Slasher

1. Not really, I don't think. Typically you still have to possess something of a high level of skill in some area, and preferably multiple areas. In-ring talent, getting a character over, knowing how to manipulate crowd reactions, etc, all are just as important today as it was back then. What HAS changed is HOW those qualities are developed, judged and nurtured. The whole system is different now too, obviously. Nobody really gets to work six month stints in a big territory before moving on to the next, learning how to maximize their skills through something of a trial and error process. Now? Swim or sink in the WWE. 2. This is a difficult question, in that the degree of success is underdefined in the question. "Make it" in what way? Some people interpret it as being a top of card talent, some as staying power as a worker, others as the ability to get booked anywhere for so long. Using the criteria I have in my mind, I have to venture to guess more people today would probably experience more success, especially if given the advantages of the territory system. No reason a guy like The Miz, who is an average worker today, couldn't learn to hone his craft and become a better overall performer, working Memphis or Mid-South or Portland or whatever. With how the sports landscape changed due to MMA and other sports, more and more guys coming in professional wrestling are legitimate fans of it. You'd imagine these guys would have the dedication to making it work. Anyways, to boil down the answer, I'd guess probably 40-50% of today's workers would make it back then. Not a bad ratio, I think. At least better than the other way around (yes I think less workers from the older eras would translate well to today's product). 3. Now this is an easier question. Obviously Attitude Era was all about compelling characters. Guys that would create interesting dynamics with their opponents and the fans as far as storytelling goes. Therefore we are looking at guys today who are compelling characters and have proven to be versatile. This narrows the list down of today's workers big-time, and you're left with either the older vets who WERE around in the Attitude Era, or the super workers like Punk or Danielson.

What's wrong with Christian? He may not be a rising star that gets fans excited for a program with Ambrose, but he's sure as hell better than Justin Gabriel. Plus with Ambrose's apparent reputation for being a good match layout guy, and Christian being the all-pro he is... it could be a work of art in the ring.

He didn't. He'd bring his forearms in and across his upper torso, spreading the impact, and turn his head to the side; ie, taking a standard front bump. Or, why missing a moonsault every match won't wreck your knees nearly as much as landing it will. No matter how defined someone's pecs may be it's no worse a headshot than a standard (and hardly Misawa-level) forearm to the neck. His habit of taking a superplex (whilst delivering it) and almost folding over for the "authenticity" in a double KO spot did far more damage, for instance. Yes it would appear that he did what you described, but I don't know if it actually protects his head doing that or if it is no different than taking it full on in the head. On a side note, to check out what MJH was talking about, I stupidly decided to check out Benoit's diving head butt off the top of the cage against Angle on a RAW episode, and I was shocked that Benoit actually LEAPT to do the move. Dude was already a good 4-5 feet higher than the top rope, why add even more height to it??? (Well, actually, I'd have made sure he didn't do that move to begin with from that height, but rather only the top rope like usual, to preserve my KOTR main event and summer lineups) And on a free show?! So stupid.

Maybe, but it is widely assumed that a lot of the brain damage Benoit accumulated through his career had come from that diving headbutt, seeing how Benoit has his hands out to his sides and takes the full brunt of the impact head-on. I do agree Danielson does the rope dive too often, but in theory you have people catching him and breaking his fall.

No. New topic please. The Death of WCW thing has been beaten to all hell.

As dangerous as Benoit's was. I don't see him doing the dive any differently. He does the same unprotected head to shoulder/chest shot that Benoit always did.

I think with Hunter, when it comes down to it the fans generally like him and respect him for who he is, but he isn't really beloved. He isn't held with the same reverence that, say, Shawn Michaels or Taker are. Those guys are living legends to fans, whereas Hunter is just...not quite there. But they try to book as if he is at that level, and it doesn't work. Maybe it is because he was always a heel and pretty ineffectual as a face outside of DX. Maybe it is because everyone knows about his relationship with Steph and can't help but feel he hasn't earned everything he's got. Maybe it is because he has been constantly pushed down people's throats for 15 years now without respite and it feels artificial. Maybe it is because he is booked so strongly all the time and has a hard time showing the vulnerability that makes people empathise with you. I don't know. But it seems they will never stop booking him as Hunter The Living Legend in these big angles until people start giving them the desired reaction, without realising that the way they portray him as such an infallible badass means they are never going to get it. Pretty much. That's why I think they need to just book him as that last line of defense, so when he comes out, people go "OH SHIT, THE HEEL IS GOING TO GET IT NOW!" sorta thing. He's never going to garner sympathy, never. May as well make him, as Jingus would say, the Voltron with the sword. Hell his alternate gimmick is basically that of a Norse God. Play it up in the angles.

