S.L.L.

Todd Martin should not taunt the Happy Fun Ball.

This is something that's been asked many times, and I've been writing about the issue for a couple of years now. Looking back, my opinions really haven't changed at all. On Gabe: That said, while Bischoff and Sapolsky might be the right type of booker TNA needs, pretty clear to me that neither of those guys should actually be that booker. "Someone who has a solid, functional idea of what the promotion should be like and what kind of direction they should take"...Gabe was really good at accepting the ideas of others, but he had a pretty clear overall direction for the company - particularly the World Title scene - that worked nicely for ROH for a while, but ultimately became detrimental once a lot of his top talent started going elsewhere, and the guys he was left with just didn't fit the mold he wanted. That's pretty commonplace for wrestling promoters. They find something that works for them, but when it stops working, they can't/won't move on to something new. For what it's worth, a lot of that key ROH talent that left - mainly Samoa Joe, Homicide, and to a lesser extent, Nigel McGuiness - went to TNA. But trying to recreate TNA as ROH doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me. The undercard might get better if anyone has the creative spark that Danielson and Hero did when they pitched the ROH/CZW feud, or that Jimmy Jacobs did when he pitched all of his angles. The main event scene might provide better matches depending on who's in it, but the booking of it would be a tough sell for potential line-crossers. He's not the worst choice. He's certainly a better choice than what they have now. But he's not the guy you want if you're trying to make TNA a mainstream success. On D'Amore: Example I always point to is his handling of the 3/4LK break-up and the emergence of LAX, which was not only botched horribly, but was botched by - amongst other things - booking LAX as Quebec separatists, since there's no way you can point to anyone other than D'Amore to blame for that. On "anyone but Russo": It's not hard to find bookers better than Russo, but that's setting the bar really, really low. Finding a booker so much better than Russo that he'll actually make TNA into something that could actually be successful is another story. The hard truth is that looking for a great booker with a proven track record is probably not going to get TNA what they need. Most established bookers have a concrete idea of what a wrestling promotion should be. Taking over for a new promotion almost always means they'll try to adapt that idea to the promotion rather than carving a new identity for it, which is something TNA desperately needs. The answer - whatever it may be, probably lies in an untested quantity, at least one that's untested as a head booker. If I'm Dixie Carter, I start scouring the company's staff and the roster to see if there's anyone already under contract who might be able to pull that off. If that fails...well, Jimmy Jacobs doesn't seem to be up to too much these days....

Somebody needs to drag up the quote (pretty sure it was Meltzer who made it) about how if Frank Gotch and George Hackenschmidt were alive today, and they saw current pro wrestling and MMA, they would point to MMA as their sport. Gotch and Hackenschmidt - save probably for one famous bout - competed in worked matches. They took place in a four-sided ring, typically were 2/3 falls bouts, were notoriously long, and the falls could end by pinning your opponents' shoulders to the mat. Oh, and Hackenshmidt's pre-wrestling background was as a strongman, not as any sort of martial artist. His big appeal was his physique and (in America) his "evil foreigner" status, and his signature move was a bearhug. Don't know that he was ever actually slapped with a "World's Strongest Man" gimmick, but pretty clear that he was a guy sold on gimmicks rather than legit fighting prowess. I'm inclined to think that were either man alive today, they'd recognize MMA as something completely different, and identify wrestling as "their sport", albeit begrudgingly, since it's been ruined by these fancy tumblers and whatnot. They'd have the same reaction that so many other old-timers have to today's wrestling - it's what they were doing, but it's been RUINED FOREVER! for various reasons.

Was it Memphis Power Pro that ran the one night tournament on Halloween where everyone was in costume and (at least supposed to be) unrecognizable until they lost a match, and had to have their identities revealed? Jim Herd presaging Randy Hales is pretty amusing. Truth be told, I always thought it would be fun if a wrestling promotion ran Halloween specials where everyone worked in costume...but it would be kinda dependent on the fans being able to tell who was who. Imagine how wrestling would look today if the fans weren't supposed to know that that guy dressed up as Vanilla Ice in '02 was John Cena. I tend to believe that the best way to sell a product (not to be confused with "the product") is to create something that people would want, and then just market the hell out of it. If WCW's failure to do the latter was the cause of their inability to capitalize on their awesome '89 run, that explains a lot to me (although you could also chalk it up to the WWF being that big of a wrestling powerhouse at that time, not to mention Flair eventually getting worn out from being the company's booker and top star at the same time).

