S.L.L.

Really? We're giving Michaels the credit for all of the great matches from the first half of the year? Not Cena, who had the great matches with Umaga, Michaels, and the miracles he worked with Khali (which may turn out to be viewed as the best work he's ever done in the ring)? Not Umaga, who made Lashley look like a real professional wrestler at Wrestlemania? I generally like Alvarez, but I can't for the life of me figure out how Michaels was more responsible than Cena for the great main events from WWE this year. Fuck that, look at the other half of that claim: "the best six months of weekly high-level in-ring action that there has perhaps ever been in any promotion in the world." Not that WWE wasn't great the first half of this year (and still is to a certain extent), but he's not just putting 2007 Michaels ahead of 2007 Cena, Umaga, and Hardys, he's putting 2007 Michaels ahead of 1974 Jack Brisco, 1976 Jumbo, 1977 Race, 1986 Flair, 1989 Flair, 1990 Jumbo, 1992 Liger, 1993-95 Kawada, 1997 El Hijo del Santo and Negro Casas, 1997 Eddie Guerrero, 2005 Eddie Guerrero, practically any six month period between 1974 and 1986 for Jerry Lawler...I could go on forever. It's an astoundingly stupid claim.

The problem is that during the company's most successful periods when HHH was featured prominently, he was "the other guy you could build around" instead of Austin, Rock, or Cena. Backlund sold out MSG more than any wrestler in history. HHH never had that kind of success as an individual drawing card, only when he was paired with Austin, Rock, Cena, Foley, or Vince. Certainly, you'd have to consider that a stronger crop of "other guys" than Valentine, DiBiase, Graham, Patera, Muraco, and Adonis. As the star of the show, HHH is closer to what I imagine would've happened if they de-pushed Backlund in favor of Snuka, and the whole thing bombed.

Has Meltzer mentioned this? Dave linked to the article in yesterday's news update, simply saying it was an "interesting note" on Randy Orton. I think that would lend creedence to the theory that Dave knows this to be true, but couldn't/didn't report it for one reason or another.

It's still just good journalistic practice to make sure that what you're reporting is actually true. Sadly, that tends to be less and less common in this day & age (looking at you, Rather). And every time someone makes a dumb "demoted from horsemen to raw" faux paus, we all have to hear ad nauseum from the smarks about how that person knows nothing about wrestling and all of their points are thus invalid. Well, yeah. It's just that it's a very, very minor problem in the grand scheme of things.

Since when? BOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGGG

Impossible? Have you never heard of a psychiatric exam? None of them are 100% reliable, or hell even 75% reliable. There's not much scientific consensus on how to definitively identify problem cases before they act out. Psychiatrists around the world still violently debate over exactly what makes us act the way we do. It's better than 0%, but the real problem (which Meltzer has already pointed out) is that therapy really requires the patient to discuss their feelings openly and honestly, and wrestlers are so deeply wrapped up in a culture of lies that it would be near impossible for them to do that. Yeah, I know that and you know that, but not only the marks but the WWE as well will use any excuse possible to discredit negative press about the company. If no factual errors are made, it makes it that much harder for them to slip out of trouble. No one with the power to hurt the WWE will be convinced that a minor continuity error is reason to let Vince & co. off the hook. Not one. The marks who are still convinced that everything's fine aren't convinced of that because of the press making minor errors when discussing angles. They're convinced because their trapped so deeply in the wrestling bubble that they can't see the forest for the trees. If they need to discredit the media to make themselves think nothing's wrong, they'll find ways of doing it whether Irvin Mushnick knows the timeline of Randy Orton's career or not.

And I am that much more psyched for the Best of the 80's Watts set. I'll leave this to Phil or Bix, but please tell me you're not going to dismiss Bill Dundee because of MOVES~!?

I'm not gonna question this, because I lack the grounding in Dundee's work to do so...but if I may go off on a tangent, Phil, what are the really great Bill Dundee matches that don't have Lawler? I don't doubt they exist, but you never hear about them, and it's something I'd like to know about before ranking Dundee ahead of Eddie and Benoit. Of course, aside from work, Dundee was a bigger draw (at least than Benoit, and for longer than Eddie) and was a successful booker. I think he definitely belongs.

