S.L.L.

I would think it would be a significant mask to throw away since, if the idea is to have him eventually replace Rey, they'd probably want to replace all those masks that Rey is selling on the merchandise table. What's the point of replacing Rey with an unmasked luchador if the issue is money?

I thought so too for a while, but then I realized they had booked themselves into a corner. They had Noble win a bunch of matches against Palumbo before the turn, so where do you go after it? The logical end to the angle had to be Noble beating Palumbo for revenge, but he'd already beat him in all the buildup leading to the turn. Yeah, but they were all real flukey wins, done with Noble as the heel and Palumbo as the face. Double turn completely changed the dynamic of the feud. Not enough for Noble to score fluke wins in a lame attempt at impressing Michelle McCool anymore. Now he has to score a decisive win to avenge her abuse at Palumbo's hands. Also thought that the logical end to the feud was Palumbo going over in some type of gimmick match so that he could go off and feud with Matt Hardy over the US Title or something like that, but Noble giving him enough of a fight that he gets to leave with his dignity and get the girl.

I've never seen Sting/Sid, but I have seen Kerry/Sid, and thought it was actually pretty good for a match with a green-as-grass Sid in it.

Another reason the Hogan turn worked was because the crowd was sick of face Hogan by '96. In 2001, fans still wanted face Austin, and largely sided against him against The Rock. That's not to say you couldn't have made it work, but the fact that Austin was still the hottest face act in the company means turning him is kind of a dumb thing to do. On a smaller level, I still think WWE screwed up by not following through on the Jamie Noble/Chuck Palumbo double turn a few years back.

I must admit I was a little unsure about this when I first published it, as I kinda wondered if I had really done much more than replace non-wrestling-related words with their wrestling-related equivalents, and how long that would continue being funny. I had a long bit in mind about how the Sci-Fi Channel wanting the show to have an actual story arc forced Mike out of his Crash TV booking style and how well he and Pearl adapted to the shift to long-term booking of angles, the effective short term use of other top heels like the Observers pre-planet explosion and Flavia during their time in ancient Rome to keep things fresh, Mike and Pearl both working a more aggressive, "higher workrate" style than their predecessors where I probably would've drawn comparisons to Choshu and Fujinami...but I already wussed out by that point. So glad to know people like this, and I'll probably be a bit bolder in the future. I'm gonna try to get one of these up every Thursday. Already have my next few subjects lined up.

Let's not forget the context of that: it happened on a draft special after Triple H had just been drafted to Smackdown (thus making the match possible), and then was almost immediately sent back to Raw for reasons that escape me. If HHH hate weren't so 2002, one might suspect that he saw that the hottest act in the company was on the other brand, got drafted to that brand for one night just so he could sandbag said hot act, and then go back to his original brand, feeling better about himself.

Didn't the thing with Claudio have something to do with visa issues? Of course, I would presume those have since been cleared up, which raises the question of why the WWE never tried again with him.

I think Tom's point is that a board moderated by ChikaraFanDan and Alan4L isn't going to be a whole lot better than a board that isn't moderated at all.

Before they turned it into a four-way with a white guy and a multi-ethnic guy, I remember being really excited about No Mercy '06 just because it was going to be - best as I can recall - the first all-black PPV main event in WWF/E history. I mean, they had a good, non-race related reason for changing that, but still....

Well, that's true, but I think that's more of a possible base to the problem than the problem itself. I mean, regardless of your take on John Cena, most of your message board guys are more interested in talking about workrate and - to a lesser extent - promos and the quality of other on-screen stuff (quality of work) than drawing power or marketability (value of work). That's fine. The problem is guys in arguments praising/denigrating a guy based on the former, having someone else make a counter-argument also based on the former, and then the first guy suddenly shifting gears and defending his original point based on the latter, even though he would never give a shit about the latter otherwise. Or, as Roddy Piper once put it, "just when you think you've got the answers, I change the questions."