Aside from what Loss said, if a vote is cast for something that's ineligible for it's given category, it shouldn't be counted. Even the RSP-W Awards get that right. I don't know who tabulates the votes for Dave or if he does it himself, but it's not the Oscars. He knows the winners before the Awards issue gets published. If he sees that things ineligible for votes in their given category have not only been counted, but have won, he should scrap them. Good thing you guys are too smart to fall for that. Yes. Yes it is. Sarcasm works better when people can't agree with what you say with a straight face.

Let's be fair and assume he meant to say "What constitutes successful pro wrestling is what a promoter can successfully sell to wrestling fans as pro wrestling." People successfully sell things like, you know, food and shelter and miscellaneous non-wrestling entertainment to wrestling fans all the time. Let's assume he meant for us to fill in that blank and not make this claim any sillier than it already is. Looking over the WON Award winners from recent years... 2002 Feud of the Year: Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock 2006 Feud of the Year: Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock 2006 Promotion of the Year: Ultimate Fighting Championship 2007 Promotion of the Year: Ultimate Fighting Championship 2008 Promotion of the Year: Ultimate Fighting Championship 2009 Promotion of the Year: Ultimate Fighting Championship 2006 Best Weekly Television Show: Ultimate Fighting Championship: The Ultimate Fighter 2007 Best Weekly Television Show: Ultimate Fighting Championship: The Ultimate Fighter 2008 Best Weekly Television Show: Ultimate Fighting Championship: The Ultimate Fighter 2006 Worst Major Wrestling Show: UFC 61 2008 Best Booker: Joe Silva 2009 Best Booker: Joe Silva 2002 Promoter of the Year: Kazuyoshi Ishii 2005 Promoter of the Year: Dana White 2006 Promoter of the Year: Dana White 2007 Promoter of the Year: Dana White 2008 Promoter of the Year: Dana White 2009 Promoter of the Year: Dana White That's not even counting runners-up. Just the winners. So someone remind me...when did UFC or K-1 ever market themselves as pro wrestling? I'm not talking about wrestling-like promoting or a fighter's wrestling-like mannerisms. Like I said, giving Dave the benefit of the doubt that he's not including people selling Cheetos to wrestling fans as "successful pro wrestling". Assuming he meant people actually trying to sell pro wrestling. Have UFC or K-1 ever tried to sell themselves as pro wrestling? Hasn't UFC gone out of it's way a few times to get across the message that they're not pro wrestling? And K-1 is a kickboxing promotion, for crying out loud! It's not even mixed martial arts. It's one martial art, which is in no way, shape, or form pro wrestling. How do you justify extending inclusion to them? Because Bob Sapp was a big crossover star for a year or two? Gimme a break. This. He doesn't cover boxing as much as he could...but he still covers it more than he should.