The big three qualifiers for HOF worthiness, as far as I can see, are drawing power, influence, and work. Curt can scratch the first two right off the bat, and the third is really the least significant qualification. So the question here is whether or not Curt is a good enough worker to go into the Hall for work alone. Curt was great, to be sure, but HOF great? If his work alone is enough to get him in, it's kind of hard to explain why Regal, Finlay, Jerry Estrada, Dean Malenko, El Samurai, Tully, and Dynamite Kansai aren't even on the ballot. Put Hennig in solely on his work, and suddenly El Dandy, Pirata Morgan, Atlantis, Steve Williams, Los Brazos, Bill Dundee, Dutch Mantel, Adonis, Sasuke, El Faraon, Barry Windham, Butch Reed, Chris Adams, Emilio Charles Jr., Fuerza Guerrera, Los Missionarios del Muerte, Los Cadetes Espacio, The Iron Sheik, Greg Valentine, Sgt. Slaughter, and Akira Taue all become slam dunk picks. Forgive me for belaboring the point, but Halls of Fame are meant for the best of the best. Not every dude who won some belts and had a couple of great matches should go in.

To be fair, the guys who respond to WO.com polls aren't the most knowledgeable bunch, and often vote in weird ways, to the point that Dave himself isn't above mocking them regularly. I honestly wonder why he keeps running them in the first place.

I'm sure a lot of us are thinking it. I may as well say it. Something's fishy about this.

This most importantly. I mean, I like a good troll as much as anyone, but I'm having a hard time getting into the spirit of things with this one. He's too calculated. Too perfect. Doesn't feel real. He's like the Christopher Daniels of trolling.

If they had good reasons for doing things, they wouldn't be failing so much in the first place.

Thank you, and apology accepted.

Dave sez... Competitive video gaming is pro wrestling in 5...4....3.....

I would like to add the corollary that even if he did, any fanboy who is grateful to Benoit for killing himself for us is a fucking idiot.

Really, the whole complaint that Flair's last run won't draw really only matters if it's pushed as a main-event, money drawing feud anyway. Flair at this point is a glorified Family Gundan member. No one was complaining about how Haruka Eigen's retirement tour didn't draw. It wasn't important. It wasn't expected to. They had main event matches to take care of that. Flair vs. whomever against Mania isn't going to drag down the buyrate when the focus of the show is on whatever combination of Cena/Batista/HHH/Michaels/Taker/Kennedy/Lashley/Khali/Edge/Orton/Rey they decide to go with in the main event.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Just out of curiosity, what is 2 + 2? Last I heard, no one had solved that equation yet. Please don't say four. The fact that the number would willingly associate with the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, or that it would work in such close proximity to the number of the Reich that Hitler was a part of, makes me have 0 respect and trust for it. So, answers?

Dave sez.... One thing Dave forgets to mention is that Torres was the oldest living former world champion. I believe that claim now belongs to Edouard Carpentier, though I could be mistaken. Also interesting that Torres joins Karloff Lagarde as a lesser known (but still very strong) WON HOF candidate who has died since this year's ballot was released. Hans Schmidt best be watching his back.

Well, in fairness, he did invent steroids. You can't blame a guy for trying to push his stuff on potential customers.

Keep in mind, there are a ton of American wrestlers who came up in the mid-late '90s, and continuing into this decade, who claim Shawn Michaels as a major influence, and maybe two or three of them actually wrestle like Michaels in any noticeable way. There's also comments from some of Flair's bigger fans about him "influencing a generation" of workers, despite the fact that he was working a style that was already dated in his prime, and that basically ended with him, even though he's never fully left the spotlight. I'd believe that Sayama "influenced" the WCW cruiserweights in a similar way.

I get the sense there are a lot of factors going into this, and that's probably a big one. Ultimately, I think it's just a general sense that the jig is up.

You sure about that one? That's a loaded question. Huh? What does my question presuppose that we do not agree on going into it? We seem to agree that wrestling is fake. You are on record in this thread saying what I quoted. Where is it loaded? By definition, a loaded question would require me asking you something based on an assumption I've made that isn't proven, or that you don't accept as true. Like, "Why are you afraid to answer my question?".

You sure about that one?