This is a part of "who's better" debates that I really don't get, especially on boards like this one or DVDVR...really any internet smark board regardless of the overall tastes of their members. As when you're on such a board, when people talk about wrestlers being good or bad, they're talking about them as being good or bad on an aesthetic level. Guys are praised or dismissed based on quality of work, not value of work. What defines quality of work varies, of course, but that's what's being judged. We basically all agree that from a "value of work" standpoint, Hogan is pretty much the best wrestler ever, with a handful of other guys you could maybe make cases for. Unless it's specifically stated otherwise upfront, "who's better" discussions generally aren't about this. They're about aesthetic merits. So why does value of work start creeping into the conversation? While "what matters" debates certainly sound interesting, I think most of your "who's better" debates have "what matters" debates inherent in them. A guy talks up a wrestler/talks down a wrestler and explains why. In doing so, he establishes what he thinks matters. Another guy does the same, establishing what he thinks matters. The two argue, but while it's about "who's better", the differences in opinions are rooted in conflict over "what matters", so that's really being debated, too. The real problem isn't people not agreeing on "what matters" beforehand. I'm an aesthetic universalist. I think we all watch various forms of entertainment for basically the same reason, and that we're looking for basically the same things in them, but personal tastes shape some of the specifics, so none of us are going to be looking for the exact same thing or seeing things in the exact same light. You're not going to get two people to agree exactly on what matters aesthetically, but that's fine. Different strokes for different folks, and so on, and so on, and scooby dooby dooby. Problem isn't two people disagreeing over what matters in a debate about who's better. Problem is one person disagreeing with himself over what matters in a debate about who's better. Two people disagreeing with each other is fine so long as you can figure out where each guy is coming from, and usually both guys' arguments establish what they think matters. But when one guy can't seem to keep his opinions about "what matters" straight over the course of an argument, then we have a problem, because the whole foundation of the argument starts shifting around, and eventually the whole thing collapses. When you're on an internet smark board, and everyone - regardless of their specific personal tastes - generally praises or puts down wrestlers based on quality of work rather than value of work, and you find yourself in a "who's better" argument, and you make a case for or against a wrestler based on quality of work, and someone else starts arguing against you based on that wrestler's value of work...it should immediately raise some red flags. Which brings us to Shawn Michaels. I've said just about everything I can possibly say about the man, and I don't think people need or want to hear me say it again. But as long as it's his thread...was his work valuable? I would certainly say so. Was his work more valuable than Finlay's? Much as I love old Fit, Shawn's work was a damn sight more valuable than his. Was Shawn's work as valuable as Hogan's? No. Did his work even approach the value of Hogan's? Not at all. So why do so many people who defend Shawn based on the value of his work - when these same people traditionally seem to judge wrestlers based on the quality of their work - never give such praise to the Hulkster? In fact, if Shawn's value of work is "what matters", how can so many of the people who praise him for that turn around and praise him for the match with Hogan, as well? I mean, it would be one thing if they were praising both men, but the praise for that match is always reserved solely for Shawn, while Hogan is derided as a guy who deserved to be publicly ridiculed, or as a broken down sucky guy who needed Shawn's bump freak performance to make the match work. The value of Hogan being kind of a big deal in wrestling and an integral part of selling this as a major dream match doesn't seem to earn him any kudos from these people. And it's not like they're going out of their way to praise the value of any of Hogan's other work. Why do so many people who defend Shawn based on the value of his work - when these same people traditionally seem to judge wrestlers based on the quality of their work - hate John Cena? Sure, I can see why one would like Shawn more than Cena, but if "value of work" is what matters, Cena's the bigger money draw, so shouldn't he be acknowledged as better? Does having a more uniform crowd pop make your work more valuable? The answer to all these questions is that they're cop outs. People who praise Michaels and dismiss Hogan and Cena do so based on quality of work, not value of work. It would be insane to do otherwise. And again, on boards like this one or DVDVR...really any internet smark board regardless of the overall tastes of their members, when people talk about wrestlers being good or bad, they're talking about them as being good or bad on an aesthetic level. Guys are praised or dismissed based on quality of work, not value of work. When you're in a "who's better" debate, and it's not specifically said up front that value of work is what matters, you can be sure the argument is going to be about quality of work. When someone starts talking about value of work, they're either completely missing the point, or they're copping out. Problem with "who's better" debates isn't that they don't establish "what matters". Problem is that sometimes, people's opinions of "what matters" don't stay established when they're under fire.