I should mention that this current angle is another semi-transparent attempt to get the fans to care about Triple H as an in-ring performer, rather than just as the "legend"/WWE office equalizer. How I would really book him is having him as the last line of defense for the WWE against some big threat. They tried this with Brock Lesnar, but Lesnar was fresh off losing to Cena. The WWE just assumed "Hey if we have Lesnar kick Cena's ass all over the place, then job to a fluky shot with a chain, the fans will still buy him as an unstoppable force!" but it didn't translate as well that way. Cena doing his limp armed promo then coming right back the next day just killed that perception. If they had Brock destroying everyone, leading to a shocking destruction of Cena where he actually beats Cena decisively, then I think the whole Triple H feud would have worked a lot better. edit: With the WWE audience, that is. The IWC probably will still just assume Triple H swooped in to hoover up Brock's heat. But HHH/IWC will never co-exist peacefully until he ends up bringing in another golden era of in-ring wrestling excellence as a booker when Vince dies. Or not.

Which makes me wonder, if this isn't an angle (which I kind of agree it probably is), and it isn't true that there is marital discord between Quack and his rich wife, then why would she all of sudden stop helping him? Furthermore, if this is an angle... I have to ask... "Why?" What do they get out of working people into thinking Chikara closed and they are spreading the resources out to the other feds? What does it really accomplish? The only thing I can think is that few feds with Chikara investment is better than just one, but that's a major reach.

How is it a lie then if it lost money? I wouldn't put it past them trying to work everyone into thinking this is what's really happening, but losing money is losing money. If they had a mark financing it, and it loses money on that level, do you really expect them to keep funding them for years? Even Panda had to get somewhat bailed out by Spike TV in keeping TNA afloat.

I don't understand. HHH had chants and a strong babyface reaction. The McMahon's did their best to draw that out by dick-teasing the crowd. Now, I'm no HHH fan, but I'm wondering why you think this. On that note, I just want to say Daniel Bryan is an absolutely amazing performer, and the push he's getting is very, very modest. The Shield is totally brutal. Ryback did okay. He's just some big ogre who can be carried to a decent match. I'd take him over Sid. Curt Axel is alright; he has some presence, but it's hard to take him as a serious player. Randy Orton is the modern day Ted DiBiase - not terribly exciting but solidly competent. But tonight, he played his role perfectly without having to resort to a slow build. Albert del Rio is a better face than heel imo. He actually comes off as somewhat likeable, whereas as a heel, he had Jeff Jarrett go away heat. The Miz sucks. Triple H is in a weird place really. He is obviously very much so respected by the fans for being so strong for so long and being booked well for years. But when it comes down to Triple H vs anyone that the fans care about, people always turn on Triple H for that specific instance. Look at his program with Orton when Orton was punting all the McMahons, the fans cheered for Orton over Triple H and felt that Orton should have won that Mania match. Most recent example being against Brock where people just refused to buy Triple H as an underdog face and no-sold the whole angle. I mean, he gets great reactions when he's just talking or appearing in the arena, but when it comes to wrestling, it just seems like no one wants it.

When I was younger, every time I saw Buck's name anywhere, my mind would instantly form the name "Buck Fuckoffe" for some weird reason. Now? Seems rather fitting.

Also posted this in Current WWE, but maybe this is more appropriate of a thread, any guesses where they are going with the Triple H angle? Seems like they are admitting defeat kinda telling the fans off about not giving a shit?

Any guesses where they are going with this storyline with Triple H? Seems like they are recognizing finally that pretty much no one gives a shit about the guy.

