Slasher

I was wondering this during and after last night- if you were a superstar (I mean tha in the traditional definition and not in WWE speak) selected to take part in an Undertaker Wrestlemania match with the Streak on the line, would you personally prefer to be the 1 loss for Undertaker or would you prefer being just another of Taker's victims? I can see the positives and negatives for both. Me? I lay down for the guy,

I suspect Taker probably has had enough of the obligation of defending the streak. Part timer or not, Lesnar is a guy who the Taker likely had a lot of respect for as a physical specimen and fighter. Losing to Lesnar appeals to Taker's ego than a loss to John Cena who has zero actual credibility as a tough guy.

I don't think so. For all the WWE's ambitions, I don't think they are netting in the disillusioned world class athletes who just wants to get paid for what they do. Besides, even as things are presently structured, football players know that big pay days are in line for them if they work hard for two-three years while getting largely a free or discounted high level education (basketball players know they only need one year and baseball players don't even need to go to college to get MLB opportunities). The only athletes the WWE are likely to attract right now as it is are guys who are in sports that aren't going to be affected much by this unionizing business (wrestling, lacrosse, etc) and/or guys who were already big fans and were interested in a career in pro wrestling anyways (thus the union stuff or lack thereof isn't going to be factored in their decision). Notice how right now most of the guys the WWE are getting out of the top level athletics are washouts or guys who had no other real avenues to make real money or had connections to pro wrestling anyways in their family lineage? Name one guy who was considered a blue chip athlete who actively spurned college level athletics for pro wrestling because of the money?

I understand that dilemma. I am just slightly amused that we (being the majority of the smart mark section of the audience) were outraged that Shawn Michaels weaseled his way into something we saw as Chris Benoit's rightful place as the challenger to the champion (I'm not even getting into the absurdity of him deciding to chase Triple H's World title all of sudden after laboring to get the WWE title held by Brock Lesnar). Now ten years later, we (myself included) were begging for Daniel Bryan to force his way into the match that Batista "rightfully" won an opportunity to be in. We even booed the guy who simply did what he had to do to get the spot, by winning the Royal Rumble. It just speaks to the nature of the wrestling fan who doesn't care how things get to a point, as long as they get what they want (although to be fair to us, we anticipated and hoped for a much different road to get to this point).

Honestly I've seen the speculation of Vince returning as Bryan's white knight and I just don't see it. What has transpired since last fall when Vince McMahon questioned John Cena's selection of Daniel Bryan as his Summerslam opponent and his viability as a main event act/world champion (then further on in the storyline appearing in support of the Authority championing Randy Orton as their face of the company) that indicates the Vince McMahon character should all of sudden have faith in Daniel Bryan as a the top guy? What Stephanie has been saying in promos up to and following the Occupy RAW segment is exactly how I picture the Vince McMahon character feeling about the whole thing. We are talking about a megalomaniac billionaire with a Kiss My Ass club, with a trademark "You're Fired" catchphrase, with everything pompous seeping out of his pores here. When it was talked about that he would come in as a babyface in opposition to the Authority, I figured it would come in a storyline like when Stephanie and Triple H tormented the Rhodes. That would be a perfect example of the businessman side of Vince appealing to the babyface sense. Teaching his young charges that you need to have respect for people who can do business with you like Dusty Rhodes can. That would be an angle that makes sense for Vince to come out at some point and say "Hey wait a minute guys, you're going about this the wrong way here. Let me teach you a lesson." But Daniel Bryan's storyline? He just had a bunch of fans bully the WWE into altering the main event of Wrestlemania and forcing his son in law, a guy he hopes to some day take over the company, into a fight, embarrassing countless WWE officials in the process. Why would this egomaniac ever come into support of this? On a semi related but not really note: It's funny. Everyone got upset because in 2004, Shawn Michaels came out and superkicked the rightful owner of the main event slot at Wrestlemania and forced his way into the match and the fans did not like this at all. Ten years later, we are all cheering the Shawn Michaels this time. I guess it really comes down to who we like and how we tolerate their conduct that shapes the storylines, rather than the general morality and ethics of how we come to see people conduct themselves in WWE storylines.