Oh wow, now you're an out-and-out bigot. Awesome. You just inched that much closer to Sean Shannon. Alone, of course. A feminine woman likes being feminine. We males love masculine things but when it comes to women we want feminine things. Look at it this way. You take the most beautiful woman in the world BUT give her a masculine voice and chances are you will not be attracted to her. So if a women's voice becomes more masculine, you will be less attracted to her the more masculine it gets. True or False SLL? True...which your main argument false, which is what I was trying to say. If all this wiring was doing the shit you claim it's supposed to be doing, we wouldn't let petty aesthetic issues like a women being too masculine stop us from making time with them if they were ideal reproductive partners. This whole time, you've been arguing that all human sexual behavior is based on ancient "programming" designed to get make us reproduce with the best possible partners for the purpose of reproduction, but now, all of a sudden, that programming can be completely overridden because girls with muscles don't look pretty? You just argued against your own argument, you nitwit! If men, generally speaking, can decide "this woman is really healthy and would produce great offspring...but she kinda looks like a dude, so I'll pass", then your precious programming either doesn't work or isn't there. Sup, Sek! Honestly, the physical sciences aren't even really my thing for the most part (although there is some crossover here with psychology, which, as I think I've mentioned elsewhere, is more up my street). This is more just "stuff I happen to know", so when Res haphazardly types up this drivel, I'm in a prime position to explain why he's wrong (just in case it wasn't blindingly obvious to begin with) or why he's right, but failing to present the information correctly. Like Jingus said, there's actually a kernel of truth to a lot of what he's written here. It's just that he doesn't know how to make that kernel into delicious, delicious popcorn, and it's buried under so much RE brand stupidity and creepiness that it's hard to agree with even the stuff he gets right. Well, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with him about this. And you've completely ignored them. But then when we tried to give you more perspective, you did the same thing you always do, which I already outlined. Forgot to mention - though you demonstrated it anyway - that you usually talk a good game about being open-minded, wanting to improve yourself, being willing to listen to others, but I've yet to see you actually do any of those things...so, yeah, suck it, weirdo.

I believe some of it. The problem that keeps other people from believing it, and that I am trying to get through your thick skull, is that looking at this purely from a biological/dawn-of-man primal instincts standpoint doesn't tell the whole story. Not even close. Yeah... but no. The clitoris is the only human organ with no purpose at all except pleasure. And it has no use at all for making children. Sure it does. By making sex more pleasurable for women, it makes them more willing to reproduce. It's very useful in that regard. Of course, as previously mentioned, we can easily separate the concept of sex and sexual pleasure from the concept of reproduction, so, yeah. I am not familiar with Kate Moss (I don't really know how she's built) so I youtubed her name " and judging by the 15 seconds I watched from this I noticed she has a waist to hip ratio that is attractive to men. There is a certain percentage -- I forget what the exact number is -- of a waist to hip ratio that is most attractive to men. I forget what the exact number is but if you divide they hips into the waist and get a certain perecentage give or take a little bit it is pretty much a lock than men will find the lady attractive. Yes, that has been backed up by scientific research. From the Wikipedia article on physical attractiveness, namely the subsection on determinants of female physical attractiveness.... Yeah, there actually seems to be science to back it up, and that is some pretty select company up there...but then you start crunching the numbers yourself. Most commonly accepted measurements of Marilyn Monroe are 37-23-36. That puts her waist-to-hip ratio at about 0.64, which is "around" 0.7, but then, one wonders how close you have to be to be "around" the alleged golden number. I went through the rest of that group, some of the names mentioned here, and a bunch of others, to see what they'd come up with. Unsurprisingly, it's hard to come by measurements of WNBA players. Also, the Venus de Milo seems to be very tight-lipped about her measurements. So if 0.7 is the magic number, the ranking of these women's beauty should go: Madonna: 0.7 Kylie Minogue: 0.7 Lindsay Davenport: 0.71 Alessandra Ambrosio: 0.71 Jessica Biel: 0.71 Scarlett Johansson: 0.69 Betty Grable: 0.69 Raquel Welch: 0.69 Adrienne Barbeau: 0.69 Farrah Fawcett: 0.69 Jean Harlow: 0.69 Clara Bow: 0.71 Oprah Winfrey: 0.71 Shakira 0.71 Salma Hayek: 0.68 Teri Hatcher: 0.68 Jennifer Lopez: 0.68 Tyra Banks: 0.67 Serena Williams: 0.73 (hips built more for athletics than child-bearing, interestingly, though I don't doubt she could do both) Mickie James: 0.73 Kim Basinger: 0.67 Jessica Simpson: 0.67 Marlene Dietrich: 0.73 Jessica Alba: 0.74 Kate Moss: 0.66 (yes, she skews as having hips that are too wide...I guess on a frame that small, you don't notice) Bettie Page: 0.66 Lana Turner: 0.74 Gisele Bundchen: 0.75 Angelina Jolie: 0.75 Pamela Anderson: 0.65 Marilyn Monroe: 0.64 (yes, science says all of these women listed above are more desirable mates than the woman who's name is practically synonymous with female beauty...keyword being "mates") Megan Fox: 0.76 Michelle McCool: 0.76 Christina Aguilera: 0.64 Sophia Loren: 0.63 Joey Heatherton: 0.63 Claudia Cardinale: 0.62 Courtney Cox: 0.8 Halle Berry: 0.59 Britney Spears: 0.81 Brigitte Bardot: 0.57 Now, what does this all mean? Well, it means a couple of things.... 1. I have way too much free time on my hands. 2. If nothing else, an hourglass figure is still considered to be a desirable trait in women, and that plus the anthropological "ideal mate" thing is enough to make me buy that waist-to-hip ratio is a factor in determining attractiveness. A factor - as in, one factor. Lindsay Davenport and Oprah Winfrey are not ugly women, and I'll admit the media's attempts at selling Serena Williams as a sex symbol have worked better on me than they probably have on other guys, but they're all the way up there and Marilyn and Sophia are down near the bottom? Brigitte Bardot is dead last? Clearly, there are other things going on. 3. Even if one accepts that waist-to-hip ratio is significant, it's pretty clear looking at those numbers that if a "golden number" exists at all, it's basically insignificant, because it's overwhelmed by countless other factors. Megan Fox is pretty much the consensus hottest girl in the world so...yeah, you're wrong. Nice to see you might be willing to admit that for a change. And she was way down the list. Right next to Marilyn, actually, although on the opposite side of the spectrum. Yes, the media creating and perpetuating unhealthy body images in women is bad. But as far as the bolded statement goes, the media has given us another message that applies quite nicely.... “You keep on using that word … I do not think it means what you think it means.” Instincts, by definition, is something inherent to the species, that we all have, that is unlearned, and that is unavoidable. You know how many instincts human being have? One. Use of the mouth, particularly as an infant. Not even a specific use. We've just got to use it somehow. And that's it. In fact, there's some question as to whether or not even that is in instinct. Possible that humans have no instincts whatsoever. There's no instinct to be attracted to women with the right waist-to-hip ratio, because there's no instinct to be attracted to women. No instinct to be attracted to anyone. No instinct to reproduce. No instinct to create life. No instinct to continue your own. No instinct to eat, drink, sleep, or do anything else that your body isn't just doing on auto-pilot. Just as long as your mouth gets to do it's thing every now and then, your instinctual needs are being met. We've a long way from the caveman days, Res. Uh, if we're "programmed" to seek out the ideal mate, shouldn't that override such petty issues as said mate appearing too masculine? Jeez, even you're arguing against your argument now.