Haven't really watched WWE the last month or two, since after Mania, so I haven't really seen much of what's up, but I just saw the link someone posted in the Daniel Bryan thread in the Microscope, and I wanted to comment that it looks weird to see Ambrose wrestling in the Shield uniform as a singles wrestler. I know he's still the leader of the faction and they did have the other two guys get involved, but maybe if they are doing singles matches, they should think of having an alternate uniform. Or at least take off the protective vest.

*raises hand*

I'm rather particular to the Heyman caption because the accompanying photo makes it even better.

What did Meltzer write about Hennig? I think I read that bio years ago but forgot the details. I remember something like Meltzer interviewing Ken Patera, who said he'd golf with Hennig, who'd take 20 pain pills, smoke several joints, and drink a six-pack all by 12 PM. Is that what you're referring to? Not for nothin', but ditch the pain pills and that sounds like a fun day of golf. Yeah unless you were a straight edged sort of dude, this is pretty much what guys do. They take drugs (that aren't the hardcore type), they drink and they go out and do stuff. Hard to see that being the unflattering bit on Hennig, if that's what it was intended to be. Yes, 20 pain pills is something to raise an eyebrow about perhaps, but this is a professional wrestler with injury issues we are talking about here.

Don't see the humor in that, as I doubt Vince ever wants this mastodon beating up his wrestlers in a really brutal way.

Unless I missed something, you were never banned. Pretending to be a different person seems unnecessary. As someone who spent more than a little free time poking RE with a stick over the internet, I think it was smart. "Resident Evil" was a name that carried a lot of baggage with it. Taking on a new identity frees him of that and lets him get a fresh start. Til he gets outed, of course. Speaking of which, what you said, GreatPuma, doesn't make sense. If someone doesn't need more than 4 hours of sleep, why is it recommended to sleep from dusk til dawn? That spans over 6 hours at least. Personally, I am one of the few people I know who can actually be playing video games til 3 am, go to bed, then wake up at 7 am with no ill effects to my energy or mental capacity, over a long haul. I don't think it's genetics or luck or anything. I think it has more to do with training your body to accept that it is all the rest it is getting, and to adjust accordingly, over a LONG period of time.

But then it doesn't become Twin Peaks. That is the problem of titling shows after locations, it doesn't make sense to move the show out.

I don't know about running around in parking but Benoit definitely had athleticism, but no, not as much as Owen or Brock.

Only because Rod Serling was so possessive of the show he just wasn't going to let anyone take a crack at running it. Five years of quality content from ONE guy is pretty good if you ask me. The other shows cycled creative members pretty regularly, IIRC.

I know he was doing the SSP in OVW, but at Mania, he pulled it out after not having done it for a year. I doubt he was doing SSPs at house shows in the run up to Mania. That is an impressive thing to me, for a guy his size to take a year off from the move then do it at the biggest show after 20 minutes of intense wrestling.

I'm surprised in some ways that Lesnar gets such a strong plurality. Though "athletic freak" is broad, I see athleticism as being very coordinated. In UFC, Lesnar's stand-up was frequently criticized by UFC critics and that his winning fights depended more on his brute strength where he could overwhelm opponents by mauling them. Regardless - and it's obvious why he wouldn't qualify - but I think Chris Benoit was more athletic than Lesnar. Angle's amateur career was much more distinguished, and his coordination was uncanny. Maybe people use Danny Puder's shoot against him, which would be unfair as Angle had no such training. I haven't seen much Danny Hodge footage, but I've read stories where even in conventions today, at 80-years-old, he can handle himself quite well against younger amateurs. Shelton Benjamin is undoubtedly athletic, hyper athletic even, but I didn't think much of his working ability (not a factor in that question, of course) any time I've seen him live; he's a guy who needed more guidance in putting matches together imo. It's disappointing to see Jack Brisco not get many votes. Brisco was by far the best athlete of his era next to Hodge. Brock was a 300 pound brickhouse doing shooting star presses at Wrestlemania without much practice, he won the top UFC title even if he just mauled his way into it, and he is a guy no one doubts would destroy everyone if he puts his mind to it... Yeah he's a freak of nature.