Grimmas

Ambrose could be your Austin, he has that kind of potential.

That is awesome!

Bret's contract said he had reasonable creative control. Reasonable creative control was defined as something agreed upon by both sides. So... Vince is in the wrong 100%.

A super fun show this week, check it out on iTunes and soundcloud. So much insight and jokes, plus stay around till after the final ad for a great Johnny Sorrow impersonation.

I totally get what you're saying here and that's been one of the huge issues with this discussion both on this forum and on Twitter, etc. When Joe and I do eventually get Dylan on the podcast, I think this will be an awesome discussion. Execution, absolutely, that has stayed the same. The idea of getting a crowd into the work and into the story of the match has never changed, a lot of what worked in 1950 works today. The inherent difference though is what a lot of people and what you in your post considered "stuff" is night and day. Fans today react to "stuff" that would've be so alien in 1950, they'd probably burn those people are a stake. Someone like Ricochet gets over today on stuff that is unthinkable 50 years ago. There are guys as you mentioned, like a Thatcher, who can stick work a style not unlike one you'd see in 1950 and it works fine but by and large, what most wrestling fans expect from a good match is not what would constitute a good match in 1950. We had a bearhug discussion on Twitter a week or so ago and you mentioned a few guys who made bearhugs work (Henry, Andre). Regardless of guys who really made it work, it was commonplace in wrestling for years (even as I was still growing up). If Rusev came onto Raw tonight and locked Swagger into a bearhug for 10 minutes, he'd be booed out of the arena and the crowd would be chanting CM Punk and other non sen You could argue, it's not being built up properly (which I agree) but the fact that this was commonplace in major wrestling some 20 years ago and now would incite a riot, is evidence that by and large, standards have changed. What makes a good match doesn't change though, just because the high spots change? That's the thing, we are defining standards in a different way. What made a great match in the 70's or 80's is the same as what makes a great match today. Selling, psychology, drama and a great story. That are the standards a lot of us are talking about it. If you define standards as the high spots and moves, then that is a different story. Of course those changed.

I thought it's one of the better looking cards they've had in a while. When Jericho-Wyatt looks like the worst match on the show, tha'ts not terrible.

I mentioned this on twitter, but if Spike actually wants wrestling and just not TNA, there is a lot of talent out there. You could start up a promotion starring Alberto, Chris Hero, AJ Styles, Drew McIntyre, The Briscoe Brothers, Hardy Boyz, Dudley Boyz, Chris Masters, Drew Gulak, Biff Busick, Timothy Thatcher, ACH, Cedric Alexander, Josh Alexander, Ethan Page, and the list goes on and on. If somebody competent existed with some fresh ideas and the talent available, this could be insanely fun. Sadly, I don't think it will.

I had a lot of fun recording this. Lots of fun and interesting conversations going on about the whole card.

I beg to differ.

Damn it. Wait till the whole damn thing ends before you decide how great it is. Even then, give it a few months to reflect. I hate this hyperbolic shit.

Click here On this week’s Pro-Wrestling Super Show, Steven Graham is joined by Phil Schneider (Segunda Caida) and Will (Good Will Wrestling) to give their top 6 lists of bleeders in pro-wrestling. Listen to the great memories of blade jobs over the years as well as Steven’s number 1 pick being ridiculed.

I have rated these matches *** 3/4 or higher: 7/21: Nakamura vs Shibata 7/21: Okada vs. Styles 7/26: Ishii vs. Honma 7/26: Naito vs. Styles 7/26: Shibata vs. Tanahashi 7/28: Styles vs. Goto 8/1: Makabe vs. Naito 8/1: Styles vs. Suzuki 8/1: Nagata vs. Shibata 8/1: Nakamura vs Ishii

The thing that really puzzles me is that the tournament isn't complete yet and it's the best ever? What if Shelton X Benjamin or Bad Luck Fale are in the finals? What if somebody gets hurt? EDIT: How quickly we forget mid 90's AJPW.

I thought WWF in 99 was shit as it happened. My friends and i in high school stopped ordering their ppvs and switched over to ECW till 2000.

I still have the feeling 99 could had been more successful if Russo wasn't involved.

I don't know what is sadder to me, Bret Hart starting and popularizing the opening 20 minute promo or The Beatles creating music videos.

Haven't listened yet, but its next after Wrestling Culture. However I think something that should happen is not making all of Raw live. For example, a 3-4 week 24 type series on Cena-Brock would be a great use of the first or last 30 minutes of Raw.

That's always my go to example.

These two are the funniest. First, he is doing reviews based on spoilers not on the actually viewing. WTF? Second, Professor Russo and wrestling 101??? That guy? Vince Russo???

Since I hate Rogers and don't want to have cable ever again, I guess I am sticking with my US version of the WWE Network.

Click here On this week's great episode, Dylan takes the side of The Shield, while Shoe reps the Freebirds in a great debate

Like there was no money in turning Hogan heel?

High: Joe's run from his debut until (see the low). He was booked as a monster and the future ace. Went through everyone and had great matches with the X division guys and Scott Steiner, among others. Low: The ppv before Bound for Glory Joe faces Jarrett in a non-title strap match, wins and the main event at bfg is sting-jarrett for the title. What stupidity, just have Joe win the title there and things would had made sense.

Didn't I listen to that on Friday?

I really enjoyed this one, keep up this side-series.