OK, two lines of thought coming out of this.... 1. "Scotty Goldman" was a jobber. "Evan Bourne" has fared better, but really got lost in the shuffle after he left ECW. C.M. Punk has had forward momentum pretty much ever since his debut, and is now a credible main event player. It seems to me that if they care enough to use the name you got indy famous with, they probably want to actually use you in a meaningful way. 2. Regardless of what the future holds for Danielson (I, for one, am being cautiously optimistic), this whole angle was moronic, and really feels like the last nail in the coffin of the NXT concept. It was a promising idea, but fuck this, I want my ECW back.

By the way, I just have to cross-post this because it made me laugh for about five straight minutes..This is Neil on the Crush Kill Crush board summing up Res' argument:

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this. Homosexuality has been found in nature. I think you're conflating two different definitions of "nature", but it's really a moot point. Homosexuality exists, and Res' argument is fucked as a result. This fucks his argument up, too. In fact, this ties back really nicely about how these old primal instincts have developed significantly since man first walked the Earth. Certain actions and behaviors developed as a result of our desire to achieve certain things, like men sleeping around (and later, staying put) in order to reproduce. But today, not only is it possible to separate the idea of reproduction from the idea of sex, it is overwhelmingly common, and people will actually go out of their way to make sure that they don't reproduce when they have sex. That alone takes the whole "programming" argument behind a woodshed and beats it to death with a rusty hammer. The fact that you can actually separate the concept of reproducing and the concept of having children pretty much drops an atom bomb on it. Yes, "people" are being closed minded and afraid of reality. Res, all of your arguments end with everybody else telling you you're wrong, pointing out solid evidence that you're wrong, and you shutting your eyes and jamming your fingers in your ears and telling everybody else that you're indisputably right more or less because you said so. Everyone else is biased. Everyone else is ignorant. Everyone else is dishonest. Everyone else is closed-minded. Everyone else is afraid of reality. I'm sure everyone else is projecting, too.

