goodhelmet

OK, sorry for the confusion.

Yeah, I agree with Loss on this one. Saying that HBK and Bret acted the same is just inaccurate. As for Honky's claim that Bret was an ego-maniac, I don't doubt it. There's a name for guys who don't have a strong wrestling ego or play the political game... midcarder.

I completely overlooked this post but two guys who have bad impressions of Bret who have no interest in pleasing McMahon are Bad News Brown in his shoot and DK in his book. I would have to go back and watch 20 shoots but I know there are also guys who think Bret has an inflated opinion of himself. when I have time, maybe I will go back and re-read some of teke's old shoot recaps to see what people say. I think HonkyTonk Man throws some jabs at Bret in his shoot for sure.

Racist or nativist?

I really hate it when people try to spin it that their favorite wrestlers, or wrestlers that are good at putting together matches, are somehow noble figures. From all of the shoots and stories I have ever heard, the only two genuinely good people in the business were Bobby Eaton and Baron Von Raschke.

The minute he met Kevin Sullivan's wife?

Well, when you get your package tomorrow, you should have a little bonus. I sent the copies of the Digests that Frank sent me along with our trade. The only issue is that you may have to watch them on your computer or cretae new discs using your decryter on your computer to play on regular DVD players.

Yeah, JHawk, the whole Baba is a bad wrestler is another one of those myths that actually is disproven when you watch the matches. his chops may have sucked but he had some quality matches against many different opponents.

Damn Tim, it was so important you needed to say it three times.

Is this off the set I just sent you, Tim?

It was Punk-Joe II.

Hung out with teke over the weekend. A few of the things we popped in but didn't really pay detailed attention to.... TNA Against All Odds 2006 (Samoa Joe vs. Sytles vs. Daniels; Christian vs. Jarrett) Rock N Roll express vs. Russians 7/85 Ted Dibiase piledriver angle from Georgia (Dibiase/JYD vs. Freebirds) Freebirds vs. Von Erichs 12/83 Sgt. Slaughter vs. Iron Sheik 6/84 Matt Hardy vs. Edge (Unforgiven 2005)

The commentary is great but there is also a TON of great wrestling on there as well. Pick it up already!

When did Austin Aries become the biker from the Village people?

Why do they resent Stacy? What is the story behind that?

But once again, when the promotion encourages it, as ROH does by constantly reminding everyone that they are watching a Match of the Year, as Jim Ross had done countless times in his career as well, then is that the fans reminding us it is fake or the promotions encouraging that kind of fan behavior? Plus, those chants started coming along long after it was shoved down our throats that wrestling was fake, that it was just entertainment, they were really friends in real life, blah blah blah. The fans had to adapt more than the promotions.

But why should we, as fans, act accordingly when so many mixed signals are being sent out? In WCW, towards the end, the bookers and wrestlers were out to entertain themselves, not the fans. Vince McMahon originally tells us that he will not insult the fans' intelligence and then proceeds to do exactly that. He criticizes WCW for censoring their fans and does exactly that. ROH tells us they don't produce sports entertainment but then throw out an 8 man scramble death cage match. TNA encourages fan participation but then continues to shove JJ down our throats even though every fan in the arena at home doesn't want to see his tired 1999 act. So, what exactly is a fan supposed to do? Sit there and cheer and boo accordingly when any chance the feds get, they remind us that what we are watching is fake?

I actually enjoyed the feud itself even if the matches were nothing special. Everything was logical, Punk gave some of the best promos of his career and it reached a conclusion like it should have.

Unfortuantely, you cant expect the fans to act the same when the product has changed so dramatically that almost any resemblance to the wrestling we knew is barely there except for two guys in tights.

At the same time, Foley's book opened the door for all of the wrestling bios that followed. If not for Foley's success, I doubt we would have had a fraction of the wrestling books that have come out in recent years.

I have no doubt in my mind that even if Rey was given the title that the Fed would screw it up. On that, I agree with you. However, I don't think it would have anything to do with Rey's actual skills. As for Backlund, at least in the WWWF, if you look, he was defending the belt on a regualr basis and selling out MSG on a regular basis. My point is that the underdog theme is timeless and could work today just as much as it worked back then... if booked right. Ultimately, it all depends on the booking. If Rey is booked as a weak champion, he will be a weak champion. If they protect him and play up his strengths then he could succeed.

Yeah, Bob Backlund actually made a career as champ for 5 years being just that... an underdog. (sarcasm on)Nope, he didn't sell out MSG for most of those 5 years.(sarcasm off)