I can't argue with the general idea you are talking about- Except to me, and maybe it is me alone, I define terms to the literal sense differently: Pro Wrestler- What people seem to associate as the overall package, I see it as strictly a wrestling term. Ie: mat wrestler, high flier wrestler, etc. This is where I measure their strict ability to wrestle without the frills or the added measures like "charisma". Worker- to me, that represents the whole package. You are working for everything you got. Some harder than others. You don't wrestle by doing mannerisms. You don't wrestle by stalling outside the ring. But you do WORK those things to elicit reactions. Am I stupid for seeing things that way? Maybe.

I am confused. Are those guys you enjoy watching more than Jerry Lawler, or are you legitimately arguing they are overall better than Lawler? My sensibilities probably leans strongly towards yours in terms of what I look for in my ring work, but I have to admit Jerry Lawler's greatness in his ability to work. Sometimes, for some guys, less is more, and it really comes across well in a match. Granted, Lawler's not likely to bust out Canadian destroyers or Five Star Frog Splashes but it is a credit to him that a simple fist drop is just as popular, that lowering his strap elicits a reaction much superior to most of the guys on that list. Jerry Lawler IS great, no getting around it.

So you have nothing of real value to say? Just name calling? Gotcha. Sorry guys for derailing this thread for that guy.

No, Triple H doesn't make Rock think directly that he will squash Hurricane. I am saying Triple H's history of vacuuming up the heat of the guys Rock chooses to put over (Angle in 2000, Jericho in 2002, Booker T in 2003 plus countless other examples of Triple H's insecurities in general) made the Rock weary of the idea when proposed the Hurricane deal. Sure, he should have done a better job anyways, I am not arguing that. I am simply pointing out the reasoning at the time and after the fact. Take it however you like, truth or fiction.

I remember the Undertaker something to the likes of this from an OTR interview too. Has Taker had more than 1 OTR interview? It was during a weird period where he was not wrestling as much and kinda dipped his toe in the shoot but not really interview pool. It wasn't justOTR but for the life of me I can't remember, this was like 12 years ago. Also I tried to look online for any transcripts or written interviews from magazine archives or anything and found bupkes. Annoying as hell because I recall his words so vividly but there doesn't seem to be any proof of it. As any self respecting person might do, I have to retract my comments on that subject.

Ridiculous? I am recalling how anti-Benoit you are so that is fine. Don't try to paint me as some deranged Benoit supporter because that has not at all been the angle I've come from. I don't give a flying fuck if they show Benoit matches again. I am simply saying if they CHOSE to, for other guys in the ring or to showcase the events he took part in, just do it. I did not think an advisory warning was a good idea. Redman brought up the legal aspect which I admitted I hadn't considered. I withdrew my objection on that merit. The Eddie comment was a bad example I admit. Congratulations. You caught me. Score one for you. Then you bring up my comment about Verne and New Jack (didn't bring up Hall because I was not aware of that incident) without proper context which I framed not too long after which was that it was done in response to goodhelmet talking about how they didn't kill their kids, and I simply flippantly tossed out support for the guy he was responding to... which essentially was that murder is murder. I respect Johnny Sorrow's experience with alzheimer's patients but here is one of my own. My father in law has vascular dementia. Not quite the same thing but here's what I've seen. He would follow up days of clarity with days of being batshit crazy...and continuing that cycle. I refuse to excuse Benoit from his atrocities anyways as I've mentioned in a different post. So that isn't even where I am going to come from. However I don't blame those who will. So anyways, any more of my comments you care to take out of context or attack belatedly after I have already expanded on those that you will conveniently ignore to feel morally superior to, dear Dooley?