I've edited it out. It was admittedly in poor taste.

OK, this is something you will very, very, very rarely hear me say. In fact, it's borderline physically painful for me to say it. But...in the interest of intellectual honesty and my apparent desire to be the autism-spectrum Gallant to ResidentEvil's autism-spectrum Goofus...if we assume that what Res is saying is that this is the most basic, primal foundation for human mating decision-making, and that all subsequent standards (double or otherwise) about gender, sexuality, and reproduction evolved from this basic principle...then he's right. I know, it's ResidentEvil. It's really easy and really tempting to dismiss everything he says out of hand. But any anthropology textbook - and I've been through a few - will tell you he's right, if we assume the conditions stated above. Of course, that's the most primal, basic approach to human sexuality that we had back at the dawn of our species. We've had a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time to refine our technique. Women have had time to embrace ideas of sexual liberation. Men have had time to embrace moral ideals like "adultery is bad". LGBT identities sprung up. Asexuals sprung up. Couples who don't want to have kids sprung up. We can overrule caveman-era instincts without a whole lot of trouble. Yes, you'll always find some evidence of this original thought - the Don Juan/slut double standard, standards of beauty typically being based upon qualities that would make for an ideal mate, etc. - but it's evolved and changed just as much as any other aspect of our lives. "Programming" is a really bad way to describe it, because a computer can't override it's programming. This is something that's there, but that we can override pretty easily. And as long as we're talking about primal sexual concerns, I notice Res failed to mention the ones that led to the development of monogamy, which is pretty significant here. Oh sure, men wanted to reproduce, and the easiest way to do that was to sleep around. But what good is that if your offspring dies? That completely defeats the purpose of reproduction. Eventually, some men wised up. They realized that if they didn't just fuck a girl and walk away to find another girl to fuck, but actually stuck around, they could protect and provide for their child, thus making sure they grew up to reproduce and continue the family line ad infinitum. It cut down on quantity, I grant you, but if your kids all die because you're too busy making more kids to help care for the ones you already made, what was the point of reproducing in the first place? I mean, yeah, if you throw enough of your genetic material against the wall, some of it will stick, but even early on, guys realized there was another way to go about things. Res, that's not a joke. That's a math equation. Res won't answer, and I'm kinda terrified by what his answer would be. But as long as you're asking, and as long as I'm throwing down with the anthropology, my own thoughts are the same as George Carlin's thoughts when he did his bit about "gay lib" way back when. People were asking (and still ask) "is it normal, and is it natural," and George concluded that it was probably normal but not natural, as nature did not presuppose it, but if it feels good and hurts no one, than it can't be that abnormal. As to what they're looking for, they probably are looking for "the healthier seed". It's just that they're not looking for it for those reasons. They're looking for it because that's the basis of any given society's standard of beauty, and they probably want to sleep with attractive people regardless of whether or not they're going to reproduce with them. Although determining differences in standards of beauty between gay and straight people might make for an interesting sociology experiment, now that I think about it. Still, my general understanding was that gay standards of beauty were pretty much the same as those of the general population, which is based on suitability as a mate. Well, it was truth. Some of it, anyway. But you're going off the deep end in 5...4...3...2...1.... "I know the history of psychology, Matt....You don't." But I just can't figure out how to make them stop screaming. Because you've gotta be a real socio-scientific genius to figure that out. Oh, now I understand! They're screaming because they're happy! So you would think...but we secretly replaced your social conditioning with new Folger's Crystals! I've figured out that they're screaming because they're happy, too! Secretly, everyone loves and respects Davey Richards, and desires to please him sexually and provide him with burnt sacrifices. And unlike women, I don't even need my telescope for this! Like "garroting them with an electrical cord isn't acceptable courtship behavior". Not personally, of course, but that guy looked really happy after he got my electrical cord off of her throat and punched me in the face. "....but I'm really not into the dating scene right now, so if you'd just untie me...." Well, those weren't the exact terms the cops used, but.... "Please, Mrs. Evil, we'll do anything, just take that freakshow son of yours and leave our town alone!" ....if I were the type of psychopath who manipulated people with their superficial charm instead of the type who laid their balls-out craziness bare on the table. I'm not quite sure what that meant. I think it might be like the screaming. I mean, I usually don't, but the judge said I had to. But the Chemical Brothers told me not to! Yeah, funny how everyone is wrong but you. THIS IS WHAT RESIDENT EVIL ACTUALLY BELIEVES EDIT: Final joke retracted out of good taste.

