down these roads a couple times before, and it's interesting getting a more experienced traveler's opinion.

Vince Sr may have taken a cut of Rocca's earnings (?) and handled calls about using Rocca. But more likely it was Mondt. I'm hardly any authority on Rocca tho.. If Rocca was performing outside of NY, the other promoter would be "booking" Rocca. Not the NY office. But given the time period, I'm still not entirely sure. Mondt was from a previous era, when boxing and wrestling rose hand in hand in NY. With the lack of wrestling success in NY, it's possible they were running business on a very different model during Rocca's time ? When terms like booking and offices may not apply or have utterly different meanings. I've often thought the realtive stability of wrestling from the mid 60's - 70's brought the rise and codification of these terms. IE: refering to a 2001 photograph as a "selfie." Contextually now, we know what's being meant. But none would've applied the term in 2001. NY is confusing til Buddy shows up, and gives Vince Sr and Mondt the leg up they really needed to be one of the big boys. Don't over estimate NYC's importance, it's not always held the spot it does in recent memory.

It'd be interesting as maybe a post-GWE exercise ? Plot point the top 50? With enough participants you could get some common ground perhaps to build it as a useful reference...

Don't think Kawada had interest in going. I think there was a mention in the press.. Kawada saying Misawa's style would lead to overlong and boring(?) shows. Paraphrasing and translation both apply. But I do remember it playing out in the press some what.

I don't know what this means. He gave a terrible performance. And carried himself like someone completely out of their depth. If that was part of the job I'd be surprised, and he should've walked away from it. If there's further discussion, we should take it to the Joe thread.. I'd think.

I've always thought NYC was pretty open until Vince Sr consolidated with his superior TV and prominent placement on the old DuMont station. I know there's spikes here and there, but NYC could also be considered a dead town/territory for wrestling during that time period. Vince Sr wasn't walking into anything near what was to come under his leadership. As an aside to the larger discussion.. When we talk about booking, offices, promoters, etc.. I'm not always sure it's always applicable for certain eras. Most modern fan knowledge of how the business was run starts with the TV era. By the time some wrestlers are sorta opening up, we're looking at what.. late 80's? Early 90's? Some of what we know isn't always applicable for every era. I wouldn't refer to the WWE booker in 2015, maybe it's not so easy to apply to 1952. Does that make sense ? Really need to get those Hornbaker books..

Bring back the megathreads. Current WWE was the best managed discussion about WWE out there. It may have not fit the intent of some, but it served it's purpose well. I thought it was a wonderful containment board. Locking two of the most popular threads on a message board.. without consulting the user base.. with no explanation in the thread.. and no evidence of some unholy flame war.. heh sure.. Hey, maybe it'll work. But you're not going to engender good will by operating this way.

It's not about Andre / Hogan being a great match. That's subjective. (Johnny, once again, is gloriously right.) But no one who wrote about wrestling in 1987 was going to give that match any love. It's essentially their death knell. A tipping point made real. Actualized for them as play. And they knew it. Fugg yes, people hated that match!

It's this that made me think Sinclair didn't own them out right. I've been corrected, but my thoughts still stand. ROH isn't going to get it from Sinclair. ROH has to create the growth. They are obviously trying, with the ATL TV, ATL live event, saying hello to Spike, etc.. Not sure what would really get it into another level. They're kinda missing a promoter at the moment. Sinclair's the bank, not the P right? TV and Wrestling has been a good bet in the past. TV running Wrestling, (WCW) not as much. Maybe Sinclair is just making this relationship more clear. We TV, You Wrestling.. Let's not get mixed up on who does what ?

I've always thought Dave's point about re watching was contextual. You can see that by how he structures the HOF ballot. The example I often use is the Flair / Steamboat trilogy from 1989. Matches that people enjoyed then and now. But watch the build, and the presentation.. today, it just seems like something from the 80's. You'd miss how out of touch much of what they did was. Especially in comparison to the WWF. The end run of AWA may be another instructive example. In re watch the promotion was doing much better than commonly held wisdom suggested. But in the context of the time, it's easy to see why the reputation began, and was warranted.

Vince Sr "poaching" the Dumont TV spot is a bit off. The network was dead in the water at that point. Wrestling At The Marigold still continued locally in Chicago until '57 ('58?) Vince Sr may have cared more about being on Dumont's flagship NYC station, but he wasn't trying to crush Kohler. Kohler was sending talent to Vince Sr to help him start out. It's instructive to remember Vince Sr is starting out in the business at this time. When Eddie Quinn begins his war with Kohler in Chicago, Vince Sr sends talent and TV (Heavyweight Wrestling filmed in CT) to Kohler. NY pulls out in 63-64, and Kohler starts working with Pfeifer, and it's pretty much the end. Lou Thesz forum, and combing results, should give a more clear picture.. most of this is from memory. It's always appeared to me that Kohler and Vince Sr had a good working relationship. Vince Sr sent talent, but Kohler's office made the matches and booked them.

Dean Ambrose. You get a "closer-to-truth" Rocky dynamic.. and the ability to pivot the feud if you involve Renee Young as a balance for Lana. The styles contrast may be interesting in the ring as well. But the idea of pairing up two young couples, both relatively new to pro wrestling, would be appealing to me.

The return to blood has been nice. They've worked it subtly and avoided the full crimson mask effect. Brock vs Reigns at WM being the best example. I like it's sparing use, and hope it doesn't become a huge feature.

WWE dominates english language wrestling fans to the point that it's impossible to say their audience are purely WWE fans. They've been forced to accept non WWE fans as part of the audience, and vice versa. It's been interesting, to say the least. I think the "vocal minority" (ie: the audience movement behind Bryan) is driven by the outward effects of kayfabe's death.. well, it's sort of a theory. Depends on how you define kayfabe.. but I've always viewed it as the contract between wrestlers and fans. The "death" of the contract has been a subtle under current to much dis content and criticism. I tend to think of this part of the fan base as New Tradionalist, more than Smarks or any such term. Anyways, theoretical. Would be interested if anyone has additional thoughts.. Even if it's "Yr frickin crazy, bub" 😏

Wonderful chart and idea. Something like this would be very interesting in conjunction with the GWE project. Obviously there would be differences in opinon, but it would be an interesting visualization tool to track opinons. Matt, have you plotpointed anyone on this a reference?

No NXT shows in Philadelphia at old ECW arena at this point. Anything else announced post WM?

Don't blame TV companies. Sinclair has been a boon for ROH. ROH wants more money? Go make it. Sinclair broadcasting has given them an important safety net. It's up to ROH how high they can bounce. Sinclair doesn't own the promotion after all.

Mentioning charity as good brand management, is bad brand management. Wade went/goes overrboard. But it's a good argument, wrestling or not.

If people are interested in the less is more approach.. Google, there's lots of discussion on this in the history of wrestling. From Buddy to Hulk. What helps make a grand figure? Why do some of the legendary figures of the sport do very little? Interesting topics.. For thoughts on what may or may not constitute minimalist wrestling.. Yohe, in front of an old microfilm machine. Smiling over a new result. (utmost respect to Yohe, I'd hope no one thinks that is a dig.)

I agree with you. I understand, in a way, what the other posts are getting at. Use less to mean more. But that's not minimalism. And using that word is pretensious. And deeply mis-applied. It's an affront. This may seem semantical. Or esoteric. But to pose this question seriously, is to be taken not seriously at all..