Yes. Wrestling not only has double standards, it has triple standards and quadruple standards. Taker was not 40 yet at the time (I think). He simply did not understand that you have to make changes to accomodate your body. DDP was already 40+ and relying more on smarts than anything. Now Taker is at the point where he is expected to compete on the biggest stage of the year in a major match, despite falling apart physically. I am sure if this Taker could go back in time, he would take back what he said about DDP. Of course he probably would come up with something else to say about DDP.

But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. You're seriously suggesting that the WWF should promote a family annihilator just so certain matches of Angle, Jericho and Guerrero can be given a bigger spotlight? C'mon man. Yes let's ignore everything else I said. This is exactly what I am suggesting. It's what you lead with and to be fair, the rest of what you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Comparing a drug-related coronary to a guy that wiped out his family? Oh yeah, you're on top of this. So you are missing all the posts where I say that I am in favor of Benoit being marginalized? Reduced to a nameless being that these other great wrestlers just happens to be in the ring with? I get that you are playing the role of the overzealous defender of all that is right and just in the world. The guy is burning in hell right now. Believe me, he is being punished. Now let the great matches by OTHER guys in that ring be shown. Simple as that.

I think the Brock thing is a red herring. I see it being Batista wins the Royal Rumble, Brock challenges him at E.C. while Orton defends the title in the chamber and then Brock wrestles someone else and Batista moves on to Orton. The other possibility which incorporates your theory is Brock and Orton are in the chamber and Brock wins the title and moves on to Batista.

But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. You're seriously suggesting that the WWF should promote a family annihilator just so certain matches of Angle, Jericho and Guerrero can be given a bigger spotlight? C'mon man. Yes let's ignore everything else I said. This is exactly what I am suggesting.

It's also kind of funny that he always points to Boxing and MMA as being the outside of the box to study for Pro Wrestling, when those two things draw flies compared to the real big business / genres in Sports and Entertainment. Peyton Manning averaged 26.4M viewers per game for his four NBC appearances. That's not counting his drawing on other networks, like 28M+ on CBS against the Cowboys, or 27M on Fox against the Eagles, or 26M against the Giants, etc. Hunger Games: Catching Fire all on its own is going to make more in revenue world wide than the WWE... more than the WWE and UFC combined in 2013. Now granted, I'm not sure that the WWE wants to their content to be like Hunger Games, and the last time they had someone as over as Peyton Manning was Hulk Hogan in the 80s (because frankly even Stone Cold wasn't *this* over). But... It's likely that the WWE can learn as much from other forms of Sports and Entertainment than Boxing and MMA when it comes to promoting product, shooting their product, producing it, connecting with their fan base, having a sense of what's getting over with people in the country right now, and how to connect with their business partners... rather than just obsessing about Boxing and MMA. After all, the NBA this year is going to sign a new set of TV contracts that crushes what the WWE is going to get, and puts into context what a pot to piss in UFC is relative to big time sports. You just... mighta... sorta... wanta... broaden your horizons beyond the small bubble of Combat Sports and Fake Combat Sports. All this is true but I don't blame people like Meltzer (wow does the guy hate his fans or what?), for sticking to this smaller bubble. Yes you have Peyton being on top of the world as is LeBron James, yes the Hunger Games is killing it in the B.O., but how can you translate that in pro wrestling terms? Have 11 guys come in the ring and get heat on the other 11 guys? The fact is combat sports are easier to grasp as pro wrestling concepts. "See, Ronda Rousey turned heel with the snub!" Next thing you see, Natalya Neidhart wins the Divas Championship and refuses a handshake from AJ Lee. Bam, easy as that. The problem Dave doesn't quite get is... pro wrestling fans don't want this shit. They want the soap opera shit and the good wrestling shit. That's it. Dave is trying to push bratwursts with sauerkraut when all these people want is just a beef frank.