Oh, good. I feel grounded now.

Are you suggesting that pro wrestling regulation would be a low priority issue should the GOP regain the Senate? I wonder what would give you that idea. I think my Asperger's is working up. Is this sarcasm?

I did, and for what it's worth, while it was mostly people arguing that Simmons pointing out the exploitation of others is exploitation itself (par for the course for wrestling fans if the fallout from "Ring of Hell" taught us anything), a "BadLuckBrett" does sneak in one legit good point: It's fine and dandy that Simmons is calling out Linda on the WWE's insane 19th century business practices, but if he hypothetically gets elected and goes right back to ignoring said exploitation...yeah.

In angles, sure, but how many of those types of angles happen in Japan?

In somewhat less humorous news from a more reliable source....

Sorry Bix, should have been clearer: I was responding to SLL. John I knew that, too. Really should've been clearer, if only because it makes the story all the stranger, as it really just boils the decision down to "the best way for me to stop watching/reviewing/talking about wrestling is to fake my death".

This, to me, remains the most bizarre internet wrestling related thing ever. As much as I shit talk your Resident Evils and your Joe Babinsacks and whatnot, I can't imagine those guys ever thinking anything along the lines of "I'm tired of reviewing wrestling and would rather review Korean cinema....Clearly, I should stage my own death, so as to best make the transition from one to the other."

The Goldberg/Regal match that got Regal fired is really the answer to everything. Actually, there are a bunch of answers - Goldberg/DDP and Goldberg/Steiner come to mind - but Goldberg/Regal I think is the best answer since... 1. It's a fairly competitive match that didn't hurt Goldberg's asskicker aura at all 2. It's a fairly competitive match that didn't hurt Goldberg's asskicker aura at all despite it being against someone slotted much lower on the totem pole than himself 3. It's a fairly competitive match that wasn't even supposed to be competitive - hence Regal's subsequent firing - yet Goldberg rolled with the punches and looked like a natural doing so What gets glossed over far too often when talking about what went wrong with Goldberg is that just because he was a guy who got over by squashing people didn't mean he was a guy who needed to keep squashing people to stay over. He was a guy who could work competitive matches with other top stars and even competitivish matches with lower-ranked guys and still maintain his asskicker aura.

His take on the Rumble wasn't half-bad, either: http://kapaeme.deviantart.com/art/Royal-Ru...ified-152796668

Define "solid". I don't deny that it was an entertaining oddity, much like...well, like Hogan/McMahon, albeit for different reasons. Let's assume for a moment that Michaels wasn't really throwing a temper tantrum in that match. Let's assume he was really trying to just carry Hogan to the best match he possibly could. One of the more interesting aspects of the great Michaels debate that doesn't involve incredible amounts of name-calling is that it raises the question of what constitutes a quality carryjob, as one of the key defenses of Michaels is that he is a guy who is great at carrying useless slugs. But a problem arises when one considers that carrying another wrestler is defined by making another wrestler look good when they're really not on that level. A lot of people who take issue with Shawn consider Fuerza Guerrera to be a great carrier. You watch Fuerza wrestle Octagon back in the day, and you completely forget that Octagon blows. You think there might be something to this guy that you were just missing in his other matches. You weren't. Octagon pretty much sucks. But you watch him wrestle Fuerza, and you don't notice that. A lot of people who take issue with Shawn consider The Necro Butcher to be a great carrier. People watched him wrestle Tank in the '05 KOTDM tournament, and walked away from it thinking that Tank was ready to be a breakout star. I don't consider Tank to be bad wrestler, strictly speaking, but he's not all that people who watched that match thought he was cracked up to be. But you see him wrestling Necro, you don't notice that. A lot of people who take issue with Shawn consider Toshiaki Kawada to be a great carrier. You watch Kawada wrestle Gary Albright, and you walk away thinking that Albright is a total badass who you should see more of. But Albright has had maybe three matches ever that are worth going out of your way to see. When he wrestles Kawada, you don't notice that. When Shawn "carries" a lesser wrestler, do you ever really walk away impressed by his opponent? I mean, you say that Hogan came out of the match looking like a superhero, but that seems to be a minority opinion even amongst people who liked that match. People who like Shawn's "carryjobs" almost never seem to praise his opponent. They praise Shawn for his crazy bumping, but with a small handful of exceptions that include you, most people praising Michaels/Hogan are saying that Hogan looked as useless as ever, but Shawn kept things interesting by bumping like a lunatic the whole match. A lot of people who take issue with Shawn - myself included - would argue that a carryjob where you draw all the attention towards yourself without actually making your opponent look any better isn't really a carryjob at all. And that's just assuming he was actually trying to carry Hogan.