It's better than his introductions of John Cena. He pronounced the name "John" about the same way Coach Z pronounced the word "job".

Bobby's kind of infamous for being a lousy talker. Even just speaking with him about inconsequential shit backstage, he tends to talk slow and stumble over his words. Did you ever see the DVDVR Memphis set? There is a Bobby Eaton match in there that is preceded by an Eaton interview, which is not only really good, but includes him referring to his opponent as a "jabroni" and calling himself "the people's champion". It was a really revelatory experience, as apparently, not only was Bobby Eaton a strong mic worker, but Bobby Eaton was The Rock. Didn't have as strong a delivery of the material as Rock did, but still. Not as good of a mic worker as Cornette, either, and I guess once they hooked up, he figured he could leave the talking to Corny and just hold up his end in the ring. I mean, I've heard stories of him being really ineloquent backstage, but for the most part, he is a guy who just didn't get a lot of mic time once the MX formed than a guy who got mic time and bungled it. Maybe a guy who got really out of practice and lost his skills. But not a guy who wasn't skilled in the first place. Maybe I need to rewatch the promos from when The Bluebloods were formed.

Did Vince get raked over the coals for Cryme Time? For the end to gay marriage thing? For the MLK tribute episode that ended with face Austin chasing Teddy Long around ring in a ATV threatening to tie him to the back? This (except, to a degree, the Billy & Chuck stuff). WWE has done actual racist/sexist/homophobic/miscellaneous bigoted shit in modern times, often with the bigots getting their way in the end and sometimes being portrayed as faces for doing so. The media doesn't bat an eye at it. Hell, Chris Benoit murdered his family in real life, and the media treated it as a passing fancy. Even now that Linda McMahon is running for the U.S. Senate, the media criticism has been really tame compared to what it could be. Strictly speaking, they just don't give a shit about wrestling.

But the watermelon angle is the racist shit that Brick wouldn't put up with and led to him turning face. He can't very well turn face due to another heel's racism if the other heel can't be depicted as racist. And I certainly don't think that it follows that the portrayal of racism in a fictional work is racist itself. Far worse things than a watermelon were forced onto Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird. You're going to argue that To Kill a Mockingbird was racist, are you?

That'd be great actually because last year people at the F4W boards were saying how Pratt was being a great TV Heel and Alverez was furious about the comparison. Man, if I had been doing this last year, I would have been all over that. As really, Spencer (and to a lesser extent, Heidi) were doing "wrestling" as well or better than a lot of the other guys Bryan and Dave were talking about along those lines. I'm guessing the difference is that it's a lot more flattering to compare wrestling to MMA or boxing or even the Epic Beard Man than it is to compare it to Heidi and Spencer. Whole point of those comparisons is to make insecure wrestling fans feel better about themselves. Once you realize that those comparisons apply equally to irritating celebutantes as they do to legitimate athletes, it all falls apart.

He wanted to know if promos helped his FIGHTING!?