...what? That's some impressive reverse psychology H has going there. I'm guessing Flair and Jericho were in on this scheme too? What reverse psychology? They approach Rock with the Hurricane program idea, Rock balks at it, people stand backstage watching the Rock notput over Hurricane. It comes out in the sheets that the Rock is upset for the Booker T deal and he isn't as interested in putting over the Hurricane for this reason. Triple H sees the opportunity to stick it to Rock by working a better match with Hurricane so he can point to it and say, "See, Rock is full of shit. I am awesome and a team player!" Then of course he goes on to take a dump on everyone else since then. Ric Flair and Jericho? What? Jericho is a buddy of Hurricane. He would work hard for him. He is also great friends with the Rock (kinda because the Rock made him a personal pet project with their 2001 feud...that Triple H quashed. Hey look at that!) I don't know why you are being so obtuse about it. It is all right there in the open.

Hasn't this been "debunked" already? If anyone besides the Rock had the match with Hurricane that he did, the bitching and crying of burial would still be going on today. Here's the match with the Rock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHGnhyJSVeU . Rock controls 90% of the match, treats him like a joke thoughout the match and is about to finish him off before Austin distracts him. Hell, they don't even play his music after he wins and JR more or less says he doesn't have a chance, but is just going to put up a decent fight. Here's the match Triple H has with Hurricane a few weeks later: . It's a shorter match, but Triple H gives him a ton more offence and a visible fall. The near falls Helms got on the Rock were based on Rock goofing off too much while the HHH match had him looking more competitive. He lost, but at least looked like he could hang with the world champ. Not like a lower card goof who annoyed one of the top dogs too much and got his ass kicked for it. Umm.. that only proves my point that the Rock did not want to put over Hurricane, still pissed off how the whole Booker T thing went down. He felt Triple H would undo anything he tries. So he didn't for Hurricane and Triple H puts him over better to prove some false point to people that the Rock has him pegged all wrong.

Since he's said it many times, that's the first I've heard of it. Any other sources besides OTR? I saw it on a TV interview but also read that in a couple of magazines a few years ago when he was winding down his full time career. Obviously "many" is embellishing but considering he isn't an easy guy or a frequent interviewee, it comes across that way. I will definitely dig around and try to find solid sources.

I am not naive. Benoit is a monster, period. I was just trying to help rzombie out with his point. Edit: I hope you note I am not even gonna try to bring in the alzheimers equivalent brain thing because I refuse to validate that excuse.

I saw it in an interview (I THINK OTR or something like that, it was brought up years after the whole thing with Taker and HBK at Mania 14) but I admit that it isn't a reliable account, so feel free to take my statement with a grain of salt.

Don't worry. I'm definitely a guy who hasn't watched a single Benoit match in years. I have no interest anymore in his stuff, and I was one of his biggest supporters when he was alive and not so... kill-y. I had thought that the advisory brought needless attention to the situation, but Redman made the good point that it is just as much a legal protection as anything. Good enough for me.

Verne killed an old man. New Jack killed someone. Are we only judging murders by age now? Adults are okay, but kids are off limit? You're missing the point. Neither Verne, Hall nor New Jack's things created a huge shitstorm in the mainstream media about the crime and the alleged culpability of the wrestling business. The disclaimer isn't for wrestling fans or kids or rational people. It's to protect the company in case some news media wants to run a story about WWE glorifying a murderer on their network, or in case some kid hurts another kid in the playground and the parents want to sue WWE because he learned the crossface from watching Benoit on the network. Stupid shit like that. That is what it's for, covering their asses legally. It's not a moral warning just because someone in the wrestling business did something horrible. There's a context. Wow. That's actually a good reason that I hadn't thought of. Thanks.

Verne killed an old man. New Jack killed someone. Are we only judging murders by age now? Adults are okay, but kids are off limit?

But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. Eddie Guerrero dropped dead of heart failure linked to steroid abuse and drug abuse. Should we put disclaimers that WWE does not support drug use? I mean for chrissakes. If parents are letting kids watch wrestling, what with all the inherent problems associated, well they are not going to worry too much about a murderer who has been consciously marginalized on their footage.