Problem with WWE for years now is that they have had all the talent in the world on their roster, but are unable/unwilling to develop any sort of identity for the company beyond "place where guys wrestle", and consequently, everything feels like it's either as generic as that description, or a sign of directions the company as a whole could take, but doesn't, because they just aren't into the whole "having a direction" thing anymore. It might be worth pointing out that this is a "be careful what you wish for" type scenario to a certain extent. Going into the last decade, the big complaint on the internet about the WWF is that it was all about gimmicks and angles without enough emphasis on actual wrestling. Going into this decade, WWE is a promotion that routinely has long good wrestling matches every week on free TV and PPV, but the characters and angles are often generic, and even when they're not, it often feels like they're not doing as much with them as they could, and people are complaining about that. Neither complaint is wrong. No good reason we can't have both quality wrestling and quality storytelling. But this past decade should probably serve as a valuable lesson to guys making either argument.

Shawn's career is probably (temporarily, at least) going to be over in less than 24 hours, so I suppose this is a moot point. That said, I think Shawn kinda sucks as a face, and I think there is (was?) more potential with Shawn as a heel. So, yeah, I care. I know that doesn't count for a whole lot, but as long as you're asking.... Yes, in that he went from a guy who used his position as the company's top star and as a perceived drawing card to pull power plays to a guy who used his position as the BFF of the company's heir apparent and his perceived religious reawakening to pull power plays. It's more of a lateral movement than anything. Working harder does not necessarily mean working better. "People" is plural. Shawn put over a person when asked to. Best I can tell, he's been asked to put over two people since coming back. He put over the Undertaker without any problems. When asked to put over Hogan, he threw a temper tantrum live on PPV and got to cut a promo completely burying him the next night. So, yeah, he doesn't put over people when asked to. He put over one person out of the two people he was asked to put over. True. That said, it seems these "mistakes" always seem to happen when it's convenient to him, and he always seems to invoke his Christian principles when it's convenient to him, as well. It all seems rather...well...convenient. Part of being pious means you actually adhere to your faith even when you're in a situation where you'd rather not. I can't peer into Shawn's private life. I can't say that his faith has never been tested, and that he's never stuck to his principles in spite of that. That said, everything we know about his wrestling career says that when his faith stands in the way of personal gain, he'll put it aside and make a "mistake". Jimmy Swaggart made "mistakes", too. Religion doesn't mean you can't still make mistakes, but it's not a "get out of jail free" card, either. Context of Shawn's "mistakes" suggest they're not mistakes at all.

At this point, it sounds like they've graduated to "deathbed WCW for an insane audience", but yeah. This, of course, is something that we've all been saying for a very long time now, but it's wrestling, and nobody ever seems to learn their lessons.

Wait, am I missing something? Is there audio available from the fight? How does Dave know they weren't slurring their words?