This. It's not like everything is up across the board or down across the board. It's somewhere in the middle. Better than the mid-90's and the company's descent into near bankruptcy. Better than the post-Invasion botching slump. Not as good as the heyday of the Rock 'N' Wrestling and Attitude eras. Not even as good as pre-Benoit murder/suicide '07. It's a mixed bag, and it's hard to read too much into it. What I might read into it - not that I haven't already been saying this for a while - is that the Mania number is not a good sign, and that the whole "wrestlers don't draw, the brand draws" talking point really needs to be taken out back and have a bullet put into it. Yeah, I know, Bret's return and Shawn's retirement should've covered the "wrestlers drawing" aspect of it. But... A. The two biggest names in the company right now are Cena and Mysterio, whose matches were billed third and...umm...sixth, maybe? B. Even if we allow that the wrestlers failed to draw - a fair assessment to make - the brand didn't pick up the slack. Anyway, this isn't the end of WWE, and I'm not even sure who's saying it is. But I see it more as something akin to 1998-1999 WCW, where there is both good and bad, where the company is in a state of chaos, where things could ultimately go either way, and right now, there's no way to be sure just which way it will go. Let's just hope it doesn't end with them re-hiring Russo.

Yeah, I don't get this line of thinking. Babyface Lawler telling heel Kamala he would wet his lips and press his face against a wall so he would stick there is racist. Black heel turning face because he wouldn't put up with the blatant racism of a white heel associate is actually really progressive by wrestling standards.

OK, so I was going to do an article on Spencer Pratt today, but.... 1. The main thing that inspired me to do it - the bit where he declared himself to be King of America and was going to legally change his name to "King Spencer Pratt" - has no video footage that I can find (though I could swear I've seen video of him saying it). 2. His latest big thing is that he's addicted to buying crystals, and really, there's no way I can spin that as being "more wrestling than wrestling". This is a guy who's 15 minutes are basically up, so I think I'll pass until he reaches "overlooked historical figure" status. Fortunately, I had my next subject after him picked out already, so I'll just move that one forward, and hopefully you'll see that in the next day or so.

The Invasion fell apart because the story had run it's course? How long was it's course, then? An eighth of a second?

I would have agreed with you at some point, but too much time has passed. It's been almost a decade since there were two established national promotions, and even longer since they were both doing big business at the same time. 1998 will never happen again, just like in 1998, we weren't going to see a return to what wrestling was in 1986. Now, arguing that WWE could have competition feels like arguing that the territories could come back. The ship has sailed. "Never" is a very long time. Death of the territorial system was a change brought about by technological advances, changing business practices, and a rapidly-raised standard for what it took to be a viable wrestling promotion. That was irreversible. Death of competition for the WWF/E was a change brought about by exceptionally poor company management and a lack of people who were willing to give WCW more opportunities to fail after 2001. Panda Energy and Spike TV seem perfectly willing to let TNA fail to their little heart's content, so they've already got that taken care of. But they're not at the level WCW was at when they started seriously failing, nor do they show any signs of approaching that level. Can it be done? Not with that name, hell no. I mean, I always figured the most straightforward way to create something successful was to just make something people would want and then market the hell out of it. But I still have fond memories of an episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live from 2005 where Tito Ortiz was on, hyping up his upcoming guest ref gig at Bound For Glory. And well, Bonnie Hunt was the other guest that night, and her reaction to hearing the name "TNA" - aside from being the reaction that pretty much everyone else would have to it - killed anything Tito could've done to sell the show. It's completely unmarketable. If they changed the name...they'd still be completely unmarketable, because the show is such a mess. But if TNA were basically the exact opposite of what they are...well, to quote a villain from an episode of The Avengers, "Mission: Highly Improbable", maybe, but not impossible. I'd also suggest that TNA having existed for eight years now and having been an unending, miserable failure that whole time maybe has tainted our perception as to whether or not it's even possible to be a success. It's possible for the Clippers to win the NBA Playoffs, too, but is it something anyone ever seriously thinks about happening?

If the Mid-South set was any indication - and I don't see why it wouldn't be - mid-80's Taylor was an interminable bore, albeit one who was reasonably carriable by your Ric Flairs and whatnot. Late-80's heel Taylor is where it was at.